text:
# Bulk and boundary zero-bias anomaly in multi-wall carbon nanotubes

## Abstract

We compute the tunneling density of states of doped multi-wall nanotubes including disorder and electron-electron interactions. A non-conventional Coulomb blockade reflecting nonperturbative Altshuler-Aronov-Lee power-law zero-bias anomalies is found, in accordance with recent experimental results. The presence of a boundary implies a universal doubling of the boundary exponent in the diffusive limit.

Carbon nanotubes provide a remarkable and exciting arena for mesoscopic transport phenomena involving strong electron correlations . Recent experiments on single-wall nanotubes (SWNTs) have established the ballistic nature of SWNT transport and revealed the Luttinger liquid (LL) behavior of 1D interacting fermions . However, the situation is less clear for multi-wall nanotubes (MWNTs), which are composed of several (about ten) concentrically arranged graphite shells, where experiments seem more consistent with diffusive transport , e.g. showing typical weak localization features in the magnetoconductance.

Quite remarkably, several experimental observations for MWNTs do not seem to fit into the framework of existing theories. The most prominent example concerns the pronounced power-law zero bias anomaly of the tunneling density of states (TDOS) found at low energy scales, $`E\stackrel{<}{}0.1`$ eV ,

$$\nu (E)E^\alpha ,\alpha 0.3.$$
(1)
Furthermore, the TDOS at the end of the MWNT, while still of power-law form, is characterized by the boundary exponent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}0.6`$. In this Letter, we show that these results can be understood in terms of a particularly effective and non-conventional Coulomb blockade (CB) for tunneling into a strongly interacting disordered metal. Charge propagation on the MWNT is then effectively two-dimensional (2D), but for very low energy scales not probed in Ref., $`E<E^{}`$ with $`E^{}`$ in Eq. (16) below, a crossover to 1D pseudo-gap behavior  is expected.

The key ingredient in CB theory is the probability $`P(E)`$ that a tunneling electron excites electromagnetic modes with energy $`E`$ in the system . The theory is meaningful if these modes are harmonic, and then $`P(E)`$ directly determines the TDOS,

$$\frac{\nu (E)}{\nu _0}=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑E^{}\frac{1+\mathrm{exp}(E/k_BT)}{1+\mathrm{exp}(E^{}/k_BT)}P(EE^{}),$$
(2)
where $`\nu _0`$ is the non-interacting DOS. The probability $`P(E)`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{exp}[J(t)]`$, with the phase correlation function ($`\mathrm{}=1`$)

$`J(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}d\omega {\displaystyle \frac{I(\omega )}{\omega }}\{\mathrm{coth}(\omega /2k_BT)[\mathrm{cos}(\omega t)1]`$ (4)
$`i\mathrm{sin}(\omega t)\}`$
for a spectral density $`I(\omega )`$ of electromagnetic modes. For simplicity, we now focus on the zero-temperature case. Provided $`I(\omega )`$ remains finite for low frequencies, Eqs. (2) and (4) then straightforwardly lead to the power law (1) with exponent $`\alpha =I(\omega 0)`$.

In a conventional CB system, $`I(\omega )`$ is phenomenologically parameterized in terms of the total impedance $`Z(\omega )`$ , and one obtains $`\alpha =Z(0)/(h/2e^2)`$. Such a transmission line model directly explains the doubling of the end exponent, as in the bulk case one has effectively two resistances in parallel as compared to the end case. Applying this model to MWNTs, however, one finds rather small values for $`\alpha `$, and, in addition, the observed voltage dependence cannot be reproduced . On the other hand, for a LL, the elementary excitations are harmonic, $`I(\omega )`$ is known, and hence $`P(E)`$ can also be computed exactly. The resulting exponents can be written in terms of the standard interaction parameter $`g`$, and the ratio $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}^{\mathrm{LL}}/\alpha ^{\mathrm{LL}}`$ is $`g`$-dependent and always larger than two . In MWNTs $`g`$ is modified by inner-shell screening, and the relation between $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`g`$ is affected by the available subbands . Estimating $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{LL}}`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}^{\mathrm{LL}}`$ for the situation of Ref., they are at least one order of magnitude smaller than observed. Hence neither conventional CB nor LL theory can explain these data.

For a ballistic system, the full crossover in the CB between a (single-channel) LL and a (many-channel) classical resistor has been worked out in Ref.. The results of this study imply that it is crucial to take disorder into account here. We thus have to (i) establish the harmonic nature of the electromagnetic modes, (ii) compute the low-frequency spectrum $`I(\omega )`$ and hence the exponent $`\alpha `$, and (iii) compute the end exponent. Note that a perturbative treatment of the interactions is not sufficient, as the power law (1) is inconsistent with conventional (1D or 2D) Altshuler-Aronov-Lee (AAL) predictions for the TDOS . However, 2D AAL logarithmic dependencies have been observed for MWNT bundles, which presumably are characterized by weaker interactions .

The main difference between MWNTs and SWNTs, apart from the larger radii of MWNTs, $`R`$ 4 to 10 nm, stems from the presence of inner shells. Although inter-shell tunneling is largely suppressed for a number of reasons , and hence transport proceeds only through the outermost contacted shell , inner shells cause a screening of the electron-electron interaction. For a computation of the TDOS, the latter effect, as well as spin and Fermi (K) point degeneracy , can be included by a renormalization of the electron-electron interaction potential $`U(\stackrel{}{q})`$ , and hence we consider spinless electrons with only one K point in what follows. Since different shells always have incommensurate lattices, a quasiperiodic ionic potential from inner shells acts on outermost-shell electrons. The effect of such a potential is very similar to a random potential described by a mean free path $`\mathrm{}=v\tau `$ , which can be estimated from a disordered tight-binding approach using random on-site energies with variance $`\sigma _E^2`$. For nearest-neighbor hopping $`t_0`$ and $`2N+1`$ subbands (see below), one finds

$$\mathrm{}=(t_0/\sigma _E)^2R/(2N+1)10R.$$
(5)
Here $`\sigma _Et_0/10`$ corresponds to the hopping strength between adjacent shells, and $`N5`$. Therefore disorder is present even in impurity-free MWNTs. In addition, “true” disorder imposed by imperfections, substrate inhomogeneities, or defects can be important. Using Matthiessen’s rule, $`\mathrm{}^1\mathrm{}^1+\mathrm{}_0^1`$, where $`\mathrm{}_0`$ is the mean free path due to “true” disorder. Typical values of $`\mathrm{}5`$ to 100 nm were reported in Refs. . Hence disorder is still “weak”, $`k_F\mathrm{}1`$, and the possibility of a diffusive phase of interacting electrons must be discussed. Doped MWNTs are in between the 1D and 2D limits and may be expected to show diffusive behavior over a wide energy range, where the Anderson localization expected for truly 1D disordered systems has not yet set in. We mention in passing that the phase relaxation length is $`\mathrm{}_\varphi 500`$ nm at 2 K, with the usual $`T`$ dependence due to electron-electron interactions .

The bandstructure of a clean nanotube is described by a Dirac “light cone”, $`E(\stackrel{}{k})=v|\stackrel{}{k}|`$, with $`\stackrel{}{k}=(k,k_{})`$ and quantized transverse momentum, $`k_{}=n/R`$, where $`n=N,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`N=[k_FR]`$. The Fermi velocity is $`v=8\times 10^5`$ m/sec, and the number $`2N+1`$ of 1D subbands arising from periodic boundary conditions around the circumference is determined by the doping level $`\mu `$ via $`k_F=\mu /v`$. Since MWNTs studied experimentally so far are characterized by rather large doping, $`\mu 0.5`$ eV , a typical value is $`N5`$. The $`n`$th subband is characterized by Fermi velocity and momentum,

$$v_n=v\sqrt{1(n/k_FR)^2},k_n=k_Fv_n/v.$$
(6)
The theoretical description for small $`\mu `$ is quite intricate and will be given elsewhere, as the disorder causes logarithmic divergences of the self energy due to the vanishing DOS of the Dirac cone . Fortunately, these complications are absent for the case studied below, $`k_FR1`$. In the following, we focus on energy scales $`E<v/R`$, where it is sufficient to take a fixed $`N`$ and thereby ignore van Hove singularities associated with the opening of new 1D bands as the energy varies.

Let us start with the bulk TDOS, where standard diagrammatic perturbation theory  adopted to the MWNT geometry is quite illuminating. The disorder-averaged Greens function is

$$G_{R/A}(E,\stackrel{}{k})=[E+\mu E(\stackrel{}{k})+i\mathrm{sgn}(E)/2\tau ]^1,$$
(7)
and hence the non-interacting DOS is

$$\nu _0=\frac{\mathrm{Im}}{\pi }\frac{dk}{2\pi }\underset{k_{}}{}G_R(E,\stackrel{}{k})=\underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{\pi v_n}.$$
(8)
Prefactors in expressions like Eq. (8) are always chosen to ensure the correct 1D limit for $`N=0`$. In the 2D limit, $`N1`$, the above DOS is related to the conventional 2D DOS, $`\nu _{2\mathrm{D}}=k_F/2\pi v`$, via $`\nu _0=2\pi R\nu _{2\mathrm{D}}`$. The vertex renormalization due to one impurity line is described by

$`\xi (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu _0\tau }}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }\underset{k_{}}{}G_R(E+\omega ,\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q})G_A(E,\stackrel{}{k})}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma =\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \nu _0v_n}}[1i\omega \tau `$ (11)
$`+i\sigma v_n\tau (q+nq_{}/\sqrt{(k_FR)^2n^2})]^1,`$
where $`q_{}=m/R`$ is also quantized. In the low-energy long-wavelength limit, $`\omega \tau ,|\stackrel{}{q}|\mathrm{}1`$, Eq. (11) implies

$$\xi (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})=1+i\omega \tau Dq^2\tau D_{}q_{}^2\tau ,$$
(12)
with diffusion constants $`D=(\tau /\pi \nu _0)_nv_n`$ and

$`D_{}=(\tau /\pi \nu _0)(v/k_FR)^2{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n^2/v_nD.`$

One checks easily that $`D_{}D`$ for large $`k_FR`$, with $`Dv^2\tau /2`$. For $`N=0`$, however, $`D_{}=0`$ and $`D=v^2\tau `$, and therefore both 1D and 2D limits are correctly reproduced. Summing the usual ladder series then directly implies a diffusion pole, $`[1\xi (\omega ,\stackrel{}{q})]^1`$.

To ensure the validity of the ladder approximation, however, the smallness of “crossed” diagrams first needs to be checked. Since here one is actually in between the 1D and 2D limits, the usual reasoning leading to a suppression factor $`1/k_F\mathrm{}`$ for crossed diagrams does not apply. Evaluation of the simplest diagram of the crossed type and comparing it to the corresponding ladder diagram gives a suppression factor $`f=(1/2)_n1/(\pi \nu _0v_n)^2`$. Since $`f=1/2`$ for $`N=0`$, it is clearly not justified to neglect crossed diagrams for small doping level $`\mu `$ where one approaches the 1D limit. The resulting breakdown of the diffusive picture in this limit is of course expected from 1D localization theory. For $`k_FR1`$, however, we obtain $`f\mathrm{ln}(k_FR)/[2\pi ^2k_FR]1`$, and are thus entitled to neglect crossed diagrams. In that case, $`D_{}D=v^2\tau /2`$.

Here we consider an effectively short-ranged 1D interaction, $`U(\stackrel{}{q})U_0`$, since the $`1/r`$ tail of the Coulomb interaction potential is often externally screened, e.g. by close-by metallic gates. Even when working on an insulating substrate, a situation characterized by a long-ranged interaction, the finite length of the MWNT will lead to a cutoff for the logarithmic singularity. Note that $`U_0`$ represents a 1D Fourier component and hence is appropriate for screening lengths $`\lambda _s`$ large compared to $`R`$. In the 2D limit, $`R\lambda _s`$, this interaction constant is related to the respective 2D parameter via $`U_0=U_{2\mathrm{D}}/R`$. For the case of interest here, $`R\lambda _s`$, and the order-of-magnitude estimate $`U_0/2\pi v1`$ obtains , implying a dielectric constant $`ϵ10`$. Under an extended Hubbard model description, this amounts to $`U/t`$ 1 to 5 in standard terminology. The first-order interaction correction to the TDOS can then be obtained following well-known arguments . Since the Hartree correction is subleading, we focus on the exchange correction,

$$\frac{\delta \nu (E)}{\nu _0}=\frac{\tau }{\pi }\mathrm{Re}\frac{dq}{2\pi }\underset{q_{}}{}U(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{\xi (E,\stackrel{}{q})}{1\xi (E,\stackrel{}{q})}.$$
(13)
Together with Eq. (11), this result describes the complete crossover from the ballistic LL to the diffusive limit. For $`\tau \mathrm{}`$, no energy dependence is found, in agreement with $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{LL}}=0`$ to this order in $`U_0`$. In the diffusive limit, however, Eq. (13) can be simplified to

$$\frac{\delta \nu (E)}{\nu _0}=\frac{U_0}{2\pi \sqrt{D}}\mathrm{Re}\underset{n=N}{\overset{N}{}}\left(iE+Dn^2/R^2\right)^{1/2}.$$
(14)
The $`n=0`$ contribution yields the $`E^{1/2}`$ 1D AAL correction, while the $`n0`$ contributions give a 2D logarithmic correction ,

$$\delta \nu (E)/\nu _0=\alpha \mathrm{ln}(E/E_0),$$
(15)
with $`E_0\mu `$ and $`\alpha =U_0R/(2\pi D)`$. In fact, Eq. (15) also holds in the quasi-ballistic regime, $`E\tau 1`$ . Comparing the 1D and 2D contributions in Eq. (14), we see that only for sufficiently low energy scales, $`E<E^{}`$, the 1D AAL law, $`\delta \nu E^{1/2}`$, takes over, where we estimate

$$E^{}\frac{v\mathrm{}}{16R^2\mathrm{ln}^2(k_FR)}\stackrel{<}{}1\mathrm{meV}$$
(16)
for the crossover scale. Equation (16) holds for weak-to-intermediate interactions, but may change for very strong interactions. For $`E>E^{}`$, Eq. (15) then gives the leading contribution, and the TDOS should be essentially equivalent to the one of a 2D disordered interacting metal.

Since in MWNTs, interactions are of intermediate strength, the lowest-order result (15) is not sufficient. Higher-order terms in $`U_0`$ were recently discussed by Kamenev and Andreev . In the framework of the dynamical Keldysh formalism for a 2D system with long-ranged Coulomb interactions, a derivation of the TDOS valid for arbitrary interaction strength has been presented. Within the saddle-point approximation for the emerging nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, the electromagnetic modes are indeed Gaussian, with spectral density

$$I(\omega )=\frac{\omega }{\pi }\mathrm{Im}\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\frac{1}{(Dq^2i\omega )^2}\left(U_0^1+\frac{\nu _0Dq^2}{Dq^2i\omega }\right)^1.$$
(17)
Adopting this result to MWNTs in the energy regime $`E>E^{}`$, the bulk exponent $`\alpha =I(\omega 0)`$ follows as

$$\alpha =\frac{U_0R}{2\pi D}\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1+\nu _0U_0)}{\nu _0U_0}.$$
(18)
For weak interactions, the second factor is close to unity, and thus $`\alpha `$ is just the prefactor in Eq. (15). In effect, the AAL logarithmic correction therefore exponentiates into a power law. Using $`U_0/2\pi v1`$ and $`N5`$, we then estimate $`\alpha R/\mathrm{}`$. To compare with experiment, note that $`\mathrm{}10R`$ from Eq. (5), so long as only intrinsic disorder via the inner-shell potentials is present. Then one gets the same exponent for different tubes, $`\alpha 0.1`$. When “true” disorder is included, $`\alpha `$ should increase and depend on the particular MWNT. This appears to be in qualitative agreement with Ref., where values between $`\alpha =0.24`$ and $`0.37`$ were observed for 11 different MWNTs.

Next we turn to the boundary TDOS by considering a semi-infinite MWNT, $`x0`$. In the absence of disorder, the boundary Greens function is ($`\delta =0^+`$)

$`G_0^b(E,k_{};x,x^{})={\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dk}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{4\mathrm{sin}(kx)\mathrm{sin}(kx^{})}{E+\mu E(\stackrel{}{k})+i\delta \mathrm{sgn}(E)}},`$

which can be written as $`G_0^h(xx^{})G_0^h(x+x^{})`$ with the homogeneous Greens function $`G_0^h`$. Therefore the boundary simply causes the “image term” $`G_0^h(x+x^{})`$. To include disorder, it is convenient to solve the Dyson equation in a real-space formalism. In the Born approximation, the self energy is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)=(\pi \nu _0\tau )^1[G_0^h(0)G_0^h(2x)]`$. If we retain only the $`G_0^h(0)`$ term in the self energy, the disorder-averaged boundary Greens function is

$$G^b(E,k_{};x,x^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dk}{2\pi }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}\mathrm{sin}(kx)\mathrm{sin}(kx^{})G(E,\stackrel{}{k}),$$
(19)
where we use Eq. (7). In the 1D limit, $`k_FR\stackrel{<}{}1`$, the image part $`G_0^h(2x)`$ in the self energy is crucial and modifies the structure of $`G^b`$. For the more interesting limit $`k_FR1`$, it suffices to analyze a semi-infinite plane, with the lowest-order correction from the image part

$`\delta G^b(\stackrel{}{r},X)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi \nu _{2\mathrm{D}}\tau }}{\displaystyle 𝑑\stackrel{}{x}^{\prime \prime }G_0^h\left(\frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{2}\stackrel{}{x}^{\prime \prime }\right)}`$ (20)
$`\times `$ $`G_0^h(2x^{\prime \prime }+2X,0)G_0^h\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{}{r}}{2}}+\stackrel{}{x}^{\prime \prime }\right),`$ (21)
where the integration extends over the half plane, $`X=(x+x^{})/2`$ is the distance to the boundary, and $`\stackrel{}{r}=\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{x}^{}`$ is the relative coordinate. For $`\stackrel{}{r}=0`$, this can be seen to vanish identically. Under the conditions that $`k_FX1`$ and $`k_Fr1`$, Eq. (21) simplifies to

$`\delta G^b(\stackrel{}{r},X){\displaystyle \frac{1}{k_F\mathrm{}\nu _{2\mathrm{D}}}}G_0^h(2X)G_0^h(r).`$

This gives subleading corrections to Eq. (19) that are suppressed by a factor $`1/k_FX`$ or $`1/k_Fr`$, whichever is smaller. As these corrections die out on the microscopic lengthscale $`1/k_F`$, we take Eq. (19) in what follows.

The real-space diagrammatic perturbation theory can then be carried out explicitly. Dressing the interaction vertices with impurity lines within the ladder approximation, the first-order correction to the TDOS at position $`x`$ in the diffusive limit is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \nu (E,x)}{\nu _0}}={\displaystyle \frac{\tau }{\pi }}\mathrm{Re}{\displaystyle \frac{dq}{2\pi }2\mathrm{cos}^2(qx)\underset{q_{}}{}U(\stackrel{}{q})\frac{\xi (E,\stackrel{}{q})}{1\xi (E,\stackrel{}{q})}},`$

with $`\xi (E,\stackrel{}{q})`$ given by Eq. (12). For $`x(D/E)^{1/2}`$, we recover the bulk result (13). However, when tunneling into the end of the MWNT, $`x(D/E)^{1/2}`$, the prefactor in Eq. (15) gets doubled. This doubling can be rationalized using the quasi-classical picture of Ref. , where the TDOS at position $`x`$ is related to the Fourier transform of the return probability $`P(x,t)`$. The latter satisfies the diffusion equation with the boundary condition that no current flows across the boundary, leading to $`P(x,t)/P(\mathrm{},t)=1+\mathrm{exp}(x^2/Dt)`$. Close to the boundary, the return probability is then doubled.

Repeating the above arguments leading to the power law (1) for the bulk TDOS then implies again a power law, now characterized by the boundary exponent $`\alpha _{\mathrm{end}}=2\alpha `$. The doubling of the exponent as one goes from the bulk to the boundary is in agreement with the experimental results of Ref. . It should be noted that our derivation holds only in the diffusive limit. Remarkably, this doubling – which is based on the properties of the boundary diffuson close to the edge – coincides with the prediction of the classical resistor model.

Let us conclude by listing several open questions raised by our study. Future work needs to address the situation at small doping levels, the magnetic field dependence of the TDOS, and the conductivity. We hope that future theoretical and experimental work continues to reveal the subtle and beautiful interplay of disorder, dimensionality, and interactions presented by multi-wall nanotubes.

We thank L.I. Glazman for discussions, and A. Bachtold, Li Lu, and C. Schönenberger for motivating this work and providing unpublished data. Support by the by the DFG (Gerhard-Hess program) and by the EPSRC (Grant GR/N19359) is acknowledged.


format: text

text:
# Color-Flavor Transformation for the Special Unitary Group and Application to Low Energy QCD

## 1 Introduction

Effective Lagrangians have been seen to work well in the description of low energy properties of mesons and hadrons, since their introduction . Initially these Lagrangians were introduced ad hoc by considering the symmetries of the underlying theory, QCD. Later concrete calculations schemes were given to connect the effective action with the QCD low energy lattice action, see for example . The purpose of this work is to introduce a new method for calculating a effective action, which rests on a recently discovered transformation . The starting point is the Euclidean $`\mathrm{SU}(N_c)`$ lattice gauge theory  described by the action

$$S=S_{\text{gauge}}+S_{\text{quarks}},$$
(1)
where $`S_{\text{gauge}}`$ is the standard kinetic term for the Yang-Mills action on the lattice

$$S_{\text{gauge}}=\frac{1}{4g^2}\underset{\text{plaquettes}}{}\mathrm{Tr}(UUU^{}U^{})+\text{c.c.}$$
(2)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{\text{quarks}}=\frac{1}{2a}\underset{\text{sites }n}{}& \underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\left(\overline{q}_a^i(n)\gamma _\mu U_\mu ^{ij}(n)q_a^j(n+e_\mu )\overline{q}_a^i(n+e_\mu )\gamma _\mu U_\mu ^{ij}(n)q_a^j(n)\right)\hfill \\ & +\overline{q}_a^i(n)M_{ab}q_b^i(n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
is a discrete counterpart of the Dirac operator, which couples the quarks to the gauge field. Throughout this work we consider the strong coupling limit and neglect the action $`S_{\text{gauge}}`$.

In this brief report we will give only results, while proofs and details of the calculations will be presented elsewhere. The paper is organized as follows: we start by illustrating the color flavor transformation for the cases of $`\mathrm{U}(N_c)`$ and $`\mathrm{SU}(N_c)`$ (sect. 2). In sect. 3 we apply this technique to transform the partition function of strong coupling QCD and arrive at a decomposition of the partition function into disconnected sectors characterized by the baryonic charge. The integration over the quarks is performed in the pure mesonic sector and leads to a theory of a collective field $`Z`$, with $`N_c`$ appearing as a factor in front of the action (sect. 4). A saddle point approximation is used to estimate the partition function in the leading order of the inverse number of colors (sect. 5). We make use of a long distance approximation in combination with a gradient expansion to recover the corresponding low energy effective action. In our approach the lattice constant $`a`$ is a parameter, which has to be fixed at a certain value to yield to realistic values of the observables. In sect. 6 we give first results for the case of a single baryon on a mesonic background.

## 2 Color-Flavor Transformation

We start with a simple example, which illustrates the general form of the transformation . For four fermion fields $`\overline{q}_+,q_+`$ and $`\overline{q}_{},q_{}`$ one can easily check the relation

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{1}{2\pi }_0^{2\pi }𝑑u\mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_+e^{iu}q_++\overline{q}_{}e^{iu}q_{})=1+\overline{q}_+q_+\overline{q}_{}q_{}=\hfill \\ & 2_{}\frac{d\mu (z,\overline{z})}{1+z\overline{z}}\mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_+z\overline{q}_{}q_+\overline{z}q_{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
The integration measure $`d\mu (z,\overline{z})=\frac{\text{const.}}{(1+z\overline{z})^2}dzd\overline{z}`$ is the natural measure of two-sphere $`S^2`$ in stereographical coordinates. In ref.  the following remarkable generalization of the above scheme was given:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _{U(N_c)}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_{+a}^iU^{ij}q_{+a}^j+\overline{q}_b^i\overline{U}^{ij}q_b^j)=\hfill \\ & _{^{N_f\times N_f}}\frac{D\mu (Z,Z^{})}{\mathrm{Det}(1+ZZ^{})^{N_c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{q}_{+a}^iZ_{ab}\overline{q}_b^iq_{+a}^i\overline{Z}_{ab}q_b^i\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(5)
The fermions are now vectors of $`N_f`$ ”flavors” ($`a,b=1,\mathrm{},N_f`$) and $`N_c`$ ”colors” ($`i,j=1,\mathrm{},N_c`$). The field $`Z`$ becomes a $`N_f\times N_f`$-matrix and the integration measure

$$D\mu (Z,Z^{})=\frac{\text{const.}}{\mathrm{Det}(1+ZZ^{})^{2N_f}}dZdZ^{}$$
(6)
is the invariant measure on the compact coset space $`\mathrm{U}(2N_f)/\mathrm{U}(N_f)\times \mathrm{U}(N_f)`$. For obvious reasons equation (LABEL:uncnf) is called the color-flavor transformation for the color group $`\mathrm{U}(N_c)`$. Note that for $`N_f=1`$ the coset space is isomorphic to the two-sphere ($`\mathrm{U}(2)/\mathrm{U}(1)\times \mathrm{U}(1)S^2`$). Thus for $`N_f=1`$ the general scheme reduces to the special case considered before.

There are color-flavor transformations for several other groups . Having an application to QCD in mind, we consider the special unitary group $`\mathrm{SU}(N_c)`$, which is the gauge group of the strong interaction ($`N_c=3`$). Again we start with the simplest case $`N_c=1`$ and $`N_f=1`$, where the integral on the l.h.s. of (LABEL:u11) reduces to a single point (evaluation at unity), and the following statement is immediate:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_+q_++\overline{q}_{}q_{})=1+\overline{q}_+q_++\overline{q}_{}q_{}+\overline{q}_+q_+\overline{q}_{}q_{}=\hfill \\ & 2_{}\frac{d\mu (z,\overline{z})}{1+z\overline{z}}\mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_+z\overline{q}_{}q_+\overline{z}q_{})(1+\frac{1}{2}\overline{q}_+(1+z\overline{z})q_++\frac{1}{2}\overline{q}_{}(1+z\overline{z})q_{}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Again, cf. , this is a special case of a more general scheme:

$$\begin{array}{cc}& _{SU(N_c)}𝑑U\mathrm{exp}(\overline{q}_{+a}^iU^{ij}q_{+a}^j+\overline{q}_b^i\overline{U}^{ij}q_b^j)=\hfill \\ & _{^{N_f\times N_f}}\frac{D\mu (Z,Z^{})}{\mathrm{Det}(1+ZZ^{})^{N_c}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\overline{q}_{+a}^iZ_{ab}\overline{q}_b^iq_{+a}^i\overline{Z}_{ab}q_b^i\right)\underset{Q=N_f}{\overset{N_f}{}}\chi _Q(Z,Z^{},q,\overline{q}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
The physical interpretation of equation (LABEL:suncnf) is as follows: It is a sum over contributions, which come from mesonic excitations over the vacuum ($`Q=0`$) or mesonic excitations in the presence of $`|Q|`$ baryons ($`Q>0`$) or $`|Q|`$ antibaryons ($`Q<0`$). The explicit expressions for $`\chi _Q`$ in the vacuum sector and in the one-baryon sector are

$$\begin{array}{c}\hfill \chi _0=\text{const.},\chi _1=\text{const.}\underset{\sigma S_{N_c}}{}\mathrm{sgn}\sigma \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\overline{q}_{+a}^i(1+ZZ^{})_{ab}q_{+b}^{\sigma (i)}.\end{array}$$
(9)
The sum runs over all permutations $`S_{N_c}`$ of the numbers $`1,\mathrm{},N_c`$.

## 3 Lattice Gauge Theory

We consider a Euclidean $`\mathrm{SU}(N_c)`$ gauge theory in $`d`$ dimensions on a hypercubic lattice with lattice constant $`a`$. We restrict our considerations to an even number $`d`$ of spacetime dimensions. The fermions $`\psi (n)`$ are placed on the lattice sites labeled by $`n`$, while the gauge field $`U_\mu (n)`$ is put on the lattice links, which may be labeled by a lattice site $`n`$ and a direction $`\mu =1,..,d`$. The gauge theory is described by the partition function

$$𝒵(q,\overline{q})=\underset{n,\mu }{}_{\mathrm{SU}(N_c)}𝑑U_\mu (n)\mathrm{exp}(S_{n,\mu }(U_\mu (n))),$$
(10)
where the fermions on two neighboring sites are coupled through the gauge field on the connecting link in the gauge invariant way

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{n,\mu }\left(U_\mu (n)\right)=& \frac{1}{2a}\left(\overline{q}_a^i(n)\gamma _\mu U_\mu ^{ij}(n)q_a^j(n+e_\mu )\overline{q}_a^i(n+e_\mu )\gamma _\mu U_\mu ^{ij}(n)q_a^j(n)\right)\hfill \\ & +\overline{q}_a^i(n)M_{ab}q_b^i(n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
The action (11) is a discrete version of the gauge covariant Dirac operator. Here we do not worry about the fermion doubling problem and employ naive fermions. The mass matrix $`M=\mathrm{diag}(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{N_f})`$ contains the quark masses and is diagonal in flavor space. The Dirac spinor fields carry spacetime indices, which take values $`\nu =1,\mathrm{},N_s`$ with $`N_s=2^{d/2}`$, and are coupled through the $`\gamma `$-matrices. The $`\gamma `$-matrices are the generators of a Clifford algebra over the Euclidean spacetime and satisfy the anticommutation relations $`\gamma _\mu \gamma _\nu +\gamma _\nu \gamma _\mu =2\delta _{\mu \nu }`$. Now we apply the color-flavor transformation to the gauge field $`U_\mu (n)`$ separately on each link. In doing so, we get a new action, which is a function of the flavor field $`Z_\mu (n)`$, which is again situated at the links of the lattice. The result is a sum over contributions from sectors with different baryonic charge $`Q`$ and can be written as

$$𝒵(q,\overline{q})=\underset{n,\mu }{}_{^{N_f\times N_f}}D\mu _{N_c}(Z_\mu (n),Z_\mu ^{}(n))\underset{Q=N_f}{\overset{N_f}{}}\chi _{Q,\mu }(n)\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{n,\mu }(Z_{n,\mu })\right)$$
(12)
with the integration measure (6). The color-flavor transformed action for a link $`(n,\mu )`$ reads

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{n,\mu }(Z_\mu (n))=& \frac{1}{2a}\left(\overline{q}_a^i(n+e_\mu )\gamma _\mu Z_{\mu ,ab}(n)q_b^i(n+e_\mu )+\overline{q}_a^i(n)\gamma _\mu Z_{\mu ,ab}^{}(n)q_b^i(n)\right)\hfill \\ & +\overline{q}_a^i(n)M_{ab}q_b^i(n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Explicit expressions for the prefactors in the case of the vacuum sector ($`Q=0`$) and the one-baryon sector ($`Q=1`$) are

$`\chi _{0,\mu }(n)`$ $`=\text{const.},`$ (14)
$`\chi _{1,\mu }(n)`$ $`=\text{const.}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma S_{N_c}}{}}\mathrm{sgn}\sigma {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}}\overline{q}_a^i(n+e_\mu )\gamma _\mu (1+Z_\mu Z_\mu ^{})_{ab}(n)q_b^{\sigma (i)}(n).`$ (15)
## 4 Integration over the Quarks and Saddle Point

Performing the Gaussian integral over the quarks in the pure mesonic sector ($`Q=0`$) and sending the result back to the exponent, we obtain the action

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S_{Q=0}(Z)=N_c(& \underset{n}{}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\gamma _\mu \left(Z_\mu (ne_\mu )+Z_\mu ^{}(n)\right)aM\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +& \underset{n}{}\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{ln}(1+Z_\mu (n)Z_\mu ^{}(n))).\hfill \end{array}$$
(16)
Variation with respect to the independent variables $`Z`$ and $`Z^{}`$ yields the saddle point equations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \gamma _\mu \left(\frac{1}{Z_\mu (n)}+Z_\mu ^{}(n)\right)& =\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\gamma _\nu \left(Z_\nu (ne_\nu )+Z_\nu ^{}(n)\right)2aM,\hfill \\ \hfill \gamma _\mu \left(\frac{1}{Z_\mu ^{}(ne_\mu )}+Z_\mu (ne_\mu )\right)& =\underset{\nu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\gamma _\nu \left(Z_\nu (ne_\nu )+Z_\nu ^{}(n)\right)2aM.\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
The solution of the saddle point equations is

$$Z_\mu ^0(n)=Z_\mu ^0(n)=z\gamma _\mu I\text{ with }z=\frac{1}{2d1}\left(aM\pm \sqrt{2d1+(aM)^2}\right),$$
(18)
where $`I`$ is the unit matrix in flavor space. Recall the following definitions of $`\gamma _5`$ and the projectors on the chiral components of the spinors

$`\gamma _5=i^{d(d1)/2}\gamma _1\mathrm{}\gamma _d,`$ (19)
$`\gamma _L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\gamma _5),\gamma _R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\gamma _5).`$ (20)
In the chiral limit ($`M=0`$) there is a saddle point manifold

$$Z_\mu ^0(n)=Z_\mu ^0(n)=z\gamma _\mu g^{\gamma _5}:=z\gamma _\mu (\gamma _Lg+\gamma _Rg^1),$$
(21)
which is parameterized by unitary matrices $`g\text{U}(N_f)`$. The lattice gauge theory in the chiral limit ($`M=0`$) is invariant under the chiral transformations ($`(g_L,g_R)\mathrm{U}(N_f)_L\times \mathrm{U}(N_f)_R`$) of the quarks fields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill q(n)& \left(\gamma _Lg_L+\gamma _Rg_R\right)q(n),\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{q}(n)& \left(\gamma _Lg_R^1+\gamma _Rg_L^1\right)\overline{q}(n).\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
The chiral symmetry of the action is preserved by the color-flavor transformation and leads to the invariance of the action (16) and the saddle point manifold under the transformations

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill Z_\mu (n)& \left(\gamma _Lg_L^1+\gamma _Rg_R^1\right)Z_\mu (n)\left(\gamma _Lg_L+\gamma _Rg_R\right),\hfill \\ \hfill Z_\mu ^{}(n)& \left(\gamma _Lg_L^1+\gamma _Rg_R^1\right)Z_\mu ^{}(n)\left(\gamma _Lg_L+\gamma _Rg_R\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
The saddle point (18) is invariant under (23) only if $`g_L=g_R`$, i.e. it breaks the the chiral $`\mathrm{U}(N_f)_L\times \mathrm{U}(N_f)_R`$ symmetry to the subgroup $`\mathrm{U}(N_f)`$. The above symmetry considerations explain how chiral symmetry breaking takes place in our approach to the gauge theory. The chiral symmetry breaking gives rise to Goldstone bosons, which can be identified with the coset space $`\mathrm{U}(N_f)_L\times \mathrm{U}(N_f)_R/\mathrm{U}(N_f)\mathrm{U}(N_f)`$ and parameterize the saddle point manifold (21).

## 5 Gradient Expansion

Our aim is to derive an effective theory, which describes the long range behavior of Goldstone modes $`g\mathrm{U}(N_f)`$. We use the technique of a long distance approximation in combination with a gradient expansion around the saddle point manifold, as it was developed in . The lattice action (16) is replaced by a simple continuum action

$$S_{Q=0}(Z)S(g)=S_{\text{fl}}(g)+S_M(g),$$
(24)
where $`S_{\text{fl}}(g)`$ is the action corresponding to fluctuations of the Goldstone modes, and $`S_M(g)`$ the contribution due to finite quark masses. More explicitly, $`Z_\mu (n)`$ is put into correspondence with a continuous field $`g(x)\mathrm{U}(N_f)`$ in the following way:

$$Z_\mu (n)=Z_\mu ^{}(n)=z\gamma _\mu g(n+\frac{a}{2}e_\mu )^{\gamma _5}.$$
(25)
Inserting into (16) the Taylor expansion

$$g(n+\frac{a}{2}e_\mu )=g(n)+\frac{a}{2}_\mu g(n)+\frac{1}{2!}\left(\frac{a}{2}\right)^2_\mu ^2g(n)+\mathrm{},$$
(26)
we obtain for the hypercubic lattice

$$S_{\text{fl}}(g)=\frac{N_s}{8d}a^{2d}d^dx\mathrm{Tr}\left(gg^1\right),$$
(27)
$$S_M(g)=N_s\frac{\sqrt{2d1}}{2d}a^dd^dx\mathrm{Tr}\left(aM(g+g^1)\right).$$
(28)
We have carried out the expansion up to fourth order derivatives. In particular, we have done so for a body-centered hypercubic (BHC) lattice in $`d=4`$ spacetime dimensions. The 4-dimensional BHC lattice has the advantage of leading to a continuum action with complete rotational $`\mathrm{O}(4)`$ symmetry. The results will be presented elsewhere .

In $`d=4`$ spacetime dimensions both parts of the actions (27) and (28) diverge when the lattice constant approaches zero. Recall that we are considering the strong coupling limit only, i.e. we neglect the kinetic term (2), which is suppressed as $`1/g^2`$. Therefore our theory is restricted to the low energy sector and we have to keep the lattice constant at a finite value. There are three ways to estimate the lattice constant $`a`$ through comparisons with experimental data: Using the relation

$$<\overline{q}_fq_f>=\frac{1}{V}\frac{}{m_f}|_0S_{\text{saddle}}=N_sN_c\frac{d1}{d\sqrt{2d1}}a^{1d},$$
(29)
we get from the experimental value for the chiral condensate $`a=(166\text{ MeV})^1`$. By looking at the coefficient in front of the fluctuation action,

$$\frac{F_\pi ^2}{4}=N_sN_c\frac{1}{8d}a^{2d},$$
(30)
we get from the experimental value for the pion decay constant $`F_\pi `$ the estimate $`a=(76\text{ MeV})^1`$. By looking at the coefficient in front of the fluctuation action,

$$\frac{1}{4}F_\pi ^2m_\pi ^2=N_sN_c\frac{\sqrt{2d1}}{2d}a^{1d}m_f,$$
(31)
we get from the experimental values for the pion decay constant, the mass of the pion $`m_\pi `$ and the mass of the light quarks $`m_f`$ the value $`a=(126\text{ MeV})^1`$. We conclude that the lattice constant has to be chosen as $`a(100\text{ MeV})^12\text{ Fermi}`$ to get a realistic description.

## 6 Static Baryon

We consider a single static baryon on a mesonic background. In doing so we deal with the $`Q=1`$ sector right on the worldline of the baryon and the $`Q=0`$ sector away from the baryon. Performing the integration over the quarks we have to take into account factors in front of the exponential along the worldline of the baryon, which stem from the expression for $`\chi _1`$ (15). We introduce periodic boundary conditions in the time direction. Introducing the quantity

$$M(n):=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{d}{}}\gamma _\mu \left(Z_\mu (ne_\mu )+Z_\mu ^{}(n)\right)aM$$
(32)
we are able to express the action for the static baryon on the mesonic background by means of the following propagator along the wordline

$$𝖦:=\underset{n\text{ worldline}}{}G(n),\text{ where }G(n):=\left(1+Z_4(n)Z_4^{}(n)\right)M(n)^1\gamma _4.$$
(33)
The result is

$$S_{Q=1}=S_{Q=0}\frac{1}{N_c}\mathrm{ln}\underset{\sigma \widehat{S}_{N_c}}{}𝒩(\sigma )\underset{l=1}{\overset{N_c}{}}\left(\mathrm{Tr}𝖦^l\right)^{c_l(\sigma )}+\text{const.},$$
(34)
where the sum extends over conjugation classes of permutations. The class of a permutation is determined by the lengths of its cycles. We denote the number of cycles of length $`l`$ of the permutation $`\sigma `$ by $`c_l(\sigma )`$. The normalization constants in (34) are given by $`𝒩(\sigma )=\left(_{l=1}^{N_c}l^{c_l(\sigma )}c_l(\sigma )!\right)^1`$. For the lowest numbers of colors we get the explicit expressions

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{Tr}𝖦(N_c=1),(\mathrm{Tr}𝖦)^2+\mathrm{Tr}𝖦^2(N_c=2),\hfill \\ & (\mathrm{Tr}𝖦)^3+3\mathrm{Tr}𝖦^2\mathrm{Tr}𝖦+2\mathrm{Tr}𝖦^3(N_c=3).\hfill \end{array}$$
(35)
The next step would be to obtain the saddle point equations for the static baryon. In  we study a solution of the saddle point equations in $`d=2`$ spacetime dimensions.

## 7 Summary and Acknowledgments

We have briefly described a new approach to lattice QCD, which is useful in the low energy domain, where the quarks are confined to mesons and baryons. In principle models away from the strong coupling limit can be treated with the color flavor transformation, but one has to replace the standard action (2) by an action that can be generated with help of an auxiliary field .

We are indebted to M. R. Zirnbauer for suggesting the subject to us and we thank him for fruitful discussions. We thank S. Nonnenmacher for collaborating with us on the implementation of the $`\mathrm{SU}(N_c)`$ color-flavor transformation and its application to the static baryon. Useful discussions with A. Altland are acknowledged.