text:
# Integrable sigma models and perturbed coset models

## 1 Introduction

Two-dimensional sigma models have been the subject of a huge amount of study because they are interesting toy models for gauge theories, because they often arise in experimentally-realizable condensed-matter systems, because this is the highest dimension in which they are naively renormalizable, and because of the powerful theoretical methods applicable.

One of the nice things about sigma models is that the same model can often describe completely different physics. The reason is that in many situations, the precise sigma model of interest follows mainly (or sometimes entirely) from the symmetries. For example, sigma models often arise in theories of interacting fermions invariant under some group $`G`$. If some fermion bilinear gets an expectation value manifestly invariant under some subgroup $`H`$, then the excitations at low energy can be described by a field taking values in $`G/H`$. Put another way, the expectation value gives the fermions mass at some scale $`M`$. One can then integrate out fermionic excitations, leaving only bosonic $`G/H`$ excitations with masses below $`M`$. The sigma model describes the interactions of these low-energy excitations, and is independent of many of the details of the original theory. This is why vastly different theories may end up having the same low-energy physics.

Two-dimensional $`G/H`$ sigma models all have a global symmetry group $`G`$, even though the fields take values in the smaller space $`G/H`$. This is one big difference between two and higher dimensions. In higher dimensions, the symmetry $`G`$ of these sigma models would be spontaneously broken to $`H`$, and in the effective low-energy-theory, the $`G`$ symmetry is not manifest. In other words, in higher dimensions the sigma model describes the physics of the massless Goldstone bosons. However, the Mermin-Wagner-Coleman theorem says that in two dimensions continuous symmetries cannot be spontaneously broken. The way these sigma models satisfy this theorem is to give the would-be Goldstone bosons a mass and keep the original global symmetry intact.

In particular, many interesting sigma models in two dimensions are asymptotically free. At large energies the interactions are weak, but at low energies the interactions are strong. Naively, there seems to be no mass scale in the theory (the coupling constant $`g`$ is dimensionless), but a scale $`\mu `$ appears in the theory as a result of short-distance effects which need to be renormalized. The coupling $`g`$ depends on this scale. At $`\mu `$ large, $`g(\mu )`$ is small, so the theory is effectively free, while as $`\mu `$ decreases, $`g(\mu )`$ increases. In renormalization-group language, there is an unstable trivial fixed point at $`g=0`$. For $`G/H`$ sigma models, the manifold $`G/H`$ has dimension dim$`G`$dim$`H`$, so as $`g0`$ the theory reduces to dim$`G`$dim$`H`$ free bosons.

Very elaborate techniques of perturbation theory have been developed to describe sigma models in the regime where $`g(\mu )`$ is small (see ). However, when a sigma model is being used as an effective theory, it is only applicable to the relevant physics at low energies, where $`\mu M`$. Usually in this regime, $`g(\mu )`$ is large. Thus while the perturbative techniques give valuable information, they may not tell the whole story. To understand the regime where $`g(\mu )`$ is large, one must utilize alternative techniques. Large-$`N`$ expansions are a common and useful tool. However, for most applications $`N`$ is small. For example, an application of great current interest in the condensed matter community is in sigma models describing disordered systems. These sigma models are derived by using the replica trick, which requires sending $`N0`$ at the end of the computation. Obviously, large-$`N`$ expansions are not necessarily going to be reliable here.

Luckily, for two spacetime dimensions there are other non-perturbative methods applicable. Many sigma models are integrable, with an infinite number of conserved currents. The resulting conserved charges constrain the system, making exact computations possible, even at strong coupling. The aim of these paper is to attempt to discuss a number of aspects of integrable sigma models. I will derive the exact free energy at finite temperature and in the presence of a magnetic field. This makes it possible to compute the susceptibility and specific heat. It also makes it possible to understand exactly the effects of the theta term, a modification of the sigma model action which drastically changes the low-energy physics.

One extremely interesting question is if $`g(\mu )`$ continues to increase as $`\mu `$ decreases, or if it reaches a fixed point. The existence of a fixed point obviously affects the physics enormously. In the sigma models describing disordered systems, $`g`$ is related to the conductance of the system. If there is a fixed point, the system is a conductor, with conductance determined by the value of $`g`$ at the fixed point. If there is no fixed point, the system is an insulator. In the former case, the excitations of the model are massive, while in the latter, they are massless. For the models discussed in this paper, a non-trivial fixed point appears if a theta term is added to the sigma model action. The theta term has no effect on perturbation theory. Nevertheless, as shown in , its presence can result in the appearance of a fixed point at large $`g`$, completely unseen in perturbation theory.

There are two sets of sigma models to be discussed in this paper. Their actions can be written conveniently in terms of a symmetric matrix field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$S=\frac{1}{g}\text{tr}d^2x^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }$$
(1)
along with the constraint

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }=I`$ (2)
where $`I`$ is the identity matrix. The constraint (2) that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ be unitary can easily be imposed by adding a potential like $`\lambda \text{tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }I)^2`$ and taking $`\lambda `$ large. In theories with interacting fermions, this often results from introducing a bosonic field to replace four-fermion interaction terms with Yukawa terms (interactions between a boson and two fermions). Integrating out the fermions then gives such a potential for the bosons and hence the sigma model.

In the first set of models discussed in this paper, the field takes values on the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ manifold. This corresponds to taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be a symmetric, unitary $`N\times N`$ matrix of determinant $`1`$. The simplest case, $`N=2`$, corresponds to the manifold $`SU(2)/SO(2)`$ being a two-sphere. This is because a general symmetric unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrix of determinant one can be written as

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}v_1+iv_2& iv_3\\ iv_3& v_1iv_2\end{array}\right)$$

where $`v_1,`$ $`v_2`$ and $`v_3`$ are real and obey $`(v_1)^2+(v_2)^2+(v_3)^2=1`$.

In the second set of models discussed in this paper, the field takes values on the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ manifold. This corresponds to taking $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be a symmetric, orthogonal, real, and traceless $`2P\times 2P`$ matrix. There are several correspondences between the two sets of models, because $`SO(6)=SU(4)/𝐙_2`$, $`SO(4)=SU(2)\times SU(2)/𝐙_2`$, and $`SO(3)=SU(2)/𝐙_2`$. The case $`P=2`$ therefore reduces to two decoupled copies of the two-sphere, whereas the sigma model with $`P=3`$ is equivalent to the $`SU(4)/SO(4)`$ sigma model.

The reason these $`G/H`$ manifolds can be described in terms of symmetric matrices is as follows. In both cases, the global symmetry $`G`$ acts on the field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }U\mathrm{\Phi }U^T$$
(3)
where $`U`$ is a unitary matrix of determinant one. This transformation preserves the fact that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a symmetric matrix with determinant $`\pm 1`$. In the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is also real. To preserve this reality, $`U`$ must be real as well, so $`G=O(2P)`$. The eigenvalues of a orthogonal matrix must be $`\pm 1`$, and if the matrix is traceless as well, there must be the same number of $`+1`$ and $`1`$ eigenvalues. The field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in this case can diagonalized with an orthogonal matrix $`U`$, so $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=U\mathrm{\Lambda }U^T\mathrm{\Phi }O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P),$$

where $`U`$ is in $`O(2P)`$, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the matrix with $`P`$ values $`+1`$ and $`P`$ values $`1`$ on the diagonal. Different $`U`$ can result in the same $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$: the subgroup leaving $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ invariant is $`H=O(P)\times O(P)`$. This is why the space of symmetric orthogonal traceless matrices is indeed $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$. For the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ models, $`U`$ can be any unitary matrix of determinant one, so the global symmetry $`G`$ is indeed $`SU(N)`$. Field configurations here can be written in the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=UU^T\mathrm{\Phi }SU(N)/SO(N)$$

where $`U`$ is in $`SU(N)`$. The subgroup $`H`$ leaving $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ invariant is $`SO(N)`$. For example, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=I`$ for any real $`U`$ in $`SU(N)`$, i.e. if $`U`$ is in the real subgroup $`SO(N)`$ of $`SU(N)`$. This is why $`H=SO(N)`$ here.

Under renormalization, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ preserves its form: e.g., it remains symmetric. In other words, the space $`G/H`$ preserves its “shape” under renormalization, with only the overall volume changing. The effect of renormalization is to increase the curvature (increase $`g`$). These sigma models are all asymptotically free, so going to high energies decreases $`g`$. This behavior happens for all sigma models on symmetric spaces $`G/H`$ (where $`H`$ is a maximal subgroup of $`G`$).

With the action (1), there is no fixed point at large $`g`$. However, if one adds a theta term, there is a non-trivial fixed point in these sigma models . A theta term affects field configurations with non-zero winding number $`n`$, which are called instantons. The winding number is a topological invariant; roughly speaking, it counts the number of times the field configuration wraps around the two-dimensional spacetime. The theta term is then

$$S_\theta =in\theta .$$
(4)
If the winding number $`n`$ takes integer values, the theory is periodic under shifts of the coupling $`\theta `$ to $`\theta +2\pi `$. This is why the coupling $`\theta `$ is often called an angle. However for the general cases considered here, $`n`$ can take just two values, $`0`$ and $`1`$. This means that $`\theta `$ takes just two values here: $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. The variables $`n`$ and $`\theta `$ should be thought of as Fourier conjugates. Adding the $`\theta `$ term to the action amounts to doing a discrete Fourier transform.

For the sphere sigma model (the case $`N=2`$ or $`P=2`$ here), $`n`$ takes integer values. It was argued in  and proven in  that when $`\theta =\pi `$ in the sphere sigma model, there is a non-trivial fixed point at large $`g`$. This behavior is widely believed to persist in other models with a $`\theta `$ angle (see  for a review). An important question is therefore whether the existence of these non-perturbative fixed points in sigma models at $`\theta =\pi `$ can be generalized. In , it was shown that the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models have non-trivial fixed points at $`\theta =\pi `$. The former fixed points are described by the $`SU(N)_1`$ WZW theory, while the latter are described by the $`O(2P)_1`$ WZW theory. The exact spectrum and $`S`$ matrices were found, and used to compute the energy at zero temperature in the presence of a background field. This computation essentially proves the existence of these fixed points.

It is the purpose of this paper to complete this proof by studying the behavior of these models at finite temperature. I will compute a $`c`$-function  which clearly shows how the field theory flows from the trivial fixed point ($`g=0`$) to the non-trivial fixed point at some large value of $`g`$. This computation also makes it possible to compute the specific heat and susceptibility at both $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$, a fact which will be useful in other work .

In section 2, I discuss the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz formalism necessary to do the computation. In section 3, I compute the free energy at any temperature for the massive $`\theta =0`$ sigma models. In section 4, I compute the free energy for the massless $`\theta =\pi `$ models. In section 5, I discuss some related coset models. I conclude in section 6 by discussing the symmetries of these sigma models, and the prospects for generalizing these results to other sigma models.

## 2 The Thermodynamic Bethe Ansatz

The proof that the sphere sigma model has a non-trivial fixed point at $`\theta =\pi `$ utilizes the integrability of the model at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\pi `$ . Integrability means that there are an infinite number of conserved currents which allow one to find exactly the spectrum of quasiparticles and their scattering matrix in the corresponding $`1+1`$ dimensional field theory. The quasiparticles for $`\theta =0`$ are gapped and form a triplet under the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry , while for $`\theta =\pi `$ they are gapless, and form $`SU(2)`$ doublets (left- and right-moving) . This is a beautiful example of charge fractionalization: the fields $`(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ form a triplet under the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry, but when $`\theta =\pi `$ the excitations of the system are doublets. To prove that this is the correct particle spectrum, first one computes a scattering matrix for these particles which is consistent with all the symmetries of the theory. From the exact $`S`$ matrix, the $`c`$ function can be computed. It was found that at high energy $`c`$ indeed is $`2`$ as it should be at the trivial fixed point, while $`c=1`$ as it should be at the $`SU(2)_1`$ low-energy fixed point .

As an even more detailed check, the free energy at zero temperature in the presence of a magnetic field was computed for both $`\theta =0`$  and $`\pi `$ . The results can be expanded in a series around the trivial fixed point. One can identify the ordinary perturbative contributions to this series, and finds that they are the same for $`\theta =0`$ and $`\pi `$, even though the particles and $`S`$ matrices are completely different . This is as it must be: instantons and the $`\theta `$ term are a boundary effect and hence cannot be seen in ordinary perturbation theory. One can also identify the non-perturbative contributions to these series, and see that they differ. Far away from the trivial fixed point, the non-perturbative contributions dominate and cause a non-trivial fixed point to appear when $`\theta =\pi `$. The computation of the energy at zero temperature in a background field was done for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models in .

In this paper I will compute the exact free energy at any temperature, and thus compute the $`c`$ function. I will use a technique called the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA), which I will describe in this section.

### 2.1 The exact $`S`$ matrix

An integrable field theory possesses an infinite number of conserved currents and charges. The symmetries strongly constrain the dynamics, but without making the system trivial. The constraints are why the theory is “solvable”. In this context, solvable means that some quantities can be computed exactly. These constraints imply that once the particle spectrum is known, the exact $`S`$ matrix can be found. Integrable models have the striking property that in a collision all momenta are conserved individually, and that the $`n`$-body $`S`$ matrix factorizes into a product of two-body ones. This two-body $`S`$ matrix is completely elastic, meaning that the momenta and energy of the particles are conserved individually, not just overall. Internal quantum numbers can change in a collision, so the $`S`$ matrix is not necessarily diagonal. There are two possible ways of factorizing the three-particle amplitude into two-particle ones; the requirement that they give the same answer is the Yang-Baxter equation. There have been hundreds of papers discussing how to solve this equation, so I will not review this here. For a detailed discussion relevant to the sigma models here, see e.g. . Solutions arising in the sigma models will be given below.

One of the useful characteristics of having particles in representations of a Lie algebra is that their $`S`$ matrix can be written in terms of projectors onto representations of this algebra. The invariance of the $`G/H`$ sigma model under the Lie-group symmetry $`G`$ requires that the $`S`$ matrices commute with all group elements. The $`S`$ matrix can then be conveniently written in terms of projection operators. A projection operator $`𝒫_a`$ maps the tensor product of two representations onto an irreducible representation labelled by $`a`$. By definition, these operators satisfy $`𝒫_a𝒫_b=\delta _{ab}𝒫_b`$. Requiring invariance under $`G`$ means that the $`S`$ matrix for a particle in the representation $`a`$ with one in a representation $`b`$ means that the $`S`$ matrix is of the form

$$S^{ab}(\beta )=\underset{c}{}f_c^{ab}(\beta )𝒫_c$$
(5)
where $`\beta \beta _a\beta _b`$ is the difference of the rapidities, and the $`f_c^{ab}`$ are as of yet unknown functions. The sum on the right-hand side is over all representations $`c`$ which appear in the tensor product of $`a`$ and $`b`$; of course $`_c𝒫_c=1`$. In an integrable theory, the functions $`f_c^{ab}(\beta )`$ are determined by requiring that the the $`S`$ matrix satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation.

I define the prefactor $`F^{ab}(\beta )`$ to be the coefficient $`f_c^{ab}`$ in (5) where the highest weight of the representation $`c`$ is the sum of the highest weights of the representations $`a`$ and $`b`$. The Yang-Baxter equation does not give this prefactor. To obtain it, one needs to require that the $`S`$ matrix be unitary, and that it obey crossing symmetry. With the standard assumption that the amplitude is real for $`\beta `$ imaginary, the unitarity relation $`S^{}(\beta )S(\beta )=I`$ implies $`S(\beta )S(\beta )=I`$. The latter is more useful because it is a functional relation which can be continued throughout the complex $`\beta `$ plane. Crossing symmetry is familiar from field theory, where rotating Feynman diagrams by $`90^o`$ relates scattering of particles $`a_i`$ and $`b_j`$ to the scattering of the antiparticle $`\overline{a}_i`$ with $`b_j`$.

Multiplying any $`S`$ matrix by function $`F(\beta )`$ which satisfies $`F(\beta )F(\beta )=1`$ and $`F(i\pi \beta )=F(\beta )`$ will give an $`S`$ matrix still obeying the Yang-Baxter equation, crossing and unitarity (this is called the CDD ambiguity). To determine $`F(\beta )`$ uniquely, one ultimately needs to verify that the $`S`$ matrix is consistent with the bound-state structure, and that it gives the correct $`c`$ function.

### 2.2 Fusion

In this paper, I derive the TBA equations for the sigma models by utilizing fusion. Fusion is a method of finding new solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation from known ones . One starts with a solution where the states are in some representation of a symmetry algebra. Then one can find new solutions in other representations, just as one takes tensor products of representations. The usual place fusion appears in the study of exact $`S`$ matrices is in what is called the bootstrap (see e.g. ). In many integrable models, various particles can be thought of as bound states of other particles. The bootstrap procedure relates the $`S`$ matrices of bound state to those of its constituents. However, fusion is a more general procedure than just the bootstrap. It can be used to relate $`S`$ matrices of different models. This fact will prove very useful here, because when the $`S`$ matrices are related, the TBA equations are related as well. This observation enables the computation of the TBA equation for integrable sigma models.

Formally speaking, fusion relies on the observation that at certain values of $`\beta `$, the coefficients of some of the projectors in the $`S`$ matrix vanishes. This means that some particles can be treated as being composites: they are composed of “constituent” particles at specific rapidities. I avoid calling the composite particles bound states, because this implies that the composites and the constituents are both particle states in the same theory. This is the not case in general. For example, the only particles in the sine-Gordon model at $`\beta ^2=8\pi `$ particles are in the spin-$`1/2`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, while in the sphere sigma model, the only particles are in the spin-$`1`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$. Fusion means that the $`S`$ matrices are related, even though the theories are different: the spin-$`1`$ particles are composites of the spin-$`1/2`$ ones.

I will demonstrate fusion in theories with $`SU(N)`$ symmetry. The two-particle $`S`$ matrix for two particles in the $`N`$-dimensional vector representations of $`SU(N)`$ contains two terms: one involving the projector $`𝒫_S`$ onto the symmetric representation, the other $`𝒫_A`$ onto the antisymmetric representation. This is because the tensor product of two symmetric representations in $`SU(N)`$ decomposes into the irreducible symmetric ($`N(N+1)/2`$ dimensional) and antisymmetric representations ($`N(N1)/2`$ dimensional):

$$(N)(N)=(N(N1)/2)(N(N+1)/2).$$

For $`SU(2)`$, the antisymmetric representation is the singlet, so this statement means that two spin $`1/2`$ representations tensored together is the sum of the spin-0 and the spin-1 representations. The vector-vector $`S`$ matrix for $`SU(N)`$ is determined by requiring that it satisfy the Yang-Baxter equation. It is

$$S^{VV}(\beta )=F^{VV}(\beta )\left(𝒫_S+\frac{\beta +2i\pi /N}{\beta 2i\pi /N}𝒫_A\right).$$
(6)
The function $`F^{VV}(\beta )`$ is the prefactor I defined above. It must be consistent with unitarity, crossing and the bootstrap. A “minimal” solution of these constraints means the $`S`$ matrix has no poles in the region $`0<Im(\beta )<\pi `$. The minimal solution here is

$$F_{min}^{VV}(\beta )=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}+\frac{1}{N}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}+\frac{1}{N}\right)}$$
(7)
For a given model, the prefactor $`F^{ab}(\beta )`$ may or may not be the minimal solution. This prefactor is crucial to the physics, but the fusion procedure is valid for any $`F^{ab}(\beta )`$.

At $`\beta =2\pi i/N`$, $`S^{VV}`$ in (6) involves only the projector onto the symmetric representation. The fusion procedure means that particles of rapidity $`\beta _S`$ in the symmetric representation can be treated as being composed of two constituents in the vector representation, of rapidities $`\beta _Si\pi /N`$ and $`\beta _S+i\pi /N`$. The reason this works is described in . The variable $`\beta `$ in the $`S`$ matrix is the difference of the rapidities of the two particles, so when $`\beta =2\pi i/N`$, the antisymmetric combination is effectively projected out. The Yang-Baxter equation ensures that this projection survives any scattering. In other words, if two vector particles are in the symmetric combination, they can scatter from other particles and change state. However, if their rapidity difference is $`2\pi i/N`$, the final state of these two particles will still be part of the symmetric representation.

Because particles in the symmetric representation are composed of vector constituents, the $`S`$ matrices are related as well. The $`S`$ matrix for scattering two particles in the symmetric representation has three terms. In the language of weights , the symmetric representation has highest weight $`2\mu _1`$, and the tensor product is

$$(2\mu _1)(2\mu _1)=(4\mu _1)(2\mu _1+\mu _2)(2\mu _2)$$

The $`S`$ matrix is

$`S^{SS}(\beta )=F^{SS}(\beta )\left(𝒫_{4\mu _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +4\pi i/N}{\beta 4\pi i/N}}𝒫_{2\mu _1+\mu _2}+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +2\pi i/N}{\beta 2\pi i/N}}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta +4\pi i/N}{\beta 4\pi i/N}}𝒫_{2\mu _2}\right).`$ (8)
The explicit form of the projection operators is given in . The minimal solution of the unitarity and crossing constraints $`F_{min}^{SS}(\beta )`$ has no poles in the region $`0<Im\beta <\pi `$, and is

$$F_{min}^{SS}(\beta )=\frac{\beta 2\pi i/N}{\beta +2\pi i/N}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}+2\frac{1}{N}\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(1+\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{\beta }{2\pi i}+2\frac{1}{N}\right)}.$$
(9)
Note that $`F_{min}^{SS}(\beta )`$ differs from $`F_{min}^{VV}(\beta +2\pi i/N)(F_{min}^{VV}(\beta ))^2F_{min}^{VV}(\beta 2\pi i/N)`$; the prefactor does not automatically follow from the fusion procedure.

In cases where the composites are bound states of the constituents (all are particles in the same theory), then the bootstrap procedure relates the prefactors of composite scattering to those of constituent scattering. However, the fusion does not make such a requirement in general: the prefactor $`F^{SS}(\beta )`$ does not necessarily follow from $`F^{VV}(\beta )`$. All the fusion procedure does is determine the overall form of the $`S`$ matrix for the composite particles and ensure that it obeys the Yang-Baxter equation. Although one might expect that $`F^{SS}(\beta )=F^{VV}(\beta +2i\pi /N)(F^{VV}(\beta ))^2F^{VV}(\beta 2i\pi /N)`$, I will show that below this is not true in general here. In another words, the CDD ambiguity may be resolved in different ways in the constituent and composite theories.

### 2.3 The free energy of an integrable theory

Once the exact $`S`$ matrix is known, the exact free energy as a function of mass, temperature, and magnetic field can be computed by using the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA) . This enables one, for example, to compute thermodynamic quantities like the susceptibility. It also allows a very substantial check on any assumption of integrability. The reason is that at a critical point, the free energy is known exactly – it is related to the central charge of the corresponding conformal field theory . Thus the free energy computed from the TBA must give this result in the limit where the mass of the particles goes to zero, and the system is at the unstable UV fixed point.

The TBA requires a relation between the density of states of the particles to the actual particle density. This relation is called the Bethe equation. If the particles are free, this is trivial: the density of states is independent of the particle density. If the scattering is completely elastic and diagonal, this relation is easy to derive. This is because a diagonal two-particle $`S`$ matrix is the boundary condition the phase shift in the wave function:

$`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=e^{ip_1x_1+ip_2x_2}\text{for }x_1x_2`$
$`\psi (x_1,x_2)`$ $`=e^{ip_1x_1+ip_2x_2}S(p_1,p_2)\text{for }x_1x_2`$ (10)
In a state of $`𝒩`$ particles, the Bethe equation follows by requiring that one-dimensional space of length $`L`$ be periodic, and that the wavefunction be invariant under sending any of the coordinates $`x_ix_i+L`$. First consider the case where there is only one kind of particle in the spectrum, with two-particle $`S`$ matrix $`S(\beta _1\beta _2)`$. The requirement of periodicity of the wavefunction $`\psi (x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}x_𝒩)`$ yields the relations

$$e^{im\mathrm{sinh}\theta _iL}\underset{j=1}{\overset{𝒩}{}}S(\beta _i\beta _j)=1$$
(11)
One can think of this intuitively as bringing the particle around the world through the other particles; one obtains a product of two-particle $`S`$-matrix elements because the scattering is factorizable. This is the generalization of the free-particle momentum quantization condition $`p=2n\pi /L`$.

The Bethe equation is written in terms of the density of states $`P(\beta )`$ and the density of rapidities $`\rho (\beta )`$. The former is defined so that the number of allowed states with rapidities between $`\beta `$ and $`\beta +d\beta `$ is $`P(\beta )d\beta `$, while the number of states actually occupied in this interval is $`\rho (\beta )d\beta `$. The quantization condition relates the two. Taking the derivative of the log of (11) yields

$$2\pi P(\beta )=mL\mathrm{cosh}\beta +_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta \beta ^{})\rho (\beta ^{})$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\beta )=\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}S(\beta ).`$ This is easily generalized to the situation where there is more than one particle in the spectrum, as long as the scattering is diagonal. Let $`S_{ab}`$ be the $`S`$ matrix element for scattering a particle of type $`a`$ from one of type $`b`$. Defining densities $`P_a`$ and $`\rho _a`$ for each type of particle, the Bethe equations are

$$2\pi P_a(\beta )=m_aL\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{b}{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta ^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}(\beta \beta ^{})\rho _b(\beta ^{}).$$
(13)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}=\frac{1}{i}\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}S_{ab}(\beta )$$

Once the Bethe equations are known, the TBA equations and hence the free energy can be derived. This is done by minimizing the free energy, using (13) as a constraint. The result is most conveniently written in terms of the “dressed particle energies” $`ϵ_a(\beta )`$, defined by

$$\frac{\rho _a(\beta )}{P_a(\beta )}=\frac{1}{1+e^{ϵ_a(\beta )/T}}.$$
(14)
For simplicity, I have set all chemical potentials and background fields to be zero. The resulting TBA equations are

$$ϵ_a(\beta )=m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta \underset{b}{}T_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}(\beta \beta ^{})\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_b(\beta )/T}\right)$$
(15)
For free particles, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}=0`$ and the $`ϵ_a`$ just reduce to the particle energies. The form of the TBA equations reflects the fact that in all integrable particle theories of this type, it is either proven or assumed that the particles fill levels like fermions: at most one particle in a level. The free energy per unit length $`F`$ is given in terms of these dressed energies $`ϵ_a`$. It is

$$F(m,T)=T\underset{a}{}m_a_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\beta \mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_a(\beta )/T}\right)$$
(16)
In the IR limit $`m_a\mathrm{}`$, the gas of particles becomes dilute, and interactions can be neglected. The free energy becomes

$$\underset{m_a\mathrm{}}{lim}F(m,T)=T\underset{a}{}m_a_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\beta e^{m_a\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )/T}$$
(17)
This integral can be done, yielding a Bessel function.

Calculating the free energy using the TBA allows an extremely non-trivial check on the exact $`S`$ matrix. In the limit of all masses going to zero, the theorem of  says that the free energy per unit length must behave as

$$\underset{m_a0}{lim}F=\frac{\pi T^2}{6}c_{UV}$$
(18)
where $`c_{UV}`$ is the central charge of the conformal field theory describing this UV limit. The number $`c_{UV}`$ can usually be calculated analytically from the TBA, because in this limit the free energy can be expressed as a sum of dilogarithms . The $`c_{UV}`$ computed from the TBA must of course match the $`c_{UV}`$ from the field theory. This provides an extremely non-trivial check not only of the $`S`$ matrix, but of whether the entire spectrum is known. All particles contribute to the free energy, so if some piece of the spectrum is missing or if an incorrect particle is included, the correct $`c_{UV}`$ will not be obtained.

The TBA computation is much trickier if the scattering between particles is non-diagonal, as is the situation for the models of interest here. The Bethe equation is much harder to derive, because as one particle is going around the periodic world, it can change state as it scatters though the other particles. This requires introducing the “transfer matrix” $`𝒯`$ for bringing the a given particle through the others; since the scattering is not diagonal, the final state is not necessarily the same as the initial. To define $`𝒯`$ explicitly, I first introduce the scattering matrix $`𝒯_{ab}(\beta )`$ for bringing a particle of type $`a`$ and rapidity $`\beta `$ through $`𝒩`$ particles and ending up with a particle of type $`b`$. Thus the different $`𝒯_{ab}`$ make up a set of $`s^2`$ $`s^𝒩\times s^𝒩`$ matrices, where $`s`$ is the number of different types of particles. The scattering is completely elastic, so the rapidities do not change even though the scattering is not diagonal. This means $`𝒯_{ab}(\beta )`$ depends on the rapidities $`\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩`$ as well as $`\beta `$. Let $`S_{abcd}(\beta _1\beta _2)`$ be the two-particle $`S`$ matrix element for scattering an initial state $`a(\beta _1)b(\beta _2)`$ and ending with a final state of $`c(\beta _2)d(\beta _1)`$. Then the components of $`𝒯_{ab}`$ can be written in terms of the $`S`$ matrix elements as

$$(𝒯_{ab}(\beta |\beta _1\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩))_{c_1c_2\mathrm{}c_𝒩}^{d_1d_2\mathrm{}d_𝒩}S_{ac_1d_1f_1}(\beta \beta _1)S_{f_1c_2d_2f_2}(\beta \beta _2)\mathrm{}S_{f_𝒩c_𝒩d_𝒩b}(\beta \beta _𝒩)$$

where the sum is over the intermediate states $`f_1=1\mathrm{}s`$, $`f_2=1\mathrm{}s`$, …, $`f_𝒩=1\mathrm{}s`$. The matrix $`𝒯`$ follows by exploiting the fact that all the $`S`$ matrices of interest at zero relative rapidity just permute the colliding particles. In other words, $`S_{abcd}(0)=\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}`$. Thus setting $`\beta =\beta _\alpha `$ effectively turns the $`\alpha ^{\text{th}}`$ particle so that it scatters through all the others. This is precisely what is needed for the TBA. To put periodic boundary conditions on the system, one sums $`𝒯_{aa}`$ over all $`a`$. The result is that

$$𝒯(\beta _\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩)\underset{a}{}𝒯_{aa}(\beta =\beta _\alpha |\beta _{\alpha +1},\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩,\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _{\alpha 1}).$$
(19)
This is a $`s^{𝒩1}\times s^{𝒩1}`$ matrix.

The TBA requires finding the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta _\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩)`$ of $`𝒯`$. The crucial effect of the $`S`$ matrix satisfying the Yang-Baxter relation is that the $`𝒯(\beta )`$ commute for different $`\beta `$. This ensures that $`𝒯(\beta )`$ can be simultaneously diagonalized for all $`\beta `$ by a $`\beta `$-independent set of eigenvectors; only the eigenvalues depend on $`\beta `$. The quantization condition (11) is generalized to

$$e^{im_\alpha \mathrm{sinh}\beta _\alpha L}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta _\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _𝒩)=1$$
(20)
This must hold for all particles $`\alpha =1\mathrm{}𝒩`$. In the limit of large $`𝒩`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends on the particle densities instead of the individual rapidities. Henceforth I will just write $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta )`$. For the cases of interest here, finding the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta )`$ is quite difficult, but has been done in . The Bethe equations are still of the form (13), and the TBA equations are still of the form (15). However, extra particles, known as “pseudoparticles” or “magnons”, enter the equations. These particles appear in the equations just as if they were a particle species, but with $`m_a=0`$. I will give examples of the explicit form of these equations below.

The transfer matrix has very nice properties under fusion, because the fused $`S`$ matrices are products of the constituent $`S`$ matrices. The case of most interest here is when particles in the representation with highest weight $`\mu _a`$ are fused to give particles in the representation $`2\mu _a`$. Then the transfer matrices for $`𝒩/2`$ fused particles is related to the product of transfer matrices for $`𝒩`$ constituents. The reason it is a product is because both constituents must be brought around the world in the fused transfer matrix. The precise relation is

$`𝒯^{2\mu _a}(\beta _\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{}\beta _{𝒩/2})`$ $`=`$ $`C(\beta _\alpha )𝒯^{\mu _a}(\beta _\alpha +\eta |\beta _1+\eta ,\beta _1\eta ,\mathrm{}\beta _{𝒩/2}+\eta ,\beta _{𝒩/2}\eta )\times `$ (21)
$`𝒯^{\mu _a}(\beta _\alpha \eta |\beta _1+\eta ,\beta _1\eta ,\mathrm{}\beta _{𝒩/2}+\eta ,\beta _{𝒩/2}\eta )`$
The rapidity difference of the constituents is $`2\eta `$. The reason for the extra factor $`C(\beta )`$ is that the prefactors of the $`S`$ matrices need not satisfy the exact fusion relation, as discussed above. This constant of proportionality is

$$C(\beta )=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{𝒩/2}{}}\frac{F^{2\mu _a\nu _\alpha }(\beta \beta _\alpha )}{F^{\mu _a\nu _\alpha }(\beta \beta _\alpha +\eta )F^{\mu _a\nu _\alpha }(\beta \beta _\alpha \eta )}$$

where the particle with rapidity $`\beta _\alpha `$ is in the representation $`\nu _\alpha `$. Given this relation between transfer matrices, the eigenvalues obey the relation

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{2\mu _a}(\beta )=C(\beta )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu _a}(\beta +\eta )\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu _a}(\beta \eta ).$$
(22)
## 3 Massive sigma models

In this section I will derive the TBA equations for a variety of massive sigma models. I start with the sphere sigma model, before going on to the more complicated cases.

### 3.1 The sphere sigma model

One of the best-known sigma models is the sphere sigma model, where the field takes values on a two-sphere. In the $`G/H`$ language I have been using, this corresponds to $`G=SU(2)`$ or $`G=SO(3)`$, and $`H=U(1)`$ or $`H=SO(2)`$. The TBA equations were derived originally by taking the limit of certain integrable fermion models , and conjectured on different grounds in . I will rederive the TBA equations here directly from the $`S`$ matrix, because this is the method which generalizes most simply to the more general sigma models of interest.

In a two-dimensional $`G/H`$ sigma model, the global symmetry group is $`G`$. Therefore the symmetry group of the sphere sigma model is $`G=SO(3)`$: the symmetry corresponds to rotations of the sphere. The particles of this model were shown long ago to be in the spin-$`1`$ representation of $`SO(3)`$ . Their $`S`$ matrix was derived by solving the Yang-Baxter equation directly, and is given by (8) with $`N=2`$ and

$$F_{N=2}^{SS}(\beta )=\frac{\beta i\pi }{\beta +i\pi }$$
(23)
Since this $`S`$ matrix is non-diagonal, one needs to diagonalize the transfer matrix as described in the last section. The way to do this is to first solve the problem for particles in the spin-$`1/2`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, and then use fusion to find the answer for spin $`1`$. For particles in the spin-$`1/2`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, the two-particle $`S`$ matrix is given by (6) with $`N=2`$. This $`S`$ matrix is four-by-four, since there are just two different kinds of particles (spin up and down). The choice

$$F_{N=2}^{VV}=F_{min}^{VV}$$

gives the $`S`$ matrix of the sine-Gordon model at the coupling $`\beta ^2=8\pi `$ in the usual conventions. At this coupling, the dimension of the $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \varphi `$ perturbation is two, so that it is marginally relevant; the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the sine-Gordon model is enhanced to $`SU(2)`$. Another name for this model is the $`SU(2)`$ Gross-Neveu model.

For particles in the spin-$`1/2`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$, the Bethe equations were derived 70 years ago, in the original paper by Bethe himself . The reason is that the transfer matrix for the spin-$`1/2`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$ as defined in (19) precisely corresponds to the transfer matrix of the Heisenberg spin chain. In the limit of large number of particles $`𝒩`$, the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix follow by adopting the “string hypothesis”. This means that the eigenvalues $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta )`$ of the transfer matrix defined in (19) are expressed in terms of densities $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k(\beta )`$, with $`k=1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. These are the pseudoparticles discussed above: they enter the TBA equations as if they were real particles with no mass term. (I have somewhat abused the conventional notation: most authors would not use the $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ here, but it makes subsequent relations less confusing.) The other density entering the equations is the density of particles $`\rho _0(\beta )`$. This is the total particle density, with contributions of both spin up and spin down particles.

Bethe’s result for the eigenvalues is

$$\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\beta )=Y^{(2)}\rho _0(\beta )+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j(\beta )$$
(24)
where convolution integrals are defined as

$$fg(\beta )=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta ^{}f(\beta \beta ^{})g(\beta ).$$

The kernels are given explicitly in the Appendix. The kernel $`Y^{(N)}`$ comes from the prefactor of the $`S`$ matrix. This only affects the coupling to the total particle density, and not the pseudoparticles, because it contributes an overall factor $`_{\alpha =1}^𝒩F^{VV}(\beta \beta _\alpha )`$ to the transfer matrix. Now I can write down the first of the Bethe equations, by taking the derivative of the log of (20). This gives

$$2\pi P_0(\beta )=m\mathrm{cosh}\beta +Y^{(2)}\rho _0(\beta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j(\beta ).$$
(25)
where $`m`$ is the mass of the particles. $`P_0`$ is the total density of states for the particles. The other Bethe equations relate the densities of states for the pseudoparticles to particle and pseudoparticle densities. They are

$$2\pi \rho _j(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _0(\beta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_l(\beta )$$
(26)
where the density of string states $`P_j`$ is

$$P_j=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_j+\rho _j$$

Note that all the Bethe equations are of the form (13), with no mass term for the pseudoparticles.

Using identities in the appendix, all the Bethe equations (including that for $`P_0`$) can be written in the compact form

$$2\pi P_j(\beta )=\delta _{j0}m\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}I_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta ^{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta \beta ^{})}\rho _l(\beta ^{})$$
(27)
Here the indices $`j`$ and $`l`$ in the incidence matrix $`I_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}=\delta _{j,l+1}+\delta _{j,l1}`$ run from $`0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. Note that the right-hand-side involves the hole densities, not the particle densities. This Bethe equation is conveniently represented by the diagram in figure 1. With these equations, it follows from the standard TBA calculation that the TBA equations (15,16) hold, with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{jl}(\beta )=\frac{I_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )}$$

and

$$m_j=\delta _{j0}m\mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$

These equations were first derived in the context of the sine-Gordon model at $`\beta ^28\pi `$ in . One can easily check that the free energy has the correct properties. In the UV limit $`m/T0`$, one obtains the correct central charge $`c_{UV}=1`$ from (18). This follows from a now-standard analysis, involving expressing the free energy as a sum of dilogarithms (see e.g. ). In the IR limit, the generalization of (17) to the case with pseudoparticles is

$$F=mT\left(1+e^{ϵ_1(\mathrm{})}\right)^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\beta e^{m\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )/T}$$

For particles with $`m_j0`$, $`e^{ϵ_j(\mathrm{})}`$ vanishes. However, the pseudoparticles have no mass term, and here one finds that $`e^{ϵ_j(\mathrm{})}=(j+1)^21`$ for $`j1`$. This means that the free energy in the IR limit is that of $`2`$ types of particles of mass $`m`$, as it must be.

It is now simple to get the $`S`$ matrices and TBA for the sphere sigma model by using fusion. The fusion procedure says that the spin-$`1`$ particles in the sphere sigma model can be viewed as having the spin-$`1/2`$ particles as constituents. As explained above, a spin-$`1`$ particle (in a representation with highest weight $`2\mu _1`$) is composed of a pair spin-$`1/2`$ particles (each in a representation with highest weight $`\mu _1`$) with rapidities $`\beta _i+i\pi /2`$ and $`\beta _ii\pi /2`$. The transfer matrix for $`𝒩/2`$ spin-$`1`$ particles is related to that for the $`𝒩`$ spin-$`1/2`$ particles by the relation (21) with $`\eta =i\pi /2`$. Because the two transfer matrices are related in this way, the Bethe equations for the sphere sigma model follow from those above after a few modifications. The eigenvalue of the sphere sigma model transfer matrix follows from the spin-$`1/2`$ eigenvalue (24), and the fusion equation (22). It is

$$\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{sphere}(\beta )=Z^{(2)}\rho _0(\beta )+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _j(\beta )$$
(28)
where

$$\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}(\beta +i\pi /N)+\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}(\beta i\pi /N)$$

with $`N=2`$ here. The first term in (28) arises from the prefactor of the sphere $`S`$ matrix (23), with

$$Z^{(2)}=i\frac{}{\beta }\mathrm{ln}F_{N=2}^{SS}=\frac{2\pi }{\beta ^2+\pi ^2}.$$

The explicit expressions for $`\tau ^{(s)}`$ and $`Z^{(N)}`$ are given in (70) and (67) in the appendix. Using this expression for the eigenvalue in (20) gives

$$2\pi P_0(\beta )=m\mathrm{cosh}\beta +Z^{(2)}\rho _0(\beta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _j(\beta ).$$
(29)
The Bethe equations for the densities of states of the pseudoparticles (26) are modified because the real particles come in pairs with rapidities $`\beta \pm i\pi /2`$. Thus for the sphere sigma model

$$2\pi \rho _j(\beta )=\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _0(\beta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_l(\beta )$$
(30)
for $`j1`$.

By using the identities in the appendix, the Bethe equations (30, 29) can be put in the unified form

$$2\pi P_j(\beta )=\delta _{j0}m\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\beta ^{}\frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )}\rho _l(\beta ^{}).$$
(31)
The indices $`j`$ and $`l`$ here run from $`0\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. Above, the incidence matrix $`I^{(s)}`$ was associated with $`SU(s)`$. Here, the incidence matrix $`^{(s)}`$ is associated with $`O(2s)`$: $`_{jl}^{(s)}=2\delta _{jl}C_{jl}^{O(2s)}`$, where $`C^{O(2s)}`$ is the Cartan matrix for $`O(2s)`$. Explicitly,

$$_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}=\delta _{j,l+1}+\delta _{j,l1}+\delta _{j,2}\delta _{l,0}+\delta _{j,0}\delta _{l,2}\delta _{j,1}\delta _{l,0}\delta _{j,0}\delta _{l,1}$$
(32)
This Bethe equation is conveniently represented by the diagram in figure 2.

With these equations, it follows from the standard TBA calculation that the TBA equations (15,16) hold, with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{jl}(\beta )=\frac{_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}}{\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )}$$

and

$$m_j=\delta _{j0}m\mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$

One can easily check that the free energy has the correct properties . In the UV limit $`m/T0`$, one obtains the correct central charge $`c_{UV}=2`$ by the standard dilogarithm analysis. In the IR limit, one finds that

$$F=mT\left(1+e^{ϵ_2(\mathrm{})}\right)^{1/2}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\beta e^{m\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )/T}.$$

As with the spin-$`1/2`$ system, the functions obey $`e^{ϵ_j(\mathrm{})}=(j+1)^21`$ for $`j1`$. This means that the free energy in the IR limit is that of $`3`$ types of particles of mass $`m`$, the spin-$`1`$ triplet.

### 3.2 $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu models

To find the sigma model free energy, it is best to first perform the analysis for the vector particles and then use fusion. The appropriate field theory with particles in the vector representation of $`SU(N)`$ is the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model (also sometimes called the chiral Gross-Neveu model) . Its similarities and differences with the sigma model were discussed at length in . The vector particles in the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model have the $`S`$ matrix (6). The prefactor $`F_{GN}^{VV}(\beta )`$ is not the minimal one given in (7). It is instead

$$F_{GN}^{VV}(\beta )=F_{min}^{VV}(\beta )X(\beta )$$

where

$$X(\beta )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\beta +2\pi i/N)\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{1}{2}(\beta 2\pi i/N)\right)}.$$
(33)
Note that $`X=1`$ for $`N=2`$, so the sine-Gordon model at $`\beta ^28\pi `$ is indeed the $`SU(2)`$ Gross-Neveu model.

The pole at $`\beta =2\pi i/N`$ in this factor $`X(\beta )`$ means that for $`N>2`$, the vector particles in the Gross-Neveu model have bound states in the antisymmetric representation. Upon completing the bootstrap procedure, one finds that the model has bound states in all the antisymmetric representations with $`a`$ indices, $`a=1\mathrm{}N1`$. These are called the fundamental representations, and they have highest weight $`\mu _a`$. The particles can be expressed as bound states of $`a`$ particles in the vector representation. These have mass

$$m_a=m\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{\pi a}{N}\right)$$

The representation with highest weight $`\mu _{Na}`$ is the conjugate of the representation $`\mu _a`$, because of the invariant $`ϵ`$ tensor. For example, the $`\overline{N}`$ representation has highest weight $`\mu _{N1}`$ and mass $`m_{N1}=m_1`$. The bootstrap procedure gives the $`S`$ matrices for all scattering of these particles. The scattering is not diagonal, but it is diagonal in the representation labels. When a particle in representation $`a`$ with rapidity $`\beta _\alpha `$ scatters, the final particle with rapidity $`\beta _\alpha `$ must be in some state in same representation $`a`$. This means that the two-particle $`S`$ matrix prefactors can be labelled by $`F^{ab}`$. The vector-vector prefactor $`F^{VV}F^{11}`$ in this new notation. The explicit prefactor $`F_{GN}^{ab}`$ is necessary for the calculation, and is given in (66) in the appendix.

Computing the Bethe equations for the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu models looks extremely difficult or impossible. Remarkably, the computation has already been done in  by using fusion. Here the Bethe equations are found for any simply-laced Lie algebra $`G`$, when the particles are in any representations with highest weight $`m\mu _i`$ where $`\mu _i`$ is a fundamental weight of $`G`$, and $`m`$ is an integer. This work was generalized to non-simply-laced groups in . The fusion procedure gives functional relations like (21) for all the $`𝒯^a(\beta _\alpha |\beta _1,\mathrm{},\beta _𝒩)`$ . The label $`a`$ here indicates that the $`\alpha ^{\text{th}}`$ particle is in the representation with highest weight $`\mu _a`$. These functional relations relate various $`𝒯^a`$. The prefactors $`F^{ab}(\beta )`$ need to be computed, but the explicit $`S`$ matrix is not needed: all the relevant physics is contained in the representation theory and in the fusion. From the functional relations and a few mild analyticity assumptions, the eigenvalues of $`𝒯^a`$ and the Bethe equations can be derived in the limit of a large number of particles.

The Bethe equations for the general case require the introduction of pseudoparticle densities and densities of states into the Bethe equation (13). Here the pseudoparticle densities $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}`$ and densities of states $`P_{a,j}(\beta )`$ are labelled by two indices. (In the literature, this is usually called a nested Bethe ansatz.) The index $`a`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`N1`$ for $`SU(N)`$. For the $`N=2`$ case treated above, this index takes only one value can be suppressed. The index $`j`$ is the same index as before, running from $`1,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ for the pseudoparticles. The functions $`\rho _{a,0}`$ and $`P_{a,0}`$ are defined respectively as the density and density of states for all the particles in the representation $`\mu _a`$. It is consistent to define separate densities for each representation, because the particles cannot change representation when scattering. For all values of $`a`$ and $`j`$, $`P_{a,j}=\rho _{a,j}+\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}`$.

The computation of the TBA equations directly from the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model $`S`$ matrix was done in . The eigenvalues of the transfer matrix $`T^a`$ are

$$\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{GN}^a(\beta )=\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}Y_{ab}^{(N)}\rho _{b,0}(\beta )+\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta )$$
(34)
where the kernels are given explicitly in the Appendix. The kernel $`Y_{ab}^{(N)}`$ comes from the prefactor $`F^{ab}`$ of the $`S`$ matrix. It couples the density of states of real particles in representation $`a`$ to the density of particles in representation $`b`$. The first of the Bethe equations follows from (20), and is

$$2\pi P_{a,0}(\beta )=m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}Y_{ab}^{(N)}\rho _{b,0}(\beta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta ).$$
(35)
The other Bethe equations relate the densities of states for the pseudoparticles to particle and pseudoparticle densities. They follow from  as well, and are

$$2\pi \rho _{a,j}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _{a,0}\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}K_{ab}^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{b,l}(\beta )$$
(36)
where $`P_{a,j}=\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}+\rho _{a,j}`$. Explicit expressions for these kernels are given in the Appendix. Note how all these equations reduce to those in the last subsection by setting $`N=2`$.

By using the fact that $`A`$ and $`K`$ are inverses, and the identities in the appendix, all the Bethe equations (35,36) can be written in the combined form

$$2\pi \stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta )=\delta _{j0}m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}K_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}A_{ab}^N\rho _{b,l}(\beta )$$
(37)
Here the indices $`j`$ and $`l`$ run from $`0,1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$. With these densities, the dressed energies $`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ are defined as in (14). It follows from the standard TBA calculation that the TBA equations (15,16) hold, with

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab,jl}(\beta )=\delta _{jl}\delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )K_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}A_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )$$

and

$$m_{aj}=\delta _{j0}m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$

The TBA equations can be rewritten in a much more elegant form by using the fact that $`A`$ and $`K`$ are inverses, and the simple relation between $`K`$ and the incidence matrix

$$I_{jl}^{(N)}=\delta _{j,l1}+\delta _{j,l+1}j,l=1\mathrm{}N1$$
(38)
The result is

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}I_{ab}^{(N)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (39)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
This is a substantial simplification because the equation for $`ϵ_{a,j}`$ only involves “adjacent” functions $`ϵ_{a,j\pm 1}`$ and $`ϵ_{a\pm 1,j}`$. These equations are displayed schematically in figure 3. The dashed and unbroken lines account for the different minus signs in (39). Note that the masses do not appear in rewritten TBA equations (39), although they appear in the original ones. When using the form (39), the asymptotic conditions

$$ϵ_{a,0}(\beta \mathrm{})m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta .$$

must be imposed.

This free energy of the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model has the correct properties. In the UV limit $`m/T0`$, one obtains the correct central charge $`c_{UV}=N1`$ from the dilogarithm analysis. In the IR limit, one finds that each representation contributes one term to the free energy, with the correct multiplicity (e.g. $`N`$ for the vector representation $`a=1`$, $`N(N1)/2`$ for the antisymmetric representation $`a=2`$).

### 3.3 $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models

Here I find the TBA equations for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model, generalizing the analysis for the sphere sigma model, which corresponds to $`N=2`$. The TBA analysis is related to that for $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu models via fusion for all $`N`$.

The $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models have a Lagrangian description (1) in terms of a a symmetric and unitary matrix field. The particles of the sigma model are in all representations with highest weight $`2\mu _a`$, $`a=1\mathrm{}N1`$ . The representation with highest weight $`2\mu _1`$ is the symmetric representation. The two-particle $`S`$ with both particles in the symmetric representation is given by (8) with prefactor

$$F^{SS}(\beta )=X(\beta )F_{min}^{SS}(\beta )$$

where the minimal factor is given in (9), and $`X(\beta )`$ is in (33). The pole in $`X(\beta )`$ at $`\beta =2\pi i/N`$ means that particles in the representation $`2\mu _2`$ are the bound state of two particles in the symmetric representation $`2\mu _1`$. Because the factor $`X(\beta )`$ is the same as that of the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model, the masses are the same:

$$m_a=m\mathrm{sin}(\pi a/N)$$

for the sigma model as well. However, the multiplicites are different because the former are in representations with highest weight $`\mu _a`$, while in the latter they are in representations with highest weight $`2\mu _a`$.

As discussed above, $`\beta =2\pi i/N`$, the $`S`$ matrix (6) is entirely in the symmetric channel. Therefore, the particles in the symmetric representation $`2\mu _1`$ can be viewed as composites of those in the vector representation $`\mu _1`$. The same is true for all the particles in the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model: those in the representation $`2\mu _a`$ are composites of two particles in the $`\mu _a`$ representation. Because of this relation between $`S`$ matrices, the transfer matrices are also related by (21) . This means that the resulting TBA systems are closely related, and all the densities are labelled in the same way. Explicitly, the Bethe equations for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model are obtained from those of the Gross-Neveu model by two modifications. The kernel $`Y_{ab}^{(N)}`$ coming from the $`S`$ matrix prefactor is replaced with $`Z_{ab}^{(N)}`$, while the kernel $`\sigma _{ab}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is replaced with $`\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}`$, defined by

$$\tau _j^{(s)}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(s)}(\beta +i\pi /N)+\sigma _j^{(s)}(\beta i\pi /N).$$
(40)
The sigma model version of (35) is

$$2\pi P_{a,0}(\beta )=m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}Z_{ab}^{(N)}\rho _{b,0}(\beta )\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta ).$$
(41)
while the Bethe equations for the pseudoparticles are

$$2\pi \rho _{a,j}(\beta )=\tau _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _{a,0}(\beta )\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}K_{ab}^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{b,l}(\beta )$$
(42)
Explicit expressions for these kernels are given in the appendix. Note how all these equations reduce to those of the sphere sigma model by setting $`N=2`$.

The different kernels in the Bethe equations of course mean that the TBA system is not quite the same as that of the Gross-Neveu model. All the modifications involve the couplings of the functions of $`\rho _{a,0}(\beta )`$ to the other $`\rho _{b,j}`$. After using the identities in the appendix, one finds that the net effect is to remove couplings between $`ϵ_{a,0}`$ to $`ϵ_{a,1}`$ in the Gross-Neveu TBA (39), and replace them with a coupling between $`ϵ_{a,0}`$ to $`ϵ_{a,2}`$. The $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ TBA equations are

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}I_{ab}^{(N)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (43)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
The asymptotic conditions are the same as for the Gross-Neveu model. In fact, the only difference is that the second incidence matrix $`I^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is replaced with $`^{(\mathrm{})}`$. These equations are displayed schematically in figure 4.

Both cases can be conveniently summarized in the language of Dynkin diagrams: the Gross-Neveu model in figure 3 is described by ($`SU(N),SU(\mathrm{})`$), while the incidence diagram in figure 4 for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model is described by ($`SU(N),SO(\mathrm{})`$). The latter TBA system was previously discussed in , but without the association with the sigma model. As with all previous cases, one can check that the UV and IR limits of the TBA equations agree with known results, namely the central charge $`c_{UV}=(N+2)(N1)/2`$ and the particles being in the representations $`2\mu _a`$. This computation in particular checks that these are all the particles in the spectrum, because additional (or fewer) particles would change this central charge.

### 3.4 $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu models

As with the models with $`SU(N)`$ symmetry, I will start with the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu models  (these are in fact the models Gross and Neveu originally studied). Like the $`SU(N)`$ case, there are particles in all the fundamental representations with highest weights $`\mu _a`$. This includes the spinor representations, which physically correspond to kinks. The mass spectrum is given by

$$m_a=m\mathrm{sin}(a\pi /(2P2))m_{P1}=m_P=\frac{m}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /(2P2))}$$

where the latter two correspond to the spinor representations. As opposed to the $`SU(N)`$ case, for $`P4`$ there can be more than one representation with a given mass, as explained in detail in . For any value of $`a`$ there are particles in the representation $`\mu _a`$, but there may be additional ones as well. For example, for $`P=4`$, there are particles in the vector and spinor representations (all $`3`$ of them being $`8`$-dimensional) of mass $`m_1`$, particles in the antisymmetric representation ($`28`$-dimensional, weight $`\mu _2`$) with mass $`m_2=\sqrt{3}m_1`$, and a particle in the singlet representation, with mass $`m_2`$. This apparently is related to representation properties of the Yangian; it turns out that the Yangian associated with $`SO(8)`$ has a $`29`$-dimensional representation, but not a $`28`$-dimensional one. Under the $`SO(8)`$ subalgebra of the Yangian, the $`29`$ decomposes into $`28+1`$. In the TBA equations below, the index $`a`$ indicates all particles of mass $`m_a`$, which presumably corresponds to an irreducible representation of the Yangian .

Luckily, the Bethe equations for $`SO(2P)`$-type systems were also found in . These were more or less conjectured based on analogy with the $`SU(N)`$ case, but were proven up to some technical assumptions in . Basically, they amount to doing the computation by replacing the $`SU(N)`$ incidence matrix $`I^{(N)}`$ with the $`SO(2P)`$ incidence matrix $`^{(P)}`$. The details for proving this are given in the appendix. The TBA equations for the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu models are

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{P}{}}}_{ab}^{(P)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{P1}{\mathrm{cosh}[(P1)(\beta \beta ^{})]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (44)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}I_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{P1}{\mathrm{cosh}[(P1)(\beta \beta ^{})]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
These equations are displayed schematically in figure 5; the indices $`a`$ and $`b`$ now run over the nodes of a $`SO(2P)`$ Dynkin diagram. The correct central charge $`c_{UV}=P`$ is obtained in the UV limit. This system was also discussed in .

### 3.5 $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models

In  the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models were shown to resemble the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models discussed above. This is not terribly surprising, since the Lagrangian formulation of both is in terms of symmetric matrix fields. I will show here how their TBA systems are also similar.

In  the exact spectrum and the $`S`$ matrix $`𝒮^{SS}`$ for the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models are found. Like the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ case, there are particles are in all representations with highest weight $`2\mu _a`$, where here $`a=1\mathrm{}P`$, although because of some peculiarities of the $`O(2P)`$ $`S`$ matrices (and because of Yangian representation properties), there must be particles in some of the fundamental representations as well. The sigma model mass spectrum is the same as the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model, although of course the multiplicities differ. The TBA system for the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models should not come as any surprise at this point. It follows from the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model calculation just as the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ calculation follows from that of the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model . The TBA equations for $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models are

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{P}{}}}_{ab}^{(P)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{P1}{\mathrm{cosh}[(P1)(\beta \beta ^{})]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (45)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{P1}{\mathrm{cosh}[(P1)(\beta \beta ^{})]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
The kernels and identities for this derivation are discussed in the Appendix.

## 4 Massless sigma models with $`\theta =\pi `$

The results of the last section further confirmed the results of  for the $`S`$ matrices of the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma models when the instanton coupling $`\theta =0`$. In this section, I find the TBA equations for these sigma models when $`\theta =\pi `$, further confirming results of .

The particles of the sigma models are massless when $`\theta =\pi `$. The reason is that both sets of models have stable infrared fixed points, the $`SU(N)_1`$ and $`O(2P)_1`$ WZW models, respectively. The $`S`$ matrices for these flows were found in . Since the particles are massless, they are either left- or right-moving. Rapidity variables are still useful for parameterizing the energy and momentum of massless particles: $`E=p=me^\beta `$ for a right mover, and $`E=p=me^\beta `$ for a left mover. The parameter $`m`$ here is not the mass of the particle, but rather is the scale (analogous to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{QCD}`$) which parameterizes the interactions. In condensed-matter language, it is the crossover scale. With these definitions, the rapidity difference is still an invariant in a collision. In a collision between a right mover and a left mover, the invariant is $`(E_1+E_2)^2(p_1+p_2)^2=m^2e^{\beta _1\beta _2}`$. In “collisions” between two right movers, the invariant is $`E_1/E_2=e^{\beta _1\beta _2}`$. I put collisions in quotes because the $`S`$ matrix is properly interpreted here as a matching condition on the wavefunction, as in (10). For more details on the $`S`$ matrix approach to massless theories, see .

The spectrum and $`S`$ matrices of these sigma models at $`\theta =\pi `$ are closely related to that of the corresponding Gross-Neveu model. For the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model ,

$`S_{LL}^{ab}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`S_{RR}^{ab}(\beta )=S_{GN}^{ab}(\beta )`$
$`S_{LR}^{ab}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`S_{GN}^{ab}(\beta )/X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$
where $`X_{ab}^{(N)}`$ comes from fusing $`X`$ as defined in (33):

$$X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )\underset{i=1}{\overset{a}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{b}{}}X\left(\beta +[i+j1(a+b)/2]/N\right).$$
(46)
For $`N=2`$, this reduces to the result of . The reason for dividing out by $`X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$ in $`S_{LR}`$ is simple. Poles in $`S_{LR}`$ in the region $`0<Im(\beta )<\pi `$ are forbidden , and all are contained in this factor. For similar reasons, the $`S`$ matrices for the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma model at $`\theta =\pi `$ are

$`𝒮_{LL}^{ab}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{LL}^{ab}(\beta )=𝒮_{GN}^{ab}(\beta )`$
$`𝒮_{LR}^{ab}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`𝒮_{LR}^{ab}(\beta )=𝒮_{GN}^{ab}(\beta )/𝒳_{ab}^{(P)}(\beta )`$
where

$$𝒳_{ab}^{(P)}(\beta )=X_{ab}^{(2P2)}(\beta )X_{ab}^{(2P2)}(i\pi \beta )$$
(47)
and $`𝒮_{GN}^{ab}`$ is the $`S`$ matrix of the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model.

The TBA systems follow from the results in the last section, given the close relation with the Gross-Neveu models. The pseudoparticles are identical, so the densities $`\rho _{a,j}`$ are labeled by two indices as before. However, in scattering, left movers stay left moving, and right movers stay right moving. Thus instead of densities $`\rho _{a,0}`$, now there are both $`\rho _{a,L}`$ and $`\rho _{a,R}`$. For the $`SU(N)`$ case, the first of the Bethe equations (35) is replaced with the two equations

$`2\pi P_{a,R}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`m_ae^\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}Y_{ab}^{(N)}\rho _{b,R}(\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(Y_{ab}^{(N)}\delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )+A_{ab}^{(N)})\rho _{b,L}(\beta )`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta )`$
$`2\pi P_{a,L}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`m_ae^\beta +{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}Y_{ab}^{(N)}\rho _{b,L}(\beta )+{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(Y_{ab}^{(N)}\delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )+A_{ab}^{(N)})\rho _{b,R}(\beta )`$ (49)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,j}(\beta ).`$
The Bethe equations for the pseudoparticles (36) become

$$2\pi \rho _{a,j}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}(\rho _{a,L}(\beta )+\rho _{a,R}(\beta ))\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}K_{ab}^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{b,l}(\beta )$$
(50)
Using the identities in the appendix gives the TBA equations

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}I_{ab}^{(N)}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (51)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=L,R,1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}}{}}_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2\mathrm{cosh}(N(\beta \beta ^{})/2)}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
where $`j`$ takes the values $`L,R,1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$. These equations for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model at $`\theta =\pi `$ are identical to those for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model at $`\theta =0`$ (43), once the labels are redefined (there $`j`$ is takes the values $`0,1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$). However, that does not mean the solutions are the same. Because the $`\theta =0`$ theory is massive and the $`\theta =\pi `$ theory is massless, the asymptotic conditions are different. Namely, as $`\beta \pm \mathrm{}`$, for the massive theory:

$`ϵ_{a0}(\beta \mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`m_a\mathrm{cosh}(\beta )`$
while for the massless theory as $`\beta +\mathrm{}`$

$`ϵ_{aL}(\beta \mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`m_ae^\beta `$
$`ϵ_{aR}(\beta \mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`constant`$
and as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$

$`ϵ_{aL}(\beta \mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`constant`$
$`ϵ_{aR}(\beta \mathrm{})`$ $``$ $`m_ae^\beta `$
The free energy (16) is modified in the massless case to

$$F^{(\pi )}(m,T)=T\underset{a}{}m_a_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta }{2\pi }\left[e^\beta \mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{aR}(\beta )/T}\right)+e^\beta \mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{aL}(\beta )/T}\right)\right]$$
(52)
The equations for the massless theory are pictorially depicted in figure 6.

The different asymptotic conditions do not affect the free energy in the ultraviolet limit $`m/T0`$. Thus the free energy is the same in massive and massless cases, corresponding to that of a conformal field theory of central charge $`c_{UV}=(N+2)(N1)/2`$. This of course is the dimension of the manifold $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$. In fact, because the TBA systems are identical except for the asymptotic conditions, the entire UV perturbation theory is identical in both cases. This is as it must be: instantons are a non-perturbative effect, and so the effect of the instanton coupling $`\beta `$ cannot be seen in perturbation theory. Unfortunately, it is not known how to compute the perturbative expansion at non-zero temperature, except for the leading logarithmic correction . The perturbative expansion at zero temperature can be computed explicitly by using a generalized Wiener-Hopf technique. This computation was done for the case at hand in , and does indeed give the same results at $`\theta =0`$ and $`\pi `$.

On the other hand, the physics for $`\theta =\pi `$ is radically different from that at $`\theta =0`$ in the low-energy limit $`m/T\mathrm{}`$. In the massive case the free energy in this limit is merely that of a dilute gas of massive particles, as in (17). However, the particles are massless when $`\theta =\pi `$ because the system flows to a non-trivial field theory in the low-energy limit. This flow is immediately apparent from the $`S`$ matrix point of view, because the two-particle Lorentz invariant for a left and a right mover is $`m^2`$, so the $`S`$ matrix goes to a $`\beta `$-independent constant value as $`m\mathrm{}`$. The right-right and left-left matrices remain non-trivial, however, since the Lorentz invariant here is independent of $`m`$. Thus in the low-energy limit, the left and right sectors decouple from each other, but remain non-trivial. This is the behavior of a conformal field theory. The free energy must obey a relation like that of the UV limit, namely

$$\underset{m_a\mathrm{}}{lim}F=\frac{\pi T^2}{6}c_{IR}$$
(53)
Here this gives $`c_{IR}=N1`$. This is the central charge of $`SU(N)_1`$, confirming the flow discussed in .

In fact, since the left and right movers decouple in the IR limit, the TBA system for the right movers in this limit is obtained merely by removing the terms involving $`ϵ_{aL}`$ from the equations. The resulting system is identical to that of the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model (39); only the asymptotic condition changes from $`ϵ_{a0}(\beta \mathrm{})m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta `$ to $`ϵ_{aR}(\beta \mathrm{})m_ae^\beta `$. The TBA system for the left movers is the same, with the replacement $`\beta \beta `$. This close relation is a consequence of the fact discussed in , that the effective field theory for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model at $`\theta =\pi `$ in the low-energy limit is that of the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model at negative coupling. The sign change changes the sign of the beta function, meaning that while the Gross-Neveu model is an asymptotically-free massive theory, the critical point in the sigma model is stable. In another language, the different signs correspond to marginally-relevant and marginally-irrelevant perturbations respectively.

Not surprisingly, the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma model behaves in the same fashion. The TBA system in (45) applies to both massive and massless cases. Only the asymptotic conditions differ, as with the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ model. As a consequence, the same $`c_{UV}=P^2`$ is obtained for both $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. In the massless case, the flow is to a conformal field theory with $`c_{IR}=P`$, and the equations in the IR limit are those of the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model. Thus indeed the flow is to the $`O(2P)_1`$ conformal field theory, confirming the results of .

## 5 Perturbed coset models

In  it was shown how a $`G/H`$ sigma model is related to a $`G_k/H_l`$ coset conformal field theory perturbed by a certain operator. In this section, I review this construction, and apply it to $`G/H=SU(N)/SO(N)`$ and $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$. I find the exact free energy of the perturbed coset models. this approach shows promise for understanding whether other sigma models are integrable, as I will discuss in the conclusion.

### 5.1 Perturbed coset models and sigma models

A $`G_k`$ WZW model is a conformal field theory with an infinite-dimensional symmetry algebra . This symmetry is an extension of a ordinary Lie algebra symmetry $`G`$. The symmetry currents are denoted $`J^A(z)`$ and $`\overline{J}^A(\overline{z})`$, where $`A`$ runs from $`1\mathrm{}`$ dim($`G`$). These currents satisfy the operator product

$$J^A(z)J^B(w)=\frac{k}{(zw)^2}+\frac{f^{ABC}J^C(w)}{zw}+\mathrm{}$$
(54)
where the $`f^{ABC}`$ are the structure constants of the ordinary Lie algebra for $`G`$. The algebra (54) is known as an affine Lie algebra or a Kac-Moody algebra $`G_k`$. The level $`k`$ is a positive integer for a compact Lie group $`G`$. The central charge (coefficient of the conformal anomaly) of the $`G_k`$ WZW model is

$$c=\frac{k\text{dim}G}{k+h}$$
(55)
where $`h`$ is called the dual Coxeter number. It can be defined by $`f^{ACD}f^{BCD}=h\delta _{AB}/2`$. For $`G=SU(N)`$, $`h=N`$, while for $`G=SO(2P)`$, $`h=2P2`$ (for $`P>2`$). The primary fields of the WZW model correspond to representations of $`G_k`$. It is shown in  that they have scaling dimensions

$$x_j=\frac{2C_j}{(k+h)}$$
(56)
where $`C_j`$ is the quadratic Casimir defined by $`T^AT^A=C_jI`$, with the $`T^A`$ the generators of the Lie algebra of $`G`$ in the $`j`$th representation and $`I`$ the identity matrix. All the other scaling fields arise from the operator product of the $`J^A(z)`$ with the primary fields; it follows from (54) that $`J`$ has dimension $`1`$ and therefore all fields have dimensions $`x_j`$ plus an integer.

A coset conformal field theory $`G_k/H_l`$ is formed from a $`G_k`$ WZW theory and a subalgebra $`H_l`$. The energy-momentum tensor is constructed from the generators of $`G_k`$ not in $`H_l`$ . The central charge of this new conformal field theory is $`c(G_k)c(H_l)`$. The level $`l`$ of the subalgebra $`H`$ is determined is given by $`l=kr`$, where $`r`$ is a group-theory factor called the index of the embedding of $`G`$ into $`H_l`$. For the embedding of $`SO(N)`$ into $`SU(N)`$, $`r=2`$ ($`r=4`$ for $`N`$=3), while for the embedding of $`O(N)\times O(N)`$ into $`O(2N)`$, $`r=1`$ ($`r=2`$ for $`N=3`$).

The fields of the $`G_k/H_l`$ conformal field theory are constructed by decomposing a field $`\varphi _G`$ in $`G_k`$ into representations of the $`H_l`$ subalgebra. Because the energy-momentum tensor obeys the orthogonal decomposition $`T_G=T_H+T_{G/H}`$, the decomposition of $`\varphi _G`$ must be of the form

$$\varphi _G=_a\varphi _{G/H}^a\varphi _H^a.$$
(57)
The coefficients $`\varphi _{G/H}^a`$ of this decomposition are the fields of the coset model $`G_k/H_l`$.

These coset conformal field theories a priori have nothing to do with $`G/H`$ sigma models. The former are massless, and do not have a global symmetry $`G`$, while the latter are gapped with a $`G`$ global symmetry. Thus for the two to correspond, the coset model must be perturbed by some operator. Moreover, the coset model has a $`G`$ global symmetry when $`k\mathrm{}`$. These and other considerations led to a conjecture made in . This conjecture is that the sigma model for $`G/H`$ is equivalent to the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit of the coset conformal field theory perturbed by a certain operator. The operator is obtained by using (57) to decompose the currents $`J^A`$ into fields in $`G_k/H_l`$. For the cases of interest here, $`G/H`$ is a symmetric space, meaning that there is no normal subgroup of $`G`$ containing $`H`$ other than $`G`$ itself. A consequence of $`G/H`$ being a symmetric space is that the generators of $`G`$ not in $`H`$ form a real irreducible representation of $`H`$ . Thus when a field $`J^A(z)`$ is decomposed into representations of $`H`$ in (57) there is only one term on the right hand-side. The resulting field in $`G_k/H_l`$ is denoted by $`𝒥^A`$. The fields $`𝒥^A`$ form a real irreducible representation of $`H`$, of dimension $`c_{UV}=\text{dim}G\text{dim}H`$. The operator $`𝒪_\sigma `$ is defined as

$$𝒪_\sigma \underset{A=1}{\overset{c_{UV}}{}}𝒥^A(z)𝒥^A(\overline{z}).$$
(58)
The conjecture of  can now be stated precisely: the $`G/H`$ sigma model is equivalent to the $`G_k/H_l`$ coset conformal field theory perturbed by the operator $`𝒪_\sigma `$ in the limit $`k\mathrm{}`$.

The conjecture passes a few simple checks. The ultraviolet limit is obtained by removing the perturbation of the coset model. From (55) it follows that the central charge of the $`G_k/H_l`$ theory as $`k\mathrm{}`$ is indeed $`c_{UV}=\text{dim}G\text{dim}H`$ as in the sigma model. Moreover, when one decomposes $`J^A`$ into representations of $`H`$ for $`A`$ in $`G`$ but not $`H`$, the resulting field $`\varphi _H^A`$ has dimension going to zero as $`k\mathrm{}`$, because the quadratic Casimir in (56) is independent of $`k`$. Thus the field $`𝒥^A`$ has dimension $`1`$ in this limit, so the perturbation $`𝒪_\sigma `$ is of dimension $`2`$ and so is naively marginal. It is not exactly marginal – this is the phenomenon of dimensional transmutation and asymptotic freedom. Therefore the coset and its perturbation have the general properties of a sigma model. Further support for this conjecture is discussed in . For example, it has been shown to be true for the principal chiral models , and in the sphere sigma model . The results in this section give strong further evidence in support.

The models of interest in this paper are the $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ and the $`O(2P)_k/O(P)_k\times O(P)_k`$ conformal field theories perturbed by $`𝒪_\sigma `$. The former theories have

$$c_{UV}(k,N)=\frac{k(k1)(N+2)(N1)}{(N+k)(N2+2k)}$$

while the latter have

$$c_{UV}(k,P)=\frac{k(k1)P^2}{(P2+k)(2P2+k)}$$

To find the dimensions of the perturbing operators requires a little group theory. Fields in the adjoint representation of $`SU(N)`$ decompose under the $`SO(N)`$ subgroup as

$$(N^21)\left(\frac{N(N1)}{2}\right)+\left(\frac{N(N+1)}{2}1\right)$$

The representation of dimension $`N(N1)/2`$ consists of the generators $`J^A`$ with $`A`$ in the $`SO(N)`$ subgroup as well. Thus the operators $`𝒥^A`$ are in the symmetric representation of $`SO(N)_{2k}`$, of dimension $`N(N+1)/21`$. The quadratic Casimir of this representation is $`C_{sym}=N`$. Since the dimension of $`J^A`$ is always $`1`$, the dimension of $`𝒪_\sigma `$ in the $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ conformal field theory for $`N>2`$ is

$$x_\sigma =2\frac{2N}{N2+2k}=4\frac{k1}{N2+2k}$$

Similarly, the adjoint representation of $`O(2P)`$ decomposes into

$$(P(2P1))(\frac{P(P1)}{2},1)+(1,\frac{P(P1)}{2})+(P,P)$$

under the $`O(P)\times O(P)`$ subgroup. Thus the operator $`𝒪_\sigma `$ here is in the $`(P,P)`$ representation of $`O(P)_k\times O(P)_k`$. The quadratic Casimir of the vector representation of $`O(P)`$ is $`(P1)/2`$, so

$$x_\sigma =2\frac{P1}{P2+k}=2\frac{k1}{P2+k}$$
(59)
As far as I known, these perturbed conformal field theories have never been studied in the literature.

The role the instanton coupling $`\theta `$ takes in the conjecture of  is quite interesting. The action of the perturbed conformal field theories can be denoted schematically as

$$S=S_{CFT}+\lambda d^2z𝒪(z,\overline{z}).$$

It follows from simple scaling considerations that mass scale $`m`$ in the theory is related to $`\lambda `$ by $`m|\lambda |^{1/(2x)}`$. If the theory has a $`𝐙_2`$ symmetry under which $`𝒪𝒪`$ then the theories with positive and negative $`\lambda `$ are identical. In general, they are not. A well known example is the $`SU(2)_k\times SU(2)_1/SU(2)_{k+1}`$ “minimal” models of conformal field theory perturbed by $`𝒪_\sigma `$ (usually called $`\varphi _{1,3}`$ in this context). With one sign of $`\lambda `$, the model is massive. With the other sign, the model flows to the minimal model with $`k1`$ , so the excitations are massless. In the $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ and $`O(2P)_k/O(P)_k\times O(P)_k`$ cases for $`k>2`$, the two signs of $`\lambda `$ give different theories as well, one massive and the other massless. In the $`k\mathrm{}`$ limit these differing theories correspond to $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ respectively. This was argued in  for $`SU(2)_k/O(2)`$. Strikingly, one can also see from the perturbed conformal field theories here that that the different sign affects perturbation theory only at the order $`\lambda ^k`$. Thus as $`k\mathrm{}`$, the different sign does not affect perturbation theory. Its only effects are non-perturbative, just as they must be if the change $`\lambda \lambda `$ is to describe the effects of a $`\theta `$ term.

### 5.2 The particle spectrum

Here I discuss the particle spectrum of the perturbed conformal field theories just defined.

The results for the simplest cases $`k=2`$ are already well known (when $`k=1`$, the models are trivial). The $`SU(N)_2/O(N)_4`$ conformal field theories are known as the $`Z_N`$ parafermion theories; the equivalence to the better known coset description $`SU(N)_1\times SU(N)_1/SU(N)_2`$ was shown in . The perturbation $`𝒪_\sigma `$ of dimension $`2/(N+2)`$ is called the thermal operator here. This is an integrable field theory, with $`S`$ matrices derived in . The spectrum consists of $`N1`$ particles, with mass

$$m_a=m\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{a\pi }{N}\right)$$

This is the same mass spectrum as in the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model and the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models discussed above. The degeneracies are different: there is only one particle of each mass in the parafermion model, while in the other cases, there are multiplets of particles in $`SU(N)`$ representations with highest weights $`\mu _a`$ and $`2\mu _a`$ respectively. The parafermion theory has a $`𝐙_N`$ symmetry, but no $`SU(N)`$ symmetry.

Likewise, the $`O(2P)_2/O(P)_2\times O(P)_2`$ conformal field theories are the $`𝒟_{2P}`$ parafermion theories. Their symmetry group is not $`O(2P)`$, but instead the dihedral group $`𝒟_{2P}`$. The equivalence to the usual formulation $`O(2P)_1\times O(2P)_1/O(2P)_2`$ formulation of these parafermion theories can be shown using the techniques of . These theories have $`c=1`$ for any $`P`$. The perturbation is of dimension $`1/P`$, and so the massive theory corresponds to the sine-Gordon model at $`\beta ^2=8\pi /P`$. This is of course integrable , and in fact corresponds to the “reflectionless” points of sine-Gordon, where the scattering is diagonal. The spectrum consists of $`P`$ particles, of masses

$$m_a=m\mathrm{sin}(a\pi /(2P2))m_{P1}=m_P=\frac{m}{2\mathrm{sin}(\pi /(2P2))}$$

The particles of masses $`P`$ and $`P1`$ are the kink and antikink of the sine-Gordon model. This mass spectrum is the same as that in the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model, and the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma model, but with multiplicity 1 here.

The fact that the mass spectrum of the $`k=2`$ perturbed coset models are the same as the corresponding sigma models is already a strong piece of evidence in support of the conjecture of . The issue now is to find the spectrum and $`S`$ matrices for general $`k`$. For $`N=2`$ and $`P=2`$, the answers are given in , but otherwise these models have not been discussed in the literature. I will solve this problem for all $`k`$.

To understand the particle spectrum in an integrable model, it is crucial to understand the symmetries of the model. For the sigma models, this symmetry algebra is an ordinary Lie algebra $`G`$. I conjecture that the perturbed coset models are invariant under a one-parameter deformation of $`G`$ called the quantum-group algebra $`U_q(G)`$. The particles in the perturbed $`G_k/H_l`$ models form finite-dimensional representations of $`U_q(G)`$, with the parameter $`q=e^{i\pi /(k+h)}`$, where $`h`$ is still the dual Coxeter number. As $`k\mathrm{}`$, $`q1`$ and the algebra reverts to the usual $`G`$ Lie algebra. All known integrable perturbations of coset conformal field theories are proven or believed to be invariant under some such quantum-group algebra. For example, for models where $`G=H\times H`$, this was discussed in detail in . For other models, this was discussed in . For the cases of interest here, the particles in the $`SU(2)_k/O(2)`$ were shown to form a representation of $`U_q(SU(2))`$ in .

To give a concrete example, $`U_q(SU(2))`$ is the algebra

$$[S_z,S_\pm ]=\pm 2S_\pm ,[S_+,S_{}]=\frac{q^{2S_z}q^{2S_z}}{qq^1}$$
(60)
When the parameter $`q=1`$, this reverts to the usual $`SU(2)`$ Lie algebra. A nice physical realization of this algebra is discussed in , where it is shown how when the Heisenberg spin chain is deformed into the XXZ spin chain, the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry is deformed into $`U_q(SU(2))`$. The properties of the representations of $`U_q(G)`$ can be quite different from those of $`G`$ when $`q`$ is a root of unity other than $`1`$ or $`1`$. For example, the right-hand-side of the last equation in (60) vanishes on states with $`2S_z=p`$ when $`q^p=1`$. This means that representations with maximum value of $`2S_z`$ greater than $`p`$ are reducible. In other words, the only irreducible representations have $`|2S_z|<p`$, as opposed to ordinary $`SU(2)`$, where there are irreducible representations with any integer value of $`2S_z`$.

Particles in a representation of a quantum-group algebra are most conveniently treated as restricted kinks . Consider a field $`\varphi `$, with a potential $`V(\varphi )`$ tuned so that there are degenerate minima, which I will sometimes call vacua. Then kinks are field configurations with $`\varphi (x=\mathrm{})`$ one minimum of the potential, $`\varphi (x=\mathrm{})`$ another. The kinks in the perturbed coset models form what are called “restricted solid-on-solid”, or RSOS, representations of the quantum-group algebra. The name comes from the statistical mechanical lattice models in which these representations first arose .

For $`U_q(SU(2))`$, these restricted kinks are easy to describe. They interpolate between the minimum of a potential which has $`k+1`$ minima in a row. For example, the potential $`V(\varphi )=\varphi ^2(\varphi ^21)^2`$ has three minima at $`\varphi =0,\pm 1`$; the potential $`V(\varphi )=(\varphi ^21)^2(\varphi ^29)^2`$ has four vacua in a row. Kinks in these sorts of potentials provide representations of the quantum-group algebra $`U_q(SU(2))`$ with $`q`$ a root of unity. The two-dimensional representations are kinks which interpolate between adjacent vacua. Such representations behave just like ordinary $`SU(2)`$ spin-$`1/2`$ representations. For example, for $`k=2`$, there are three minima labeled $`0,\pm 1`$, and the generators $`S_\pm `$ exchange the states $`\varphi (\mathrm{})=0`$ and $`\varphi (+\mathrm{})=\pm 1`$. To construct the larger representations, one can take the tensor product of smaller representations. The rules are just like that of ordinary $`SU(2)`$: for example, the tensor product of two spin-$`1/2`$ representations decomposes into the sum of a spin-$`1`$ and a spin-$`0`$ representation. The one catch is that for $`q`$ a root of unity, the larger representations are reducible. For $`k=2`$, spin $`0,1/2`$ and $`1`$ are all the irreducible representations. This is clearly apparent from the kink picture, because for $`k=2`$ there are only three vacua: an irreducible spin-$`3/2`$ representation requires four vacua. Moreover, even the allowed kinks are restricted. Restricted means that multi-kink configurations must obey the rules implied by the potential. The number of $`𝒩`$-kink states is much less than the number of one-kink states to the $`𝒩^{\text{th}}`$ power. For $`k=2`$, in fact, there is only one way to construct a multi-particle state from spin-$`1`$ particles: the vacua must alternate between $`+1`$ and $`1`$. The restriction is so strong that the kink structure gives no new degrees of freedom, so it can be viewed as a normal particle.

Perturbed coset models with restricted kinks are already widely known. The $`SU(2)_k\times SU(2)_1/SU(2)_{k+1}`$ minimal models perturbed by $`𝒪_\sigma `$ are integrable. The particles are spin-$`1/2`$ $`U_q(SU(2))`$ kinks, where $`q=e^{i\pi /(k+2)}`$ . There are thus $`k+1`$ vacua here, with the kinks interpolating between adjacent vacua. The $`k=1`$ case corresponds to the thermal perturbation of the Ising model (free Majorana fermions). Since there are only two wells when $`k=1`$, all the kink can do is go back and forth, and one can forget it is a kink. For the case $`SU(2)_k/O(2)`$, the particles are spin-$`1`$ $`U_q(SU(2))`$ kinks . The $`k=2`$ case here also corresponds to the thermal perturbation of the Ising model. In this description, there are three vacua, but the kinks are of spin $`1`$, so again all they can do is go back and forth: there is only one state for a given number of particles.

For general algebras $`U_q(G)`$, the restricted-kink structure is more complicated. The potential is defined so that the minima correspond to the highest-weight states of the quantum-group algebra allowed at that value of $`q`$. For simply-laced algebras, the allowed weights $`_ac_a\mu _a`$ must satisfy $`_ac_ak`$. In this language, for $`U_q(SU(2))`$ with $`q^4=1`$ ($`k=2`$), the three minima correspond to highest weights $`0,\mu _1,2\mu _1`$, where $`\mu _1`$ is the sole fundamental weight of $`SU(2)`$. The kinks form representations of the algebra, so each kink is also labelled by a weight. The rule is then that there can be a kink of representation $`r_a`$ interpolating from the vacuum $`\gamma `$ to the vacuum $`\delta `$ if the corresponding representations obey the tensor product

$$r_ar_\gamma =r_\delta \mathrm{}$$

I said “can be” because it depends on the specifics of a given theory if such a kink actually does appear in the spectrum. There are a number of subtleties with this picture for general groups and representations, but it is not necessary to understand them for this work.

Given a particle spectrum consisting of restricted kinks, the $`S`$ matrix can be found using the Boltzmann weights of the corresponding lattice statistical-mechanical model, which is usually known as the $`R`$ matrix. For models with particles in the fundamental representations, this was discussed in . I emphasize that by corresponding lattice model, I do not mean a lattice model whose continuum limit is described by a field theory with this $`S`$ matrix. I mean that there is some integrable lattice model whose Boltzmann weights are proportional to the $`S`$ matrix. In the corresponding lattice models, the variables which placed on sites of the lattice play the role of the vacua, while the kinks correspond to the states on the links. The rapidity difference in the $`S`$ matrix corresponds to the spectral parameter in the lattice model. The scattering of kinks in representation $`a`$ from one in representation $`b`$ is given by the matrix $`S^{ab}R^{ab}`$ (as before, $`a`$ and $`b`$ are not the matrix indices, but rather label the different matrices). The prefactor is not of interest to the lattice model, since it merely multiplies the partition function by an overall factor. It is of course of great importance to the $`S`$ matrix theory. The $`R`$ matrices for the $`RSOS`$ models are trigonometric solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation. They can be written in the form (5), where the $`f_c^{ab}`$ are trigonometric functions (as opposed to the rational functions appearing in the sigma models). They are given explicitly for the fundamental representations of all the quantum-group algebras $`U_q(G)`$ in , generalizing the $`SU(2)`$ results of . The fusion procedure also can be used to construct the $`R`$ matrices for kinks in the representations $`2\mu _a`$ .

The spectrum of the perturbed coset models is easy to obtain, given the sigma model result. The kinks must be in the same representation of $`U_q(G)`$ as the particles are of $`G`$. For example, for the case $`SU(2)_k/U(1)`$, the kinks are in the spin-$`1`$ representation of $`U_q(SU(2))`$, while the particles in the sigma model are in the spin-$`1`$ representation of $`SU(2)`$. When $`k`$ is finite, the vacua are restricted, but the restriction is removed as $`k\mathrm{}`$: the particles in the sigma model no longer need be viewed as kinks. Similarly, for the massive perturbed $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ and $`O(2P)_k/O(P)_k\times O(P)_k`$ models, the kinks are in all representations $`2\mu _a`$ for $`a=1\mathrm{}N1`$ and $`a=1\mathrm{}P`$ respectively. The vacua are all weights $`_ac_a\mu _a`$ with $`_ac_ak`$.

Note also that the $`H`$ Gross-Neveu model is obtained by taking $`k\mathrm{}`$ in the perturbed coset models $`H_k\times H_1/H_{k+1}`$ .

### 5.3 The free energy of the perturbed coset models

The derivations of the TBA equations for the perturbed coset models requires diagonalizing the transfer matrices formed from the kink $`S`$ matrices. The computation is very similar for those of the sigma models, because the analysis of  applies to the RSOS models.

It is simplest to first discuss the case $`k=2`$, where the perturbed coset models reduce to the well-studied parafermion theories. As explained above, the kink structure is trivial: there is only one particle for each representation $`a=1\mathrm{}N1`$ or $`a=1\mathrm{}P`$. The scattering here is diagonal but non-trivial. The $`S`$ matrix element for scattering a particle of type $`a`$ from one of type $`b`$ for $`SU(N)`$ parafermions is

$$S^{ab}(\beta )=X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )$$

where $`X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$ is defined in (46). For the $`O(2P)`$ parafermions, the $`S`$ matrix elements are $`𝒳_{ab}^{(P)}(\beta )`$, as defined in (47). The TBA equations instantly follow from using these $`S`$ matrices to give the kernels in (15). There are no pseudoparticles because the scattering is diagonal, so the only functions which appear can be labelled $`ϵ_{a,0}`$. Note the distinction with the sphere sigma model, where the only functions which appear are $`ϵ_{1,j}`$ in the present notation. For the $`SU(N)`$ parafermions, the TBA equations are

$$ϵ_{a,0}(\beta )=m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta T\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,0}(\beta )/T}\right)+T\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }A_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta \beta ^{})\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,0}(\beta ^{})/T}\right)$$

where $`A_{ab}^{(N)}`$ is the same kernel which appeared in the Bethe equations above, and is given explicitly in the appendix. This can be simplified greatly by using the fact that $`A`$ and $`K`$ are inverses, giving

$$ϵ_{a,0}(\beta )=T\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}I_{ab}^{(N)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }\frac{N/2}{\mathrm{cosh}[N(\beta \beta ^{})/2]}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,0}(\beta ^{})/T}\right)$$
(61)
where the asymptotic condition $`ϵ_{a,0}m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta `$ as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ is implied. The incidence matrix couples only “adjacent” functions; it is displayed by restricting the diagram in figure 3 or 4 to have only one column. For the $`O(2P)`$ parafermions, the kernel $`A_{ab}^{(N)}`$ is replaced by $`𝒜_{ab}^{(P)}`$ . This results in the TBA equations

$$ϵ_{a,0}(\beta )=T\underset{b=1}{\overset{P}{}}_{ab}^{(P)}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }\frac{P1}{\mathrm{cosh}[(P1)(\beta \beta ^{})]}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,0}(\beta ^{})/T}\right)$$
(62)
Thus the TBA equations for the $`k=2`$ cases amount to those of the corresponding sigma models with all the pseudoparticles removed.

The TBA equations for general $`k`$ are also found by truncating the equations for the corresponding sigma model. The reason is simple to describe schematically. Each irreducible representation of the quantum-group algebra is associated with some transfer matrix. Relations like the fusion relation (21) relate the different transfer matrices. The fact that there are only a finite number of irreducible representations of the quantum-group algebra means that the fusion relations relating all these transfer matrices truncate . In the Bethe ansatz equations, this means that there are only a finite number of pseudoparticles. In the TBA equation, the index $`j`$ in the functions $`ϵ_{a,j}`$ now runs only from $`0\mathrm{}k1`$ in the massive case.

This derivation of the Bethe equations is covered in detail in . For the $`SU(N)`$ case, for example, the Bethe equations for the pseudoparticles are very similar to (36), but are modified to

$$2\pi \rho _{a,j}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(k)}\rho _{a,0}(\beta )\underset{b=1}{\overset{N1}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{k1}{}}A_{jl}^{(k)}K_{ab}^{(N)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{b,l}(\beta )$$
(63)
The equations for the $`O(2P)`$ case are modified in a similar fashion. The $`S`$ matrix prefactor is modified as well; the kernel for the $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ case is given in the appendix.

The result of these modifications is that the TBA equations are truncated. Like the TBA equations (39,43,44,45) they are of the form

$`ϵ_{a,j}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`T{\displaystyle \underset{b=1}{\overset{\text{rank}G}{}}}Q_{ab}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2\mathrm{cosh}[h(\beta \beta ^{})/2]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{b,j}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$ (64)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k1}{}}}R_{jl}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\beta ^{}}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{h}{2\mathrm{cosh}[h(\beta \beta ^{})/2]}}\mathrm{ln}\left(1+e^{ϵ_{a,l}(\beta ^{})}\right)`$
where $`h`$ is the dual Coxeter number for $`G`$, which is $`N`$ for $`SU(N)`$, and $`2P2`$ for $`O(2P)`$. The rank of $`SU(N)`$ is $`N1`$, and the rank of $`O(2P)`$ is $`P`$. The matrices $`Q`$ and $`R`$ are all incidence matrices. For the various models considered here, the results are given in the following table.

| coset model perturbed by $`𝒪_\sigma `$ | $`Q`$ | $`R`$ | behavior when $`k\mathrm{}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`SU(N)_k\times SU(N)_1/SU(N)_{k+1}`$ | $`I^{(N)}`$ | $`I^{(k)}`$ | $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model |
| $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ | $`I^{(N)}`$ | $`^{(k)}`$ | $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma model |
| $`O(2P)_k\times O(2P)_1/O(2P)_{k+1}`$ | $`^{(P)}`$ | $`I^{(k)}`$ | $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu model |
| $`O(2P)_k/O(P)_k\times O(P)_k`$ | $`^{(P)}`$ | $`^{(k)}`$ | $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ sigma model |

In all cases, the usual asymptotic conditions apply. All the TBA equations in this paper are contained in this table. One can check that the central charges resulting from taking the UV limit of the TBA equations are indeed those of the corresponding conformal field theories for any value of $`k`$. This is an enormous check on all the results of this paper.

### 5.4 Flows between coset models

I showed for the sigma models that the TBA equations for $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$ are identical, with the only difference being in the asymptotic conditions. The same behavior should happen for the two signs of $`\lambda `$ in the perturbed coset models (59). The TBA results for the perturbed coset models make it possible to understand the flow when the perturbation is massless. The TBA equations (64) and the table still hold, except that the asymptotic conditions given in section 4 apply here. The sum over $`l`$ now runs from $`L,R,1\mathrm{}k2`$. The IR fixed point can be read off from the equations, as described above for the sigma models. Removing say the left moving particles from the $`SU(N)_k/SO(N)_{2k}`$ perturbation gives the diagram for the $`SU(N)_{k1}\times SU(N)_1/SU(N)_k`$ models. Thus the flow is between the conformal field theories

$$\frac{SU(N)_k}{SO(N)_{2k}}\frac{SU(N)_{k1}\times SU(N)_1}{SU(N)_k}$$

Likewise there is a flow

$$\frac{O(2P)_k}{O(P)_k\times O(P)_k}\frac{O(2P)_{k1}\times O(2P)_1}{O(2P)_k}$$

As far as I know, these flows were previously unknown. When $`k=2`$, there is no flow: the two cosets are already equivalent. By using the equivalences between different coset models derived in , one can described these flows in different ways, if desired. For example, the latter also amounts to a flow

$$\frac{O(k)_P\times O(k)_P}{O(k)_{2P}}\frac{O(2P)_{k1}\times O(2P)_1}{O(2P)_k}.$$

Going backwards, one can read off the spectrum and particles for these massless perturbations. The kinks must be massless, and in all representations $`\mu _a`$, and are either left or right-moving. The vacua correspond to all weights $`_ac_a\mu _a`$ with $`_ac_ak1`$. This shift of $`kk1`$ indicates the quantum-group parameter $`q`$ is different for the massless and massive perturbations, but I do not know the reason for this. In the coset models $`H_k\times H_1/H_{k+1}`$ there are two quantum-group symmetries for both perturbations ; presumably the same thing happens here.

## 6 Conclusion

In this paper I have described how to compute the exact free energy in integrable two-dimensional sigma models. This definitively establishes that when $`\theta =\pi `$, there are non-trivial fixed points for two sets of sigma models. It also yields the exact free energy and susceptibility when $`\theta =0`$ and when $`\theta =\pi `$.

The big open question is if other sigma models are integrable. The grail in particle physics is probably the $`CP^{N1}=SU(N)/SU(N1)\times U(1)`$ models. They have been widely studied because they allow instantons and are tractable in large $`N`$. (The models studied above have a parameter $`N`$ and have instantons, but they are difficult to treat in large $`N`$. The reason is that they are matrix fields: the number of fields at large $`N`$ grows as $`N^2`$, not as $`N`$.) In particular, the $`CP^N`$ models allowed Witten to conclude that instantons were not important in real-world QCD . It would be very interesting to prove Witten’s results directly, instead of relying on large $`N`$.

Virtually all the symmetric-space sigma models have arisen in various condensed-matter applications , but the grail here is the $`U(2N)/U(N)\times U(N)`$ “Grassmanian” model. The reason is that in the replica limit $`N0`$, this is believed to describe the transition between quantum Hall plateaus . This transition is experimentally realized, and good numerical and experimental measurements have been made of critical exponents. These critical exponents should arise in some conformal field theory, but it is still not known which one. Solving the sigma model as a function of $`N`$ would presumably solve this problem.

So why are sigma models integrable? In some sigma models (see e.g. ), one can find non-local conserved currents. Although the existence of non-local currents does not prove integrability, it is a good indicator. Often these non-local currents are often associated with quantum-group or Yangian symmetry algebras. In the $`O(N)/O(N1)`$ models, one can prove the non-local currents of  are the generators of an infinite-dimensional symmetry algebra called the Yangian . This proves the integrability of these sigma models. Unfortunately, this result has not yet been extended to other sigma models.

So are other sigma models integrable? An old result (see e.g. ) suggested that the only integrable symmetric-space $`G/H`$ sigma models are those where $`H`$ is a simple Lie group. The reason is that they found that the non-local conserved currents coming from the classical sigma model (the limit of $`g`$ small) are not conserved once loop corrections are included. This certainly does not prove the model is not integrable, because it is possible that some or all of the classical conserved currents can be modified so that they are conserved in the full theory.

A simple Lie group has only one factor. Thus the symmetric spaces with $`H`$ simple are $`O(N)/O(N1)`$, $`SU(2N)/Sp(2N)`$ and $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$, and the principal chiral models $`H\times H/H`$. All of these models are indeed integrable. However, the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ models are also integrable, but $`H`$ is not simple! Thus the suggestion of  is in not true here. It is not clear whether this is a fluke of this model, or other symmetric-space sigma models are integrable as well. It would be most interesting to construct the non-local conserved currents here explicitly, to understand how they remain conserved even in the full theory. Some interesting results for the classical model were found in , but they await generalization to the quantum case.

The $`S`$ matrices described above are all what are known as rational solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation. This means the $`S`$ matrices are rational functions of the rapidity (except for the prefactor). Yangians are all associated with rational solutions of the Yang-Baxter equation, so the results described above certainly imply that there is a Yangian symmetry in all the integrable sigma models. In fact, this is the reason for the extra particles in the models with $`O(2P)`$ symmetry. The representations of the Yangian of $`O(2P)`$ are larger than that of its subalgebra $`O(2P)`$. The particles at a given mass are in a reducible representation of $`O(2P)`$, but in an irreducible representation of the Yangian. This poses an interesting question: is there any way of telling which representations of the Yangian yield the particles and $`S`$ matrices for an integrable field theory? And if so, what are these theories? Unfortunately, the technology of Yangians does not seem developed enough yet to answer these questions.

The results of  discussed in section 5 do suggest an alternate approach to finding integrability in sigma models. It is much easier to look for conserved currents in perturbed conformal field theory than it is in sigma models. For example, it was noted in  that there are (at least to lowest order in perturbation theory) conserved non-local currents in the $`SU(N)_k/SU(N1)_k\times U(1)`$ coset models perturbed by the operator $`𝒪_\sigma `$. Thus one expect these currents to persist in the $`CP^{N1}`$ sigma model, obtained by taking $`k\mathrm{}`$. Even if these currents do remain in this limit, this does not prove the $`CP^{N1}`$ models are integrable. However, at the very least it would indicate that interesting behavior in the sigma models is still lying yonder.

My work is supported by a DOE OJI Award, a Sloan Foundation Fellowship, and by NSF grant DMR-9802813.

## Appendix A Kernels and identities

### A.1 $`SU(N)`$

One set of kernels I use comes from the prefactors of the $`S`$ matrices. These kernels are defined as

$`A_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )+i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}\mathrm{ln}X_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$
$`Y_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}\mathrm{ln}F_{GN}^{ab}(\beta )`$
$`Z_{ab}^{(N)}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}\mathrm{ln}F^{ab}(\beta )`$
$`\zeta _{ab}^{(N,k)}(\beta )`$ $``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{d}{d\beta }}\mathrm{ln}F^{ab;k}(\beta )`$
These kernels arise in the prefactors of the $`SU(N)`$ parafermion theories, the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu models, the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models, and the $`SU(N)_s/SO(N)_{2s}`$ perturbed coset models, respectively. The reason for the extra factor in the definition of $`A_{ab}^{(N)}`$ will become apparent below. The kernel appearing in vector-vector scattering is defined as $`Y^{(N)}=Y_{11}^{(N)}`$. It is most useful to give the kernels in Fourier space. To make the equations look a little nicer, I define the Fourier transform with normalization

$$\widehat{f}(\omega )=\frac{N}{\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{2\pi }e^{Ni\omega \beta /\pi }f(\beta )$$
(65)
I use this definition of Fourier transformation for any kernel in a model with $`SU(N)`$ symmetry. A fact useful for obtaining the TBA equations in this paper is that if $`\widehat{f}(\omega )=1/\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )`$ then $`f(\beta )=N/(4\pi \mathrm{cosh}(N\beta /2))`$.

For the Gross-Neveu models, by using the $`S`$ matrices in  one finds after some after some manipulation

$$\widehat{Y}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )=\delta _{ab}e^{|\omega |}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}((Na)\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(b\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(N\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(\omega )}$$
(66)
for $`ab`$, with $`Y_{ab}^{(N)}=Y_{ba}^{(N)}`$ To find the kernels $`F^{ab}`$ appearing in the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models requires even more work. Using the results of  for the $`S`$ matrices, I find

$$\widehat{Z}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )=\delta _{ab}e^{|\omega |}\frac{4\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )\mathrm{sinh}((Na)\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(b\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(N\omega )}$$
(67)
Notice how the Fourier transforms are related:

$$\widehat{Z}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}=e^{2\omega }\mathrm{sinh}(2\omega )\left(\widehat{Y}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}\right).$$

This relation is useful in proving various identities. Finally, for the perturbed coset models, one has

$`\zeta _{ab}^{(N,s)}(\omega )=\delta _{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )\mathrm{sinh}((Na)\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(b\omega )\mathrm{sinh}((s1)\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(N\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(s\omega )}}`$
Note that $`Z^{(N)}=\zeta ^{(N,\mathrm{})}`$, in accord with the idea in  that the sigma models can be obtained as the limit of perturbed coset models.

The kernel $`A_{ab}^{(s)}`$ arises in several places. The functions $`X_{ab}^{(N)}`$ are the $`S`$ matrix elements for the $`SU(N)`$ parafermion theories, and appears as part of the prefactor in the Gross-Neveu and $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ sigma models. $`A_{ab}^{(s)}`$ also arises in the Bethe ansatz diagonalization. It is

$$\widehat{A}_{jl}^{(s)}(\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{sinh}((sj)\omega )\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(l\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(s\omega )}$$
(68)
for $`jl`$, with $`A_{lj}^{(s)}A_{jl}^{(s)}`$. Other kernels arising in the Bethe ansatz diagonalization are

$$\widehat{\sigma }_j^{(s)}(\omega )=\frac{\mathrm{sinh}((sj)\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(s\omega )}$$
(69)
in the Gross-Neveu models, and

$$\widehat{\tau }_j^{(s)}(\omega )=\frac{2\mathrm{sinh}((sj)\omega )\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}(s\omega )}\delta _{j1}$$
(70)
in the sigma models. Notice that $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ are related via (40). Naively, this seems to imply $`\widehat{\tau }_j^{(s)}(\omega )=2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )\widehat{\sigma }_j^{(s)}(\omega )`$, but this is not quite true. The $`\delta _{j1}`$ appears in (70) after a careful analysis of the Fourier transforms; note that the correct forms vanish as $`\omega \mathrm{}`$.

The inverses of the matrices $`A_{jl}^{(s)}`$ are very useful. By using the Fourier transforms, it is simple to derive the identity

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{s1}{}}K_{jk}^{(s)}A_{kl}^{(s)}(\beta )=\delta (\beta )\delta _{jl}$$

where

$$\widehat{K}_{jl}^{(s)}(\omega )=\delta _{jl}\frac{I_{jl}^{(s)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}$$
(71)
where $`I_{jl}^{(s)}`$ is the incidence matrix for the algebra $`SU(s)`$, defined in (38). More generally, the incidence matrix for a simply-laced Lie algebra is twice the identity minus the Cartan matrix, and is conveniently pictured by the Dynkin diagram. I denote the incidence matrix for $`SO(2s)`$ as $`^{(s)}`$. Other useful identities are

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{s1}{}}K_{jl}^{(s)}\sigma _l^{(s)}(\beta )=\delta _{j1}\frac{N}{4\pi \mathrm{cosh}(N\beta /2)}$$

and

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{s1}{}}K_{jl}^{(s)}\tau _l^{(s)}(\beta )=\delta _{j2}\frac{N}{4\pi \mathrm{cosh}(N\beta /2)}.$$

Useful identities involving the $`S`$ matrix prefactors are

$$\widehat{Y}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}=\widehat{A}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\left(\frac{\sigma _1^{(\mathrm{})}(\omega )}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}1\right)$$

and

$$\widehat{Z}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}=\widehat{A}_{ab}^{(N)}(\omega )\left(\frac{\tau _2^{(\mathrm{})}(\omega )}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}1\right)$$

The extra $`\delta _{j1}`$ in (70) is crucial to obtaining the right identities.

### A.2 $`O(2P)`$

The $`S`$ matrices and prefactors for the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu models are given in , and those for the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ in . The kernels are defined as $`𝒴_{ab}^{(P)}`$ and $`𝒵_{ab}^{(P)}`$ respectively. The Fourier transform used below is that of (65) with $`N`$ replaced with $`2P2`$.

For $`a,b=1\mathrm{}P2`$, the Gross-Neveu kernels are closely related to the $`SU(2P2)`$ kernels, namely

$`\widehat{𝒴}_{ab}^{(P)}(\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{Y}_{ab}^{(2P2)}(\omega )+\widehat{Y}_{2P2ab}^{(2P2)}(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\delta _{ab}e^{|\omega |}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cosh}((P1a)\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(b\omega )}{\mathrm{cosh}((P1)\omega )\mathrm{sinh}(\omega )}}`$
for $`ab`$, with $`\widehat{𝒴}_{ba}^{(P)}=\widehat{𝒴}_{ab}^{(2P2)}`$. For those involving the spinor representations $`s`$ and $`\overline{s}`$ (the nodes labelled $`P1`$ and $`P`$), the kernels are

$`\widehat{𝒴}_{PP}^{(P)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒴}_{P1P1}^{(P)}=\widehat{𝒴}_{PP1}^{(P)}=1e^{|\omega |}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(P\omega )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(2\omega )\mathrm{cosh}((P1)\omega )}}`$
$`\widehat{𝒴}_{aP}^{(P)}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒴}_{aP1}^{(P)}=e^{|\omega |}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(a\omega )}{2\mathrm{sinh}(\omega )\mathrm{cosh}((P1)\omega )}}`$
where in the latter $`a=1\mathrm{}P2`$.

The result of  for the Bethe equations for $`O(2P2)`$ says that the equation for the eigenvalue (34) and the first Bethe equation (35) are

$$2\pi P_{a,0}(\beta )=m_a\mathrm{cosh}\beta +\underset{b=1}{\overset{P}{}}Y_{ab}^{(P)}\rho _{b,0}(\beta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma _l^{(\mathrm{})}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{a,l}(\beta ).$$
(72)
These are virtually identical to those for $`SU(2P2)`$, with $`Y_{ab}^{(N)}`$ replaced by $`Y_{ab}^{(2P2)}`$. In particular, the kernel $`\sigma ^{(2P2)}`$ is still given by (69). The other Bethe equations are now

$$2\pi \rho _{a,j}(\beta )=\sigma _j^{(\mathrm{})}\rho _{a,0}(\beta )\underset{b=1}{\overset{P}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A_{jl}^{(\mathrm{})}𝒦_{ab}^{(P)}\stackrel{~}{\rho }_{b,l}(\beta )$$
(73)
where

$$\widehat{𝒦}_{jl}^{(s)}(\omega )=\left(\delta _{jl}\frac{_{PjPl}^{(s)}}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}\right)$$
(74)
where $`I_{jl}^{(P)}`$ is the incidence matrix for the algebra $`SO(2P)`$, defined above in (32). The reason for the $`Pj`$ and $`Pl`$ indices is that above it was convenient above to define the spinor nodes as $`0`$ and $`1`$, whereas here I have defined them as $`P`$ and $`P1`$.

The proof of the TBA equations is now basically identical to that done for the $`SU(N)`$ Gross-Neveu model. The reason is that the kernels here satisfy basically the same identities as the $`SU(N)`$ case. Namely, one can define the matrix inverse $`𝒜`$ of $`𝒦`$, just like $`A`$ is the inverse of $`K`$. One finds that

$$i\frac{d}{d\beta }\mathrm{ln}𝒳^{ab}(\beta )=\delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )𝒜_{ab}^{(P)}(\beta )$$

Then

$$\widehat{𝒴}_{ab}^{(P)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}=\widehat{𝒜}_{ab}^{(P)}(\omega )\left(\frac{\widehat{\sigma }_1^{(\mathrm{})}(\omega )}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}1\right)$$

Using this and the identities in the first appendix gives the $`O(2P)`$ Gross-Neveu TBA equations in (44).

For the $`O(2P)/O(P)\times O(P)`$ models, the proof is the same as for the $`SU(N)/SO(N)`$ models. The only new identity needed is

$$\widehat{𝒵}_{ab}^{(P)}(\omega )\delta _{ab}=\widehat{𝒜}_{ab}^{(P)}(\omega )\left(\frac{\widehat{\tau }_2^{(\mathrm{})}(\omega )}{2\mathrm{cosh}(\omega )}1\right)$$

From the prefactor given in , it follows that this identity holds for $`a=b=1`$. However, I have not been able to prove it in general. The reason is that the $`S`$ matrices for particles in the representations $`2\mu _s`$ and $`2\mu _{\overline{s}}`$ are not known explicitly, so it has not been possible to work out the prefactors involving these particles. However, I have checked that if they obey the above identity, then they are consistent with the massive TBA. By consistent, I mean that the TBA equations are the same as in the massive case with only different asymptotic conditions, so that the perturbative expansion of the free energy is the same for $`\theta =0`$ and $`\theta =\pi `$. I have also checked this consistency for the energy at zero temperature in a magnetic field, extending the analysis of  to the particles in representations $`\mu _s`$ for the massless case and $`2\mu _s`$ in the massive case.

As a tangential note, the $`O(2P)/O(2P1)`$ sigma models are integrable as well . Their spectrum consists of a single multiplet of $`2P`$ particles in the vector representation, with no bound states. The TBA equations are very similar , but $`a`$ in $`\rho _{a0}`$ can only be $`1`$. The other $`ϵ_{aj}`$ still have $`a=1\mathrm{}P`$. Because there are no bound states, the prefactor $`^{11}`$ is not the same is in the Gross-Neveu models: $`𝒳(\beta )`$ needs to be removed from the prefactor . The kernel appearing in the TBA equations is therefore $`𝒴_{11}^{(2P)}(\beta )\delta _{ab}\delta (\beta )+𝒜_{11}^{(2P)}(\beta )`$. Using this with the above Bethe equations gives the TBA equations given in .