text:
# Conductance from Non-perturbative Methods II

## 1 Thermodynamic Bethe ansatz for impurity systems

As mentioned in the previous talk, for the evaluation of the Landauer formula  one needs to know the density distribution functions involved. I will now present a general method which allows to compute such quantities non-perturbatively, i.e. the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz (TBA) approach, which we generalized in  to incorporate the non-trivial effects arising due to the presence of impurities. Besides the aim we have in mind, in general the TBA is a powerful tool for the computation of thermodynamic quantities in 1+1 dimensional integrable systems. Originally formulated by Yang and Yang  in the context of the non-relativistic Bose gas, it was thereafter generalized by Zamolodchikov  to relativistic quantum field theories which interact by means of factorizable scattering matrices. A TBA-analysis serves to check the consistency of a certain S-matrix proposal, since it allows for extracting some distinct structural quantities such as the Virasoro central charge of the underlying conformal field theory. The original bulk formulation has been accommodated to a situation which includes a purely transmitting defect in , whereas for purely reflecting impurities (that is, boundaries) the TBA equations were newly derived in .

In this section we want to propose a new formulation which, for the first time, will hold for a situation when non-vanishing reflection and transmission occur simultaneously. Let us consider first of all the standard starting point in the formulation of the Bethe ansatz equations: We consider a 1+1 dimensional system with compactified space dimension $`L`$ and $`N`$ particles distributed as shown in figure 1. As standard in this context, we represent those particles by means of the Zamolod- chikov-Faddeev (ZF) operators  $`Z_i(\theta )`$. In addition, in order to incorporate the presence of boundaries  or defects  in the system, the ZF-algebra has to be extended with new generators $`Z_\alpha `$. We indicate particle types by Latin and degrees of freedom of the impurity by Greek letters. The “braiding” (exchange) relations of annihilation operators $`Z_i(\theta )`$ of a particle of type $`i`$ moving with rapidity $`\theta `$ and defect operators $`Z_\alpha `$ in the state $`\alpha `$ can be written as

$`Z_i(\theta _1)Z_j(\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{ij}^{kl}(\theta _1\theta _2)Z_k(\theta _2)Z_l(\theta _1),`$ (1)
$`Z_i(\theta _1)Z_j^{}(\theta _2)`$ $`=`$ $`S_{ij}^{kl}(\theta _1\theta _2)Z_k^{}(\theta _2)Z_l(\theta _1)+2\pi \delta (\theta _1\theta _2)\delta _{ij},`$ (2)
$`Z_i(\theta )Z_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`R_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )Z_j(\theta )Z_\beta +T_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )Z_\beta Z_j(\theta ),`$ (3)
$`Z_\alpha Z_i(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{R}_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )Z_\beta Z_j(\theta )+\stackrel{~}{T}_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )Z_j(\theta )Z_\beta .`$ (4)
The bulk scattering matrix is indicated by $`S`$, and the left/right reflection and transmission amplitudes through the defect are denoted by $`R/\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`T/\stackrel{~}{T}`$, respectively as seen in part I. We employed Einstein’s sum convention, that is we assume sums over doubly occurring indices. We suppress the explicit mentioning of the dependence of $`Z_\alpha `$ on the position in space and assume for the time being that it is included in $`\alpha `$. For the treatment of a single defect this is not relevant, but it will become once more important when we consider multiple defects. The same relations hold when we replace the annihilation operators by the creation operators $`Z_i^{}(\theta )`$ with $`R/\stackrel{~}{R}`$, $`T/\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and $`S`$ replaced by their complex conjugates. The algebra (3)-(4) constitutes the starting point for the derivation of the relations (2.1; part I) and (2.2; part I) which result just from applying it twice. As usual, we obtain the Bethe ansatz equations by dragging a particle $`i`$ along the world line. We introduce for convenience the following shorthand notation for the product of various particle operators $`Z_i(\theta )`$ and a defect operator $`Z_\alpha `$

$$Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}:=Z_{\mu _1}(\theta _{\mu _1})\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _k}(\theta _{\mu _k})Z_\alpha Z_{\mu _{k+1}}(\theta _{\mu _k+1})\mathrm{}Z_{\mu _N}(\theta _{\mu _N}).$$
(5)
Then we compute the braiding of a particle operator of type $`i`$ and the previous product $`Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}`$ by using the algebra (1)-(4) and assuming the S-matrix of the bulk theory to be diagonal

$`Z_i(\theta _i)Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}`$ $`=`$ $`Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}Z_i(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{F}_{i\alpha }Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}Z_i(\theta _i)\stackrel{~}{G}_{i\alpha },`$ (6)
$`Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}Z_i(\theta _i)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_i(\theta _i)Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}F_{i\alpha }Z_i(\theta _i)Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}G_{i\alpha }.`$ (7)
We abbreviated here

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{i\mu _l}(\theta _{i\mu _l}),\stackrel{~}{G}_i^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{R}_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}{\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}}S_{i\mu _l}(\theta _{i\mu _l}){\displaystyle \underset{l=k+1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{i\mu _l}(\widehat{\theta }_{i\mu _l}),`$ (8)
$`F_i^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{T_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{\mu _li}(\theta _{\mu _li}),G_i^\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{R_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}{T_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}}S_{\mu _li}(\widehat{\theta }_{\mu _li}){\displaystyle \underset{l=k+1}{\overset{N}{}}}S_{\mu _li}(\theta _{\mu _li}).`$ (9)
Being on a circle of length $`L`$, we can make the usual assumption on the Bethe wavefunction (see e.g. ) which is captured in the requirement

$$Z_i(\theta )Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}=Z_{k,\alpha }^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _N}Z_i(\theta )\mathrm{exp}(iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta ).$$
(10)
Using this monodromy property together with the braiding relations (6), (7) and the unitarity relations for $`R`$ and $`T`$ (see section 2 of part I), we obtain the following Bethe ansatz equations

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{S_{li}(\widehat{\theta }_{li})}{S_{li}(\theta _{li})}\left(\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{li}(\theta _{li})\frac{e^{iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta _i}}{\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}\right)=\frac{T_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}{\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}\left(\frac{e^{iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta _i}}{T_i^\alpha (\theta _i)}\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{il}(\theta _{il})\right).$$
(11)
We restrict it here to the diagonal case, i.e. $`S_{ij}^{kl}(\theta )=S_{ij}(\theta )\delta _{li}\delta _{kj},`$ $`R_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )=R_i^\alpha (\theta )\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}`$, $`T_{i\alpha }^{j\beta }(\theta )=T_i^\alpha (\theta )\delta _{\alpha \beta }\delta _{ij}`$ and similarly for the tilde amplitudes. We can therefore use the result mentioned in part I, namely that for $`R`$ and $`T`$ to be simultaneously non-vanishing the only possible bulk scattering matrices are $`S=\pm 1`$, such that the relation (11) may be re-written as

$$1=e^{iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta }D_{i\alpha }^\pm (\theta )_{l=1}^NS_{il}$$
(12)
where

$$D_{i\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta )+T_i^\alpha (\theta )_{l=1}^NS_{il}^2}{2}\pm \frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta )+T_i^\alpha (\theta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{il}^2\right)^2\frac{4T_i^\alpha (\theta )_{l=1}^NS_{il}^2}{T_i^\alpha (\theta )}\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}.$$
(13)
For consistency reasons it is instructive to consider the limit when the reflection amplitude tends to zero. In that case we can employ the unitarity relations for the reflection and transmission amplitudes (see section 2 of part I) and may take the square root in (13), such that we obtain from (12) the two equations

$$R,\stackrel{~}{R}0:1=e^{iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta }\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{il},1=e^{iLm_i\mathrm{sinh}\theta }T_i^\alpha (\theta )\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}S_{li}.$$
(14)
This means we recover the Bethe ansatz equations for a purely transmitting defect, which were originally proposed by Martins in . The two signs in (13) capture the breaking of parity invariance in the limiting case, i.e. the two equations in (14) correspond to taking the particle either clockwise or anti-clockwise around the world line as formulated for the parity breaking case for the first time in  and explicitly indicated in figure 1. We do not expect to recover from here the equations for a purely reflecting boundary which were suggested in , since the equations (6) and (7) do not make sense in the limit $`T,\stackrel{~}{T}0`$. For $`_{l=1}^NS_{il}^2=1,`$ i.e. the free Boson and Fermion, we can exploit the fact that (12) with (13) look formally precisely like the Bethe ansatz equations for a purely transmitting defect. If we want to exploit this analogy we should of course be concerned about the question whether $`D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )`$ is a meromorphic function. Assuming parity invariance, we may take the square root

$$D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=T_j^\alpha (\theta )\pm R_j^\alpha (\theta )forR=\stackrel{~}{R},T=\stackrel{~}{T}.$$
(15)
The matrix $`D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )`$ has now the usual properties, namely it is unitarity in the sense that $`D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=1`$. It follows further from (15) and from the crossing relations for $`R`$ and $`T`$ that the hermiticity relation $`D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=D_{j\alpha }^\pm (\theta )^{}`$ and the crossing relations $`D_{\overline{ȷ}\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=D_{j\alpha }^{}(i\pi \theta )`$ and $`D_{\overline{ȷ}\alpha }^\pm (\theta )=D_{j\alpha }^\pm (i\pi \theta )`$ hold for the free Fermion and Bosons, respectively.

Let us now carry out the thermodynamic limit in the usual way, namely by increasing the particle number $`N`$ and the system size $`L`$ in such a way that their mutual ratio $`N/L`$ remains finite. The amount of defects will be kept constant in this limit, such that there is no contribution to the TBA-equations from the defect in that situation. The same behaviour was pointed out in  for the purely transmitting case. Intuitively the latter result was to be expected, since making both the amount of particles and the size of the system infinite while keeping the amount of defects fixed will lead to a situation in which the effect of the presence of a finite number of defects is negligeable. Hence, this means that essentially we can employ the usual bulk TBA analysis when the considerations are carried out in the thermodynamic limit.

Let us therefore recall the main equations of the TBA analysis. For more details on the derivation see  and in particular for the introduction of the chemical potential see . The main input into the entire analysis is the dynamical interaction, which enters via the logarithmic derivative of the scattering matrix $`\phi _{ij}(\theta )=id\mathrm{ln}S_{ij}(\theta )/d\theta `$ and the assumption on the statistical interaction, which we take to be Fermionic. As usual , we take the logarithmic derivative of the Bethe ansatz equation (12) and relate the density of states $`\rho _i(\theta ,r)`$ for particles of type $`i`$ as a function of the inverse temperature $`r=1/T`$ to the density of occupied states $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,r)`$

$$\rho _i(\theta ,r)=\frac{m_i}{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\theta +_j[\phi _{ij}\rho _i^r](\theta ).$$
(16)
By $`\left(fg\right)(\theta )`$ $`:=1/(2\pi )𝑑\theta ^{}f(\theta \theta ^{})g(\theta ^{})`$ we denote as usual the convolution of two functions. The mutual ratio of the densities serves as the definition of the so-called pseudo-energies $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,r)`$

$$\frac{\rho _i^r(\theta ,r)}{\rho _i(\theta ,r)}=\frac{e^{\epsilon _i(\theta ,r)}}{1+e^{\epsilon _i(\theta ,r)}},$$
(17)
which have to be positive and real. Notice that, from the introduction in part I, the quantities $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,r)`$ at the constrictions of the wire are the basic input we need for the evaluation of Landauer formula, apart from the reflection and transmission amplitudes. At thermodynamic equilibrium one obtains then the TBA-equations, which read in these variables and in the presence of a chemical potential $`\mu _i`$

$$rm_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta =\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)+r\mu _i+_j[\phi _{ij}\mathrm{ln}(1+e^{\epsilon _j})](\theta ),$$
(18)
where $`r=m/T`$, $`m_lm_l/m`$, $`\mu _i\mu _i/m`$, with $`m`$ being the mass of the lightest particle in the model. It is important to note that $`\mu _i`$ is restricted to be smaller than 1. This follows immediately from (18) by recalling that $`\epsilon _i0`$ and that for $`r`$ large $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)`$ tends to infinity. As pointed out already in  (here just with the small modification of a chemical potential), the comparison between (18) and (16) leads to the useful relation

$$\rho _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left(\frac{d\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)}{dr}+\mu _i\right).$$
(19)
The main task is therefore first to solve (18) for the pseudo-energies from which then all densities can be reconstructed.

### 1.1 Thermodynamic quantities per unit length

Treating the equations (12) and (13) in the mentioned analogy with the purely transmitting case we can also construct various thermodynamic quantities. It should be stressed that these quantities are computed per unit length. Similarly as the expression found in  for a purely transmitting defect the free energy is

$$F(r)=\frac{1}{\pi r}\underset{l,\alpha }{}\widehat{m}_l_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\theta [\mathrm{cosh}\theta +m^1\phi _{l\alpha }(\theta )]\mathrm{ln}[1+\mathrm{exp}(rm\mathrm{cosh}\theta )].$$
(20)
It is made up of two parts, one coming from the bulk and one including the data of the defect in form of $`\phi _{l\alpha }(\theta )=id\mathrm{ln}D_{l\alpha }(\theta )/d\theta `$. From equation (20) we also see that when taking the mass scale to be large in comparison to the dominating scale in the defect, the latter contribution to the scaling function becomes negligible with regard to the bulk and vice versa. However, in this talk we shall concentrate on the thermodynamic limit.

## 2 Conductance through an impurity

The most intuitive way to compute the conductance is via Landauer-Büttinger transport theory . Let us consider a set up as depicted in figure 2, that is we place a defect in the middle of a rigid bulk wire, where the two halves might be at different temperatures. The direct current $`I`$ through such a quantum wire can be computed simply by determining the difference between the static charge distributions at the right and left constriction of the wire, i.e. $`I=Q_rQ_l`$. This is based on the assumption , that $`Q(t)(Q_rQ_l)t`$ $`(\rho _r\rho _l)t`$, where the $`\rho `$s are the corresponding density distribution functions. Placing an

impurity in the middle of the wire, we have to quantify the overall balance of particles of type $`i`$ and anti-particles $`\overline{ı}`$ carrying opposite charges $`q_i=q_{\overline{ı}}`$ at the end of the wire at different potentials. This information is of course encoded in the density distribution function $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,T,\mu _i)`$. In the described set up half of the particles of one type are already at the same potential at one of the ends of the wire and the probability for them to reach the other is determined by the transmission and reflection amplitudes through the impurity. We assume that there is no effect coming from the constrictions of the wire, i.e. they are purely transmitting surfaces with $`T=\stackrel{~}{T}=1`$. One could, however, also consider a situation in which those constrictions act as boundaries, namely purely reflecting surfaces. The situation could be described with the same transport theory picture, see e.g. , but then the conductance can only be non-vanishing if the reflection amplitudes in the constrictions are non-diagonal in the particle degrees of freedom, such as for instance for sine-Gordon , that is in general affine Toda field theories with purely imaginary coupling constant or, in the massless limit, folded purely reflecting (transmitting) diagonal bulk theories.

According to the Landauer transport theory the direct current (DC) along the wire is given by

$`I^\stackrel{}{\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}I_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r,\mu _i^l,\mu _i^r)={\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\theta \left[\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i^r)|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i^l)|\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2\right],`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`I_B{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}𝑑\theta \left[\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i^r)|R_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i^l)|\stackrel{~}{R}_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2\right],`$ (22)
where we assume here $`T_1=T_2`$. The relation (22) is obtained from (21) simply by making use of the fact that $`|R|^2+|T|^2=1`$ (see section 2 in part I). Equation (22) has the virtue that it extracts explicitly the bulk contribution to the current which we refer to as $`I_B`$. There are some obvious limits, namely a transparent and an impenetrable defect

$$\underset{|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|1}{lim}I^\stackrel{}{\alpha }=I_Band\underset{|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|0}{lim}I^\stackrel{}{\alpha }=0,$$
(23)
respectively. A short comment is needed on the validity of (21). Apparently it suggests that when the parity between left and right scattering is broken, there is the possibility of a net current even when an external source is absent. In this picture we have of course not taken into account that charged particles moving through the defect will alter the potential, such that we did in fact not describe a perpetuum mobile. Thus the limitation of our analysis is that $`\mu _i^l\mu _i^r`$ has to be much larger than the change in the potential induced by the moving particles.

Finally we want to compute the conductance from the DC current, which by definition is obtained from

$$G^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)=_iG_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)=_i\underset{(\mu _i^l\mu _i^r)0}{lim}I_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r,\mu _i^l,\mu _i^r)/(\mu _i^l\mu _i^r)$$
(24)
and is of course a property of the material itself and a function of the temperature. In general the expressions in (21) tend to zero for vanishing chemical potential difference such that the limit in (24) is non-trivial.

Thus from the knowledge of the transmission matrix and the density distribution function we can compute the conductance.

### 2.1 The high temperature regime

Since the physical quantities require a solution of the TBA-equations, which up to now, due to their non-linear nature, can only be solved numerically, we have to resort in general to a numerical analysis to obtain the conductance for some concrete theories. However, there exist various approximations for different special situations, such as the high temperature regime. For large rapidities and small $`r`$, it is known  (here we only need the small modification of the introduction of a chemical potential $`\mu _i`$) that the density of states can be approximated by

$$\rho _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)\frac{m_i}{4\pi }e^{|\theta |}\frac{1}{2\pi r}ϵ(\theta )\frac{d\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)}{d\theta },$$
(25)
where $`ϵ(\theta )=\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )`$ is the step function, i.e. $`ϵ(\theta )=1`$ for $`\theta >0`$ and $`ϵ(\theta )=1`$ for $`\theta <0`$. In equation (17), we assume that in the large rapidity regime $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i)`$ is dominated by (25) and in the small rapidity regime by the Fermi distribution function. Therefore

$$\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i)\frac{1}{2\pi r}ϵ(\theta )\frac{d}{d\theta }\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i))\right].$$
(26)
Using this expression in equation (21), we approximate the direct current in the ultraviolet by

$$\underset{r0}{lim}I_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r,\mu _i)\frac{q_i}{4\pi r}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\theta \mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{1+\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i^l))}{1+\mathrm{exp}(\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i^r))}\right]\frac{d\left[ϵ(\theta )|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\theta )|^2\right]}{d\theta },$$
(27)
after a partial integration. For simplicity we also assumed here parity invariance, that is $`|T_i^\alpha (\theta )|=|\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha (\theta )|`$. The derivation of the analogue to (27) for the situation when parity is broken is of course similar. Taking now the potentials at the end of the wire to be $`\mu _i^r=\mu _i^l=V/2`$, the conductance reads in this approximation

$$\underset{r0}{lim}G_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)\frac{q_i}{2\pi r}\underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\theta \frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}[\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,0)]}\frac{d\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,V/2)}{dV}|_{V=0}\frac{d\left[ϵ(\theta )|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\theta )|^2\right]}{d\theta }.$$
(28)
In order to evaluate these expressions further, we need to know explicitly the precise form of the transmission matrix, i.e. the concrete form of the defect. An interesting situation occurs when the defect is transparent or rapidity independent, that is $`|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(\theta )||T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|`$, in which case we can pursue the analysis further. Noting that $`dϵ(\theta )/d\theta =2\delta (\theta )`$, we obtain

$$\underset{r0}{lim}G_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)\frac{q_i}{\pi r}\frac{|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|^2}{1+\mathrm{exp}\epsilon _i(0,r,0)}\frac{d\epsilon _i(0,r,V/2)}{dV}|_{V=0}.$$
(29)
The derivative $`d\epsilon _i(0,r,V/2)/dV`$ can be obtained by solving recursively

$$\frac{d\epsilon _i(0,r,V/2)}{dV}=\frac{r}{2}\underset{j}{}N_{ij}\frac{1}{1+\mathrm{exp}\epsilon _j(0,r,V/2)]}\frac{d\epsilon _j(0,r,V/2)}{dV},$$
(30)
which results form a computation similar to a standard one in this context  leading to the so-called constant TBA-equations. Here only the asymptotic phases of the scattering matrix enter via $`N_{ij}=lim_\theta \mathrm{}[\mathrm{ln}[S_{ij}(\theta )/S_{ij}(\theta )]]/2\pi i`$. The values of $`\epsilon _i(0,r,0)`$ needed in (29) can be obtained for small $`r`$ in the usual way from the standard constant TBA-equations.

### 2.2 Free Fermion with defects

Let us exemplify the general formulae once more with the free Fermion. First of all we note that in this case in the TBA-equations (18) the kernel $`\phi _{ij}`$ is vanishing and the equation is simply solved by

$$\epsilon _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)=rm_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta r\mu _i.$$
(31)
Therefore, we have explicit functions for the densities with (19) and (17)

$$\rho _i(\theta ,r,\mu _i)=\frac{1}{2\pi }m_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta and\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i)=\frac{m_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta /2\pi }{1+\mathrm{exp}(rm_i\mathrm{cosh}\theta r\mu _i)}.$$
(32)
According to (21) the direct current reads

$`I^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r,V)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q_i}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}d\theta [\rho _{\overline{ı}}^r(\theta ,r,V/2)|T_{\overline{ı}}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,V/2)|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2`$ (33)
$`\rho _{\overline{ı}}^r(\theta ,r,V/2)|\stackrel{~}{T}_{\overline{ı}}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2+\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,V/2)|\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2].`$
Using atomic units $`m_e=e=h\text{ }\text{ }=m_i=q_i=1`$, we obtain explicitly with (32)

$$I^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r,V)=\frac{1}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\theta \mathrm{sinh}(rV/2)|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|^2}{\mathrm{cosh}(r\mathrm{cosh}\theta )+\mathrm{cosh}(rV/2)},$$
(34)
for $`|T_{\overline{ı}}^\alpha \left(\theta \right)|=|T_i^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|=|\stackrel{~}{T}_{\overline{ı}}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|=|\stackrel{~}{T}_i^\alpha \left(\theta \right)|=|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)|`$. Then by (24) the conductance results to

$$G^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)=rm\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{cosh}\theta \left|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }\left(\theta \right)\right|^2}{1+\mathrm{cosh}(rm\mathrm{cosh}\theta )}$$
(35)
in this case. We have re-introduced dimensional quantities instead of atomic units to be able to match with some standard results from the literature. The most characteristic features can actually be captured when we carry out the massless limit as indicated in section 2.3.2, which can be done even analytically. Substituting $`t=e^\theta `$, we obtain

$$\underset{m0}{lim}G^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)\frac{e^2}{h}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\frac{|T_{L/R}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(ty/r)|^2}{1+\mathrm{cosh}(t)}=\frac{e^2}{h}\{\begin{array}{c}\overline{|T_{L/R}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(ty/r)|^2}\mathrm{for}yr\hfill \\ |T_{L/R}^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(y/r=0)|^2\mathrm{for}yr\hfill \end{array}.$$
(36)
We have identified here two distinct regions. When $`yr`$ we can replace the left/right transmission amplitudes by their values at $`y/r=0`$. When $`yr`$ the transmission amplitudes enter the expression as a strongly oscillatory function in which $`y/r`$ plays the role of the frequency. It is then a good approximation to replace this function by its mean value as indicated by the overbar. It is straightforward to extend the expression (36) to the case when the assumption on $`T^\alpha `$ in (34) is relaxed and to the case with different values of $`y`$. To proceed further we need to specify the defect.

#### 2.2.1 Transparent defects, $`|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|=1`$

Let us first consider the easiest example, which supports the general working of the method. When the defect is transparent, i.e., $`|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|=1`$, we can compute the expression for the conductance (35) directly in the large temperature limit and obtain the well known behaviour

$$\underset{r0,|T^\stackrel{}{\alpha }|1}{lim}G^\stackrel{}{\alpha }(r)\frac{e^2}{h}(1\frac{rm}{2}).$$
(37)
Alternatively, we obtain the expression (37) also from equation (29) and (31). In the massless limit of (36) we obtain $`e^2/h`$ which coincides with the result in . However, we should stress that we consider here purely massive cases and the massless limit only serves as a benchmark. Note that a transparent defect in this context does not necessarily mean the absence of the defect, since the transmission amplitude could be a non-trivial phase.

#### 2.2.2 The energy operator defect $`𝒟^\alpha (\overline{\psi },\psi )=g\overline{\psi }\psi `$

For this defect the computation of the conductance according to (35) is more involved. The results of our numerical analysis of the expression (35) are depicted in figure 3.

We observe several distinct features. First of all it is naturally to be expected that when we increase the number of defects the resistance will grow. This is confirmed, as for fixed temperature and increasing number of defects, the conductance decreases. Second we see several well extended plateaux. They can be reproduced with the analytical expressions obtained in the massless limit (36). To be able to compare with (35) we re-introduce atomic units for convenience, i.e. $`e^2/h1/2\pi `$. For a single defect there is only one plateau and from (36) and the explicit expression for $`T^\alpha (\theta )`$ given in part I

$$G^\alpha (r)\frac{\mathrm{cos}^2B}{2\pi }.$$
(38)
For $`B=0.5`$ the value $`0.1226`$ is well reproduced in figure 3(a). The lower lying plateaux correspond to the region when $`yr`$. In that case we obtain from (36) together with the expressions for the reflection and transmission amplitudes of the double and four defect systems derived in part I

$`G^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^2B}{1+\mathrm{sin}^2B}}\right)^2\mathrm{for}yr,`$ (39)
$`G^{\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3\alpha _4}(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^4B}{\mathrm{cos}^4B2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2B)^2}}\right)^2\mathrm{for}yr.`$ (40)
For $`B=0.5`$ the values $`0.0624`$ and $`0.0095`$ are well reproduced in figure 3(a) for $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`\mathrm{}=4`$, respectively. The plateaux extending to the ultraviolet regime result from (36) and by taking mean values of the expressions for the reflection and transmission amplitudes of the double and four defect systems given in part I

$`G^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\mathrm{sin}^4B}{(\mathrm{cos}^2(2B)3)^2}},\mathrm{for}yr,`$ (41)
$`G^{\alpha _1\alpha _2\alpha _3\alpha _4}(r)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{cos}^8B}{4\pi [\mathrm{cos}^4B2(1+\mathrm{sin}^2B)^2]^2}},\mathrm{for}yr.`$ (42)
Also in this case the values for $`B=0.5`$, i.e., $`0.110784`$ and $`0.084311`$ for $`\mathrm{}=2`$ and $`\mathrm{}=4`$, respectively, match very well with the numerical analysis. Finally we have to explain the reason for the increase from one to the next plateaux and why the curves are shifted precisely in the way as indicated in figure 3(b) when we change the distance between the defects. This phenomenon is attributed to resonances, namely the existence of very sharp picks in the probability of transmission for two or more defects (see figure 1 in part I).

If we now compare the expressions (38)-(42) with equations (3.34; part I)-(3.42; part I), we find complete agreement. This observation constitutes the central result of this work. *We showed for a concrete integrable theory that the conductance computed by means of the newly formulated Kubo  formula incorporating the presence of defects, and by means of Landauer  formula are in perfect agreement.* More concrete examples of this agreement are provided in .

#### 2.2.3 The $`SU(3)_2`$ homogeneous sine-Gordon model, unstable particles

The $`SU(3)_2`$ homogeneous sine-Gordon (HSG) model is the simplest of its kind and contains only two self-conjugate solitons, which we denote by “+”, “$``$”, and one unstable particle, which we call $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. The corresponding scattering matrix was found  to be

$$S_{\pm \pm }=1,S_\pm (\theta )=\pm \mathrm{tanh}\frac{1}{2}\left(\theta \pm \sigma \frac{i\pi }{2}\right),$$
(43)
which means the resonance pole associated to the formation $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is situated at $`\theta _R=\sigma i\pi /2`$, $`\sigma `$ being a free parameter. Stable bound states may not be formed. Since only for $`S=\pm 1`$ simultaneous reflection and transmission can occur , the $`SU(3)_2`$-HSG model only admits the presence of purely reflecting or transmitting defects. For the purely reflecting case, the expression (21) vanishes so that the only non-trivial situation we can consider is a transparent defect, i.e. $`|T|=1`$. The results for the conductance after solving numerically the TBA equations (16) and (18) are depicted in figure 4. When solving (16) and (18) we have taken $`\mu _R=\mu _L=0.25.`$ However, according to the definition (24) we should really consider the limit $`\left(\mu _R\mu _L\right)0`$. The reason why we instead take $`\mu _R\mu _L=0.5`$ is that for this model we can of course not solve the TBA-equations analytically, as for the free Fermion. On the contrary, the numerics become fairly involved and they do not allow for considering the extreme limit $`\left(\mu _R\mu _L\right)0`$. However, we convinced ourselves that the results depicted in figure 4 reproduce indeed the correct behaviour of the conductance, since computing $`G(r)`$ in the deep ultraviolet limit for different values of $`\mu _R\mu _L`$ leads always to the same plateau structure. We observe a relatively sharp increase in $`G`$ for an

energy scale $`2\mathrm{log}r/2\sigma `$ which corresponds to the onset of the unstable particle. In other words, only when a certain energy scale necessary for the excitation of the unstable particle is reached, the latter is formed and participates in the conducting process. All this information is encoded in the density $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i)`$. Computing now $`\epsilon _i(\theta ,0,0)`$ in a standard TBA fashion we predict the plateaux from (29) analytically at $`1/2\pi `$ and $`2(1+\sqrt{5})/(5+\sqrt{5})\pi `$. The last plateau corresponds to the deep ultraviolet limit, whereas the plateau at $`1/2\pi `$ coincides with the value (37) for a free Fermion theory when taking $`e/h=`$ $`1/2\pi .`$ The reason is that the second plateau in figure 5 develops in the region when $`\sigma 2\mathrm{log}r/2`$, that is $`\sigma `$ very large. In that limit we have $`lim_\sigma \mathrm{}S_\pm (\theta )`$ $`=1`$, such that the model becomes a free Fermion theory.

#### 2.2.4 Resonances versus unstable particles

In the light of the results of subsections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3 we can draw the conclusion that resonances in a double defect system and the presence of unstable particles may be described similarly . Comparing figures 3(b) and 4, it is clear that the plateau structures encountered do not differ much from each other. In particular, it seems that the parameter $`y`$ in the double defect system and the resonance parameter $`\sigma `$ in the $`SU(3)_2`$-HSG model play similar roles. Let us investigate more precisely these similarities, which from an intuitive point of view appear rather natural.

In the context of theories possessing unstable particle in their spectra, a very clear picture which explains the relatively sharp onset of the conductance with increasing temperature can be provided. The temperature at which this onset occurs, say $`T_C`$ can be related directly to the energy scale at which the unstable particle is formed, since then it starts to participate in the conducting process. The Breit-Wigner formula  provides in this case the expressions for the mass $`M_{\stackrel{~}{c}}`$ and the decay width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{c}}`$ of the unstable particle $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Supposing that the particle $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ is formed in the scattering process between particles of types $`i`$ and $`j`$ of masses $`m_i,m_j,`$ this is reflected by a pole in $`S_{ij}(\theta )`$ at $`\theta _R=\sigma i\overline{\sigma }`$. Setting $`\overline{\sigma }=\pi /2`$, as corresponds to the model at hand, the Breit-Wigner formula for large values of the resonance parameter $`\sigma `$ gives

$$M_{\stackrel{~}{c}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sqrt{m_im_j}\mathrm{exp}|\sigma |/2\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\stackrel{~}{c}}\sqrt{2m_im_j}\mathrm{exp}|\sigma |/2.$$
(44)
Since a renormalization group flow is provided by mapping $`MrM`$, one observes that the quantity $`M_{\stackrel{~}{c}}(r,\sigma )=rM=re^{\sigma /2}`$ should remain invariant under the renormalization group flow. That means that if $`r_1`$ is the onset energy for the unstable particle $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ for $`\sigma =\sigma _1`$ and $`r_2`$ is the onset energy for $`\sigma =\sigma _2`$, the conductance must satisfy the following scaling law

$$G(r_1,\sigma _1)=G(r_2,\sigma _2)\mathrm{for}r_1e^{\sigma _1/2}=r_2e^{\sigma _2/2}.$$
(45)
This means we can control the position of the onset in the conductance by $`M_{\stackrel{~}{c}}(r,\sigma )`$.

Analyzing now the scaling behaviour of the conductance for the double defect system studied in subsection 2.2.2 we find

$$G(r_1,y_1)=G(r_2,y_2)\mathrm{for}\frac{r_1}{y_1}=\frac{r_2}{y_2},$$
(46)
Then the comparison with (45) suggests that we can formally relate the distance between the two defects to the resonance parameter as $`\sigma =2\mathrm{ln}(`$const$`/y)`$. However, despite the fact that the net result with regard to the conductance is the same, the origin of the onset is different. Whereas for the HSG-model it resulted from a change in the density distribution function $`\rho _i^r(\theta ,r,\mu _i)`$ it is now triggered by the structure of $`\left|T^\alpha \left(\theta \right)\right|.`$ Since for the free Fermion the function $`\rho _i^r`$ keeps its overall shape and just translates as the temperature is changed, the onset of the conductance occurs when the maxima of $`\left|T^\alpha \left(\theta \right)\right|`$ are reached. By analyzing the concrete expression of $`T^\alpha \left(\theta \right)`$ for the energy operator defect (see part I) it is easy to verify that for a double defect

$$T^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\theta =\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{(2n+1)\pi }{y}\right])1\mathrm{for}n.$$
(47)
Drawing an analogy to the scattering matrix of the HSG-model the values of $`\theta `$ for which $`T^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}(\theta )`$ is maximal play the same role as the value $`\theta _R=\sigma i\pi /2`$ corresponding to the resonance pole of the S-matrix. In that sense we can make the identification $`\sigma _n=\mathrm{ln}\left[(2n+1)\pi /y\right].`$ There are however some differences between both systems, since in the case of the $`SU(3)_2`$-HSG model the onset of the conductance is due to a single unstable particle, whereas for the double defect system the same effect can be attributed to several maxima of the transmission probability. The other important difference is that $`y`$ is now a measurable quantity, so that the “mass” of the resonances can be experimentally accessible.

#### 2.2.5 Multiple plateaux

Up to now, we have observed that we always obtain essentially two plateaux in the conductance, no matter how many ($`2`$) and what type of defects we implement. The natural

question arising at this point is whether it is possible to have a set up which leads to a more involved plateaux structure. It is clear that if we had many defects in a row separated far enough from each other such that the relaxation time of the passing particles is so large that they could be treated as single rather than multiple defects, then any desired type of multiple plateau structure could be obtained. In this case the conductance is simply the sum of the expressions one has for each defect independently. Recalling the origin of the different plateaux, there is another slightly less obvious option. The density distribution function $`\rho ^r`$ is a peaked function of the rapidity and if the resonances in $`T^\alpha \left(\theta \right)`$ would be separated far enough, such that they are resolved by $`\rho ^r`$, we would also get a multiple plateaux pattern. However, tuning the distance between the defects or the coupling constant will merely translate the position of the resonances in the rapidity variable or change their amplitudes, respectively (see section 2, part I). Therefore the last option left is to change the $`\rho ^r`$s, which is possible by varying the temperature. Choosing now a configuration as in figure 2 with different temperatures $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$, one can “create” a second plateau at half the height of the original one. The reason for this is simply that the cooled half of the wire will cease to contribute to the conductance as can be directly deduced from (35). We depict the results of our computations in figure 5. From this it also obvious that if we only cool the fraction $`x`$ of the wire, the lowest plateau will be positioned at the height $`x`$ times the height of the upper plateau. Thus, by combining these different configurations, i.e., different temperatures or defects, we could produce any desired plateau structure.

## 3 Conclusions and open problems

In this section I will present the main conclusions of my talk and also of part I, since the main aim of this work was actually to compare the two theoretical descriptions presented in the two parts. In our work we have exploited the special features of 1+1 dimensional integrable quantum field theories in order to compute the DC conductance in an impurity system. For this purpose several non-perturbative techniques have been used. As the main tools we employed the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz in a Landauer transport theory computation and the form factor expansion in the Kubo formula.

*The comparison between the Kubo formula (1.1; part I) and the Landauer formula (21) yields in particular an identical plateau structure for the DC conductance in the ultraviolet limit.*

We have explained to what extend integrability can be exploited in order to determine the reflection and transmission amplitudes through a defect. Unfortunately, for the most interesting situation in this context, namely when $`R/\stackrel{~}{R}`$ and $`T/\stackrel{~}{T}`$ are simultaneously non-vanishing, the Yang-Baxter bootstrap equations narrow down the possible bulk theories to those which possess rapidity independent scattering matrices . By means of a relativistic potential scattering theory we computed for several types of defects the $`R/\stackrel{~}{R}`$s and $`T/\stackrel{~}{T}`$s, thus enlarging the set of examples available at present. We confirm that for real potentials parity is preserved, but otherwise essentially all possible combinations of parity breaking can occur. From the knowledge of the single defect amplitudes the multiple defect amplitudes, which exhibit the most interesting physical behaviours, can be computed in a standard fashion .

We have newly proposed a Kubo formula  which accommodates the situation when defects are present (1.1; part I). We evaluated the current-current correlation functions occurring in there by means of a non-perturbative method based on integrability, namely the bootstrap form factor approach . We provide closed formulae which solve explicitly the defect recursive equations involving any arbitrary number of particles. We predict the plateaux in the conductance as a function of the temperature analytically.

We newly formulated the TBA equations for a defect with simultaneously non-vanishing reflection and transmission amplitudes. We indicate how these equations can be used to compute various thermodynamic quantities, which are, however, most interesting only when considered per unit length. By means of the TBA we compute the density distribution functions and use them to evaluate the Landauer conductance formula (21) for various defects in a complex free Fermionic theory. Also in this case, we predict analytically the most prominent features in the conductance as a function of the temperature, i.e. the plateaux.

There exist various investigations, e.g.,  for conformal (massless) theories with defects, which exploit the original folding idea of Wong and Affleck . The idea is that a conformal field theory with a *purely* transmitting or reflecting defect can be mapped into a boundary theory, i.e. a theory living in half space, which has the advantage that the full restriction of modular invariance can be exploited in the construction of boundary states as pioneered by Cardy . Apparently the folding procedure could lead to non-trivial solutions for the reflection and transmission amplitudes starting with a purely reflecting or transmitting theory. However, one should stress that the folding is carried out on the basis of the field content of the conformal field theory, whereas our analysis is based on a particle description, namely we take the ZF-algebra as our starting point. Therefore, the transmission and reflection amplitudes obtained by means of the folding technique can not be compared with the objects we study here, even in the conformal limit.

In this context, there are several interesting open issues. Most challenging is to treat in full generality the massive and temperature dependent case of (1.1; part I). Unfortunately, the formulation of non-perturbative methods does not yet cover that situation  and it remains to be clarified how the form factor bootstrap program for the computation of two-point functions can be extended to that case. It would be further interesting to compute thermodynamic quantities per unit length by means of the TBA and to develop methods for the systematic classification of integrable defects.

Proceeding further in our investigation of the applications of integrable models to the description of realistic physical systems, we have established that *coupling an impurity in a quantum wire to an external monochromatic electromagnetic field leads to high harmonic generation *. Harmonic generation i.e., the emission of multiples of the incoming frequency when a system is coupled to a monochromatic field, has been widely studied in the context of atomic physics. However, up to now there were no results for solid state materials. The concrete system we have studied is a quantum wire described by means of the Dirac equation doped with a defect which couples minimally to an external field of frequency $`\omega `$. Considering separately the situations corresponding to a single and a double defect system we observed that, for the particular type of defect treated, only even multiples of the incoming frequency are emitted for the single defect, whereas all even and odd multiples are generated for the double defect system. These features are observed both in the Fourier expansion of the transmission probability through the defect and in the emission spectrum of the dipole momentum. It would be extremely interesting to confirm our findings experimentally.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank the organizers of this workshop for the opportunity to present these talks, for financial support and for making the celebration of the $`50^{\mathrm{th}}`$ anniversary of the Instituto de Física Teórica (IFT) a very enjoyable and rewarding event. In addition, we would like to thank Carla Figueira de Morisson Faria (Max Born Institut Berlin) and Frank Göhmann (Universität Bayreuth) for their participation in  and , respectively. We are also grateful to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Sfb288) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# On Manifolds with trivial logarithmic tangent bundle

## 1. Introduction

By a classical result of Wang  a connected compact complex manifold $`X`$ has holomorphically trivial tangent bundle if and only if there is a connected complex Lie group $`G`$ and a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`X`$ is biholomorphic to the quotient manifold $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. In particular $`X`$ is homogeneous. If $`X`$ is Kähler, $`G`$ must be commutative and the quotient manifold $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a compact complex torus.

The purpose of this note is to generalize this result to the non-compact Kähler case. Evidently, for arbitrary non-compact complex manifold such a result can not hold. For instance, every domain over $`^n`$ has trivial tangent bundle, but many domains have no automorphisms.

So we consider the “open case” in the sense of Iitaka (), i.e. we consider manifolds which can be compactified by adding a divisor.

Following a suggestion of the referee, instead of only considering Kähler manifolds we consider manifolds in class $`𝒞`$ as introduced in . A compact complex manifold $`X`$ is said to be class in $`𝒞`$ if there is a surjective holomorphic map from a compact Kähler manifold onto $`X`$. Equivalently, $`X`$ is bimeromorphic to a Kähler manifold (). For example, every Moishezon manifold is in class $`𝒞`$.

We obtain the following characterization:

###### Main Theorem.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a connected compact complex manifold, $`D`$ a closed analytic subset and $`X=\overline{X}D`$. Assume that $`X`$ is in class $`𝒞`$ as introduced in  (also called “weakly Kähler”).

Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`D`$ is a divisor with only simple normal crossings as singularities and the logarithmic tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is a holomorphically trivial vector bundle on $`\overline{X}`$.
2. There is a complex semi-torus $`G`$ acting effectively on $`\overline{X}`$ with $`X`$ as open orbit such that the all the isotropy groups are themselves semi-tori.

Moreover, if one (hence both) of these conditions are fulfilled, then there is a short exact sequence of complex Lie groups

$$1(^{})^dGAlb(\overline{X})1$$

where $`Alb(\overline{X})`$ denotes the Albanese torus of $`\overline{X}`$ and $`d=dim(X)\frac{1}{2}b_1(X)`$.

In the algebraic category we have the following result.

###### Corollary 1.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a non-singular complete algebraic variety defined over $``$, $`D`$ a divisor with only simple normal crossings as singularities and let $`X=\overline{X}D`$.

Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. The logarithmic tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is a trivial vector bundle on $`\overline{X}`$.
2. There is a semi-abelian variety $`T`$ acting on $`\overline{X}`$ with $`X`$ as open orbit.

###### Corollary 2.

Let $`X`$ be a nonsingular algebraic variety defined over $``$.

Then the following are equivalent:

1. There exists a completion $`X\overline{X}`$ such that $`D=\overline{X}X`$ is a s.n.c. divisor and $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is trivial.
2. $`X`$ is isomorphic to a semi-abelian variety.

###### Proof.

This follows from the preceding result because every semi-abelian variety admits an equivariant completion by a s.n.c. divisor.

## 2. Terminology

A complex semi-torus $`G`$ is a connected complex Lie group which can be realized as a quotient of a vector group $`(^n,+)`$ by a discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generates $`^n`$ as complex vector space. Equivalently, a connected complex Lie group $`G`$ is a semi-torus if and only if there exists a short exist sequence of complex Lie groups

$$0LGT0$$

where $`T`$ is a compact complex torus and $`L(^{})^k`$ for some $`k`$.

A divisor $`D`$ on a complex manifold $`X`$ has only simple normal crossings as singularities if for every point $`xX`$ there exists local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_n`$ and a number $`k\{0,\mathrm{}n\}`$ such that in a neighbourhood of $`x`$ the divisor $`D`$ equals the zero divisor of the holomorphic function $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^kz_i`$. For a brevity, such a divisor is called a “s.n.c.” divisor.

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a compact complex manifold with s.n.c. divisor $`D`$. There is a stratification as follows: $`X_0=X=\overline{X}D`$, $`X_1=DSing(D)`$ and for $`k>1`$ the stratum $`X_k`$ is the non-singular part of $`Sing(\overline{X}_{k1})`$. If in local coordinates $`D`$ can be written as $`\{z:\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^dz_i=0\}`$, then $`z=(z_1,\mathrm{},z_n)X_k`$ iff $`\mathrm{\#}\{i:1id,z_i=0\}=k`$.

Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor on a complex manifold $`\overline{X}`$. Then the sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}D)`$ of logarithmic $`1`$-forms with respect to $`D`$ is defined as the $`𝒪_X`$-module subsheaf of the sheaf of meromorphic one-forms on $`\overline{X}`$ which is locally generated by all $`df/f`$ where $`f`$ is a section $`𝒪_{\overline{X}}𝒪_X^{}`$.

This sheaf is always coherent. It is locally free if $`D`$ is a s.n.c. divisor. In fact, if $`D=\{z_1\mathrm{}z_d=0\}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is locally the free $`𝒪_X`$-module over $`dz_1/z_1,\mathrm{},dz_d/z_d,dz_{d+1},\mathrm{},dz_n`$.

For a s.n.c. divisor $`D`$ on a complex manifold we define the logarithmic tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ as the dual bundle of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}D)`$.

Then $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ can be identified with the sheaf of those holomorphic vector fields $`V`$ on $`\overline{X}`$ which fulfill the following property:

$`V_x`$ is tangent to $`X_k`$ at $`x`$ for every $`k`$ and every $`xX_k`$.

In local coordinates: If $`D=\{z:\mathrm{\Pi }_{i=1}^dz_i=0\}`$, then $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is the locally free sheaf generated by the vector fields $`z_i\frac{}{z_i}`$ ($`1id`$) and $`\frac{}{z_i}`$ ($`d<in`$).

## 3. The Proof of the Main Theorem

###### Proof.

$`(1)(2):`$

Triviality of $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ implies that the sheaf of logarithmic one-forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is trivial as well.

Let $`V=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(\overline{X},\mathrm{log}D)`$ and $`V^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{X},T(\mathrm{log}D))`$. By , every logarithmic one-form $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(\overline{X},\mathrm{log}D)`$ is closed if $`X`$ is Kähler. For an arbitrary manifold $`X`$ in class $`𝒞`$ there is always a holomorphic surjective bimeromorphic map $`p:X^{}\overline{X}`$ from some compact Kähler manifold $`X^{}`$. Moreover, by blowing-up $`X^{}`$ if necessary, we may assume that $`p^1(D)`$ is a s.n.c divisor on $`X^{}`$. Now the aforementioned result for Kähler manifolds implies that $`d(p^{}\omega )=0`$ for every $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }^1(\overline{X},\mathrm{log}D)`$. Since $`p`$ is biholomorphic on some open subset, we obtain $`d\omega =0`$. Therefore closedness of logarithmic one-forms holds not only for Kähler compact complex manifolds, it holds for all manifolds in class $`𝒞`$.

Thus

$$0=d\omega (x,y)=x(\omega (y))y(\omega (x))\omega ([x,y])$$

for $`\omega V`$, $`x,yV^{}`$. Now $`\omega (y)`$ and $`\omega (x)`$ are global holomorphic functions on a compact manifold and therefore constant. Hence $`x(\omega (y))=0=y(\omega (x))`$. It follows that $`\omega ([x,y])=0`$ for all $`\omega V`$, $`x,yV^{}`$. Thus $`V^{}`$ is a commutative Lie algebra of holomorphic vector fields on $`\overline{X}`$. Let $`GAut(\overline{X})`$ denote the subgroup generated by the one-parameter groups corresponding to vector fields $`vV^{}`$. Recall that the sections in $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ can be regarded as the vector fields which are tangent to $`X_k`$ at every $`xX_k`$ for all $`k`$. It follows that the $`G`$-orbits in $`\overline{X}`$ are precisely the connected components of the strata $`X_k`$. In particular $`G`$ has an open orbit, namely $`X=X_0=\overline{X}D`$. Furthermore the closed orbits of $`G`$ are the connected components of the unique closed stratum $`X_d`$ where $`d`$ is the largest natural number with $`X_d\mathrm{}`$.

The existence of an open orbit implies that $`G`$ acts transitively on the Albanese torus $`Alb(\overline{X})`$. Therefore, all the fibers of $`\overline{X}Alb(\overline{X})`$ are isomorphic. Let $`\overline{X}YAlb(\overline{X})`$ be the Stein factorization. Since the Stein factorization is canonical, it is compatible with the $`Aut(\overline{X})`$-action. For this reason $`YAlb(X)`$ is a finite holomorphic map of $`G`$-spaces. Hence $`G`$ acts transitively on $`Y`$. It follows that $`Y`$ is a compact complex space which is a quotient of a connected commutative complex Lie group, in other words, $`Y`$ must be a compact complex torus. By the universality property of the Albanese torus this implies $`Y=Alb(\overline{X})`$.

Thus the fibers of $`\overline{\rho }:\overline{X}Alb(\overline{X})`$ are connected. Let $`H`$ be the kernel of $`GAlb(\overline{X})`$. Recall that $`G`$ is commutative. It follows that the $`H`$-orbits in $`\overline{X}`$ are precisely the intersections of $`G`$-orbits in $`\overline{X}`$ with fibers of the map $`\overline{\rho }:\overline{X}Alb(\overline{X})`$. Moreover, $`H`$ acts freely on an open orbit in each fiber of $`\overline{\rho }`$. This implies that $`H`$ is connected.

Now let $`Z`$ be a closed $`G`$-orbit (i.e. a connected component of the smallest stratum $`X_d`$). Then the fibers of $`\overline{\rho }|_Z`$ are closed $`H`$-orbits.

If $`\overline{X}`$ is Kähler, a result of Sommese (, prop. 1) implies that closed orbits of $`H`$ are fixed points. Due to Fujiki () the same assertion holds for an arbitrary manifold $`\overline{X}`$ in class $`𝒞`$.

It follows that $`\overline{\rho }|_Z:ZAlb(\overline{X})`$ is biholomorphic.

For each irreducible component $`D_i`$ of $`D`$ and each $`\omega V`$ we may regard the residue $`res_i(\omega )`$. This residue is given as integral of $`\omega `$ over a small loop around $`D_i`$. A priori, it is a holomorphic function on $`D_i`$. But, since $`D_i`$ is compact, this holomorphic function is constant (Alternatively, one may also use a calculation in local coordinates which shows that $`d\omega =0`$ forces $`res_i(\omega )`$ to be locally constant).

Let $`n=dim\overline{X}`$ and $`g=dimAlb(\overline{X})`$.

Fix $`pZ`$. Near $`p`$, $`Z`$ is the intersection of $`d=ng`$ irreducible components $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_d`$ of $`D`$. We choose a basis $`(\omega _1,\mathrm{},\omega _n)`$ of $`V`$ such that

$$res_i(\omega _j)_p=\{\begin{array}{cc}2\pi i\hfill & \text{ if }i=jd,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ if }ij\text{ or }j>d\hfill \end{array}$$

Now we choose a point $`qX`$ near $`p`$ and define local coordinates $`z_i`$ near $`p`$ via

$$z_i(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}\left(_q^x\omega _i\right)\hfill & \text{ if }id,\hfill \\ _p^x\omega _i\hfill & \text{ if }i>d\hfill \end{array}$$

Then in these local coordinates we can describe the $`\omega _i`$ as follows:

$$\omega _i=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{dz_i}{z_i}\hfill & \text{if }id\hfill \\ dz_i\hfill & \text{ if }i>d\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that there is a biholomorphic map from a neighbourhood of $`p`$ to a neighbourhood of $`0`$ in $`^n`$ taking the fundamental vector fields of $`Lie(H)`$ into vector fields of the form $`_{id}a_iw_i\frac{}{w_i}`$. This implies in particular that $`H`$ contains a totally real compact subgroup $`K=(S^1)^d`$ acting as

$$K(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _d):z(\theta _1z_1,\mathrm{},\theta _dz_d,z_{d+1},\mathrm{},z_n)$$

Thus $`H`$ is a connected commutative complex Lie group of dimension $`d`$ containing a totally real compact subgroup of real dimension $`d`$. It follows that $`H`$ is a complex semi-torus. On the other hand, the above description of the $`H`$-vector fields in local coordinates also implies that $`H`$ admits an almost faithful representation on the tangent space of each fixed point of $`H`$. Therefore $`H`$ is a semi-torus of dimension $`d`$ which admits an almost faithful representation. It follows that $`H`$ must be isomorphic to $`(^{})^d`$.

As a consequence we obtain that $`G`$ admits a short exact sequence of complex Lie groups in the form

$$1(^{})^dGAlb(\overline{X})1$$

Thus $`G`$ is a semi-torus as well.

$`(1)(2):`$

Let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_n`$ be a basis for the vector space of $`G`$-fundamental vector fields on $`\overline{X}`$. The complement $`D=\overline{X}X`$ of the open orbit $`X`$ can be characterized as the set of those points where the vector fields $`v_i`$ fail to span the tangent bundle $`T_{\overline{X}}`$. Thus $`D`$ is defined by the vanishing of

$$w=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{i=1}^nv_i\mathrm{\Gamma }(\overline{X},\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT_{\overline{X}})$$

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^nT_{\overline{X}}`$ is a line bundle, it is clear that $`D`$ is of pure codimension one.

Now let $`psuppD`$ and $`G_p=\{aG:a(p)=p\}`$. By assumption, $`G_p`$ is a semi-torus and therefore reductive. This implies that the $`G_p`$-action can be linearized near $`p`$, i.e. there is an $`G_p`$-equivariant biholomorphism between an open neighbourhood of $`p`$ in $`\overline{X}`$ and an open neighbourhood of $`0`$ in the vector space $`W=T_p\overline{X}`$. It follows that a neighbourhood of $`p`$ in $`D`$ is isomorphic to a union of vector subspaces of codimension one in $`W`$. From the assumption that the $`G_p`$-action is effective, one can deduce that this is a transversal union, i.e. $`D`$ is a simple normal crossings divisor near $`p`$.

Recall that the isotropy groups are required to be semi-tori. In particular, they are reductive. Therefore the action of every isotropy subgroup is linearizable in some open neighbourhood. This implies that for every point on $`\overline{X}`$ we can find a system of local coordinates in which the $`G`$-fundamental vector fields are simply

$$\frac{}{z_1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{z_d},z_{d+1}\frac{}{z_{k+1}},\mathrm{},z_n\frac{}{z_n},$$

where $`d`$ equals the co dimension of the isotropy group. Hence we have

$$𝐓(\overline{X},D)\overline{X}\times LieG.$$

###### Remark 1.

In the proof for the direction “$`(1)(2)`$” we did not employ the Kähler assumption. Therefore this part of the theorem is valid even without requiring $`X`$ to be Kähler.

## 4. Examples

### 4.1. Toric varieties

The easiest examples of equivariant compactifications of $`(^{})^d`$ with trivial logarithmic tangent bundles are $`_d()`$ and $`_1()^d`$. More examples are obtained from the theory of toric varieties, see e.g. ,.

Now let $`A`$ be a complex semi-torus admitting a short exact sequence

(1)
$$1(^{})^dAT1$$

where $`T`$ is a compact complex torus. Let $`L\overline{L}`$ be a smooth equivariant compactification of $`L=(^{})^d`$. Then a smooth equivariant compactification of $`A`$ can be constructed as a fiber product: $`\overline{A}=(A\times \overline{L})/`$ where $`(a,x)(a^{},x^{})`$ iff there exists an element $`gL`$ such that $`ag^1=a^{}`$ and $`gx=x^{}`$.

This construction preserves the Kähler condition:

###### Lemma.

If $`\overline{L}`$ is Kähler, then $`\overline{A}`$ is Kähler, too.

###### Proof.

The fiber bundle $`(\text{1})`$ is given by locally constant transition functions with values in the maximal compact subgroup $`K`$ of $`L`$, acting by multiplication. By averaging we may assume that the Kähler metric on $`\overline{L}`$ is $`K`$-equivariant. Thus the associated Kähler form $`\omega _1`$ induces a closed semi-positive $`(1,1)`$-form on $`\overline{A}`$ such that the restriction to the tangent bundle of any fiber is positive. Taking sum of this $`(1,1)`$-form and the pull-back of a Kähler form on $`T`$ yields a Kähler form on $`\overline{A}`$.

(This is a special case of a general result of Blanchard  which implies that for any holomorphic fiber bundle of compact complex manifolds $`EB`$ with typical fiber $`F`$ and $`b_1(F)=0`$ the Kähler property for both $`B`$ and $`F`$ implies the Kähler property for $`E`$.)

In this way we see that every semi-torus admits a smooth equivariant Kähler compactification. On the other hand, our main theorem implies that every smooth equivariant Kähler compactification of a semi-torus arises in this way.

In contrast, non-Kähler compactifications may arise in many ways, see e.g.  and the examples given further below in this article.

### 4.2. Non-Kähler examples

If $`X`$ is a compact complex manifold with trivial tangent bundle, and $`G`$ the connected component of its automorphism group, then $`X`$ is Kähler if and only if $`G`$ is commutative.

In the logarithmic case, there is such a conclusion only in one direction: If $`X`$ is a compact complex manifold with s.n.c. divisor $`D`$ such that $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is trivial, then the Kähler assumption implies that the connected component of $`Aut(X,D)`$ is commutative. On the other hand the commutativity does not imply the Kähler property as we will see by the example given below.

Let $`\alpha ,\beta `$ with $`|\alpha |,|\beta |>1`$. We define a $``$-action on $`^2\{(0,0)\}`$ by

$$(z_1,z_2)(\alpha ^nz_1,\beta ^nz_2)$$

Then the quotient of $`^2\{(0,0)\}`$ by this $``$-action is a so-called Hopf surface. Such a Hopf surface $`\overline{X}`$ is diffeomorphic to $`S^1\times S^3`$. In particular $`dimH^1(\overline{X},)`$ is odd and therefore $`\overline{X}`$ can not be Kähler.

Now let $`T`$ be the quotient of $`^{}\times ^{}`$ by the subgroup

$$\{(\alpha ^n,\beta ^n):n\}.$$

Then $`T`$ is a complex semi-torus and $`\overline{X}`$ is an equivariant compactification of $`T`$. The isotropy groups at the two non-open orbits are isomorphic to $`^{}`$.

Thus all the isotropy groups are semi-tori and consequently the logarithmic tangent bundle is trivial (see Remark 1).

### 4.3. The noncommutative case

Let $`\overline{X}`$ be a non-Kähler compact complex manifold with s.n.c. divisor $`D`$ such that $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ is trivial.

In this case it is still true that there is a connected complex Lie group $`G`$ with $`dim(G)=dim(\overline{X})`$ acting on $`\overline{X}`$ with $`X=\overline{X}D`$ as open orbit. However, $`G`$ might be non-commutative and the $`G`$-action on the open orbit is only almost free, i.e., the isotropy group at a point of the open orbit is not necessarily trivial, but at least discrete.

The easiest such examples, with $`D=\mathrm{}`$, are obtained by considering discrete subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in connected complex Lie groups with compact quotient $`G/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. By a result of Borel (see ) every semisimple Lie group contains such a “cocompact” discrete subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Such complex quotients have been studied in .

Next let us give an example with $`D\mathrm{}`$. Recall that $`SL_2()`$ contains discrete cocompact subgroups $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`b_1(Y)>0`$ for $`Y=SL_2()/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (see ). Then $`H^1(Y,𝒪)`$ is a vector space of positive dimension equal to $`b_1(Y)>0`$ and the induced action of $`SL_2()`$ on $`H^1(Y,𝒪)`$ is trivial (see ). For any $`\alpha H^1(Y,𝒪)`$ let $`\alpha ^{}`$ denote the image via

$$\mathrm{exp}:H^1(Y,𝒪)H^1(Y,𝒪^{}).$$

Then $`\alpha ^{}`$ defines a topologically trivial $`^{}`$-principal bundle. Since the $`SL_2()`$-action on $`H^1(Y,𝒪)`$ is trivial, this is a homogeneous bundle. If $`G`$ denotes the connected component of the group of $`^{}`$-principal bundle automorphisms, we thus obtain a short exact sequence

$$1^{}GSL_2()1.$$

Such a sequence is necessary split. Hence $`G^{}\times SL_2()`$. Now consider the compactification $`\overline{X}`$ of the total space $`X`$ of this bundle given by adding a $`0`$\- and a $`\mathrm{}section`$. Then $`\overline{X}`$ has a trivial logarithmic tangent bundle $`T(\mathrm{log}D)`$ for $`D=\overline{X}X`$ and $`G`$ acts on $`\overline{X}`$ with $`X`$ as open orbit.

### 4.4. The condition on the isotropy groups

Next we present an example to show that the condition on the isotropy groups in property $`(2)`$ in the Main theorem can not be dropped.

To see this, we first note that a complex-analytic semi-torus may contain closed complex Lie subgroups which are not semi-tori. The easiest such example is obtained as follows: Embedd the additive group (which is not a semi-torus) into the semi-torus $`^{}\times ^{}`$ via

$$t\stackrel{f}{}(e^t,e^{it})^{}\times ^{}$$

To verify that the image is indeed a closed subgroup, consider its pre-image in the universal covering of $`^{}\times ^{}`$. If we realize the universal covering by $`\pi :(z_1,z_2)(e^{z_1},e^{z_2})`$, then

$$\pi ^1(f())=\{(t,it):t\}+(2\pi i)^2=\{(z_1,z_2):\frac{z_2iz_1}{2\pi i}[i]\}.$$

Hence $`f()`$ is closed and $`(^{}\times ^{})/f()(/[i])`$. In this way the complex manifold $`X=^{}\times ^{}`$ can be realized as a $``$-principal bundle over the elliptic curve $`E=/[i]`$. The embedding $`_1()`$ induces a compactification $`\overline{X}`$ of $`X`$ by adding a $`\mathrm{}`$-section to the $``$-principal bundle $`XE`$. Thus we obtain an equivariant compactification where the isotropy group for a point at $`\overline{X}X`$ is isomorphic to $`(,+)`$ and therefore not a semi-torus. If we now look at the vector field corresponding to this action of the additive group $`(,+)`$, we see that it vanishes of order two at the $`\mathrm{}`$-section. This implies that, regarded as a section in the logarithmic tangent bundle, it does vanish at the $`\mathrm{}`$-section with multiplicity one. In particular, the logarithmic tangent bundle admits a holomorphic section which vanishes somewhere, but not everywhere. Hence the logarithmic tangent bundle can not be trivial.

###### Remark 2.

This example was first used by Serre for an entirely different purpose: Via GAGA the $``$-principal bundle over $`E`$ is algebraic. In this way one obtains an exotic algebraic structure on the complex manifold $`^{}\times ^{}`$. This yields an example of an algebraic variety which is not affine (in fact every regular function is constant), although it is Stein as a complex manifold.

## 5. An Application

Let $`U\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a family of projective manifolds. By our characterization of log-parallelizable manifolds we obtain an easy proof that the set of all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which $`U_t`$ is an equivariant compactification of a semi-abelian variety forms a constructible subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proposition.

Let $`\pi :U\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a smooth proper connected surjective map between Kähler complex manifolds and let $`D`$ be a hypersurface on $`U`$ which does not contain any fiber of $`\pi `$.

Let $`S`$ denote the set of all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which the fiber $`U_t=\pi ^1(\{t\})`$ is a equivariant compactification of a semi-abelian variety with $`U_tD`$ as open orbit.

Then $`S`$ is constructible, i.e., there is a finite family of pairs of closed analytic subsets $`Y_iZ_i\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`S=_iZ_iY_i`$.

###### Proof.

By our theorem, $`S`$ coincides with the set of all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with the property that $`\pi ^1(p)D`$ is a s.n.c. divisor and furthermore the logarithmic tangent bundle is trivial.

The fiber dimension $`dim_x(\pi ^1(\pi (x)))`$ is Zariski semicontinuous, because $`\pi `$ is proper. Hence there is no loss in generality in assuming that the fiber dimension is constant. Let $`r`$ denote this fiber dimension. Then for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the number of irreducible components of $`\pi ^1(p)D`$ equals $`dimH^{2r2}(\pi ^1(p)D,)`$. Using the resolution of the sheaf of local constant functions $`\underset{¯}{}`$ by coherent sheaves via the holomorphic de Rham complex

$$0\underset{¯}{}𝒪\mathrm{\Omega }^1\mathrm{}$$

combined with the semicontinuity results for coherent sheaves it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ decomposes as a finite union of constructible sets along which the number of irreducible components of $`\pi ^1(p)D`$ is constant.

Now a divisor with $`m`$ irreducible components in a compact complex manifold $`F`$ is a s.n.c. divisor iff all the irreducible components are smooth and meet transversally. These are Zariski open conditions (as long as the number of irreducible components does not jump).

Put together, these arguments show that the set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of all $`t\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for which the fiber $`\pi ^1(p)D`$ is a s.n.c. divisor constitutes a constructible subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Thus there is no loss of generality in assuming that $`\pi ^1(p)D`$ is always a s.n.c. divisor.

Let $`E`$ denote the bundle of logarithmic vertical vector fields. Then $`E`$ is a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ where $`r=dim(U)dim(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. By our main theorem $`tS`$ iff $`E|_{U_t}`$ is holomorphically trivial. By the semi-continuity theorem

$$Z=\{t\mathrm{\Delta }:dim\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_t,E|_{U_t})r\}$$

is a closed analytic subset of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\{t\mathrm{\Delta }:dim\mathrm{\Gamma }(U_t,E|_{U_t})=r\}$$

is Zariski open in $`Z`$. Moreover, for $`t\mathrm{\Omega }`$ every section of $`E|_{U_t}`$ extends to some neighbourhood of $`U_t`$ in $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Thus the set $`W`$ of all points in $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ where the sections of $`E|_{U_t}`$ fail to span $`E|_{U_t}`$ is a closed analytic subset. Since $`\pi `$ is proper, $`S=\mathrm{\Omega }\pi (W)`$ is Zariski open in $`Z`$.


text:
# Increasing d-wave superconductivity by on site repulsion

(27 September 2002)

## Abstract

We study by Variational Monte Carlo an extended Hubbard model away from half filled band density which contains two competing nearest-neighbor interactions: a superexchange $`J`$ favoring $`d`$-wave superconductivity and a repulsion $`V`$ opposing against it. We find that the on-site repulsion $`U`$ effectively enhances the strength of $`J`$ meanwhile suppressing that of $`V`$, thus favoring superconductivity. This result shows that attractions which do not involve charge fluctuations are very well equipped against strong electron-electron repulsion so much to get advantage from it.

The interplay between strong correlation and superconductivity is one of the major problems raised by the discovery of cuprate High-Tc materials.

Indeed, within the conventional BCS theory for phonon-mediated weak coupling superconductivity, a strong electron-electron short range repulsion, parametrized by an Hubbard $`U`$, can only depress Tc. Landau Fermi liquid theory identifies two main sources for this reduction; namely, as $`U`$ increases, the quasiparticle wave function renormalization $`Z1`$ diminishes, meanwhile the effective mass $`m_{}`$ increases. Thus each interaction amplitude, including the phonon-mediated attraction $`g`$, acquires a renormalization factor $`Z^2`$ times a vertex renormalization. If the latter is negligible, the bare amplitude is reduced to $`g_{}=Z^2g`$. Therefore, as $`U`$ increases, the dimensionless coupling which parametrizes the bare attraction, $`\lambda _0=\rho _0|g|`$, being $`\rho _0`$ the uncorrelated density of states at the Fermi level, is renormalized into

$$\lambda _{}=\rho _{}|g_{}|=Z^2\frac{m_{}}{m}\lambda _0<\lambda _0,$$

being usually $`Zm/m_{}`$. On the other hand the Coulomb pseudopotential $`\mu _{}`$ increases, so that $`\lambda _{}\mu _{}`$ diminishes even more pushing Tc down.

By solving a model for alkali doped fullerenes within dynamical mean field theory, it has been recently arguedCapone  that there exist attractive channels for which vertex corrections may compensate the wave-function renormalization factor leading to

$$\lambda _0\frac{m_{}}{m}\lambda _0>\lambda _0,$$

which may indeed lead to an enhancement of Tc by increasing $`U`$. The main ingredient was identified into a pairing mechanism not involving the charge density operator, which is mostly subject to the renormalization induced by $`U`$, but other internal degrees of freedom, like the spin (or the orbital index, if orbital degeneracy is present), unveiling a kind of spin-charge separation even within Landau Fermi liquid theory.

This proposal is not far in spirit from the original Resonating Valence Bond (RVB) scenario for High-Tc superconductivity in the $`t`$-$`J`$ modelPWA . There superconductivity occurs naturally upon doping since the parent insulating state is well described by an RVB state: the spin-singlet valence-bond pairs naturally evolve into Cooper pairs. They can propagate around the lattice only through the empty sites left behind by the holes. This constraint easily explains a superfluid density proportional to the hole doping. Moreover, although at small doping superconductivity is suppressed, the energy scale associated to the binding energy of the valence-bond pairs remains finite, which is advocated to explain the experimentally observed pseudogap phase of High-Tc materialsRanderia ; Sandro .

Within the Fermi liquid framework, the constraint of no double occupancy appears to renormalize the quasiparticle hopping to a value $`Zt2\delta t`$, $`\delta `$ being the doping, while leaving untouched the quasiparticle attraction, here provided by the superexchange $`J`$. The superconducting phase of the $`t`$-$`J`$ model can be approached either from the half-filled antiferromagnetic Mott insulator upon increasing doping or at finite doping by decreasing temperature. In both cases, even though the $`T=0`$ superconductor might still be described in terms of Landau-Bogoliubov quasiparticles, in the RVB language spinon-holon confined objects, the relevant excitations above Tc or in the close vicinity to the half-filled antiferromagnet do not necessarily look as conventional quasiparticles.

For this reason, in this work we shall try to understand whether this strongly correlated $`d`$-wave superconductor can be approached at zero temperature starting from a weakly correlated regime, where standard many-body techniques and the well established Landau Fermi liquid theory should apply.

We consider an extended Hubbard model in two-dimensions for the average number of electrons per site $`1\delta <1`$, namely away from half-filling,

$`\widehat{H}`$ $`=`$ $`t{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma }{}}(c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}+H.c.)+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}n_in_i`$ (1)
$`+J{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\left(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}n_in_j\right)+V{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}n_in_j,`$
where, in addition to the on-site repulsion, we add a nearest neighbor spin-exchange and a charge-repulsion term, with strengths $`J`$ and $`V`$, respectively. These nearest-neighbor interactions compete, $`J`$ favoring a $`d`$-wave singlet pairing away from half-filling while $`V`$ opposing against it. For $`V=0`$ and $`U`$ strictly equal to $`\mathrm{}`$, (1) reduces to the standard $`t`$-$`J`$ model, which also corresponds to the large $`U`$ limit of the pure Hubbard model, in which case $`J4t^2/U`$. However, contrary to the latter, model (1) for $`J>V`$ is undoubtedly a $`d`$-wave superconductor at weak coupling ($`U`$, $`V`$ and $`J`$ all much smaller than $`t`$) also within the Hartree-Fock approximation. For this reason model (1) is more suitable to address the issue of electron-electron correlation effects on $`d`$-wave superconductivity. Moreover, since $`V`$ involves charge-density while $`J`$ spin-density operators, the presence of both gives the opportunity to test if $`U`$ indeed induces different renormalization factors on charge with respect to spin vertices.

A variational approach which was shown to correctly reproduce both the weak shiba  and the strong Sorella  coupling limits of the Hubbard model appears well suited for model (1) too. It consists in searching by a variational Monte Carlo (VMC) technique for the best wave function of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=A\widehat{P}_\mathrm{N}\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{Jastrow}}\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}$$
(2)
where $`A`$ is a normalization factor, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}`$ a BCS wave-function notesdw  projected by $`\widehat{P}_\mathrm{N}`$ onto a fixed number of particles, with a $`d`$-wave gap-function $`\mathrm{\Delta }_k=\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}(\mathrm{cos}k_x\mathrm{cos}k_y)`$, being $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ a variational parameter. $`\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}`$ is a Gutzwiller projector:

$$\widehat{P}_\mathrm{G}=\underset{n}{}\left(1\alpha _0n_{n,}n_{n,}\right),$$
(3)
whereas $`\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{Jastrow}}`$ a long-range Jastrow factor which enforces the correct long-wavelength behavior of the density structure factor:

$$\widehat{P}_{\mathrm{Jastrow}}=e^{\alpha _1_{<ij>}n_in_j\alpha _2_{<<ij>>}n_in_j\mathrm{}},$$
(4)
where ”$`\mathrm{}`$” stands for the summation over next, next-next, etc. nearest neighbor sites (i.e. all those possible on a finite size sample).

The method is based on the Stochastic Reconfiguration (SR) technique Sorella , which allows to minimize the energy of a variational wave function containing even a large number of parameters.

To get further insight from the numerics, we compare the results with those obtained by the Gutzwiller Approximation (GA) gutz ; gebh  for the variational wave-function without both the long-range Jastrow factor and the projector onto a fixed number of particles.

In Fig. 1 we plot the variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ as a function of $`U`$ for $`J=0.2t`$, $`\delta =0.16`$ and for different values of $`V`$. For $`J>V`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ starts finite at $`U=0`$ and increases with $`U`$. For $`V>J`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}=0`$ at small $`U`$, in agreement with the Hartree-Fock results. More remarkably above a critical $`U_c`$ a finite $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ appears. Namely, the normal metal at $`V>J`$ turns into a superconductor by increasing the on-site repulsion. Both results can be explained within the Fermi liquid picture provided by the Gutzwiller approximation, according to which the effective $`J_{}`$ acting between the quasiparticles stays essentially unrenormalized when $`U`$ increases, contrary to the effective $`V_{}`$, which is substantially suppressed with respect to its bare value $`V`$. Therefore, as $`U`$ increases for $`J>V`$, the quasiparticle bandwidth gets reduced, the attraction staying unrenormalized, so that the dimensionless coupling $`\lambda _{}`$ increases, hence $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$. If $`J<V`$, a normal metal is stable until $`V_{}>J_{}J`$, after which superconductivity gets in. In our numerical study we have found that the inclusion of the long range Jastrow factor (4) considerably improves the simpler Gutzwiller wave function and allows larger values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$. However, as shown in Fig. 1b the qualitative behavior of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ vs. $`U`$ is reproduced already by GA.

Within the GA it is possible to study explicitly the competing influence of both $`J`$ and $`V`$ on superconductivity. Let us consider the superconducting contributions to the uncorrelated expectation values for nearest neighbor sites $`i`$ and $`j`$,

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}|n_in_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}_{SC}`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}^2`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}|\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}_{SC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}^2,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}=|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}|c_{i\sigma }^{}c_{j\sigma }^{}|\mathrm{\Psi }_{BCS}|`$ is the order parameter of the uncorrelated wave function. In the case of Eq.(5), this term derives from configurations in which $`i`$ and $`j`$ are both singly occupied, both doubly occupied or one singly and the other doubly occupied, with weights $`\delta ^2`$, $`(1\delta )^2`$ and $`2\delta (1\delta )`$, respectively, where $`\delta `$ is the doping. On the contrary, Eq.(6) has contribution only by configurations where both sites are singly occupied. In the limit of very large $`U`$, the configurations with doubly occupied sites are projected out, hence only the contributions from singly occupied sites survive in Eqs. (5) and (6). This implies that (5) gets a reduction factor $`\delta ^2`$ relatively to (6), so that the actual condition for superconductivity at $`U\mathrm{}`$ reads approximately

$$\frac{3}{4}J>\delta ^2\left(V\frac{1}{4}J\right).$$

Since, in the same limit, the wave function renormalization $`Z2\delta `$, we indeed recover the desired Fermi liquid result that interactions involving the charge density operators get renormalized down by a factor $`Z^2`$ with respect to those involving spin operators. The above discussion also shows that not all the pairing mechanisms are equally equipped against on-site repulsion. Indeed a weak coupling $`d`$-wave superconductivity might be stabilized even by a negative $`V`$ at $`J=0`$: an explicit attraction between charges. However, for increasing $`U`$, the effective strength of this attraction would decrease as $`Z^2`$ so that $`\lambda _{}Z\lambda _0`$, hence $`T_c`$ would go down.

The behavior of the variational gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ as shown in Fig. 1 suggests a crossover from weak to strong coupling superconductivity as $`U`$ increases. This is manifest by comparing Fig. 2a with Fig. 2b. In the latter the variational energy gap is displayed for several $`U`$’s, while in the former we plot the true long range order parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LRO}`$ in the correlated wave function. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LRO}`$ is estimated on a finite cluster through the pair-pair correlation function $`f`$ as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{LRO}=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{ff_{\mathrm{norm}}},$$

where

$$f\underset{\sigma ,\sigma ^{}}{}<c_{\stackrel{}{x},\sigma }^{}c_{\stackrel{}{x}\pm \stackrel{}{1},\sigma }^{}c_{\stackrel{}{y}\pm \stackrel{}{1},\sigma ^{}}^{}c_{\stackrel{}{y},\sigma ^{}}^{}>,$$
(7)
being evaluated near to the maximum distance $`|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}|`$ available on a given size. Notice that $`f`$ includes normal contributions $`f_{norm}`$, which nevertheless vanish in the infinite size limit. In order to improve the quality of any finite size analysis, one should estimate $`f_{norm}`$ to get a meaningful value of the true long range order parameter. We decided to approximate $`f_{norm}`$ by the value of $`f`$ calculated with the optimized wave function having the same form (2) with the variational parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ equal to zero (see inset Fig.2a). After this subtraction, size effects are acceptable, at least for our qualitative analysis (see Fig.2a).

The crossover region where the gap $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{var}`$ rapidly moves from small BCS-like values to much larger values corresponds to a maximum of the true order parameter, as one would expect in the intermediate region between weak to strong coupling superconductivity. The notably difference with the latter is that in our model the crossover does not occur by varying the bare attraction $`\lambda `$, but by increasing the repulsion $`U`$.

The different behavior of the variational gap with respect to the true order parameter, which has been associated with the behavior of the pseudogap versus Tc in the cupratesSandro ; Randeria , has a clear explanation within the GA, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{LRO}`$ is suppressed by the factor $`Z`$ with respect to the uncorrelated $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{SC}`$. Indeed, as shown in Fig. 3a, the quasiparticle residue $`Z`$, defined as the jump in the momentum distribution function along the nodal directions, is a decreasing function of $`U`$ tending to $`Z2\delta `$ as $`U\mathrm{}`$.

However, as shown in Fig. 3b, $`Z`$ is not the reduction factor of the full quasiparticle bandwidth, which gets contributions also from $`J`$ and $`V`$. Again, this is an obvious result in the GA where the Hartree-Fock decoupling of the nearest neighbor interactions effectively generate hopping terms. In spite of that, the charge current vertex is still determined by the true hopping $`t`$, hence gets suppressed by a factor $`Z2\delta `$. On the contrary, spin current vertex does include a contribution from $`J`$ and survives against the strong wave function renormalization $`Z`$.

In conclusion, we have shown that strong short range correlations enhance or suppress pairing correlations if they primarily involve spin or charge degrees of freedom, respectively. This behavior is manifest at strong $`U`$, in agreement with slave boson approachesLee  and numerical calculationsGros ; Sandro ; Randeria , but starts to appear already at weak coupling. Indeed, a recent calculation within the Random Phase ApproximationPlekhanov  shows that the $`d`$-wave superconducting phase of model (1) at $`V=0`$ gains more exchange-correlation energy than a normal metal, thus supporting the results here obtained by variational Monte Carlo.

Note added. When this work was completed we became aware of a preprint by F.C. Zhang Zhang  which considers the Hamiltonian (1) with $`V=0`$ within the GA, in the context of the gossamer superconductivity scenario recently proposed by R. Laughlin Laughlin . The results of Ref. Zhang  qualitatively agrees with our VMC data.

This work was partially supported by MIUR COFIN-2001 and PRA MALODI.