text:
# Supersymmetric Calogero-Moser-Sutherland models: superintegrability structure and eigenfunctions

## 1 Introduction

This presentation has two main objectives. The first is to stress the interpretation of the supersymmetric extension of the quantum Calogero-Moser-Sutherland (CMS) models 222We use the qualitative ‘Calogero-Moser-Sutherland’ to describe the generic class of models that includes the models studied by Calogero and Sutherland in the quantum case and by Moser in the classical case. In this work, however, we only treat the quantum case. In this context the name of Moser is often omitted. The rationale for its inclusion is due to the fundamental importance of the Lax formulation in the quantum case, which is a direct extension of the classical one that he introduced. as special exchange-type CMS models . This provides a direct path for establishing their integrability  and also, as is first shown here, their superintegrability. For this analysis, which is the content of section 2, we focus on the rational case. Our second goal is to provide a simple quasi-qualitative presentation of the main ideas underlying our recent construction of the supersymmetric trigonometric CMS (stCMS) eigenfunctions, that is, of the Jack superpolynomials . This is the content of section 3. Most technicalities are avoided. We emphasis that our method is a general program for constructing explicitly the eigenfunctions of a CMS-type Hamiltonian, supersymmetric or not. Some subsections are thus formulated in rather general terms.

## 2 Integrability and superintegrability of the srCMS model

### 2.1 Supersymmetric quantum mechanics and fermionic-exchange operators

Consider a quantum model, whose Hamiltonian is denoted $``$, that contains bosonic and fermionic variables. That is, that contains in addition to the $`2N`$ bosonic variables $`(x_i,p_i)`$, the $`2N`$ fermionic variables $`(\theta _i,\theta _i^{})`$ (e.g., $`\theta _i\theta _j=\theta _j\theta _i`$, so that $`\theta _i^2=0`$). The bosonic and fermionic variables satisfy respectively a Heisenberg and a Clifford algebra:

$$[x_j,p_k]=i\delta _{jk},\{\theta _j,\theta _k^{}\}=\delta _{jk},$$
(1)
where $`\{,\}`$ stands for the anticommutaror. All other commutators or anticommutators are equal to zero. We usually work with a differential realization of these algebras:

$$p_j=i\frac{}{x_j},\theta _j^{}=\frac{}{\theta _j}.$$
(2)
To construct a supersymmetric Hamiltonian, we will first construct two supersymmetric charges, denoted $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$, and define the Hamiltonian as their anticommutator:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\{Q,Q^{}\}.$$
(3)
The Hamiltonian is invariant under a supersymmetric transformation if:

$$Q^2=(Q^{})^2=0.$$
(4)
With the charges written under the form

$$Q=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\theta _i^{}A_i(x,p),Q^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\theta _iA_i^{}(x,p),$$
(5)
eq. (4) requires:

$$[A_i,A_j]=0=[A_i^{},A_j^{}],i,j.$$
(6)
The generic supersymmetric Hamiltonian thus reads:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\left(\underset{i}{}A_i^{}A_i+\underset{i,j}{}\theta _i^{}\theta _j[A_i,A_j^{}]\right).$$
(7)
For non-relativistic models, the Hamiltonian is proportional to the square of the particles’ momenta. This forces $`A_i`$ to be a linear function of the momentum $`p_i`$, that is:

$$Q=\underset{j}{}\theta _j^{}(p_ji\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)),Q^{}=\underset{j}{}\theta _j(p_j+i\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)).$$
(8)
Condition (6) imposes that the potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)`$ be of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_j(x)=_{x_j}W(x),$$
(9)
where $`W(x)`$ (called the prepotential), is an arbitrary function of the variables $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_N`$. The supersymmetric Hamiltonian now takes the form :

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}(p_i^2+(_{x_i}W)^2+_{x_i}^2W)\underset{i,j}{}\theta _i\theta _j^{}_{x_i}_{x_j}W.$$
(10)
This Hamiltonian is an extension of the purely bosonic model whose potential is $`_i[(_{x_i}W)^2+_{x_i}^2W]`$. We stress that this construction fixes uniquely the supersymmetric extension of the model to be considered. Specializing to a symmetric prepotential that can be broken up into a sum of two-body interactions:

$$W(x)=\underset{i<j}{}w(x_{ij})\mathrm{with}w^{}(x_{ij})=X_{ij},$$
(11)
where $`X_{ij}`$ stands for an antisymmetric function of $`x_{ij}=x_ix_j`$, our Hamiltonian reads:

$$=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i}{}p_i^2+\underset{i<j}{}[X_{ij}^2+X_{ij}^{}(1\theta _{ij}\theta _{ij}^{})]+\underset{i<j<k}{}Y_{ijk},$$
(12)
with

$$Y_{ijk}=X_{ij}X_{ik}+X_{ji}X_{jk}+X_{ki}X_{kj}.$$
(13)
This is the supersymmetric Hamiltonian we were looking for.

The main observation at this point is the following: the term

$$\kappa _{ij}1\theta _{ij}\theta _{ij}^{}=1(\theta _i\theta _j)(_{\theta _i}_{\theta _j}).$$
(14)
which captures the whole dependence of the Hamiltonian upon the fermionic variables, is a fermionic-exchange operator . In other words, its action on an arbitrary function $`g`$ of the fermionic variables $`\theta _i`$ and $`\theta _i^{}`$ reads

$$\kappa _{ij}g(\theta _i,\theta _j,\theta _i^{},\theta _j^{})=g(\theta _j,\theta _i,\theta _j^{},\theta _i^{})\kappa _{ij}.$$
(15)
In addition, it satisfies all the properties of an exchange operator:

$$\kappa _{ij}=\kappa _{ji},\kappa _{ij}^{}=\kappa _{ij},\kappa _{ij}\kappa _{jk}=\kappa _{ik}\kappa _{ij}=\kappa _{jk}\kappa _{ki},\kappa _{ij}^2=1.$$
(16)
That the supersymmetric extension is fully captured by the introduction of a fermionic exchange operator is thus a generic feature of supersymmetric many-body problems whose interaction is decomposable into a sum of two-body interactions. This is also a key technical tool in our subsequent analysis, as we will shortly explain. But we would like to make the observation that, up this point, the discussion is quite general and not restricted to integrable problems.

Having an Hamiltonian expressed in terms of a fermionic exchange operator implies that under the right projection, we can trade $`\kappa _{ij}`$ for the ordinary exchange operator, $`K_{ij}`$, that exchanges the variables $`x_i`$ and $`x_j`$:

$$K_{ij}f(x_i,x_j)=f(x_j,x_i,)K_{ij},$$
(17)
with $`f(x_i,x_j)`$ standing for a function or an operator. The suitable projection is in our case the one on the space $`P^{S_N}`$ of functions invariant under the simultaneous exchange of the bosonic and the fermionic variables, that is, invariant under the action of

$$𝒦_{ij}=K_{ij}\kappa _{ij}.$$
(18)
On this space, the supersymmetric Hamiltonain reduces to an ordinary exchange-type Hamiltonian . Stated differently: acting on the proper space, we can study many features of the supersymmetric model without even introducing fermionic degrees of freedom!

### 2.2 The integrability of the srCMS model

To work with a concrete example, consider the simple srCMS model :

$$_{(r)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_j}^2+\underset{1j<kN}{}\frac{\beta (\beta \kappa _{jk})}{(x_jx_k)^2}.$$
(19)
We will establish the integrability of this model using the Dunkl-operator formalism, thus relying heavily on the projection trick.

Using the rational Dunkl operators,

$$D_j=_{x_j}\beta \underset{kj}{}\frac{1}{x_{jk}}K_{jk},$$
(20)
we find

$$\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}D_j^2=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_j}^2+\underset{1j<kN}{}\frac{\beta (\beta K_{jk})}{(x_jx_k)^2}.$$
(21)
The Dunkl operators are commuting and covariant:

$$[D_j,D_i]=0,K_{ij}D_j=D_iK_{ij}.$$
(22)
Therefore, the conservation laws of the rCMS model (with exchange terms) are simply $`_jD_j^n`$, for $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$. The conserved charges of the rCMS model without exchange terms are obtained by simply projecting these expressions onto the space of symmetric functions, which amounts to replacing every factor $`K_{ij}`$ by 1 once pushed to the right. On the other hand, the conserved charges of the srCMS model are obtained as follows:

$$_n=\underset{j}{}D_j^n|_{P^{S_N}},n=1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(23)
In particular, $`_2=2_{(r)}`$. The explicit dependence of the srCMS conserved charges $`_n`$ upon the fermionic variables can be obtained by implementing the projection, that is, replacing every factor $`\kappa _{ij}`$ by $`K_{ij}`$ once shifted to the right. The proof of the commutativity of these charges leans on a simple property of the projection:

$$[A|_{P^{S_N}},B|_{P^{S_N}}]=[A,B]|_{P^{S_N}}\text{ if }[𝒦_{ij},A]=[𝒦_{ij},B]=0.$$
(24)
The operators $`_n`$ meet this requirement since $`[𝒦_{ij},(_kD_k^n)]=0`$. Therefore, the commutator can be evaluated before doing the projection and its vanishing is an immediate consequence of the commutativity of the Dunkl operators.

We have thus found the supersymmetric extension of all the usual rCMS charges and proved their commutativity. This however does not imply the integrability of the srCMS model because there are more degrees of freedom in the supersymmetric case (these are the $`2N`$ extra Grasmannian variables). Consequently, one should expect more conserved charges. It is actually rather easy to construct $`3N`$ extra charges involving explicitly (i.e., even before the projection) some fermionic variables :

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 𝒬_{(n)}& =& _i\theta _iD_i^n|_{P^{S_N}}\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ \hfill 𝒬_{(n)}^{}& =& _i\theta _i^{}D_i^n|_{P^{S_N}}\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1,\hfill \\ \hfill _{(n)}& =& _i\theta _i\theta _i^{}D_i^n|_{P^{S_N}}\text{ , }n=0,1,\mathrm{},N1.\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
These charges satisfy the following algebra:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{𝒬_{(n)},𝒬_{(m)}\}=\{𝒬_{(n)}^{},𝒬_{(m)}^{}\}=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=0,\\ [𝒬_{(n)},_{(m)}]=[𝒬_{(n)}^{},_{(m)}]=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=[_{(n)},_{(m)}]=0.\end{array}$$
(26)
together with

$$\begin{array}{c}\{𝒬_{(n)},𝒬_{(m)}^{}\}=_{(n+m)},\\ [𝒬_{(n)}^{},_{(m)}]=𝒬_{(n+m)}^{}\text{,}[𝒬_{(n)},_{(m)}]=𝒬_{(n+m)}.\end{array}$$
(27)
There are thus $`4N`$ conserved charges, $`2N`$ bosonic and $`2N`$ fermionic. Only the $`2N`$ bosonic ones are mutually commuting and independant.

Actually, it would seem at first sight that there are $`(N+1)`$ $`_{(n)}`$-type charges and thus a total of $`2N+1`$ mutually commuting conserved charges. However, it can be checked that say $`_{(N)}`$ can be expressed in terms of the lower order $`_{(n)}`$ as well as the $`_{(n)}`$’s. Let us illustrate this in the simple context of two particles ($`N=2)`$:

$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`D_1+D_2,`$ (28)
$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`D_1^2+D_2^2,`$ (29)
$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\theta _1^{}+\theta _2\theta _2^{},`$ (30)
$`_1`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\theta _1^{}D_1+\theta _2\theta _2^{}D_2.`$ (31)
The operator $`_2`$ depends of the preceding four conserved quantities. Indeed, it is easily checked that

$$_2=_1_1\frac{1}{2}_0\left(_1^2_2\right).$$
(32)
It is clear that there can be no more than $`2N`$ mutually commuting conserved charges since this is the maximal number of commuting operators in the free case ($`\beta =0`$), in which case these quantities are $`\{p_i,\theta _i\theta _i^{}\}`$.

The srCMS model is thus seen to be integrable in the usual sense.333The integrability can also be established via the Lax formalism . The form of the Lax operator is actually the same as in the non-supersymmetric case, except that every factor $`X_{ij}`$ (differentiated or not) is replaced by $`X_{ij}\kappa _{ij}`$.

### 2.3 The superintegrability of the rsCMS model

Consider the following $`2N`$ quantities:

$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}x_jD_j^{n+1}|_{P^{S_N}},n=1,\mathrm{},N2,`$ (33)
$`_n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}x_j\theta _j_{\theta _j}D_j^{n+1}|_{P^{S_N}},n=1,\mathrm{},N2.`$ (34)
They satisfy the algebra

$$[_n,_m]=(nm)_{n+m},[_n,_m]=n_{n+m},[_n,_m]=n_{n+m}.$$
(35)
These relations are easily obtained using:

$$[D_i^n,x_j]=\delta _{ij}\left(nD_i^{n1}\beta \underset{ki}{}\frac{D_i^nD_k^n}{D_iD_k}K_{ij}\right)\beta (1\delta _{ij})\frac{D_i^nD_j^n}{D_iD_j}K_{ij},$$
(36)
for $`n=0,1,2\mathrm{}`$ and:444The expression of $`[x_iD_i^n,x_jD_j^m]`$ contains many misprints in .

$`[x_iD_i^n,x_jD_j^m]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{ij}\left[(nm)D_i^{n+m1}+\beta x_i{\displaystyle \underset{ki}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{D_i^nD_k^mD_i^mD_k^n}{D_iD_k}}K_{ij}\right]`$ (38)
$`\beta (1\delta _{ij})\left[{\displaystyle \frac{x_iD_i^{n+m}+x_jD_j^{n+m}}{D_iD_j}}K_{ij}(x_i+x_j){\displaystyle \frac{D_i^mD_j^n}{D_iD_j}}K_{ij}\right],`$
for $`n,m=1,2,3\mathrm{}`$

We can construct from these, $`2N2`$ new and independent conserved charges (i.e., commuting with $`_2`$) :

$`𝒥_n`$ $`=`$ $`_{n+1}_1_{n1}_1,`$ (39)
$`𝒦_n`$ $`=`$ $`_{n+1}_1_{n1}_1.`$ (40)
This a direct supersymmetric extension of the argument given in 555Furthermore, the algebra (35) obviously implies the algebraic linearization of the $`4N`$ equations of motion:
$$\frac{d_n}{dt}=0,\frac{d_n}{dt}=0,\frac{d_n}{dt}=i_{n+2},\frac{d_n}{dt}=i_{n+2}.$$
Such a linearization is also possible for the stCMS model. It follows from a direct generalization of the approach of  (using the Lax formalism). On the other hand, note that the superintegrability of the classical rCMS model was proved in . . The srCMS model is thus not only super and integrable, but also superintegrable.

## 3 The stCMS model: construction of the eigenfunctions

### 3.1 The stCMS Hamiltonian

We now move to the second part of this work and discuss the construction of the eigenfunctions of the sCMS models. If the integrability structure of the (s)CMS models is most simply analyzed in the rational case, the study of the eigenfunctions is most naturally done in the trigonometric case.666Of course there are no bound states in the rational case. The presence of bound states necessitates the introduction of an harmonic confinement. But then the eigenfunctions turn out (somewhat surprisingly) to be expressible in terms of the eigenfunctions of the trigonometric case, the Jack polynomials . The Hamiltonian of the stCMS model reads :

$$_{(t)}=\frac{1}{2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}_{x_i}^2+\left(\frac{\pi }{L}\right)^2\underset{i<j}{}\frac{\beta (\beta \kappa _{ij})}{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi x_{ij}/L)}\left(\frac{\pi \beta }{L}\right)^2\frac{N(N^21)}{6},$$
(41)
where $`L`$ is the circumference of the circle on which the particles are confined. Removing the contribution of the ground-state wave function,

$$\psi _0(x)=\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta (x)\underset{j<k}{}\mathrm{sin}^\beta \left(\frac{\pi x_{jk}}{L}\right),$$
(42)
the transformed Hamiltonian then becomes

$$\overline{}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{L}{\pi }\right)^2\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta _{(t)}\mathrm{\Delta }^\beta .$$
(43)
Expressed in terms of the new bosonic variables $`z_j=e^{2\pi ix_j/L}`$, it finally reads

$$\overline{}=\underset{i}{}(z_i_i)^2+\beta \underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_i+z_j}{z_{ij}}(z_i_iz_j_j)2\beta \underset{i<j}{}\frac{z_iz_j}{z_{ij}^2}(1\kappa _{ij}).$$
(44)
### 3.2 The $`\overline{}`$ eigenfunctions as symmetric superpolynomials

The eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian (44) are superpolynomials, namely polynomials of the bosonic variables $`z_i`$ and the fermionic ones $`\theta _i`$. Looking for the proper generalization of the Jack polynomials, we are interested in eigenfunctions that are symmetric with respect to the simultaneous interchange of both types of variables, i.e., invariant under the action of $`𝒦_{ij}`$.

Manifestly, $`\overline{}`$ leaves invariant the space of polynomials of a given degree in $`z`$ and a given degree in $`\theta `$, being homogeneous in both sets of variables. We consider eigenfunctions of the form:

$$𝒜^{(m)}(z,\theta ;\beta )=\underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_mN}{}\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}A^{(i_1\mathrm{}i_m)}(z;\beta ),m=0,1,2,3,\mathrm{},$$
(45)
where $`A^{(i_1\mathrm{}i_m)}`$ is a homogeneous polynomial in $`z`$. Due to the presence of $`m`$ fermionic variables in its expansion, $`𝒜^{(m)}`$ is said to belong to the $`m`$-fermion sector. We stress that the simple dependence upon the fermionic variables, which factorizes in monomial prefactors, is a consequence of their anticommuting nature.

We now clarify the symmetry properties, with respect to the $`z`$ variables, of the eigenfunctions $`𝒜^{(m)}`$, assumed to be invariant under the action of the exchange operators $`𝒦_{ij}`$. Given that the $`\theta `$ products are antisymmetric, *i.e.*,

$$\kappa _{i_ai_b}\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}=\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_m}\text{ if }i_a,i_b\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_m\},$$
(46)
the superpolynomials $`A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ must be partially antisymmetric to ensure the complete symmetry of $`𝒜^{(m)}`$. More precisely, the functions $`A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ must satisfy the following relations:777Note that the case $`m=1`$, with $`𝒜^{(1)}=_i\theta _iA^i(z;1/\beta )`$, is special in that regard: $`K_{ij}A^k=A^k`$ if and only if $`i,jk`$.

$$\begin{array}{c}K_{ij}A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;\beta )=A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;\beta )i\text{ and }j\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\},\hfill \\ K_{ij}A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;\beta )=A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}(z;1/\beta )i\text{ and }j\{i_1\mathrm{}i_m\}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
We have thus established that any symmetric eigenfunction of the stCMS model contains terms of mixed symmetry in $`z`$: each polynomial $`A^{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ is completely antisymmetric in the variables $`\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$, and totally symmetric in the remaining variables $`z/\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$ .

To proceed further, we need to address the following points: how to label the eigenfunctions; how to define a natural basis for the space of superpolynomials; how to define the eigenfunctions via a triangular expansion in that basis. These points are considered successively in the following subsections.

### 3.3 Superpartitions

Symmetric polynomials are indexed by partitions. In the same manner, symmetric superpolynomials, i.e., polynomials in $`P^{S_N}`$, can be indexed by superpartitions. A superpartition in the $`m`$-fermion sector is a sequence of non-negative integers that generates two partitions separated by a semicolon :

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)=(\lambda ^a;\lambda ^s),$$
(48)
the first one being associated to an antisymmetric function of the variables $`\{z_{i_1},\mathrm{},z_{i_m}\}`$

$$\lambda ^a=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m),\mathrm{\Lambda }_i>\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}i=1,\mathrm{}m1,$$
(49)
and the second one, to a symmetric function of the variables $`\{z_{i_{m+1}},\mathrm{},z_{i_N}\}`$

$$\lambda ^s=(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N),\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i+1}i=m+1,\mathrm{}N.$$
(50)
In the zero-fermion sector ($`m=0`$), the semicolon disappears and we recover the partition $`\lambda ^s`$.

The weight (or degree) of a superpartition is simply the sum of its parts. For instance, the only possible superpartitions of weight 3 in the 1-fermion sector are:

$$(3;0),(2;1),(1;2),(1;1,1),(0;3),(0;2,1),(0;1,1,1),$$
(51)
while in the 2-fermion sector, they are:

$$(3,0;0)(2,1;0)(2,0;1)(1,0;2)(1,0;1,1).$$
(52)
### 3.4 The monomial symmetric superpolynomials basis

Given our goal of constructing the superextension of the Jack polynomials, which themselves decompose triangularly in the symmetric monomial basis, the superextension of the latter will provide our natural expansion basis. The monomial symmetric superpolynomials (supermonomials for short) are defined as :

$$m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,\theta )=m_{(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_m;\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)}(z,\theta )=\underset{\sigma S_N}{}^{}\theta ^{\sigma (1,\mathrm{},m)}z^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })},$$
(53)
where the prime indicates that the summation is restricted to distinct terms, and where

$$z^{\sigma (\mathrm{\Lambda })}=z_1^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma (1)}}\mathrm{}z_m^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma (m)}}z_{m+1}^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma (m+1)}}\mathrm{}z_N^{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\sigma (N)}}\mathrm{and}\theta ^{\sigma (1,\mathrm{},m)}=\theta _{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}\theta _{\sigma (m)}.$$
(54)
Clearly, in the zero-fermion sector, a supermonomial reduces to an ordinary symmetric monomial.888There are other simple bases for the space of symmetric superpolynomials. For instance, one can combine the $`2N`$ algebraically independent symmetric power sums,
$$p_n=\underset{i}{}z_i^n=m_{(;n)},q_{n1}=\underset{i}{}\theta _iz_i^{n1}=m_{(n;0)},n=1,\mathrm{},N,$$
to form a new basis:
$$p_\mathrm{\Lambda }=q_{\lambda ^a}p_{\lambda ^s}=q_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_1}\mathrm{}q_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_m}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{m+1}}\mathrm{}p_{\mathrm{\Lambda }_N}.$$
One can also generate the whole space with the elementary symmetric superfunctions,
$$e_n=\underset{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_nN}{}z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_n}=m_{(;1^n)},f_{n1}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{1ji_1,\mathrm{},i_{n1}N}{1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_{n1}N}}{}\theta _jz_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_{n1}}=m_{(0;1^{n1})},$$
or with the complete symmetric superfunctions,
$$h_n=\underset{1i_1\mathrm{}i_nN}{}z_{i_1}\mathrm{}z_{i_n}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=n,\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=0}}{}m_\mathrm{\Lambda },j_{n1}=\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=n1,\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=1}}{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1+1)m_\mathrm{\Lambda },$$
where $`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$ while $`|\mathrm{\Lambda }|=_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`\overline{\underset{¯}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}=m`$ stand for the degrees in $`z`$ and $`\theta `$ respectively. Here is an example with $`N=4`$ that neatly illustrates the mixed symmetry of each component:

$`m_{(1,0;1,1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1\theta _2(z_1z_2)(z_3z_4)+\theta _1\theta _3(z_1z_3)(z_2z_4)`$ (55)
$`+`$ $`\theta _1\theta _4(z_1z_4)(z_2z_3)+\theta _2\theta _3(z_2z_3)(z_1z_4)`$
$`+`$ $`\theta _2\theta _4(z_2z_4)(z_1z_3)+\theta _3\theta _4(z_3z_4)(z_1z_2)`$
Two other examples (with $`N=3`$) will clarify the different role of a zero entry in each sector:

$`m_{(3;0)}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1z_1^3+\theta _2z_2^3+\theta _3z_3^3`$
$`m_{(0;3)}`$ $`=`$ $`\theta _1(z_2^3+z_3^3)+\theta _2(z_1^3+z_3^3)+\theta _3(z_1^3+z_2^3).`$ (56)
### 3.5 Jack superpolynomials: a first definition

We now define our first candidates for the role of Jack superpolynomials (in the $`m`$-fermion sector) as the unique eigenfunctions of the supersymmetric Hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$,

$$\overline{}𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,\theta ;\beta )=\epsilon _\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,\theta ;\beta ),$$
(57)
that can be decomposed triangularly in terms of monomial superfunctions:

$$𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,\theta ;\beta )=m_\mathrm{\Lambda }(z,\theta )+\underset{\mathrm{\Omega };\mathrm{\Omega }<\mathrm{\Lambda }}{}c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}(\beta )m_\mathrm{\Omega }(z,\theta ).$$
(58)
Clearly, for this definition to be complete, we need to specify the ordering ($`<`$) underlying the triangular decomposition. The simplest and most natural choice at this point is to formulate the ordering in terms of the partitions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ associated respectively to the superpartitions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, by rearranging their parts in decreasing order. (For instance, the rearrangement of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=(7,4,3,1;8,6,5,3,3,1)`$ is the partition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=(8,7,6,5,4,3,3,3,1,1)`$.) We thus say that $`\mathrm{\Omega }<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ if $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}<\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ with respect to the dominance ordering on partitions:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}\text{iff}\mathrm{\Lambda }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_2^{}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_2^{}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_i^{},i,$$
(59)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i^{}=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})_i`$. This turns out to be sufficient to calculate explicitly the Jack superpolynomials . Here is an example of such a polynomial:

$$𝒥_{(2;2)}=m_{(2;2)}+\frac{2\beta }{1+\beta }m_{(2;1^2)}+\frac{\beta }{1+\beta }m_{(1;2,1)}+\frac{6\beta ^2}{(1+\beta )(1+2\beta )}m_{(1;1^3)}.$$
(60)
Although complete, the above characterization is not quite precise. Indeed, not all supermonomials $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ labeled by a superpartition $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ dominated by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in the above way do appear in the decomposition. For instance, the terms $`m_{(0;2,1,1)}`$ and $`m_{(0;1^4)}`$, although allowed by the ordering condition, are not present in the expression of $`𝒥_{(2;2)}`$. This poses the following natural question: can we characterize precisely the terms that appear in the supermonomial triangular decomposition of $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, that is, can we pinpoint the precise ordering at work? A second (and more ambitious) related question is the following: can we write down an explicit formula for the coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}`$?

The answer to both of these questions is yes. The clue to obtain the answer lies in the following observation: the action of $`\overline{}`$ on the supermonomial basis is triangular and this triangularity determines precisely the ordering entering in the definition of the eigenfunctions. Moreover, the action of $`\overline{}`$ can be computed exactly, essentially because it can be reduced to a two-body computation. This turns out to provide all the data required for evaluating the coefficients $`c_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. These conclusions are completely general and apply to any CMS model, supersymmetric or not. In the next subsections, we indicate the key steps in reaching these conclusions, keeping the presentation rather general. Technical details can be found in .

### 3.6 Generalities: the triangular action of the Hamiltonian, the induced ordering and a determinantal formula for the eigenfunctions

Consider a generic Hamiltonian $`H`$ and a generic basis $`m_a`$. (Typically, the $`m_a`$ will be monomial functions but another basis could be used.) Suppose that, in a given subspace999In the context of the stCMS, this subspace could be fixed by the set of superpartitions with given degree $`n`$ and given fermion number $`m`$. However, this could also be a subspace pertaining to a a non-supersymmetric problem, hence characterized by some conditions on ordinary partitions. spanned by three basis elements $`m_a,m_b,m_c`$ (for some labels $`a,b,c)`$, the action of $`H`$ takes the following form:

$`Hm_a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_am_a+v_{ab}m_b+v_{ac}m_c`$
$`Hm_b`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_bm_b+v_{bc}m_c`$
$`Hm_c`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_cm_c,`$ (61)
where the eigenvalues are all distinct. The action of $`H`$ is obviously triangular. It is also clear that the triangularity entails an ordering: $`a>b>c.`$ The key point is that this ordering is precisely the one governing the triangular expansion of the eigenfunctions of $`H`$, denoted $`J_a`$, in the $`m_a`$ basis. This follows from the following result: if $`H`$ acts on the $`m_a`$’s as in (3.6), its eigenfunction reads :

$$J_a\left|\begin{array}{ccc}m_c& m_b& m_a\\ ϵ_cϵ_a& v_{bc}& v_{ac}\\ 0& ϵ_bϵ_a& v_{ab}\end{array}\right|.$$
(62)
Let us verify that $`(Hϵ_a)J_a`$ does indeed vanish. Since the entries of the determinant are numbers except for the first row, $`H`$ acts nontrivially only on this row:

$$(Hϵ_a)J_a\left|\begin{array}{ccc}(ϵ_cϵ_a)m_c& (ϵ_bϵ_a)m_b+v_{bc}m_c& (ϵ_aϵ_a)m_a+v_{ab}m_b+v_{ac}m_c\\ ϵ_cϵ_a& v_{bc}& v_{ac}\\ 0& ϵ_bϵ_a& v_{ab}\end{array}\right|.$$
(63)
The coefficient of $`m_a`$ is identically zero. The coefficient of $`m_b`$ is most simply obtained by setting $`m_c=0`$. This leads to

$$(Hϵ_a)J_a|_{m_c=0}\left|\begin{array}{ccc}0& (ϵ_bϵ_a)m_b& v_{ab}m_b\\ ϵ_cϵ_a& v_{bc}& v_{ac}\\ 0& ϵ_bϵ_a& v_{ab}\end{array}\right|.$$
(64)
The first row being proportional to the third one, the determinant is zero. Similarly, by setting $`m_b=0`$, we see that the first two rows become proportional, which again enforces the vanishing of the determinant. Since the expansion coefficients of $`(Hϵ_a)J_a`$ in the monomial basis are all zero, we can conclude that $`(Hϵ_a)J_a=0`$.

The eigenfunction $`J_a`$ is thus given by the determinant (62) up to a multiplicative constant. Note that it is not equal to zero because the eigenvalues being all distinct, the coefficient of $`m_a`$ cannot vanish. But this shows readily (i.e., by expanding the determinant) that it can be written under the form $`J_a(m_a+\mathrm{})`$ where the dots refer to lower order terms in the ordering induced by the action of $`H`$ in the $`m_a`$ basis. This is precisely the point we wanted to emphasize.

Note that the eigenfunction can be determined uniquely by simply enforcing its leading expansion coefficient to be one (monic condition).

This simple example shows neatly that the ordering governing the decomposition of $`J_a`$ in the $`m_a`$ basis is encoded in the triangularity of $`H`$ on $`\{m_a\}`$. However, it is somewhat misleading in its simplicity. It suggests that all terms occurring in the decomposition of $`J_a`$ can be compared with each others and that a single ‘chain of ordering’ (which refers to the case where all $`m_i`$ with $`i`$ comparable to $`a`$ do appear in the action of $`Hm_a`$) is always involved. We will thus consider a second slightly more complicated case that captures the generic features.

Consider a five-dimensional subspace spanned by $`m_a,m_b,m_c,m_d,m_e`$ and suppose the following action of Hamiltonian:

$`Hm_a`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_am_a+v_{ab}m_b+v_{ac}m_c+v_{ad}m_d`$
$`Hm_b`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_bm_b+v_{bc}m_c`$
$`Hm_c`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_cm_c+v_{ce}m_e`$
$`Hm_d`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_dm_d+v_{de}m_e`$
$`Hm_e`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_em_e.`$ (65)
This action implies the following chains of ordering: $`a>b>c`$ as well as $`c>e`$ and $`d>e`$. Hence, we see that the ordering within the subspace is only partial because for instance $`c`$ and $`d`$ cannot be compared (this is also the case for $`b`$ and $`d`$). The corresponding eigenfunction is101010The validity of this result requires that eigenvalues, corresponding to labels that can be compared, be distinct.

$$J_a\left|\begin{array}{ccccc}m_e& m_d& m_c& m_b& m_a\\ ϵ_eϵ_a& v_{de}& v_{ce}& 0& 0\\ 0& ϵ_dϵ_a& 0& 0& v_{ad}\\ 0& 0& ϵ_cϵ_a& v_{bc}& v_{ac}\\ 0& 0& 0& ϵ_cϵ_a& v_{ab}\end{array}\right|.$$
(66)
It thus follows that both $`m_c`$ and $`m_d`$ appear in the expression of $`J_a`$, even if $`c`$ and $`d`$ cannot be compared with each other. The main point is that they are both comparable to $`a`$. This example also illustrates our second point: $`e`$ is comparable to $`a`$ but $`m_e`$ does not appear in the expression of $`Hm_a`$. In other words, $`e`$ is compared to $`a`$ by a sequence of two chains of orderings: $`a>b>c`$ and $`c>e`$. We will later relate the number of chains of ordering and the number of applications of a ladder operator on labels.

The construction of determinantal expressions for the eigenfunctions provides a strong motivation for obtaining explicitly the coefficients $`v_{ab}`$ appearing in the action of $`H`$ on the monomial basis: they are the building blocks of the expansion coefficients $`c_{ab}`$ of $`J_a`$ in that basis. The knowledge of these coefficients leads thus to closed-form expressions for the eigenfunctions! Quite remarkably, these coefficients are indeed computable, as we will now show.

### 3.7 Generalities: the explicit action of $`H`$ by the universal dressing of a model-dependent $`N=2`$ computation

As we just noticed, the specification of the ordering requires the determination of the coefficients $`v_{ab}`$ that do not vanish in the action of $`H`$ on $`m_a`$. Actually, we will see that it is not much more complicated to compute precisely all these coefficients $`v_{ab}`$. And, as pointed out, this yields directly the eigenfunctions.

The strategy is the following: we first compute the action of $`H`$ in the two-particle sector. Such computations are always very easy. For a CMS-type model, whose Hamiltonian is a sum of two-body interactions, this computation turns out to encode the core value of the coefficient $`v_{ab}`$. Indeed, to go from $`N=2`$ to a general $`N`$ simply amounts to dressing the result by a symmetry factor . And another remarkable fact is that, although the $`N=2`$ computation is model dependent, the symmetry dressing appears to be universal, that is, the symmetry factor boils down to a symmetry of the labels (partitions or superpartitions) of the eigenfunctions, hence independent of the root structure, or the rational or trigonometric version of the (s)CMS under consideration. This is certainly so for all the cases we have considered so far (including the rational case with confinement ).

An immediate objection could be formulated with regards to this program: although it is clear that the action of $`H`$ on $`m_a`$ is well-defined in the $`N=2`$ sector, we know that for a general $`N`$-body problem, the action of $`H`$ on a particular element $`m_a`$, that itself does not vanish upon reduction to $`N=2`$, may contain terms that disappear upon reduction. Are these terms properly taken into account?

To make the above considerations more concrete and precise, we will now return to the stCMS model. This will also allow us to address the potential objections in a definite context.

### 3.8 The transposition of the action of $`\overline{}`$ on superpartitions: ladder operators

When the action of the Hamiltonian is a sum of two-body terms $`\overline{}_{ij}`$ (up to a derivative part that acts diagonally), as is the case for the (s)tCMS model, the various terms appearing in the decomposition of $`\overline{}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ can be characterized by the action of a ladder operator $`R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ acting on the superpartitions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.111111If in the Hamiltonian, there are in addition some terms that act non-diagonally (as in the (s)rCMS model ), their action is taken into account by another ladder operator acting on a single entry of a superpartition. More precisely, $`R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ acts on two parts $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_j`$ of a superpartition as :

$$R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_i,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_j,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_j+\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i>\mathrm{\Lambda }_j,\hfill \\ (\mathrm{\Lambda }_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_j\mathrm{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Lambda }_N)\hfill & \mathrm{if}\mathrm{\Lambda }_j>\mathrm{\Lambda }_i.\hfill \end{array}$$
(67)
for $`i<j`$ and $`\mathrm{}0`$. This action of $`R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is non-zero only in the following cases:

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{I}:& i,j\{1,\mathrm{},m\}\mathrm{and}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j1}{2}\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{II}:& i\{1,\mathrm{},m\},j\{m+1,\mathrm{},N\}\mathrm{and}|\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j|1\mathrm{},\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{III}:& i,j\{m+1,\mathrm{},N\}\mathrm{and}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }_i\mathrm{\Lambda }_j}{2}\mathrm{}.\hfill \end{array}$$
(68)
Here $`x`$ stands for the largest integer smaller or equal to $`x`$. This characterization is obtained by a consideration of the action of $`\overline{}`$ in the $`N=2`$ sector. Three cases must then be distinguished, according to their fermion number: $`m=2,1,0`$, corresponding respectively to pairs $`(i,j)`$ of type I, II, III. The results pertaining to ordinary Jack polynomials correspond to case III.

Let us make the induced ordering (denoted $`^s`$) explicit. Given a sequence

$$\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m;\gamma _{m+1},\mathrm{},\gamma _N),$$
(69)
we will denote by $`\overline{\gamma }`$ the superpartition whose antisymmetric part is the rearrangement of $`(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _m)`$ and whose symmetric part is the rearrangement of $`(\gamma _{m+1},\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$. For example, we have

$$\overline{(1,3,2;2,3,1,2)}=(3,2,1;3,2,2,1).$$
(70)
We say that

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^s\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{iff}\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{R_{i_k,j_k}^{(\mathrm{}_k)}\mathrm{}\overline{R_{i_1,j_1}^{(\mathrm{}_1)}\mathrm{\Lambda }}}$$
(71)
for a given sequence of operators $`R_{i_1,j_1}^{(\mathrm{}_1)},\mathrm{},R_{i_k,j_k}^{(\mathrm{}_k)}`$. This is a refinement of the ordering introduced previously at the level of the corresponding partitions $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ and a generalization of the dominance ordering, which is recovered in the zero-fermion sector.

All the supermonomials $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ appearing in the expansion of $`\overline{}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are precisely those whose labeling superpartition is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by one application of the ladder operator $`R`$, that is, all $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ that can be written as $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\overline{R_{i,j}^{(\mathrm{})}\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ for some $`i<j`$, and $`\mathrm{}>0`$. This implies that the number of non-zero parts of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ exceeds that of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by at most one. On the other hand, the supermonomials $`m_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ appearing in the expansion of $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which is now understood to represent a determinant expansion) are precisely those whose label $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ by any number of applications of the ladder operator $`R`$. We can now make the connection with the loose terminology of the previous sections: one application of $`R`$ corresponds to a single chain of ordering while multiple chains of ordering are described by the action of a sequence of ladder operators.

The expressions for the coefficients $`v_{\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, as well as a detailed description of the symmetry factors, can be found in  and will not be repeated here. Let us instead address the potential problem pointed out previously: the action of $`\overline{}`$ on a two-part superpartition may contain more than two parts, hence lie beyond the $`N=2`$ sector, which was claimed to contain all the relevant information. Consider for instance

$$\overline{}m_{(3;1)}=(10+4\beta N6\beta )m_{(3;1)}+2\beta m_{(2;2)}+8\beta m_{(2;1,1)}+2\beta m_{(1;2,1)}$$
(72)
which holds for arbitrary values of $`N>2`$. However, if we specialize to $`N=2`$, the last two terms disappear. How could these be taken into account by a $`N=2`$ computation? The point is that the different terms $`m_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ in $`\overline{}m_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are not necessarily linked to the same two-body calculation. While the contribution of the first non-diagonal term $`m_{(2;2)}`$ can be described by the two-body interaction $`\overline{}_{12}`$, that is, $`(2;2)=R_{12}^{(1)}(3;1)`$, this is not the proper two-body interaction for the description of the other two terms. Indeed, we see that $`(2;1,1)=R_{13}^{(1)}(3;1,0)`$. This shows that the relevant $`N=2`$ computation is rather $`\overline{}_{13}m_{(3;,0)}`$. Similarly, because $`(1;1,2)=R_{13}^{(2)}(3;1,0)`$ and $`\overline{(1;1,2)}=(1;2,1)`$, the corresponding two-body problem is again $`\overline{}_{13}m_{(3;,0)}`$.

It should be heavily stressed that the remarkable fact that the result for general $`N`$ can be deduced out of the $`N=2`$ one is true for the action of $`\overline{}`$ in the supermonomial basis; this would not be possible directly for the eigenfunctions $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

### 3.9 $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as eigenfunctions of the $`\overline{}_n`$ charges

The method sketched in the previous subsections indicate that we can construct closed-form expressions for the eigenfunctions $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of the stCMS Hamiltonian $`\overline{}`$, our first candidates for the role of Jack superpolynomials. Actually, we can prove that the $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$’s diagonalize the whole tower of conserved charges $`\overline{}_n`$  (recall that the bar indicates that the contribution of the groud state wave function has been taken away):

$$\overline{}_n𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }=ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(73)
Unfortunately these superpolynomials are not orthogonal. In other words, the action of the $`\overline{}_n`$’s leaves a residual degeneracy. Indeed, we can check that $`ϵ_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(n)}=ϵ_\mathrm{\Omega }^{(n)}`$ for all $`n`$ if $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ even when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ . However, in retrospect, this is not too surprising: we have not constructed the common eigenfunctions of all the commuting conserved charges. We still need to diagonalize the $`\overline{}_n`$ charges.

### 3.10 Constructing orthogonal eigenfunctions: diagonalization of the $`\overline{}_n`$ charges

As just indicated, the eigenfunctions of the Hamiltonian $`\overline{}=\overline{}_2`$ happen to be eigenfunctions of all the $`\overline{}_n`$ operators. Similarly, to study of the eigenfunctions of the complete set $`\{\overline{}_n\}`$, it suffices to consider only the first non-trivial charge $`\overline{}_1`$ .

The remaining problem is thus to construct linear combinations of the $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that are eigenfunctions of $`\overline{}_1`$. The strategy is by now clear: we first compute the action of $`\overline{}_1`$ on the $`𝒥_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ basis, determine the new ordering induced by the underlying triangularity, compute the expansion coefficients exactly, and then write down the eigenfunctions, now denoted $`J_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in determinantal form. The self-adjointness property of the charges $`\{\overline{}_n\}`$ and $`\{\overline{}_n\}`$ ensures the orthogonality of the $`J_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. These are thus the genuine Jack superpolynomials. The details of this construction can be found in .

Let us mention that a more direct way to build the orthogonal Jack superpolynomials is also presented in . It amounts to simply symmetrizing the product of a non-symmetric Jack polynomial with a monomial in the fermionic variables. Even though this approach is more direct, we prefer not to include it since it is not as much in the spirit of this presentation.

### 3.11 A remark on the underlying Lie superalgebraic structure

Let us conclude this section on the stCMS model by addressing the following question: is there a Lie superalgebra structure underlying this problem? Given that the tCMS Hamiltonian is closely linked to the $`su(N)`$ root structure, the natural guess is that the stCMS Hamiltonian would be related to the superalgebra $`su(m,Nm)`$. The root structure of $`su(m,Nm)`$ is (see for instance ):

$$\delta _i\delta _j,ϵ_kϵ_{\mathrm{}},\delta _iϵ_k,1i<jm\mathrm{and}m+1k<\mathrm{}Nm$$
(74)
with

$$\delta _i\delta _j=\delta _{ij},ϵ_kϵ_{\mathrm{}}=\delta _k\mathrm{},\delta _iϵ_k=0$$
(75)
When $`m=0`$, we recover the $`su(N)`$ roots. The roots $`\delta _i\delta _j`$ and $`ϵ_kϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ are said to be bosonic while the remaining roots $`\delta _iϵ_k`$ are called fermionic. However, it should be clear that there is no genuine notion of statistics at the level of the roots themselves (although the generators do have a definite statistics) since for instance the difference between two fermionic roots could be bosonic (e.g., $`\delta _1ϵ_1(\delta _2ϵ_1)=\delta _1\delta _2`$). This, of course, is not a deep observation. However, it readily implies that the Hamiltonian constructed from the root system of a Lie superalgebra, $`su(m,Nm)`$ for instance, does not contain anticommuting variables (see  for example). Hence, the stCMS Hamiltonian does not appear to have an immediate interpretation in terms of the $`su(m,Nm)`$ algebra.

However, there does exist a link with the $`su(m,Nm)`$ root structure, but at the level of the action of the ladder operator $`R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}`$. Referring to equations (67) and (68), we see that the action of $`R_{ij}^{(\mathrm{})}`$ in case I and III corresponds to the subtraction of positive bosonic roots, while in case II, it amounts to subtract a positive or a negative fermionic root. That both positive and negative fermionic roots are involved is not suprising given the relativity of the positivity requirement for these roots. At the level of superpartitions, the sign of the fermionic roots should not play any role because it is simply related to our choice of relative ordering for the two partitions $`\lambda ^a`$ and $`\lambda ^s`$ composing the superpartition.

## 4 Conclusion

The integrability and superintegrability of the sCMS models rely on a fundamental observation: the supersymmetric extension is fully captured by a fermionic exchange operator. This allowed us to infer the (super)integrability by means of a projection argument. Many generalizations of the srCMS model could be shown, in a similar way, to be superintegrable: the srCMS models formulated for general root systems, the extension of the rCMS model with many supersymmetries, the srCMS model with spin degrees of freedom, etc.

On the other hand, we have stressed that the method outlined in section 3 for constructing eigenfunctions is quite general. It has already been extended to the srCMS case with confinement, that is, to the construction of orthogonal generalized Hermite (super)polynomials . Generalized Jacobi and Laguerre polynomials in superspace could also be obtained along this line from the sr/tCMS model with $`B`$-type roots. The method can be easily extended to models with more supersymmetries or including spin degrees of freedom. The astonishing power of the method gives us hope that this line of attack could provide a breakthrough in the study the eigenfunctions of elliptic models.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank F. Lesage for a useful remark. P.D. would like to thank the Fondation J.A Vincent for a student fellowship and the work of L.L. and P.M. is supported by NSERC.


format: text

text:
# On the Hopf Structure of 𝑊₂ - Algebra and N=1 Superconformal Algebra in the OPE Language

## 1 Introduction

Conformal symmetry has played an important role in the developments of the physics contents of such models: i.e. (super)string theory ,statistical physics , as well as in mathematics . Its underlying symmetry algebra is Virasoro algebra which is a Lie algebra. It is well-known that a universal enveloping algebra of any simple Lie algebra is always a Hopf algebra . Let $`g`$ a simple Lie algebra and $`U(g)`$ its universal enveloping algebra. Then define the comaltiplication $``$ ,the counit $`ϵ`$ and the antipode $`S`$ for $`U(g)`$ as follows :

$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x1+1x,`$ (1. 1)
$`ϵ(x)`$ $`=`$ $`0,(xg)`$ (1. 2)
$`S(x)`$ $`=`$ $`x.`$ (1. 3)
In particular one can show that the coproduct rule define a Lie algebra homomorphizm:

$`([x,y])`$ $`=`$ $`(x)(y)(y)(x)`$ (1. 4)
$`=`$ $`[(x),(y)]`$ (1. 5)
For example, if one take a Virasoro algebra (or also similar infinite dimensional algebras) and feed it into this machinery one obtains a Hopf algebra.Although nobody in general taken care of this structure ,the purpose of this paper is to confirm this structure in these kind of algebras by using the operator product expansion (OPE) language.In this context we note that the universal enveloping algebra of the underlying symmetry algebra in the two dimensional (super)conformal field theory is essentially the same as that of the corresponding universal enveloping algebra of any simple Lie algebra. We must also emphasize here that one reason for the importance of the Hopf algebra is that the Hopf structure of an algebra facilities the construction of representations of the sample algebra.

It is known that $`W_2`$ \- algebra is equivalent to the Virasoro algebra in the W-algebra framework . The $`W_2`$-algebra, involving the modes of a spin-two field $`T(z)_mL_mz^{m2}`$, is described by the OPE

$`T(z)T(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}c}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T(w)}{zw}}`$ (1. 6)
where c is the central charge . Accordingly the Virasoro generators $`L_m`$’s, which are the Laurent coefficients of $`T(z)`$,satisfy the Virasoro algebra

$`[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}(n^3n)\delta _{n,m},[L_m,c]=0`$ (1. 7)
One must emphasize here that the Virasora algebra is a Lie algebra . Therefore The Hopf Structure of this algebra is defined by:

$`(L_m)`$ $`=`$ $`L_m1+1L_m,`$ (1. 8)
$`(c)`$ $`=`$ $`c1+1c,`$ (1. 9)
$`ϵ(L_m)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1. 10)
$`ϵ(c)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1. 11)
$`S(L_m)`$ $`=`$ $`L_m,`$ (1. 12)
$`S(c)`$ $`=`$ $`c,`$ (1. 13)
In this work we will concentrate over conformal field concept, so we will only recapitulate the above Hopf structure for the energy-momentum tensor $`T(z)`$ instead of $`L_m`$ modes for that reason :

$`(T(z))`$ $`=`$ $`T(z)1+1T(z),`$ (1. 14)
$`ϵ(T(z))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (1. 15)
$`S(T(z))`$ $`=`$ $`T(z)`$ (1. 16)
It can be verified that this comultiplication rule is an algebraic homomrphism for $`W_2`$-algebra (1.6):

$`(T(z))(T(w))={\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}c)}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2T(w))}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(T(w))}{zw}}`$ (1. 17)
The organization of this paper is as follows. The next section contains the Hopf structure of the Feigin-Fuchs type of free massless scalar field quantization in the commutator and OPE language, respectively.In section 3. the Hopf structure of $`W_2`$-Algebra is realized.In section 4.Both the Hopf structure of the Feigin-Fuchs type of free massless fermionic scalar field quantization and the Hopf structure of $`N=1`$ superconformal algebra are realized, respectively.

## 2 The Hopf Structure of Free Massless Bosonic Scalar Fields

A Feigin-Fuchs type of free massless bosonic scalar field $`\phi (z)`$ is a single-valued function on the complex plane and its mode expansion is given by

$`h(z)i\phi (z)={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}a_nz^{n1}.`$ (2. 1)
Canonical quantization gives the commutator relations

$`[a_m,a_n]a_ma_na_na_m=\kappa m\delta _{_{m+n,0}},`$ (2. 2)
where $`\kappa `$ is a central element commuting with all the modes $`\{a_n\}`$, $`[a_n,\kappa ]=0`$,and the aim of the central element $`\kappa `$ is to provide to Hopf algebra structure for the free field mode algebra (2.2). This assocoative algebra is a Hopf algebra with

$`(a_m)`$ $`=`$ $`a_m1+1a_m,`$ (2. 3)
$`(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa 1+1\kappa ,`$ (2. 4)
$`ϵ(a_m)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2. 5)
$`ϵ(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2. 6)
$`S(a_m)`$ $`=`$ $`a_m,`$ (2. 7)
$`S(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa `$ (2. 8)
From the consistency of this Hopf structure with (2.2),i.e. the coproduct operation is given by

$`[a_m,a_n]`$ $`=`$ $`(a_m)(a_n)(a_n)(a_m)`$ (2. 9)
$`=`$ $`1[a_m,a_n]+[a_m,a_n]1`$ (2. 10)
$`=`$ $`(\kappa )m\delta _{_{m+n,0}}`$ (2. 11)
On the other hand,the commutator relations (2.2) are equivalent to the contraction

$`h(z)h(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)h(w):`$ (2. 12)
So, we shall now demonstrate that this contraction relation has a Hopf structure in the OPE language.

$`(h(z))`$ $`=`$ $`h(z)1+1h(z),`$ (2. 13)
$`ϵ(h(z))`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (2. 14)
$`S(h(z))`$ $`=`$ $`h(z)`$ (2. 15)
One can check that (2.13-15) satisfy the Hopf algebra axioms and that the defining relation (2.12) is consistent with them. i.e.the coproduct $``$

$`(h(z))(h(w))`$ $`=`$ $`1h(z)h(w)+h(z)h(w)1`$ (2. 16)
$`+h(z)h(w)+h(w)h(z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa )}{(zw)^2}}+:(h(z))(h(w)):`$ (2. 17)
In the above, it is seen that the last two terms in the (2.16)does not contribute to the OPEs as the singular terms.

## 3 The Hopf Structure of $`W_2`$-Algebra

One can says that the $`W_2`$-algebra is realized by the Feigin-Fuchs type of free massless scalar fields $`\{h(z)\}`$, of conformal spin-1. Let us define a conformal field T(z) having conformal spin-2 as follows:

$`T(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:h(z)h(z):`$ (3. 1)
Using the contraction (2.12), we want to construct $`W_2`$-algebra . So the nontrivial OPE of T(z) with itself takes the form

$`T(z)T(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)T(w):`$ (3. 2)
For this construction,we used the following OPEs:

$`T(z)h(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)h(w):,`$ (3. 3)
$`h(z)T(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)T(w):`$ (3. 4)
The corresponding Hopf structure is given by

$`(T(z))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:(h(z))(h(z)):`$ (3. 5)
$`=`$ $`1T(z)+T(z)1+h(z)h(z)`$ (3. 6)
one can say here that this coproduct is not as in (1.6),but this additional term $`h(z)h(z)`$ will give us a relation between $`(c)`$ and $`(\kappa ^2)`$ in the following calculations.Finally, it can be verified that this comultiplication rule is an algebraic homomorphism for the $`W_2`$-algebra (3.2).

$`(T(z))(T(w))`$ $`=`$ $`1T(z)T(w)+T(z)T(w)1`$ (3. 7)
$`+h(w)T(z)h(w)+T(z)h(w)h(w)`$
$`+h(z)h(z)T(w)+h(z)T(w)h(z)`$
$`+h(z)h(w)h(z)h(w)`$
by using the explicit operator product expansions (3.2-4)

$`=`$ $`1\{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)T(w):\}`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)T(w):\}1`$
$`+`$ $`h(w)\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)h(w):\}`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)h(w):\}h(w)`$
$`+`$ $`h(z)\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)T(w):\}+\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)T(w):\}h(z)`$
$`+`$ $`\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)h(w):\}\{{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{(zw)^2}}+:h(z)h(w):\}`$
and also Taylor expansion for $`h(z)`$ at $`w`$

$`h(z)=h(w)+(zw)h(w)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(zw)^2^2h(w)+\mathrm{}`$ (3. 9)
we obtain

$`(T(z))(T(w))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2)}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\kappa T(w))}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa T(w))}{zw}}`$ (3. 10)
$`+`$ $`:(T(z))(T(w)):`$
we must emphasize here that the aims of the element $`\kappa `$ is to provide to Hopf algebra structure for the free field algebra (2.12),then the coproduct of central element c for the abstract $`W_2`$-algebra (1.6) must be $`(c)=c1+1c`$ as in equation (1.9), but in the present realization $`\stackrel{~}{c}=1`$ since there is one free field and one can says that the contribution of the one free field to the central term is only one ,and then it is seen that the central term and all structure constants of the $`W_2`$-Algebra depend only generator $`\kappa `$ , so there is a relation between the central element $`(c)`$ and $`(\kappa ^2)`$ in general, but this appears in the present work as

$`(c)`$ $`=`$ $`(\stackrel{~}{c}.\kappa ^2)=(\stackrel{~}{c})(\kappa ^2)=(\stackrel{~}{c})(\kappa )(\kappa )`$ (3. 11)
$`=`$ $`\kappa ^21+1\kappa ^2+2\kappa \kappa `$ (3. 12)
where $`(\stackrel{~}{c}=1)=11`$ . Therefore, this relations prevent a doubling of the central charge $`c`$ and $`\kappa ^2`$ . This points of view is also valid for N=1 superconformal algebra.

## 4 The Hopf Structure of Superconformal Algebra

$`N=1`$ superconformal algebra  is generated by a fermionic spin-3/2 chiral field $`G(z)`$ and stres-energy tensor $`T(z)`$ ,which are satisfy the following OPEs:

$`G(z)G(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{2}{3}c}{(zw)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2T(w)}{(zw)}}`$ (4. 1)
$`T(z)G(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{2}G(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{G(w)}{zw}}`$ (4. 2)
$`T(z)T(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}c}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{T(w)}{zw}}`$ (4. 3)
This algebra can be realized a Feigin-Fuchs Type of free massless scalar field $`h(z)i\phi (z)`$ (2.1) and a real fermion field

$`\psi (z)={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}\psi _nz^{n\frac{1}{2}}`$ (4. 4)
In addition to the Hopf structure of the Feigin-Fuchs Type of free massless scalar boson field quantization as in section 2, we have to give the Hopf structure of the Feigin-Fuchs Type of free massless scalar fermion field quantization. So the canonical quantization gives the following anti-commutator statement,

$`\{\psi _m,\psi _n\}\psi _m\psi _n+\psi _n\psi _m=\kappa \delta _{_{m+n,0}}`$ (4. 5)
and $`[\psi _n,\kappa ]=0`$. This assocoative algebra is a Hopf algebra with

$`(\psi _m)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _m1+1\psi _m,`$ (4. 6)
$`ϵ(\psi _m)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (4. 7)
$`S(\psi _m)`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _m`$ (4. 8)
From the consistency of this Hopf structure with eqn. (4.5),i.e. the coproduct operation is given by

$`\{\psi _m,\psi _n\}`$ $`=`$ $`(\psi _m)(\psi _n)+(\psi _n)(\psi _m)`$ (4. 9)
$`=`$ $`1\{\psi _m,\psi _n\}+\{\psi _n,\psi _m\}1`$ (4. 10)
$`=`$ $`(\kappa )\delta _{_{m+n,0}}`$ (4. 11)
where we used a parity condition $`(a_1b_1)(a_2b_2)=a_1a_2b_1b_2`$ (if $`b_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are odd). On the other hand,the anti-commutator relations (4.5) are equivalent to the contraction statement

$`\psi (z)\psi (w)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{zw}}+:\psi (z)\psi (w):`$ (4. 12)
So, we shall now demonstrate that this contraction relation has a Hopf structure in the OPE language.

$`(\psi (z))`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (z)1+1\psi (z)`$ (4. 13)
$`ϵ(\psi (z))`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (4. 14)
$`S(\psi (z))`$ $`=`$ $`\psi (z)`$ (4. 15)
One can check that equations (4.13-15) satisfy the Hopf algebra axioms and that the defining relation equation (4.12) is consistent with them. i.e.the coproduct $``$

$`(\psi (z))(\psi (w))`$ $`=`$ $`1\psi (z)\psi (w)+\psi (z)\psi (w)1`$ (4. 16)
$`+\psi (z)\psi (w)+\psi (w)\psi (z)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa )}{zw}}+:(\psi (z))(\psi (w)):`$ (4. 17)
In order to realize the Hopf structure of $`N=1`$ Superconformal algebra which are given as in eqn.(4.1-3). Let us define a conformal field $`G(z)`$ having conformal spin-$`\frac{3}{2}`$, as follows :

$`G(z)=:\psi (z)h(z):`$ (4. 18)
By using the statements (2.12) and (4.12), the OPE of $`G(z)`$ with itself takes the form,

$`G(z)G(w)={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2}{(zw)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T(w)}{(zw)}}+:G(z)G(w):`$ (4. 19)
where $`T(z)`$ is stress-energy tensor, which is in the form of :

$`T(z)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:h(z)h(z):+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:\psi (z)\psi (z):`$ (4. 20)
and the OPEs with itself and also with $`G(z)`$are

$`T(z)T(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa T(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa T(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)T(w):`$ (4. 21)
$`T(z)G(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{3}{2}\kappa G(w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa G(w)}{zw}}+:T(z)G(w):`$ (4. 22)
respectively.For this realization ,we emphasize here that we used the OPEs in the equations (3.3-4),and also the following OPEs:

$`T(z)\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{1}{2}\kappa \psi (w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \psi (w)}{zw}}+:T(z)\psi (w):`$ (4. 23)
$`G(z)h(w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \psi (w)}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa \psi (w)}{zw}}+:G(z)h(w):`$ (4. 24)
$`G(z)\psi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa h(w)}{zw}}+:G(z)\psi (w):`$ (4. 25)
The Hopf structure of $`N=1`$ superconformal algebra is given by

$`(G(z))`$ $`=`$ $`:(\psi (z))(h(z)):`$ (4. 26)
$`=`$ $`1G(z)+G(z)1+h(z)\psi (z)+\psi (z)h(z)`$ (4. 27)
and

$`(T(z))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:(h(z))(h(z)):+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}:(\psi (z))(\psi (z)):`$ (4. 29)
$`=`$ $`1T(z)+T(z)1+h(z)h(z)`$
$`+\psi (z)\psi (z)+\psi (z)\psi (z)`$
Finally, One can easily verify that these comultiplication rules are an algebraic homomorphism for the $`N=1`$ Superconformal algebra (4.1-3).

$`(G(z))(G(w))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa ^2)}{(zw)^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\kappa T(w))}{(zw)}}`$ (4. 30)
$`+`$ $`:(G(z))(G(w)):`$
$`(T(z))(T(w))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{1}{2}\kappa ^2)}{(zw)^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(2\kappa T(w))}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa T(w))}{zw}}`$ (4. 31)
$`+`$ $`:(T(z))(T(w)):`$
and

$`(T(z))(G(w))`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\frac{3}{2}\kappa G(w))}{(zw)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(\kappa G(w))}{zw}}`$ (4. 32)
$`+`$ $`:(T(z))(G(w)):`$
## 5 Conclusions

In this latter we have presented that the universal enveloping algebra of the underlying symmetry algebra in the two dimensional (super)conformal field theory is essentially the same as that of the corresponding universal enveloping algebra of any simple Lie algebra, with examples only for the $`W_2`$-algebra and also $`N=1`$ superconformal algebra. We will try to extand these studies beyond the $`W_2`$-algebra and also at least $`N=2`$ superconformal algebra. The investications in this directions are under study.At this point this paper does not have a composed system, but , besides some previous articles  a detailed calculations will be also given for the connection between the two products in the subsequent works which will be the complementary to this one.

## 6 Acknowledgement

I would like to thank M. Chaichian ,M.Arik and E.Hizel for their valuable discussions and excellent guidance throughout this research.


text:
# Quantum statistics of ideal gases in confined space

## 1. Introduction

With the increasing interest in studying the quantum effects in mesoscopic systems  which are so small that the boundary effect gets important and can not be neglected any more, the question of how to solve the sum of the states precisely, or, how to take the boundary effect of such system into consideration, is raised naturally. The properties of some systems found recently are shape dependent and sensitive to the topology .

The key problem in statistical mechanics is to solve the sum over all possible states. In principle, when an ideal gas is confined in finite volume, the spectrum of single-particle states will be determined by the configuration of the boundary. In case the boundary is irregular, it is impossible to get the sum over all possible states exactly. However, if the mean thermal wavelength of the particles is much shorter than the size of the system, as an approximation, one can assume that the spectrum of single-particle states be continuous while the total number of states be independent of the shape of the boundary and simply proportional to the volume (in three dimensional case) or the area (in two dimensional case) of the system. In other words, if the thermal wavelength of particles is very short in relative to the size of the volume or area which the system occupies, the effect of boundary configuration on the spectrum can be ignored. Historically, such an assumption was advocated by radiation theory of Rayleigh-Jeans. It also aroused great interest to the mathematicians, and finally was proved by Weyl mathematically .

The above problem in statistical mechanics is related to such an inverse problem in mathematics, that is, if it is possible to determine the metric and topological features by the knowledge of the spectrum, which is still an open question.

After Weyl’s leading work, some progress has been made in mathematics . Now we know that, in two dimensions, for the eigenvalue problem

$$\frac{1}{2}^2U+\mu U=0\text{ in }𝛀\text{ with }U=0\text{ on }\mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(1)
where $`𝛀`$ is the region bounded by curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the total number of eigenstates $`N`$ can be written as

$$N\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}e^{\mu _nt}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi t}\frac{L}{4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi t}}+\frac{1r}{6},(t0).$$
(2)
Here $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the area of $`𝛀`$, $`L`$ the length of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and $`r`$ the number of holes in $`𝛀`$, while $`\{\mu _n\}`$ is the spectrum of eigenvalues of the system. In the short-wavelength limit, Weyl proved for two-dimensional case that $`N\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{2\pi t}`$, i.e., the total number of states is proportional to the area of the region, which is a fundamental assumption in statistical physics.

Nevertheless, Weyl’s result omits the last two terms in eq.(2) coming from the perimeter and the number of holes and hence loses part of the information related to the geometry of the region. Here, the relation between the perimeter $`L`$ and the area $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ contains some information of the shape of the region while the number of holes $`r`$ reflects the connectivity.

In this paper, the effects of the boundary and the connectivity on the quantum statistics are discussed. In Sec. II, the analytical result with the geometry effects being considered for ideal Bose and Fermi gases in two-dimensional space is given, based on which the relevant physical indications of such effects are revealed. In Sec. III, the quantum statistics in there-dimensional tubes is discussed. The conclusions are summarized in Sec. IV while some expressions of useful thermodynamic quantities are given in Appendix.

## 2. Statistics in two-dimensional space

Obviously, eq.(1) is just the Schrödinger equation for free particles in a two-dimensional container. Based on eq.(2), we have

$$\underset{s}{}e^{\beta ϵ_s}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }+\frac{1r}{6},(\lambda ^20),$$
(3)
where $`\lambda =h/\sqrt{2\pi mkT}=h\sqrt{\beta }/\sqrt{2\pi m}`$ is the mean thermal wavelength, $`ϵ_s`$ the energy of a free particle, and the subscript $`s`$ labels different states. In macroscopic systems, the area (volume) of the system is usually large enough so that the influence of boundary can be ignored. However, it may not be true for some special cases. The above formula is a more precise approximation which includes the influence of the shape and the connectivity. It means that the geometry of the container may result in observable effects in physics. The effects described by the last two terms of eq.(3) can be expected to be observable in such cases that, 1) the area (volume) of the system is small, 2) the area (volume) is not small but the boundary of the system is so complicated that $`L\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ or the system is in multiply connected space.

For ideal Bose and Fermi gases in two-dimensional space, when the influence of boundary and connectivity is considered, the grand potential of the system reads as

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=\underset{s}{}\mathrm{ln}(1ze^{\beta ϵ_s}).$$
(4)
In this equation and following, the upper sign stands for bosons and the lower sign for fermions. Substitute eq.(3) into eq.(4) and expand it as a series of $`ze^{\beta ϵ_s}`$, we have

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=\underset{s}{}\underset{n}{}[(\pm 1)^{n+1}\frac{1}{n}(ze^{\beta ϵ_s})^n].$$
(5)
Of course, such expansion is valid only for $`0<z<1`$.

By using the eq.(3), we can perform the summation over $`s`$:

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=\underset{n}{}(\pm 1)^{n+1}\frac{z^n}{n}(\frac{1}{n}\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\frac{1}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }+\frac{1r}{6}).$$
(6)
Now, the sum over $`n`$ gives Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac integral

$$\underset{n}{}(\pm 1)^{n+1}\frac{z^n}{n^\sigma }=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\sigma )}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{x^{\sigma 1}}{z^1e^x1}𝑑xh_\sigma (z).$$
(7)
Here, we introduce a function $`h_\sigma (z)`$ which equals to Bose-Einstein integral $`g_\sigma (z)`$ or Fermi-Dirac integral $`f_\sigma (z)`$ in Bose or Fermi case, respectively. Finally, the grand potential can be expressed as

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}h_2(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }h_{\frac{3}{2}}(z)+\frac{1r}{6}h_1(z).$$
(8)
In comparison with the grand potential $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }_{free}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}h_2(z)`$ for ideal gas in two-dimensional free space without boundary, grand potential eq.(8) depends not only on the area but also on the boundary as well as the connectivity of the space. The term which is proportional to the perimeter $`L`$ of the area, represents the influence of the boundary while the another term reflects the effect of the connectivity.

In addition, it is easy to see from eq.(8) that, grand potential of a system in confined space is less than that in free space since the signs of these two terms are negative (when $`r>1`$). It means that the existence of a boundary and holes tends to reduce the number of states of the system. This is just because in free space the energy spectrum is continuous while in confined space the spectrum gets discrete. Thus the number of modes in confined space is less than that in free space.

The expansion in eq.(5) requires $`0<z<1`$. In Bose-Einstein statistics, such a constraint on the fugacity $`z`$ is naturally satisfied. In Fermi-Dirac statistics, we have $`0<z<\mathrm{}`$. Strictly speaking, the grand potential $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ can not be expanded as a series of $`ze^{\beta ϵ_s}`$ when $`z>1`$. However, the first term of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ in eq.(8) is just the grand potential in free space $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }_{free}`$ though the expansion is not rigorous. Since such a treatment provides a correct result in free space, we may expect that the rest two terms of $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }`$, which describe the contributions of boundary and connectivity, are also valid for $`z>1`$.

When the thermal wavelength $`\lambda `$ is much shorter than the size of container, particle can not feel the shape of boundary. In contrast, for low frequency waves whose wavelengths are comparable to the size of container, its spectrum will seriously depend on the boundary. Therefore, when the ratio between the wavelength and the size of container is extremely small, a good approximation can be given by the first term of eq.(8) which is just the result proven by Weyl, and is only related to the area of the container. However, when the ratio is not negligible, the influence of the container geometry has to be considered, which is provided by the last two terms in eq.(8).

One point must be emphasized here. When solving statistics problem, one has got used to assume that, the number of states be only proportional to the area and neglect the effect of boundary. Eq.(8) provides a more complete and precise approximation.

Following general procedures, the relevant thermodynamic quantities of two-dimensional ideal gas can be achieved easily although the extra two terms in eq.(8) make the derivation get tedious. Eliminating $`z`$ in the two equations

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{P\mathrm{\Omega }}{kT}=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}h_2(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }h_{\frac{3}{2}}(z)+\frac{1r}{6}h_1(z),\\ N=\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^2}h_1(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L}{\lambda }h_{\frac{1}{2}}(z)+\frac{1r}{6}h_0(z),\end{array}$$
(9)
we obtain the equation of state of the ideal gas. The other thermodynamic quantities are given in Appendix.

The effect of boundary on the thermodynamic quantities(see Appendix) is of the order of $`L/(\sqrt{N}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$. The factor $`L/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ reflects some information of the shape of the two-dimensional container. If the container shape is close to circle or square, the ratio $`L/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is of order $`1`$. Otherwise, for example, when the shape of the container is very complex, $`L/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ can be large and hence the boundary effect will become significant.

Besides, the boundary effect is suppressed by the factor $`1/\sqrt{N}`$. In macroscopic systems, the contribution of boundary is strongly suppressed. But, the suppression may not be so serious for mesoscopic systems, and so that is expectable to observe the boundary effect in such systems.

The influence of connectivity is of order $`(1r)/N`$, so one may observe the effect of connectivity when $`r`$ is comparable to $`N`$. This result implies that in some porous media such effects may not be ignored.

## 3. Statistics in there-dimensional tubes

Base on eq.(3), we can also calculate the boundary effect of a three-dimensional ideal gas in a long tube, of which all transverse cross sections keep the same.

The $`z`$-component of the momentum $`p_z`$ is continuous since the length of the tube $`L_z`$ is made sufficiently large. This allows us to convert the summation over $`p_z`$ into an integral. Then, we only need to perform the summations over $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$, which can be achieved by using the same procedure above. The grand potential is

$`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\pm 1)^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{s}{}}e^{n\beta ϵ_s}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(\pm 1)^{n+1}{\displaystyle \frac{z^n}{n}}{\displaystyle \frac{dzdp_z}{h}e^{n\beta \frac{p_z^2}{2m}}\underset{p_x,p_y}{}e^{n\beta \frac{p_x^2+p_y^2}{2m}}}.`$
Working out the summations over $`p_x`$ and $`p_y`$ by use of eq.(3), we obtain

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Xi }=\frac{L_z\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^3}h_{\frac{5}{2}}(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L_zL}{\lambda ^2}h_2(z)+\frac{1r}{6}\frac{L_z}{\lambda }h_{\frac{3}{2}}(z).$$
(11)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`L`$ denote the area and perimeter of the transverse cross section of the tube, respectively.

Directly, we can obtain the equation of state

$$\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{PV}{kT}=\frac{L_z\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^3}h_{\frac{5}{2}}(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L_zL}{\lambda ^2}h_2(z)+\frac{1r}{6}\frac{L_z}{\lambda }h_{\frac{3}{2}}(z),\\ N=\frac{L_z\mathrm{\Omega }}{\lambda ^3}h_{\frac{3}{2}}(z)\frac{1}{4}\frac{L_zL}{\lambda ^2}h_1(z)+\frac{1r}{6}\frac{L_z}{\lambda }h_{\frac{1}{2}}(z).\end{array}$$
(12)
The thermodynamics quantities are listed in Appendix. The Bose-Einstein condensation in a three-dimensional tube will be discussed in detail elsewhere.

A similar analysis indicates that the effects of boundary and connectivity in three-dimensional tube are of the same order as those in two-dimensional space.

## 4. Conclusions and discussions

In conclusion, the effects of boundary and connectivity on the statistical mechanics of ideal gases in two-dimensional confined space and in three-dimensional tubes are discussed.

In ideal gas theory, one replace the summation over states by an integral over momentum: $`_sV\frac{d^dp}{h^d}`$, where $`d`$ denotes the dimension. This replacement is based on the assumption that the momentum is independent of the boundary of container, which is valid only when $`V\mathrm{}`$, i.e., there is no boundary. In other words, such a replacement is equivalent to the assumption that the number of states is proportional to the area (in two dimensions) or volume (in three dimensions) of the container. In fact, this treatment is an approximation that ignores the influence of boundary.

Our analysis shows that, the influence of boundary and connectivity is of the order $`L/(\sqrt{N}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ and $`(1r)/N`$, respectively. In many cases, such influences are of order $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ and $`1/N`$, therefore, negligible. However, when these factors $`L/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`r`$ are much bigger than $`1`$, the effects may be observable. The factor $`L/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}1`$ corresponds to such cases, for example, the boundary of the region is very complex or the two-dimensional container is long and narrow. $`r1`$ corresponds to the case that there are many holes in the region. In the meanwhile, the suppression by $`1/\sqrt{N}`$ or $`1/N`$ could also be reduced in mesoscopic systems, so we can expect that the effect of container geometry may be observable in mesoscopic scale, especially in containers with complex boundary or in porous media.

## Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge Dr. Yong Liu for his help. This work is supported partially by Education Council of Tianjin, P. R. China, under Project No. 01-20102.

## Appendix: Thermodynamic quantities

### 1. Thermodynamic quantities in two dimensions

Internal energy:

$$\frac{U}{NkT}=\frac{h_2(z)}{h_1(z)}\sigma _2\frac{1}{8\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}\sigma _2^{1/2}.$$

Free energy:

$$\frac{F}{NkT}=\mathrm{ln}z\left(\frac{h_2(z)}{h_1(z)}\sigma _2\frac{1}{4\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}\sigma _2^{1/2}+\frac{1r}{6N}h_1(z)\right).$$

Entropy:

$$\frac{S}{Nk}=2\frac{h_2(z)}{h_1(z)}\sigma _2\mathrm{ln}z\frac{3}{8\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}\sigma _2^{1/2}+\frac{1r}{6N}h_1(z).$$

Specific heat:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{C_V}{Nk}}`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _2\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{h_2(z)}{h_1(z)}}\eta _2{\displaystyle \frac{h_1(z)}{h_0(z)}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}}\sigma _2^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{16}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\eta _2{\displaystyle \frac{h_1^{1/2}(z)h_{1/2}(z)}{h_0(z)}}\right),`$
where

$$\sigma _2=\left(\frac{1\frac{1r}{6N}h_0(z)}{\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{64N}\frac{L^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{h_{1/2}^2(z)}{h_1(z)}\frac{1r}{6N}h_0(z)}\frac{1}{8\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_{1/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}}\right)^2,$$

$$\eta _2=\frac{1\frac{1}{8\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_{1/2}(z)}{h_1^{1/2}(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _2^{1/2}}}{1\frac{1}{4\sqrt{N}}\frac{L}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Omega }}}\frac{h_1^{1/2}(z)h_{1/2}(z)}{h_0(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _2^{1/2}}+\frac{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}r}{6N}\frac{h_1(z)h_1(z)}{h_0(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _2}}.$$

The following relation is used to calculate $`C_V`$

$$\frac{z}{T}=\frac{z}{T}\frac{h_1(z)}{h_0(z)}\eta _2.$$

### 2. Thermodynamic quantities in three dimensions

Internal energy:

$$\frac{U}{NkT}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{h_{5/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}\sigma _3\frac{1}{4N^{1/3}}\frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}\frac{h_2(z)}{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}\sigma _3^{2/3}+\frac{1r}{12N^{2/3}}\frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)\sigma _3^{1/3}.$$

Free energy:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{F}{NkT}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{ln}z[{\displaystyle \frac{h_{5/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}}\sigma _3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{1/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_2(z)}{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}}\sigma _3^{2/3}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{2/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}}h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)\sigma _3^{1/3}].`$
Entropy:

$$\frac{S}{Nk}=\frac{5}{2}\frac{h_{5/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}\sigma _3\mathrm{ln}z\frac{1}{2N^{1/3}}\frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}\frac{h_2(z)}{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}\sigma _3^{2/3}+\frac{1r}{4N^{2/3}}\frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)\sigma _3^{1/3}.$$

Specific heat:

$`C_V`$ $`=`$ $`Nk\{\sigma _3[{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{5/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\eta _3{\displaystyle \frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_{1/2}(z)}}]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{1/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{LL_z^{1/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}}\sigma _3^{2/3}[{\displaystyle \frac{h_2(z)}{2h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{8}}\eta _3{\displaystyle \frac{h_{3/2}^{1/3}(z)h_1(z)}{h_{1/2}(z)}}]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{6}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{2/3}}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}}\sigma _3^{1/3}[{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}(1\eta _3)h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)]\},`$
where

$$\sigma _3=\left(1\frac{L_zL}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{1r}{72N}\frac{h_1(z)h_{1/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}+\frac{L_z^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}\frac{\left(1r\right)^3}{2916N^2}\frac{h_{1/2}^3(z)}{h_{5/2}(z)}\right)^1\xi _1^3,$$

$$\eta _3=\frac{1\frac{1}{6N^{1/3}}\frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}\frac{h_1(z)}{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _3^{1/3}}+\frac{1r}{18N^{2/3}}\frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}\frac{h_{1/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}^{1/3}(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _3^{2/3}}}{1\frac{1}{4N^{1/3}}\frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}\frac{h_{3/2}^{1/3}(z)h_0(z)}{h_{1/2}(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _3^{1/3}}+\frac{1r}{6N^{2/3}}\frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}\frac{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)h_{1/2}(z)}{h_{1/2}(z)}\frac{1}{\sigma _3^{2/3}}},$$

$$\xi _1=\xi _2\frac{1}{\xi _2}\frac{1}{12N^{1/3}}\frac{L_z^{1/3}L}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/3}}\frac{h_1(z)}{h_{3/2}^{2/3}(z)}\xi _3^{1/3}+\frac{1r}{18N^{2/3}}\frac{L_z^{2/3}}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{1/3}}\frac{h_{1/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}^{1/3}(z)}\frac{1}{\xi _4^{1/3}},$$

$$\xi _2=\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{1+\frac{1}{432N}\frac{L_zL^3}{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}\frac{h_1^3(z)}{h_{3/2}^2(z)}\xi _3}\right)^{1/3},\xi _3=\frac{\xi _5^3}{\xi _4^2},$$

$`\xi _4`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{1r}{72N}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_zL}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_1(z)h_{1/2}(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1r\right)^3}{2916N^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_z^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{1/2}^3(z)}{h_{3/2}(z)}},`$
$`\xi _5`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\left(1r\right)^2}{27N}}{\displaystyle \frac{L_z}{L}}{\displaystyle \frac{h_{1/2}^2(z)}{h_1(z)}}.`$
We also have

$$\frac{z}{T}=\frac{3}{2}\frac{z}{T}\frac{h_{3/2}(z)}{h_{1/2}(z)}\eta _3.$$