1: %\documentstyle[12pt,epsf]{article}

2: 

3: \documentclass[12pt]{article}

4: % Equation numbering by sections

5: \usepackage{eqsection,amsfonts}

6: \usepackage{latexsym,epsf,cite}

7: 

8: % pagination

9: 

10: \footnotesep 14pt

11: \floatsep 27pt plus 2pt minus 4pt      % Nominal is double what is in art12.sty

12: \textfloatsep 40pt plus 2pt minus 4pt

13: \intextsep 27pt plus 4pt minus 4pt

14:  

15: % Somewhat wider and taller page than in art12.sty

16: \topmargin -0.4in  \headsep 0.4in  \textheight 9.0in

17: \oddsidemargin 0.15in  \evensidemargin 0.15in  \textwidth 6.3in                 

18: 

19: % general commands

20: 

21: \def\thefootnote{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

22: 

23: \newcommand{\eq}{\begin{equation}}

24: \newcommand{\en}{\end{equation}}

25: \newcommand{\eqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}

26: \newcommand{\ena}{\end{eqnarray}}

27: \newcommand{\spz}{\hspace{0.7cm}}

28: \newcommand{\var}{\varepsilon}

29: \newcommand{\lbl}{\label}

30: \newcommand{\lhi}{\hat\lambda_{i}}

31: \newcommand{\br}{\langle}

32: \newcommand{\kt}{\rangle}

33: \newcommand{\lb}{\lbrack}

34: \newcommand{\rb}{\rbrack}

35: \newcommand{\um}{\frac12}

36: %% \newcommand{\th}[1]{\vartheta_{#1}(\tau)}

37: \newcommand{\wt}{\widetilde}

38: \newcommand{\wh}{\widehat}

39: \newcommand{\inv}{\vert 0 \rangle}

40: \newcommand{\outv}{\langle 0 \vert}

41: \newcommand{\tah}{\textrm{th}}  

42: \newcommand{\tg}{\textrm{tg}}  

43: \newcommand{\ch}{\textrm{ch}}  

44: \newcommand{\sh}{\textrm{sh}}

45: \newcommand{\lan}{\langle}

46: \newcommand{\ran}{\rangle}

47: \newcommand{\nonu}{\nonumber}

48: 

49: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}

50: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

51: \newcommand{\<}{\langle}

52: \renewcommand{\>}{\rangle}                                                      

53: \newcommand{\reff}[1]{(\ref{#1})}

54: %\def\sZ{\hbox{\rm Z\kern-.45em\hbox{\rm Z}}}

55: \def\sZ{\mathbb{Z}}

56: \def\sR{\hbox{{\rm I}\kern-.2em\hbox{\rm R}}} 

57: \def\sN{\hbox{{\rm I}\kern-.2em\hbox{\rm N}}} 

58: \def\smfrac#1#2{{\textstyle\frac{#1}{#2}}} 

59: 

60: 

61: %%%  \ltapprox and \gtapprox produce > and < signs with twiddle underneath

62: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}

63: \def\ltapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

64:  \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}

65: \def\gtapprox{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}

66:  \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}

67: 

68: 

69: \newcommand{\txrm}{\textrm}

70: \newcommand{\txsl}{\textsl} 

71: \newcommand{\dep}{\partial}   

72: 

73: 

74: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

75: % A macro for short figure captions

76: \def\mycaptions#1{%

77: \refstepcounter{figure}

78: \begin{center}

79: \hskip 1pt\vskip -0.6cm

80: \small {\bf Fig.\hskip -3pt \arabic{figure}}: {\sl #1}

81: \null\hskip 1pt\vskip -0.2cm

82: \end{center}}

83: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

84: % A macro for long figure captions

85: \def\mycaptionl#1{%

86: \refstepcounter{figure}

87: \begin{center}

88: \hskip 1pt\vskip -0.6cm

89: \begin{minipage}{14cm}

90: \small {\bf Fig. \hskip -3pt\arabic{figure}}: {\sl #1}

91: \end{minipage}

92: \null\hskip 1pt\vskip -0.2cm

93: \end{center}}

94: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

95: 

96: % nicknames for reviews in bibliography

97: 

98: \newcommand{\JP}[1]{J.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}

99: \newcommand{\NP}[1]{Nucl.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}

100: \newcommand{\PL}[1]{Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}

101: \newcommand{\NC}[1]{Nuovo Cim.\ {\bf #1}}

102: \newcommand{\CMP}[1]{Comm.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}

103: \newcommand{\PR}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ {\bf #1}}

104: \newcommand{\PRL}[1]{Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}

105: \newcommand{\MPL}[1]{Mod.\ Phys.\ Lett.\ {\bf #1}}

106: \newcommand{\IJMP}[1]{Int.\ J.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf #1}}

107: \newcommand{\JETP}[1]{Sov.\ Phys.\ JETP {\bf #1}}

108: \newcommand{\TMP}[1]{Teor.\ Mat.\ Fiz.\ {\bf #1}}

109: 

110: 

111: \begin{document}

112: \begin{titlepage}

113: \vskip0.5cm

114: \begin{flushright}

115: DFTT 17/2001\\

116: DESY 01-074\\

117: IFUP-TH 99/2001\\

118: Roma1-1963/01\\

119: \end{flushright}

120: \vskip0.5cm

121: \begin{center}

122: {\Large\bf Irrelevant operators in the}

123: \vskip 0.3cm

124: {\Large\bf two-dimensional Ising model}

125: \end{center}

126: \vskip 1.3cm

127: \centerline{

128: Michele Caselle$^a$, Martin Hasenbusch$^b$, Andrea Pelissetto$^c$ and 

129: Ettore Vicari$^d$}

130: 

131:  \vskip 0.4cm

132:  \centerline{\sl  $^a$ Dipartimento di Fisica Teorica dell'Universit\`a di

133:  Torino and I.N.F.N., I-10125 Torino, Italy}

134:  \centerline{\sl $^b$ NIC/DESY Zeuthen, Platanenallee 6, 

135:  D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany}

136:  \centerline{\sl  $^c$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Roma I

137:  and I.N.F.N., I-00185 Roma, Italy}

138:  \centerline{\sl  $^d$ Dipartimento di Fisica dell'Universit\`a di Pisa 

139:  and I.N.F.N., I-56127 Pisa, Italy}

140:  \vskip 0.2truecm

141:  \centerline{E-mail: Caselle@to.infn.it, Martin.Hasenbusch@desy.de,}

142:  \centerline{Andrea.Pelissetto@roma1.infn.it, Vicari@df.unipi.it}

143:  \vskip 1.cm

144: 

145: 

146: \begin{abstract}

147: By using conformal-field theory, we classify the possible irrelevant

148: operators for the Ising model with nearest-neighbor interactions 

149: on the square and triangular lattices. 

150: We analyze the existing results for the free energy and its derivatives 

151: and for the correlation length, showing that they are in agreement 

152: with the conformal-field theory predictions. Moreover, these results 

153: imply that the nonlinear scaling field of the energy-momentum tensor

154: vanishes at the critical point. Several other peculiar cancellations are 

155: explained in terms of a number of general conjectures. We show that all

156: existing results on the square and triangular lattice are consistent

157: with the assumption that only nonzero spin operators are present.

158: \end{abstract}

159: \end{titlepage}

160: 

161: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

162: \def\thefootnote{\arabic{footnote}}

163: 

164: 

165: \section{Introduction} \label{sec1}

166: 

167: The role of the irrelevant operators in the two-dimensional Ising model

168: with nearest-neighbor interactions

169: has been extensively discussed in the literature. The first important result

170: is due to Aharony and Fisher~\cite{af}, who showed, by using the exact

171: results for the free energy and the magnetization in infinite volume,

172: that the first correction to the susceptibility

173: could be explained in terms of purely analytic corrections, i.e.

174: without introducing any contribution due to irrelevant operators. 

175: The conclusions of Aharony and Fisher were strengthened by the 

176: analysis of \cite{gc}, that showed that the behavior 

177: of $\chi$ up to $O(t^4)$ was fully compatible with the 

178: absence of irrelevant operators.\footnote{We should also mention that recently 

179: a similarly unexpected cancellation was found in the 

180: free energy on the critical isotherm $T = T_c$ \cite{CaHa99}. }

181: These results gave rise to the idea (which has never

182: received the status of an explicit conjecture as far as we know, 

183: but which has been

184: commonly accepted in the statistical-mechanics community) that no contribution 

185: from irrelevant operators is present in the free energy of the 

186: two-dimensional Ising model with nearest-neighbor interactions. 

187: Of course, such a statement cannot 

188: be generically correct, since the lattice Ising model 

189: shows explicit violations of rotational invariance that 

190: {\em must} be due to nonrotationally invariant irrelevant 

191: operators. In particular, in \cite{CPRV-98}, from the analysis of the 

192: mass gap, irrelevant corrections with renormalization-group 

193: (RG) dimension $y=-2$ (respectively $y=-4$) were clearly 

194: identified on the square (resp. triangular) lattice. Of course, 

195: the question remained if these operators did contribute to the free 

196: energy.  

197: 

198: The analysis of the susceptibility of \cite{gc} has been recently 

199: extended in \cite{n99,g2000}.

200: In~\cite{g2000}, thanks to an

201: impressive progress in the construction and analysis of the series expansions

202: for the susceptibility, it was clearly shown that at least two irrelevant 

203: operators contribute to the expansion of the susceptibility for $h=0$

204: near the critical point.

205: However, while these results show without doubts 

206: the presence of irrelevant operators, they do not characterize them.

207: In particular, the identification of these irrelevant

208: operators with the corresponding

209: quasiprimary fields of the Ising Conformal Field Theory (CFT)

210: is still an open problem.  In this paper we try

211: to make some progress in this direction.

212: 

213: We shall address this problem in three  steps:

214: \begin{description}

215: \item{1]} First, we shall discuss the CFT

216: that describes the Ising model at the critical point. We shall 

217:  list all operators that may appear 

218:  as irrelevant ones in the lattice Ising model.

219: \item{2]}

220: Then, we shall compare the CFT predictions with the exact results for the

221: free energy and for the magnetization and with the results for the 

222: susceptibility reported in~\cite{g2000}. 

223: We shall see that these results are in perfect agreement 

224: with the RG and CFT, but have also peculiar 

225: features that can be explained if we make some additional hypotheses.

226: The existence in the nearest-neighbor Ising model of exact transformations 

227: that map the high-temperature phase onto the low-temperature one

228: (duality or inversion transformations) plays here a major role,

229: indicating that these peculiar features are strictly 

230: related to the (partial) solubility of the model.

231: 

232: \item{3]} The conclusions reached in the analysis of the infinite-volume

233: free energy and of its derivatives are further strengthened by the analysis 

234: of the mass gap (exponential correlation length) and of the finite-size scaling

235: of the free energy and of its thermal derivatives at the critical 

236: point (we use here the results of \cite{ih-00-strip,ih-00-square,Salas-01}).

237: Finally, we analyze the finite-size scaling of the susceptibility at 

238: the critical point, showing that the dependence on the boundary

239: conditions is in perfect agreement with the conjectures we have made.

240: \end{description}

241: 

242: Since the analysis is rather involved and the reader could be lost in the

243: technical details of the forthcoming sections, we anticipate here our main

244: findings:

245: \begin{itemize}

246: \item We do not find any evidence for the presence of the leading spin-zero

247: irrelevant operator predicted by CFT, the energy-momentum tensor. This 

248: result was already anticipated in \cite{CHPV-gstar,CCCPV-00,CHPV-eqst}

249: for the

250: two-dimensional square-lattice Ising model and 

251: in \cite{r87a} for the one-dimensional Ising quantum chain.

252: %%end

253: Also, on the triangular lattice we do not observe the next-to-leading 

254: spin-zero irrelevant operator that has RG dimension $y=-6$.

255: \item

256: As mentioned above,

257: we find unambiguous evidence of the presence of 

258: nonzero-spin irrelevant operators in the spectrum.

259: This is not surprising, since such operators are those

260: that describe the lattice breaking of the rotational symmetry.

261: What is surprising is that all 

262: results can be explained in terms of the following conjecture:

263: 

264: {\sl ``The only irrelevant operators which appear in the 

265: two-dimensional nearest-neighbor Ising model

266: are those due to the lattice breaking of the rotational symmetry."}

267: 

268: In some sense it can be considered as a renewed version of the original idea of 

269: Aharony and Fisher.

270: 

271: \end{itemize}

272: 

273: Note that this conjecture applies only to the Ising model with 

274: nearest-neighbor interactions and it is not known whether 

275: other formulations of the Ising model satisfy the same conjecture 

276: (probably they don't!). Moreover, one must in principle distinguish 

277: between different lattice types. We find that both the square-lattice and 

278: the triangular-lattice results are compatible with the conjecture, but 

279: it remains to be understood if it may also hold on other less 

280: canonical lattices, for instance for honeycomb or Kagom\'e lattices.

281: 

282: This paper is organized as follows. In Sec.~\ref{sec2} we describe the model, 

283: set our notations, and report the basic results that are needed in the 

284: following analysis. In Sec.~\ref{sec3} 

285: we report the CFT analysis of  the 

286: model at criticality and classify the possible irrelevant operators.

287: In Sec.~\ref{sec4} we discuss the infinite-volume free energy and its derivatives 

288: with respect to $h$ for $h=0$. We show that the exact results and the 

289: results of \cite{g2000} have properties that cannot be anticipated from 

290: CFT and RG alone. In order to explain them, we put forward four conjectures

291: that are justified in Sec. \ref{sec4.2} on the basis of the available results.

292: In Sec. \ref{sec4.3}, on the basis of the conjectures we have made, we obtain 

293: some general predictions for the susceptibility on the triangular lattice. 

294: The extension of the results of \cite{g2000} to such a lattice

295: is very important in order to understand the validity of our conjectures.

296: In Sec. \ref{sec5} we discuss the critical behavior of the 

297: exponential correlation length. The analysis on the triangular lattice 

298: is particularly interesting and gives strong support to the conjecture 

299: we have presented above. 

300: In Sec. \ref{sec6} and \ref{sec7} we consider the finite-size scaling 

301: of several quantities at the critical point. We show that the existence of an 

302: inversion (duality) transformation and the general conjecture 

303: presented above explain some peculiar features of the results 

304: found in \cite{Salas-01,ih-00-strip,ih-00-square}. 

305: In Sec. \ref{sec8} we summarize the results 

306: and discuss some open problems.

307: 

308: \section{The Ising model with nearest-neighbor interactions}

309: \label{sec2}

310: 

311: The two-dimensional Ising model is defined by the partition function

312: \eq

313: Z=\sum_{\sigma_i=\pm1}e^{\beta\sum_{\br n,m \kt}\sigma_n\sigma_m

314: +h\sum_n\sigma_n} ,

315: \label{zz1}

316: \en

317: where the spin variables $\sigma_n$ are defined on the sites $n$ of a regular

318: lattice and take the values $\{\pm 1\}$.

319: The model has two phases: the low-temperature one, in which the 

320: $\sZ_2$ symmetry is spontaneously broken and the high-temperature one in 

321: which the symmetry is restored. The two phases are separated by a critical 

322: point which is located at $\beta=\beta_c$. 

323: 

324: In the following we will study several observables. We define\footnote{

325: Note that our definitions differ by powers of the temperature 

326: and by signs from the usual thermodynamic ones. This is irrelevant for 

327: our purposes.} the 

328: free-energy density $F(\beta,h)$, the energy per site $E(\beta,h)$,

329: the specific heat $C(\beta,h)$, the magnetization per site $M(\beta,h)$,

330: and the susceptibility $\chi(\beta,h)$:

331: \begin{eqnarray}

332: F(\beta,h) &\equiv& \lim_{N\to\infty} {1\over N} \log(Z(\beta,h)), 

333: \label{F-definition} \\

334: E(\beta,h) &\equiv& -  {\partial F(\beta,h)\over \partial \beta}, \\ 

335: C(\beta,h) &\equiv& {\partial^2 F(\beta,h)\over \partial \beta^2}, \\ 

336: M(\beta,h) &\equiv& {\partial F(\beta,h)\over \partial h}, \\

337: \chi(\beta,h) &\equiv& {\partial^2 F(\beta,h)\over \partial h^2}. 

338: \end{eqnarray}

339: In \reff{F-definition} $N$ is the number of sites of a finite lattice.

340: 

341: \subsection{The square lattice} \label{sec2.1}

342: 

343: On the square lattice 

344: \be

345: \beta_c=\smfrac12\log{(\sqrt{2}+1)}=0.4406868\ldots

346: \ee

347: and we will measure the deviations from the critical temperature in 

348: terms of the variable $\tau$ introduced in \cite{g2000}:

349: \be

350: \tau = \frac12 \left({1\over \sinh 2\beta} - \sinh 2\beta \right).

351: \label{tau-square}

352: \ee 

353: For $\beta=\beta_c$, $\tau =0$, while $\tau > 0$ (resp. $\tau < 0$) for 

354: $\beta < \beta_c$ (resp. $\beta > \beta_c$).

355: 

356: We will use the exact expressions for the free-energy density and magnetization 

357: in zero field given by \cite{mccoy}

358: \begin{eqnarray}

359: F(\tau,0) &=& \smfrac12 \log\left(2 \cosh^2 2\beta\right) + 

360:          F^{\rm sing}(\tau), \\

361: M(\tau,0) &=& \left(1 - k(\tau)^2\right)^{1/8},

362: \label{magnetization-h0}

363: \end{eqnarray}

364: where

365: \begin{eqnarray}

366: F^{\rm sing}(\tau) &=& \int_0^\pi {d\theta\over 2\pi}\, 

367: \log\left[1 + \left(1 - {\cos^2\theta\over 1 + \tau^2}\right)^{1/2}\right],

368: \\

369: k(\tau) &=& \left(\sqrt{1 + \tau^2} + \tau\right)^2.

370: \end{eqnarray}

371: In this work, the duality transformation that maps the high-temperature phase 

372: onto the low-temperature one plays an important role. 

373: The variable $\tau$ transforms naturally under such transformation, 

374: i.e. $\tau \to -\tau$. It is easy to verify that 

375: \begin{eqnarray}

376:   k(-\tau) &=& {1\over k(\tau)},

377: \label{k-duality} \\

378: F^{\rm sing}(-\tau) &=& F^{\rm sing}(\tau) , 

379: \label{Fsing-duality}\\

380:  k(-\tau)^{-1/8} (-\tau)^{-1/8} M(-\tau,0) &=& 

381:  k(\tau)^{-1/8} \tau^{-1/8} M(\tau,0).

382: \label{magnetization-duality}

383: \end{eqnarray}

384: By using the exact expressions for the free energy and the magnetization

385: we define two functions $a(\tau)$ and $b(\tau)$ that will play 

386: a major role below. They are defined by requiring

387: \begin{eqnarray}

388: F(\tau,0) &=& - A a(\tau)^2 \log |a(\tau)| + A_0(\tau),

389: \label{def-function-a} \\

390: M(\tau,0) &=& B b(\tau) |a(\tau)|^{1/8},

391: \label{def-function-b}

392: \end{eqnarray}

393: where $a(\tau)$, $b(\tau)$, and $A_0(\tau)$ are regular functions\footnote{

394: We will call a function

395: {\em regular} if it has an expansion in integer powers of $\tau$ for

396: $\tau\to0$.} of $\tau$,

397: $a(\tau)\approx \tau$ for $\tau\to 0$, $b(0) = 1$, and

398: $A$ and $B$ are constants. 

399: Explicitly we find

400: \begin{eqnarray}

401: a(\tau) &=& \tau \left( 1 - {3\over16} \tau^2 + {137\over 1536} \tau^4 +

402:         O(\tau^6) \right), 

403: \label{a-function-square}\\

404: b(\tau) &=& k(\tau)^{1/8} \left(1 + {11\over 128}  \tau^2

405:                - {3589\over 98304 } \tau^4 + O(\tau^6)\right),

406: \end{eqnarray}

407: and

408: \be

409: A = {1\over 2\pi}, \qquad\qquad B = 2^{1/4}.

410: \ee 

411: Under duality,

412: \be

413: a(-\tau)= -a(\tau) \qquad\qquad

414: k(-\tau)^{-1/8} b(-\tau) = k(\tau)^{-1/8} b(\tau).

415: \label{duality-a-b}

416: \ee                                                                             

417: Although the susceptibility in zero field has not been computed exactly,

418: its behavior for $h=0$, $\tau \to 0$ is quite well known. In  

419: \cite{g2000} the asymptotic behavior of $\chi$ for $h=0$ in both phases

420: was obtained:

421: \be

422: \chi_{\pm}(\tau) = C^{\pm} |\tau|^{-7/4} k(\tau)^{1/4}

423:      \widehat{F}_\pm(\tau) + B_f(\tau),

424: \label{Orrick-chi}

425: \ee

426: where $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ are regular

427: functions of $\tau$,

428: \begin{eqnarray}

429: B_f(\tau) &=& \sum_{q=0}^\infty \sum_{p=0}^{\lfloor \sqrt{q}\rfloor}

430:             b^{(p,q)} \tau^q (\log |\tau|)^p,

431: \label{Bf-def}

432: \end{eqnarray}

433: and $\tau$ is defined in \reff{tau-square}. Here $\chi_+(\tau)$ 

434: ($\chi_-(\tau)$) is 

435: the susceptibility in the high- (low-) temperature phase.

436:  

437: By a careful numerical study, reference \cite{g2000} found two additional

438: important properties of $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$.

439: First, $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ are even functions of $\tau$. There is no

440: rigorous proof, but we note that a similar

441: property is satisfied by the two-point function in the large-$x$

442: limit, see Sec. \ref{sec5.1}.                                                                         

443: Moreover, the results of \cite{g2000} can be written as

444: \be

445: \widehat{F}_\pm (\tau) = \left[ a(\tau) \tau^{-1}\right]^{-7/4}

446:            \left[b(\tau) k(\tau)^{-1/8}\right]^2 G_\pm (a(\tau)),

447: \label{hatF-square}

448: \ee

449: where $G_\pm (z) $ are even functions of $z$, and $a(\tau)$

450: and $b(\tau)$ are defined in Eqs. \reff{def-function-a},

451: \reff{def-function-b}. Explicitly

452: \be

453: G_\pm (z) = 1 - {1\over 384} z^4 + \left(f_\pm^{(6)} - {49\over 1536}\right)

454:           z^6 + O(z^8),

455: \label{G-square}

456: \ee

457: where $f_\pm^{(6)}$ are numerical coefficients reported in

458: \cite{g2000}.

459: Note the absence of the term of order $z^2$, a result that will play

460: a major role below.

461: 

462: \subsection{The triangular lattice} \label{sec2.2}

463: 

464: 

465: On the triangular lattice 

466: \be

467: \beta_c = \smfrac14 \log 3 = 0.2746531\ldots

468: \ee

469: We measure the deviations from the critical temperature in terms of the 

470: variable $\tau$ defined by 

471: \be

472: \tau \equiv {1 - 4 v + v^2\over \sqrt{2 v} (1 - v)},

473: \label{tau-tria}

474: \ee

475: where $v \equiv \tanh \beta$.

476: Under the inversion

477: transformation that maps the high-temperature phase onto the

478: low-temperature one,

479: \be

480: v \to v' = \left({\sqrt{1 - v + v^2} - \sqrt{v}\over (1 - v)}\right)^2,

481: \ee

482: it transforms simply as $\tau \to - \tau$. It is thus the

483: analogous of the variable \reff{tau-square} introduced in \cite{g2000}. 

484: 

485: In zero field, the free-energy density is given by \cite{Stephenson-64}

486: \be

487: F(\tau,0) = \smfrac12 \log(4 \sinh 2\beta) + F^{\rm sing}(\tau),

488: \ee

489: where 

490: \be

491: F^{\rm sing}(\tau) = 

492:     {1\over2} \int_0^{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} {d\phi_1\over 2\pi}\, 

493:       {d\phi_2\over 2\pi}\, 

494:  \log\left[3 + \tau^2 - \cos\phi_1 - \cos\phi_2 - \cos(\phi_1 + \phi_2)\right],

495: \ee

496: the magnetization by \reff{magnetization-h0}, where \cite{Stephenson-64}

497: \be

498: k(\tau) =  {(1 - v)^3 (1 + v)\over 4  v \sqrt{v (1 - v + v^2)}}.

499: \ee                                                                             

500: Under $\tau\to-\tau$, relations \reff{k-duality}, \reff{Fsing-duality}, 

501: and \reff{magnetization-duality} hold on the triangular lattice too.

502: 

503: {} From the expressions of the magnetization and of the free energy,

504: we can compute the functions $a(\tau)$ and $b(\tau)$ that are defined by

505: \reff{def-function-a} and \reff{def-function-b}. In this case

506: we obtain

507: \begin{eqnarray}

508: \hskip -1truecm

509: a(\tau) &=& \tau - {\tau^3\over 24} + {47 \tau^5\over 10368} -

510:          {161 \tau^7\over 248832} + {113191 \tau^9\over 1074954240} +

511:         O(\tau^{11}), 

512: \label{a-function-tria} \\

513: \hskip -1truecm

514: b(\tau) &=& k(\tau)^{1/8}

515:    \left(1 + {11\tau^2\over288} - {671\tau^4\over165888} +

516:              {10115\tau^6\over15925248} -

517:              {31791497\tau^8\over275188285440} + O(\tau^{10})\right),

518: \end{eqnarray}                                                                  and

519: \be

520: A = {1\over 2 \sqrt{3} \pi}, \qquad\qquad

521: B = \left({8\over3}\right)^{1/8}.

522: \ee

523: As in the square-lattice case, the functions

524: $a(\tau)$ and $b(\tau)$  satisfy the duality relations

525: \reff{duality-a-b}.                                                             

526: 

527: 

528: 

529: \section{Conformal field theory analysis}

530: \label{sec3}

531: 

532: \subsection{Primary and secondary fields} \label{sec3.1}

533: 

534: The Ising model at the critical point is described 

535:  by the unitary minimal CFT with central charge

536: $c=1/2$~\cite{bpz}.

537: Its spectrum  can be divided into three conformal families characterized by

538: different transformation 

539: properties under the dual and $\sZ_2$ symmetries of the model. They

540:  are the identity, spin, and energy families and are

541:  commonly denoted as  $[{I}],~[\sigma],~[\epsilon]$.

542: Let us discuss their features in detail.

543: \begin{itemize}

544: \item{\bf Primary fields}

545: 

546: Each family contains an 

547: operator which is called primary field (and gives the name to the entire

548: family).  

549:  Their conformal weights are $h_{I}=0$,

550:  $h_\sigma=1/16$ and  $h_\epsilon=1/2$ respectively. 

551:  Since the RG eigenvalues are related to the conformal weights by $y=2-2h$,

552:  all primary fields are relevant.

553: 

554: \item{\bf Secondary fields}

555: 

556: All the remaining operators of the three

557:  families (which are called secondary fields) are generated from the primary

558:  ones by applying the generators $L_{-i}$ and $\bar L_{-i}$ 

559: of the Virasoro algebra defined by

560: \eq

561: [L_n,L_m]=(n-m) L_{n+m} +\frac{c}{12} n(n^2-1)\delta_{n+m,0}\; .

562: \label{vir}

563: \en

564: 

565: It can be shown that, by applying  

566: a generator of index $k$, $L_{-k}$ or $\bar L_{-k}$, to a field $\phi$ 

567: (where $\phi={I},\epsilon,\sigma$ depending on the case)

568: of conformal weight $h_\phi$, a  new operator of weight

569: $h=h_\phi+k$ is obtained.

570: In general, any combination of $L_{-i}$ and $\bar L_{-i}$

571: is allowed.

572: If we denote with $n$ the sum of the indices of the generators of 

573: type $L_{-i}$

574: and with $\bar n$ the sum of those of type $\bar L_{-i}$, the conformal 

575: weight of the resulting operator is $h_\phi+n+\bar n$.

576: The corresponding RG eigenvalue is $y=2-2h_\phi-n-\bar n$.

577: 

578: \item{\bf Nonzero spin states}

579: 

580: The secondary fields may have nonzero

581: spin, which is given by the difference  $n-\bar n$. In general, one is

582: interested in quantities that are invariant under the lattice rotation

583: group, and thus in operators that belong to its identity representation.

584: Since the lattice invariance group is a finite 

585: subgroup of the rotation group, in the lattice discretization of 

586: a scalar operator, operators that do not have spin zero, 

587: i.e. transform nontrivially for general rotations, may appear.

588: The invariance group of the square lattice 

589: is the finite subgroup $C_4$ (cyclic group of order four),

590: which has four representations of ``discrete" spin 0, 1, 2, and 3. 

591: An observable that transforms as a spin-$j$ representation under the 

592: full rotation group belongs to a representation of discrete spin

593: $j~({\rm mod}~4)$ under the action of $C_4$. Therefore, a lattice 

594: scalar operator is expressed as a sum of continuum operators 

595: of spin $4 j$, $j\in {\sN}$. 

596: Analogously, on a triangular lattice the rotation group is broken to 

597: the cyclic group of order six $C_6$. In this case, a lattice scalar 

598: operator is expressed in terms  of continuum operators

599: of spin $6 j$, $j\in {\sN}$.

600: 

601: \item{\bf Null vectors}

602: 

603:  Some of the secondary fields disappear from the spectrum due to the null-vector

604:  conditions (see~\cite{bpz}).

605:  In particular, this happens for one of the two states at level 2 in

606:  the $[\sigma]$ and $[\epsilon]$ families and for the unique state at level 1 in

607:  the identity family. From each null state one can generate, by applying the

608:  Virasoro operators, a whole family of null states. Hence, at level 2 in the

609:  identity family there is only one surviving secondary field, which can be

610:  identified with the stress-energy tensor $T$ (or $\bar T$). The second null

611:  vector in the $\sigma$ family appears at level 3 while in the $\epsilon$

612:  family it appears at level 4. This fact will play an important role in the

613:  following.

614: 

615: 

616: \item{\bf Secondary fields generated by $L_{-1}$}

617: 

618:  Among all secondary fields, a particular role is played by those generated

619:  by the $L_{-1}$ Virasoro generator. $L_{-1}$ is the generator of 

620:  translations on the lattice and as a consequence, it has zero eigenvalue on

621:  translationally invariant observables. Another way to state this result is 

622:  that $L_{-1}$ can be represented

623:  as a total derivative, and as such it gives zero if applied to an operator

624:  which is the integral of a suitable

625:  density over the lattice, i.e. a translationally invariant operator. 

626: 

627: \item{\bf Quasiprimary operators.}

628: 

629: A quasiprimary field $|Q>$ is a secondary field which satisfies the equation

630: \eq

631: L_1|Q>=0\; .

632: \label{t1}

633: \en

634: This condition eliminates all the  secondary fields which are

635: generated by $L_{-1}$. The quasiprimary operators are the only ones that may 

636: appear in translationally invariant quantities.

637: 

638: %% 

639: %% It is important to stress that the condition (\ref{t1}) acts in a rather

640: %% non-trivial way on the states and eliminates fields which apparently do not

641: %% contain the $L_{-1}$ generator. 

642: %% For instance, consider the field $L_{-4}|\sigma>$.

643: %% It is easy to see by using the Virasoro algebra that

644: %% \eq

645: %% L_1L_{-4}|\sigma>\not=0\; ,

646: %% \en

647: %% so that $L_{-4}|\sigma>$, 

648: %% despite the fact that it does not explicitly contain

649: %% the $L_{-1}$ generator,  is not a quasiprimary operator. 

650: %% The reason of this result is the following.

651: %% {}From the Virasoro algebra (see (\ref{vir})) we have that

652: %% \eq

653: %% [L_{-3},L_{-1}]=-2L_{-4}\; ,

654: %% \en

655: %% which means that $L_{-4}$ can be written as

656: %% \eq

657: %% L_{-4}=\smfrac12 L_{-1} L_{-3} - \smfrac12 L_{-3} L_{-1} \; .

658: %% \label{eq:3.5}

659: %% \en

660: %% Since $L_{-3}|\sigma>$ is a null vector\footnote{Actually the null vector 

661: %% is a linear combination of

662: %% all the secondaries at level three but this does not change the argument.}

663: %% \reff{eq:3.5} implies

664: %% \eq

665: %% L_{-4}|\sigma>=- \smfrac12 L_{-3} L_{-1}|\sigma> \; .

666: %% \en

667: %% Thus, we see that there is indeed a $L_{-1}$ generator hidden in the 

668: %% $L_{-4}|\sigma>$ state.

669: %% Since the contribution of $L_{-1}|\sigma>$ (and of any one of its descendant

670: %% like $L_{-3} L_{-1}|\sigma>$) on the vacuum is zero,

671: %% also $L_{-4}|\sigma>$ must be zero. 

672: 

673: \end{itemize}

674: 

675: 

676: \subsection{Quasiprimary states and irrelevant operators.} \label{sec3.2}

677: 

678: It is easy to construct, 

679: by using (\ref{t1}), all the low-lying quasiprimary states. 

680: Here is the list of all quasiprimary operators up to level 10. 

681: \begin{itemize}

682: \item

683: In the Identity family there is one quasiprimary state at levels 2, 4, and 6

684: and two quasiprimary states at levels 8 and 10;

685: \item

686: In the energy family there is one quasiprimary state at levels 4, 6, 7, 8, and 9

687: and two quasiprimary states at level 10;

688: \item

689: In the $[\sigma]$ family there is one quasiprimary state at levels 3, 5, 6, 7,

690: and 8 and two quasiprimary states at levels 9 and 10.

691: \end{itemize}

692: For all these states it is possible to give the exact expression in terms of

693: the Virasoro generators (even if it becomes increasingly cumbersome as the 

694: level increases). 

695: For instance, in the identity family one finds

696: \eq

697: Q_2^{I}=L_{-2}|{I}>,

698: \en

699: \eq

700: Q_4^{I}= \left(L_{-2}^2-\smfrac35 L_{-4}\right)|{I}>,

701: \en

702: at level 2 and 4 respectively,

703: where we have introduced the

704:  notation $Q^{\eta}_n$ to denote the quasiprimary state at

705: level $n$ in the $\eta$ family.

706: 

707: Let us now construct from the $Q^{\eta}_n$ listed above the irrelevant operators

708: which could appear in any lattice translationally invariant quantity. 

709: We list below those that have RG eigenvalue $|y| < 10$.

710: We will classify them by their spin,

711: since operators of different spin appear on different lattices. 

712: Spin-zero operators are relevant in all cases, spin-$(4n)$

713: operators appear on the square lattice, while spin-$(6n)$ operators 

714: play a role only on the triangular lattice.

715: 

716: The spin-0 operators are the following:

717: \begin{itemize}

718: \item Identity family:

719:   

720:  $Q_2^{I} \bar{Q_2^{I}}$ whose weight is 4 and RG eigenvalue is $-2$;

721: 

722:  $Q_4^{I} \bar{Q_4^{I}}$ whose weight is 8 and RG eigenvalue is $-6$;

723: 

724: %%  $Q_6^{I} \bar{Q_6^{I}}$ whose 

725: %% weight is 12 and RG eigenvalue is $-10$;

726: 

727: \item Energy family:

728: 

729:  $Q_4^{\epsilon} \bar{Q_4^{\epsilon}}$ whose weight is 9 and RG eigenvalue is 

730:   $-7$;

731: 

732: \item Spin family:

733: 

734:  $Q_3^{\sigma} \bar{Q_3^{\sigma}}$ whose weight is $6+\frac18$

735:  and RG eigenvalue is $-(4+\frac18)$;

736: 

737:  $Q_5^{\sigma} \bar{Q_5^{\sigma}}$ whose weight is $10+\frac18$

738:  and RG eigenvalue is $-(8+\frac18)$.

739: 

740: \end{itemize}

741: 

742: On the square lattice we should consider the spin-four operators:

743:  \begin{itemize}

744: 

745: \item Identity family:

746:   

747:  $Q_4^{I} + \bar{Q_4^{I}}$ whose weight is 4 and RG eigenvalue is $-2$;

748: 

749:  $Q_6^{I} \bar{Q_2^I} + Q_2^{I} \bar{Q_6^{I}}$ 

750:  whose weight is 8 and RG eigenvalue is $-6$;

751: 

752: \item Energy family: 

753: 

754:  $Q_4^{\epsilon} + \bar{Q_4^{\epsilon}}$ 

755:   whose weight is 5 and RG eigenvalue is $-3$.

756: 

757: \item Spin family:

758:  $\bar Q^\sigma_3 Q^\sigma_7 + \bar Q^\sigma_7 Q^\sigma_3$

759:   whose weight is $10+\frac18$ and RG eigenvalue is $-(8+\frac18)$.

760: 

761: \end{itemize}

762: 

763: Also the spin-eight contribute on the square lattice at this order:

764: 

765:  \begin{itemize}

766: 

767: \item Identity family:

768:   

769:  $Q_8^{I} + \bar{Q_8^{I}}$ whose weight is 8 and RG eigenvalue is $-6$;

770: 

771: \item Energy family:

772:   

773:  $Q_8^{\epsilon} + \bar{Q_8^{\epsilon}}$ whose weight is 9 

774:   and RG eigenvalue is $-7$;

775: 

776: \item Spin family:

777:   

778:  $Q_8^{\sigma} + \bar{Q_8^{\sigma}}$ whose weight is $8+\frac18$

779:  and RG eigenvalue is $-(6+\frac18)$.

780: 

781: \end{itemize}

782: 

783: On the triangular lattice we should consider the spin-six operators:

784: 

785: \begin{itemize}

786: 

787: \item Identity family:

788: 

789: $Q^{I}_6 + \bar{Q}^{I}_6$ whose weight is $6$

790:   and RG eigenvalue is $-4$;

791: 

792: $\bar Q^{I}_2 Q^{I}_8 + \bar Q^{I}_8 Q^{I}_2$ whose weight 

793: is $10$ and RG eigenvalue is $-8$;

794:   

795: \item Energy family:

796: 

797: $ Q^\epsilon_6 + \bar Q^\epsilon_6$ whose weight is $7$ 

798:   and RG eigenvalue is $-5$;

799:   

800: \item Spin family:

801: 

802: $Q^\sigma_6 + \bar Q^\sigma_6$ whose weight is $6+\frac18$

803:   and RG eigenvalue is $-(4+\frac18)$.

804:   

805: \end{itemize}

806: 

807: Higher-order spins contribute operators with $y \le -10$. For instance, in the 

808: identity family one should consider 

809: the spin-12 operator 

810: $Q^{I}_{12} + \bar Q^{I}_{12}$ whose weight is $12$

811:  and RG eigenvalue is $-10$.

812: 

813: Among these operators, the most important ones are: 

814: $Q_2^{I} \bar{Q_2^{I}}$ that has spin zero and $y=-2$ and should be considered

815: both for the square and the triangular lattice; 

816: $Q_4^{I} + \bar{Q_4^{I}}$ (with $y=-2$) and 

817: $Q_6^{I} + \bar{Q_6^{I}}$ (with $y=-4$) that are the leading operators 

818: that break rotational invariance on the square and on the triangular lattice

819: respectively. These operators can 

820: be explicitly related to the energy-momentum tensor. The relations are:

821: $Q_2^{I} \bar{Q_2^{I}}= T\bar T$,

822: $Q_4^{I} + \bar{Q_4^{I}}=T^2+\bar T^2$,

823: $Q_6^{I} + \bar{Q_6^{I}}=T^3+\bar T^3$.

824: These operators will play an important role in the following discussion. 

825: 

826: As a general remark, it is important to notice that, since only even-spin 

827: operators are of interest, the dimensions $y$ of the operators satisfy the 

828: following conditions: $y\in 2 {\sZ}$ for the identity family,

829: $y\in 2 {\sZ} + 1$ for the energy family, and 

830: $y\in 2 {\sZ} - \frac18$ for the spin family.

831: 

832: Finally, we want to discuss the role of the symmetries. On the lattice 

833: there are two exact symmetries that will play an important role. 

834: \begin{itemize}

835: \item $\sZ_2$ symmetry: $(h\to -h)$. Under this transformation the 

836: operators belonging to the identity and to the energy family are even, while 

837: the operators belonging to the spin family are odd. 

838: \item duality (inversion) symmetry for $h=0$. This transformation maps the 

839: high-temperature phase onto the low-temperature one and with our choice of 

840: variable $\tau$ (see \reff{tau-square} and \reff{tau-tria} for the 

841: square and the triangular lattice respectively)

842: it corresponds to the mapping $\tau\to -\tau$. Under this transformation 

843: (see, e.g., Appendix E of \cite{bpz})

844: the identity operators are even, the energy operators are odd, while the 

845: $[\sigma]$-family operators do not have a well-defined behavior.

846: \end{itemize}

847: 

848: \section{Infinite-volume zero-momentum quantities for\\ $h=0$}

849: \label{sec4}

850: 

851: In this  Section, using the results of 

852: Sec. \ref{sec3}, we shall derive the scaling behavior of the 

853: free energy, magnetization, and susceptibility at $h=0$ and we will

854: compare these results with the exact expressions for 

855: $F(\tau,0)$ and $M(\tau,0)$ and with the results of \cite{g2000}

856: on the square lattice. We will verify that the structure of these 

857: expressions is in agreement with the RG

858: predictions, although the 

859: complicated logarithmic dependence found in \cite{g2000} 

860: requires an extension of the usual scaling expressions. 

861: Moreover, the exact results and those of \cite{g2000}

862: have additional properties that are 

863: specific of the lattice nearest-neighbor Ising model and 

864: are probably not satisfied 

865: by a generic model belonging to the Ising universality class. 

866: All these properties can be explained if we make some general 

867: conjectures: they will be presented in Sec. \ref{sec4.1}.

868: 

869: We present a general analysis for the square and the triangular lattice.

870: In particular, we will show that the extension of the work of 

871: \cite{g2000} to the triangular lattice would provide

872: strong support for (or rule out) our conjectures.

873: 

874: \subsection{Renormalization-group predictions and conjectures} 

875: \label{sec4.1}

876: 

877: We wish now to derive the asymptotic behavior of $F(\tau,0)$, $M(\tau,0)$,

878: and $\chi(\tau,0)$ by using the RG approach

879: and the classification of the irrelevant 

880: operators presented in Sec. \ref{sec3.2}. 

881: We write the free energy as \cite{Wegner-76}

882: \begin{eqnarray}

883: F(\tau,h) & = & f_{b}(\tau,h) + 

884:    |u_t|^{2/y_t} f_{\pm}\left(\left\{\frac{u_j}{|u_t|^{y_j/y_t}}\right\}\right)

885: \nonumber \\

886: &&  +

887:    |u_t|^{2/y_t} \log |u_t| 

888:    \widetilde{f}_{\pm}\left(\left\{\frac{u_j}{|u_t|^{y_j/y_t}}\right\}\right),

889: \label{F-RG}

890: \end{eqnarray}

891: where $f_{b}(\tau,h)$ is a regular function\footnote{Sometimes

892: it is assumed that the bulk free energy depends on the temperature 

893: only \cite{Privman-90,PHA-91}. However, this conjecture is 

894: inconsistent with the rigorous results available for $\chi$. 

895: See \cite{ssv1} for a critical discussion.} of $\tau$ and $h^2$, 

896: $u_t$ and $u_j$ are nonlinear scaling fields associated with the temperature

897: and with all other operators with corresponding dimensions $y_t=1$ and 

898: $y_j$. They include the nonlinear scaling field associated with the 

899: magnetic field with dimension $y_h = 15/8$ and those associated with  

900: all irrelevant operators. Note the presence of the logarithmic term

901: due to a resonance\footnote{Since secondary fields belonging to a given family

902: differ by integers, we expect additional multiple resonances and 

903: additional terms with higher powers of $\log |u_t|$ in Eq. \reff{F-RG}.

904: Such higher powers have indeed been found in the analysis of $\chi$ 

905: \cite{g2000}.}

906:  between the thermal and the identity operator

907: which is responsible of the log-type singularity in the specific heat

908: \cite{Wegner-76}.

909: The nonlinear scaling fields are analytic functions of $\tau$ and $h$

910: that have well-defined transformation properties under $h\to -h$. 

911: Those associated with the identity and the energy family 

912: are even under the transformation, while those associated with the $[\sigma]$

913: family (and thus $u_h$ too) are odd. For our purposes we can expand

914: \begin{eqnarray}

915:    u_t(\tau,h) &=& \mu_t(\tau) + {h^2\over2} \lambda_t(\tau) + O(h^4), \\

916:    u_j^{\rm even}(\tau,h) &=& \mu_j(\tau) + {h^2\over2} \lambda_j(\tau) + 

917:           O(h^4), \\

918:    u_j^{\sigma}(\tau,h) &=& h v_j(\tau) + O(h^3).

919: \label{def-vh}

920: \end{eqnarray}

921: The ${\sZ}_2$-even operators belong to the identity and the 

922: energy family and thus,

923: for $h=0$, they have well-defined properties under duality:

924: \begin{eqnarray}

925:    \mu_t(-\tau) &=& - \mu_t(\tau), \nonumber \\ 

926:    \mu_j^{\epsilon}(-\tau) &=& - \mu_j^{\epsilon}(\tau), \nonumber \\ 

927:    \mu_j^{I}(-\tau) &=&  \mu_j^{I}(\tau). 

928: \label{scaling-fields-duality}

929: \end{eqnarray}

930: In general, we expect $\mu_j^{I}(0)\not=0 $, 

931: and therefore we can normalize these scaling fields by requiring

932: $\mu_j^{I}(0)=1$. On the other hand, the energy-family 

933: scaling fields---including that associated with the temperature---vanish for 

934: $\tau=0$ and thus we normalize them by requiring 

935: $\mu_j^{\epsilon}(\tau)\approx\tau$. The spin-family fields are normalized 

936: by requiring $v_j(0)=1$.

937: 

938: Let us now present our basic conjectures that will be justified in 

939: Sec. \ref{sec4.2} on the basis of the exact expressions for the 

940: free energy and the magnetization and of the results of \cite{g2000}. 

941: Two conjectures will be presented in different forms.

942: The analysis reported here of the 

943: infinite-volume quantities gives only evidence for the weaker versions

944: (c1) and (d0). 

945: Evidence for (c2) will be provided in Sec. 6, and evidence for (d1)/(d2) 

946: in Sec. \ref{sec5.2}. As we will discuss, the analysis of $\chi$ on the 

947: triangular lattice should be able to discriminate between (d1) and (d2).

948: 

949: Let us now give the list of the conjectures:

950: \begin{itemize}

951: \item[(a)] Consider a $[\sigma]$-family operator, and let 

952: $v_j(\tau)$ be the corresponding nonlinear scaling field for

953: $h \to 0$, cf. \reff{def-vh}. Then,

954: either $v_j(\tau)=0$, i.e.

955: the corresponding operator is decoupled, or

956: \be

957:  k(-\tau)^{-1/8} v_j(-\tau) = k(\tau)^{-1/8} v_j(\tau).

958: \label{property-vj}

959: \ee

960: Such a relation

961: should be satisfied by $v_h(\tau)$ since the corresponding 

962:  operator does not decouple. 

963: \item[(b)]

964: The functions $f_\pm$ and $\tilde{f}_\pm$ are even functions of

965: the nonlinear scaling fields associated with the energy family.

966: \item[(c1)] The functions $\tilde{f}_\pm$ depend only on the $\sZ$-even scaling

967: fields.

968: \item[(c2)] Stronger version of the previous one: The functions 

969: $\tilde{f}_\pm$ are constant. Such a conjecture was already made by 

970: Aharony and Fisher \cite{af}.

971: \item[(d0)] The nonlinear scaling field of the $T\bar{T}$ operator

972: vanishes at the critical point: $u_{T\bar{T}}(0,0) = 0$.

973: \item[(d1)] Stronger version of (d0): The operator $T\bar{T}$ decouples,

974: i.e. $u_{T\bar{T}}(\tau,h) = 0$ for all $\tau$ and $h$.

975: \item[(d2)] Stronger version of (d1): The only irrelevant operators that 

976: appear in the Ising model are the non-rotationally invariant ones.

977: \end{itemize}

978: We remark that these conjectures (in their stronger form) 

979: are sufficient to explain the existing data, but are by no means necessary. 

980: For instance, consider the three conjectures (d).

981: All existing square-lattice results require only (d0). 

982: Conjectures (d1) and (d2) are supported by the results on the 

983: triangular lattice that will be presented in Sec. \ref{sec5.2} and 

984: \ref{sec6}. There we will show $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(\tau) = o(\tau^4)$, 

985: which provides evidence for (d1), and $\mu(0) = 0$ 

986: for the scalar operator $Q_4^I \bar{Q}_4^I$  with $y=-6$, 

987: which is our motivation for the conjecture (d2). 

988: We wish also to stress that, at least in principle, some properties

989: may hold only on a very specific lattice type and thus the 

990: observed properties on the triangular lattice may not 

991: extend to the square-lattice case.

992: 

993: Let us note that in the analysis of the scaling corrections the spin

994: of the operator will play an important role. As we already mentioned 

995: in Sec. \ref{sec3.1}, all operators of spin $4j$ (respectively $6j$) 

996: appear in \reff{F-RG} on the square (resp. triangular) lattice, 

997: $j\in \sN$. However, because of the rotational invariance of the 

998: critical theory, nonzero spin operators contribute only at second 

999: order in the Taylor expansion of the infinite-volume free energy in powers 

1000: of $u_j |u_t|^{-y_j/y_t}$. 

1001: 

1002: \subsection{The square lattice} \label{sec4.2}

1003: 

1004: Let us now use the exact results for $F(\tau,0)$ and $M(\tau,0)$ and 

1005: the results of \cite{g2000} to provide evidence for the 

1006: conjectures we made in the previous section.

1007: 

1008: 

1009: Setting $h=0$ in \reff{F-RG} we see that all scaling fields associated 

1010: with the $[\sigma]$ family disappear. 

1011: Since the dimensions of the operators belonging to the energy and to the 

1012: identity family are integers we predict

1013: \be

1014: F(\tau,h=0)_\pm = f_0(\tau) + f_1(\tau) \log|\tau|,

1015: \ee

1016: where $f_0(\tau)$ and $f_1(\tau)$ have a regular expansion in $\tau$.

1017: The functions $f_0(\tau)$ and $f_1(\tau)$ can in principle depend on the phase,

1018: but from the exact solution we know that this is not the case. This implies

1019: \begin{eqnarray}

1020: \phi(\{x_j\}) &\equiv& f_+\left(\{x_j\}^{{I},\epsilon}; \{x_j=0\}^{\sigma} \right) 

1021:           = f_-\left(\{x_j\}^{{I},\epsilon}; \{x_j=0\}^{\sigma} \right), 

1022: \label{def-phi} \\

1023: \widetilde{\phi}(\{x_j\}) &\equiv& 

1024:       \widetilde{f}_+\left(\{x_j\}^{{I},\epsilon}; \{x_j=0\}^{\sigma} \right) 

1025:     = \widetilde{f}_-\left(\{x_j\}^{{I},\epsilon}; \{x_j=0\}^{\sigma} \right).

1026: \label{def-phitilde}

1027: \end{eqnarray}

1028: Using \reff{Fsing-duality}, we find that $f_1(\tau)$ is even in $\tau$, 

1029: a property that is 

1030: certainly satisfied if the conjecture (b) is true, i.e. 

1031: $\widetilde{\phi}(\{x_j\})$ is an even function 

1032: of the energy-family scaling fields. If this is true, the energy-family 

1033: scaling fields would begin to contribute to second order.

1034: 

1035: Let us now consider the magnetization in the low-temperature phase.

1036: {}From  \reff{F-RG} we obtain ($\tau < 0$)

1037: \be

1038: M(\tau) = \sum_{k\,\in [\sigma]} 

1039:         |\mu_t|^{2-y_k} v_k \rho_k(\{\mu_j \mu_t^{-y_j}\}^{{I},\epsilon}) + 

1040:     \log|\mu_t|\ \sum_{k\,\in [\sigma]}

1041:      |\mu_t|^{2-y_k} v_k \tilde{\rho}_k(\{\mu_j \mu_t^{-y_j}\}^{{I},\epsilon}),

1042: \ee

1043: where the functions $\rho_k$ and $\tilde{\rho}_k$

1044:  depend only on the scaling fields of the 

1045: ${\sZ}_2$-even operators, and the sums are over all $[\sigma]$-family operators. 

1046: Now, if $y_k$ is the dimension of an operator 

1047: belonging to the $[\sigma]$ family, $y_k = -1/8 + 2n$, 

1048: where $n$ is an integer.

1049: Therefore, we predict

1050: \be

1051: M(\tau) = (-\tau)^{1/8} M_0(\tau) + (-\tau)^{1/8} M_1(\tau) \log (-\tau),

1052: \ee

1053: where $M_0(\tau)$  and $M_1(\tau)$ are regular functions of $\tau$. 

1054: Now, the exact solution gives $M_1(\tau) = 0$, a property that is 

1055: satisfied if the conjecture (c1) is true.

1056: Setting $M_1(\tau) = 0$, we find a perfect agreement

1057: with the exact result.

1058: 

1059: However, the exact result satisfies an additional property:

1060: Using \reff{magnetization-duality}, we have

1061: \be

1062:   k(-\tau)^{-1/8}  M_0(-\tau) = M_0(\tau) k(\tau)^{-1/8}.

1063: \ee

1064: By using the fact that $y_j = 2n-\frac18$ 

1065: (resp. $y_j=2n-1$, $y_j=2n$) for a $[\sigma]$ (resp. $[\epsilon]$, $[I]$) 

1066: family

1067: operator, $n\in \sZ$, it is easy to verify that such an equation 

1068: is automatically satisfied if the conjectures (a) and (b) are true. 

1069: 

1070: Let us consider the susceptibility. By differentiating \reff{F-RG} 

1071: and using Eqs. \reff{def-phi} and \reff{def-phitilde}, we obtain

1072: \begin{eqnarray}

1073: \hskip -1truecm

1074: \chi_\pm &= & \left. {\partial^2 f_b\over \partial h^2}\right|_{h=0}  + 

1075:       \mu_t \lambda_t \left[2 \phi(\{x_j\}) + \tilde{\phi}(\{x_j\}) \right]

1076:     + \mu_t^2 \sum_{ik\,\in [\sigma]} \psi_{ik,\pm}(\{x_j\}) v_i v_k 

1077:            |\mu_t|^{-y_i-y_k} \nonumber \\

1078: &&  + \mu_t^2 \sum_{k\,\in [I],[\epsilon]} {\partial \phi\over \partial x_k} 

1079:                    (\{x_j\}) |\mu_t|^{-y_k} 

1080:            \left(\lambda_k - y_k \mu_k \lambda_t \mu_t^{-1}\right) + 

1081:        2 \mu_t \lambda_t \tilde{\phi}(\{x_j\}) \log |\mu_t| 

1082: \nonumber \\

1083: && 

1084:     + \mu_t^2 \log |\mu_t|

1085:        \sum_{ik\,\in [\sigma]} \tilde{\psi}_{ik,\pm}(\{x_j\}) v_i v_k 

1086:            |\mu_t|^{-y_i-y_k}  

1087: \nonumber \\

1088: &&    + \mu_t^2 \log |\mu_t|\sum_{k\,\in [I],[\epsilon]} 

1089:              {\partial \tilde{\phi}\over \partial x_k} 

1090:                    (\{x_j\}) |\mu_t|^{-y_k} 

1091:            \left(\lambda_k - y_k \mu_k \lambda_t \mu_t^{-1}\right),

1092: \end{eqnarray}

1093: where all functions depend only on the irrelevant ${\sZ}_2$-even scaling 

1094: fields through $x_j = \mu_j \mu_t^{-y_j}$,

1095: $\phi$ and $\tilde{\phi}$ are defined in 

1096: Eqs. \reff{def-phi}, \reff{def-phitilde}, and 

1097: $\psi_{ik,\pm}$ and $\tilde{\psi}_{ik,\pm}$ are second-order

1098: derivatives of $f_\pm$ and $\tilde{f}_\pm$ with respect to the 

1099: $[\sigma]$-family fields.

1100: The sums over $\sZ_2$-even fields include only the irrelevant 

1101: ones---the temperature 

1102: should be excluded---while the sums over $[\sigma]$-fields include both the 

1103: magnetic and the irrelevant ones.

1104: Since $y_j = -1/8 + 2n$, $n$ integer, for $[\sigma]$ operators and $y_j$ integer for 

1105: ${\sZ}_2$-even operators, this result implies the expansion 

1106: \be

1107: \chi_{\pm} = |\tau|^{-7/4} A_\pm(\tau) + 

1108:              |\tau|^{-7/4} \log |\tau| B_\pm(\tau) + C(\tau) +

1109:              D(\tau) \log |\tau|,

1110: \label{RGprediction-chi}

1111: \ee

1112: where all functions are regular and only $A_\pm$ and $B_\pm$ depend on the 

1113: phase.  

1114: 

1115: If we now use the conjecture (c1) we obtain

1116: $\tilde{\psi}_{ik,\pm} = 0$, and therefore $B_\pm(\tau) = 0$ in agreement 

1117: with the results of \cite{g2000}.

1118: 

1119: By comparing \reff{RGprediction-chi} with \reff{Orrick-chi}, 

1120: we find $B_f(\tau) = C(\tau) +

1121:              D(\tau) \log |\tau|$,  so that

1122: $B_f(\tau)$ should be identical in both phases,

1123: in agreement with the results of \cite{g2000}.

1124: However, we predict only a single $\log |\tau|$, while in 

1125: \cite{g2000} all powers appear. This means that our scaling Ansatz 

1126: \reff{F-RG} is not correct: There are additional resonances that give rise 

1127: to a more complicated logarithmic structure. 

1128: 

1129: For $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ we find

1130: \be

1131: \widehat{F}_\pm(\tau) = 

1132:     {1\over C^\pm} k(\tau)^{-1/4} \tau^4 \left(\mu_t\over\tau\right)^{2+1/4} 

1133:      \sum_{ik\, \rm odd} \psi_{ik,\pm}(\{x_j\}) v_i v_k 

1134:            \mu_t^{-y_i-y_k-1/4}\; .

1135: \ee

1136: By using the conjectures (a) and (b), we can show that 

1137: $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ is even in $\tau$, in agreement with the 

1138: results of \cite{g2000}. Note that the functions $\lambda_j(\tau)$ 

1139: instead have no specific properties under $\tau\to -\tau$ and indeed 

1140: $B_f(\tau)$ contains all powers of $\tau$. 

1141: 

1142: Let us now discuss in more detail the consequences of Eqs. 

1143: \reff{hatF-square} and \reff{G-square}. First, notice that the most 

1144: important irrelevant operator of the $[\sigma]$ family 

1145: ($Q_3^{\sigma} \bar{Q_3^{\sigma}}$) has dimension $y=-4-1/8$. 

1146: Since $y_h = 2 - 1/8$, it gives corrections of order

1147: $\tau^6$. Thus, neglecting corrections of this order, we need to consider 

1148: only the magnetic operator (the leading one) 

1149: among the $[\sigma]$-family contributions.

1150: Second, among the $\sZ_2$-even operators, the leading ones 

1151: are $T\bar{T}$ and $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$, both with $y=-2$. 

1152: However, $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$ is a spin-four operator and thus it may contribute 

1153: to rotationally invariant quantities only to second order, i.e. it 

1154: gives corrections of order $\tau^4$. Therefore, the leading correction

1155: (of order $\tau^2$) can only be due to $T\bar{T}$. Accordingly 

1156: we write:

1157: \begin{eqnarray}

1158: \tilde{\phi} = - A \left(1 + 

1159:           \phi_1 \mu^2_t \mu_{T\bar{T}} + O(\tau^4) \right), \\

1160: \rho_h = B \left(1 + 

1161:           \rho_{h1} \mu^2_t \mu_{T\bar{T}} + O(\tau^4) \right), \\

1162: \psi_{\pm,hh} = C^\pm \left(1 + 

1163:           \psi_{\pm,hh1} \mu^2_t \mu_{T\bar{T}} + O(\tau^4) \right). 

1164: \end{eqnarray}

1165: Then, since $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(\tau)$ is an even function of $\tau$, we have

1166: for the functions $G_{\pm}(z)$ defined in \reff{hatF-square}

1167: \be

1168: G_\pm = 1 + (\psi_{\pm,hh1} - 2 \rho_{h1} + \phi_1) z^2 \mu_{T\bar{T}}(0) + 

1169:             O(z^4).

1170: \ee

1171: By comparing with \reff{G-square}, we see that one of the following two

1172: conditions must be satisfied: either 

1173: $(\psi_{\pm,hh1} - 2 \rho_{h1} + \phi_1) = 0$ or $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(0) = 0$.

1174: Thus, unless a miraculous cancellation occurs, the absence 

1175: of the $z^2$ term implies our conjecture (d0).

1176: 

1177: Equation \reff{G-square} implies also that at least one operator contributes to 

1178: order $\tau^4$ and a different one at order $\tau^6$. Note that it is 

1179: not possible that the contribution of order $\tau^6$ is due to the 

1180: nonlinear scaling field(s) already contributing to order $\tau^4$. 

1181: Indeed, if this were the case, the contribution $O(z^6)$ in \reff{G-square}

1182: would be independent of the phase as the term $O(z^4)$ is.\footnote{

1183: Note that this independence does not follow from the RG 

1184: expressions, since the functions $\psi_{+}$ and $\psi_{-}$ are expected to be different.}

1185: This result is perfectly compatible with the CFT results of Sec. \ref{sec3} that predict:

1186: \begin{enumerate}

1187: \item At order $\tau^4$, the spin-four operator $T^2 +\bar{T}^2$ 

1188:   appears;

1189: \item At order $\tau^6$, three operators may appear: 

1190:   the spin-zero operators $Q_4^{I} \bar{Q_4^{I}}$ and 

1191:   $Q_3^{\sigma} \bar{Q_3^{\sigma}}$, and the spin-four 

1192:   operator $Q_4^{\epsilon} + \bar{Q_4^{\epsilon}}$. 

1193: \end{enumerate}

1194: Note that $T^2 +\bar{T}^2$ and $Q_4^{\epsilon} + \bar{Q_4^{\epsilon}}$ have

1195: $y=-2$ and $y=-3$ respectively; however, 

1196: since they have spin four, they may contribute only at second order, 

1197: and therefore at $O(\tau^4)$ and $O(\tau^6)$ respectively. 

1198: Finally, note that \reff{G-square} is also in perfect agreement 

1199: with the stronger conjecture (d2), that only non-rotationally

1200: invariant operators are present. In this case, we have an operator 

1201: that starts contributing at order $\tau^4$ and a second one appearing 

1202: at order $\tau^6$. 

1203: 

1204: At higher orders, the situation becomes more involved. 

1205: Beside the contributions of the expansion of the scaling fields appearing 

1206: at lower orders, at order $\tau^8$ one must consider the fourth

1207: power of the nonlinear scaling field associated to $T^2 +\bar{T}^2$. 

1208: There is also a spin-zero operator 

1209: $Q_4^{\epsilon}\bar{Q_4^{\epsilon}}$ with $y=-7$. However, because of 

1210: the conjecture (b), we expect this operator 

1211: to contribute only to second order and therefore starting at $O(\tau^{14})$.

1212: 

1213: It is interesting to note that, if the conjecture (d0) is true, Eqs. 

1214: \reff{def-function-a} and \reff{def-function-b} provide the 

1215: first terms of the expansion of $\mu_t(\tau)$ and $v_h(\tau)$ in 

1216: powers of $\tau$. Explicitly

1217: \begin{eqnarray}

1218: \mu_t(\tau) &=& \tau \left( 1 - {3\over16} \tau^2 + O(\tau^4) \right), \\

1219: v_h(\tau) &=& k(\tau)^{1/8} \left(1 + {11\over 128}  \tau^2 + O(\tau^4)\right).

1220: \end{eqnarray}

1221: Such expansions already appear in \cite{ssv1}, but assume a very simple 

1222: form in the variable $\tau$. 

1223: 

1224: Finally, let us see which informations we can obtain from $B_f(\tau)$.

1225: As we already noted our expressions are not compatible with 

1226: \reff{Bf-def} because of the presence of higher powers of $\log \tau$.

1227: We assume here

1228: that our parametrization of the free energy gives the correct 

1229: expression of $B_f(\tau)$ up to terms of order $\tau^{4}$, since at 

1230: this order a $\log^2\tau$ appears. 

1231: Under this assumption, we can compute the first terms in the 

1232: expansion of $\lambda_t(\tau)$.  We compare the 

1233: terms proportional to $\log |\tau|$, writing

1234: \be

1235: 2 \mu_t(\tau) \lambda_t(\tau) \tilde{\phi}(\{0\}) = 

1236:      \sum_{q=1}^3 b^{(1,q)} \tau^q + O(\tau^4).

1237: \ee

1238: Using $\tilde{\phi}(0)=-1/(2\pi)$, this gives for $\lambda_t(\tau)$

1239: \be

1240: \lambda_t(\tau) =\, k(\tau)^{1/4} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \lambda_{tk} \tau^k,

1241: \label{lambdat-expansion}

1242: \ee

1243: where

1244: \begin{eqnarray}

1245: \lambda_{t0} &=& -0.10163764897527987657904520338506263625548489685 \; ,

1246: \nonumber \\

1247: \lambda_{t1} &=& 0 \, 

1248: \nonumber \\

1249: \lambda_{t2} &=& -0.000912698513043685863484370258366986546254622\; .

1250: \end{eqnarray} 

1251: It remains unclear why, by factoring out the term $k(\tau)^{1/4}$,

1252: the linear term in $\lambda_t(\tau)$ vanishes. Note that the 

1253: value of $\lambda_{t2}$ is correct only if the conjecture 

1254: (d0) holds.

1255: 

1256: \subsection{The triangular lattice} \label{sec4.3}

1257: 

1258: It is very interesting to extend the results of \cite{g2000} to the 

1259: triangular lattice. Indeed, in this case it is possible to make a much 

1260: stronger test of the conjectures we have made. 

1261: 

1262: First, it is easy to see that the exact results 

1263: \cite{Stephenson-64} for the free energy and 

1264: the magnetization are fully compatible with the conjectures 

1265: we have made. Then, 

1266: let us derive the behavior of the susceptibility.

1267: Equation \reff{RGprediction-chi} is lattice independent and 

1268: it implies (apart from the logarithmic structure) \reff{Orrick-chi}. 

1269: Therefore, the expansion on the triangular lattice should also have 

1270: the form \reff{Orrick-chi}. Also, according to 

1271: conjectures (a) and (b), we expect $\widehat{F}(\tau)$ to be even

1272: in $\tau$, where now $\tau$ is defined in \reff{tau-tria}: 

1273: some evidence will be provided in Sec. \ref{sec5.2}. 

1274: Therefore, \reff{hatF-square} should hold with $G_\pm(z)$ even in $z$. 

1275: 

1276: Finally, we wish to predict which powers of $z$ should be absent in the 

1277: expansion of $G_\pm(z)$. This depends on the operators that can appear.

1278: CFT predicts the following:

1279: \begin{enumerate}

1280: \item At order $\tau^2$ we should consider $T\bar{T}$;

1281: \item At order $\tau^6$ we should consider the spin-zero operators 

1282: $Q_4^{I} \bar{Q_4^{I}}$ and $Q_3^{\sigma} \bar{Q_3^{\sigma}}$;

1283: \item At order $\tau^8$ we should consider the spin-six operator

1284: $Q^I_6 + \bar{Q}^I_6$; 

1285: \item At order $\tau^{10}$ we should consider the spin-zero operators

1286:  $Q_6^{I} \bar{Q_6^{I}}$, $Q_5^{\sigma} \bar{Q_5^{\sigma}}$,

1287:  and the spin-six operators $Q_6^{\epsilon} + \bar{Q_6^{\epsilon}}$,

1288:  $Q_6^\sigma + \bar{Q}_6^\sigma$.

1289: \end{enumerate}

1290: As we already mentioned, spin-six operators contribute to second order

1291: in rotationally invariant quantities. Moreover, we have not indicated 

1292: powers of lower-order operators and the 

1293: $[\epsilon]$-family operator $Q^\epsilon_4\bar{Q}^\epsilon_4$ 

1294: that, according to conjecture (b), should contribute corrections of 

1295: order $\tau^{14}$. 

1296: 

1297: {} From this classification, we have the following 

1298: possibilities: 

1299: \begin{enumerate}

1300: \item If $T\bar{T}$ is present, the term of order $z^2$ should be 

1301: present barring miraculous cancellations.

1302: \item If the conjecture (d0) is true, as on the square lattice, while 

1303: the conjecture (d1) is false so that $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(\tau) \sim \tau^2$, 

1304: then the term of order $z^2$ should be absent and the term of 

1305: order $z^4$ should be nonvanishing.

1306: \item If the conjecture (d1) is valid, 

1307: both terms of order $z^2$ and $z^4$ should be absent;

1308: \item If the stronger conjecture (d2) is true, i.e. if only 

1309: non-rotationally invariant operators are present, the term 

1310: of order $z^6$ is also absent. 

1311: More precisely, this cancellation would imply 

1312: $\mu(0)= 0$ for $Q_4^I \bar{Q}_4^I$, $v(0) = 0$ for 

1313: $Q_3^\sigma \bar{Q}_3^\sigma$, and $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(\tau)\sim o(\tau^4)$.

1314: We expect the term of order $z^8$ to be nonvanishing

1315: since at this order the spin-six operator 

1316: $Q_6^I + \bar{Q}_6^I$ should contribute.

1317: \end{enumerate}

1318: 

1319: The triangular lattice is therefore a better testing ground for our 

1320: conjectures. Indeed, the conjecture (d1) requires two coefficients to vanish, 

1321: a very nontrivial fact. Moreover, we are able to distinguish between 

1322: the conjectures (d1) and (d2).

1323: 

1324: 

1325: \section{The large-distance behavior of the two-point function} \label{sec5}

1326: 

1327: In this Section we will study the large-distance behavior of the two-point

1328: function on the square lattice, reviewing in part the 

1329: results of \cite{CCCPV-00}, and on the triangular lattice.

1330: The square-lattice analysis will confirm the validity of the 

1331: conjecture (d0), i.e. $\mu_{T\bar{T}} (0) = 0$.

1332: Much more interesting is the analysis on the triangular lattice 

1333: which will show that $\mu_{T\bar{T}} (\tau) = o(\tau^4)$, thus providing 

1334: strong support to the conjecture (d1). We will also find that the 

1335: subleading corrections due to the zero-spin operator with 

1336: $y=-6$ are absent, in agreement with the conjecture presented in the 

1337: Introduction (conjecture (d2) of Sec. \ref{sec4.1}).

1338: 

1339: \subsection{The square lattice} \label{sec5.1}

1340: 

1341: Let us now consider the large-distance behavior of the two-point function 

1342: for $h=0$, $\tau > 0$. For large $|x|$ it has the form 

1343: \cite{CW-67} 

1344: \be

1345: G(x,y;\tau) = Z(\tau) \int_{-\pi}^\pi {dk_1\over 2\pi} {dk_2\over 2\pi}

1346:         {e^{ik_1 x+ ik_2 y} \over \Delta_s(k) + M_s(\tau)^2} ,

1347: \ee

1348: where 

1349: \begin{eqnarray}

1350:   \Delta_s(k) &=& 4 \sin^2 {k_1\over2} +\ 4 \sin^2 {k_2\over2}, \\

1351:   Z(\tau) &=& \sqrt{8}\, \tau^{1/4}\, k(\tau)^{1/4}\, (1 + \tau^2)^{1/8} = 

1352:        2 (k(\tau)^2 - 1)^{1/4},  

1353: \label{Z-square}\\

1354:   M_s(\tau)^2 &=& 4 \left(\sqrt{1 + \tau^2} - 1\right).

1355: \end{eqnarray}

1356: {} From these expressions, we can compute the angle-dependent correlation 

1357: length $\xi(\theta)$ defined from the large-distance behavior of the 

1358: two-point function along a direction forming an angle $\theta$ with 

1359: the side of the lattice. We obtain

1360: \be

1361: \xi(\theta) = {1\over\sqrt{2}a(\tau)} 

1362:    \left[1 + {a(\tau)^2\over 48} \cos4\theta + 

1363:       {a(\tau)^4} \left({1\over 3072} - {1\over 320} \cos 4\theta - 

1364:         {5\over 9216} \cos 8 \theta\right) + O(a(\tau)^6)\right],

1365: \label{xi-square}

1366: \ee

1367: where $a(\tau)$ is defined by Eqs. \reff{def-function-a}, \reff{a-function-square}.

1368: As already observed in \cite{CPRV-98}, this expansion 

1369: shows the presence of a correction of order $\tau^2$ due to the leading 

1370: irrelevant operator breaking rotational invariance. 

1371: However, the interesting additional feature is that this term is the 

1372: only one, i.e. there is no correction due to the rotationally 

1373: invariant subleading operators \cite{CCCPV-00}. 

1374: This result is naturally interpreted: The correction we find is due to 

1375: the spin-four operator $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$ and there is no contribution 

1376: due the scalar operator $T\bar{T}$. At order $\tau^4$ there is 

1377: scalar term, but this does not require the presence of a scalar operator: 

1378: The angle-independent contribution  can be interpreted as due to the 

1379: square of the spin-four operator $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$. 

1380: Therefore, the result \reff{xi-square} supports the conjecture (d0)

1381: and is compatible with the stronger ones (d1) and (d2).

1382: 

1383: In \cite{CCCPV-00} we also analyzed the on-shell renormalization constant

1384: $Z(\tau)$ and found no terms of order $\tau^2$. We thought this to be a 

1385: good indication of the absence of both $T\bar{T}$ and $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$.

1386: We now believe that this conclusion was a little bit too hasty. 

1387: First, \reff{Z-square} implies

1388: \be

1389: Z(\tau) = \sqrt{8} a(\tau)^{1/4} b(\tau)^2,

1390: \label{Zsquare}

1391: \ee

1392: with no corrections to all orders. Of course, we cannot take this 

1393: as an indication that all operators are absent. 

1394: Moreover, there is also a conceptual problem: $Z(\tau)$ is defined from the 

1395: behavior of the two-point function at $p = - i M(\tau)$ and thus 

1396: we should consider the momentum-dependent nonlinear scaling fields as 

1397: we did in \cite{CCCPV-00} for the second-moment correlation length.

1398: As we shall see in the next Section, no particular simplification occurs in the 

1399: triangular case, and we find corrections of order $\tau^2$ to the 

1400: expression \reff{Zsquare}. Thus, the observed cancellation is accidental

1401: and does not have any connection with the operator structure of the model.

1402: 

1403: Finally, we present an argument to make plausible the fact that the 

1404: functions $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ are even in $\tau$. 

1405: If the short-distance part $B_f(\tau)$ were absent, such a property 

1406: would follow from the symmetry

1407: \be

1408:   (-\tau)^{-1/4}\,  k(-\tau)^{-1/4} \chi_\pm(-\tau) = 

1409:     \tau^{-1/4} \, k(\tau)^{-1/4} \chi_\pm(\tau).

1410: \ee

1411: The interesting observation is that this symmetry property is satisfied by

1412: the large-distance expression of $G(x,y;\tau)$. Indeed, using the 

1413: expressions reported above we immediately verify that

1414: \be

1415:   (-\tau)^{-1/4}\, k(-\tau)^{-1/4} G(x,y;-\tau) = 

1416:   \tau^{-1/4} \, k(\tau)^{-1/4}  G(x,y;\tau).

1417: \label{relation-G-dualita}

1418: \ee

1419:   

1420: 

1421: \subsection{The triangular lattice} \label{sec5.2}

1422: 

1423: We now repeat the same analysis on the triangular lattice. The large-distance 

1424: behavior of the two-point function along a side of the lattice was 

1425: computed in \cite{Stephenson-70}. Such expression was generalized in

1426: \cite{CPRV-96} where it was conjectured that the large-distance behavior 

1427: was given by the propagator of a Gaussian field on a triangular 

1428: lattice, in analogy with the square-lattice expression. 

1429: Therefore,

1430: \be

1431: G(x,y;\tau) = {\sqrt{3}\over 8\pi^2} \, Z(\tau) \int^\pi_{-\pi} {dk_1}

1432:            \int^{2 \pi/\sqrt{3}}_{-2 \pi/\sqrt{3}} dk_2\,

1433:             {e^{i k_1 x + i k_2 y}\over \Delta_t(k) + M_t(\tau)^2},

1434: \label{generalG-tr}

1435: \ee                                                                             

1436: where 

1437: \begin{eqnarray}

1438: \Delta_t(k) &=& 4 - {4\over3} \cos k_1 -

1439:                   {8\over3} \cos {k_1\over2} \cos {\sqrt{3} k_2\over2} ,\\

1440: M_t(\tau)^2 &=& {8\over3} \left(\cosh \textstyle{1\over2}\mu_l - 1\right)

1441:                     \left(\cosh \textstyle{1\over2}\mu_l + 2\right)  , \\ 

1442: Z(\tau) &=& {8\over 3} A(\tau)^{-1/4} (k(\tau)^2 - 1)^{1/4} 

1443:             \left(A(\tau) + \sqrt{A(\tau)} + 1\right)^{1/2}, \\

1444: \mu_l(\tau) &=& \log A(\tau), 

1445: \end{eqnarray}

1446: and 

1447: \be

1448: A(\tau) \equiv 

1449: \left({\sqrt{1 - v + v^2} - \sqrt{v} \over \sqrt{v} (1 - v)}\right)^2.

1450: \ee 

1451: The conjectured form \reff{generalG-tr} was checked in the 

1452: high-temperature limit \cite{CPRV-96}, by computing the 

1453: expansion of $G(x,y;\tau)$ in powers of $\beta$ to order $\beta^{15}$.

1454: 

1455: Note that, under $\tau \to -\tau$, we have 

1456: \be

1457: A(- \tau) = {1\over A(\tau)},

1458: \ee

1459: and 

1460: \begin{eqnarray}

1461: M_t(-\tau)^2 &=& M_t(\tau)^2,  

1462: \label{duality-Mt} \\

1463: Z(-\tau) (-\tau)^{-1/4} k(-\tau)^{-1/4} &=& 

1464:      Z(\tau) \tau^{-1/4} k(\tau)^{-1/4}.

1465: \label{duality-Zt}

1466: \end{eqnarray}

1467: {}From the large-distance behavior of the two-point function we can obtain 

1468: the angle-dependent correlation length $\xi(\theta)$ taken along 

1469: a direction forming an angle $\theta$ with a side of the triangles. 

1470: We have, in terms of the function $a(\tau)$ defined in 

1471: \reff{def-function-a}, \reff{a-function-tria}, 

1472: \begin{eqnarray}

1473: \xi(\theta) &=& {\sqrt{3} \over 2 a(\tau)} 

1474:     \left[1  + {a(\tau)^4 \cos 6\theta\over 6480} - 

1475:                {a(\tau)^6 \cos 6\theta\over 54432} \right.

1476: \nonumber \\

1477:   && \hphantom{\sqrt{3} \over 2 a(\tau)} 

1478:   \left. + {a(\tau)^8\over 55987200} +

1479:    {a(\tau)^8 \cos 6\theta\over 559872} - 

1480:    {a(\tau)^8 \cos 12\theta\over 18662400} \right].

1481: \end{eqnarray}

1482: This result provides a very strong check of the conjecture (d2) presented in 

1483: the introduction. Indeed, the first correction term appears only at order 

1484: $a(\tau)^4$ and is proportional to $\cos 6\theta$. It is thus unambiguously 

1485: related to the spin-six operator $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$. At order $a(\tau)^6$ 

1486: there is also a correction term, but it is again proportional to 

1487: $\cos 6\theta$ and thus it should be associated to a spin-six 

1488: operator. Since no new operator appears at this order, it must be identified

1489: with an analytic correction due to the operator 

1490: $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$. At order $a(\tau)^8$ a constant term and 

1491: a $\cos 12\theta$ appear,

1492: but they may be due to the square of the operator $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$.

1493: 

1494: In conclusion, this calculation provides very strong evidence for the 

1495: absence of $T\bar{T}$, conjecture (d1)---more precisely it proves that

1496: $\mu_{T\bar{T}} = o(\tau^4)$---and also for the

1497: conjecture (d2). Indeed, if (d1), but not (d2), were true, the 

1498: spin-zero operator $Q_4^I + \bar{Q}_4^I$

1499: would contribute to order $\tau^6$, giving rise to an angle-independent term 

1500: proportional to $a(\tau)^6$. The absence of such term supports  the validity 

1501: of (d2).

1502: 

1503: Interestingly enough, this calculation allows the 

1504: computation of the first analytic term in the scaling field $\mu_1(\tau)$ 

1505: that is associated with $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$. Indeed, if the conjecture (d2) is 

1506: correct, the function $a(\tau)$ 

1507: given in \reff{a-function-tria} coincides with the temperature scaling 

1508: field at $h=0$ up to terms of order $\tau^9$, i.e. 

1509: $\mu_t(\tau) = a(\tau) + O(\tau^9)$. Then, we write 

1510: \be

1511: \xi(\theta) = {\sqrt{3}\over 2} {1\over \mu_t(\tau)}

1512:    \left(1 + \alpha \mu_t(\tau)^4 \mu_1(\tau) \cos 6\theta + O(\tau^8)\right),

1513: \ee

1514: and fix $\alpha$ by requiring $\mu_1(0) = 1$. Then 

1515: \be 

1516: \mu_1(\tau) = 1 - {5\over 42} \tau^2 + O(\tau^4).

1517: \ee

1518: Considering now the function $Z(\tau)$, no particular simplification

1519: occurs and a correction term of order $a(\tau)^2$ 

1520: appears. Explicitly

1521: \be

1522: Z(\tau) = {16\over 3\cdot 6^{1/4}} a(\tau)^{1/4} b(\tau)^2 

1523: \left(1 + {a(\tau)^2\over 18} + \cdots\right).

1524: \ee

1525: As we already discussed in Sec. \ref{sec5.1},

1526: the presence of the quadratic term is probably related to the 

1527: presence of a momentum-dependent contribution to the 

1528: nonlinear scaling fields.

1529: 

1530: Finally, we note that \reff{relation-G-dualita} is also satisfied 

1531: on the triangular lattice, as it may be easily shown

1532: by using \reff{duality-Mt} and \reff{duality-Zt}. 

1533: Again, this gives a plausibility argument for the 

1534: fact that the function $\widehat{F}(\tau)$ appearing 

1535: in \reff{Orrick-chi} is even on the 

1536: triangular lattice too.

1537: 

1538: 

1539: \section{Finite-size scaling at the critical point} \label{sec6}

1540: 

1541: Recently, there has been much effort in understanding the behavior of the 

1542: Ising model in a finite box or strip of size $L$ at the critical point 

1543: $h=\tau=0$, computing the finite-size free energy $f_L$, 

1544: energy $E_L$, specific heat $C_L$, and inverse mass gap 

1545: $\xi_L$. The results obtained are the following:

1546: \begin{itemize}

1547: \item In \cite{deQueiroz} and \cite{ih-00-strip}, $f_L$ and $\xi_L$

1548: were computed on a strip of width $L$ for several different lattices: 

1549: It was found that these two quantities have an expansion of the form 

1550: \begin{eqnarray}

1551: L^2 (f_L - f_\infty) &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty {f_n\over L^{2n}} \\

1552: {\xi_L\over L} &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty {s_n\over L^{2n}}.

1553: \end{eqnarray}

1554: Note that in the expansion only even powers of $L$ appear. Moreover, 

1555: on a triangular lattice $f_1=f_3=0$ and $s_1=s_3=0$.

1556: \item Salas \cite{Salas-01} and Izmailian and Hu \cite{ih-00-square} 

1557: computed $f_L$, $E_L$, $C_L$ for a square lattice $L\times M$

1558: for fixed aspect ratio $\rho = M/L$, 

1559: extending the results of \cite{FeFi}. They found:

1560: \begin{eqnarray}

1561: L^2 (f_L - f_\infty) &=& \sum_{n=0}^\infty {f_n(\rho)\over L^{2n}}, \\

1562: E_L &=& - \sqrt{2} + \sum_{n=0}^\infty {e_n(\rho)\over L^{2n+1}}, \\

1563: C_L &=& {8\over \pi} \log L + \sqrt{2} E_L + 

1564:     \sum_{n=0}^\infty {h_n(\rho)\over L^{2n}}. 

1565: \end{eqnarray}

1566: The specific heat has also been computed for a square lattice 

1567: with Brascamp-Kunz boundary conditions in \cite{JK-01}.

1568: However, in this case translation invariance is lost 

1569: in one direction and thus we cannot apply straightforwardly the 

1570: results presented here.

1571: \end{itemize}

1572: In this Section, we want to explain the general features of these

1573: results. 

1574: 

1575: In finite volume the general scaling expression \reff{F-RG} can be 

1576: generalized by writing (see, e.g., \cite{PriRu,GJ-87,PHA-91,Privman-90})

1577: \be

1578: F(\tau,h;L) = f_b(\tau,h) + {1\over L^2} W(\{u_j L^{y_j}\}) + 

1579:        {1\over L^2} \log L\, \widetilde{W}(\{u_j L^{y_j}\}),

1580: \label{F-RG-finiteL}

1581: \ee

1582: where we assume that the bulk contribution is independent of $L$, or,

1583: more plausibly, that it depends on $L$ only through exponentially small 

1584: corrections \cite{Privman-90,PHA-91}, and the functions $W$ 

1585: and $\widetilde{W}$ depend on all 

1586: scaling fields. Equation \reff{F-RG-finiteL} cannot be correct in general. 

1587: Indeed, the results of \cite{g2000} indicate the presence of powers of

1588: $\log|\tau|$ in the susceptibility, which imply the 

1589: presence of powers of $\log L$ in \reff{F-RG-finiteL}. 

1590: These corrections should be relevant only if we consider 

1591: derivatives of the free energy with respect to $h$, while here 

1592: we set $h=0$ from the beginning. In this particular case, 

1593: \reff{F-RG-finiteL} should be correct. 

1594: 

1595: If $h=0$, the 

1596: $[\sigma]$-family scaling fields do not contribute, 

1597: so that \reff{F-RG-finiteL} becomes

1598: \be

1599: F(\tau,0;L) = f_b(\tau,0) + {1\over L^2} W(\{\mu_j(\tau) L^{y_j}\}) +

1600:        {1\over L^2} \log L\;  \widetilde{W}(\{\mu_j(\tau) L^{y_j}\}),

1601: \label{F-RG-finiteL-h0}

1602: \ee                                                                             

1603: where the scaling functions depend only on the ${\sZ}_2$-even scaling fields.

1604: By using \reff{scaling-fields-duality} and the fact that 

1605: the RG eigenvalues $y_j$ are even for the identity family and 

1606: odd for the energy family we obtain

1607: \be

1608:   W(\{\mu_j(-\tau) (-L)^{y_j}\}) =  W(\{\mu_j(\tau) L^{y_j}\})

1609: \ee

1610: and an analogous formula for $\widetilde{W}$. 

1611: Therefore, apart from the bulk contribution,

1612: even derivatives of $F$ with respect to $\tau$ contain only even powers of 

1613: $L$, while odd derivatives contain only odd powers of $L$. This explains 

1614: the particular structure of the results obtained by 

1615: \cite{ih-00-strip,ih-00-square,Salas-01} since

1616: \begin{eqnarray}

1617: E_L &=& 2 \sqrt{2} \left. {\partial F\over \partial\tau}\right|_{\tau = 0},

1618: \\

1619: C_L &=& \sqrt{2} E_L + 8 

1620:   \left. {\partial^2 F\over \partial\tau^2}\right|_{\tau = 0}.

1621: \label{RG-prediction-CL}

1622: \end{eqnarray}

1623: In particular, \reff{RG-prediction-CL} explains why

1624: the odd terms in the expansion of $C_L$ are related 

1625: to those of the  energy. 

1626: 

1627: For what concerns the logarithms, only $C_L$ shows a logarithmic 

1628: dependence, and only at leading order in $L$. This may be explained

1629: if

1630: \be

1631:  \widetilde{W}(\{\mu_j(\tau) L^{y_j}\}) = 

1632:    \widehat{W}(\mu_t(\tau) L).

1633: \label{eq:What}

1634: \ee

1635: By using the results for the specific heat at criticality and in the 

1636: infinite-volume limit we can compute the asymptotic behavior of 

1637: $\widehat{W}(x)$ for $x\to 0$ and $x\to \infty$. 

1638: For $x\to 0$, the results for $C_L$ imply

1639: \be

1640: \widehat{W}(x) \approx {1\over 2\pi} x^2 + O(x^4),

1641: \ee

1642: while in order to obtain the correct infinite-volume limit, we should have

1643: \be

1644: \widehat{W}(x) \approx {1\over 2\pi} x^2 \left(1 + O(x^{-2})\right).

1645: \ee

1646: These two results make natural the conjecture that 

1647: \be 

1648: \widehat{W}(x) = {1\over 2\pi} x^2 

1649: \label{eq2:What}

1650: \ee

1651: for all $x$. There are several consequences of these results: 

1652: \begin{itemize}

1653: \item 

1654: Relation \reff{eq:What} and conjecture (c1) imply conjecture (c2), i.e. 

1655: that the function 

1656: $\tilde{f}$ in \reff{F-RG} is a simple constant, as originally suggested

1657: by Aharony and Fisher \cite{af}. If this is the case, the function 

1658: $\mu_t(\tau)$ coincides with the function $a(\tau)$.

1659: \item 

1660: If \reff{eq2:What} is correct, we predict that in the expansion of 

1661: $\partial^{2n} F/\partial \tau^{2n}$ at the critical point 

1662: there is only one logarithmic term, with a coefficient that can be computed 

1663: from the expansion of $a(\tau)$.

1664: \end{itemize}

1665: Let us now use \reff{F-RG-finiteL-h0} to determine the 

1666: corrections to the leading behavior. 

1667: We obtain

1668: \begin{eqnarray}

1669: L^2 f_L &=& L^2 f_b(0,0) + W(\{x_j\}), 

1670: \label{f-RG-L}\\

1671: {\partial F\over\partial\tau}(0) &=& 

1672:    \left.{\partial f_b\over \partial \tau}\right|_{\tau=h=0} + 

1673:         {1\over L^2} \sum_{i\in [\epsilon]} L^{y_i} W_{i}(\{x_j\}), 

1674:    \\

1675: {\partial^2 F\over\partial\tau^2}(0) &=& 

1676:      \left. {\partial^2 f_b\over \partial \tau^2}\right|_{\tau=h=0}  + 

1677:           {1\over L^2} \sum_{ik\in [\epsilon]}  

1678:                          L^{y_i+y_k} W_{ik} (\{x_j\}), 

1679: \nonumber \\ 

1680:          && + {1\over L^2} \sum_{i\in [I]} \mu_{2,i} L^{y_i}

1681:                W_{i} (\{x_j\}) + 2 A \log L,

1682: \end{eqnarray}

1683: where we write $\mu_j(\tau) = \mu_j(0) + \tau \mu_{1,j} + 

1684: {1\over2} \tau^2 \mu_{2,j}$, the functions $W_{i}$, and 

1685: $W_{ik}$ depend only on the identity-family scaling fields through

1686: $x_j \equiv \mu_j(0) L^{y_j} = L^{y_j}$, and the constant $A$ is defined by

1687: \reff{def-function-a}. We have also used the normalization conditions

1688: $\mu_{1,i} = 1$ for the energy-family fields 

1689: and $\mu_j(0) = 1$ for the identity-family fields.

1690: 

1691: Let us now discuss which corrections should be expected. The important point 

1692: is that here, at variance with the infinite-volume case, 

1693: nonzero spin operators can contribute to first order. Indeed, the 

1694: box breaks the rotational invariance down to the lattice invariance 

1695: and therefore the mean value of a lattice operator 

1696: that is not rotationally invariant but has the symmetries of the lattice is 

1697: nonzero. This implies that no missing term is expected on the 

1698: square lattice, in agreement with the exact results. 

1699: Indeed, the lowest operator is the spin-four operator $T^2+\bar{T}^2$ that 

1700: has $y=-2$ and belongs to the identity family, and is therefore able, alone,

1701: to give rise to all observed corrections.

1702: 

1703: On the triangular lattice instead simplifications are expected. 

1704: Consider first, the free energy $f_L$. The absence of the term 

1705: proportional to $L^{-2}$, i.e. $f_1 = 0$, implies 

1706: $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(0) = 0$, confirming once again the 

1707: conjecture (d0). 

1708: The next-to-leading operator belonging  to the identity family is 

1709: the spin-six $T^3+\bar{T}^3$

1710: that has $y=-4$. Therefore, in \reff{f-RG-L} the $T^3+\bar{T}^3$ 

1711: gives rise to corrections of order $L^{-4n}$. 

1712: The absence of the 

1713: $1/L^6$ term requires an additional cancellation, 

1714: i.e. $\mu(0)$ for the operator $Q_4^I \bar{Q}_4^I$ that has $y=-6$ 

1715: and zero spin, thereby 

1716: supporting our conjecture (d2).

1717: At order $1/L^8$ there appears a new operator 

1718: $Q_2^{I}\bar Q_8^{I}+\bar Q_2^{I} Q_8^{I}$

1719: that gives, together with $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$,

1720: corrections of order $L^{-8n-4m}$ and thus 

1721: indistinguishable from those of $T^3+\bar{T}^3$. 

1722: At order $1/L^{10}$, at least the spin-12 operator $T^6 + \bar{T}^6$ appears 

1723: and therefore we expect all corrections of the form $L^{-10n-4m}$ to be 

1724: nonvanishing.

1725: 

1726: An analogous cancellation is expected for $E_L$. 

1727: For $E_L$ the leading correction terms are 

1728: \be

1729: {1\over L} \mu_{1,t} W_t(\{x_j\}) + 

1730: {1\over L^7} \mu_{1,1} W_1(\{x_j\}) + \ldots

1731: \ee

1732: where $\mu_{1}(\tau)$ is the scaling field of the spin-six

1733: operator $Q^\epsilon_6 + \bar Q^\epsilon_6$ that has $y=-5$. 

1734: Reasoning as before, on the basis of conjecture (d0) alone, 

1735: we expect no correction of order $1/L^3$ 

1736: but the presence of all other terms. Analogously in $C_L$ the 

1737: $L^{-2}$ correction should be absent.

1738: 

1739: The results for the correlation length show the same pattern of the 

1740: free energy. The fact that $s_1 = s_3 = 0$ on the triangular lattice 

1741: provides additional evidence for the absence of spin-zero operators 

1742: in the theory.

1743: 

1744: %%start

1745: %% \subsection{1d Ising quantum chain.}

1746: It is interesting to notice that a similar finite-size scaling analysis was

1747: performed more than 10 years ago for the one-dimensional Ising quantum chain

1748: which belongs to the same universality class of the two-dimensional 

1749: Ising model (for a

1750: discussion of their connection, see~\cite{bg87}). In particular,

1751: in~\cite{h87} the finite-size behavior of the free energy and of the mass

1752: spectrum of the model was obtained and then compared  in ~\cite{r87a,r87b} 

1753: with the predictions of perturbed CFT (see~\cite{H_book} for an 

1754: updated review of the subject).

1755: 

1756: Remarkably enough, also in this case the contribution of the energy-momentum

1757: tensor exactly disappears and the first non-zero correction is given again by

1758: the spin-four operator $T^2 +\bar T^2$~\cite{r87a}. 

1759: 

1760: 

1761: \section{Finite-size scaling of the susceptibility at $t=0$} \label{sec7}

1762: 

1763: In the previous section we have discussed several thermal quantities at the 

1764: critical point and verified that the observed behavior is consistent with 

1765: the RG and CFT predictions and the conjectures we have made. 

1766: Here, we want to discuss the finite-size behavior of the susceptibility 

1767: on the square lattice, and we will check that the correction

1768: coefficients depend on the shape of the domain as predicted by the 

1769: spin nature of the operators. 

1770: 

1771: For this purpose we study two different finite square lattices in order 

1772: to verify the dependence of the corrections on the domain:

1773: \begin{eqnarray}

1774: D^{(A)}_M &=& \left\{ (n_0,n_1)\in \sZ^2, \; 0\le n_1,n_2\le M-1 \right\},

1775: \\

1776: D^{(B)}_M &=& \left\{ (n_0,n_1)\in \sZ^2, \; 0\le n_1+n_2\le 2M-1, 

1777:       0\le n_1-n_2\le 2M-1

1778:        \right\}.

1779: \end{eqnarray}

1780: In both cases the domain is a square: the first one

1781: has boundaries that are parallel to the lattices axes and 

1782: size $L=M$, while the 

1783: second one is rotated by 45$^{o}$ and has size $L=M\sqrt{2}$. 

1784: We use periodic boundary conditions. For domain $(A)$ 

1785: such conditions are obvious, for domain $(B)$ we identify 

1786: $(n_1,n_2)$ with $(n_1+M,n_2+M)$ and $(n_1+M,n_2-M)$. 

1787:  

1788: 

1789: 

1790: \subsection{Renormalization-group analysis}

1791: \label{sec7.1}

1792: 

1793: The finite-size scaling behavior of the susceptibility can be derived 

1794: easily, starting from \reff{F-RG-finiteL}. As we already said, such an 

1795: expansion misses some important corrections proportional

1796: to higher powers of $\log L$. However, they should only 

1797: be of interest if we analyzed the asymptotic behavior

1798: of $\chi$ for $\tau\to0$. Here, we consider 

1799: $\chi$ at the critical point and thus such corrections should 

1800: vanish.

1801: 

1802: A simple computation gives at the critical point 

1803: \begin{eqnarray}

1804: \chi_L(0,0) &=&

1805:   \left. {\partial^2 f_b\over \partial h^2}\right|_{\tau=h=0} + 

1806:   {1\over L^2} \sum_{k\in\, [I],[\epsilon]} \lambda_k(0) L^{y_k} 

1807:         W_k(\{x_j\}) 

1808:   \nonumber \\

1809:   && + {1\over L^2} \sum_{ik\in\, [\sigma]} 

1810:   L^{y_i + y_k} W_{ik}(\{x_j\}),

1811: \end{eqnarray}

1812: where the functions depend only on the identity-family scaling fields,

1813: $x_j \equiv \mu_j(0) L^{y_j} = L^{y_j}$,

1814: and we have used the normalization conditions 

1815: $v_i(0) = 1$, $\mu_j(0) = 1$ for spin- and identity-family 

1816: scaling fields.

1817: 

1818: Since $y_j = 2n-\frac18$ for the $[\sigma$]-family operators and 

1819: $y_j=2n$ for the identity-family operators, where $n$ is an integer,

1820: we have

1821: \be

1822: {1\over L^2} \sum_{ik\in\, [\sigma]} 

1823:   L^{y_i + y_k} W_{ik}(\{x_j\}) = 

1824:   L^{7/4}\, \sum_{k=0}^\infty {c_k\over L^{2k}},

1825: \ee

1826: i.e. the corrections contain only even powers of $L$. On the square lattice

1827: we do not anticipate any cancellation, i.e. we expect $c_k\not=0$ for all 

1828: $k$. Indeed, the leading correction is due to the operator

1829: $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$, which has $y=-2$, and thus gives rise to corrections 

1830: involving all powers of $L^{-2}$. 

1831: On the triangular lattice instead we expect $c_1 = 0$, because of 

1832: the conjecture (d0). All other terms are expected to be 

1833: nonvanishing. Indeed, the presence of the spin-six operator

1834: $T^3 + \bar{T}^3$ generates terms $L^{-4n}$, while 

1835: the presence of the spin-six operator $Q^\sigma_6 + \bar{Q}^\sigma_6$

1836: together with the previous one generates terms $L^{-6-4n}$. 

1837: 

1838: Let us now consider the term that contains a sum over all 

1839: identity- and energy-family operators. We 

1840: expect in this case all powers of $L^{-1}$, i.e.

1841: \be

1842: {1\over L^2} \sum_{k\in\, [I],[\epsilon]} \lambda_k(0) L^{y_k} 

1843:     W_k (\{x_j\}) = {1\over L}

1844:        \sum_{k=0}^\infty {d_k\over L^{k}}.

1845: \label{sviluppochiL-secondo}

1846: \ee

1847: On the square lattice we should have $d_1 = 0$. Indeed, the leading 

1848: energy-family scaling field is associated with the temperature and gives a 

1849: contribution of the form 

1850: \be

1851: {1\over L^2} \lambda_t(0) L W_t (\{x_j\}) \sim {1\over L} 

1852:    \left(a + {b\over L^2} + 

1853:         {c\over L^4} + \cdots\right),

1854: \ee

1855: and thus generates all even terms in \reff{sviluppochiL-secondo}.

1856: The odd terms in \reff{sviluppochiL-secondo} are generated by the 

1857: identity-family operators, the leading one being $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$. 

1858: It gives 

1859: \be

1860: {1\over L^2} \lambda_1(0) L^{-2} W_1 (\{x_j\}) \sim {1\over L}

1861:    \left( {a\over L^3} + {b\over L^5} + {c\over L^7} + \cdots 

1862:    \right),

1863: \ee

1864: and thus generates all odd terms except the first one. Hence $d_1=0$. 

1865: Note that is cancellation follows from CFT alone and does not require

1866: any additional hypothesis.

1867: 

1868: On the triangular lattice the discussion is similar although a little 

1869: more complicated. We predict $d_1 = d_2 = d_3 = d_7 = 0$. 

1870: The condition $d_1=0$ does not require any conjecture, while $d_2=0$ 

1871: implies the validity of the conjecture (d0). Much more interesting 

1872: is to check whether $d_3=d_7=0$, since the vanishing of these coefficients

1873: implies $\lambda_{T\bar{T}}(0)=0$ and 

1874: $\lambda(0) = 0$ for the operator $Q_4^I \bar{Q}_4^I$. 

1875: Thus, the analysis of $\chi$ on the 

1876: triangular lattice would provide some additional evidence for or rule 

1877: out the conjectures (d1) and (d2). 

1878: 

1879: 

1880: \bigskip 

1881: \subsection{The transfer-matrix calculation} \label{sec7.2}

1882: 

1883: {} From the previous discussion, we can write on the square lattice 

1884: \eq

1885:  \chi_L(0,0) = L^{7/4}\left(c_0+\frac{c_1}{L^2}+\frac{c_2}{L^4}\right)

1886:  + D_0 + L^{-1} \left(d_0 + {d_2\over L^2} + 

1887:     {d_3\over L^3} \right) + O(L^{-17/4}, L^{-5}).

1888: \label{eq5.2}

1889: \en

1890: The constant $D_0$ is lattice and geometry independent being generated 

1891: by the bulk free energy, and it is given by $B_f(0)$. 

1892: Explicitly:

1893: \eq

1894:  D_0 = B_f(0) \approx - 0.104133245093831026452160126860473433716236727314

1895: \en

1896: The other constants depend on the geometry of the system and in general 

1897: are expected to be different for the two domains (A) and (B). However, 

1898: this should depend on the type of operator that generates them. 

1899: If a term is associated with a spin-zero operator, its value should be identical 

1900: in both geometries, while if it is the first contribution of a spin-four

1901: operator we expect a dependence of the form $\cos 4\theta$, where 

1902: $\theta$ is the angle between the boundaries of the 

1903: domain and the lattices axes. For our specific case, 

1904: since $\theta=\frac\pi4$ we expect the 

1905: coefficient to change sign. Therefore, we predict 

1906: \be

1907: c_0^{A} = c_0^B, \qquad c_1^A = - c_1^B, \qquad d_0^A = d_0^B.

1908: \label{prediction-chiL}

1909: \ee

1910: Indeed, $c_0$ and $d_0$ are related to the magnetic and to the thermal scaling 

1911: fields that have both spin zero. On the other hand, $c_1$ is related to the 

1912: leading identity-family operator with $y=-2$. If the conjecture (d0) 

1913: is correct, this term should be due only to the spin-four operator

1914: $T^2 + \bar{T}^2$ and thus, according to the previous 

1915: discussion, it should differ by a sign in the two geometries.

1916: 

1917: In the following we shall test the predictions \reff{prediction-chiL}. 

1918: For this purpose it is interesting to note that the constants $d_0^A$ 

1919: and $d_2^A$

1920: can be predicted by using the results of 

1921: \cite{FeFi,ih-00-square,Salas-01}. Indeed, 

1922: \be

1923: \lambda_t(0) W_t(\{x_j\}) = d_0 + {d_2\over L^2} + O(L^{-3}),

1924: \ee

1925: since the leading irrelevant operator contributing to 

1926: \reff{sviluppochiL-secondo} has $y = -2$. 

1927: Now, $\lambda_t(0)$ is given in \reff{lambdat-expansion}, while the 

1928: leading contributions to the left-hand side can be derived from the 

1929: energy at the critical point, since

1930: \be

1931: E_L = 2 \sqrt{2} {\partial F\over \partial \tau}(0) = 

1932:    \left. 2 \sqrt{2} {\partial f_b\over \partial \tau}\right|_{\tau=h=0} + 

1933:    {2 \sqrt{2}\over L} W_t(\{x_j\}) + O(L^{-5}).

1934: \ee

1935: For geometry (A), using the results of \cite{FeFi,ih-00-square,Salas-01}, 

1936: we have

1937: \be

1938: W_t(\{x_j\}) = w_{t1} + {1\over L^2} w_{t2} + O(L^{-4}), 

1939: \ee

1940: where

1941: \begin{eqnarray}

1942: w_{t1} &=& - {1\over \sqrt{2}} 

1943:   {\theta_2(0) \theta_3(0) \theta_4(0) \over 

1944:    \theta_2(0) + \theta_3(0) + \theta_4(0)} 

1945:   \approx - 0.220065581798270538286514481651 

1946: \\

1947: w_{t2} &=& {\pi^3 \over 96 \sqrt{2}}

1948:   {\theta_2(0) \theta_3(0) \theta_4(0) 

1949:   [\theta_2(0)^9 + \theta_3(0)^9 + \theta_4(0)^9]

1950:   \over

1951:    [\theta_2(0) + \theta_3(0) + \theta_4(0)]^2} 

1952: \nonumber  \\ [2mm]

1953:    &\approx& 0.073073526812330794515803384757

1954: \end{eqnarray}

1955: so that 

1956: \begin{eqnarray}  

1957: d_0^A &\approx& 0.022366948354353361434648349198, 

1958: \label{C1A-theory} \\

1959: d_2^A &\approx&  -0.007427021467537379563283082599.

1960: \label{d2A-theory}

1961: \end{eqnarray}

1962: Note that this calculation relies only on the RG and on the 

1963: CFT classification of the operators, but does not make use 

1964: of any of the additional conjectures.

1965: 

1966: 

1967: In order to check Eqs. \reff{eq5.2} and \reff{prediction-chiL},

1968: we performed a transfer-matrix (TM) calculation of the susceptibility.

1969: Notice that in general it is more difficult to perform a TM

1970: calculation in the case in which both sizes of the lattice are finite than in

1971: the case in which one of them is infinite, since one has to keep into 

1972: account all the eigenvalues of the TM. 

1973: 

1974: \subsubsection{Numerical results} \label{sec7.2.1}

1975: 

1976: Let us see in detail the two cases that we

1977: studied:

1978: \begin{itemize}

1979: \item

1980: {\bf Geometry (A)}

1981: 

1982: In this case we computed $\chi$ on lattices of sizes up to $L=17$. 

1983: In order to test our

1984: methods we  evaluated the susceptibility in two ways, by direct differentiation

1985: of the free energy and by using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem, i.e. by

1986: summing the two-point function. The results are

1987: reported in Table \ref{latA}. 

1988: By comparing the two columns one can estimate the size of the

1989: systematic errors.

1990: 

1991: \begin{table}

1992: \begin{center}

1993: \caption{\sl 

1994: Numerical estimate of the magnetic susceptibility for

1995:  geometry (A).

1996:  In the second column we give the results obtained by 

1997:  differentiation of the free energy

1998:  and in the third 

1999:  column those obtained by summing 

2000:  the time-slice two-point correlation function.}

2001: \vskip0.5cm

2002: \label{latA}

2003: \begin{tabular}{|r|l|l|}

2004: \hline

2005: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$L$} &  \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\chi$}   &   

2006: \multicolumn{1}{c|}{$\chi$}  \\

2007: \hline

2008: 4 & \phantom{1}12.181742537099 & \phantom{1}12.18174253709876  \\

2009: 5 & \phantom{1}18.092431830874 & \phantom{1}18.09243183087397  \\

2010: 6 & \phantom{1}24.959397280867 & \phantom{1}24.95939728086672  \\

2011: 7 & \phantom{1}32.740662899119 & \phantom{1}32.74066289911872  \\

2012: 8 & \phantom{1}41.402340799629 & \phantom{1}41.40234079963127  \\

2013: 9 & \phantom{1}50.915891978613 & \phantom{1}50.91589197861391  \\

2014: 10& \phantom{1}61.256768274856 & \phantom{1}61.25676827485805  \\

2015: 11& \phantom{1}72.403538830976 & \phantom{1}72.40353883097585  \\

2016: 12& \phantom{1}84.337262930730 & \phantom{1}84.33726293072681  \\

2017: 13& \phantom{1}97.041023059667 & \phantom{1}97.04102305966430  \\

2018: 14& 110.49957085440 & 110.4995708543933 \\

2019: 15& 124.69905432425 & 124.6990543242478 \\

2020: 16& 139.62680432571 & 139.6268043257091 \\

2021: 17& 155.27116484686 & 155.2711648468523 \\

2022: \hline

2023: \end{tabular}

2024: \end{center}

2025: \end{table}

2026: 

2027: 

2028: \item

2029: {\bf Geometry (B)}

2030: 

2031: In order to study geometry (B) we used the following trick.

2032: As a first step, we performed a decimation of the lattice, i.e. every 

2033: second spin was integrated out. In 

2034: this way the number of spins is reduced by half.

2035: The price one has  to pay is  that the Hamiltonian becomes

2036: more complicated  and contains, in addition to

2037:  the nearest-neighbour interaction, a next-to-nearest neighbour and

2038:  a four-point interaction. 

2039: In the presence of an external field also a three-point

2040: term arises. 

2041: 

2042: However, now the axes of the decimated lattice are parallel 

2043: to the axes of the torus.

2044: Also, the new Hamiltonian only couples neighboring time slices. 

2045: Therefore, we can 

2046: apply the same TM methods used in geometry (A).

2047: 

2048: Our numerical results are given in Table 

2049: \ref{latB}.

2050: We computed the magnetic susceptibility by 

2051: differentiation of the free energy. 

2052: The largest lattice has $M = 12$, which corresponds to $L=16.98$, and is thus 

2053: completely equivalent to the largest lattice used in geometry (A).

2054: 

2055: \begin{table}

2056: \caption{\sl 

2057: Numerical result for the inverse of the magnetic susceptibility for 

2058: geometry (B).}

2059: \vskip0.5cm

2060: \label{latB}

2061: \begin{center}

2062: \begin{tabular}{|r|l|}

2063: \hline

2064: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$M$}& \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$1/\chi$}  \\

2065: \hline

2066:  2&0.149678741567431 \\

2067:  3&0.073301790137056 \\

2068:  4&0.044241139068172 \\

2069:  5&0.029917172878427 \\

2070:  6&0.021735601983740 \\

2071:  7&0.016591966498537 \\

2072:  8&0.013132015183494 \\

2073:  9&0.010684547791392 \\

2074: 10&0.008884576737074 \\

2075: 11&0.007519096948920 \\

2076: 12&0.006456674647995 \\

2077: \hline

2078: \end{tabular}

2079: \end{center}

2080: \end{table}

2081: 

2082: \end{itemize}

2083: 

2084: \subsubsection{Analysis of the data.}

2085: \label{sec7.2.2}

2086: %%MH some general remark on the way data are analyzed

2087: We will now use the TM data to check the theoretical predictions.

2088: We expect that the error induced by the error on $\chi$ given in 

2089: Tables \ref{latA} and \ref{latB} is small compared to that due to the 

2090: neglected higher-order corrections in (\ref{eq5.2}). Therefore, 

2091: instead of performing a fit, we considered as 

2092: many data points as the number of free parameters 

2093: of the Ansatz, and then required  

2094: the Ansatz to be exact for them.  

2095: This gives a system of equations that is then solved for the

2096: free parameters. 

2097: We always used consecutive values of $L$, i.e. $L_1=L$, 

2098: $L_2=L-1$,...,$L_n=L-n+1$, where $n$ is the number of free parameters.

2099: Errors were estimated from the variation of the results with the lattice

2100: size and by comparison of different Ans\"atze.

2101: 

2102: %%MH analysis with free $y$ added. 

2103: As a preliminary test we checked that $y=-2$ for 

2104: the leading correction to scaling.

2105: For this purpose we studied the Ansatz

2106: \be

2107: \label{checky}

2108: \chi_L(0,0) = L^{7/4} \left(c_0 + c_1 L^{y} \right) + D_0,

2109: \ee

2110: with $c_0$, $c_1$, and $y$ as free parameters. 

2111: The results are summarized in Table

2112: \ref{yanalysis}.

2113: \begin{table}

2114: \caption{\sl

2115: Numerical results from the Ansatz (\ref{checky}) in 

2116: geometries (A) and  (B).}

2117: \vskip0.5cm

2118: \label{yanalysis}

2119: \begin{center}

2120: \begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|}

2121: \hline

2122: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Geometry (A)}\\

2123: \hline

2124: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$L$}&

2125: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_0$}&

2126: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_1$}&

2127: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$y$} \\

2128: \hline

2129: 12 & 1.0919299 & --0.0964 & --2.102 \\

2130: 13 & 1.0919370 & --0.0915 & --2.076 \\

2131: 14 & 1.0919414 & --0.0881 & --2.057 \\

2132: 15 & 1.0919441 & --0.0857 & --2.044 \\

2133: 16 & 1.0919460 & --0.0838 & --2.034 \\

2134: 17 & 1.0919472 & --0.0823 & --2.026 \\

2135: \hline

2136: \hline

2137: \multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Geometry (B)}\\

2138: \hline

2139: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$M$}&

2140: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_0$}&

2141: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$c_1$}&

2142: \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$y$} \\

2143: \hline

2144:   8 & 1.0919297 &  0.0689  &--1.922 \\

2145:   9 & 1.0919388 &  0.0720  &--1.946 \\

2146:  10 & 1.0919435 &  0.0743  &--1.962 \\

2147:  11 & 1.0919461 &  0.0761  &--1.973 \\

2148:  12 & 1.0919477 &  0.0775  &--1.982 \\

2149: \hline

2150: \end{tabular}

2151: \end{center}

2152: \end{table}

2153: For both geometries the numerical result for $y$ 

2154: approaches $-2$ as $L$ increases.

2155: For our largest lattice sizes, the deviation from $-2$ is about $1\%$.

2156: In the following analysis we shall assume $y=-2$. 

2157: 

2158: Next we analyzed the data with \reff{eq5.2}.

2159: For geometry (A), by using the known values of $D_0$, $d_0$, and $d_2$, 

2160: we found 

2161: \begin{eqnarray}

2162: c_0^A &=& 1.09195056(4) \\

2163: c_1^A &=&-0.07914(5), 

2164: \end{eqnarray}  

2165: where the quoted uncertainties were obtained by comparing the 

2166: results of the Ansatz \reff{eq5.2} with those obtained by adding 

2167: $c_3$ as a free parameter.

2168: 

2169: For geometry (B), by using the known value of $D_0$, we obtain 

2170: \begin{eqnarray}

2171: c_0^B &=& 1.0919504(2) \\

2172: c_1^B &=& 0.0794(4), \\

2173: d_0^B &=& 0.019(5).

2174: \end{eqnarray}

2175: Our predictions \reff{prediction-chiL} appear to be very well satisfied. 

2176: Moreover, our result for $c_0$ is in good agreement with, although much more 

2177: precise than, the estimate\footnote{We

2178: report here the result of their fit with $\Delta=7/4$, since this is the 

2179: correct theoretical behavior.}

2180: of \cite{ssv1}, $c_0 = 1.09210(11)$.

2181: 

2182: If we assume $d_0^B = d_0^A$ and use \reff{C1A-theory}, we obtain the 

2183: more precise estimate 

2184: \begin{eqnarray}

2185: c_0^B &=& 1.0919506(2)  \\

2186: c_1^B &=& 0.0790(2),

2187: \end{eqnarray}

2188: where the error was obtained by comparing the results with and without

2189: the parameter $d_2$.

2190: 

2191: {} From the above analysis we see that, within the errors, the

2192: coefficients of the  $1/L^2$ correction are equal in magnitude and opposite in

2193: sign for the two geometries. Since the two lattices are rotated by $\pi/4$

2194: this implies that this correction {\sl is completely due

2195: to the spin-four operator $T^2 +\bar T^2$} and 

2196: that the scalar operator $T\bar T$

2197: is absent, in agreement with the conjecture (d0).

2198: 

2199: 

2200: \section{Concluding remarks and open issues.}

2201: \label{sec8}

2202: 

2203: 

2204: In this paper we have discussed the presently available results

2205: for the corrections to scaling in the two-dimensional Ising model.

2206: We have shown that all results are in agreement with the 

2207: RG and CFT predictions. The only missing point here is a complete 

2208: analysis of the RG resonances and consequently an 

2209: extension of the scaling forms \reff{F-RG} and \reff{F-RG-finiteL}

2210: to take into account the logarithmic structure found in \cite{g2000}.

2211: We have also shown that the existence of an exact symmetry in the lattice 

2212: models that maps the high-temperature phase onto the low-temperature 

2213: one plays a very important role and explains the symmetry 

2214: properties of the results.

2215: 

2216: However, the lattice Ising model shows also features that are {\em not} 

2217: predicted by CFT and RG and that can be explained if some 

2218: additional conjectures are made. A list of them is reported in 

2219: Sec. \ref{sec4.1}. Let us summarize the evidence we have: 

2220: \begin{itemize}

2221: \item Conjectures (a) and (b). They allow to explain the 

2222: symmetry properties under $\tau\to-\tau$ of the free energy and of 

2223: its derivatives for $h=0$. Further evidence may be obtained by 

2224: analyzing $\chi$ on the triangular lattice and checking 

2225: whether the functions $\widehat{F}_\pm(\tau)$ are even in $\tau$.

2226: 

2227: \item Conjecture (c1): The functions $\tilde{f}_\pm$ do not depend on the 

2228: $[\sigma]$-family fields. This is supported by the exact known 

2229: results for $F(\tau,0)$ and $M(\tau,0)$ and by the results of 

2230: \cite{g2000}. Further evidence is obtained from the absence

2231: of a  leading logarithmic correction in 

2232: higher-point correlation functions \cite{CHPV-gstar,CHPV-eqst}.

2233: 

2234: \item Conjecture (c2): The functions $\tilde{f}_\pm$ are constants 

2235: (this is the original conjecture of \cite{af}). The 

2236: independence of $\tilde{f}_\pm$ from the $\sZ_2$-even

2237: scaling fields is supported by the  finite-size results 

2238: of \cite{Salas-01,ih-00-square} discussed in Sec. \ref{sec6}. 

2239: The conjecture follows from this observation and the conjecture (c1).

2240: Conjecture (c2), together with the conjectured formula \reff{eq2:What} 

2241: can be further checked by computing the

2242: logarithmic term(s) in $\partial^n F/\partial \tau^n$ at the critical

2243: point for $n>2$.

2244: 

2245: \item Conjecture (d0): The nonlinear scaling field of $T\bar{T}$ 

2246: vanishes at the critical point. 

2247: On the square lattice we have ample evidence 

2248: in favor of (d0), which is the only conjecture needed to explain 

2249: the existing results. Indeed, it is supported by: 

2250: \begin{itemize}

2251: \item[(1)] The infinite-volume results of \cite{g2000}.

2252: \item[(2)] The behavior of $\xi(\theta)$ discussed in Sec. \ref{sec5.1}.

2253: \item[(3)] The dependence of $\chi$ at the critical point from the 

2254: boundary conditions, see Sec. \ref{sec7}. 

2255: \item[(4)] The behavior of the two-point function at the critical point,

2256: see \cite{CGM-01}.

2257: \item[(5)] The behavior of the free energy on the critical isotherm,

2258: see \cite{CaHa99}.

2259: \end{itemize}

2260: Moreover, all triangular-lattice results are compatible with it. For these 

2261: reasons, we believe it is more than a conjecture and it is essentially

2262: proved. It is interesting to notice that a similar cancellation 

2263: is observed in the finite-size scaling behavior of the free energy and 

2264: of the mass spectrum in the one-dimensional Ising quantum chain,

2265: see \cite{r87a}. 

2266: 

2267: \item Conjecture (d1): The operator $T\bar{T}$ is decoupled. 

2268: We have evidence for the validity of this conjecture in the triangular-lattice

2269: Ising model.  The analysis of the 

2270: correlation length $\xi(\theta)$ on the triangular lattice

2271: shows that $\mu_{T\bar{T}}(0)$ vanishes at least up

2272: to terms of order $O(\tau^6)$. There are several calculations that should 

2273: be feasible and would add further support to the validity of (d1) on the 

2274: triangular lattice:

2275: \begin{itemize}

2276: \item[(1)] The extension of the results of Ref. \cite{g2000} to the 

2277: triangular lattice.

2278: \item[(2)] The study of the dependence on the boundary conditions

2279: of the observables studied in Sec. \ref{sec6} at the critical point on

2280: the triangular lattice. This would unambiguously identify the 

2281: spin of the leading irrelevant operator.

2282: \item[(3)] The study of $\chi$ at the critical point on a triangular 

2283: lattice. It is particularly important to verify whether $d_3$,

2284: cf. \reff{sviluppochiL-secondo},  vanishes or not.  

2285: If it does, it provides the only available evidence 

2286: for $\lambda_{T\bar{T}}(0) = 0$, and thus it 

2287: would strengthen the conjecture.

2288: \end{itemize}

2289: 

2290: \item Conjecture (d2): Only nonzero-spin operators are present. 

2291: We have evidence for this conjecture on the triangular lattice.

2292: The absence of spin-zero operators beside $T\bar{T}$ is based on the 

2293: results of Sec. \ref{sec5.2} and \ref{sec6} where we showed that the 

2294: existing exact results require $\mu(0)=0$ for the spin-zero 

2295: identity-family operator $Q^I_4 \bar{Q}^I_4$ with $y=-6$.

2296: The studies (1) and (2) 

2297: mentioned at the previous point would further check the conjecture.

2298: In particular, they can verify whether 

2299: $v(0)=0$ for the spin-zero 

2300: $[\sigma]$-family operator $Q_3^\sigma \bar{Q}_3^\sigma$ 

2301: with $y=-4-\frac18$. 

2302: \end{itemize}

2303: 

2304: Of course, as they stand, these conjectures are just ``ad hoc'' prescriptions, 

2305: whose only merit is that of providing an economical way to explain 

2306: all existing results.

2307: It would be very important to understand if there is some symmetry argument 

2308: %% (for instance related

2309: %% to the fact that the Ising model can be described in terms of free Majorana

2310: %% fermions) 

2311: that could explain them. 

2312: %%start

2313: 

2314: There remain several open questions. First of all, one may ask whether

2315: these conjectures apply to the 

2316: nearest-neighbor Ising model on any regular lattice or whether 

2317: some of them depend on the lattice structure.

2318: Another important question is how important the nearest-neighbor

2319: condition is: Do some of these conjectures apply also to the 

2320: Ising model with extended interactions? Finally, one may ask whether 

2321: these cancellations are also observed in other models.

2322: Concerning this last question, we should mention the results of~\cite{grv87}

2323: for the three-state Potts quantum chain, which were 

2324: compared with the CFT predictions in~\cite{r87a}. Again, the

2325: energy-momentum tensor contribution turns out to be compatible with zero.

2326: However, at variance with the Ising case, there is here, 

2327: at next-to-leading order,

2328: a clear signature of a finite-size correction due to a {\sl

2329: scalar} irrelevant operator.  Even if the Potts case

2330: is slightly different from the Ising one,

2331: since this irrelevant operator is

2332: actually a {\sl primary} operator 

2333: (more precisely is the one with conformal weight

2334: $h=\frac{7}{5}$), this result indicates that our conjecture (d2), if true,

2335: is specific of the Ising model and could be somehow related to the fact that 

2336: the model is soluble on the lattice. On the other hand, the vanishing of the

2337: correction due to the energy-momentum tensor seems to be a more 

2338: general phenomenon. In order to understand the validity of (d0), it would 

2339: be interesting to extend these analyses to the generic $q$-state Potts model

2340: or to other specific values of $q$ (for instance, to percolation).

2341: 

2342: 

2343: %%start

2344: \vskip 1cm

2345: {\bf  Acknowledgements.}

2346: We thank Malte Henkel for several useful suggestions.

2347: %%end

2348: 

2349: 

2350: 

2351: \newpage

2352: 

2353: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2354: 

2355: \bibitem{af} A. Aharony and M. E. Fisher, 

2356: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 45} (1980) 679;

2357: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 27} (1983) 4394.

2358: %%CITATION = PRLTA,45,679;%%

2359: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B27,4394;%%

2360: 

2361: \bibitem{gc}

2362: S. Gartenhaus and W. S. McCullough, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35} (1987) 3299;

2363: B {\bf 38} (1988) 11688.

2364: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B35,3299;%%

2365: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B38,11688;%%

2366: 

2367: \bibitem{CaHa99} M. Caselle and M. Hasenbusch, 

2368: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 579} (2000) 667.

2369: %%Critical amplitudes and mass spectrum of the 

2370: %% 2D Ising model in a magnetic field

2371: %% hep-th/9911216

2372: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B579,667;%%

2373: 

2374: \bibitem{CPRV-98}

2375: M.~Campostrini, A.~Pelissetto, P.~Rossi and E.~Vicari,

2376: Phys. Rev. E {\bf 57} (1998) 184.                               

2377: %% The Two-Point Correlation Function of Three-Dimensional

2378: %% $O(N)$ Models: The Critical Limit and Anisotropy

2379: %%CITATION = PHRVA,E57,184;%%

2380: 

2381: \bibitem{n99}

2382: B. Nickel,

2383: J. Phys. A {\bf 32} (1999) 3889;

2384: J. Phys. A {\bf 33} (2000) 1693.

2385: %%CITATION = JPAGB,32,3889;%%

2386: %%CITATION = JPAGB,33,1693;%%

2387: 

2388: \bibitem{g2000}

2389: W. P. Orrick, B. Nickel, A. J. Guttmann, and J. H. H. Perk,

2390: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 102} (2001) 795.

2391: %%CITATION = JSTPB,102,795;%%

2392: 

2393: \bibitem{ih-00-strip} 

2394: N. Sh. Izmailian and C.-K. Hu, 

2395: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 86} (2001) 5160.

2396: %%``Exact universal amplitude ratios for the planar Ising model and 

2397: %%a quantum spin chain,"

2398: %%e-print cond-mat/0009102.

2399: %%CITATION = PRLTA,86,5160;%%

2400: 

2401: \bibitem{ih-00-square} 

2402: N. Sh. Izmailian and C.-K. Hu, 

2403: ``Ising model on the square $M\times N$ lattice: 

2404: Exact finite-size calculations,"

2405: e-print cond-mat/0009024.

2406: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 0009024;%%

2407: 

2408: \bibitem{Salas-01}

2409: J. Salas, J. Phys. A {\bf 34} (2001) 1311.

2410: %% Exact finite-size-scaling corrections to the 

2411: %% critical two-dimensional Ising model on a torus;

2412: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A34,1311;%%

2413: 

2414: \bibitem{CHPV-gstar} 

2415: M. Caselle, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari,

2416: J. Phys. A {\bf 33} (2000) 8171.

2417: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A33,8171;%%

2418: 

2419: \bibitem{CHPV-eqst} 

2420: M. Caselle, M. Hasenbusch, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari,

2421: J. Phys. A {\bf 34} (2001) 2923.

2422: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A34,2923;%%

2423: 

2424: \bibitem{CCCPV-00}

2425: P. Calabrese, M. Caselle, A. Celi, A. Pelissetto, and E. Vicari,

2426: J. Phys. A {\bf 33} (2000) 8155.

2427: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A33,8155;%%

2428: 

2429: \bibitem{r87a}

2430: P.~Reinicke,

2431: %``Analytical And Nonanalytical Corrections To Finite Size Scaling,''

2432: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (1987) 5325.

2433: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A20,5325;%%

2434: 

2435: 

2436: 

2437: \bibitem{mccoy} B. M.~McCoy and T. T.~Wu, 

2438: {\em The Two Dimensional Ising Model},

2439: (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1973).

2440: 

2441: B. M.~McCoy, in {\em Statistical Mechanics and Field Theory}, 

2442: edited by V. V. Bazhanov and C. J. Burden\/ (World Scientific, Singapore, 1995).

2443: %hep-th 9403084.

2444: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 9403084;%%

2445: 

2446: \bibitem{Stephenson-64}

2447: J. Stephenson, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 5} (1964) 1009.

2448: %%CITATION = JMAPA,5,1009;%%

2449: 

2450: \bibitem{bpz}

2451: A. A. Belavin, A. M. Polyakov, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, 

2452: Nucl. Phys. B {\bf 241} (1984) 333.

2453: %%CITATION = NUPHA,B241,333;%%

2454: 

2455: \bibitem{Wegner-76}

2456: F. J. Wegner, in {\em Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena}, Vol. 6,

2457: edited by C. Domb and M. Green (Academic, New York, 1976) p. 7.

2458: 

2459: \bibitem{PHA-91}

2460: V. Privman, P. C. Hohenberg, and A. Aharony, 

2461: in {\em Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena}, 

2462: Vol. 14, edited by C. Domb and J. L. Lebowitz\/

2463: (Academic Press, Lodon-San Diego, 1991).

2464: 

2465: \bibitem{Privman-90}

2466: V. Privman (ed.), {\em Finite Size Scaling and Numerical 

2467: Simulations of Statistical Systems}\/

2468: (World Scientific, Singapore, 1990).

2469: 

2470: \bibitem{ssv1} J. Salas and A. D. Sokal, e-print cond-mat/9904038v1;

2471: J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 98} (2000) 551.

2472: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 9904038;%%

2473: 

2474: \bibitem{CW-67}

2475: H. Cheng and T. T. Wu, Phys. Rev. {\bf 164} (1967) 719.

2476: %%CITATION = PHRVA,164,719;%%

2477: 

2478: \bibitem{Stephenson-70}

2479: J. Stephenson, J. Math. Phys. {\bf 11} (1970) 413.

2480: %%CITATION = JMAPA,11,413;%%

2481: 

2482: \bibitem{CPRV-96}

2483: M.~Campostrini, A.~Pelissetto, P.~Rossi, and E.~Vicari,

2484: Phys. Rev. B {\bf 54} (1996) 7301.                                

2485: %% A Strong-Coupling Analysis of Two-Dimensional $O(N)$ $\sigma$-Models

2486: %% with $N\le 2$ on Square, Triangular and Honeycomb Lattices

2487: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B54,7301;%%

2488: 

2489: \bibitem{deQueiroz} S. L. A. de Queiroz, 

2490: J. Phys. A {\bf 33} (2000) 721.

2491: %cond-mat/9912090.

2492: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A33,721;%%

2493: 

2494: \bibitem{FeFi}

2495: A. E. Ferdinand and M. E. Fisher, Phys. Rev. {\bf 185} (1969) 832. 

2496: %%CITATION = PHRVA,185,832;%%

2497: 

2498: \bibitem{JK-01}

2499: W. Janke and R. Kenna,

2500: ``Exact finite-size scaling and corrections to scaling 

2501: in the Ising model with Brascamp-Kunz boundary

2502: conditions," e-print cond-mat/0103332.

2503: %%CITATION = COND-MAT 0103332;%%

2504: 

2505: \bibitem{PriRu}

2506: V. Privman and J. Rudnick, J. Phys. A {\bf 19} (1986) L1215.

2507: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A19,1215;%%

2508: 

2509: \bibitem{GJ-87}

2510: H. Guo and D. Jasnow, 

2511: Phys, Rev. B {\bf 35} (1987) 1846;

2512: (E) {\bf 39} (1989) 753.

2513: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B35,1846;%%

2514: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B39,753;%%

2515: 

2516: \bibitem{bg87}

2517: T. W. Burkhardt and I. Guim, Phys. Rev. B {\bf 35} (1987) 1799.

2518: %%CITATION = PHRVA,B35,1799;%%

2519: 

2520: 

2521: \bibitem{h87}

2522: M.~Henkel,

2523: %``Finite Size Scaling And Universality In The Spectrum Of The Quantum Ising Chain. 1. Periodic And Antiperiodic Boundary Conditions,''

2524: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (1987) 995.

2525: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A20,995;%%

2526: 

2527: \bibitem{r87b}

2528: P.~Reinicke,

2529: %``Finite Size Scaling Functions And Conformal Invariance,''

2530: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (1987) 4501.

2531: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A20,4501;%%

2532: 

2533: \bibitem{H_book}

2534: M.~Henkel,

2535: {\em Conformal Invariance and Critical Phenomena}\/

2536: (Spinger, Berlin, 1999).

2537: 

2538: \bibitem{CGM-01}

2539: M. Caselle, P. Grinza, and N. Magnoli,

2540: ``Correction induced by irrelevant operators in the correlators of the 2d 

2541: Ising model in a magnetic field," e-print hep-th/0103263.

2542: %%CITATION = HEP-TH 0103263;%%

2543: 

2544: \bibitem{grv87}

2545: G.~von Gehlen, V.~Rittenberg, and T.~Vescan,

2546: %``Conformal Invariance And Corrections To Finite Size Scaling: Applications To The Three States Potts Model,''

2547: J.\ Phys.\ A {\bf 20} (1987) 2577.

2548: %%CITATION = JPAGB,A20,2577;%%

2549: 

2550: %\bibitem{m2001}

2551: %M. Hasenbusch, in preparation.

2552: 

2553: %% \bibitem{KoAuPe}

2554: %% X. P. Kong, H. Au-Yang, and J. H. H. Perk, 

2555: %% Phys. Lett. A {\bf 116} (1986) 54.

2556: 

2557: 

2558: 

2559: \end{thebibliography}

2560: 

2561: \end{document}

2562: 

2563: