format: text

text:
# Weak and strong dynamic scaling in a one-dimensional driven coupled-field model: Effects of kinematic waves

## I Introduction

### A Background

Spatial and temporal correlations in spatially extended systems with a conservation law or a continuous invariance are widely observed to satisfy a scaling or homogeneity property. For instance, if the system is described by a single scalar field $`\varphi (x,t)`$, the correlation function $`C(x,t)\varphi (0,0)\varphi (x,t)`$ satisfies

$$C(x,t)b^{2\chi }C(bx,b^zt).$$
(1)
under rescaling of space by a factor $`b`$. Here $`z`$ is the dynamic exponent while $`\chi `$ describes the spatial scaling of the field. Equation (1) holds in the rest frame of the $`\varphi `$-fluctuations, so that if the system has wavelike excitations, e.g., kinematic waves  of moving $`\varphi `$-fluctuations, it is necessary to perform a Galilean shift to co-move with the wave. The exponent $`z`$ then describes the dissipation of the fluctuation wave, with a fluctuation of spatial extent $`\mathrm{\Delta }x`$ having a lifetime proportional to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }x)^z`$.

Now consider the scaling properties of systems with several coupled fields, say $`\{\varphi _\alpha ,\alpha =1\mathrm{to}N\}`$, whose dynamical evolution involves inter-field couplings both at the linear and nonlinear levels which result in propagating kinematic waves. At the linear level, the problem requires diagonalizing the matrix of couplings. The eigenvectors $`\psi _\mu `$ involve linear combinations of the $`\varphi _\alpha `$ and represent modes that propagate as independent kinematic waves. The real and imaginary parts of the eigenvalues $`c_\mu `$ encode respectively the speeds and dampings of the corresponding kinematic waves, and in general, differ from one wave to another. By performing a Galilean shift with speed $`c_\mu `$, one may move to the rest frame of mode $`\mu `$; kinematic waves corresponding to other modes are not stationary in this frame, however, and these moving modes also contribute to the dissipation of mode $`\mu `$ as they are coupled nonlinearly to it. The correlation function $`C_\mu (x,t)\psi _\mu (0,0)\psi _\mu (x,t)`$ is expected to satisfy

$$C_\mu (x,t)b^{2\chi _\mu }C(bx,b^{z_\mu }t).$$
(2)
where $`\chi _\mu `$ characterizes the spatial scaling of mode $`\mu `$ and $`z_\mu `$ is the corresponding dynamic exponent.

The question arises: Is there a single common value $`z`$ which characterizes the decay of all the modes $`\mu `$? When the answer is yes, as in fact it generally is, we say that the system obeys strong dynamic scaling. Considerable interest therefore attaches to exceptions to this general rule. Accordingly, one would like to characterize the conditions for the occurrence of weak dynamic scaling, when at least one $`z_\mu `$ is different from the rest. A priori, there are two sets of circumstances when weak dynamic scaling may be expected:

(i) If the transformation from $`\varphi _\alpha `$ to $`\psi _\mu `$, which is designed to decouple modes at the linear level, actually succeeeds in decoupling them for the full nonlinear problem, then evidently each mode evolves autonomously and independent $`z_\mu `$’s may arise. In fact, a complete decoupling at the nonlinear level does occur in the context of a reduced model of magnetohydrodynamic turbulence , and may well arise in other problems as well. In the MHD case, however, it turns out that both modes obey evolution equations with similar (autonomous) nonlinearites, so that a common value of $`z`$ ensues. But this need not be the case for other problems.

(ii) Consider a situation in which the evolution of a subset of the fields, say $`\{u_\beta \}`$, does not involve the others $`\{u_\alpha \}`$ , while the evolution of the set $`\{u_\alpha \}`$ does involve $`\{u_\beta \}`$. In this case, $`z_\beta `$ and $`z_\alpha `$ may take on distinct values. Indeed, this is borne out by numerical studies of two-field dynamics  which show that weak scaling occurs if the evolution is autonomuous in one of the two fields, or very nearly so, in which case strong crossover effects may be expected.

One of the principal results of this paper, which we present below, is a third possible scenario for weak dynamical scaling, where neither field is autonomous.

### B Results

In this paper we examine weak and strong dynamical scaling in a system with two coupled fields, which result in two coupled kinematic waves characterized by mode coordinates $`\psi _1`$ and $`\psi _2`$ respectively. We work both with a lattice model involving two sets of spins, and with the corresponding continuum equations involving two coupled scalar fields. The analysis of the lattice model is facilitated by showing that along certain representative loci in parameter space, the steady state has product measure form. This allows the current to be found, and a continuum expansion to be made, with coefficients that explicitly involve the parameters and mean occupations of the lattice model. This enables us to make direct comparisons between the results of numerical simulations of the lattice model and analytical self-consistent calculations for the continuum equations.

Our most interesting result is the identification of a third set of circumstances, beyond (i) and (ii) mentioned in Section I A, in which weak dynamic scaling results, despite each mode being nonlinearly coupled to the other. This involves symmetry properties of the kinematic waves: we find weak dynamic scaling if we choose model parameters so that the evolution equations are invariant under inversion of the second mode coordinate $`(\psi _2\psi _2)`$ but not under $`\psi _1\psi _1`$. In that case our numerical simulations show that $`z_1=3/2`$, while $`z_2=2`$ with multiplicative logarithmic corrections. We also study the problem within a self-consistent mode coupling calculation which shows that the different dynamic exponents arise in a rather interesting way: the linearized version of the problem has $`z=2`$ for both fields. The scattering of $`\psi _1`$ by fluctuations in $`\psi _2`$ and vice versa gives rise to singular corrections to the diffusivity for $`\psi _1`$, leading to $`z_1=3/2`$. The fluctuations, however, cause no singular correction to the relaxation of $`\psi _2`$, leaving $`z_2=2`$. For most other parameter values, however, we find the more common strong dynamic scaling with $`z_1=z_2=3/2`$.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section II, we review briefly the continuum stochastic dynamical equations of Ref.. In section III we present the lattice model, and show how the condition of pairwise balance can be used to find the exact steady state if the transition rates satisfy a certain relation. We characterize changes of the symmetry of the evolution equations as overall densities are varied, and report the results of extensive numerical simulations which show that the values of the dynamic exponents depend strongly on these symmetries. In particular, we present evidence for weak dynamic scaling when the two kinematic waves have different symmetries. In section V we describe analytical methods, primarily a one-loop self-consistent treatment of the continuum stochastic PDEs, for calculating the exponents in the weak dynamic scaling regime. We also outline a dynamic renormalization group procedure for this regime, discuss the difficulties that arise therein, and remind the reader how strong dynamic scaling is restored for generic values of the parameters in the model. We close in Section VI with a summary.

## II Continuum stochastic PDEs for drifting crystals

We review very briefly here the construction of our model equations of motion; details may be found in . The physical system which inspired the initial work on the model was a lattice drifting through a dissipative medium. There are at least two examples of this: (i) steadily sedimenting colloidal crystals and (ii) a flux lattice driven, by the action of the Lorentz force of an imposed supercurrent, through a type II superconductor. If inertia is ignored, the equation of motion of the displacement field $`𝐮(𝐫,t)`$ is of the form velocity = mobility $`\times `$ force, i.e.,

$$\dot{𝐮}=\text{M}(𝐮)(\text{D}𝐮+𝐅)+\zeta ,$$
(3)
where the mobility tensor M is allowed to depend on the lattice distortion $`𝐮`$, the tensor D represents elastic forces, $`𝐅`$ is the driving force, and $`\zeta `$ a suitable noise source. Our results are for a highly simplified model with the same physics as in (3). This model, constructed and studied in , describes the coupled dynamics of two fields $`u_x`$ and $`u_z`$ (the displacements transverse to and along the drift direction respectively), as a function of one coordinate $`x`$ transverse to the drift direction $`\widehat{𝐳}`$. The equations of motion are

$$\dot{u_x}=\lambda _{12}_xu_z+\gamma _1_xu_x_xu_z+D_1_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u_x+f_x,$$
(4)
$$\dot{u_z}=\lambda _{21}_xu_x+\gamma _2(_xu_x)^2+\gamma _3(_xu_z)^2+D_2_{x}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}u_z+f_z,$$
(5)
where $`f_x`$ and $`f_z`$ are zero-mean, Gaussian, spatiotemporally white noise sources. The equations are invariant under the joint operations $`xx,u_xu_x`$. For $`\lambda _{12}=\lambda _{21}=0`$, (4) and (5) reduce to the Ertaş-Kardar  equations for drifting polymers with the larger symmetry $`xx`$ (with or without $`u_xu_x`$). The system can distinguish between up and down: there is no invariance under inversion of $`u_z`$. The terms in (4) and (5) involving first spatial derivatives have the following interpretation: a tilt ($`_xu_z`$) produces a lateral drift (at a rate which depends on the density perturbations $`_xu_x`$), while the vertical speed depends both on compressions or dilations ($`_xu_x`$), as well as tilts ($`_xu_z`$). In this paper we shall consider only the case $`\lambda _{12}\lambda _{21}>0`$ in which case the dispersion relation

$$\omega =\pm \sqrt{\lambda _{12}\lambda _{21}}qiDq^2.$$
(6)
holds for the linearized version of (4) and (5) and predicts travelling waves at small wavenumber $`q`$. The linearly unstable case $`\lambda _{12}\lambda _{21}<0`$ has been discussed extensively elsewhere . The mode coordinates corresponding to (6) are given by

$$\psi _{1,2}\sqrt{c}u_x\pm \sqrt{b}u_z$$
(7)
As discussed in , the long-time, large-lengthscale behaviour of the PDEs (4) and (5) are expected to be the same as those of a particular two-species Ising-Kawasaki model in which the jump rate of each species depends on the local density of the other. We turn next to this discrete model and its dynamics.

## III The lattice model

The lattice model is defined in terms of two sets of variables $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ and $`\{\tau _{i\frac{1}{2}}\}`$ which reside on two interpenetrating sublattices with periodic boundary conditions; the former set occupies the integer sites and the latter the half-integer mid-bond locations of a one-dimensional lattice with $`L`$ sites. Each $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\tau _{i\frac{1}{2}}`$ is an Ising variable taking on values $`\pm 1`$. They represent discrete versions of the density and tilt fields in the sedimentation problem: If $`\sigma _i`$ is $`1`$, there is a particle ($`+`$) at site $`i`$, and if $`\sigma _i=1`$, there is no particle ($``$). The variable $`\tau _{i\frac{1}{2}}=1`$ and $`1`$, implies two values $`/`$ and $`\backslash `$ of the local tilt respectively. A typical configuration of the full system is thus $`+\backslash //+\backslash /+/+/+\backslash `$.

Both sets of variables are conserved, i.e. $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\tau _{i\frac{1}{2}}`$ and the associated densities $`\rho _1^o=(1+\sigma _i)/2L`$ and $`\rho _2^o=(1+\tau _{i\frac{1}{2}})/2L`$ are constant. We consider a $`\tau `$-dependent local field which guides the $`\sigma `$-current and vice versa. Thus, for instance, the Kawasaki exchange dynamics of the adjacent spins $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\sigma _{i+1}`$ occurs at a rate which depends on $`\tau _{i+\frac{1}{2}}`$. The moves and the corresponding rates are depicted below:

$`\left(1\right)`$ $`+\backslash \backslash +`$ $`r_1`$ (8)
$`\left(2\right)`$ $`\backslash ++\backslash `$ $`r_2`$ (9)
$`\left(3\right)`$ $`/++/`$ $`r_1`$ (10)
$`\left(4\right)`$ $`+//+`$ $`r_2`$ (11)
$`\left(5\right)`$ $`/\backslash \backslash /`$ $`p_2`$ (12)
$`\left(6\right)`$ $`\backslash //\backslash `$ $`p_1`$ (13)
$`\left(7\right)`$ $`\backslash +//+\backslash `$ $`p_2`$ (14)
$`\left(8\right)`$ $`/+\backslash \backslash +/`$ $`p_1`$ (15)
The macroscopic behaviour of the model is determined by the relative values of the rates; a brief review of the phases and their characteristics appears in . There are two distinct regimes separated by a nonequilibrium phase boundary as depicted in Fig. 1. The regime $`p_1>p_2`$, marked SPS in Fig. 1 was explored in detail in . In this phase, the system undergoes spontaneous phase separation of a particularly strong sort. Along the boundary $`p_1=p_2`$, marked FDPO in Fig. 1, the system undergoes fluctuation-dominated phase ordering of a delicate sort, as discussed in . Finally, in the phase of the model with $`p_1<p_2`$, marked KW in Fig. 1, there is no phase separation, and fluctuations are transported by kinematic waves. This is the regime of interest in this paper.

### A Exact results for the steady state

The steady state can be found exactly provided that $`r_1=p_2`$ and $`r_2=p_1`$ (along the line marked Pairwise Balance in Fig. 1). To this end, let us choose new symbols to denote the values of the variables $`\sigma `$ and $`\tau `$: use $`1`$ if a site or bond is occupied by a $`+`$ or $`/`$, and use $`0`$ for $``$ or $`\backslash `$. Then the moves (1)-(8) listed above reduce to moves $`(a),(b),(\overline{a}),(\overline{b})`$ as follows:

$$(1),(5)(a):100001p_2$$
(16)
$$(3),(7)(b):011110p_2$$
(17)
$$(2),(6)(\overline{a}):001100p_1$$
(18)
$$(4),(8)(\overline{b}):110011p_1$$
(19)
The use of the new symbols $`1`$ and $`0`$ explicitly brings out the fact that the dynamical moves on the two sublattices are alike for the choice of these special relations between the rates. This is crucial for further analysis.

In this new representation, a configuration $`C`$ is specified by the occupations of all sites. The time evolution of the probability $`P(C)`$ of the occurrence of $`C`$ is given by the master equation

$$\frac{dP(C)}{dt}=\underset{C^{}}{}W(C^{}C)P(C^{})W(CC^{})P(C)$$
(20)
where the transition rates $`W(CC^{})`$ are given by $`p_2`$ and $`p_1`$ for changes of configurations involving moves $`(a)`$ or $`(b)`$, and $`(\overline{a})`$ or $`(\overline{b})`$ respectively.

The dynamics preserves the sublattice densities $`\rho _1^o`$ and $`\rho _2^o`$. Within the subspace labelled by $`(\rho _1^o,\rho _2^o)`$, one can see that the system is ergodic by noting that the dynamics induces a leftward drift of a pairs $`00`$ and $`11`$ with rate $`p_2`$, and a rightward drift of such pairs with rate $`p_1`$. By successive application of moves (a), (b) in Eqs. (16), (17) and their reverses, any configuration $`C`$ in the subspace can be taken to a ‘standard configuration’ $`C_o`$ in which all $`1`$’s and all $`0`$’s are clustered together. Since the lattice is periodic, the $`11`$ and $`00`$ pairs can be shifted to any other configuration $`C^{}`$ from $`C_o`$. Thus any configuration $`C`$ can be taken to any configuration $`C^{}`$ via $`C_o`$.

In steady state the right hand side of (20) must vanish. A sufficient condition for this is that fluxes balance in pairs, i.e. for every flux out of a configuration $`C`$ to a configuration $`C^{^{}}`$, there should be an incoming flux from another uniquely determined configuration $`C^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ into $`C`$. This is the condition of pairwise balance :

$$W(C^{^{\prime \prime }}C)P(C^{^{\prime \prime }})=W(CC^{^{}})P(C)$$
(21)
which is a generalization of the well known condition of detailed balance .

For our problem, $`C^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ may be constructed as follows. Let us denote the configuration $`C`$ symbolically as $`1^{m_1}0^{m_2}1^{m_3}0^{m_4}1^{m_5}\mathrm{}0^{m_k}`$, where there is a cluster of $`1`$’s of size $`m_1`$, followed by $`0`$’s of length $`m_2`$, and so on, with a total of $`k`$ such clusters. Consider a transition to a configuration $`C^{^{}}1^{m_1}0^{m_21}1^201^{m_32}0^{m_4}1^{m_5}\mathrm{}0^{m_k}`$ (a pair of $`11`$’s jump to the left, i.e. move ($`b`$)). One can always find a unique configuration e.g. $`C^{^{\prime \prime }}1^{m_1}0^{m_2}1^{m_32}01^20^{m_41}1^{m_5}\mathrm{}0^{m_k}`$ which gives rise to $`C`$ (via move ($`b`$)). If the outgoing transition involves a rearrangement at the left edge of a cluster, the incoming transition involves a rearrangement at the right edge of the same cluster. Such an identification is possible also for transitions involving moves ($`a`$), ($`\overline{a}`$) and ($`\overline{b}`$), and ensures that $`W(C^{^{\prime \prime }}C)=W(CC^{^{}})`$. Thus Eq.(21) is satisfied provided the steady state probabilities obey

$$P(C)=P(C^{^{\prime \prime }})=constant.$$
(22)
This means that in steady state, every allowed configuration is equally likely. The constant appearing in Eq. (22) can be found on using the normalization condition $`P(C)=1`$. If $`N_1\rho _1^oL`$ and $`N_2\rho _2^oL`$ are the number of particles on the two sublattices, the total number of configurations in sector $`(\rho _1^o,\rho _2^o)`$ is $`𝒩=(^LC_{N_1})(^LC_{N_2})`$, where $`{}_{}{}^{N}C_{M}^{}`$ is the number of ways of choosing $`M`$ out of a total of $`N`$ objects, and hence $`P(C)=1/𝒩`$.

In the thermodynamic limit $`L`$, $`N_1`$, and $`N_2`$ $`\mathrm{}`$, with $`\rho _1^o`$, $`\rho _2^o`$ held constant, $`P(C)`$ approaches the product measure form

$$\underset{i}{}p(\sigma _i)p(\tau _{i+\frac{1}{2}})=\rho _{1}^{o}{}_{}{}^{N_1}(1\rho _1^o)^{LN_1}\rho _{2}^{o}{}_{}{}^{N_2}(1\rho _2^o)^{LN_2}$$
(23)
This form of the steady state holds also for a higher-dimensional generalization of the model involving rules (a) and (b) and their reverses along the sites and bonds in the $`d`$ directions of a simple cubic lattice.

The product measure weight in the steady state implies that correlation functions on different sites decouple. This then allows the current of $`\sigma `$ particles

$$J_1=(p_2p_1)\frac{(1+\sigma _i)}{2}\frac{(1\sigma _{i+1})}{2}\frac{(1\tau _{i+\frac{1}{2}})}{2}+(p_2p_1)\frac{(1+\sigma _{i+1})}{2}\frac{(1\sigma _i)}{2}\frac{(1+\tau _{i+\frac{1}{2}})}{2}$$
(24)
to be found explicitly,

$$J_1=(p_2p_1)\rho _1(1\rho _1)(12\rho _2)$$
(25)
The first term in Eq. (24) comes from a particle hopping between sites $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ in the absence of a particle at site $`i+\frac{1}{2}`$ while the second is for hopping in the presence of a particle on the site in between. A similar expression holds for the $`\tau `$-current $`J_2`$,

$$J_2=(p_2p_1)\rho _2(1\rho _2)(12\rho _1).$$
(26)
The product measure form also allows us to find the roughness exponent of an associated height model, where the height fields associated with $`\{\sigma _i\}`$ and $`\{\tau _i\}`$ are respectively $`h_{1i}=_{k=1}^i(\sigma _k\sigma _k)`$ and $`h_{2i}=_{k=1}^i(\tau _k\tau _k)`$. Fluctuations of the height field are characterized by the root-mean-square height difference $`G_1(r)=\sqrt{(h_{1i+r}h_{1i})^2}`$, with $`G_2(r)`$ defined similarly in terms of $`\{h_{2i}\}`$. Using the fact that $`\sigma _0\sigma _k=\sigma _0\sigma _k`$ for $`k0`$ and $`1`$ for $`k=0`$, we find $`G_1(r)=G_2(r)r^{1/2}`$. Thus the roughness exponent $`\chi `$ defined by the growth of the root-mean-squared height fluctuations is

$$\chi =1/2$$
(27)
for both height fields. Evidently, this value will also characterize fluctuations of linear combinations of the height fields $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$, which arise when we deal with mode coordinate fields in the next section.

We close this section with numerical results for correlation functions away from the pairwise balance (PB) locus. We set $`r_2=p_1=0`$, and investigate what happens if we move away from the PB locus $`r_1=p_2`$. We studied the spatial correlation function $`C(r)=\sigma _i\sigma _{i+r}\sigma _i\sigma _{i+r}`$ by Monte-Carlo simulation, and show our results for different values of $`r_1`$ and $`p_2`$ in Fig. 2. As expected, for the PB case $`r_1=p_2=1`$ (empty triangles in Fig. 2), the correlation length is zero. Away from PB, with $`r_1=1/3`$ and $`p_2=1`$, the three curves for $`C_{11}`$, $`C_{22}`$ and $`C_{12}`$ representing respectively the intra-sublattice correlation functions for sublattices 1 and 2 and the inter-sublattice correlation function all decay differently, but with a finite correlation length. (Fig. 2). This shows that although product measure does not hold away from the pairwise balance locus $`r_1=p_2`$, correlations are short-ranged so that the behaviour on large length and time scales is expected to be similar to that in the pairwise balance case.

### B Continuum equations and kinematic waves

The expressions (25) and (26) for the current help us to construct approximate continuum equations for the evolution of the density fluctuation fields. The starting point is the pair of continuity equations

$$\frac{\rho _m}{t}=\frac{}{x}J_m(\rho _1,\rho _2)m=1,2$$
(28)
where $`\rho _1(x,t)`$ and $`\rho _2(x,t)`$ are coarse-grained densities at a mesoscopic scale and $`J_1(x,t)`$ and $`J_2(x,t)`$ are the corresponding currents. Each of these currents is written as the sum of three parts,

$$J_m=J_m^{systematic}+J_m^{diffusive}+\eta _m.$$
(29)
The systematic contributions $`J_m^{systematic}`$ at the mesoscopic scale are assumed to be given by the expressions (25) and (26) for the currents in an infinite system. The diffusive part $`J_m^{diffusive}`$ arises from local density inhomogeneities and is taken to be $`D_m\frac{\rho _m}{x}`$. Finally $`\eta _m`$ is a noise term added to mimic stochasticity at the mesoscopic level; we consider uncorrelated white noise with $`\eta _m=0`$ and $`\eta _m(x,t)\eta _m(x^{},t^{})=\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta (xx^{})\delta (tt^{})`$. These continuum equations have the same symmetries as the lattice model and hence would be expected to exhibit the same behaviour on large length and time scales.

Writing $`\rho _1=\rho _1^o+\stackrel{~}{\rho _1}`$, and $`\rho _2=\rho _2^o+\stackrel{~}{\rho _2}`$ (where $`\rho ^o`$’s are fixed average densities and $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$’s are fluctuations) and using Eqs. (24), (26), 28 and 29, one can write down coupled equations governing the evolution of $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$’s. We write these in terms of the height functions $`h_1=^x\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(x^{^{}},t)𝑑x^{^{}}`$ and $`h_2=^x\stackrel{~}{\rho }_2(x^{^{}},t)𝑑x^{^{}}`$, the continuum analogs of the discrete functions $`h_{1i}`$ and $`h_{2i}`$ defined in the previous section. We find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o)(12\rho _2^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}}+2r^{^{}}\rho _1^o(1\rho _1^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}}+D_1{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_1}{x^2}}`$ (30)
$`+`$ $`2r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}}+r^{^{}}(12\rho _2^o)({\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}})^22r^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}})+\eta _1(x,t)`$ (31)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o)(12\rho _2^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}}+2r^{^{}}\rho _2^o(1\rho _2^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}}+D_2{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_2}{x^2}}`$ (32)
$`+`$ $`2r^{^{}}(12\rho _2^o){\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}}+r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o)({\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}})^22r^{^{}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_2}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_1}{x}})+\eta _2(x,t)`$ (33)
where $`r^{}=(r_1r_2)`$.

Let us define $`a=r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o)(12\rho _2^o)`$, $`b=r^{^{}}\rho _1^o(1\rho _1^o)`$, $`c=r^{^{}}\rho _2^o(1\rho _2^o)`$, $`\kappa _1=r^{^{}}(12\rho _1^o)`$, and $`\kappa _2=r^{^{}}(12\rho _2^o)`$. It is apparent that by taking linear combinations one can construct eigenmode fields $`h_\pm =\sqrt{c}h_1\pm \sqrt{b}h_2`$ which decouple at the linear level. These fields describe wave-like modes  travelling with speeds $`c_\pm =a\pm 2\sqrt{bc}`$. The time evolutions of these fields $`h_\pm `$ are governed by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_+{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_+}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}})({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}}){\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}`$ (34)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}})({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _+(x,t);`$ (35)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{}}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}})({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2+({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}}){\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}`$ (36)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _1}{\sqrt{b}}})({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _{}(x,t).`$ (37)
The new noise terms $`\eta _\pm =\sqrt{c}\eta _1\pm \sqrt{b}\eta _2`$, are also delta-correlated. We have assumed $`D_1=D_2=D`$, though this may not be preserved in the effective long wavelength equations. The fields $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$ are coupled at the nonlinear level, so that each wave influences the dissipation of fluctuations of the other. We consider the dissipation properties of the waves in the next section for different sublattice filling fractions $`\rho _1^o`$ and $`\rho _2^o`$ of the sublattices.

## IV Dissipation of the waves and dynamical exponents

If it happens that some of the coefficients of (37) vanish for certain choices of densities $`\rho _1^o`$ and $`\rho _2^o`$, the evolution equations have special symmetries and this can have important implications for the long-time dynamics. As discussed below, there are three different symmetries which arise in the coupled field problem, each corresponding to a different set of dynamical exponents. The dynamical exponents associated with the wave modes, may differ. We have considered three special pairs of densities $`(\rho _1^o,\rho _2^o)`$ corresponding to three different symmetries.

### A Symmetries of the equations:

To facilitate subsequent discussions let us first consider the case of a single field $`h`$, and list four different symmetries  for its evolution.

(a) $`RI`$ symmetry: Invariance under up-down Reflection ($`R`$) symmetry $`hh`$ and under Inversion ($`I`$) of space $`xx`$.

(b) $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry: Invariance under $`hh`$ and not under $`xx`$.

(c) $`\overline{R}I`$ symmetry: Invariance under $`xx`$ and not under $`hh`$.

(d) $`\overline{R}\overline{I}`$ symmetry: Invariance neither under $`xx`$, nor under $`hh`$.

Since $`\frac{h}{t}`$ is odd an equation of motion which contains only terms odd in $`h`$ will be said to have $`R`$ inversion symmetry, any term that is even in $`h`$ will be said to break $`R`$ symmtery. Accordingly: A term like $`\frac{^2h}{x^2}`$ obeys $`RI`$ symmetry. Terms like $`(\frac{h}{x})`$ and $`(\frac{h}{x})^3`$ obey $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry. The $`\overline{R}I`$ symmetry is respected by the term $`(\frac{h}{x})^2`$, while a term like $`(\frac{h}{x})`$ added to it breaks that and gives rise to $`\overline{R}\overline{I}`$ symmetry.

To illustrate the occurrence of different types of symmetries in our coupled-field problem, we consider three special pairs of densities ($`\rho _1^o`$,$`\rho _2^o`$).

(I) For $`\underset{¯}{\rho _1^o=\rho _2^o=\frac{1}{2}}`$, (37) reduces to a pair of coupled equations, with linear and first and second derivative terms and cubic gradient nonlinearities:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_+}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _+(x,t);`$ (38)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{}}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _{}(x,t).`$ (39)
These equations describe two kinematic waves moving with speed $`c_+=r^{^{}}/2`$ and $`c_{}=r^{^{}}/2`$. The nonlinear couplings imply that each wave influences the evolution of the other. In order to study the dissipation of say the $`+`$mode, it is essential to move to the frame which co-moves with it. This is accomplished by a Galilean shift $`xx+c_+t`$, and $`tt`$. In this frame, the evolution equations become:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_+}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _+(x,t);`$ (40)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`4\sqrt{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{}}{x^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _{}(x,t).`$ (41)
Evidently, in this frame, the $``$mode has a speed $`c_{}c_+=4\sqrt{bc}`$. The pair of Eqs. (41) are invariant under $`h_+h_+`$, $`h_{}h_{}`$ but not $`xx`$, because of the linear $`\frac{h_{}}{x}`$ and cubic nonlinear terms. The $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry holds in the rest frame of $`h_+`$ mode.

Similarly the dissipation of the $``$mode can be studied by going to a frame which co-moves with the $``$mode. It is easily seen that $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry holds in this frame as well.

Let us recall what happens when $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry holds in the case of a single field $`h`$. In the Edwards-Wilkinson (EW) equation , the presence of an additional cubic term like $`(\frac{h}{x})^3`$ reduces the $`RI`$ symmetry to $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry. About the linear fixed point (with $`\chi =1/2`$), the cubic term has the same naïve scaling dimension as $`(\frac{^2h}{x^2})`$ — both scale as $`b^{3/2}`$ when $`xbx`$ and $`hb^\chi h`$. Such a marginal cubic term is known  to introduce logarithmic factors in the behaviour of the height-height correlation functions. Using mode-coupling  and dynamical renormalization group  calculations, it was found that the correlation function $`F(t)=\sqrt{[h(x,t)h(x,0)]^2}`$ grows as $`t^{1/4}(log(t))^{1/8}`$. Recalling that $`F(t)t^\beta `$ with $`\beta =\chi /z`$, we see that despite the lack of $`I`$ symmetry, the critical exponents $`\beta `$ and $`z`$ do not change from their EW values $`1/4`$ and $`2`$, respectively.

In our case with two coupled fields, the cubic gradient terms again have the same naïve scaling dimension as the linear second order term, but they are more complicated than just $`(\frac{h}{x})^3`$. We might guess nevertheless due to the symmetry that each of the $`+`$ and $``$modes have $`z=2`$. We will present numerical evidence in section 5.2, which confirms this and shows that there are similar multiplicative logarithmic factors.

(II) For $`\rho _1^o=1/2`$ and $`\rho _2^o1/2`$, the equations for the mode fields reduce to:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_+}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}`$ (42)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _+(x,t);`$ (43)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`2\sqrt{bc}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{}}{x^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}`$ (44)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _{}(x,t).`$ (45)
Going to either of the frames in which the $`+`$mode or the $``$ mode are at rest, we see that with the cubic nonlinearities the $`\overline{R}\overline{I}`$ symmetry applies for each of the fields; $`R`$ symmetry is broken by by quadratic nonlinear terms, and $`I`$ is broken because of linear first order and cubic terms. The most relevant terms at the linear fixed point are the quadratic nonlinear terms. Thus we would expect that these terms would govern the dissipation and give rise to the Kardar-Parisi-Zhang (KPZ) value $`z=3/2`$  for both the modes.

(III) For $`\underset{¯}{\rho _1^o=\rho _2^o1/2}`$, we have $`\kappa _1=\kappa _2`$ and $`c=b`$, and the following pair of equations hold:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_+{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_+}{x^2}}+3{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2`$ (46)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _+(x,t);`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`c_{}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}+D{\displaystyle \frac{^2h_{}}{x^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _2}{\sqrt{c}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}}`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{bc}}}({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})\left[({\displaystyle \frac{h_+}{x}})^2({\displaystyle \frac{h_{}}{x}})^2\right]+\eta _{}(x,t).`$ (49)
Here, an interesting situation arises. In the co-moving frame of the $``$mode, the pair of equations are invariant under $`h_{}h_{}`$ and $`h_+h_+`$ but not under $`xx`$. Thus the $`h_{}`$ field has $`R\overline{I}`$ symmetry, while the moving $`h_+`$ field has $`\overline{R}\overline{I}`$ symmetry. The equations are invariant under $`h_{}h_{}`$ in any frame. The invariance under $`xx`$ is broken (a) by the linear $`\frac{h_\pm }{x}`$ and (b) by the trilinear terms. The effect of (a) can be shifted away by comoving; the (b) terms are expected to provide logarithmic multiplicative corrections. The same symmetries hold in the rest frame of the $`+`$ wave. Based on these observations, we expect $`z=2`$ for the $``$mode (perhaps with multiplicative logarithmic corrections), and $`z=3/2`$ for the $`+`$mode. This is precisely the weak dynamical scaling discussed in the Introduction.

The quadratic nonlinear terms in Eq. (49) are exactly like those obtained in . Similarly the nonlinearities in (45) are of the form obtained in . The crucial difference is that we have additional linear gradient couplings, which bring in the possibility of observing weak dynamical scaling in our coupled-field system. We now turn to the next step of checking numerically and analytically our symmetry-based expectations.

### B Growth exponents from Monte-Carlo simulation:

For numerical simulation, we used a definition of height $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(t)`$ which differs slightly from $`h_i(t)`$ discussed so far. Instead of defining heights as density integrated over space with respect to a fixed site, we define $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{1i}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{2i}`$ as integrated densities but with respect to the first particle, which is itself moving. Such a definition was used earlier in , and was found to markedly reduce the fluctuation in the height-height correlation function. If the particles on a particular sublattice are labelled $`1,\mathrm{},N_P`$, then the height $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(t)=n_i(t)n_i(t)`$ where $`n_i(t)`$ is the tag number of the particle at site $`i`$ and the subtracted part has a linear time dependence. If the site $`i`$ is empty, $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i`$ is determined from the tags of the closest particles on either side by a lever rule. If $`i_o(t)`$ (whose average value $`=vt`$ with $`v=`$ particle speed, is the location of the particle $`1`$) one has $`\stackrel{~}{h}_i(t)=_{k=i_o(t)}^i\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k\rho ^oi_o(t)`$, using the fact that $`n_i(t)=_{k=i_o(t)}^i(\stackrel{~}{\rho }_k+\rho ^o)`$. In our problem, the height-height correlation $`\stackrel{~}{h}_{iA}(t)\stackrel{~}{h}_{iA}(0)`$ grows as $`v_A\rho _1^ot`$, where $`v_A=(1\rho _1^o)(12\rho _2^o)`$. The corresponding continuum equation for $`\stackrel{~}{h}_1(x,t)`$ has two more additional terms compared to (31), i.e. a constant $`v_A\rho _1^o`$ which can be removed by an appropriate shift, and a noise term $`\zeta =v_At\stackrel{~}{\rho }_1(x,t)`$. The scaling dimension of $`\zeta `$ is lower ($`\zeta b^z\zeta `$) than the noise $`\eta _1`$ ($`\eta _1b^{z/21/2}\eta _1`$), and hence is less relevant.

We are interested in knowing the dissipation property of the $`\pm `$ wave modes, so we numerically compute the height-height correlation function of the variable $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\pm `$ in the co-moving frame of the relevant mode, i.e. by a Galilean shift with speed $`c_\pm `$. The new fields $`\stackrel{~}{h}_\pm `$ are the counterparts of $`h_\pm `$ defined earlier. We monitor the correlation functions

$$S_\pm ^2(t)=\left[\stackrel{~}{h}_\pm (xc_\pm t,t)\stackrel{~}{h}_\pm (x,0)+J_\pm ^ot+\rho _\pm ^oc_\pm t\right]^2$$
(50)
where the average $`\mathrm{}`$ is both over space and the ensemble of configurations in the steady state, while $`J_\pm ^o=\sqrt{c}v_A\rho _1^o\pm \sqrt{b}v_B\rho _2^o`$ and $`\rho _\pm ^o=\sqrt{c}\rho _1^o\pm \sqrt{b}\rho _2^o`$. We expect $`S_\pm ^2(t)`$ to grow as $`t^\beta `$ with $`\beta =\chi /z`$.

We used lattice sizes $`L=54000`$, while the number of history averages for each case is mentioned in the figure captions. There are two curves in each of the figures 3, 5, and 6 below: for example in Fig. 3(b) the lower one represents $`S_+^2`$, and the upper one represents the height-height correlation function of the moving $``$mode in the rest frame of the $`+`$wave, namely $`\widehat{S}_{}^2=\left[\stackrel{~}{h}_{}(xc_+t,t)\stackrel{~}{h}_{}(x,0)+J_{}^ot+\rho _{}^oc_+t\right]^2`$. Similarly $`\widehat{S}_+^2`$ in Fig. 3(a) is defined in the rest frame of the $``$mode. The correlation functions $`\widehat{S}^2`$’s increase linearly with time as they sense the effect of a moving kinematic wave. In a discrete lattice simulation, $`x`$ in Eq. (50) gets replaced by discrete integers $`i`$. The kinematic wave speeds are nevertheless real fractions, so height-height correlation functions $`S^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}^2`$ have oscillations of the period $`1/c_\pm `$; these oscillations are noticeable for low $`t`$, but their relative contribution dies down for larger $`t`$.

(I) We first discuss the height-height correlations for $`\rho _1^o=0.5`$ and $`\rho _2^o=0.5`$ (Fig. 3) corresponding to $`\mathrm{R}\overline{\mathrm{I}}`$ symmetry.

The kinematic waves go around the whole system with a time period $`t_o=|L/c_\pm |`$. With $`L=54000`$ and $`c_\pm =\pm r^{}/2=\pm 1/4`$ we have $`t_o=216000`$ as $`r^{}=1/2`$ in our simulations. The curve for the mode which is moving in the rest frame of the other should dip to a minimum at time $`t_o`$, and that is why it shows a flattening at times around $`t=t_o/2=108000`$ when the moving wave has travelled halfway around.

Figure 3 gives strong evidence for $`\beta =1/4`$ for both modes in their respective rest frames, when $`\rho _1^o=\rho _2^o=1/2`$. Thus $`z=\chi /\beta `$ is equal to 2 for both modes. More careful examination of the data reveals that there are actually multiplicative logarithmic corrections to the leading power law behaviour. The data is consistent with a growth $`S(t)t^{1/4}(log(t))^{1/8}`$, as may arise from cubic nonlinearities as discussed above. Evidence of this is seen in

Figs. 4(a),(b) which indicate that the data of Figs. 3(a),(b) have factors $`(log(t))^{1/4}`$ multiplying $`t^{1/2}`$. As discussed in section 5.1, the latter are probably due to cubic nonlinearities.

(II) For $`\rho _1^o=0.5`$ and $`\rho _2^o=1/3`$, the system has $`\mathrm{R}\overline{\mathrm{I}}`$ symmetry. Figure 5 shows that both $`S_+^2`$ and $`S_{}^2`$ grow as $`t^{2/3}`$ implying that $`\beta =1/3`$ and $`z=3/2`$. Thus the dissipations of both the waves are KPZ-like.

(III) Finally Fig. 6 shows the height-height correlation functions for $`\rho _1^o=1/3`$ and $`\rho _2^o=1/3`$ ($`\mathrm{R}\overline{\mathrm{I}}`$ symmetry for one mode, $`\overline{\mathrm{R}}\overline{\mathrm{I}}`$ symmetry for the other).

We see that $`S_{}^2`$ grows as $`t^{1/2}`$ with an indication of multiplicative logarithmic corrections, indicating $`\beta =1/4`$ while $`S_+^2`$ grows as $`t^{2/3}`$ implying $`\beta =1/3`$. Recalling that $`\chi =1/2`$ for both modes, we have $`z=2`$ for the $``$ mode and $`z=3/2`$ for the $`+`$ mode. There is a logarithmic factor $`(log(t))^{1/4}`$, multiplying $`t^{1/2}`$ for the $``$wave as is apparent from the flattening of the curve on dividing $`S_{}^2`$ by $`t^{1/2}(log(t))^{1/4}`$ (Fig. 7).

It is remarkable that although the waves are coupled to each other, two different dynamical exponents arise in the same system, in conformity with our expectations on symmetry grounds. This is the first instance we know of in which such a property arises in a fully coupled system in which neither field evolves autonomously.

## V Analytical demonstration of weak dynamic scaling

We argued in Sec. IV in the context of the model equations 49, and showed by using Monte Carlo simulations, that there are two different dynamical exponents 3/2 and 2 respectively, for the two eigenmodes $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$ in the model. In this section we use self-consistent mode-coupling and renormalization group methods to study the large-distance, long-time properties of the correlation functions: We calculate the roughness exponents $`\chi _{1,2}`$ and the dynamical exponents $`z_{1,2}`$ of the fields $`h_{+,}`$. Our analytical results agree with the previous numerical results. For appropriately chosen values for the densities of the particles in the lattice model \[see above eqn. (49)\], the continuum equations in the center-of-mass frame take the form

$`\dot{h}_+{\displaystyle \frac{B_o}{2}}_xh_++{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}(_xh_+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}(_xh_{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+_{xx}h_++f_+,`$ (51)
$`\dot{h}_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{B_o}{2}}_xh_{}+\lambda _3(_xh_+)(_xh_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}_{xx}h_{}+f_{},`$ (52)
where $`B_o/2=c_+=c_{},\lambda _1/2=3\kappa _2/\sqrt{c},\lambda _2/2=\kappa _2/2,\lambda _3=2\kappa _2/\sqrt{c}`$. We denote the dissipation coefficients by $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ (we use two separate symbols in anticipation of weak dynamic scaling). We also ignore the cubic nonlinearities for simplicity. The waves can be removed from either Eqs.(52) separately by comoving with the left and right going waves through the Galilean shifts: $`xx+\frac{B_o}{2}t,h_+h_+`$ and $`xx\frac{B_o}{2}t,h_{}h_{}`$ respectively. In the comoving frame of $`h_+`$ Eqs. (52) become

$`\dot{h}_++{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}(_xh_+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}(_xh_{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+_{xx}h_++f_+,`$ (53)
$`\dot{h}_{}+B_o_xh_{}+\lambda _3(_xh_+)(_xh_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}_{xx}h_{}+f_{},`$ (54)
whereas in the frame of $`h_{}`$ Eqs.(52) reduce to

$`\dot{h}_+B_o_xh_h+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _1}{2}}(_xh_+)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{2}}(_xh_{})^2`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+_{xx}h_++f_+,`$ (55)
$`\dot{h}_{}+\lambda _3(_xh_+)(_xh_{})`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}_{xx}h_{}+f_{},`$ (56)
The bare response functions of the two fields $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$ are given by

$$G_o^+(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{i\omega +\nu _+k^2};G_o^{}(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{i\omega iB_ok+\nu _{}k^2}$$
(57)
in the right moving frame and

$$G_o^+(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{i\omega +iB_ok+\nu _+k^2};G_o^{}(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{i\omega +\nu _{}k^2}$$
(58)
in the left moving frame. The noise correlations in both the frames are given by

$$f_{+,}(0,0)f_{+,}(x,t)=2D_{+,}\delta (x)\delta (t).$$
(59)
Note that there is no frame in which the drift terms in both equations vanish. Noise correlations however do not change with change in reference frames as they are delta-correlated in time.

In this section we analytically calculate the dynamic and roughness exponents $`\chi _i,z_i,i=+,`$ for the fields $`h_i,i=+,`$ respectively, defined by $`[h_i(x,t)h_i(0,0)]^2=x^{\chi _i}g(x^{z_i}/t)`$. There are two limits in which their behaviour is well-understood analytically. First, in the absence of the kinematic wave ($`B_o`$) terms, Eqs. (52) reduce to the EK  equations. Although the complete phase diagram of the latter is not known, they do have a locally stable renormalization-group fixed point belonging to the universality class of the KPZ equation , with $`\chi _+=\chi _{}=1/2`$ and $`z_+=z_{}=3/2`$. Secondly, in the absence of the nonlinear terms coupling $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$, the kinematic wave terms can be removed separately in each equation by opposite Galilean transformations, yielding scaling properties independent of the wavespeed. In the previous section our Monte Carlo results show that even when there is a nonlinear coupling, for particular densities, there is weak dynamic scaling: $`z_+=3/2,z_{}=2`$. Below, we offer an understanding of weak dynamic scaling in an analytical framework.

The possible occurence of weak dynamical scaling in this problem, makes a renormalization-group treatment difficult: one cannot rescale time in two different ways for the two fields. We therefore adopt a self-consistent integral-equation approach, for which such weak scaling presents no difficulties. We then discuss how to circumvent the problems in applying an RG treatment.

### A Self-consistent mode coupling calculation

#### 1 KPZ equation in a moving frame

Before embarking on a calculation for our model, it is instructive to look at the simpler case of a growing KPZ surface in a moving frame. The KPZ equation will be supplemented by a linear first order gradient term:

$$\frac{h}{t}+c\frac{h}{x}+\lambda (\frac{h}{x})^2=\nu ^2h+\eta ,$$
(60)
with $`\eta (x,t)\eta (0,0)=2D\delta (x)\delta (t)`$. We ask: Does the wave affect the exponents? We know $`\chi =1/2`$ for the KPZ equation in 1 dimension. Since $`\chi `$ gives the static probability distribution, it is independent of reference frames. Due to the exponent identity $`\chi +z=2`$ , it follows that $`z=3/2`$. Thus in this particular case exponents are not affected by waves. The question is, can we see this in a self-consistent or renormalization-group calculation? Recall that the dynamic exponent is given by the width of the peak of the dynamic structure factor. The location of the peak, as a result of the wave induced by our transformation to a frame moving with speed $`c`$, is at $`\omega =ck`$. The response and the correlation functions in that frame are thus given by $`G_o(k,\omega )=\frac{1}{i\omega ick+\nu k^2}`$ and $`C_o(k,\omega )=\frac{2D}{(\omega ck)^2+\nu ^2k^4}`$ respectively. The one-loop integral that produces a singular correction to $`\nu `$ is

$$I𝑑q𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{2Dq(kq)kq}{[(\mathrm{\Omega }ck)^2+\nu ^2q^4][i(\omega \mathrm{\Omega })ic(kq)+\nu (kq)^2]}|_{\omega =ck}𝑑q\frac{2Dq(kq)kq}{\nu q^2[\nu q^2+\nu (kq)^2]},$$
(61)
which is same as that one obtains in a standard calculation for the KPZ equation in the rest frame. A similar expression holds for the correction to the correlation function. In both these integrals, the wave can be shifted away trivially. Thus we obtain $`z=3/2`$ and $`\chi =1/2`$, in agreement with our expectations. With this background we now present the calculations for the exponents for our model. Interestingly, we will find that the effects of the waves cannot be trivially shifted away as they could in the simple example discussed above.

### B Self-consistent calculation for the coupled model

The mode coupling approach to solving equations such as (52) consists in obtaining diagrammatic perturbation expansions for the renormalized propagator $`G`$ and correlation functions $`C`$ and resumming these in such a way that all the internal lines are renormalized correlation functions or propagators. This provides an exact solution for asymptotically small wave number $`q`$ when the vertex corrections vanish for $`q0`$ or due to some fundamental symmetry in the problem. In that case the problem is reduced to solving nonlinear integral equations for $`G`$ and $`C`$ whose order is the same as that of the nonlinearity in the modified Langevin equation.

In a one-loop self-consistent modecoupling theory, one writes down one-loop intergral equations for the response and correlation functions. The basic assumption is that there are one-loop corrections which diverge in the infrared limit. In a theory where there is no vertex renormalisation due to some Ward-Takahashi identity (arising from some continuous symmetry of the equation of motion) these equations are exact, because any higher loop corrections can be incorporated within one-loop dressed response or correlation functions. However, when there is no such symmetry of the system to prevent vertex renormalisation the above assertion is not true. In such a situation, one also has to write down a one-loop self-consistent equation for the vertex, which now is to be solved simultaneously with the one-loop equations for response and correlation functions. An example of this has been worked out in . Here we work with Eqs.(52). There are no diagramatic corrections to the $`\lambda _1`$ vertex at the one loop level. However, there are no such conditions on $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$. In our particular problem, however we show using bare response and correlation functions, that one loop vertex corrections for $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ are all infrared finite. Hence we ignore them in our calculations. In Figs. 8 and 9 we show the one loop diagramatic corrections to $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ respectively. We first work in the comoving frame of $`h_+`$: In that frame $`C_+(k,\omega )`$ has a peak at $`\omega =B_ok`$ and $`C_{}(k,\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =0`$.

Let us look at one of the diagrams very carefully (first diagram in Fig.8):

$$I=ik\lambda _2\lambda _3^2/2\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }dqD_+q^2q^2}{[(\mathrm{\Omega }B_oq)^2+\nu _{}^2q^4][\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\nu _+q^4]}=\frac{2ik\lambda _2\lambda _3^2}{B_o^2}(\frac{1}{\nu _+}+\frac{1}{\nu _{}})𝑑qD_+.$$
(62)
This has no infrared divergence. Similarly, all other diagrams in Figs.(8) and (9) are also finite in the infrared limit. We ignore all these finite corrections for $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$, i.e., we ignore vertex corrections in our self-consistent analysis. We again justify this a posteriori, by showing that the vertex corrections remain finite in the self-consistent theory.

The time-displaced correlation functions of the fields $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$ are

$$C_+(r,t)h_+(0,0)h_+(r,t),C_{}(r,t)h_{}(0,0)h_{}(r,t).$$
(63)
The scaling forms for the correlation and response functions as a function of wavenumber $`k`$ and frequency $`\omega `$ are

$$C_+(k,\omega )=k^{12\chi _+z_+}f_+(k^{z_+}/\omega ),C_{}(k,\omega )=k^{12\chi _{}z_{}}f_{}(k^z_{}/\omega ),$$
(64)
and

$$G_+(k,\omega )=k^{z_+}g_+(k^{z_+}/\omega ),G_{}(k,\omega )=k^z_{}g_{}(k^z_{}/\omega ).$$
(65)
Here, $`z_+`$ are $`z_{}`$ are the dynamic exponents and $`\chi _+`$ and $`\chi _{}`$ are the roughness exponents of the fields $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$. Notice that we have allowed the existence of two different dynamic exponents. Since the fields are decoupled in the linearized theory, there is no cross propagator. The following one-loop diagrams contribute to the respective self-energies $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+(k,\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(k,\omega )`$ (defined by $`G_i^1=G_{i0}^1\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$, where $`G_{i0}`$ is the bare propagator for $`h_i,i=+,`$) of the fields $`h_+`$ and $`h_{}`$.

Notice that $`G_{+0}^1(k,\omega =0)=iB_ok+\nu _+k^2,G_0^1=\nu _{}k^2`$. A self-consistent calculation is required if one encounters infrared divergences in the bare perturbation theory. The following one loop diagrams in Figs.10 and 11 contribute to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(k,\omega )`$ and $`C_{}(k,\omega )`$ respectively. It is easy to see that none of these diagrams diverge in a bare perturbation theory. The first diagram in Fig.10 has the form

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(k,\omega )\lambda _2\lambda _3k{\displaystyle 𝑑q\frac{D_{}q^2(kq)}{\nu _+q^2[\nu _+q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2iB_o(kq)]}}`$ $``$ $`\lambda _2\lambda _3k{\displaystyle 𝑑q\frac{D_{}q^2(kq)[\nu _+q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2]}{\nu _{}q^2[\{\nu _+q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2\}^2+B_0^2(kq)^2]}}`$ (66)
$``$ $`\lambda _2\lambda _3k{\displaystyle 𝑑q\frac{D_{}(kq)}{\nu _{}B_0^2(kq)^2}}\mathrm{finite},`$ (67)
since in the long wavelength limit $`B_0^2(kq)^2`$ dominates over $`\{\nu _+q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2\}^2`$. We have considered only the real part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}(k)`$ (only this part will renormalise $`\nu _{}`$). However this does not produce any infra-red singular correction to $`\nu _2`$ and hence we ignore it. Note that it is the presence of the kinematic waves which makes this diagrammatic contribution infrared finite and thus ignorable. The second diagram in Fig. (10) also has a similar finite form and is ignored again.

In Fig.11 the diagram has the form

$$C_{}(k,\omega )\frac{1}{k^4}\frac{dqq^2(kq)^2}{q^2(kq)^2[\nu _{}q^2+\nu _+(kq)^2iB_o(kq)]}.$$
(68)
It is easy to see that this is not infrared divergent. So we ignore all corrections to $`C_{}(k,\omega )`$. We immediately obtain $`z_{}=2,\chi _{}=1/2`$. Note that the presence of the wave term $`B_0k`$ in the inverse propagator was again crucial to this analysis. We see from the foregoing analysis that

$$G_{}^1(k,\omega )i\omega +k^2,C_{}(k,\omega =0)\frac{1}{\omega ^2+k^4}.$$
(69)
We now calculate the exponents of $`h_+`$. As stated earlier we ignore corrections to $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ as they are all finite. There are however, diverging one-loop corrections to both $`C_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+`$ which are shown in Fig.12 and Fig.13.

In both Figs. 12 and 13 diagrams (a) comes from the KPZ nonlinearity. If these diagrams were the only diagrams, one would have obtained KPZ exponents:$`z_+=3/2,\chi _+=1/2`$. We however notice that the diagrams (b) in Figs.12 and 13 are as strongly infrared (IR) divergent as diagrams (a). Let us examine diagram (b) in Fig.12 in detail. The integral is given by (using the fact that $`\chi _{}=1/2,z_{}=2`$)

$`I`$ $``$ $`k{\displaystyle 𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑q\frac{q^2(kq)}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\nu _{}^2q^4)[i\mathrm{\Omega }+iB_ok+\nu _{}(kq)^2]}}k{\displaystyle 𝑑q\frac{(kq)[\nu _{}q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2]}{\nu _{}[B_o^2k^2+\{\nu _{}q^2+\nu _{}(kq)^2\}^2]}}`$ (70)
$``$ $`k{\displaystyle }dq{\displaystyle \frac{(k/2q)\nu _{}q^2}{\nu _{}[B_o^2k^2+4\nu _{}^2q^4]}}{\displaystyle \frac{k^2}{\nu _{}}}{\displaystyle _\sqrt{k}}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{q^2}}[1+O(k^2/q^4)+..]k^{3/2}.`$ (71)
Note that the presence of the kinematic wave was crucial again in this evaluation: The integral in (70) diverges as $`𝑑q/q^2`$ if the external wavenumber $`k`$ is set to zero. At nonzero $`k`$, the integral is controlled by the presence of the wave term $`B_0^2k^2`$ in the denominator, and scales as $`k^{1/2}`$, not as $`k^1`$ as might have naively been expected. Thus $`z_+=3/2`$ is unaltered by the second diagram. Similarly we consider diagram (b) of Fig.13 (using $`z_+=3/2`$):

$$I\frac{1}{k^3}𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }𝑑q\frac{q^4}{(\mathrm{\Omega }^2+\nu _{}^2q^4)[(\mathrm{\Omega }B_ok)^2+\nu _{}^2q^4]}\frac{1}{i\nu _{}k^3B_ok}𝑑qq^2[\frac{1}{B_oki\nu _{}q^2}\frac{1}{B_oki\nu _{}q^2}]k^{7/2},$$
(72)
which is as divergent as the diagram (a) in Fig.13. Thus $`\chi _+=1/2`$ also remains unaltered. It is easy to see that with these self-consistent response and correlation functions, one-loop corrections to $`\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ do not diverge. Hence ignoring $`\lambda _2,\lambda _3`$ from our selfconsistent calculation is justified.

So far we have worked in the comoving frame of $`h_{}`$, i.e, with Eqs. (56). Let us now go to the comoving frame of $`h_+`$: We work with Eqs. (54). The relevant diagrams are same as given in Figs. 12 and 13. It is easy to carry out a self-consistent analysis again on Eqs. (54). The only difference is that now $`C_+(k,\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =0`$ whereas $`C_{}(k,\omega )`$ is peaked at $`\omega =B_ok`$. Here again there is no singular correction to the reponse and the correlation functions of the field $`h_{}`$. Thus $`z_{}=2`$ and $`\chi _{}=1/2`$. There are however diverging corrections to $`\nu _1`$ and $`D_1`$ which are identical to those obtained in our calculations in the comoving frame of $`h_{}`$. Reassuringly, we find again same exponents, i.e. $`z_+=3/2,\chi _+=1/2`$, as we should. Thus the effective equations in the left and right going frames are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+(k)}{t}}+iB_okh_+`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+k^{3/2}h_+(k,t)+\mathrm{}.,`$ (73)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}(k)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}k^2h_{}(k,t)+\mathrm{}.`$ (74)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_+(k)}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+k^{3/2}h_+(k,t)+\mathrm{}.,`$ (75)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{h_{}(k)}{t}}iB_okh_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}k^2h_{}(k,t)+\mathrm{}.`$ (76)
The renormalized equations (74) and (76) are thus connected by a Galilean transformation like the bare equations (56), and (54), and the exponents are frame-independent.

### C Renormalization group analysis

In Section V B we have shown how a self-consistent mode coupling treatment of our model for certain parameter values leads to weak dynamical scaling, i.e., distinct dynamical exponents for the two fields. In this Section we recast these results within a perturbative dynamical renormalization-group (DRG) framework, and show how the difficulties posed for the DRG by weak dynamical scaling can be overcome.

The diagrams are same as shown in Section V B. We work with Eqs. (54). As usual, the bare diagrams for $`\nu _{},D_{},\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ do not diverge. The diagram (a) in Fig.12 diverges as $`\frac{D_+\lambda _1^2}{\nu _1^3}k^2\frac{dq}{q^2}\frac{D_+\lambda _1^2}{\nu _1^3}k^2\times \frac{1}{k},`$ whereas the diagram (b) in Fig.12 diverges as $`\lambda _2\lambda _3D_{}k^2\frac{dq}{iB_ok+2\nu _{}q^2}\lambda _2\lambda _3D_{}k^2\times \frac{1}{\sqrt{k}}`$. Thus diagram (b) can be ignored in comparison with (a) in the small $`k`$ limit. Similarly, diagram (b) in Fig.13 is less divergent than the diagram (a). Thus all relevant diagrams generating dominant singular corrections to the bare response and correlation functions of the field $`h_+`$ are of KPZ type (with identical symmetry factors).

Starting with a cutoff wavenumber $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, eliminating modes with wavenumbers between $`\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{\delta l}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, rescaling so that the cutoff wavenumber is once more $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and passing to the limit $`\delta l0`$, we obtain the differential recursion relations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu _+}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+[z2+{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}],`$ (77)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_+}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_+[z12\chi _++{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4}}],`$ (78)
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu _{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}[z2],`$ (79)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{}[z12\chi _{}],`$ (80)
where $`\nu _+,\nu _{},D_+`$ and $`D_{}`$ are now functions of $`l`$, and $`gD_+\lambda _1^2/\nu _+^3`$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. By using $`g=2`$ at the stable RG fixed point , we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu _+}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _+[z3/2],`$ (82)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\nu _{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _{}[z2],`$ (83)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_+}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_+[z1/22\chi _+],`$ (84)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dD_{}}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`D_{}[z12\chi _{}].`$ (85)
Now given the exponents $`z,\chi _+,\chi _{}`$, the equations of motion (54) are supposed to be invariant under the scale transformations $`xbx,tb^zt,h_+b^{\chi _+}h_+,h_{}b^\chi _{}h_{}`$. From Eqs. (78) we get $`z=3/2,\chi _+=1/2`$ whereas Eqs. (80) give $`z=2,\chi _{}=1/2`$. Which value of $`z`$ should we choose? The choice of $`z=3/2`$ keeps $`\nu _1`$ fixed under rescaling, but $`\nu _2(l)e^{l/2}`$ as the RG fixed point is approached (remember $`e^l`$ is like a length scale). On the other hand if we choose $`z=2`$ then $`\nu _2`$ is fixed under rescaling but $`\nu _1e^{l/2}`$ as the fixed point is approached. Moreover, $`z=2`$ implies $`\chi _{}=1/2`$ giving $`C_{}(x,0)x`$ in agreement with the previously obtained results, and $`\chi _+=1/4`$ suggesting $`C_+(x,0)x^{1/2}`$, which, of course, is wrong. Similarly, the choice $`z=3/2`$ gives correct spatial dependence for $`C_+(x,0)x`$, but gives an incorrect result for $`C_{}(x,0)`$.

To resolve this difficulty, let us first study the seemingly trivial case of two totally decoupled fields:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _1}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi _1}{x^2}}+\eta _1,`$ (87)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _2}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _2{\displaystyle \frac{^2\varphi _2}{x^4}}+\eta _2,`$ (88)
with $`\eta _i(0,0)\eta _j(x,t)=2\gamma _i\delta _{ij}\delta (x)\delta (0)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and no sum on repeated indices. These are linear equations and hence exponents can be found exactly. In particular we know

$`\varphi _1(x,t)\varphi _1(0,0)`$ $``$ $`xf_1(x^2/t),`$ (90)
$`\varphi _2(x,t)\varphi _1(0,0)`$ $``$ $`x^3f_2(x^4/t),`$ (91)
i.e., we have $`\chi _1=1/2,\chi _2=3/2,z_1=2,z_2=4`$. There are obviously no diagramatic corrections to any of the parameters. Here the flow equations are

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _1}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _1[z2];`$ (93)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _1}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1[z12\chi _1];`$ (94)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mu _2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mu _2[z4];`$ (95)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\gamma _2}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2[z12\chi _2].`$ (96)
A choice of $`z=2`$ and $`\chi _1=1/2`$ keeps $`\mu _1`$ and $`\gamma _1`$ fixed. This immediately tells us that equal-time correlation function of the field $`\varphi _1`$ scales as $`Ax^{2\chi _1}`$. The coefficient $`A`$, a function of $`\gamma _1`$ and $`\mu _1`$ is scale independent. However a naïve use of this value of $`z`$ (i.e.,$`z=2`$) leads to wrong conclusion about the spatial dependence of the equal time correlation function of the field of $`\varphi _2`$: $`z=2`$ gives $`\chi _1=1/2`$ suggesting $`\varphi _2(0,0)\varphi _2(x,0)x`$ which is wrong (the correct dependence is $`x^3`$ which is known exactly). The reason is that the choice $`z=2`$ makes the solutions of the flow equations for $`\mu _2`$ scale-dependent: $`\mu _2e^{2l}k^2`$. However, one can still extract the correct behaviour of the correlation function of $`\varphi _2`$ in the above example if one accounts for the scale dependence $`\mu _2`$ explicitly: An explicit construction gives

$$\varphi _2(k,\omega )\varphi _2(k,\omega )\frac{D_2}{\mu _2k^{1+2\chi _1}}[\frac{1}{i\omega +\mu _2k^z}+\frac{1}{i\omega +\mu _2k^z}],$$
(97)
which gives (by using scale dependent $`\mu _2`$) $`\varphi _1(0,0)\varphi _2(x,0)x^3`$ which is the correct answer! This suggests that to make sense of out the RG flow equations in presence of different dynamic scalings in a coupled system, one has to take care of the scale dependent diffusion coefficients while calculating the spatio-temporal behaviour of the correlation functions correctly. Let us review our RG results obtained from the flow equations (78) and (80) in view of our previous analysis: We choose $`z=2,\chi _{}=1/2`$ which gives $`\chi _+=1/4`$ and makes $`\nu _1k^{1/2}`$. Using this scale dependent coefficient we correctly obtain

$$C_+(x,t)=xf_{}[x^{3/2}/t].$$
(98)
This suggests that an RG treatment, suitably modified, can be applied successfully to a problem of weak dynamic scaling provided scale dependent dissipation coefficients are taken into account while constructing the correlation functions.

### D Strong dynamical scaling

In Section IV B we have seen that for model equations 45 both the dynamic exponents turn out to be 3/2 (i.e., KPZ-like). This is easy to understand analytically: In this case both the equations have KPZ-like nonlinearities in addition to the non-KPZ ones. However, it is easy to see that for both the fields, due to the presence of the waves, in any frame, non-KPZ diagrams are less singular than the corresponsing KPZ-like diagrams. Thus the dominant singular corrections to the response and correlation functions for both the fields are KPZ-like, making $`\chi _+=\chi _{}=1/2`$ and $`z_+=z_{}=3/2`$.

## VI summary

This paper is a study of the nature of spatiotemporal correlations in a coupled-field driven diffusive model (the LR model ), in the phase in which it displays kinematic waves. Our results include a demonstration of pairwise balance for certain parameter values and, hence, a proof that the steady state has a product measure in that range of parameters. Most important, we have been able to show that the fields corresponding to the two eigenmodes of the linearized version of the model were characterized by two different dynamic exponents, although the fields themselves are (nonlinearly) coupled. This is the first demonstration of such weak dynamical scaling in a model with two fully coupled fields (as distinct from the model of , where such an effective decoupling was found only in semi-autonomously coupled systems in which one of the fields evolve independently). We have been able to show this numerically, through Monte Carlo simulations on a lattice model, and analytically, using self-consistent perturbative calculations as well as symmetry arguments, in the corresponding continuum stochastic PDEs. Outisde this special subspace of parameter space, the model exhibits normal, strong dynamic scaling. We also discuss and largely resolve the technical difficulties in applying the dynamical renormalization group when weak dynamic scaling prevails.

## VII Acknowledgement

We thank Goutam Tripathy for valuable discussions.


text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0101129 HUB-EP-01/03

Fibrewise T-Duality
for D-Branes on Elliptic Calabi-Yau

Björn Andreas1, Gottfried Curio2, Daniel Hernández Ruipérez3 and Shing-Tung Yau1

1Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA

2Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Institut für Physik, D-10115 Berlin, Germany

3Departamento de Matemáticas, Universidad de Salamanca, 37008, Salamanca, Spain

Fibrewise T-duality (Fourier-Mukai transform) for D-branes on an elliptic Calabi-Yau $`X`$ is shown to require naturally an appropriate twisting of the operation respectively a twisted charge. The fibrewise T-duality is furthermore expressed through known monodromies in the context of Kontsevich’s interpretation of mirror symmetry.

This paper constitutes a shortened and simplified version of  (where details and references are given) intended to present the essential results to an audience of physicists.

The last years saw an intense study on BPS D-branes, with their associated bundles, in type II string theories on a Calabi-Yau manifold. For the class of elliptic Calabi-Yau’s not only the description of bundles on the whole Calabi-Yau, related to D6-branes, can be made explicit via spectral covers (cf. ), but it allows also for a version of the Fourier-Mukai (FM) transform of a bundle $`V`$ on non-toroidal spaces which in contrast to earlier transforms in such cases (say on $`K3`$) sticks completely to the idea of using the duality on a torus by building a fibrewise FM transform. This ’fibrewise T-duality’ operates on the spectrum of D-branes and has also a close connection with the spectral cover construction.

We compute the cohomological invariants of a bundle and its fibrewise dual and show how the adiabatic character1 I.e., decomposing the cohomology into base and fibre parts, the operation of fibrewise duality takes the form of an adiabatic extension of the same operation on the (cohomology of a) $`T^2`$, fulfilling the expectations from the interpretation as T-duality on D-branes.of the operation is confirmed only by using an appropriately twisted charge. Alternatively a version of Mukai’s f-map, using the usual Mukai vector as charge but a slightly twisted operation, has to be used.

Also, in a version of the mirror correspondence, which brings supersymmetric D-branes on both sides into the play, bundles, or better sheaves (think of them as bundles supported on holomorphic subvarieties), on a Calabi-Yau $`X`$ in type IIA are related with special Lagrangian submanifolds (with an $`U(1)`$ bundle over them) in the mirror Calabi-Yau $`Y`$ with cohomological invariants relating $`H^{even}(X)`$ and $`H^3(Y)`$. Furthermore, the cohomological effect of a line bundle twist (or more general operations related to FM transforms) is related with a type IIB monodromy resp. (using the mirror identification) with a type IIA monodromy (around the locus in moduli space where the divisor vanishes). The fibrewise FM transform is given its place in Kontsevich’s general association of FM transforms with monodromies.

Consider an $`SU(n)`$ bundle $`V`$ of $`c_1(V)=0`$ over an elliptically fibered $`X`$ or equivalently $`n`$ D6-branes wrapped over $`X`$ with induced D2-and D0-brane charges (D2i-charges meaning here for now just $`ch_i(V)`$). The T-duality on the $`T^2`$ fibre maps (subscripts indicate that fibre $`F`$ or base $`B`$ is contained (resp. contains) the wrapped world-volume)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D6& \stackrel{~}{D4}_B\hfill \\ \hfill D4_B\stackrel{~}{D6}& ,D4_F\stackrel{~}{D2}_B\hfill \\ \hfill D2_B\stackrel{~}{D4}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}& ,D2_F\stackrel{~}{D0}\hfill \\ \hfill D0& \stackrel{~}{D2}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\hfill \end{array}$$

The operation of fibrewise T-duality can be described on the cohomological data representing $`V`$ and its FM dual $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, i.e. we will mirror the mentioned D-brane relations as a map between $`ch(V)`$ and $`ch(\stackrel{~}{V})`$ (this will be made precise). Assume the following decomposition

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H^0(X)& =& 𝐂\\ H^2(X)& =& 𝐂\sigma H^2(B)\\ H^4(X)& =& H^2(B)\sigma 𝐂\\ H^6(X)& =& 𝐂\end{array}\right)$$

Then essentially the six entries of the Chern character vector in our decomposition are pairwise interchanged and the transformation has the block-diagonal form

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& & & & & \\ & 0& & & & \\ & & 0& & & \\ & & & 0& & \\ & & & & 0& \\ & & & & & 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}$$

So the cohomological effect of the fibrewise FM transform (T-duality) is given by adiabatic extension of the effect of T-duality on the fibre where the matrix is

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$$

So one would like to see as actual form of the transformation matrix

$$Q=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\stackrel{~}{Q}$$

thereby confirming the ’adiabatic’ interpretation of the Fourier-Mukai transform as (with entries now consisting of $`3\times 3`$ blocks corresponding to $`H^{}(X)=\sigma H^{}(B)\pi ^{}H^{}(B)`$)

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}_3& \mathrm{𝟏}_3\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_3& \mathrm{𝟎}_3\end{array}\right)$$

The Fourier-Mukai transform

The spectral cover construction2 An $`SU(n)`$ bundle $`V`$ on $`X`$ of $`c_1(V)=0`$ decomposes on the typical fibre $`E`$ (where $`V`$ is assumed to be semistable) as a sum of line bundles of degree zero each of which corresponds (a reference point $`p`$ chosen) to a point $`Q_i`$ on $`E`$. When globalized this leads to a hypersurface $`i:CX`$, a ramified $`n`$-fold ’spectral cover’ of $`B`$, whose equation can still be twisted so that $`C=n\sigma +\eta `$ in cohomology. As fibrewise $`V=p_{}𝒫`$ and a twist by a line bundle $`L`$ over $`C`$ leaves the fibrewise isomorphism class unchanged this generalizes to $`V=p_{}(p_C^{}L𝒫)`$ where $`p`$ and $`p_C`$ are the projections on the first and second factor of $`X\times _BC`$. The condition $`c_1(V)=0`$ translates to the fixing $`\pi _{}(c_1(L))=\pi _{}(c_1(C)c_1)/2)`$ of $`c_1(L)`$ in $`H^{1,1}(C)`$ up to a class in $`ker\pi _{}:H^{1,1}(C)H^{1,1}(B)`$. describes the bundle $`V`$ from a line bundle $`L`$ on the spectral cover surface $`C`$. For the description of the FM transform we will instead of working on $`X\times _BC`$ work on $`X\times _B\stackrel{~}{X}`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X\times _B\stackrel{~}{X}& \stackrel{p_2}{}& \stackrel{~}{X}\\ p_1& & \pi _2\\ X& \stackrel{\pi _1}{}& B\end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is the compactified relative Jacobian of $`X`$. $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ parameterizes torsion-free rank 1 and degree zero sheaves of the fibres of $`XB`$ and is actually isomorphic with $`X`$ (see  or ). We will identify $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`X`$. $`V`$ is constructed from the Poincaré sheaf $`𝒫`$ via

$$V=p_1(p_2^{}(i_{}L)𝒫)$$

with $`𝒫=𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma \times \stackrel{~}{X}X\times \stackrel{~}{\sigma }c_1(B))`$ normalized to be trivial along $`\sigma \times \stackrel{~}{X}`$ and $`X\times \stackrel{~}{\sigma }`$.

Let us determine the FM-transform. For this we make use of the fact that the representation of $`V`$ by the $`(C,L)`$ data already looks in itself like a FM transform. So the FM transform of $`V`$ is practically the double transform of $`i_{}L`$. But the inverse transform of FM is not precisely FM itself, but rather a slightly twisted version of the first transform, as we will recall. Only this twisted version brings us back from $`V`$ to $`i_{}L`$, so if we start on $`V`$, making the original FM transform we get $`i_{}L`$ times the inverse twist.

So for $`V=p_1(p_2^{}(i_{}L)𝒫)`$ the ’fibrewise dual’ is given in spectral cover data by

$$\stackrel{~}{V}=R^1p_2(p_1^{}(V)𝒫^{})=i_{}L\pi _2^{}K_B$$

One wants to show that there exists a matrix $`M`$ in the block diagonal form (1) relating $`V`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ or $`V`$ to $`i_{}L`$ (the latter option is simply the inverse process as $`V`$ is the dual of $`i_{}L`$).

Before going on let us recall the FM transform for elliptic fibrations (cf.  ,  , ). We define the Fourier-Mukai functors $`S^i`$, $`i=0,1`$ by associating with every sheaf $`V`$ on $`X`$ the sheaf $`S^i(F)`$ on $`X`$ ($`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ are identified; $`𝒫`$ the Poincaré sheaf on the fibre product)

$$S^i(V)=R^ip_1(p_2^{}(V)𝒫)$$

It can be also described as (cf.  ) $`𝒫=^{}p_1^{}𝒪(\sigma )p_2^{}𝒪(\sigma )q^{}K_B`$ with $`q=\pi .p_1=\pi .p_2`$ and $`=𝒪(\mathrm{\Delta })^{}`$ the ideal sheaf of the diagonal immersion $`\delta :XX\times _BX`$.

We can also define the inverse Fourier-Mukai functors $`\widehat{S}^i`$, $`i=0,1`$

$$\widehat{S}^i(V)=R^ip_2(p_1^{}(V)𝒫^{}q^{}K_B^1)$$

The relationship between these functors is stated best if we consider the associated functors between the derived categories of complexes of coherent sheaves bounded from above.

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& :D^{}(X)D^{}(X);S(𝒢)=Rp_1(p_2^{}(𝒢)𝒫)\hfill \\ \hfill \widehat{S}& :D^{}(X)D^{}(X);\widehat{S}(𝒢)=Rp_2(p_1^{}(𝒢)𝒫^{}q^{}K_B^1)\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that one obtains an invertibility result

$$S(\widehat{S}(𝒢))=𝒢[1],\widehat{S}(S(𝒢))=𝒢[1].$$

The K3 case

Consider first the two-dimensional case of $`X=K3`$ and assume the decomposition

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}H^0(X)& =& 𝐂\\ H^2(X)& =& 𝐂\sigma 𝐂\\ H^4(X)& =& 𝐂\end{array}\right)$$

The class of the spectral curve $`C`$ on which $`i_{}L`$ is supported is $`C=n\sigma +kF`$.

The Chern characters of $`i_{}L`$ can be obtained using Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch for the embedding $`i:C\stackrel{~}{X}`$, giving with $`ch(i_{}L)Td(\stackrel{~}{X})=i_{}(ch(L)Td(C))`$ that

$$ch(i_{}L)=(0,C,n)$$

further $`ch(V)`$ ($`V`$ is the only FM transform of $`i_{}L`$) is given by

$$ch(V)=(n,0,k)$$

Let us introduce3 The functor $`T`$ was introduced  because its inverse transform in the sense of (1) is the “natural” one: $`T`$ is the FM transform w.r.t. the sheaf $`\overline{𝒫}=𝒫q^{}𝒪(F)`$ and its inverse functor $`\widehat{T}`$ is the FM transform w.r.t. the dual sheaf $`\overline{𝒫}^{}`$. $`S`$ does not have this property as its inverse transform is not the FM transform with respect to $`𝒫^{}`$, but this twisted by $`q^{}K_B^1`$. So we just divided this up in two parts of $`K_B^{1/2}`$, distributed among the original and the inverse transform. the new functor $`T()=S()\pi ^{}K_B^{1/2}=S()𝒪(F)`$ (and similarly $`T^i()=S^i()\pi ^{}K_B^{1/2}=S^i()𝒪(F)`$) so that $`T^0(i_{}L)=V𝒪(F)`$. We get

$$ch(T^0(i_{}L))=ch(V)(1+F)=Mch(i_{}L)$$

where we reach the matrix we wanted

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& 1& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$

The Calabi-Yau threefold case

Consider a sheaf $`V`$ and write its Chern character as $`ch(V)=(n,x\sigma +S,\sigma \eta +aF,s)`$ ($`\eta ,Sp_2^{}H^2(B)`$), then, using the decompostion of the cohomology, we find

$$ch(V)=\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ x\\ S\\ \eta \\ a\\ s\end{array}\right),ch(\widehat{S}(V))=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ n\\ \eta +\frac{1}{2}xc_1\\ \frac{1}{2}nc_1S\\ s+\frac{1}{2}\eta c_1\sigma +\frac{1}{12}xc_1^2\sigma \\ \frac{1}{6}n\sigma c_1^2a\frac{1}{2}\sigma c_1S+x\sigma c_1^2\end{array}\right)$$

If we multiply $`ch(\widehat{S}(V))`$ by the Todd class $`Td(N)=1\frac{1}{2}c_1+\frac{1}{12}c_1^2`$,4 We always confuse the normal bundle $`N`$ with its pull-back $`\pi ^{}N`$ to $`X`$ we get

$$ch(\widehat{S}(V))Td(N)=\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ n\\ \eta \\ S\\ s\frac{1}{12}x\sigma c_1^2\\ a+x\sigma c_1^2\end{array}\right)$$

When $`V`$ is fibrewise of degree 0 we have $`x=0`$ and then

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}x\\ n\\ \eta \\ S\\ s\\ a\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ x\\ S\\ \eta \\ a\\ s\end{array}\right)$$

that is

$$Td(N)ch(\widehat{S}(V))=Mch(V).$$

So for fibrewise degree 0, semistable bundles $`V`$ we have $`\widehat{S}^0(V)=0`$ and $`\widehat{S}^1(V)=i_{}L`$ and5 There is an analogous equation to (1) for the direct FM transform $`S(V)`$: if $`x=0`$ then $`Td(N^1)ch(S(V))=Mch(V)`$. For fibrewise degree 0 and semistable bundles $`V`$ we have $`S^0(V)=0`$ and with $`S^1(V)=i_{}\overline{L}`$, we have $`Td(N^1)ch(i_{}\overline{L})=Td(N^1)ch(S^1(V))=Mch(V)`$.

$$Td(N)ch(i_{}L)=Td(N)ch(\widehat{S}^1(V))=Mch(V).$$

The interpretation6 In the three-fold case the sole use of the T-functor from the $`K3`$-case (for the map between the Chern classes of the bundle and its dual) is insufficient to exhibit (1) as transformation matrix. Rather one needs (just as one has in the usual full, not fibrewise, FM transform actually to take the Mukai vector with its twist by $`\sqrt{Td(X)}`$ and not just $`ch(V)`$) the relevant twisted charge. is that here one must either twist the operation a little bit and stick to the usual Mukai-vector or one keeps the operation and makes the twist in the usual Mukai-vector more ’relative’. Explicitly, similarly to the usual twist in the Mukai-vector, here in the fibrewise situation a twist by $`\sqrt{Td(N)}`$ with the normal bundle $`N=(j^{}TX)/TB=j^{}T_{X/B}=j^{}(TX/\pi ^{}TB)`$ plays a role (where $`j:BX`$). For a complex of sheaves $`𝒢`$ on $`X`$ you twist the standard definition of $`ch`$ to define a “charge” (where $`|i+1|=(1)^{i+1}`$)

$$Q(𝒢)=(1)^ich(𝒢^i)(\sqrt{Td(N)})^{|i+1|}$$

Then

$$Q(\widehat{S}(V))=ch(\widehat{S}^1(V))(\sqrt{Td(N)}),Q(V)=ch(V)(\sqrt{Td(N)})^1$$

and thus

$$Q(\widehat{S}(V))=MQ(V)$$

Since $`\widehat{S}^0(V)=0`$ and $`\widehat{S}^1(V)=i_{}L`$ we have $`\widehat{S}(V)=i_{}L[1]`$ as complexes and (1) gives

$$Q(i_{}L[1])=MQ(V)=MQ(S(i_{}L))$$

Alternatively the cohomology effect of the FM transform can be described by a so-called $`𝐟`$-map. For a fibrewise FM transform we can also introduce7 It is defined by $`𝐟_r(x)=p_1(p_2^{}(x)Z_r)`$ where $`Z_r=\sqrt{p_2^{}Td(T_{X/B})}ch(𝒫)\sqrt{p_1^{}Td(T_{X/B})}`$. Then $`\sqrt{Td(T_{X/B})}ch(S(V))=𝐟_r\left(ch(V)\sqrt{Td(T_{X/B})}\right)`$. The effect of $`𝐟_r`$ on the effective charge given by the Mukai vector $`Q(V)=ch(V)\sqrt{Td(X)}`$ is described by $`𝐟_r(Q(V))=Q(S(V))`$. a relative version $`𝐟_r:H(X)H(X)`$. But modifying $`𝐟_r`$ to

$$𝐟(x)=p_1(p_2^{}(x)Z)$$

with $`Z=\sqrt{p_2^{}Td(X)}ch(𝒫)\sqrt{p_1^{}Td(X)}`$, the effective charge of $`V`$ transforms to

$$𝐟(Q(S(V)))=MQ(V)$$

when $`x=0`$. If $`V`$ is also fibrewise semistable so that $`S^0(V)=0`$ and $`S^1(V)=i_{}L`$, then

$$𝐟(Q(i_{}L))=𝐟(Q(S^1(V)))=𝐟(Q(S(V)))=MQ(V)$$

Fibrewise T-duality on D-branes at the sheaf level

Note that we can also describe the fibrewise T-duality maps in (1) at the sheaf level. Let us consider the skyscraper sheaf $`𝐂(x)`$ at a point $`x`$ of $`X`$. Its FM transform $`S^0(𝐂(x))`$ is a torsion-free rank one sheaf $`L_x`$ on the fibre of $`X`$ over $`\pi (x)`$ 8 With the identification $`X\stackrel{~}{X}`$ the point $`x`$ corresponds precisely to $`L_x`$ (see  or  ) as we expect from (1) and thus $`D0D2_F`$. The topological invariants are $`n=x=a=S=\eta =0,s=1`$ and

$$ch_i(S^0(𝐂(x)))=0,i=0,1,3,ch_2(S^0(𝐂(x)))=F$$

If we start with $`=𝒪_\sigma `$; proceeding as in (3.16) of  we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S^0(𝒪_\sigma )& =𝒪_X,S^1(𝒪_\sigma )=0\hfill \\ \hfill S^0(𝒪_X)& =0,S^1(𝒪_X)=𝒪_\sigma \pi ^{}K_B\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`𝒪_\sigma `$ transforms to the structure sheaf of $`X`$ and $`𝒪_X`$ transforms to a line bundle on $`\sigma `$ as we expect from (1) since $`D4_BD6`$. We have as before the transformations at the cohomology level ($`n=0,x=1,S=0,\eta =\frac{1}{2}c_1,a=0,s=\frac{1}{6}\sigma c_1^2`$) and get

$$ch_0(S^0(𝒪_\sigma ))=1,ch_i(S^0(𝒪_\sigma ))=0,i=1,2,3$$

Finally, let us consider a sheaf $``$ on $`B`$; by (1) we have $`S^0(𝒪_\sigma \pi ^{})=\pi ^{},S^1(𝒪_\sigma \pi ^{})=0,S^0(\pi ^{})=0S^1(\pi ^{})=𝒪_\sigma \pi ^{}\pi ^{}K_B`$ Then, a sheaf $`𝒪_\sigma \pi ^{}=j_{}`$ ($`j:BX`$ is the section) supported on a curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in $`B`$ embedded in $`X`$ via $`j`$ transforms to a sheaf on the elliptic surface supported on the inverse image of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in $`X`$ and vice versa. So we have relations (1) for fibrewise T-duality on D-branes at the sheaf level (cf.  )

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill D4_B& \stackrel{~}{D6}\hfill \\ \hfill D2_B& \stackrel{~}{D4}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\hfill \\ \hfill D0& \stackrel{~}{D2}_{\stackrel{~}{F}}\hfill \end{array}$$

On the monodromy interpretation of the FM transform

We finally ask whether the Fourier-Mukai transform will be related to a monodromy matrix in the sense of Kontsevich’s proposal. We are interested first in an explicit map between the topological invariants of the characteristic classes of the Chan-Paton sheaf $`V`$ and the brane charges. Consider the BPS charge lattice which can be identified with the middle cohomology lattice of the mirror manifold $`H^3(\widehat{X},𝐙)`$ and consider (we think of two-parameter models) the central charge associated to the integral vector $`𝐧=(n_6,n_4^1,n_4^2,n_0,n_2^1,n_2^2)`$ which is

$$Z(𝐧)=n_6\mathrm{\Pi }_1+n_4^1\mathrm{\Pi }_2+n_4^2\mathrm{\Pi }_3+n_0\mathrm{\Pi }_4+n_2^1\mathrm{\Pi }_5+n_2^2\mathrm{\Pi }_6.$$

One the other side, one has in the large volume limit of $`X`$ the lattice of microscopic D-brane charges (which is identified with the K-theory lattice $`K(X)`$). Here one considers the effective charge $`Q`$ of a D-brane state $`\eta `$ given by the Mukai vector $`Q=ch(\eta )\sqrt{Td(X)}H^{even}(X)`$ with the associated central charge

$$Z(t)=_Z\frac{t^3}{6}Q^0\frac{t^2}{2}Q^2+tQ^4Q^6.$$

where $`t`$ is the generic Kähler class and one gets

$$Z(Q)=\frac{r}{6}t^3\frac{1}{2}ch_1(V)t^2+(ch_2(V)+\frac{r}{24}c_2(X))t(ch_3(V)+\frac{1}{24}ch_1(V)ch_2(V))$$

The comparison of $`Z(𝐧)`$ and $`Z(t)`$ leads then to a map between the low energy charges $`𝐧`$ and the topological invariants of the K-theory class $`\eta `$.

The monodromy transformations $`S_D`$ correspond to automorphisms $`M(D)`$

$$[V][V𝒪_X(L)],[V][V𝒪_X(H)]$$

and we see that the linear transformations acting on $`𝐧`$ corresponding to $`D`$ are

$$M(D)=S_D^1$$

Let us consider now a second type of monodromy transformation proposed by Kontsevich. He proposed that the monodromy $`T`$ about the conifold locus of the mirror corresponds to the automorphism of the derived category whose effect on cohomology is

$$𝒮:\gamma \gamma \left(\gamma Td(T_X)\right)\mathrm{𝟏}_X$$

($`\mathrm{𝟏}_X`$ the standard generator of $`H^0(X,𝐐)`$) leading to a change in the topological invariants

$$ch(V)ch(V)(\frac{ch_1(V)c_2(X)}{12}+ch_3(V))$$

Using the expression of the prepotential in the large radius limit $`=\frac{1}{6}(tJ)^3\frac{c_2(X)}{24}(tJ)+\mathrm{}.`$ where $`(tJ)=t_aJ^a`$ and using the period vector $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ we find the expression valid for both models $`𝐏_{1,1,2,2,2}^4[8]`$ and $`𝐏_{1,1,2,2,6}^4[12]`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill ch_1(V)& =n_4^1(J_12J_2)+n_4^2J_2\hfill \\ \hfill ch_3(V)& =(n_4^1(J_12J_2)+n_4^2J_2)\frac{c_2(X)}{12}n_0\hfill \end{array}$$

leading to the universal shift

$$n_6n_6+n_0$$

comparing this to the monodromy we find for the linear transformation acting on $`𝐧`$

$$𝒮=T^1$$

We now ask whether the Fourier-Mukai transform will be related to a monodromy matrix in the sense of Kontsevich’s proposal. As the corresponding matrices are by mirror symmetry identifiable already on the bundle side this comes down essentially to the question whether the matrix $`M`$ in (1) , is generated by $`S_H,S_L,T`$. Recall that the transformations in the Kontsevich association can themselves be considered as FM transforms. This time we will not work on the fibre product but rather on the ordinary product.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X\times \stackrel{~}{X}& \stackrel{q_2}{}& \stackrel{~}{X}\\ q_1& & \pi _2\\ X& \stackrel{\pi _1}{}& B\end{array}$$

The Fourier-Mukai functors $`S^i`$ are ($`D(X\times X)`$ in the derived category)

$$S_{}^i(V)=R^ip_1(p_2^{}(V))$$

We can also define the full FM transformation at the derived category level $`S_{}(𝒢)=Rp_1(p_2^{}(𝒢))`$. For example the twist transformation $`𝒢𝒢`$ considered in (1) comes from $`=𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }q_2^{}()`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the diagonal of $`X\times X`$. The other operation (corresponding to the ’conifold monodromy’) considered before corresponds to an $``$ whose cohomology is the ideal sheaf $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the diagonal of $`X\times X`$. This recovers the “gamma shift” (1)

$$ch(S__\mathrm{\Delta }(𝒢))=ch_0(S_{𝒪_{X\times X}}(𝒢))ch(𝒢)=\left(ch(𝒢)Td(T_X)\right)ch(𝒢)$$

Our fibrewise FM transform is specified by using $`=j_{}𝒫`$ where $`j:X\times _BXX\times X`$ is the natural embedding9 FM on $`X\times _BX`$ with respect to $`P`$ is FM on $`X\times X`$ with respect to $`j_{}P`$, so it is build up out of the divisors (resp. their associated line bundles) $`\sigma `$ and $`\pi ^{}K_B`$ on the one hand and by $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on the other.

We have the $`M`$ matrix equation for the inverse FM transform. This is $`\widehat{S}=S_{j_{}𝒬}`$ with $`𝒬=𝒫^{}q^{}(K_B^1)=p_1^{}𝒪(\sigma )p_2^{}𝒪(\sigma )q^{}K_B^2`$ where $``$ is the ideal of the diagonal of $`X\times _BX`$. Then $`\widehat{S}=(q^{}K_B^2)(𝒪(\sigma ))S_j_{}(𝒪(\sigma ))`$ or

$$\widehat{S}=S_{𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(2c_1)}S_{𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )}S_j_{}S_{𝒪_\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma )}$$

Having written our fibrewise FM transform $`\widehat{S}`$ as a composition of three divisor FM transforms and one FM transform $`S_j_{}`$ we expect the following relation for its monodromy, expressed as a product of divisor monodromies and the monodromy around the diagonal of the fibre product of ideal sheaf $``$

$$S_V=S_\sigma S_{c_1}^2S_{}S_\sigma $$

Let us make this more explicit by considering the model given by the elliptic fibration $`𝐏_{1,1,1,6,9}^4[18]`$, extensively studied in the context of mirror symmetry  and in the context of D-branes on elliptic Calabi-Yau . Among the degree 18 hypersurfaces is10 At $`z_1=z_2=z_3=0`$ the ambient space has a singular line which intersects $`X`$ in a single point. The blow up of this line gives an exceptional divisor $`E=P^2`$ in $`X`$. A second divisor $`L`$ (defined by the first order polynomials) is given by the elliptic surface over a line in $`P^2`$ and together with $`E`$ generates $`H_4(X,𝐙)`$. The elliptic fibration structure is induced by the linear system $`|L|`$ generated by $`z_1,z_2,z_3`$ mapping $`X`$ to $`𝐏^2`$. The section of the fibration is given by $`B_2=E`$. The homology class of the elliptic fibre in $`H_2(X)`$ will be denoted by $`h=L^2`$. Further intersection relations are given by $`EL^2=1,E^2L=3,L^3=0,E^3=9`$. Working in the $`E,L`$ basis (cf. ) the generic Kähler class is given by $`J=t_1E+t_2L`$ with $`t_1,t_2`$ coordinates on the Kähler moduli space. In the degree 18 model again one has $`\sigma =E=B=P^2`$ and $`\pi ^{}K_B=3L`$; note that $`H=3L+E`$ with a corresponding multiplicative relation $`S_E=S_HS_L^3`$ for the matrices.

$$z_1^{18}+z_2^{18}+z_3^{18}+z_4^3+z_5^2=0$$

Here the relation becomes

$$S_V=S_ES_L^6S_{}S_E$$

where the commuting (cf. , p. 12) matrices $`S_L,S_E`$ are given by

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_L& =\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 0& 1& 3& 2& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 1\end{array}\right),S_E=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 1& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 9& 0& 3\\ 0& 0& 1& 3& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 3& 0& 1\end{array}\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

In order to obtain the matrices $`S_{}`$ and $`S_V`$ we have to use the comparison (performed for this model in ) of the central charges $`Z(𝐧)`$ and $`Z(Q)`$ which gives the relation between the middle cohomology charges $`𝐧`$ and the cohomological invariants of the vector bundle $`𝒢`$

$$ch(𝒢)=(n,\alpha E+\beta L,\gamma EL+\delta L^2,ϵ)$$

where the coefficients are given in terms of the BPS charge vector n

$$(n,\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\delta ,ϵ)=(n_6,n_4^1,n_4^2,\frac{3}{2}n_4^1+n_2^2,\frac{3}{2}n_4^2+n_2^1,n_0+\frac{1}{2}n_4^13n_4^2)$$

The FM transforms $`\widehat{S}(.)`$ and $`S_{}(.)`$ induce a linear transformation on the BPS charge lattice

$$S_{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}1& 0& 3& 9& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 3& 9& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 3& 0& 1\end{array}\right),S_V=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}0& 1& 0& 1& 0& 3\\ 1& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 3& 1\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& 3& 3& 0\end{array}\right)$$

with $`S_{}^1=P(S_{}()),S_V^1=P(\widehat{S}())`$ denoting the linear transformations on the lattice $`𝐧`$.

Finally, using these matrices we can write the $`M`$ matrix as (for $`\alpha =n_4^1=0`$; $`l`$ relates (cf. (1)) the period basis with the ’fibration’ basis (1) , $`S_{td}`$ represents the $`Td(N)`$ twist )

$$M=l[S_V^1]^tl^1S_{td}$$

Let us close with some remarks:

1) First we want to point to some analogues on the mirror side. Note that (1) also shows that if we perform a linear transformation on $`H^3(Y)`$ (transforming in the “fibre base”) by $`l`$ the $`M`$ matrix naturally operates on the charge lattice as

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}n\\ \alpha \\ \beta \\ \gamma \\ \delta \\ ϵ\end{array}\right)=M\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ n\\ \gamma \\ \beta \\ ϵ\\ \delta \end{array}\right)$$

and thus (1) gives just the right transport of the $`M`$ matrix to $`H^3(Y)`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H^{even}(X)& \stackrel{M}{}& H^{even}(X)\\ & & \\ H^3(Y)& \stackrel{M}{}& H^3(Y)\end{array}$$

Thus the $`l`$ transformation shows how to get the ’fibration’ basis (1) from the Kähler period vector basis, resp. (after identification with the mirror side) how the (1) basis (when transported via identification to the mirror side) is related to the complex structure period vector basis, making explicit the decomposition in $`H^3(Y)`$ corresponding to (1)

$$H^3(Y)=H^{nonell}H^{ell}$$

One can ask whether this decomposition and ’duality’ transformation on the middle cohomology of $`Y`$ comes actually from a natural decomposition and map on the space $`Y`$. Also, in the context of the extended mirror conjecture  with its $`h^1(End(V),X)=h^1(C)`$, one can transport detailed information about $`V`$ from index computations.

2) For the line bundle $`L`$ on the spectral cover $`C`$ one has

$$0H^1(C,𝒪_C)Ext_X^1(i_{}L,i_{}L)H^0(C,𝒪_C)0$$

so that

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{dim}Ext_D^1(L,L)& =h^1(C,𝒪_D)=h^{(0,1)}(C)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{dim}Ext_X^1(i_{}L,i_{}L)& =h^1(C,𝒪_D)+h^0(C,N)=h^{(0,1)}(C)+h^{(2,0)}(C)\hfill \end{array}$$

The vector bundle $`V=S^0(i_{}L)`$ has as unique inverse FM transform $`\widehat{S}^1(V)=i_{}L`$,so

$$Ext_X^1(V,V)=Ext_X^1(\widehat{S}^1(V),\widehat{S}^1(V))=Ext_X^1(i_{}L,i_{}L)$$

(by the “Parceval isomorphism”) and then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{dim}Ext_D^1(L,L)& =h^1(C,𝒪_D)=h^{(0,1)}(C)\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{dim}Ext_X^1(V,V)& =h^1(C,𝒪_D)+h^0(C,N)=h^{(0,1)}(C)+h^{(2,0)}(C)\hfill \end{array}$$

Actually one can see explicitly that $`\mathrm{dim}Ext_X^1(V,V)=\mathrm{dim}Ext_X^1(i_{}L,i_{}L)`$ without using (1) : use the character valued index and compute in the spectral cover representation (cf.  ) the relation $`\mathrm{dim}H^1(X,End(V))=h^{(2,0)}(C)+h^{(1,0)}(C)`$ showing the agreement.

References

relax B. Andreas, G. Curio, D. Hernández Ruipérez and S.-T. Yau, “Fourier-Mukai Transform and Mirror Symmetry for D-Branes and Elliptic Calabi-Yau”, math. AG/0012196. relax R. Friedman, J. Morgan and E. Witten, “Vector Bundles and F- Theory,” Commun. Math. Phys. 187 (1997) 679, hep-th/9701162. relax T. Bridgeland, “ Fourier-Mukai transforms for elliptic surfaces”, J. reine angew. Math. 498, alg-geom/9705002. relax C. Bartocci, U. Bruzzo, D. Hernández Ruipérez and J. M. Muñoz Porras, “Mirror symmetry on K3 surfaces via Fourier-Mukai transform”, Commun. Math. Phys. 195 (1998), 79-93 relax D. Hernández Ruipérez and J. M. Muñoz Porras, “Structure of the moduli space of stable sheaves on elliptic fibrations”, math. AG/9809019. relax R. Donagi, B. Ovrut, T. Pantev and D. Waldram, “Standard Models from Heterotic M-theory”, hep-th/9912208. relax P. Candelas, A. Font, S. Katz and D. Morrison, “Mirror Symmetry for Two Parameter Models- II”, hep-th/9403187. relax D.-E. Diaconescu and C. Römelsberger, “D-Branes and Bundles on Elliptic Fibrations”, hep-th/9910172. relax P. Candelas, X. De La Ossa, A. Font, S. Katz and D. R. Morrison, “Mirror symmetry for two parameter models I”, Nucl. Phys. B416 (1994) 481, hep-th/9308083. relax C. Vafa, “Extending Mirror Conjecture to Calabi-Yau with Bundles”, hep-th/9804131. relax G. Curio and R. Donagi, “Moduli in N=1 Heterotic/F-Theory Duality”, Nucl.Phys. B518 (1998) 603, hep-th/9801057.