text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The calculation of the neutrino electron scattering cross section has a long history. The cross section for the process $`\nu _e+e\nu _e+e`$ was first computed by Feynman and Gell-Mann almost half a century ago within the framework of an effective four–fermion V$``$A theory . The QED corrections to this cross section were calculated in 1964 by Lee and Sirlin , and shortly afterwards Ram  extended their calculations by including hard photon emission. A few years later, ’t Hooft computed the lowest order prediction to this differential cross section in the Standard Model (SM) . Since then, the radiative corrections to this process, which plays a fundamental role in the study of electroweak interactions, have been investigated by many authors, focusing on various aspects of the problem .

’t Hooft’s early SM predictions were used by Bahcall to examine the total cross section, energy spectrum and angular distribution of recoil electrons resulting from the scattering with solar neutrinos . In a later work, Bahcall, Kamionkowski and Sirlin performed a detailed investigation of the radiative corrections to these recoil electron spectra and total cross sections . Their results showed the importance of these corrections for the analysis of precise solar $`\nu `$$`e`$ scattering experiments, particularly of those measuring the higher energy neutrinos that originate from $`^8`$B decay. In a very recent article , we extended previous calculations of the $`O(\alpha )`$ QED corrections to the recoil electron energy spectrum and evaluated the corresponding corrections to the differential cross section with respect to the total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible accompanying photon. In the same paper, on which this note is based, we examined the role of these two different radiative corrections in the interpretation of precise measurements from solar neutrino electron scattering experiments.

The energy spectrum of electrons from solar neutrino scattering, first measured by the Kamiokande collaboration , provides important information for the investigation of possible solutions to the long standing solar neutrino problem, namely the large deficit in the observed neutrino flux from the Sun with respect to the theoretical predictions . Indeed, while solar neutrino fluxes are predicted by the standard solar model, the shapes of the neutrino energy spectra were shown by Bahcall to be essentially independent of all solar parameters . The shape of the energy spectrum of recoil electrons resulting from the scattering with solar neutrinos can be therefore accurately calculated in a solar model-independent way and compared with the experimental measurements. Distortions of the electron spectrum can be interpreted in terms of neutrino oscillations. In particular, different flavor oscillation solutions to the solar neutrino problem are reflected in characteristic modifications of the shape of the electron spectrum and precise theoretical predictions and experimental measurements are needed to discriminate among them . (See also ref.  for a study of the possibility of determining the flavor content of the low-energy solar neutrino flux based on the analysis of the shapes of the recoil electron spectra.) We refer the reader to ref.  for an updated global two- and three-neutrino oscillation analysis of solar neutrino data which includes the electron spectrum measured by the Super–Kamiokande collaboration .

In the following we examine the $`O(\alpha )`$ QED corrections to the SM prediction for neutrino electron scattering, with contributions involving either neutral currents (as in the $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }+e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }+e`$ process) or a combination of neutral and charged currents (as in the $`\nu _e+e\nu _e+e`$ process). In this analysis we make the approximation of neglecting terms of $`O(q^2/M_W^2)`$, where $`q^2`$ is the squared four-momentum transfer and $`M_W`$ is the $`W`$ boson mass. Within this approximation, which is excellent for present experiments ($`|q^2/M_W^2|1`$ when the electron recoil energy $`6\times 10^3`$ TeV!), the SM radiative corrections to these processes can be naturally divided into two classes. The first, which we will call “QED” corrections, consist of the photonic radiative corrections that would occur if the theory were a local four–fermion Fermi theory rather than a gauge theory mediated by vector bosons; the second, which we will refer to as the “electroweak” (EW) corrections, will be the remainder. This split–up of the QED corrections is sensible as they form a finite (both infrared and ultraviolet) and gauge–independent subset of diagrams. We refer the reader to ref.  for a detailed study of this separation.

The QED radiative corrections are due to both loop diagrams (virtual corrections) and to the bremsstrahlung radiation (real photons) accompanying the scattering process. Of course, only this combination of virtual and real photon corrections is free from infrared divergences. To order $`\alpha `$, the bremsstrahlung events correspond to the inelastic process $`\nu _l+e`$ $`\nu _l+e+\gamma `$ ($`l=e,\mu `$ or $`\tau `$). Experimentally, bremsstrahlung events in which photons are too soft to be detected are counted as contributions to the elastic scattering $`\nu _l+e`$ $`\nu _l+e`$. The cross section for these events should be therefore added to the theoretical prediction of the elastic cross section, thus removing its infrared divergence.

We will divide the bremsstrahlung events into “soft” (hereafter SB) and “hard” (hereafter HB), according to the energy of the photon being respectively lower or higher than some specified threshold $`ϵ`$. We should warn the reader that the words “soft” and “hard” may be slightly deceiving. Indeed, if $`ϵ`$ is large (small), the SB (HB) cross section will also include events with relatively high (low) energy photons. While calculations of both soft and hard bremsstrahlung are often performed under the assumption that $`ϵ`$ is a very small parameter, much smaller than the mass of the electron or its final momentum, we will also discuss results for the case in which $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary parameter constrained only by the kinematics of the process. Indeed, the HB cross section (contrary to the SB one) is by itself, at least in principle, a physically measurable quantity for any kinematically allowed value of this threshold. All calculations have been carried out without neglecting the electron mass.

In sect. 2 we present the lowest order prediction for the final electron spectrum, together with its QED corrections (virtual, soft and hard contributions). In sect. 3 we examine the spectrum of the total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible accompanying photon emitted in the scattering process. We summarize the main results in sect. 4.

## 2 QED Corrections to the Electron Spectrum

The SM prediction for the elastic neutrino electron differential cross section is, in lowest–order and neglecting terms of $`O(q^2/M_W^2)`$ ,

$$\left[\frac{d\sigma }{dE}\right]_0=\frac{2mG_\mu ^2}{\pi }\left[g_L^2+g_R^2\left(1z\right)^2g_Lg_R\left(\frac{mz}{\nu }\right)\right],$$
(1)
where $`m`$ is the electron mass, $`G_\mu =1.16637(1)\times 10^5\text{ GeV}^2`$ is the Fermi coupling constant , $`g_L=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W\pm 1/2`$ (upper sign for $`\nu _e`$, lower sign for $`\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$), $`g_R=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\theta _W`$ is the sine of the weak mixing angle. In this elastic process $`E`$, the electron recoil energy, ranges from $`m`$ to $`E_{\mathrm{max}}=`$ $`[m^2+(2\nu +m)^2]/[2(2\nu +m)]`$, $`z=(Em)/\nu `$ and $`\nu `$ is the incident neutrino energy in the frame of reference in which the electron is initially at rest. We will refer to the $`L`$, $`R`$ and $`LR`$ parts of an expression to indicate its terms proportional to $`g_L^2`$, $`g_R^2`$ and $`g_Lg_R`$, respectively. For example, the $`R`$ part of $`\left[d\sigma /dE\right]_0`$ (eq. (1)) is $`(2mG_\mu ^2/\pi )g_R^2(1z)^2`$.

According to the definition discussed earlier, the one–loop QED corrections to neutrino electron scattering consist of the photonic vertex corrections (together with the diagrams involving the field renormalization of the electrons) computed with the local four–fermion Fermi Lagrangian. These corrections give rise to the following expression for the differential cross section:

$$\left[\frac{d\sigma }{dE}\right]_{\mathrm{Virtual}}=\frac{2mG_\mu ^2}{\pi }\left[\frac{\alpha }{\pi }\delta (E,\nu )\right],$$
(2)
where

$`\delta (E,\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`g_L^2\left\{V_1(E)+V_2(E)\left[z1{\displaystyle \frac{mz}{2\nu }}\right]\right\}`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`g_R^2\left\{V_1(E)\left(1z\right)^2+V_2(E)\left[z1{\displaystyle \frac{mz}{2\nu }}\right]\right\}`$
$``$ $`g_Lg_R\left\{\left[V_1(E)V_2(E)\right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{mz}{\nu }}\right)+2V_2(E)\left[z1z^2\right]\right\},`$
$`V_1(E)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\lambda }}\right)[1{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2l}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}\right)]2{\displaystyle \frac{E}{l}}[\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{lE+m}{2l}}\right)`$ (4)
$``$ $`\text{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{l+Em}{2l}}\right)]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4l}}[3E+mE\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2E+2m}{m}}\right)\left]\mathrm{ln}\right({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}),`$
$`V_2(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{4l}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}\right).`$ (5)
$`\lambda `$ is a small photon mass introduced to regularize the infrared divergence and $`l=\sqrt{E^2m^2}`$ is the three-momentum of the electron. The dilogarithm $`\text{Li}_2(x)`$ is defined by

$$\text{Li}_2(x)=_0^x𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{ln}(1t)}{t}.$$

The $`L`$ part of eq. (2) (with $`g_L=1`$) is identical to the formula for the one–loop photonic corrections to the $`\nu _e+e\nu _e+e`$ differential cross section computed long ago in the pioneering work of Lee and Sirlin  using the effective four–fermion Fermi V$``$A Lagrangian. The analogous formula for the reaction involving an anti–neutrino $`\overline{\nu }_e`$ (rather than a neutrino $`\nu _e`$) can be found in the same article and coincides111with the exception of a minor typographical error in their eq. 22, where the square bracket multiplying $`I_{\mathrm{rad}}`$ should be squared. We thank Alberto Sirlin for confirming this point. with the $`R`$ part of eq. (2) (with $`g_R=1`$). This identity is simply due to the fact that the cross section for antineutrinos in the local V$``$A theory is the same as that for neutrinos calculated with a V$`+`$A coupling. On the contrary, the $`LR`$ part of eq. (2) has clearly no analogue in the V$`\pm `$A theory, but can be derived very easily once the $`L`$ and $`R`$ parts are known.

The $`\nu _e+e`$ $`\nu _e+e+\gamma `$ differential cross section with emission of a soft photon was computed in ref. , once again by using the effective four–fermion Fermi V$``$A Lagrangian. It can be identified with the $`L`$ part (with $`g_L=1`$) of the soft photon corrections to the tree level result in eq. (1). The $`L`$, $`R`$ and $`LR`$ parts of these corrections (with $`g_L=g_R=1`$) are however identical, because the whole soft bremsstrahlung cross section is proportional to its lowest–order elastic prediction. We can therefore write the soft photon emission cross section in the following factorized form:

$$\left[\frac{d\sigma }{dE}\right]_{\mathrm{SB}}=\frac{\alpha }{\pi }I_\gamma (E,ϵ)\left[\frac{d\sigma }{dE}\right]_0,$$
(6)
with

$`I_\gamma (E,ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(2\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{ϵ}}\right)[1{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2l}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}\right)]+{\displaystyle \frac{E}{2l}}\{L\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}\right)L\left({\displaystyle \frac{El}{E+l}}\right)`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E+l}{El}}\right)[12\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{l}{m}}\right)]\}+12\mathrm{ln}2`$
and

$$L(x)=_0^x𝑑t\frac{\mathrm{ln}|1t|}{t}.$$

(For $`x\text{I}\text{R}`$, $`L(x)=\text{Re}[\text{Li}_2(x)]`$.) This result is valid under the assumption that $`ϵ`$, the maximum soft photon energy, is much smaller than $`m`$ or the final momentum of the electron. As we mentioned earlier, in the following we will discuss numerical results for the case in which $`ϵ`$ is an arbitrary parameter. The reader will notice that the sum $`(V_1(E)+I_\gamma (E,ϵ))`$ does not depend on $`\lambda `$, the infrared regulator. Indeed, the infrared divergence of the virtual corrections (eq. (2)) is canceled by that arising from the soft photon emission (eq. (6)).

The SM prediction for the differential neutrino electron cross section

$$\nu _l+e\nu _l+e(+\gamma ),$$
(8)
where $`(+\gamma )`$ indicates the possible emission of a photon, can be cast, up to corrections of $`O(\alpha )`$, in the following form:

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dE}}\right]_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2mG_\mu ^2}{\pi }}\{g_L^2(E)[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}f_L(E,\nu )]+g_R^2(E)(1z)^2[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}f_R(E,\nu )]`$ (9)
$`g_L(E)g_R(E)\left({\displaystyle \frac{mz}{\nu }}\right)[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}f_{LR}(E,\nu )]\}.`$
(We remind the reader that terms of $`O(q^2/M_W^2)`$ are neglected in our analysis.) The deviations of the functions $`g_L(E)`$ and $`g_R(E)`$ from the lowest–order values $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ reflect the effect of the electroweak corrections, which have been studied by several authors . (See ref.  for simple numerical results.)

The functions $`f_X(E,\nu )`$ ($`X=L,R`$ or $`LR`$) describe the QED effects (real and virtual photons). For simplicity of notation their $`\nu `$ dependence will be dropped in the following. Each of these functions is the sum of virtual (V), soft (SB) and hard (HB) corrections,

$$f_X(E)=f_X^V(E)+f_X^{SB}(E,ϵ)+f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ).$$
(10)
The analytic expressions for $`f_X^V(E)`$ and $`f_X^{SB}(E,ϵ)`$ can be immediately read from eqs. (2) and (6) respectively (the latter being valid only in the small $`ϵ`$ limit) and their sums, which are infrared–finite, will be denoted by

$$f_X^{VS}(E,ϵ)=f_X^V(E)+f_X^{SB}(E,ϵ).$$
(11)
Analytic expressions from which one can obtain $`f_L^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ and $`f_R^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ were calculated long ago by Ram in the small $`ϵ`$ approximation, keeping the logarithmically divergent terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/m)`$ but neglecting the remaining $`ϵ`$–dependent terms . The formulae are nonetheless long and complicated. The function $`f_{LR}^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ was computed only very recently .

In ref.  we created BC, a combined MathematicaFORTRAN code222The code BC, available upon request, computes all QED corrections discussed in this note. to compute the $`f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ functions for arbitrary positive values of the parameter $`ϵ`$ up to the kinematic limit $`\nu `$ ($`\nu `$, the incident neutrino energy in the laboratory system, is also the maximum possible energy of the emitted photon). We refer the interested reader to this paper for details concerning this computation and the comparison with Ram’s results. Our results confirm Ram’s ones in the small $`ϵ`$ limit. If $`ϵ`$ is not small, the discrepancy between them can become very large. Moreover, Ram’s results for $`f_L^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ and $`f_R^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ are not always positive. This is of course an unphysical property because the HB differential cross section, being a transition probability for a physical process, cannot be negative. Our functions $`f_L^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ and $`f_R^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ are always positive (or zero).

The total $`O(\alpha )`$ QED corrections $`f_L(E)`$ and $`f_R(E)`$, given by the sum of V, SB and HB contributions (see eq. (10)), can be easily obtained by adding the analytic results of eqs. (2) and (6) to Ram’s HB (lengthy) ones. Both SB and HB corrections were computed in the small $`ϵ`$ approximation, and the logarithmically divergent terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/m)`$ exactly drop out upon adding these soft and hard contributions. The remaining $`ϵ`$–dependent terms, which were neglected in both SB and HB calculations, must cancel in the sum as well, and are therefore irrelevant in the computation of the total QED corrections of eq. (9). The $`LR`$ case is slightly different: Ram’s formulae, which were used to derive the small $`ϵ`$ approximation for $`f_L^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ and $`f_R^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$, do not provide us with the corresponding $`LR`$ correction. In order to compute $`f_{LR}(E)`$ we have therefore added the V and SB analytic results of eqs. (2) and (6) to our HB numerical results. The “exact” $`ϵ`$ dependence of our HB results is not completely canceled by that of the SB, which includes only terms proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}(ϵ/m)`$, and the sum $`f_{LR}(E)`$ contains therefore a residual (not logarithmically divergent) dependence on the photon energy threshold $`ϵ`$. This spurious dependence has been minimized by fixing $`ϵ`$ to be a very small value $`ϵ_{LR}`$ chosen so as to have an estimated induced relative error as small as $`O(0.1\%)`$ 333with the exception of $`E`$ belonging to a tiny interval of $`O(ϵ_{LR})`$ at the endpoint $`E_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Note that $`0.1\%`$ is also the relative numerical uncertainty used by our code BC in the computation of the functions $`f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ and produces a totally negligible relative error $`(\alpha /\pi )f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ)\times 0.1\%`$ in the corresponding $`X`$ parts of the differential cross section in eq. (9)..

Eqs. (2) and (6) determine the analytic expression of $`f_X^{VS}(E,ϵ)`$ (the infrared–finite sum of V and SB corrections) in the small $`ϵ`$ approximation. But the complete $`ϵ`$ dependence of our numerical $`f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ computations, combined with the knowledge of the above described $`f_X(E)`$ functions, allows us to determine also the “exact” $`f_X^{VS}(E,ϵ)`$ functions via the subtraction

$$f_X^{VS}(E,ϵ)=f_X(E)f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ).$$
(12)
These will be the “exact” VS corrections employed in the rest of our analysis.

In fig. 1 we plotted the functions $`f_X(E)`$ (thick solid), $`f_X^{HB}(E,ϵ)`$ (medium solid) and $`f_X^{VS}(E,ϵ)`$ (thin solid) for $`\nu =0.862\text{ MeV}`$. The threshold $`ϵ`$ in the VS and HB functions was set to $`0.02\text{ MeV}`$. In fig. 2 we plotted the same functions with $`\nu =10\text{ MeV}`$ and $`ϵ=1\text{ MeV}`$. These two values of the neutrino energy were chosen for their relevance in the study of solar neutrinos: $`\nu =0.862\text{ MeV}`$ is the energy of the (almost) monochromatic neutrinos produced by electron capture on $`^7`$Be in the solar interior, while $`\nu =10\text{ MeV}`$ belongs to the continuous energy spectrum of the solar neutrinos that originate from the decay of $`^8`$B . In figs. 1 and 2 we also plotted the simple approximate formulae for $`f_X(E)`$ introduced in ref.  (dotted lines). These compact analytic expressions were obtained by modifying the expressions of ref. , which had been evaluated in the extreme relativistic approximation. (The $`LR`$ term of the differential cross section, being proportional to $`(m/\nu )`$, vanishes in the extreme relativistic limit and, therefore, cannot be derived from ref. . As a consequence, the $`LR`$ approximation of ref.  is only a (very educated!) guess.) Thanks to their simplicity, the compact formulae of ref.  are easy to use and are employed, for example, by the Super–Kamiokande collaboration in their Monte Carlo simulations for the analysis of the solar neutrino energy spectrum.

As it was noted in refs. , all $`f_X(E)`$ functions contain a term which diverges logarithmically at the end of the spectrum. This feature, related to the infrared divergence, is similar to the one encountered in the QED corrections to the $`\mu `$–decay spectrum . If $`E`$ gets very close to the endpoint we have $`(\alpha /\pi )f_X(E)1`$, clearly indicating a breakdown of the perturbative expansion and the need to consider multiple-photon emission. However, this divergence can be easily removed (in agreement with the KLN theorem ) by integrating the differential cross section over small energy intervals corresponding to the experimental energy resolution. We also note that the singularity of $`f_{LR}(E)`$ for $`E=m`$ does not pose a problem, as the product $`(mz/\nu )f_{LR}(E)`$, which appears in the $`LR`$ part of the differential cross section, is finite in the limit $`Em`$. This can be seen from the dashed line in the $`LR`$ plot of fig. 1, which indicates the function $`(mz/\nu )f_{LR}(E)`$. In the same plot, the dot-dashed line is the product of the $`f_{LR}(E)`$ approximation of ref.  and $`(mz/\nu )`$.

## 3 Spectrum of the Combined Energy of Electron and Photon

We will now turn our attention to the analysis of the differential $`\nu _l+e`$ $`\nu _l+e(+\gamma )`$ cross section relevant to experiments measuring the total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible accompanying photon emitted in the scattering process. We will begin by considering bremsstrahlung events with a photon of energy $`\omega `$ larger than the usual threshold $`ϵ`$ (HB).

The HB differential cross section with respect to the sum of the electron and photon energies is computed by our code BC (see ref. ). The code first calculates the HB corrections to the energy spectrum of the final neutrino; the HB differential cross section $`[d\sigma /d(E+\omega )]_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ is then immediately derived via energy conservation. A check of the consistency of our results was performed by comparing the values of the total HB cross section $`\sigma _{\mathrm{HB}}(\nu ,ϵ)`$ obtained by integrating both $`[d\sigma /d(E+\omega )]_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ and the differential HB cross section of sect. 2 for several values of $`\nu `$ and $`ϵ`$. All relative deviations were found to be smaller than 0.1% (which is also the relative accuracy of the integrands). In the elastic reaction $`\nu _l+e`$ $`\nu _l+e`$, the final neutrino energy $`\nu ^{}`$ ranges from $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}^{}=`$ $`\nu m/(2\nu +m)`$ to $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^{}=\nu `$ (the value $`\nu ^{}=`$ $`\nu _{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$ occurs when the final electron and neutrino are scattered back to back, with the electron moving in the forward direction with $`E=E\mathrm{max}`$; the value $`\nu ^{}=`$ $`\nu _{\mathrm{max}}^{}`$ occurs in the forward scattering situation). When a photon of energy $`\omega >ϵ`$ is emitted, $`\nu ^{}`$ varies between $`0`$ and $`\nu ϵ`$, while the variable $`E+\omega `$ varies between $`m+ϵ`$ and $`m+\nu `$ (note that $`m+\nu =E_{\mathrm{max}}+\nu _{\mathrm{min}}^{}`$).

How do we combine virtual, soft and hard bremsstrahlung contributions in order to evaluate the complete $`O(\alpha )`$ QED prediction for the differential cross section $`d\sigma /d(E+\omega )`$ of reaction (8)? In sect. 2 we computed the total QED corrections by simply adding these three parts. Their sum does not depend on the threshold $`ϵ`$. The combination of VS and HB terms requires here a more careful treatment for which we refer the interested reader, once again, to ref. . We will only discuss the results of this analysis, which can be summarized in the following simple way. Let’s consider an experimental setup for $`\nu `$$`e`$ scattering able to measure the photon energy if it’s higher than a threshold $`ϵ`$, but completely blind to low energy photons $`(\omega <ϵ)`$. Let’s also assume that the electron energy $`E`$ is precisely measurable independently of its value. This detector can measure the usual electron spectrum $`d\sigma /dE`$ as well as the differential cross section $`d\sigma /dE_\omega `$, where the variable $`E_\omega `$ is defined as follows,

$$E_\omega \{\begin{array}{cc}E+\omega \hfill & \text{if}\omega ϵ\hfill \\ E\hfill & \text{if}\omega <ϵ\hfill \end{array}.$$
(13)
The SM prediction for the spectrum of the combined energy of electron and photon in reaction (8) can be cast, up to corrections of $`O(\alpha )`$, in the form

$`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma }{dE_\omega }}\right]_{\mathrm{SM}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2mG_\mu ^2}{\pi }}\{g_L^2(E_\omega )[\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\overline{f}_L(E_\omega ,ϵ,\nu )]+g_R^2(E_\omega )(1z_\omega )^2[\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\overline{f}_R(E_\omega ,ϵ,\nu )]`$ (14)
$`g_L(E_\omega )g_R(E_\omega )({\displaystyle \frac{mz_\omega }{\nu }})[\theta +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\overline{f}_{LR}(E_\omega ,ϵ,\nu )]\},`$
where $`z_\omega =(E_\omega m)/\nu `$ and $`\theta =\theta (E_{\mathrm{max}}E_\omega )`$. As we mentioned in sect. 2, the deviations of the functions $`g_L(E_\omega )`$ and $`g_R(E_\omega )`$ from the lowest–order values $`g_L`$ and $`g_R`$ reflect the effect of the electroweak corrections (for virtual corrections it is $`\omega =0`$ and $`E_\omega =E`$). The functions $`\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ,\nu )`$ ($`X=L,R`$ or $`LR`$), defined in the range $`[m,m+\nu ]`$, describe the QED effects and can be written in the very simple form (once again, for simplicity of notation, we will drop their $`\nu `$ dependence)

$$\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)=f_X^{VS}(E_\omega ,ϵ)+\overline{f}_X^{HB}(E_\omega ,ϵ),$$
(15)
where $`f_X^{VS}(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ are the “exact” VS corrections of sect. 2 (eq. (12)) and the functions $`\overline{f}_X^{HB}(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ are derived by dividing the $`L`$, $`R`$ and $`LR`$ parts of the above–mentioned HB cross section $`[d\sigma /d(E+\omega )]_{\mathrm{HB}}`$ by $`Cg_L^2`$, $`Cg_R^2(1z_\omega )^2`$ and $`Cg_Lg_R(mz_\omega /\nu )`$ respectively, with $`C=2mG_\mu ^2\alpha /\pi ^2`$. The $`\theta `$ functions in eq. (14) reflect the fact that the lowest order prediction for $`d\sigma /dE_\omega `$ has a step at $`E_\omega =E_{\mathrm{max}}`$ and is zero if $`E_\omega `$ lies outside the elastic range $`[m,E_{\mathrm{max}}]`$. The VS functions $`f_X^{VS}(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ are proportional to the same $`\theta `$ function, while the corrections $`\overline{f}_X^{HB}(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ are set to zero if $`E_\omega /[m+ϵ,m+\nu ]`$. We would like to emphasize the $`ϵ`$ dependence of the complete QED corrections $`\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$, to be contrasted with the $`ϵ`$ independence of the $`f_X(E)`$ functions of sect. 2.

In figs. 3 and 4 we compare the results of sects. 2 and 3. In fig. 3 we chose $`\nu =0.862\text{ MeV}`$ and plotted the functions $`f_X(E)`$ (thick) and $`\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ for $`ϵ=`$ 0.1 MeV (medium) and 0.001 MeV (thin). In fig. 4 we plotted the same functions with $`\nu =10\text{ MeV}`$ ($`ϵ=`$ 1 MeV, 0.1 MeV).

We would like to remind the reader that the functions $`f_X(E)`$ can be obtained from $`\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ by simply setting $`ϵ=\nu `$. The limiting case $`ϵ=0`$ was studied in detail in ref.  (in particular, the results of the second article of this reference were obtained, like ours, without employing the ultrarelativistic approximation $`Em`$).

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

When are the results of sects. 2 and 3 applicable? In sect. 2 we presented the $`O(\alpha )`$ SM prediction for the electron spectrum in the reaction $`\nu _l+e\nu _l+e(+\gamma )`$ (eq. (9)), where $`(+\gamma )`$ indicates the possible emission of a photon. In this calculation we assumed that the final–state photon is not detected and, as a consequence, we integrated over all possible values of the photon energy $`\omega `$. Therefore, eq. (9) is the appropriate theoretical prediction to use in the analysis of $`\nu `$$`e`$ scattering when the detector is completely blind to photons of all energies, but can precisely measure $`E`$, the energy of the electron. Of course, a detector could provide more information by detecting photons as soon as their energy is above an experimental threshold $`ϵ`$. In this case, still assuming a precise determination of $`E`$, one can employ eq. (9), minus its HB correction, to analyze those events which are counted as nonradiative (elastic), while the HB part can be used, at least in principle, for a separate determination of the inelastic cross section. Indeed, contrary to previous calculations, our predictions are valid for an arbitrary value of the threshold $`ϵ`$ (and include the previously unknown $`LR`$ term).

In sect. 3 we examined the spectrum of the total combined energy of the recoil electron and a possible accompanying photon emitted in the scattering process (eq. (14)). This type of analysis is useful when the photon energy $`\omega `$ cannot be separately determined although it fully contributes to the precise total energy measurement if its value is above a specific threshold $`ϵ`$. Let’s consider an experimental setup able to measure the photon energy if it’s higher than $`ϵ`$, but completely blind to low energy photons $`(\omega <ϵ)`$. Let’s also assume that the electron energy $`E`$ is precisely measurable independently of its value. This detector can determine both the differential cross section $`d\sigma /dE_\omega `$ (eq. (14)) and the electron spectrum $`d\sigma /dE`$ (eq. (9)) (as well as its separate HB component). There are experiments, however, which cannot measure $`E`$, but only $`E_\omega `$, with a specific value of the threshold $`ϵ`$. BOREXINO  and KamLAND , for example, are liquid scintillation detectors in which photons and electrons induce practically the same response. If a photon is emitted in the $`\nu `$$`e`$ scattering process, its energy $`\omega `$ is counted together with $`E`$, provided their sum lies within a specific range. The appropriate theoretical prediction for their analysis is given, therefore, by the cross section $`d\sigma /dE_\omega `$ of eq. (14) with a very small value of $`ϵ`$ (for the case $`\nu =0.862\text{ MeV}`$ see the thin lines in fig. 3). However, we should point out that although the QED corrections $`f_X(E)`$ (in eq. (9)) and $`\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ with small $`ϵ`$ (in eq. (14)) are different, their numerical values are very small when $`\nu =0.862\text{ MeV}`$, the energy of the monochromatic neutrinos produced by electron capture on $`^7`$Be in the solar interior. In fact, as shown in fig. 3, both $`(\alpha /\pi )f_X(E)`$ and $`(\alpha /\pi )\overline{f}_X(E_\omega ,ϵ)`$ with small $`ϵ`$ are in this case of $`O(\stackrel{<}{}1\%)`$, and neither of the above collaborations is likely to reach this high level of accuracy in their analyses of the crucial $`^7`$Be line.

There are detectors in which it might not be possible to identify the measured energy with either $`E`$ or $`E_\omega `$. Indeed, the electron and the photon may produce indistinguishable signals and the total observed energy might not be the simple sum of $`E`$ and $`\omega `$, but some other function of these two variables. Super–Kamiokande (SK), for example, a water Cherenkov counter measuring the light emitted by electrons recoiling from neutrino scattering, uses the number of hit photomultiplier tubes to determine the electron energy. However, a photon emitted in the scattering process may induce additional hits indistinguishable from those of the electron. Moreover, a photon and an electron of the same energy may produce different numbers of hits and, therefore, it might not be possible to identify the total measured energy with the sum $`E+\omega `$.

SK measures solar neutrinos with energies varying from 5 to 18 MeV. For $`\nu =10\text{ MeV}`$, fig. 4 shows that the QED corrections to the differential cross sections $`d\sigma /dE`$ (eq. (9)) and $`d\sigma /dE_\omega `$ (eq. (14)) are of $`O(1\%)`$. Corrections of this order may be relevant for the analysis of the very precise data obtained by this collaboration. In fact, SK’s Monte Carlo simulations of the expected energy spectrum of recoil electrons from solar neutrino scattering include the QED corrections of ref.  (as well as the EW ones). As we investigated in sect. 2, these corrections provide good approximations of the complete $`O(\alpha )`$ QED corrections $`f_X(E)`$ to the electron spectrum of eq. (9) (see fig. 2). Our previous discussion, however, seems to suggest that these corrections are not appropriate for SK’s solar neutrino analysis. On the other hand, the SM prediction for the spectrum of the combined energy of electron and photon of sect. 3 (eq. (14)) may be suitable, but only if we can assume a similar efficiency in the detection of photons and electrons, and if also relatively low energy electrons contribute to the total energy measurement. If these conditions are not met, and the precision of the data requires it, one should probably perform a dedicated analysis of the double differential cross section $`d^2\sigma /(dEd\omega )`$ with a response function specifically designed for this detector. A triple differential cross section $`d^3\sigma /(dEd\omega d\varphi )`$, where $`\varphi `$ is the angle between the directions of the electron and the photon, may also be useful (see the first article of ref. ).

I would like to thank Massimo Porrati for organizing this very pleasant and interesting symposium, and Alberto Sirlin for innumerable instructive discussions on the topic presented here.


format: text

text:
# Charge Correlations in a Coulomb System Along a Plane Wall: a Relation Between Asymptotic Behavior and Dipole Moment

## 1 Introduction and Summary

Near a plane wall impenetrable to the particles (hard wall), the charge correlations of a classical (i.e. non-quantum) Coulomb system (plasma, electrolyte, …) at equilibrium have special features (see review ). On one hand, they have only an algebraic decay along the wall (while the bulk charge correlations decay faster than any inverse power law), and their asymptotic form obeys a simple sum rule. On the other hand, the charge correlation function carries a dipole moment (while, in the bulk, there is no such dipole just for symmetry reasons), and this dipole moment obeys another simple sum rule. Some relation between algebraic tail and dipole moment is expected: it is the asymmetry of the screening cloud of a particle sitting near the wall which induces that long-range tail in the charge correlation along the wall. In the present paper, we make this relation quantitative.

The general classical Coulomb systems under consideration consist of $`s`$ species $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},s`$ with the corresponding charges $`q_\alpha `$, plus perhaps a fixed background of density $`n_0`$ and charge density $`\rho _0`$. Two cases are of particular interest: the one-component plasma (OCP) which corresponds to $`s=1(q_1=q),\rho _0=qn_00`$ and the two-component plasma (TCP) which corresponds to $`s=2(q_1=q,q_2=q),\rho _0=n_0=0`$. The presence of a solvent is mimicked by embedding the system in a continuous medium of dielectric constant $`ϵ`$. The walls are made of a material of dielectric constant $`ϵ_W`$. The particles (and the background if any) interact via the Coulomb potential plus perhaps some short-range forces. For a $`\nu `$-dimensional system (in what follows, we will restrict ourselves to dimensions $`\nu =2,3`$), the Coulomb potential in vacuum at position r, induced by a unit charge at the origin, defined as the solution of the Poisson equation, is

$$v(\text{r})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{|\text{r}|}{r_0}\right),& \nu =2\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{1}{|\text{r}|},& \nu =3\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.1)
where $`r_0`$ is a length scale. It should be remembered that, when $`\nu =2`$, the system, with logarithmic interactions, is expected to mimic some general properties of three-dimensional Coulomb systems, but does *not* represent “real” charged particles confined to a plane. For two- and more-component plasmas containing pointlike particles, the singularity of $`v(\text{r})`$ at the origin prevents the thermodynamic stability against the collapse of positive-negative pairs of charges: in two dimensions for small enough temperatures, in three dimensions for any temperature. In such cases, the above-mentioned short-range forces (e.g. hard cores) are needed, without effect on the results of this paper.

We now define some notations. The microscopic densities of charge and of particles of species $`\alpha `$ are given respectively by

$$\widehat{\rho }(\text{r})=\rho _0+\underset{\alpha }{}q_\alpha \widehat{n}_\alpha (\text{r}),\widehat{n}_\alpha (\text{r})=\underset{i}{}\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha _i}\delta (\text{r}\text{r}_i)$$
(1.2)
where $`i`$ indexes the charged particles. The thermal average at the inverse temperature $`\beta =1/(kT)`$ will be denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$. At one-particle level,

$$\rho (\text{r})=\widehat{\rho }(\text{r}),n_\alpha (\text{r})=\widehat{n}_\alpha (\text{r})$$
(1.3)
At two-particle level, one introduces the two-body densities

$$n_{\alpha \beta }(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=\underset{ij}{}\delta _{\alpha ,\alpha _i}\delta _{\beta ,\alpha _j}\delta (\text{r}\text{r}_i)\delta (\text{r}^{}\text{r}_j)$$
(1.4a)
and the corresponding Ursell functions
$$U_{\alpha \beta }(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=n_{\alpha \beta }(\text{r},\text{r}^{})n_\alpha (\text{r})n_\beta (\text{r}^{})$$
(1.4b)
The truncated charge-charge correlation (structure function) reads

$$S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=\widehat{\rho }(\text{r})\widehat{\rho }(\text{r}^{})^\mathrm{T}=\widehat{\rho }(\text{r})\widehat{\rho }(\text{r}^{})\widehat{\rho }(\text{r})\widehat{\rho }(\text{r}^{})$$
(1.5)
In the case of the OCP, $`S`$ takes the form

$$S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=q^2\left[U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})+n(\text{r})\delta (\text{r}\text{r}^{})\right]$$
(1.6)
For our purpose, it is useful to introduce “conditional” densities. Let $`n_\alpha (\text{r}|Q,\text{R})`$ be the density of $`\alpha `$-particles at point r when there is a charge $`Q`$ fixed at R. Evidently, if $`\beta =1,\mathrm{},s`$ belongs to the set of charged species forming the plasma, it holds

$$n_\alpha (\text{r}|q_\beta ,\text{r}^{})n_\beta (\text{r}^{})=n_{\alpha \beta }(\text{r},\text{r}^{})$$
(1.7)
The excess charge density at point r, due to the presence of the charge $`Q`$ fixed at R, then is

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})=\left\{\underset{\alpha }{}q_\alpha \left[n_\alpha (\text{r}|Q,\text{R})n_\alpha (\text{r})\right]\right\}+Q\delta (\text{r}\text{R})$$
(1.8)
In terms of $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}`$, $`S`$ is expressible as follows

$`S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}q_\beta n_\beta (\text{r}^{})\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|q_\beta ,\text{r}^{})`$ (1.9)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\beta }{}}q_\beta n_\beta (\text{r})\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}^{}|q_\beta ,\text{r})`$
Here, we consider a semi-infinite Coulomb system which occupies the half-space $`x>0`$ filled with a medium of dielectric constant $`ϵ`$; we denote by y the set of $`(\nu 1)`$ coordinates normal to $`x`$. The plane at $`x=0`$ is a hard wall impenetrable to the particles. It may be charged by a uniform surface charge density $`\sigma `$. The half-space $`x<0`$ is assumed to be filled with a material of dielectric constant $`ϵ_W`$. As a consequence, a particle of charge $`q`$ at the point $`\text{r}=(x,\text{y})`$ has an electric image of charge $`[(ϵϵ_W)/(ϵ+ϵ_W)]q`$ at the point $`\text{r}^{}=(x,\text{y})`$ . Due to invariance with respect to translations along the wall and rotations around the $`x`$ direction,

$$S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=S(x,x^{};|\text{y}\text{y}^{}|)=S(x^{},x;|\text{y}\text{y}^{}|)$$
(1.10)
The cases $`ϵ_W=\mathrm{}`$ (ideal conductor wall) and $`ϵ_W=0`$ (ideal dielectric wall) are special and will not be considered here. For finite $`ϵ_W`$, the charge structure factor $`S(x,x^{};|\text{y}\text{y}^{}|)`$ has several general properties: It obeys a condition of electroneutrality

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}d\text{y}S(x,x^{};\text{y})=0$$
(1.11)
The Carnie and Chan generalization to nonuniform fluids of the second-moment Stillinger-Lovett condition  results for the present geometry in the dipole sum rule

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dx_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}d\text{y}x^{}S(x,x^{};\text{y})=\frac{ϵ}{2\beta \pi (\nu 1)},\nu =2,3$$
(1.12)
The charge-charge correlations decay slowly along the wall . One expects an asymptotic power-law behavior

$$S(x,x^{};\text{y})\frac{f(x,x^{})}{|\text{y}|^\nu },|\text{y}|\mathrm{}$$
(1.13)
where $`f(x,x^{})`$, which as a function of $`x`$ or $`x^{}`$ has a fast decay away from the wall, obeys the sum rule

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dx_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}f(x,x^{})=\frac{ϵ_W}{2\beta [\pi (\nu 1)]^2},\nu =2,3$$
(1.14)
In this work, we establish a general relation between the structure function $`S`$ and its asymptotic characteristics $`f`$. Namely, for any value of $`x0`$ it is proven that

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}d\text{y}x^{}S(x,x^{};\text{y})=\frac{ϵ}{ϵ_W}\pi (\nu 1)_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}f(x,x^{}),\nu =2,3$$
(1.15)
The lhs of (1.15) is a dipole moment (in its expression, due to the electroneutrality property (1.11), $`x^{}`$ can be replaced by $`x^{}x`$). In contrast with the sum rules (1.12) and (1.14), the relation (1.15) holds for a given $`x`$, without integration over it. However, when both sides of (1.15) are integrated over $`x`$ from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, it is seen that the sum rule (1.14) for $`f`$ is a direct consequence of the dipole sum rule (1.12), and vice versa.

More generally, it can be assumed that the excess charge density (1.8) also obeys a condition of electroneutrality similar to (1.11) and has an asymptotic behavior similar to (1.13)

$$\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})\frac{F(x|Q,X)}{|\text{y}|^\nu },|\text{y}|\mathrm{}$$
(1.16)
where we have chosen $`\text{R}=(X,\text{0})`$, with $`F`$ as a function of $`x`$ or $`X`$ having a fast decay away from the wall. Under these assumptions, we derive the relation

$$d\text{r}x\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})=\frac{ϵ}{ϵ_W}\pi (\nu 1)_0^{\mathrm{}}dxF(x|Q,X),\nu =2,3$$
(1.17)
valid for an arbitrary $`Q`$. Here too, in the lhs of (1.17), $`x`$ can be replaced by $`xX`$. On account of (1.9), this more general relation immediately leads to (1.15) with $`f(x,X)=_\beta q_\beta n_\beta (X)F(x|q_\beta ,X)`$.

The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to a general derivation of the basic result (1.17). The validity of this result is checked in the Debye-Hückel limit $`\beta 0`$ (section 3) and in two dimensions at the special value of the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta q^2=2`$, for both the TCP  (section 4) and the OCP  (section 5) in contact with a plain hard wall $`(ϵ_W=ϵ=1)`$. In the case of the two-dimensional OCP, we were able to document the validity of formula (1.15) even for an arbitrary even integer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by a non-trivial application of sum rules derived in ref.  using the technique of Grassmann variables.

## 2 General Derivation

In this section, the abbreviated notation $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r})`$ will be used for the excess charge distribution $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})`$ defined in (1.8), with $`\text{R}=(X,\text{0})`$. For simplicity, we first consider the case when there are no dielectric media $`(ϵ=ϵ_W=1)`$. Our derivation of (1.17) is based on the assumption that there are good screening properties in the bulk: the charge distribution $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r})`$ is localized near the wall and the electric potential $`\varphi (\text{r})`$ it creates in the plasma at a macroscopic distance from the wall vanishes. This electric potential is

$$\varphi (\text{r})=d\text{r}^{}v(\text{r}\text{r}^{})\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}^{})$$
(2.1)
where $`v(\text{r}\text{r}^{})`$ is the Coulomb interaction (1.1). When $`x`$ is large enough for the charge distribution $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r})`$ to be negligible, $`v(\text{r}\text{r}^{})`$ can be expanded in powers of $`x^{}`$ (with the notation $`\text{r}=(x,\text{y})`$, etc…), and one obtains

$`\varphi (\text{r})=`$ $`{\displaystyle d\text{y}^{}v(x,\text{y}\text{y}^{})_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x^{},\text{y}^{})}{\displaystyle d\text{y}^{}\frac{v(x,\text{y}\text{y}^{})}{x}_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}x^{}\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x^{},\text{y}^{})}`$ (2.2)
$`+\mathrm{}`$
where the higher-order terms of the expansion involve higher-order derivatives of $`v`$ with respect to $`x`$.

We shall now consider the Fourier transform of (2.2) with respect to y, using the convolution theorem. In (2.2), let us define

$$\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y}^{})=_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x^{},\text{y}^{})$$
(2.3)
(from a macroscopic point of view, $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y}^{})`$ can be regarded as a surface charge density). The total charge $`d\text{y}\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})`$ vanishes, as required by the perfect screening of $`Q`$. Also, it results from (1.16) that $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})`$ has the asymptotic behavior

$$\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})\frac{A}{|\text{y}|^\nu }$$
(2.4)
where

$$A=_0^{\mathrm{}}dxF(x|Q,X)$$
(2.5)
Therefore, the Fourier transform of $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})`$ with respect to y has the small wave number behavior

$$\stackrel{~}{\sigma }^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{l})=d\text{y}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{l}\text{y})\sigma ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})(\nu 1)\pi A|\text{l}|$$
(2.6)
The Fourier transform of $`v(x,\text{y})`$ is $`(\nu 1)\pi \mathrm{exp}(|\text{l}|x)/|\text{l}|`$ and thus the Fourier transform of $`v/x`$ is $`(\nu 1)\pi \mathrm{exp}(|\text{l}|x)`$ and so on for higher-order derivatives of $`v`$. Using these transforms in the convolution theorem gives the Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x,\text{l})`$ of (2.2), which, at $`\text{l}=\text{0}`$, is found to be

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x,\text{0})=(\nu 1)\pi \left[(\nu 1)\pi A+P\right]$$
(2.7)
where

$$P=d\text{r}x\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r})$$
(2.8)
Since $`x`$ has been assumed to be large, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(x,\text{0})=0`$ and (2.7) results into

$$(\nu 1)\pi A+P=0$$
(2.9)
On account of (2.5) and (2.8), (2.9) is (1.17) in the special case $`(ϵ=ϵ_W=1)`$.

The generalization to other values of the dielectric constants is straightforward. In (2.2), one must add to $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x^{},\text{y}^{})`$ its electric image  $`[(ϵϵ_W)/(ϵ+ϵ_W)]\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(x^{},\text{y}^{})`$. This is equivalent to keeping the integration range $`(0,\mathrm{})`$ for $`x^{}`$, but multiplying the first integral in (2.2) by $`2ϵ/(ϵ+ϵ_W)`$ and the second integral by $`2ϵ_W/(ϵ+ϵ_W)`$. This gives the general form of (1.17).

## 3 Debye-Hückel Limit

We check the relation (1.17) for the general Coulomb system defined in the Introduction, along a plane wall, in the weak coupling limit $`\beta 0`$ (Debye-Hückel limit). It is convenient to introduce the Fourier transform with respect to y of the excess charge density (1.8)

$$\stackrel{~}{\rho }_Q^{\mathrm{ex}}(x,X,|\text{l}|)=d\text{y}\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\text{l}\text{y})\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})$$
(3.1)
One defines a bulk inverse Debye length $`\kappa `$ by

$$\kappa ^2=2\pi (\nu 1)\beta (\underset{\alpha }{}q_\alpha ^2n_\alpha )/ϵ$$
(3.2)
where $`n_\alpha `$ is the bulk density of species $`\alpha `$. A minor generalization of the calculation in ref.  gives $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_Q^{\mathrm{ex}}`$ as a sum of its bulk Debye-Hückel form plus a “reflected” term:

$`\stackrel{~}{\rho }_Q^{\mathrm{ex}}(x,X,\text{l})={\displaystyle \frac{Q\kappa ^2}{2(\kappa ^2+l^2)^{1/2}}}\{\mathrm{exp}[(\kappa ^2+l^2)^{1/2}|xX|]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ(\kappa ^2+l^2)^{1/2}ϵ_W|\text{l}|}{ϵ(\kappa ^2+l^2)^{1/2}+ϵ_W|\text{l}|}}\mathrm{exp}[(\kappa ^2+l^2)^{1/2}(x+X)]\}+Q\delta (xX)`$ (3.3)
The asymptotic behavior of $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{y})`$ is determined by the kink of its Fourier transform $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{l})`$ at $`|\text{l}|=0`$, $`Q(ϵ_W/ϵ)\mathrm{exp}[\kappa (x+X)]|\text{l}|`$ (in the sense of distributions, the inverse Fourier transform of $`|\text{l}|`$ is $`1/[(\nu 1)\pi |\text{y}|^\nu ]`$ ). One does find the asymptotic behavior (1.16) with

$$F(x|Q,X)=\frac{Qϵ_W}{\pi (\nu 1)ϵ}\mathrm{exp}[\kappa (x+X)]$$
(3.4)
Therefore

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dxF(x|Q,X)=\frac{Qϵ_W}{\pi (\nu 1)\kappa ϵ}\mathrm{exp}(\kappa X)$$
(3.5)
For finding the dipole moment associated to $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|Q,\text{R})`$, one first notes that the integral of $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}`$ over y is the Fourier transform (3) taken at $`\text{l}=0`$. The integral over $`x`$ is easily computed, and one checks that (1.17) is obeyed.

## 4 Two-Dimensional Two-Component Plasma

We now check (1.17) on the two-dimensional TCP at the special value of the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta q^2=2`$, in the case of a plain rectilinear hard wall. Without loss of generality, we shall take the charges $`\pm q`$ as $`\pm 1`$. The corresponding correlation functions are known . We would like to consider the excess charge density (1.8) in the special case $`Q=q=1`$, i.e. when the particle fixed at $`\text{R}=(X,0)`$ is one of the particles (say a positive one) of the system. Although, at $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$, for a given fugacity, the densities diverge, the Ursell functions are finite. Therefore, instead of $`\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|+1,\text{R})`$, we consider the finite quantity proportional to its non-self part

$$n_+(\text{R})[\rho ^{\mathrm{ex}}(\text{r}|+1,\text{R})Q\delta (\text{r}\text{R})]=U_{++}(\text{r},\text{R})U_+(\text{r},\text{R})$$
(4.1)
($`U_{s_1s_2}`$ was called $`\rho _{s_1s_2}^{(2)T}`$ in ref. ). In that same reference, the possible surface charge density carried by the wall was chosen as $`\sigma `$ and we shall keep this choice in the present section.

The model has a rescaled fugacity $`m`$ \[which has the dimension of an inverse length such that the bulk correlation length is $`1/(2m)`$\]. The Ursell functions in (4.1) are expressible in terms of auxiliary functions $`g_{s+}(x,X,y)`$, where $`s=\pm `$, as111We use the symmetry relations (2.15) of ref. , the first one of which is misprinted: its rhs should be replaced by its complex conjugate.

$$U_{s+}(\text{r},\text{R})=sm^2|g_{s+}(x,X,y)|^2$$
(4.2)
The $`g`$ functions are given by their Fourier transforms

$$\stackrel{~}{g}_{s+}(x,X,l)=_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dy\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}ly)g_{s+}(x,X,y)$$
(4.3)
which are

$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{++}(x,X,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2k}}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(k|xX|\right)\mathrm{exp}[k(x+X)]\right\},l<0`$ (4.4a)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{++}(x,X,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2k}}\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(k|xX|\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{kl+2\pi \sigma }{k+l2\pi \sigma }}\mathrm{exp}[k(x+X)]\right\},l>0`$ (4.4b)
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_+(x,X,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\{[l2\pi \sigma +k\mathrm{sign}(xX)]\mathrm{exp}(k|xX|)`$ (4.4c)
$`(k+l2\pi \sigma )\mathrm{exp}[k(x+X)]\},l<0`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_+(x,X,l)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2k}}\{[l2\pi \sigma +k\mathrm{sign}(xX)]\mathrm{exp}(k|xX|)`$ (4.4d)
$`+(kl+2\pi \sigma )\mathrm{exp}[k(x+X)]\},l>0`$
where $`k=[m^2+(l2\pi \sigma )^2]^{1/2}`$.

The asymptotic behavior of the $`g(y)`$ functions is governed by the discontinuity of their Fourier transforms $`\stackrel{~}{g}(l)`$ at $`l=0`$. In the sense of distributions, the inverse Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{sign}(l)`$ is $`\mathrm{i}/(\pi y)`$. Thus,

$`g_{++}(x,X,y)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}m}{2\pi (k_02\pi \sigma )y}}\mathrm{exp}[k_0(x+X)]`$ (4.5a)
$`g_+(x,X,y)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2\pi y}}\mathrm{exp}[k_0(x+X)]`$ (4.5b)
where $`k_0=[m^2+(2\pi \sigma )^2]^{1/2}`$. Using (4.5) in (4.2) and (4.1) gives

$$U_{++}(\text{r},\text{R})U_+(\text{r},\text{R})\frac{F(x|X)}{y^2},|y|\mathrm{}$$
(4.6)
where

$$F(x|X)=\frac{k_0}{2\pi ^2}(k_0+2\pi \sigma )\mathrm{exp}[2k_0(x+X)]$$
(4.7)
Therefore

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}dxF(x|X)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}(k_0+2\pi \sigma )\mathrm{exp}(2k_0X)$$
(4.8)
For computing the dipole moment

$$P=_0^{\mathrm{}}dx(xX)_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dy[U_{++}(\text{r},\text{R})U_+(\text{r},\text{R})]$$
(4.9)
one first considers the integral over $`y`$. With regard to (4.2) and (4.3),

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dy[U_{++}(\text{r},\text{R})U_+(\text{r},\text{R})]=\frac{m^2}{2\pi }_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dl\left\{[\stackrel{~}{g}_{++}(x,X,l)]^2[\stackrel{~}{g}_+(x,X,l)]^2\right\}$$
(4.10)
In the special case $`\sigma =0`$, using (4.4) in (4.10) gives for the dipole moment, after some calculation,

$$P=\frac{m^2}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}dx(xX)_0^{\mathrm{}}dl\left\{\mathrm{exp}\left(2k|xX|\right)+\frac{kl}{m}\mathrm{exp}[2k(x+X)]\right\},\sigma =0$$
(4.11)
Performing the integral over $`x`$ before the one over $`l`$ gives

$$P=\frac{m}{4\pi }\mathrm{exp}(2mX),\sigma =0$$
(4.12)
Comparing (4.8) when $`\sigma =0`$ with (4.12), one checks that (1.17) is obeyed (here $`ϵ=ϵ_W=1`$).

For checking (1.17) in the general case $`\sigma 0`$, it is enough (and easier) to check that the derivatives with respect to $`2\pi \sigma `$ of both its sides are equal. From (4.8) one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}(2\pi \sigma )}_0^{\mathrm{}}dxF(x|X)=\frac{1}{4\pi ^2}\left(1+\frac{2\pi \sigma }{k_0}\right)\left(14\pi \sigma X\right)\mathrm{exp}(2k_0X)$$
(4.13)
On the other hand, the integrand in the rhs of (4.10) depends on $`l`$ and $`\sigma `$ only through the combination $`l^{}=l2\pi \sigma `$, and its analytic form changes at $`l^{}=2\pi \sigma `$ from some function $`f_1(l^{})`$ to some other function $`f_2(l^{})`$, as apparent in (4.4). Therefore, the corresponding integral can be rewritten in the form

$$I=_{\mathrm{}}^{2\pi \sigma }dl^{}f_1(l^{})+_{2\pi \sigma }^{\mathrm{}}dl^{}f_2(l^{})$$
(4.14)
and one obtains

$$\frac{\mathrm{d}I}{\mathrm{d}(2\pi \sigma )}=f_1(2\pi \sigma )+f_2(2\pi \sigma )$$
(4.15)
This gives d/d$`(2\pi \sigma )`$ of the integral over $`y`$ in (4.9). Then, one computes the integral over $`x`$, with the result that $`\mathrm{d}P/\mathrm{d}(2\pi \sigma )`$ is $`\pi `$ times (4.13). This completes the check of (1.17) on the present model.

## 5 Two-dimensional one-component plasma

We consider the two-dimensional OCP in contact with a plain hard wall $`(ϵ_W=ϵ=1)`$, localized at $`x=0`$ and charged by a “surface” charge density $`q\sigma `$, first at the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\beta q^2=2`$, then for any even integer $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`(\sigma =0)`$. We work in units such that $`\pi n_0=1`$, where $`n_0`$ is the background density. We intend to check the relation (1.15).

### 5.1 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=2`$

The one-body density at a distance $`x`$ from the wall is given by (see eq. (2.16) of ref. )

$$n(x)=n_0\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[(tx\sqrt{2})^2\right]}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}dt$$
(5.1)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(u^2)du$$
(5.2)
is the error function. The two-body Ursell function (called $`\rho _T^{(2)}`$ in eq. (2.18) of ref. ) is

$`U(x,x^{};|yy^{}|)`$ $`=`$ $`n_0^2\mathrm{exp}\left[(xx^{})^2\right]`$ (5.3)
$`\times `$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi }}}{\displaystyle _{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left\{\left[t(x+x^{})/\sqrt{2}\right]^2\mathrm{i}t(yy^{})\sqrt{2}\right\}}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}}dt\right|^2`$
The structure function $`S`$ is expressed in terms of $`n`$ and $`U`$ in formula (1.6). The asymptotic $`f`$-function takes the form (see eq. (2.21) of ref. )

$$f(x,x^{})=n_0^2q^2\frac{2}{\pi }\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[2(x+\pi \sigma )^22(x^{}+\pi \sigma )^2\right]}{\left[1+\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi \sigma \sqrt{2})\right]^2}$$
(5.4)
It is easy to show that

$$\frac{\pi }{q^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}f(x,x^{})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[2(x+\pi \sigma )^2\right]}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi \sigma \sqrt{2})}$$
(5.5)
On the other hand, performing first the integration over the $`y`$-coordinate, one obtains

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx^{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}dyx^{}S(x,x^{};y)=x{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[(tx\sqrt{2})^2\right]}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}}dt`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left(2x^2\right){\displaystyle _{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(2t^2+2\sqrt{2}tx\right)}{[1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)]^2}}I(t)dt`$ (5.6)
where

$`I(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}dx^{}x^{}\mathrm{exp}(2x^2+2\sqrt{2}tx^{})`$ (5.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4}}t\left[1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)\right]\mathrm{exp}(t^2)`$
After simple algebra, one arrives at

$$\frac{1}{q^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dyx^{}S(x,x^{};y)=J_1+J_2$$
(5.8)
where

$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle _{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\mathrm{exp}\left[(tx\sqrt{2})^2\right]`$ (5.9a)
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\pi \sigma \sqrt{2}}^{\mathrm{}}}dt{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(t^2)}{[1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)]^2}}\mathrm{exp}\left[(tx\sqrt{2})^2\right]`$ (5.9b)
Using the equality

$$\frac{\mathrm{exp}(t^2)}{[1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)]^2}=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\frac{}{t}\left[\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(t)}\right]$$
(5.10)
in $`J_2`$, the consequent integration per partes implies

$$J_2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi ^{3/2}}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left[2(x+\pi \sigma )^2\right]}{1+\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi \sigma \sqrt{2})}J_1$$
(5.11)
Inserting $`J_2`$ into (5.8) and comparing with (5.5) one gets the expected relation (1.15) with $`ϵ_W=ϵ`$ and $`\nu =2`$.

### 5.2 $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ even integer

Let the OCP with logarithmic interactions be confined to a compact two-dimensional domain $`V`$. The positively oriented contour enclosing the domain $`V`$, denoted by $`V`$, is defined parametrically as $`x=X(\phi ),y=Y(\phi );\phi _0\phi \phi _1`$. For example, the circle enclosing the disk of radius $`R`$ centered at the origin admits the parametrization $`X(\phi )=R\mathrm{cos}\phi ,Y(\phi )=R\mathrm{sin}\phi ;0\phi 2\pi `$. Integrals over the $`V`$-domain can be expressed in terms of the $`V`$-contour integrals according to the rule

$$_V\left(\frac{Q}{x}\frac{P}{y}\right)dxdy=_V\left(P\mathrm{d}x+Q\mathrm{d}y\right)$$
(5.12a)
where
$$\begin{array}{c}_VP(x,y)dx=_{\phi _0}^{\phi _1}d\phi P[X(\phi ),Y(\phi )]X^{}(\phi )\\ _VQ(x,y)dy=_{\phi _0}^{\phi _1}d\phi Q[X(\phi ),Y(\phi )]Y^{}(\phi )\end{array}$$
(5.12b)
The neutralizing background of uniform density $`n_0`$ creates the one-particle potential $`qn_0v_0(\text{r})`$ where

$$v_0(\text{r})=_V\mathrm{d}^2r^{}v\left(|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|\right)$$
(5.13)
The corresponding electric field is $`qn_0\text{E}_0(\text{r})`$ where

$$\text{E}_0(\text{r})=E_0^x(\text{r})\widehat{\text{x}}+E_0^y(\text{r})\widehat{\text{y}}=v_0(\text{r})$$
(5.14)
with $`\widehat{\text{x}}`$ and $`\widehat{\text{y}}`$ being unit vectors in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. For the half-plane of interest,

$$v_0(\text{r})=\mathrm{const}\pi x^2;E_0^x=2\pi x,E_0^y=0$$
(5.15)
For a disk of radius $`R`$ centered at the origin 0,

$$v_0(\text{r})=\mathrm{const}\pi r^2/2;E_0^x=\pi x,E_0^y=\pi y$$
(5.16)
By mapping the two-dimensional OCP onto a discrete one-dimensional Grassmann field theory for the coupling constant $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=`$ even integer, two new kinds of sum rules for the structure function $`S`$ were established in ref.  for an arbitrarily shaped $`V`$-domain. The first sum rule reads (see formulae (61a,b) of ref.  where $`U`$ is called $`n^\mathrm{T}`$)

$`\beta n_0{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}E_0^x(\text{r}^{})S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\text{r})}{x}}+{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ (5.17a)
$`\beta n_0{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}E_0^y(\text{r}^{})S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n(\text{r})}{y}}+{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^{}}}U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ (5.17b)
With the aid of the prescription (5.12), the last terms on the rhs of these sum rules can be rewritten as follows

$`{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{x^{}}}U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\phi _0}^{\phi _1}}d\phi U[\text{r};(X,Y)]Y^{}`$ (5.18a)
$`{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{y^{}}}U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\phi _0}^{\phi _1}}d\phi U[\text{r};(X,Y)]X^{}`$ (5.18b)
The second sum rule reads (see formula (45a) of ref. )

$`\beta n_0{\displaystyle _V}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}\left[\text{r}^{}\text{E}_0(\text{r}^{})\right]S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$
$`=2n(\text{r})+\text{r}n(\text{r})+{\displaystyle _{\phi _0}^{\phi _1}}d\phi U[\text{r};(X,Y)](XY^{}X^{}Y)`$ (5.19)
For the half-plane, since the Ursell function $`U(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ goes to zero at large $`|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|`$, eq. (5.17a) yields

$$2\pi \beta n_0_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dyx^{}S(x,x^{};y)=\frac{\mathrm{d}n(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dyU(x,0;y)$$
(5.20)
This is an OCP generalization of the WLMB equations ,  which were originally derived for neutral systems. It is trivial to obtain the dipole sum rule (1.12) by integrating both sides of (5.20) over $`x`$ from 0 to $`\mathrm{}`$, then taking into account that $`lim_x\mathrm{}n(x)=n_0`$, and finally considering the electroneutrality condition (1.11) at $`x=0`$.

For a disk of radius $`R`$, the addition of eq. (5.17a) multiplied by $`x`$ and eq. (5.17b) multiplied by $`y`$, with the substitutions (5.18), leads to

$$\pi \beta n_0_{\mathrm{disk}}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}\left(\text{r}\text{r}^{}\right)S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=r\frac{\mathrm{d}n(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}+_0^{2\pi }d\phi ^{}\left(\text{r}\text{R}^{}\right)U(\text{r},\text{R}^{})$$
(5.21)
where, in polar coordinates, $`\text{R}^{}=(R,\phi ^{})`$. Eq. (5.2) takes the form

$$\pi \beta n_0_{\mathrm{disk}}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}|\text{r}^{}|^2S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})=2n(r)+r\frac{\mathrm{d}n(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}+R^2_0^{2\pi }d\phi ^{}U(\text{r},\text{R}^{})$$
(5.22)
Since $`|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|^2=|\text{r}|^2+|\text{r}^{}|^22\text{r}\text{r}^{}`$, the combination of relations (5.21) and (5.22) with the electroneutrality condition (1.11) results in

$`\pi \beta n_0{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{disk}}}\mathrm{d}^2r^{}|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|^2S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$
$`=2n(r)r{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n(r)}{\mathrm{d}r}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi ^{}(2\text{r}\text{R}^{}R^2)U(\text{r},\text{R}^{})`$ (5.23)
Let us move the origin to the disk boundary by introducing $`x=Rr`$. Eq. (5.2) becomes

$`\pi \beta n_0{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi ^{}{\displaystyle _0^R}dx^{}(Rx^{})|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|^2S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})`$ (5.24)
$`=`$ $`2n(x)+(Rx){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{d}n(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}d\phi ^{}\left[2R(Rx)\mathrm{cos}(\phi ^{}\phi )R^2\right]U(\text{r},\text{R}^{})`$
We now take the limit $`R\mathrm{}`$. The lhs of (5.24) is dominated by the large values of $`|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|`$. The asymptotic behaviour (1.13) is equivalent to

$$|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|^2S(\text{r},\text{r}^{})f(x,x^{})+\mathrm{}$$
(5.25)
where the higher-order terms vanish for large $`|\text{r}\text{r}^{}|`$. Substituting $`\phi ^{}y=R(\phi ^{}\phi )`$ on the rhs of (5.24) and collecting all terms of order $`R`$, one finally arrives at the equation

$$2\pi ^2\beta n_0_0^{\mathrm{}}dx^{}f(x,x^{})=\frac{\mathrm{d}n(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dyU(x,0;y)$$
(5.26)
formulated for the half-plane. This equation is exactly of the form (5.20), with the expected identification (1.15) for the case under consideration $`ϵ=ϵ_W=1`$ and $`\nu =2`$.

## 6 Conclusion

We have derived a general relation between the asymptotic behavior of a charge correlation function along a plane wall and the dipole moment of that correlation function, in the general form (1.17). In the particular case of the charge structure factor, that relation becomes (1.15).

In those exactly solvable models for which the two-body correlations are known, finding their asymptotic behavior is often easier than directly computing the dipole moment. However, in the present paper, we did compute this dipole moment, for the sake of checking the general relation.

The relation (1.15) was first observed in the special case of a two-dimensional one-component plasma, as one more application of a mapping onto a Grassmann field theory . Afterwards, we realized that the relation could be derived in general for any Coulomb system.

## Acknowledgments

Section 2 has been improved thanks to a suggestion of an unknown referee. The stay of L. Š. in LPT Orsay is supported by a NATO fellowship. A partial support by Grant VEGA 2/7174/20 is acknowledged.


text:
# Estimating the spectrum of a density operator

## I Introduction

The density operator of a quantum system describes the preparation of the system in all details relevant to statistical experiments. Like a classical probability distribution it cannot be measured on a single system, but can only be estimated on an ensemble sequence of identically prepared systems. In fact, if we could determine the density operator on a single quantum system, we could combine the measurement with a device re-preparing several systems with the measured density operator, in contradiction to the well-known No-Cloning Theorem . This points to a close connection between the problem of estimating the density operator and approximate cloning. In the case of inputs promised to be in a pure state the optimal solutions to both problems are known , and it turns out that in a sense the limit of the cloning problem for output number $`M\mathrm{}`$ is equivalent to the estimation problem. The “optimal” cloning transformation was shown in this case to be quite insensitive to the figure of merit defining optimality .

In the case of mixed input states much less is known about the cloning problem. It is likely that in this case there may be different natural figures of merit leading to inequivalent “optimal” solutions. Even the classical version the problem is not trivial, and is related to the so-called bootstrap technique  in classical statistics.

The estimation problem certainly has many solutions. In fact, any procedure of determining the density matrix through the measurement of the expectations of a suitable “quorum” of observables , such as in quantum state tomography  is a solution. Other methods include adaptive schemes  where the result of one measurement is used to select the next one. In all these cases, the estimate amounts to the measurement of an observable on the full input state $`\rho ^N`$, which factorizes into one-site observables. What we are concerned with here is, as in the work of Vidal et. al. , the search for improved estimates, admitting arbitrary observables on the $`N`$-fold input system, including “entangled” ones. In contrast to  however we are not interested in estimators which are optimal for a more or less general figure of merit, but in the asymtotic behaviour if the number $`N`$ of input systems goes to infinity (in this context see also the work of Gill and Massar ).

When $`𝐂^d`$ is the Hilbert space of a single system, the overall input density operator of the estimation problem is $`\rho ^N`$, which lives on the $`N^{\mathrm{th}}`$ tensor power $`^N`$. This space has a natural orthogonal decomposition according to the irreducible representations of the permutation group of $`N`$ points, acting as the permutations of the tensor factors. Equivalently, this is the decomposition according to the irreducible representations of the unitary group on $``$ (see below). It is well-known that this orthogonal decomposition is labeled by Young frames, i.e., by the arrangements of $`N`$ boxes into $`d`$ rows of lengths $`Y_1Y_2\mathrm{},Y_d0`$ with $`_\alpha Y_\alpha =N`$. There is a striking similarity here with the spectra we want to estimate, which are given by sequences of the eigenvalues of $`\rho `$, say, $`r_1r_2,\mathrm{},r_d0`$, with $`_\alpha r_\alpha =1`$. The basic idea of this paper is to show that this is not a superficial similarity: measuring the Young frame (by an observable whose eigenprojections are the projections in the orthogonal decomposition) is, in fact, a good estimate of the spectrum. More precisely, we show that the probability for the error $`|Y_\alpha /Nr_\alpha |`$ to be larger than a fixed $`ϵ`$ for some $`\alpha `$ decreases exponentially as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

Our basic technique is the Theory of Large Deviations , in particular a result by Duffield  on the Large Deviation properties of tensor powers of group representations. This will allow us to compute the rate of exponential convergence explicitly.

## II Statement of the Result

In order to state our result, explicitly, we need to recall the decomposition theory for $`N`$-fold tensor products. Throughout, the one-particle space $``$ will be the $`d`$-dimensional Hilbert space $`𝐂^d`$, with $`d<\mathrm{}`$. Two group representations play a crucial role: firstly, the representation $`XX^N`$ of the general linear group $`\mathrm{GL}(d,𝐂)`$ and, secondly, the representation $`pS_p`$ of the permutations $`p𝐒_N`$ on $`N`$ points, represented by permuting the tensor factors:

$$S_p\psi _1\mathrm{}\psi _N=\psi _{p^11}\mathrm{}\psi _{p^1N}.$$
(1)
The basic result  is that these two representations are “commutants” of each other, i.e., any operator on $`^N`$ commuting with all $`X^N`$ is a linear combination of the $`S_p`$, and conversely. This leads to the decomposition

$`^N`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}_Y\mathrm{SS}_Y`$ (2)
$`X^N`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}\pi _Y(X)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ (3)
$`S_p`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}\mathrm{𝟏}\widehat{\pi }_Y(p),`$ (4)
where $`\pi _Y:\mathrm{GL}(d,𝐂)(_Y)`$ and $`\widehat{\pi }_Y:𝐒_N(\mathrm{SS}_Y)`$ are irreducible representations, and the restriction of $`\pi _Y`$ to unitary operators is unitary. The summation index $`Y`$ runs over all Young frames with $`d`$ rows and $`N`$ boxes, as described in the introduction. We denote by $`P_Y`$ the projection onto the corresponding summand in the above decomposition.

Let us consider now the estimation problem. As already discussed in the introduction, we are searching for an observable $`E_N`$ describing a measurement on $`N`$ $`d`$-level systems, whose readouts are possible spectra of $`d`$-level density operators. The set of possible spectra will be denoted by

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{s𝐑^d|x0,_{j=1}^dx_j=1\}$$
(5)
where $`x0`$ denotes the ordering relation on $`𝐑^d`$ given by

$$s0:s_j>s_{j+1}\text{for all}j=1,\mathrm{},d1.$$
(6)
Technically, $`E_N`$ must be a positive operator valued measure on this set, assigning to each measurable subset $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a positive operator $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })(^N)`$, whose expectation in any given state is interpreted as the probability for the measurement to yield a result $`s\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

The citerion for a good estimator $`E_N`$ is that, for any one-particle density operator $`\rho `$, the value measured on a state $`\rho ^N`$ is likely to be close to the true spectrum $`r\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\rho `$, i.e., that the probability

$$K_N(\mathrm{\Delta }):=\mathrm{tr}\left(E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })\rho ^N\right)$$
(7)
is small when $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the complement of a small ball around $`r`$. Of course, we will look at this problem for large $`N`$. So our task is to find a whole sequence of observables $`E_N`$, $`N=1,2,\mathrm{}`$, making error probabilities like (7) go to zero as $`N\mathrm{}`$.

The search for efficient estimation strategies $`E_N`$ can be simplified greatly by symmetry arguments. To see this, consider a permutation $`p𝐒_N`$. If we insert the transformed estimator $`S_pE_N(\mathrm{\Delta })S_p^{}`$ into Equation (7) we see immediately that $`K_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ remains unchanged. Replacing $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ by the average $`N!^1_{p𝐒_N}S_pE_N(\mathrm{\Delta })S_p^{}`$ shows that we may assume $`[E_N(\mathrm{\Delta }),S_p]=0`$ for all permutations $`p`$, without loss of estimation quality. A similar argument together with the fact that the quality of the estimate is judged by some criterion not depending on the choice of a basis in $``$ shows that we may assume in addition that $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ commutes with all unitaries $`U^N`$. But this implies according to Eq. (3) and (4) that $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ must be a function of the projection operators $`P_Y:^N_Y\mathrm{SS}_Y`$ defined at the beginning of this section. If we require in addition that each $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a projection, which is suggestive for ruling out unnecessary fuzziness, $`E_N`$ must be of the form

$$E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{Y:s_N(Y)\mathrm{\Delta }}{}P_Y,$$
(8)
where $`s_N`$ is an arbitrary mapping assigning to each Young frame $`Y`$ (with $`d`$ rows and $`N`$ boxes) an estimate $`s_N(Y)\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In other words, the estimation proceeds by first measuring the Young frame projections $`P_Y`$ and then computing an estimate $`s_N(Y)`$ on the basis of the result $`Y`$.

The simplest choice is clearly to take the normalized Young frames themselves as the estimate, i.e.,

$$s_N(Y)=Y/N.$$
(9)
It turns out somewhat surprisingly that with this choice the $`E_N(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ from Eq. (8) form an asymptotically exact estimator. By this we mean that, for every $`\rho `$, the probability measures $`K_N`$ from Eq. (7) converge weakly to the point measure at the spectrum $`r`$ of $`\rho `$. Explicitly, for each continuous function $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we have

$`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ $`f(s)K_N(ds)=`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{Y}{N}}\right)\mathrm{tr}\left(\rho ^NP_Y\right)=f(r).`$ (11)
We illustrate this in Figure 1, for $`d=3`$, $`N=120`$, and $`\rho `$ a density operator with spectrum $`r=(0.6,0.3,0.1)`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a triangle with corners $`A=(1,0,0)`$, $`B=(1/2,1/2,0)`$, and $`C=(1/3,1/3,1/3)`$, and we plot the probabilities $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^NP_Y)`$ over $`Y/N\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The explicit computation uses the Weyl character formula \[13, IX.9.1\], which we do not need elsewhere in the paper.

Clearly, the distribution is peaked at the true spectrum and our claim is that this will become exact in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. To prove convergence we will use large deviation methods which give us not only the convergence just stated but an exponential error estimate of the form

$$K_N(\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{exp}\left(N\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }}{inf}I(s)\right),$$
(12)
where $`I`$ denotes a positive function on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, called the *rate function*, which vanishes only for $`s=r`$.

For the statement of the main theorem we say that a measurable subset $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has “small boundary”, if its interior is dense in its closure. A typical choice for $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the complement of a ball around the true spectrum.

###### Theorem

The estimator defined in Eqs. (8) and (9) is asymptotically exact. Moreover, we have the error estimate

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{ln}K_N(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{s\mathrm{\Delta }}{inf}I(s),$$
(13)
for any set $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with small boundary, where the rate function $`I:\mathrm{\Sigma }[0,\mathrm{}]`$ is

$$I(s)=\underset{j}{}s_j\left(\mathrm{ln}s_j\mathrm{ln}r_j\right).$$
(14)
The expression for $`I`$ is the relative entropy  of the probability vectors $`s`$ and $`r`$. Relative entropies occur also as the rate functions in Large Deviation properties of independent identically distributed (classical  or quantum ) random variables, although there seems to be no direct way to reduce the above Theorem to these standard setups.

## III Sketch of Proof

Rather than giving a proof of every detail, our aim here is to explain why the the scaled Young frames $`Y/N`$ appear in the estimation problem. The crucial observation is that the Young frame $`(Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_d)`$ is the highest weight of the representation $`\pi _Y`$ in the ordering $``$ and this ordering is directly related to picking out the fastest growing exponential in certain integrals of the measures $`K_N`$.

The integrals we need to study are the Laplace transforms of the measures $`K_N`$. We introduce the “scaled cumulant generating function”

$$c(\eta )=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{ln}_\mathrm{\Sigma }K_N(ds)e^{N\eta s},$$
(15)
where $`\eta 𝐑^d`$, and $`\eta s`$ is the scalar product. If the measures $`K_N`$ behave like Eq. (12) the integrand near $`s`$ behaves like $`\mathrm{exp}N(\eta sI(s))`$, and the largest contribution comes from the fastest growing exponential:

$$c(\eta )=\underset{s}{sup}(\eta sI(s)).$$
(16)
This is an instance of Varadhan’s Theorem , which has a converse, the Gärtner-Ellis Theorem \[11, Thm. II.6.1\]: if the limit (15) exists, and is differentiable then the estimate in the Theorem holds, with the rate function determined from (16) by inverse Legendre transformation. We will follow Duffield  by computing the limit (15) from group theoretical data.

Consider the “maximally abelian subgroup” $`C\mathrm{GL}(d,𝐂)`$ of diagonal matrices

$$\rho _h=\mathrm{diag}(\mathrm{exp}(h_1),\mathrm{},\mathrm{exp}(h_d))$$
(17)
for $`h𝐂^d`$. Since these commute, all the operators $`\pi _Y(\rho _h)`$ commute in every representation $`\pi _Y`$, and can hence be simultaneously diagonalized. The vectors $`\mu =(\mu _1,\mathrm{},\mu _d)`$ such that $`\pi _Y(\rho _h)\psi =\mathrm{exp}(\mu h)\psi `$ for some non-zero vector $`\psi `$ are called weights of the representation $`\pi _Y`$. The dimension $`m(\mu )`$ of the corresponding eigenspace is called the multiplicity of $`\mu `$. One particular weight (with multiplicity one) is the Young frame $`Y`$ itself (interpreted as an element of $`𝐑^d`$) and it turns out that $`Y`$ is the maximum (the “heighest weight”) among all weights of $`\pi _Y`$, in the $``$-ordering from Equation (6). Representation theory of semisimple Lie algebras  shows that each irreducible, analytic representation of $`\mathrm{GL}(d,𝐂)`$ is uniquely characterized (up to unitary equivalence) by its highest weight $`Y`$.

In order to estimate the integral (15), we need the quantities $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^NP_Y)`$. For simplicity we assume that $`\rho `$ is non-singular, i.e., an element of $`\mathrm{GL}(d,𝐂)`$. By Equation (3) we have

$$\mathrm{tr}(\rho ^NP_Y)=\mathrm{tr}(\pi _Y(\rho )\mathrm{𝟏})=\chi _Y(\rho )dim(\mathrm{SS}_Y),$$
(18)
where

$$\chi _Y(\rho ):=\mathrm{tr}\left(\pi _Y(\rho )\right)$$
(19)
is the character of the representation $`\pi _Y`$. Since $`\chi _Y`$ is unitarily invariant ($`\chi _Y(U\rho U^{})=\chi _Y(\rho )`$) we may assume without loss of generality that $`\rho `$ is diagonal and its matrix elements are arranged in descending order. Using the notation from Equation (17) this assumption reads

$$\rho =\rho _hC\text{with}h0\text{and}\underset{j}{}\mathrm{exp}(h_j)=1.$$
(20)
Hence we can express $`\chi _Y(\rho )`$ in terms of the weights of $`\pi _Y`$:

$$\chi _Y(\rho )=\underset{\mu }{}m(\mu )\mathrm{exp}(\mu h),$$
(21)
where the sum is taken over all weights $`\mu `$ of $`\pi _Y`$. Since $`h0`$ and $`Y\mu `$ for all $`\mu `$ we see that $`\mathrm{exp}(Yh)`$ is the largest exponential. We therefore estimate

$$\mathrm{exp}(Yh)\chi _Y(\rho )dim\left(_Y\right)\mathrm{exp}(Yh).$$
(22)
We will combine this with the consequence of Weyl’s dimension formula that $`dim\left(_Y\right)`$ is bounded above by a polynomial $`p(N)`$ in $`N`$, uniformly in $`Y`$ \[12, Lemma 2.2\]. Hence, for any $`h,\eta 𝐑^d,h,\eta 0`$ the two expressions

$`J(h,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}K_N(ds)e^{N\eta s}={\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}\mathrm{tr}(\rho _h^NP_Y)e^{N\eta Y/N}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}\chi _Y(\rho _h)e^{\eta Y}dim(\mathrm{SS}_Y)`$ (24)
and
$`J^{}(h,\eta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{Y}{}}e^{(h+\eta )Y}dim(\mathrm{SS}_Y)`$ (26)
are asymptotically equivalent in the sense that $`(1/N)(\mathrm{ln}J(h,\eta )\mathrm{ln}J^{}(h,\eta ))0`$. In the same sense we can continue the chain of equivalences

$`J(h,\eta )`$ $``$ $`J^{}(h,\eta )=J^{}(h+\eta ,0)J(h+\eta ,0)=`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}(\rho _{h+\eta }^N)=(\mathrm{tr}\rho _{h+\eta })^N.`$ (28)
Hence, if $`r_\alpha =\mathrm{exp}(h_\alpha )`$ are the eigenvalues of a non-singular density operator, we get for Eq. (15) the expression

$$c(\eta )=\mathrm{ln}\underset{\alpha }{}r_\alpha \mathrm{exp}(\eta _\alpha )$$
(29)
It is then a simple calculus exercise to verify the above rate function as the Legendre transform $`I(s)=sup_\eta (\eta sc(\eta ))`$.

This concludes our sketch of proof. In order to expand it into a full proof, one needs to extend the computation of $`c(\eta )`$ to $`\eta /0`$, and prove that this extension has the required regularity properties for the application of the Gärtner-Ellis Theorem cited above. This has been carried out by Duffield  in a context which is on the one hand wider, because it includes tensor powers of much more general representations of semisimple Lie groups, but on the other hand is narrower, because it contains only the case $`\rho =d^1\mathrm{𝟏}`$ of our Theorem. However, one can extend Duffield’s result by multiplying his measures $`K_N`$ with the factor $`\chi _Y(\rho )/\chi _Y(\mathrm{𝟏})`$, and using for this factor the estimate (22).

## IV Discussion

Although the estimate we discuss is asymptotically exact, it is not at all clear whether and in what sense it might be optimal, even for finite $`N`$. We have experimented with various figures of merit for estimation and found different “optimal” estimators for low $`N`$, rarely coinciding with the $`E_N`$ determined by (9). It is also not at all clear how much could be gained by optimization here.

An interesting extension will also be the construction of estimators for the full density operator. It is very suggestive to compose this out of the above estimator for the spectrum, and to use for each Young frame a covariant observable to estimate the eigenbasis of $`\rho `$. The density of the covariant observable might be based on the highest weight vector of $`\pi _Y`$.

## Acknowledgements

Funding by the European Union project EQUIP (contract IST-1999-11053) and financial support from the DFG (Bonn) is greatfully acknowledged.