text:
# Fermionic functionals without Grassmann numbers

## Abstract

Since any fermionic operator $`\psi `$ can be written as $`\psi =q+ip`$, where $`q`$ and $`p`$ are hermitian operators, we use the eigenvalues of $`q`$ and $`p`$ to construct a functional formalism for calculating matrix elements that involve fermionic fields. The formalism is similar to that for bosonic fields and does not involve Grassmann numbers. This makes possible to perform numerical fermionic lattice computations that are much faster than not only other algorithms for fermions, but also algorithms for bosons.

Since $`\widehat{\psi }^2=0`$ for a fermionic field operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$, this operator does not possess nonzero c-number eigenvalues. Therefore, the functional formalism for fermions involves anticommuting Grassmann numbers berez . This makes the notion of a classical fermion field conceptually difficult. This is also problematic from a practical point of view, because the functional integrals over Grassmann numbers cannot be performed numerically on a computer, which makes lattice calculations with dynamical fermions difficult. For typical Hamiltonians, the integration over fermionic fields can be reduced to the computation of the determinants of huge matrices, which costs a lot of computer time. Therefore, most of the existing lattice calculations are based on a quenched approximation, in which fermions are not treated dynamically (see, e.g., davies  and references therein). Various methods to improve and speed up the treatment of fermions on a lattice have been proposed, such as those in Refs. duan ; lus ; slav ; cre ; bak . (Ref. bak  contains a longer list of references for various methods.) However, the efficiency of all these existing methods cannot be compared with the efficiency of methods for functional integration over bosonic fields cre2 .

In this Letter, we construct an entirely new method of functional calculus for fermionic fields. It is based on the fact that any linear operator $`\widehat{\psi }`$ can be written in a unique way as a sum of a hermitian and an antihermitian operator. In other words, it can be written as $`\widehat{\psi }=\widehat{q}+i\widehat{p}`$, where $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are hermitian operators. Since hermitian operators can always be diagonalized, we can use the eigenvalues and eigenstates of $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ to construct a functional formalism similar to that for bosons. We shall see that $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ play a role similar to that of the canonical coordinate and the canonical momentum for bosons. This also suggests that $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ can be naturally interpreted as observables for fermionic fields, which may be relevant for a deeper understanding of the physical meaning of quantum and classical fermionic fields. However, we emphasize the practical utility of our method because the functional integration over fermionic degrees of freedom is not only very similar to that for bosons, but the numerical computation is even much faster than that for bosons. This is because, for each bosonic degree of freedom, the eigenvalues $`q`$ and $`p`$ can take any real value, so lattice calculations require Monte-Carlo simulations with a large number of different real values. On the other hand, it appears that, for each fermionic degree of freedom, $`q`$ and $`p`$ can take only two different values.

First, consider one fermionic degree of freedom described by the operators $`\widehat{\psi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^{}`$ that satisfy the anticommutation relations

$$\{\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }\}=\{\widehat{\psi }^{},\widehat{\psi }^{}\}=0,\{\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }^{}\}=1.$$
(1)
This algebra can be represented on a 2-dimensional unitary space spanned by the orthonormal basis vectors $`|0`$ and $`|1`$ that satisfy $`\widehat{\psi }|0=0`$, $`\widehat{\psi }^{}|1=0`$, $`\widehat{\psi }^{}|0=|1`$, and $`\widehat{\psi }|1=|0`$. The operators $`\widehat{\psi }`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }^{}`$ can be written as

$$\widehat{\psi }=\widehat{q}+i\widehat{p},\widehat{\psi }^{}=\widehat{q}i\widehat{p},$$
(2)
where

$$\widehat{q}=(\widehat{\psi }^{}+\widehat{\psi })/2,\widehat{p}=i(\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi })/2.$$
(3)
are hermitian operators. They satisfy the anticommutation relations

$$\{\widehat{q},\widehat{q}\}=\{\widehat{p},\widehat{p}\}=1/2,\{\widehat{q},\widehat{p}\}=0.$$
(4)
In particular, we see that $`\widehat{q}^2=\widehat{p}^2=1/4`$, which implies that the only eigenvalues of $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ are $`q_\pm =\pm 1/2`$ and $`p_\pm =\pm 1/2`$, respectively. The corresponding eigenvectors are

$$|q_\pm =(|0\pm |1)/\sqrt{2},|p_\pm =(|0\pm i|1)/\sqrt{2},$$
(5)
with the properties $`\widehat{q}|q=q|q`$, $`\widehat{p}|p=p|p`$, for $`q`$ ($`p`$) equal to $`q_+`$ or $`q_{}`$ ($`p_+`$ or $`p_{}`$). These eigenvectors satisfy the orthonormality relations

$$q|q^{}=\delta _{qq^{}},p|p^{}=\delta _{pp^{}},$$
(6)
and the completeness relations

$$\underset{q}{}|qq|=1,\underset{p}{}|pp|=1.$$
(7)
They also satisfy

$$p|q=\frac{1}{2}\left(1i4pq\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}e^{i\pi pq},$$
(8)
which is similar to the analogous equation for bosons. (In order to obtain even closer similarity to bosons, one can remove the number $`\pi `$ in the last expression in (8) by an appropriate rescaling of the operators $`\widehat{q}`$, $`\widehat{p}`$, and their eigenvalues.)

Let us now apply the above equations to a calculation of the partition function $`Z=\mathrm{Tr}\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{H})`$, where $`\widehat{H}=\omega \widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }`$ is the Hamiltonian and $`T=1/\beta `$ is the temperature. Since $`\widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }|n=n|n`$ for $`n`$ equal to 0 or 1, the simplest way to calculate $`Z`$ is as follows kap : $`Z=_nn|\mathrm{exp}(\beta \widehat{H})|n=\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega 0)+\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega 1)=1+\mathrm{exp}(\beta \omega )`$. However, this simple method does not work for a more general case with many degrees of freedom and complicated interactions. Therefore, we present a different method, completely analogous to the functional method for bosons kap , that can be generalized to more general cases. We first write the partition function as

$$Z=\underset{q}{}q|e^{\beta \widehat{H}}|q=\underset{q}{}q|\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \widehat{H}}\right)|q,$$
(9)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau =\beta /N`$. The next step is to insert the factor 1 in the forms of (7) $`2N`$ times and to put $`N`$ to infinity, so as to obtain

$`Z`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{q}{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{q(j)}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{p(j)}{}}\right)q|p(N)p(N)|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \widehat{H}}|q(N)q(N)|p(N1)`$ (10)
$`\times p(N1)|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \widehat{H}}|q(N1)\mathrm{}q(2)|p(1)p(1)|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \widehat{H}}|q(1)q(1)|q.`$
Since the Hamiltonian is $`\widehat{H}=\omega \widehat{\psi }^{}\widehat{\psi }=\omega (1/22i\widehat{p}\widehat{q})H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})`$ and since $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$, we can write

$$p(j)|e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})}|q(j)=p(j)|1\mathrm{\Delta }\tau H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})|q(j)=p(j)|q(j)e^{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau H(p(j),q(j))}.$$
(11)
Therefore, using (11), (8), and (6), (10) can be written as

$$Z=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{q}{}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{q(j)}{}\underset{p(j)}{}\right)\delta _{q(1),q}e^S,$$
(12)
where

$$S=\mathrm{\Delta }\tau \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left[i\pi \frac{q(j+1)q(j)}{\mathrm{\Delta }\tau }p(j)+H(p(j),q(j))\right],$$
(13)
and $`q(N+1)q`$. The summation over $`q`$ is easily performed, so the final expression is

$$Z=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{q(j)}{}\underset{p(j)}{}\right)e^S,$$
(14)
where the periodic boundary condition $`q(N+1)=q(1)`$ is understood. Similarity to the bosonic case kap  is obvious. As we have already discussed, the factor $`\pi `$ in (13) can be eliminated by an appropriate rescaling. The only important difference is the fact that for bosons one has to make the replacement $`(1/2)_{q(j)}_{p(j)}(1/2\pi )𝑑q(j)𝑑p(j)`$. Since for fermions each $`q(j)`$ and $`p(j)`$ can take only two different values ($`\pm 1/2`$), we see that the numerical computation (with a large but finite $`N`$) for fermions is much faster than that for bosons. Note also that one can formally write (14) with the continuum notation as $`Z=𝒟q(\tau )𝒟p(\tau )e^S`$, where $`\tau =\beta j/N`$,

$$𝒟q(\tau )𝒟p(\tau )\underset{\tau =0}{\overset{\beta }{}}\frac{1}{2}\underset{q(\tau )}{}\underset{p(\tau )}{},$$
(15)
$$S=_0^\beta 𝑑\tau \left[i\pi \frac{dq(\tau )}{d\tau }p(\tau )+H(p(\tau ),q(\tau ))\right],$$
(16)
but here the derivative $`dq(\tau )/d\tau (q(j+1)q(j))/\mathrm{\Delta }\tau `$ is not well defined because it is always equal to $`0`$ or $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau 0`$. However, this is not a problem when $`S`$ is calculated as in (13).

Let us now generalize the analysis to an arbitrary number of fermionic degrees of freedom. We label all degrees of freedom by $`a=1,\mathrm{},L`$, where $`a`$ comprises various types of degrees of freedom, such as different space points, spinor indices, and color indices. The anticommutation relations are

$$\{\widehat{\psi }_a,\widehat{\psi }_b\}=\{\widehat{\psi }_a^{},\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\}=0,\{\widehat{\psi }_a,\widehat{\psi }_b^{}\}=\delta _{ab}.$$
(17)
We can represent this algebra in terms of direct products of representations for each pair $`\widehat{\psi }_a`$, $`\widehat{\psi }_a^{}`$. The orthonormal basis for the $`2^L`$-dimensional representation space can be chosen to be the set of $`2^L`$ states of the form

$$|n\underset{a}{}|n_a=|n_1\mathrm{}|n_L,$$
(18)
where each $`n_a`$ is equal to 0 or 1. We take the action of the operators on these states to be defined by

$$\widehat{A}_1\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_L|n_1\mathrm{}|n_L=\widehat{A}_1|n_1\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_L|n_L,$$
(19)
where $`\widehat{A}_a=A_a(\widehat{\psi }_a,\widehat{\psi }_a^{})`$ with $`A_a`$ being an arbitrary function. To determine the action of a differently ordered product of operators, one has to use the anticommutation relations (17) to write the action in terms of operators ordered as in (19). For example, $`\widehat{\psi }_2\widehat{\psi }_1|n_1|n_2=\widehat{\psi }_1\widehat{\psi }_2|n_1|n_2=\widehat{\psi }_1|n_1\widehat{\psi }_2|n_2`$. The hermitian conjugation of (19) determines the action of the operators on the left:

$$n_L|\mathrm{}n_1|\widehat{A}_L^{}\mathrm{}\widehat{A}_1^{}=n_L|\widehat{A}_L^{}\mathrm{}n_1|\widehat{A}_1^{}.$$
(20)
To construct the functional formalism, we write $`\widehat{\psi }_a=\widehat{q}_a+i\widehat{p}_a`$, so that $`\widehat{q}_a`$ and $`\widehat{p}_a`$ are hermitian operators that satisfy

$$\{\widehat{q}_a,\widehat{q}_b\}=\{\widehat{p}_a,\widehat{p}_b\}=(1/2)\delta _{ab},\{\widehat{q}_a,\widehat{p}_b\}=0.$$
(21)
We introduce the states $`|q=_a|q_a`$ and $`|p=_a|p_a`$, which have the properties $`\widehat{q}_a|q=q_a|q`$ and $`\widehat{p}_a|p=p_a|p`$. These states satisfy the orthonormality and completeness relations analogous to (6) and (7), respectively, while the generalization of (8) is

$$p|q=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2^L}}e^{i\pi pq},$$
(22)
where $`pq_ap_aq_a`$.

We want to calculate the partition function for a Hamiltonian of the form

$$\widehat{H}=\widehat{\psi }^{}H^{(1)}\widehat{\psi }+(\widehat{\psi }H^{(2)}\widehat{\psi }+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.),$$
(23)
where $`\widehat{\psi }^{}H^{(1)}\widehat{\psi }_{a,b}\widehat{\psi }_a^{}H_{ab}^{(1)}\widehat{\psi }_b`$, and similarly for the second term . We can write

$$H_{ab}^{(1)}=A_{ab}+S_{ab},S_{ab}=S_{ab}^{}+\stackrel{~}{S}_{ab},$$
(24)
where $`A_{ab}=(H_{ab}^{(1)}H_{ba}^{(1)})/2=A_{ba}`$ is the antisymmetric part, $`S_{ab}=(H_{ab}^{(1)}+H_{ba}^{(1)})/2=S_{ba}`$ is the symmetric part, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ab}=\stackrel{~}{S}_a\delta _{ab}`$, and $`S_{aa}^{}=0`$. Using the anticommutation relations (21), we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\widehat{\psi }_a^{}H_{ab}^{(1)}\widehat{\psi }_b`$ $`=`$ $`(1/2){\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\stackrel{~}{S}_a2i{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\widehat{p}_a\stackrel{~}{S}_a\widehat{q}_a`$ (25)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b+{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\widehat{p}_aA_{ab}\widehat{p}_b.`$
We want the $`\widehat{q}_a`$ operators to be ordered as in (19), so we write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b+{\displaystyle \underset{a>b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b`$ (26)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b+{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\widehat{q}_bA_{ba}\widehat{q}_a`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a<b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}\widehat{q}_b`$
$`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle \underset{a,b}{}}\widehat{q}_aA_{ab}^<\widehat{q}_b,`$
where

$$A_{ab}^<=\{\begin{array}{c}A_{ab},a<b,\hfill \\ 0,a>b,\hfill \end{array}A_{ab}^>=\{\begin{array}{c}0,a<b,\hfill \\ A_{ab},a>b.\hfill \end{array}$$
(27)
Similarly, we want the $`\widehat{p}_a`$ operators to be ordered as in (20), so we write

$$\underset{a,b}{}\widehat{p}_aA_{ab}\widehat{p}_b=2\underset{a,b}{}\widehat{p}_aA_{ab}^>\widehat{p}_b.$$
(28)
We also apply a similar procedure for the second term in (23). Without losing on generality, the matrix $`H^{(2)}`$ is taken to be antisymmetric. Defining the matrices $`A^{(+)}`$ and $`A^{()}`$ as $`A_{ab}^{(\pm )}=H_{ab}^{(2)}\pm H_{ab}^{(2)}`$, we can write the Hamiltonian (23) in the final form as

$`H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}\stackrel{~}{S}2i\widehat{p}\stackrel{~}{S}\widehat{q}+2\widehat{q}A^<\widehat{q}+2\widehat{p}A^>\widehat{p}`$ (29)
$`+2\widehat{q}A^{()<}\widehat{q}2\widehat{p}A^{()>}\widehat{p}+2i\widehat{p}A^{(+)}\widehat{q}.`$
This form of the Hamiltonian has the property

$$p|H(\widehat{p},\widehat{q})|q=p|qH(p,q).$$
(30)
Therefore, we can repeat the steps that led to (14) to obtain

$$Z=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2^L}\underset{q(j)}{}\underset{p(j)}{}\right)e^S,$$
(31)
where $`S`$ has the form (13) with the Hamiltonian $`H(p,q)`$ given by (29). In (31), $`_{q(j)}=_a_{q_a(j)}`$, $`_{p(j)}=_a_{p_a(j)}`$.

Needless to say, the formalism developed above can also be applied to the calculation of the partition function at finite chemical potential. Moreover, essentially the same formalism can be applied to the calculation of correlation functions among fields at different times, in a way similar to that for bosons. Using the fact that $`\widehat{H}`$ is the generator of infinitesimal time translations, one finds similar expressions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\tau i\mathrm{\Delta }t`$.

Concerning the application of our formalism to concrete physical models, two additional remarks may be in order. First, one should be careful when the Hamiltonian is written in terms of Dirac fields $`\widehat{\psi }^\mathrm{D}`$, $`\widehat{\psi }^\mathrm{D}`$. For example, if there are two degrees of freedom, one corresponding to a particle and the other to an antiparticle, then the “Dirac field” is $`\widehat{\psi }^\mathrm{D}=(\widehat{\psi }_1+\widehat{\psi }_2^{})/\sqrt{2}`$. Second, although the operator $`\widehat{N}=_a\widehat{\psi }_a^{}\widehat{\psi }_a`$ has the property $`\widehat{N}|n=(_an_a)|n`$, the operator of the physical number of particles, in general, has a more complicated form $`\widehat{N}_{\mathrm{phys}}=_{a,b}\widehat{\psi }_a^{}N_{ab}\widehat{\psi }_b`$. For the explicit form of $`N_{ab}`$ in the continuum case, see nikol .

In this Letter, we have presented a general formalism rather than apply it to concrete physical problems. However, it is straightforward to apply the developed formalism to any physical model, such as lattice QCD. We strongly believe that this formalism will be widely applied to lattice QCD and lead to a number of important phenomenological results that previously could not be obtained because they required too much computer time with previous algorithms for fermions.

Finally, let us shortly discuss the representation of quantum fermionic states in terms of wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$ written in the $`q`$-representation. Note that it is already known how to represent fermionic quantum states in terms of wave functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi )`$, where $`\psi `$ is a Grassmann variable flor . However, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi )`$ is a Grassmann valued quantity, so $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(\psi )\mathrm{\Psi }(\psi )`$ cannot be interpreted as a probability density. This problem does not exist for $`\mathrm{\Psi }(q)`$. We first introduce the base functions

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_+(q)=q|q_+=\mathrm{\Theta }(q),\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(q)=q|q_{}=\mathrm{\Theta }(q),$$
(32)
where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(q)`$ is the step function equal to 1 (0) for $`q=1/2`$ ($`q=1/2`$). From (3) and (5) we see that $`\widehat{p}|q_\pm =(i/2)|q_{}`$. Therefore, we represent the operators $`\widehat{q}`$ and $`\widehat{p}`$ as

$$\widehat{q}=q,\widehat{p}=iq\widehat{ϵ}_q,$$
(33)
where $`\widehat{ϵ}_q`$ is the operator that acts on the space of functions as $`\widehat{ϵ}_qf(q)=f(q)`$. We see that the operator $`q\widehat{ϵ}_q`$ plays the same role for fermions as the derivative operator $`_q`$ does for bosons. The operators (2) are now represented as

$$\widehat{\psi }=q(1+\widehat{ϵ}_q),\widehat{\psi }^{}=q(1\widehat{ϵ}_q).$$
(34)
It is easy to show that, for example, $`\{\widehat{p},\widehat{p}\}f(q)=2q^2f(q)`$, $`\{\widehat{\psi },\widehat{\psi }^{}\}f(q)=4q^2f(q)`$, which is in agreement with the anticommutation relations (4) and (1), having in mind that the operators act on functions $`f(q)`$ defined for $`q\{1/2,1/2\}`$. For time dependent wave functions, i.e., in the Schrödinger picture, the Schrödinger equation is

$$H(iq\widehat{ϵ}_q,q)\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t)=i_t\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t).$$
(35)
The expected value of an arbitrary operator $`\widehat{O}=O(\widehat{q},\widehat{p})`$ is given by

$$\widehat{O}(t)=\underset{q}{}\mathrm{\Psi }^{}(q,t)O(q,iq\widehat{ϵ}_q)\mathrm{\Psi }(q,t).$$
(36)
The generalization of Eqs. (32)-(36) to the case with many fermionic degrees of freedom is obvious.

The author is grateful to N. Bilić and H. Štefančić for critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the Republic of Croatia under Contract No. 0098002.


format: text

text:
# Exotic SUSY scenarios

## 1 Introduction

In this talk I summarize salient features of the results of four different investigations. Small departures from the standard assumptions of the SM and the MSSM are the common feature unifying all of them. The results presented are based on four abstracts  submitted to this meeting. Supersymmetry and models for non-zero $`\nu `$ masses indeed form a very big part of all the current Beyond the Standard Model (BSM) discussions. In this talk I refer to the effects of relaxing two of the assumptions normally made: that of universal gaugino masses  and $`R_p`$ conservation . $`\mathit{}_p`$ SUSY provides one of the most economical ways of generating non-zero $`\nu `$ masses. In the last abstract  a new aspect of the collider signatures of the heavy Majorana neutrino, an important ingredient of all the models of $`\nu `$ masses not involving $`\mathit{}_p`$ SUSY, is presented.

## 2 Non-Universal Gaugino Masses

MSSM assumes universal masses for the $`SU(3),SU(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauginos at the high scale. This implies $`M_10.5M_2`$ at the electroweak scale, where $`M_1,M_2`$ are the $`U(1),SU(2)`$ gaugino masses. However, this assumption need not be true even in the very restrictive mSUGRA model wherein the non-universality is possible for a non-minimal kinetic term for the gauge superfields. Non-universal gaugino masses are expected also in models with anomaly-mediated SUSY breaking (AMSB) or moduli-dominated SUSY breaking. In general, therefore, we can expect $`M_1=rM_2`$ with $`r0.5`$ at the EW scale. We studied the effect of such a scenario on the ‘invisible’ decays of the $`h`$. A ratio $`r`$ between the two gaugino masses at the EW scale needs

$$M_1=2rM_2$$
(1)
at the GUT scale. Most of the above-mentioned models normally imply values of $`r>1`$. Taking a phenomenological approach, however, we consider two values of $`r<1`$, viz. $`0.1,0.2`$. As a result of such a non-universality, for a given $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ mass, the mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ is smaller than that in the universal case. Hence it is possible to have $`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ while respecting all the LEP constraints, in spite of the theoretical upper limit of $`130`$ GeV on the mass of the lightest $`h`$ among the SUSY higgses. Of course it is necessary to rework  all the LEP constraints for the non-universal case. B.R. ($`h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)`$ is maximized for moderate $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, small $`\mu `$ and $`M_2`$. Unlike the case of universal gaugino masses, we found large regions of the $`M_2`$$`\mu `$ plane where B.R. for the ‘invisible’, $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ decay mode can be as large as $`0.65`$ even after all the LEP constraints are imposed, as shown in Figure 1.

Such a large ‘invisible’ branching ratio for the $`h`$ decreases that into the $`\gamma \gamma `$ and $`b\overline{b}`$ channels. The latter indeed provide the best possible signature for the $`h`$ produced ‘inclusively’ and in association with a $`W/Z/t\overline{t}`$. If we define,

$$R_{\gamma \gamma }=\frac{\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{R}.(h\gamma \gamma )_{SUSY}}{\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{R}.(h\gamma \gamma )_{SM}}$$

and $`R_{b\overline{b}}`$ similarly, we find that

$$R_{\gamma \gamma }=R_{b\overline{b}}=1.0\mathrm{B}.\mathrm{R}.(h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0).$$

Thus B.R.$`(h\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0)0.3`$$`0.4`$ can mean loss of the signal for the lightest Higgs at the LHC.

A light $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ also has implications for the relic density of the neutralinos in the Universe, as the latter is decided by $`\sigma (\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0f^+f^{})`$. For a light $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$, the $`Z/h`$-mediated $`s`$ channel process contributes to the annihilation. If the $`\stackrel{~}{l}_R`$ is light the cross-section also receives a contribution from the $`t`$-channel $`\stackrel{~}{l}_R`$ exchange. There is a clear correlation between the expected ‘invisible’ branching ratio for the $`h`$ and the relic density of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ as the same couplings are involved.

Figure 2 shows results obtained for $`r=0.1`$ with $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =5`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{l}_R}100`$ GeV  using the micrOMEGAs  program to calculate the relic density. These show that the requirement of an acceptable relic density does constrain the $`M_2`$$`\mu `$ plane quite substantially. However, there exist large regions of this plane where the ‘invisible’ branching ratio of $`h`$ is as large as $`0.5`$$`0.6`$, even for ‘large’ $`(200`$ GeV) $`\stackrel{~}{l}_R`$, consistent with the LEP constraints and with an acceptable relic density. The small mass of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in this case means that the trilepton signal at the Tevatron will be qualitatively different from the universal case. Thus this scenario can be tested at the Tevatron via the trilepton events. As a matter of fact, one can also obtain a model-independent limit on $`M_1`$ and hence on the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ mass, by considerations of relic density.

## 3 Decaying $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ in $`R_p`$-violating theories:

$`B,L`$ are symmetries of the SM but not of the MSSM; i.e. it is possible to write terms in the Lagrangian which are $`\mathit{}`$, $`\mathit{}`$ but respect gauge invariance as well as supersymmetry. Non-zero $`\nu `$ masses can be generated in $`\mathit{}_p`$ supersymmetric theories, without introducing any new fields; at the tree level via the bilinear $`\mathit{}_p`$ terms in the superpotential and quantum one or two loop level via the trilinear $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ couplings . A large number of these couplings are constrained by low energy processes, cosmological arguments as well as explicit collider searches . Some of the strongest constraints on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }L=1`$ processes come from $`\nu `$ masses. As said earlier, since the heavy scale involved in the mass-generation mechanism is decided by the sparticle masses, this leads to constraints on the size of the $`\mathit{}_p`$ couplings and hence to clear predictions of the $`\mathit{}`$, $`\mathit{}`$ signals in collider processes involving these sparticles. Since some of the constraints do depend on the details of the specific SUSY model, it is important to study the direct effect of the very same couplings that are so indirectly constrained, at the colliders. Such studies can help clarify the picture for model building.

The main constraints on $`\mathit{}`$ couplings $`\lambda ,\lambda ^{}`$ with more than one third-generation index come from models for $`\nu `$ masses and not from collider experiments. Probes of these $`\mathit{}`$ couplings at the colliders involve studying the physics of third-generation fermions. The third generation sfermions are also likely to give rise to larger virtual effects, as they are expected to be lighter than those of the first two generations. For $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ with masses of interest at the LHC and NLC, final states with third-generation fermions including $`t`$ are possible. One thus needs a study of the $`\mathit{}_p`$ decays of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ retaining effects of the mass of the third generation fermions, for $`L`$-violating coupling. An interesting example is the resonant or non-resonant production of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ via the $`\mathit{}`$$`\lambda _{333}^{}`$ coupling in $`ppt\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$, similar to the case of $`t\overline{b}H^+`$ production via the Yukawa coupling. Even for $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$ as small as $`0.01`$ and $`m_{\stackrel{~}{t}}>m_t`$, the rates are appreciable. The $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ thus produced will have both $`R_p`$-conserving decay $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\tau }\nu _\tau \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^{}`$ for $`m_t>m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$ and the $`R_p`$-violating one $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }b\overline{t}`$ for $`m_t<m_{\stackrel{~}{\tau }}`$. The final state composition will depend on the $`\mathit{}_p`$ decays of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ as well. Production of $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ through $`\mathit{}_p`$ couplings and its decay via the same will give rise to $`ppt\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\tau }Xt\overline{b}t\overline{b}X`$, which is the same as the expected final state for the $`H^\pm `$ production. Thus the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ in this case can fake the $`H^\pm `$ signal. $`R_p`$ conserving decays of the $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$ and $`\mathit{}_p`$ decays of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ can also produce

$`ppt\overline{b}\stackrel{~}{\tau }X`$ $`(2t)(2b)(2\tau )X`$ (2)
$`tb(2\overline{b})\tau \nu _\tau X.`$
In the latter case the final state has the tell-tale signature of $`\mathit{}`$, the like-sign fermion pairs.

We calculated  the three-body decays of the LSP for dominant $`\mathit{}`$ trilinear couplings and obtained explicit expressions for the most general case of complex mass matrices, including the effect of the mass of the third-generation fermions. Of course the results depend on the $`L`$$`R`$ mixing in the sfermion sector, gaugino–higgsino mixing and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, as well as on the generation structure of the particular $`\mathit{}`$ couplings that is large. One can have the ‘massive’ and ‘massless’ modes with/without a $`t`$ in the final state.

Figure 3 shows the results for the case with $`\lambda _{333}^{}`$ dominant, for two different choices of $`L`$$`R`$ mixing in the squark sector and different composition of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$. The massive decay mode has a large width for low $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and large higgsino–gaugino mixing. Otherwise the massless mode is larger, although the massive mode is non-negligible. Even for smaller but dominant $`\mathit{}_p`$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^{}`$ couplings, with more than one third-generation index, the three-body $`\mathit{}_p`$ decays of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^+`$ can have important phenomenological consequences for new particle searches at the future colliders.

In the above discussion the bilinear $`\mathit{}_p`$ terms were assumed to be zero. In the analysis of Ref. , a particular case of non-zero $`\kappa _3`$ is considered. The $`\mathit{}_p`$ and $`R_p`$-conserving decays of the $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0,\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ in this case are given by Eqs. (3) and (4) respectively.

$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0`$ $`\nu _\tau Z^{}\nu _\tau f\overline{f},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\tau W^\pm \tau f\overline{f}^{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm `$ $`\tau Z^{}\tau f\overline{f},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \nu _\tau W^\pm \nu _\tau f\overline{f}^{},`$ (3)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}^+\mathrm{}^{},\stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^\pm \stackrel{~}{\chi }_1^0\mathrm{}\nu _{\mathrm{}}.$$
(4)
It is clear the $`\mathit{}_p`$ decays will enhance the number of leptons in the final state and give very clear signals. These authors analysed, in an mSUGRA picture, the multilepton signals at the Tevatron. The multilepton signal is one of the promising channel for discovery of SUSY at the Tevatron. Hence such an analysis is important. This one shows that the reach in the multilepton channel for the $`\mathit{}_p`$ case is much better than for the $`R_p`$-conserving case at large values of $`m_0`$. For small $`m_0`$ the situation is reversed, owing to slepton-mediated $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }_2^0`$ decay.

## 4 Signals for Heavy Majorana Neutrino

The authors  consider models of $`\nu `$ masses which have an isosinglet neutrino $`N`$ that mixes with the ordinary light one but wherein the mass and the mixing of the $`N`$ are not linked together, unlike in the usual models based on he see-saw mechanism. This mixing is then treated as a phenomenological parameter constrained by the LEP data. It is possible in these models to have $`N`$ mass ‘naturally’ in the range: $`100<M_N<1000`$ GeV . The issue of characteristic $`\mathit{}`$ signals for the HMN via like sign dilepton (LSD) events. was revisited in this investigation. They considered both the fusion contribution from

$$q_i+\overline{q}_jq_k+\overline{q}_l+W^++W^+q_k+\overline{q}_l+l^++l^+$$
(5)
where the $`N`$ is exchanged in the $`t`$ channel and also from the resonant production of $`N`$ via

$`q_i+\overline{q}_jW^+l^+N`$ $`l^++l^++W^{}`$ (6)
$`l^+l^+q_k\overline{q}_l.`$
Explicit formulae were obtained in helicity formalism and errors in the earlier calculations , traced to dropping of the ghost diagrams, were corrected. The predicted LSD cross-section increases by about $`20\%`$ as a result of this. The reach of the LHC, just from rates, is $`M_N=200`$$`250`$ GeV. Detailed simulations will be needed to make these conclusions firmer, as the cuts can then be optimized.


text:
# Thermodynamic Properties of Spin Ladders with Cyclic Exchange

## I Introduction

Recently, it has been pointed out that both for spin ladder systems and the parent compounds of high-Tc superconductors Dagotto and Rice (1996) in addition to the bilinear exchange also biquadratic ring exchange terms are important Schmidt and Kuramoto (1990); Honda et al. (1993); Brehmer et al. (1999); Reischl and Müller-Hartmann (2002); Senthil and Fisher (2001); Balents et al. (2002). In Refs. Lorenzana et al. (1999); Mizuno et al. (1999); Matsuda et al. (2000); LiMing et al. (2000); Schmidt et al. (2001); Katanin and Kampf (2002); Coldea et al. (2001); Windt et al. (2001); Nunner et al. (in press) the modification of the low temperature behavior due to this new exchange interaction has been discussed in detail. However, only little investigations Johnston et al. (2000) of the impact of this new type of interaction on the finite temperature properties are available up to now. Therefore, in this paper we address the question how the thermodynamic properties of two leg spin-1/2 ladders are modified by cyclic exchange interactions. In particular, the present work provides the appropriate high temperature series (HTSE) data and results from exact complete diagonalization (ED) Fabricius et al. (1998) of the magnetic susceptibility and the specific heat. We expect that such an analysis constitutes an important supplement to the study of spin-ladders, furnishing additional information about couplings and interactions.

The model under study is given by the Hamiltonian

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(J_{}𝐒_{1,i}𝐒_{2,i}+J_{}[𝐒_{1,i}𝐒_{1,i+1}+𝐒_{2,i}𝐒_{2,i+1}]`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}J_{\text{cyc}}[(𝐒_{1,i}𝐒_{1,i+1})(𝐒_{2,i}𝐒_{2,i+1})`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`(𝐒_{1,i}𝐒_{2,i})(𝐒_{1,i+1}𝐒_{2,i+1})(𝐒_{1,i}𝐒_{2,i+1})(𝐒_{2,i}𝐒_{1,i+1})])`$
where $`J_{}>0`$ and $`J_{}>0`$ are the rung and leg couplings, respectively; the subscript $`i`$ denotes the rungs and 1,2 the two legs. $`J_{\text{cyc}}>0`$ parametrizes the cyclic (4-spin) exchange.

In Sec. II we briefly sketch the methods we use. In Sec. III, results for the magnetic susceptibility $`\chi (T)`$

$$\chi (\beta ;J_{},J_{\text{cyc}})=\frac{\beta }{N}\frac{\mathrm{tr}M^2e^{\beta H}}{\mathrm{tr}e^{\beta H}}=\frac{\beta }{N}M^2$$
(2)
and the specific heat $`C(T)`$

$$C(\beta ;J_{},J_{\text{cyc}})=\frac{1}{N}\frac{}{T}\left(\frac{\frac{}{\beta }\mathrm{tr}e^{\beta H}}{\mathrm{tr}e^{\beta H}}\right)$$
(3)
are presented for the Hamiltonian in Eq. 1. We also discuss representations of our results which can be used to pinpoint the parameter regime from experimental data quickly.

## II Methods

We use ED and the analytic method of HTSE. The computer aided calculations for the HTSE yield polynomials in the coupling parameters with fractions of integers as coefficients so that no accuracy is lost.

Details of our calculations can be found in Ref. Bühler et al. (2000) and details of the extrapolation schemes in Refs. Bühler et al. (2001); Bernu and Misguich (2001). Further, the data are provided in electronic form so that it can be put to use quickly.

For both quantities $`\chi (T)`$ and $`C(T)`$ the results are provided up to order ten in the dimensionless inverse temperature $`\beta =J_{}/T`$. The first orders for $`\chi (T)`$ and $`C(T)`$ are listed in Eqs. 14a and 14b, where $`x_{\text{cyc}}=J_{\text{cyc}}/J_{}`$ and $`x=J_{}/J_{}`$. Higher orders are available electronically.

The bare truncated series are not sufficient to describe the quantities under study at low values of $`T`$. Padé representations Guttmann (1989) are used to enhance decisively the region of validity of the HTSE results. Additionally, we include low temperature information to enhance the region of validity even further. In some cases we can describe the susceptibility in the complete temperature regime. This is in particular true if the system is substantially gapped because the relevant correlation length remains finite restricted by the inverse of $`\text{max}(k_BT/\mathrm{}v,\mathrm{\Delta }/\mathrm{}v)`$, where $`v`$ is a typical velocity of the excitations.

For a gapped system both $`C(T)`$ and $`\chi (T)`$ vanish for $`T0`$. At finite but small temperatures the deviation from zero is exponentially small due to the spin gap. Furthermore, the leading power in $`T`$ depends only on the dimensionality of the system Troyer et al. (1994). The low temperature susceptibility for the ladder system can expressed by

$$\chi (T)T^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}}\text{ for T}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(4a)
An analogous expression is obtained for $`C(T)`$
$$C(T)T^{\frac{3}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}}\text{ for T}\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(4b)
Eqs. 4 provide additional information to bias the extrapolations. The value for the spin gap is obtained from Ref. Schmidt et al. .

In contrast to our previous extrapolation schemes Bühler et al. (2001), here we employ and extend the method suggested in Ref. Bernu and Misguich (2001) to extrapolate the HTSE data for the specific heat. The main idea is to express the entropy $`S(T)`$, obtained from the HTSE data of the specific heat, in the new variable $`ee_0`$, where $`e_0`$ is the ground state energy and $`e=e(T)`$ is the average energy per site. The temperature and the specific heat are then derived from the entropy as functions of $`e`$. The ground state energy is obtained from Ref. Schmidt et al. . To incorporate the low temperature information from Eq. 4b the sum rule

$$ee_0=_0^TC(T^{})𝑑T^{}T^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}}$$
(5)
is considered in the limit $`T\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Inverting the above equation provides an expression $`T(ee_0)`$. Only an approximate solution is possible. Taking the logarithm of Eq. 5 and iterating twice in $`T`$ leads to

$$T(y)\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{\text{ln}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}y)}\text{ for }y1$$
(6)
with $`y=ee_0`$. Combining Eqs. 5 and 6 and the sum rule

$$S=_0^T\frac{C(T^{})}{T^{}}𝑑T^{}T^{\frac{1}{2}}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{T}}\text{ for }T\mathrm{\Delta }$$
(7)
yields the low temperature behavior of the entropy

$$S(y)\frac{y}{\mathrm{\Delta }}\text{ln}(\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}y))\text{ for }y1.$$
(8)
The logarithmic singularity at $`e=e_0`$ ($`y=0`$) can be avoided by extrapolating the function

$$G(y)=y_y\frac{S(y)}{y}.$$
(9)
The value of the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is incorporated by requiring

$$G(y=0)=1/\mathrm{\Delta }.$$
(10)
The entropy is then given by

$$S(e)=(ee_0)\left(_0^e\frac{\stackrel{~}{G}(e^{})}{e^{}e_0}𝑑e^{}\frac{\text{ln}2}{e_0}\right)$$
(11)
where $`\stackrel{~}{G}`$ is the Padé approximant of $`G`$. Wherever possible diagonal Padé representations, i.e. the same order in numerator and denominator are used. Exceptions to this rule will be stated explicitly; they are necessary where spurious poles occur. Comparison to ED results show that diagonal representations yield the best results, see Fig. 2. The convergence shown in the lower plot is very convincing. The plot compares to ED data for system sizes up to $`N=20`$. It is systematic to the ED calculations that for increasing system sizes the results alternatingly yield an upper ($`N=12,16,20`$) or a lower ($`N=14,18`$) bound on the specific heat for not too low temperatures. Therefore, the result for $`N=\mathrm{}`$ should be in between the results with $`N=18`$ and $`N=20`$, which is convincingly fulfilled by the HTSE extrapolations. The shoulders in the low temperature regime at $`T/J_{}0.2`$ are numerical artifacts.

It has to be noted that the precise knowledge of the ground state energy $`e_0`$ is of particular importance for the extrapolation of the HTSE data for the specific heat. Even a small uncertainty of half a percent in $`e_0`$ leads to significant differences in the specific heat at and below its maximum. The high temperature part is unaffected thereof. The ground state energy $`e_0(x,x_{\text{cyc}})`$ is calculated up to order $`11`$ in $`x`$ and $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ in a high order series expansion about the limit of isolated rungs. We set $`r=x_{\text{cyc}}/x=`$const and use standard Dlog-Padé approximants on $`de_0(x,rx)/dx`$ which yield highly accurate results.

With the temperature as function of $`e`$ at hand it is possible to represent also the susceptibility as function of $`e`$. The low temperature behavior from Eq. 4a can also be incorporated in the extrapolations. Unfortunately, the convergence of the extrapolations investigated is not as satisfying as for the specific heat. The low temperature regime is underestimated and the extrapolations are very sensitive to the order of numerator and denominator in the Padé representations. Most diagonal Padé approximants are not possible due to spurious poles. Hence we refrain from using a $`\chi (e)`$ representation.

The extrapolation of the susceptibility follows Ref. Bühler et al. (2001). Basically, the low temperature behavior from Eq. 4a is used to improve the representation. To incorporate the low temperature information it is advantageous to map the temperature regime to the interval $`[0,1]`$ via the substitution $`u=\beta /(1+\beta )`$. All approximants are finite for $`u1`$ and the representations are no longer restricted to diagonal Dlog-Padé approximants. All representations for $`\chi (T)`$ are extrapolated with the same order of Dlog-Padé approximants to retain a consistent description of the HTSE results. We use the $`[n,2]`$-Dlog-Padé representation in $`u`$ with the only restriction $`n+211`$. The representation chosen is checked in the limit of the (isotropic) ladder and the Heisenberg chain, where precise Oitmaa et al. (1996); Weihong et al. (1997); Frischmuth et al. (1996) or exact Klümper (1993) results are available.

To assess the range of validity we investigate various orders of Dlog-Padé approximants. They are compared to the highest order available. The convergence is very satisfying. The orders 8 to 10 differ only by $`10^3T/J_{}`$ from the 11th order for $`\chi `$ (not shown). This observation does not change significantly for other sets of parameters considered.

Another important check is the comparison to ED results. In Fig. 3 data for the susceptibility and the specific heat are shown for the gapless point $`x=0.2`$ and $`x_{\text{cyc}}=0.2`$, which is exactly known Schmidt et al. . The inset shows the phase line where the gap vanishes. The results are obtained by a high order series expansion about the limit of isolated rungs. The solid line about the exact point shows the highly convergent results. The dotted lines give a sketch of the phase line for parameters far away from the exact point. The phase diagram is investigated in detail in Ref. Schmidt et al. . Left to the phase line the system is in a gapped rung singlet phase. On increasing $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ the gap vanishes linearly in $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ and opens again linearly on the right of the phase line in a staggered dimer phase Müller et al. (2002); Läuchli et al. (2002).

To derive the low temperature behavior of $`C`$ and $`\chi `$ at the gapless point the exactly known triplet dispersion $`\omega (q)q^2`$ at $`q=\pi `$ Schmidt et al.  is used. A similar analysis as in Ref. Troyer et al. (1994) yields

$`\chi (T)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}}\text{ for }T1`$ (12a)
$`C(T)`$ $``$ $`\sqrt{T}\text{ for }T1.`$ (12b)
Using the sum rules mentioned above for the specific heat leads to an entropy

$$S(e)(ee_0)^{1/3}\text{ for }ee_0\text{ small.}$$
(13)
The entropy is extrapolated using a Dlog-Padé approximant biased to contain the extra information from Eq. 13.

The chosen representations of the HTSE results yield stable and trustworthy results for the calculated thermodynamical properties. Especially the experimentally interesting position and height of the maximum are sufficiently well described for quantitative predictions.

$`4T\chi `$ $`=`$ $`1+\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{1}{2}x\right)\beta +\left(\left(\frac{1}{4}+\frac{3}{16}x_{\text{cyc}}\right)x\frac{7}{32}x_{\text{cyc}}^2\frac{1}{16}+\frac{3}{16}x_{\text{cyc}}\right)\beta ^2+𝒪(\beta ^3)`$ (14a)
$`16C`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\frac{3}{2}+3x^2+\frac{21}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}^2\right)\beta ^2+\left(\frac{3}{4}+\frac{3}{2}x^3\frac{27}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}\frac{27}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}x^2+\frac{45}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}^2+\frac{45}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}^2x\frac{9}{8}x_{\text{cyc}}^3\right)\beta ^3+𝒪(\beta ^4)`$ (14b)
## III Results

Our aim is to provide results which show the quantitative behavior of the thermodynamic properties and in particular the effects of a cyclic spin exchange. With the help of computer algebra programs the HTSE results can be used easily to determine the model parameters of a substance under consideration. Only data of standard quantities like the magnetic susceptibility is necessary. The occurring ambiguity in determining the model parameters (Bühler et al. (2001) and see below) from only one quantity like $`\chi (T)`$ can be resolved by the knowledge of other quantities, e.g. the spin gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ or the magnetic specific heat $`C(T)`$ as far as accessible experimentally.

### III.1  Susceptibility

Fig. 4 shows an overview of the magnetic susceptibility for various values of the cyclic exchange $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ and the leg coupling $`x`$. The choice of the shown parameter regime is taken from published values for substances presently investigated Matsuda et al. (2000); Schmidt et al. (2001); Nunner et al. (in press).

A general behavior for increasing $`J_{\text{cyc}}`$ at fixed $`J_{}`$ is the shift of an increasing $`\chi _{\text{max}}`$ to lower temperatures. This effect is induced by the decrease of the whole dispersion, i.e. all energies are lowered Brehmer et al. (1999); Schmidt et al.  and the global $`1/T`$ factor which enhances the value of $`\chi _{\text{max}}`$. For increasing $`x`$ this effect is weakened. The increasing leg coupling provides an additional antiferromagnetic coupling stabilizing the system against magnetic perturbations. Thus, an increasing $`x`$ stabilizes the system and counteracts an increasing $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ which destabilizes it.

In Figs. 5 and 6 we address the information content of a measurement of $`\chi (T)`$ (cf. Bühler et al. (2001)). Fig. 5 shows the energy-scale independent quantity $`\chi _{\text{max}}T_{\text{max}}`$ which is a characteristic in experimental measurements. Note that for increasing $`x`$ the differences between the curves for various values of $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ become smaller, because $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{}`$ set the changing energy scale, whereas $`J_{\text{cyc}}`$ stays constant. In the limit of large $`x`$ the system approaches two independent chains with a decreasing relative interchain coupling induced by $`J_{}`$ and $`J_{\text{cyc}}`$.

Once the value of $`\chi _{\text{max}}T_{\text{max}}`$ is measured the parameter set ($`x`$,$`x_{\text{cyc}}`$) can be read off from Fig. 5. But there is still an ambiguity which cannot be resolved by a measurement of $`\chi (T)`$ alone as illustrated in Fig. 6.

There the rescaled susceptibilities are depicted for the indicated values of $`\chi _{\text{max}}T_{\text{max}}`$ in Fig. 5 (solid horizontal lines). The main feature in the susceptibility curves is the maximum. For different sets of parameters for a specific value of $`\chi _{\text{max}}T_{\text{max}}`$ the qualitative and quantitative behavior cannot be distinguished unless precise measurements in the low temperature regime are possible.

To summarize the latter investigations we state that with the present results of ED and HTSE it is difficult to ascertain all model parameters from the temperature dependence of the susceptibility alone, see also discussion in Ref. Bühler et al. (2001). With the knowledge of detailed low temperature information this problem can be resolved.

### III.2  Specific heat

Further information about the magnetic properties of substances can be obtained by measuring also the magnetic specific heat $`C(T)`$. We are aware, however, that it is difficult to extract the magnetic contribution from the measured specific heat if the energy scale of the lattice vibrations is of the same order as the magnetic couplings.

Once the magnetic specific heat is known the ambiguity in parameters can be resolved. Fig. 7 shows an overview of the magnetic specific heat for $`x=0.5,1,1.2`$ and $`x_{\text{cyc}}=0,\mathrm{},0.1`$. For increasing leg coupling $`x`$ and fixed $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ the position of $`C_{\text{max}}`$ shifts to higher temperatures and the height lowers slightly for $`x_{\text{cyc}}=0,0.02`$, it stays almost constant for $`x_{\text{cyc}}=0.04,0.06`$, and it increases slightly for $`x_{\text{cyc}}=0.08,0.1`$. For increasing cyclic exchange $`x_{\text{cyc}}`$ and fixed leg coupling $`C_{\text{max}}`$ moves to lower temperatures and decreases. This behavior is induced by the decreasing overall dispersion, as discussed above.

## IV Conclusions

We investigated the thermodynamic properties of the two-leg spin-1/2 ladder with cyclic exchange. We used two methods, ED and HTSE. The representation of the HTSE results were optimized by using Dlog-Padé and Padé approximants including the behavior of the considered quantities, $`\chi (T)`$ and $`C(T)`$ at low temperatures.

The results can serve as input for quick and easy data analysis to determine the model parameters. Especially the experimentally interesting position and height of the maxima of $`\chi (T)`$ and $`C(T)`$ are described quantitatively.

We showed that with the measurement of one quantity alone, e.g. the magnetic susceptibility it is difficult to determine all model parameters. Additional information like the spin gap or the specific heat helps fixing the parameters.

###### Acknowledgements.

The computations were done in the Regionales Rechenzentrum der Universität zu Köln with the kind support of P. Brühne. This work was supported by the DFG by Schwerpunkt 1073 and by SFB 608.