1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Start of LaTeX file %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%% LaTeX2e
3: \documentclass[
4: a4paper,
5: 12pt, onecolumn,
6: % draft
7: ]{article}
8:
9: \title{\bf Spectral Degeneracies in the Totally Asymmetric Exclusion Process
10: }
11: \author{ O. Golinelli, K. Mallick
12: \bigskip
13: \\ \ad Service de Physique Th\'eorique, Cea Saclay, 91191 Gif, France
14: }
15: \date{\normalsize
16: December 16, 2004
17: \\ Preprint T04/167; arXiv:cond-mat/0412462
18: }
19: %_______________________________________________________________________
20:
21: %%% page style
22: \newcommand {\ad}{\normalsize\em} % style for address
23: \pagestyle{myheadings}
24: \markright{Golinelli, Mallick --- Spectral Degeneracies in TASEP}
25:
26:
27: %%% encapsulated figures
28: \usepackage[final]{graphicx}
29: \newcommand{\figwidth}{\columnwidth}
30: %\newcommand{\figwidth}{8.8truecm}
31: \newcommand{\packagewidth}{1.5truecm}
32:
33: \renewcommand{\topfraction}{1}
34: \renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1}
35: \renewcommand{\textfraction}{0}
36: \renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.9}
37:
38:
39: \begin{document}
40: \maketitle
41: %_______________________________________________________________________
42:
43: \begin{abstract}
44: %===============
45: \normalsize
46:
47:
48: We study the spectrum of the Markov matrix of the totally asymmetric
49: exclusion process (TASEP) on a one-dimensional periodic lattice at {\it
50: arbitrary} filling. Although the system does not possess obvious
51: symmetries except translation invariance, the spectrum presents many
52: multiplets with degeneracies of high order. This behaviour is explained
53: by a hidden symmetry property of the Bethe Ansatz. Combinatorial
54: formulae for the orders of degeneracy and the corresponding number of
55: multiplets are derived and compared with numerical results obtained from
56: exact diagonalisation of small size systems. This unexpected structure
57: of the TASEP spectrum suggests the existence of an underlying large
58: invariance group.
59:
60: \medskip \noindent
61: Keywords: ASEP, Markov matrix, Bethe Ansatz, Symmetries.
62:
63: \medskip \noindent
64: Pacs number: 05.40.-a, 05.60.-k
65:
66: \end{abstract}
67:
68:
69: \section{Introduction}
70: %=====================
71:
72:
73: The asymmetric simple exclusion process (ASEP) is a driven lattice gas
74: model in which particles interact by hard core exclusion. This simple
75: system has been introduced as a building block for models of hopping
76: conductivity, motion of RNA templates, traffic flow and surface growth.
77: From a theoretical point of view,
78: the ASEP plays a fundamental role in the study of non-equilibrium
79: processes: many exact results have been obtained concerning
80: one-dimensional phase transitions (Derrida et al. 1993), phase
81: segregation (Evans et al. 1998), large deviations functions and
82: fluctuations far from equilibrium (Derrida et al. 2003). For a review,
83: see Derrida (1998), Sch\"utz (2001). In the absence of a driving field,
84: the {\it symmetric} exclusion process can be mapped into the
85: Heisenberg spin chain. The asymmetry due to a non-zero external
86: driving field breaks the left/right symmetry and the ASEP is
87: equivalent to a non-Hermitian spin chain of the XXZ type. The ASEP can
88: also be mapped into a two-dimensional six-vertex model at equilibrium.
89: These mappings allow to use the methods of integrable
90: systems, such as the Bethe Ansatz (Dhar 1987, Gwa and Spohn 1992, Kim
91: 1995).
92:
93: In a recent article (Golinelli and Mallick 2004), we carried out a
94: spectral study of the Markov matrix of the exclusion process on a
95: periodic lattice. At half-filling the system is invariant under charge
96: conjugation combined with reflection in addition to being translation
97: invariant. We showed that these symmetries predict the existence of
98: singlets and doublets in the spectrum. However, for the {\it totally}
99: asymmetric simple exclusion process (TASEP) the spectral structure is
100: much richer. We observed numerically that unexpected degeneracies of
101: higher order exist and become generic as the system size increases. We
102: explained, in an heuristic manner, the existence of these degeneracies
103: by using the fact that some of the solutions of the Bethe equations
104: appear in pairs with opposite values.
105:
106:
107: In the present work, we generalize our previous study to the TASEP at
108: {\it arbitrary filling}. We perform an exhaustive analysis of the
109: spectral degeneracies of the TASEP on a periodic lattice. The orders
110: of degeneracies observed and the number of multiplets with a given
111: degeneracy depend on commensurability relations between the number of
112: sites and the number of particles. Although the Bethe equations do not
113: exhibit any obvious symmetry, we find that they possess an invariance
114: under exchange of roots that allows to predict combinatorial formulae
115: for the orders of degeneracies and the number of multiplets of a given
116: order of degeneracy. Our formulae are confirmed by direct numerical
117: diagonalisation of small size systems. This peculiar structure of
118: the TASEP spectrum suggests the existence of some underlying
119: symmetries of the model that may shed light on its remarkable
120: combinatorial properties.
121:
122:
123:
124: The outline of this article is as follows. In section 2, the
125: definition and basic properties of the TASEP are recalled. In section
126: 3, we present a self-contained derivation of the Bethe equations based
127: upon the fact that the Bethe wave function is a determinant for the
128: TASEP model. The symmetries of the Bethe equations are studied in
129: section 4 and combinatorial expressions for the degeneracies are
130: derived in section 5. In section 6, we discuss the behaviour of large
131: size systems and present numerical results. Concluding remarks appear
132: in section 7. In the Appendix, the geometrical setting of the roots
133: in the complex plane is briefly described.
134:
135:
136: %\pagebreak
137: \section{The TASEP model}
138: %========================
139:
140: The simple exclusion process is a stochastic process in which
141: particles hop on a lattice and respect the {\em exclusion rule} that
142: forbids two or more particles per site. On a one-dimensional lattice,
143: this rule prohibits overtaking between particles.
144:
145: In this article we consider a periodic 1-d lattice of length $L$,
146: i.e., a ring where sites $i$ and $i+L$ are identical. The system is
147: closed and the number $N$ of particles is fixed with $N \le L$. The
148: {\em filling} (or density) is given by $\rho = N/L$.
149:
150: The particles evolve with the following dynamics rule: during the time
151: interval $[t, t+dt]$, a particle on a site $i$ jumps with probability
152: $dt$ to the neighbouring site $i+1$ if it is vacant. As the jumps are
153: allowed in only one direction, the model considered is the {\em
154: totally asymmetric} exclusion process (TASEP).
155:
156: A configuration ${\cal C}$ of the system is characterised by the list
157: of the $N$ occupied sites amongst the $L$ available sites. The total
158: number of configurations is therefore
159: \begin{equation}
160: \Omega = {L \choose N} = \frac{L!}{N! (L-N)!} \, .
161: \label{eq:defomega}
162: \end{equation}
163:
164:
165: Let $\psi_t({\cal C})$ be the probability that the configuration of
166: the system at time $t$ is ${\cal C}$. As the TASEP is a
167: continuous-time Markov (i.e., memoryless) process, the
168: $\Omega$-dimensional vector $\psi_t$ evolves according to the {\em
169: master equation}
170: \begin{equation}
171: \frac{d\psi_t}{dt} = M \psi_t \, ,
172: \end{equation}
173: where $M$ is the $\Omega \times \Omega$ Markov matrix. For ${\cal C}
174: \ne {\cal C'}$, the term $M({\cal C'},{\cal C})$ represents the
175: transition rate from ${\cal C}$ to ${\cal C'}$: it is equal to 1 if
176: ${\cal C'}$ is obtained from ${\cal C}$ by an allowed jump of one
177: particle, and is 0 otherwise. The element $-M({\cal C}, {\cal C})$ is
178: equal to the number of allowed jumps from ${\cal C}$. Thus, the sums
179: columns of the Markov matrix vanish and the total probability is conserved.
180: For the exclusion process on a periodic
181: lattice, the sums over lines of $M$ also vanish: the stationary
182: probability (which corresponds to the eigenvalue 0) is thus uniform:
183: $\psi({\cal C}) = 1/\Omega$.
184:
185: As the dynamics is ergodic and aperiodic, $M$ satisfies the
186: conditions of the Perron-Frobenius theorem: the eigenvalue 0 is
187: non-degenerate and all the other eigenvalues have strictly negative
188: real parts (equal to the inverse of the relaxation times). As $M$ is
189: a real non-symmetric matrix, the eigenvalues are either real numbers
190: or complex conjugate pairs.
191:
192: In this work, we shall investigate the spectral degeneracies, i.e.,
193: equalities amongst the eigenvalues of the Markov matrix.
194:
195:
196:
197: %\pagebreak
198: \section{Derivation of the Bethe equations}
199: %==========================================
200:
201:
202: Since the work of Dhar (1987), it is known that the {\em Bethe Ansatz}
203: can be applied to the ASEP. In this section, we give a self-contained
204: derivation of the Bethe equations for the particular case of the
205: TASEP, much simpler than that of the generic ASEP (Gwa and Spohn
206: 1992).
207:
208:
209: A configuration ${\cal C}$ will be represented by the sequence $(x_1,
210: x_2,\dots, x_N)$, the integers $x_i$ being the positions of the
211: particles with
212: \begin{equation}
213: 1 \le x_1 < x_2 < \dots < x_N \le L \, .
214: \label{eq:cond}
215: \end{equation}
216: The idea of the Bethe {\em Ansatz} consists
217: in writing the eigenvectors $\psi$ of
218: the Markov matrix as linear combinations of plane waves
219: (see, e.g., Gaudin 1983). In fact, the
220: Bethe wave function $\psi$ of the TASEP is a determinant (Gaudin and
221: Pasquier 2004). We therefore define $\psi$ as
222: \begin{equation}
223: \psi(x_1,\dots,x_N) = \det(R) \, ,
224: \label{eq:psidet}
225: \end{equation}
226: where $R$ is a $N \times N$ matrix with elements
227: \begin{equation}
228: R(i,j) = \frac{z_{i}^{x_j}}{(1-z_i)^j} \ \ \mbox{for } 1 \le i,j \le N \, ,
229: \label{eq:r}
230: \end{equation}
231: $(z_1, \dots, z_N)$ being $N$ given complex numbers. If we assume
232: that $\psi$ is of this form and that it is an eigenvector of $M$, the
233: $z_i$'s then must satisfy some conditions, the {\em Bethe equations},
234: that we now re-derive.
235:
236: We first show that $\psi$ defined by equations~(\ref{eq:psidet},
237: \ref{eq:r}) satisfies two identities which are valid for any values of
238: $z_i$ and of $x_i$, even without imposing the ordering given in
239: equation~(\ref{eq:cond}). The first identity is
240: \begin{equation}
241: E \psi(x_1,\dots, x_N) = \sum_{k=1}^N
242: [\psi(x_1,\dots,x_k-1,\dots, x_N) - \psi(x_1,\dots,x_k,\dots, x_N)] \, ,
243: \label{eq:evp}
244: \end{equation}
245: for any $(x_1, \dots, x_N)$ and $(z_1, \dots, z_N)$, and where $E$ is
246: given by
247: \begin{equation}
248: E = -N + \sum_{i=1}^N 1/z_i
249: \, .
250: \label{eq:e}
251: \end{equation}
252: Equation~(\ref{eq:evp}) is obtained by writing
253: \begin{eqnarray}
254: \psi(x_1,\dots,x_k-1,\dots, x_N) - \psi(x_1,\dots,x_k,\dots, x_N)
255: = \nonumber \\
256: \det \left( R(i,1) , \dots ,\left( \frac{1}{z_i} -1 \right) R(i,k) ,
257: \dots , R(i,N)
258: \ \right) \, .
259: \end{eqnarray}
260: This determinant is similar to $ \det(R)$ except for the $k$-th
261: column. Expanding this determinant over all permutations of $\{ 1,
262: \dots, N \}$ and performing the sum over $k=1,\dots,N$ leads to
263: equations~(\ref{eq:evp}, \ref{eq:e}).
264:
265:
266: The second identity valid for any $(z_1, \dots, z_N)$ and any $(x_1,
267: \dots, x_N)$ with $x_{k-1} = x_k$ (two particles collision), is
268: \begin{equation}
269: \psi(x_1,\dots, x_k, x_k, \dots, x_n) -
270: \psi(x_1,\dots, x_k, x_k+1, \dots, x_n) = 0 \, .
271: \label{eq:kk+1}
272: \end{equation}
273: The left hand side of equation~(\ref{eq:kk+1}) can be written as
274: $\det(\tilde{R})$ where $\tilde{R}$ is a matrix that is identical to
275: $R$ but for its $k$-th column that is given by
276: \begin{equation}
277: \tilde{R}(i,k) = \frac{z_i^{x_k} - z_i^{x_k+1}}{(1-z_i)^{k}} =
278: \frac{z_i^{x_k}}{(1-z_i)^{k-1}} = R(i,k-1) = \tilde{R}(i,k-1)
279: \end{equation}
280: The $(k-1)$-th and the $k$-th columns of $\tilde{R}$ are equal and,
281: therefore, $\det(\tilde{R}) = 0$. This proves equation~(\ref{eq:kk+1}).
282:
283: The eigenvalue equation, $E\psi = M \psi$, is written as
284: equation~(\ref{eq:evp}) except that the sum is restricted to the
285: allowed jumps of particles, i.e., to the indices $k$ such that
286: $x_{k-1} +1 < x_{k}$. However, in equation~(\ref{eq:evp}), the terms
287: with $x_{k-1}+ 1 = x_{k}$ vanish thanks to equation~(\ref{eq:kk+1}).
288: Thus equation~(\ref{eq:evp}) is identical to the eigenvalue equation
289: if the eigenvector has the form assumed in equations~(\ref{eq:psidet},
290: \ref{eq:r}).
291:
292: The function $\psi$ must also satisfy periodic boundary conditions
293: \begin{equation}
294: \psi(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n) = \psi(x_2, \dots, x_n, x_1 + L) \, .
295: \label{eq:cycl}
296: \end{equation}
297: The periodic conditions are the ones that
298: quantify the eigenvalues by imposing a set of equations on the $z_i$'s,
299: the Bethe equations. Denoting by $i$ and $j$ the generic line
300: and column indices of the matrices, respectively, we have
301: \begin{equation}
302: \psi(x_2, \dots, x_N, x_1 + L) = \det \left(
303: \frac{z_{i}^{x_{2}}}{1-z_i},
304: \dots, \frac{z_{i}^{x_{j+1}}}{(1-z_i)^j} , \dots,
305: \frac{z_i^{x_1+L}}{(1-z_i)^N} \right) \, .
306: \label{eq:pbc}
307: \end{equation}
308: By cyclic permutation of the columns, we obtain
309: \begin{eqnarray}
310: & & \psi(x_2, \dots, x_N, x_1 + L) \nonumber \\
311: &=& (-1)^{N-1}
312: \det \left( \frac{z_i^{x_1+L}}{(1-z_i)^N}, \frac{z_{i}^{x_{2}}}{1-z_i},
313: \dots, \frac{z_{i}^{x_j}}{(1-z_i)^{j-1}} , \dots \right) \nonumber \\
314: &=& (-1)^{N-1}
315: \det \left( \frac{z_i^L}{(1-z_i)^{N-1}} \, R(i,1),
316: \dots, (1-z_i)\, R(i,j) , \dots \right) \nonumber \\
317: &=& (-1)^{N-1} \prod_{k=1}^N (1-z_k) \,\,\, \
318: \det \left( \frac{z_i^L}{(1-z_i)^N} \, R(i,1),
319: \dots, R(i,j) , \dots \right) \, .
320: \end{eqnarray}
321: This last term is equal to $\psi(x_1, x_2, \dots, x_n) = \det(R) \, $ if
322: $z_1,\dots, z_N$ are solutions of the $N$ Bethe equations
323: \begin{equation}
324: (z_i-1)^N z_i^{-L} = - \prod_{k=1}^N(1-z_k) \ \ \
325: \hbox{for} \ \ \ i=1,\dots,N \, .
326: \label{eq:be}
327: \end{equation}
328: The vector $\psi$ defined by equations~(\ref{eq:psidet}, \ref{eq:r})
329: is then an eigenvector of the Markov matrix $M$ with eigenvalue $E$
330: given by equation~(\ref{eq:e}).
331:
332: The uniform stationary probability with $E=0$ corresponds to the very
333: special solution where all the $z_i=1$. For all the other solutions
334: of the Bethe equations, the $z_i$'s are distinct and are different
335: from 1; hence the determinant $\det(R)$ does not vanish.
336:
337:
338: \section{Symmetries of the Bethe equations}
339: %============================================
340:
341: In this section we show that the Bethe equations~(\ref{eq:be}) have
342: certain solutions that are distinct but lead to the same eigenvalue
343: $E$.
344:
345: Following Gwa and Spohn (1992), we introduce new variables
346: $\tilde{z_i} = 2/z_i-1$ in the Bethe equations~(\ref{eq:be}) which
347: then become
348: \begin{equation}
349: (1-\tilde{z_i})^N \ (1+\tilde{z_i})^{L-N}
350: = - 2^L \prod_{k=1}^N \frac{\tilde{z_k}-1}{\tilde{z_k}+1}
351: \ \ \ \hbox{for} \ \ \ i=1,\dots,N \, .
352: \label{eq:bep}
353: \end{equation}
354: The corresponding eigenvalue $E$
355: is given by
356: \begin{equation}
357: 2E = - N + \sum_{k=1}^N \tilde{z_k} \, .
358: \label{eq:ez}
359: \end{equation}
360: We remark that the right hand side of equation~(\ref{eq:bep}) is
361: independent of $i$. We shall analyse equation~(\ref{eq:bep}) in three
362: steps. Firstly, we consider the polynomial equation of degree $L$ for
363: a given complex parameter $Y$,
364: \begin{equation}
365: (1-Z)^N \ (1+Z)^{L-N} = Y \, .
366: \label{eq:poly}
367: \end{equation}
368: We call $(Z_1, \dots, Z_L)$ the roots of this polynomial. In the
369: Appendix, we explain how the $Z_i$'s can be labelled so that for a
370: given $i$, $Z_i$ is an analytic function of $Y$ in the complex plane
371: with a branch cut along the real semi-axis $[0, +\infty)$. Secondly,
372: we choose a set $c = \{c_1, \dots, c_N \}$ of $N$ distinct indices
373: among $\{1, \dots, L \}$. The number of possible sets $c$ is precisely
374: $\Omega$, the total number of configurations
375: (equation~(\ref{eq:defomega})). Finally, for a given choice set $c$,
376: we define a function of $Y$
377: \begin{equation}
378: A_c(Y) = - 2^L \prod_{k=1}^N \frac{Z_{c_k}-1}{Z_{c_k}+1}
379: \, .
380: \end{equation}
381: The Bethe equations~(\ref{eq:bep}) are now equivalent to the
382: self-consistency equation
383: \begin{equation}
384: A_c(Y) = Y
385: \, .
386: \label{eq:acy=y}
387: \end{equation}
388: For a given choice set $c$ and a root $Y_c$ of the last equation, the
389: $Z_k$'s are determined by equation~(\ref{eq:poly}). The solutions of
390: the Bethe equations are then given by $\tilde{z_k} = Z_{c_k}$. The
391: corresponding eigenvalue $E_c$ is obtained from equation~(\ref{eq:ez})
392: \begin{equation}
393: 2 E_c = - N + \sum_{k=1}^N Z_{c_k} \, .
394: \label{eq:defEc}
395: \end{equation}
396: The eigenvector $\psi$ is given by
397: equations~(\ref{eq:psidet}, \ref{eq:r}),
398: using $z_i = 2/(\tilde{z_i}+1)$.
399:
400: In order to understand the origin of the spectral degeneracies, we
401: must consider the case where $L$ (the number of sites) and $N$ (the
402: number of particles) are not relatively prime. We define the integers
403: $p$, $n$ and $l$ as follows
404: \begin{equation}
405: p = \gcd(L,N) \ , \ \ L = p l\ , \ \ N = p n \ . \label{eq:defp}
406: \end{equation}
407: Let $(y_1, \dots, y_p)$ be the $p$-th roots of $Y$ (i.e., $y_k^p = Y$)
408: labelled as $ 0 \le \arg(y_1) < \dots < \arg(y_p) < 2\pi$.
409: Equation~(\ref{eq:poly}) is thus equivalent to the $p$ polynomial
410: equations of degree $l$
411: \begin{equation}
412: Q_k(Z) = (1-Z)^n \ (1+Z)^{l-n} - y_k = 0
413: \ \ \mbox{for } \ \ k = 1, \ldots , p \, .
414: \label{eq:polyk}
415: \end{equation}
416: Thus the set $\{ Z_1, \dots, Z_L \}$ of the $L$ solutions of
417: equation~(\ref{eq:poly}) is made up of $p$ {\em packages}, the $k$-th
418: package being constituted by the $l$ solutions of $Q_k(Z) = 0$. Let
419: us call ${\cal P}_k$ the set of indices of the $k$-th package: in
420: other words the solutions of $Q_k(Z) = 0$ are the $Z_i$ with $i \in
421: {\cal P}_k$. The labelling of the $Z_i$ described in the Appendix
422: shows explicitly that
423: \begin{equation}
424: {\cal P}_k = \{ k, k+p, k+2p, \dots, k+L-p \} \, , \label{eq:defpack}
425: \end{equation}
426: i.e., ${\cal P}_k$ contains the indices $i$ such that $i = k$ modulo
427: $p$.
428: \label{s:package}
429:
430: For any given package ${\cal P}_k$, we have the fundamental equations
431: \begin{eqnarray}
432: \sum_{i \in {\cal P}_k} Z_i &=& 2n-l \, ,
433: \label{eq:sz}
434: \\
435: \prod_{i \in {\cal P}_k} \frac{Z_i-1}{Z_i+1} &=& 1 \, .
436: \label{eq:pz}
437: \end{eqnarray}
438: We emphasize that the right hand sides are independent of $k$.
439: These identities are derived as follows. We have $(-1)^n Q_k(Z) =
440: \prod_{i \in {\cal P}_k} (Z - Z_i)$ because
441: the $ Z_i$'s with $i \in {\cal P}_k $ are the roots
442: of the polynomial $Q_k(Z)$. The evaluation of the coefficient of
443: $Z^{l-1}$ leads to the equation~(\ref{eq:sz}) except when $l=1$.
444: Similarly, the evaluation of $Q_k(1)/Q_k(-1)$ yields
445: equation~(\ref{eq:pz}) except when $n=0$ or $n=l$. These exceptions
446: correspond to a trivial model which is either empty, $N=0$, or full,
447: $N=L$, (the spectrum of $M$ is then reduced to the single eigenvalue
448: $\{ 0 \}$). In the following, we assume that $0 < N < L$ and so
449: equations~(\ref{eq:sz}, \ref{eq:pz}) are true.
450:
451: We now consider a solution $Y_c$ of the Bethe
452: equation~(\ref{eq:acy=y}) associated with a given choice set $c$.
453: Assume that there exists a package ${\cal P}_{f}$ such that $c$
454: contains ${\cal P}_{f}$ (i.e., ${\cal P}_{f} \subset c$) and that
455: there exists another package ${\cal P}_{e}$ such that $c$ is disjoint
456: from ${\cal P}_{e}$ (i.e., ${\cal P}_{e} \cap c = \emptyset$). We
457: define a new choice set $c'$ of $N$ indices by exchanging the package
458: ${\cal P}_{f}$ with ${\cal P}_{e}$, i.e.,
459: $c'= (c / {\cal P}_{f}) \cup {\cal P}_{e}$. We now show that the
460: eigenvalues associated with $c$ and $c'$ are equal. Indeed, because
461: of equation~(\ref{eq:pz}), the contribution of ${\cal P}_{f}$ in
462: $A_c(Y)$ and the contribution of ${\cal P}_{e}$ in $A_{c'}(Y)$ are
463: both equal to 1 and therefore $A_c(Y) = A_{c'}(Y)$,
464: the other packages contained in $c$ and $c'$ being the same. Thus $Y_c$ is
465: also a solution of the Bethe equation associated with the set $c'$,
466: i.e., $A_{c'}(Y_c) = Y_c$.
467: Besides, thanks to equation~(\ref{eq:sz}), we notice that the
468: contribution of ${\cal P}_{f}$ to the eigenvalue $E_c$ is equal to the
469: contribution of ${\cal P}_{e}$ to $E_{c'}$. Thus, because
470: the other packages contained in $c$ and $c'$ are the same,
471: we conclude from
472: equation~(\ref{eq:defEc}) that $E_c = E_{c'}$. However, the
473: corresponding eigenvectors are different: some of the chosen $z_i$'s being
474: different for $c$ and $c'$, the functions $\psi_c(x_1,\ldots, x_N)$
475: and $\psi_{c'}(x_1,\ldots, x_N)$ are not equal for the $\Omega$
476: different configurations. We have thus obtained a degenerate
477: eigenvalue $E_c = E_{c'}$ associated with two different sets $c$
478: and $c'$.
479:
480: To summarise, an eigenvalue corresponding to a choice set $c$ is
481: degenerate if there exists at least one package ${\cal P}_{f}$
482: entirely contained in $c$ and at least one package ${\cal P}_{e}$ that
483: does not intersect with $c$. The fundamental reason is that a full
484: package of $Z_i$'s does not contribute to the Bethe equations and adds
485: up to a constant contribution in the eigenvalue formula. Therefore
486: exchanging the packages ${\cal P}_{f}$ and ${\cal P}_{e}$ leads to the
487: same eigenvalue but not to the same eigenvector and results in
488: degeneracies in the spectrum.
489:
490:
491:
492: As the size of the packages is $l$, we note that degeneracies are
493: possible only if $l \le N \le L-l$ with $l = L/\gcd(L,N)$.
494:
495:
496: \section{Combinatorial formulae for the degeneracies}
497: %=====================
498:
499: \label{s:oto}
500: We shall now enumerate the degeneracies in the spectrum of the Markov
501: matrix $M$ of the TASEP with $N$ particles evolving on a ring of $L$
502: sites. We assume the following {\em one-to-one hypothesis}: for each
503: choice set $c$ (among the $\Omega$ possible sets), the
504: self-consistency equation~(\ref{eq:acy=y}) has a unique solution $Y_c$
505: that provides the eigenvalue $E_c$ and the eigenvector $\psi_c$. We
506: further assume that these eigenvectors are linearly independent; this
507: hypothesis, combined with the fact that the dimension of the
508: configuration space is $\Omega$, implies that the Bethe equations
509: provide a complete basis of eigenvectors. We emphasize that the
510: one-to-one hypothesis is stronger than the assumption that the Bethe
511: basis is complete. We have observed numerically on small size systems
512: that the functions $A_c(Y)$ are usually contraction mappings (which
513: would imply the one-to-one hypothesis), but we have not succeeded yet
514: to obtain a rigorous proof. However we will see that this one-to-one
515: hypothesis allows to count the degeneracies and that the results are
516: in perfect agreement with numerical diagonalisations. Thus we are
517: convinced that this hypothesis, or a weaker hypothesis with the same
518: consequences, is true and that it should be possible to prove it.
519:
520: With this one-to-one hypothesis, counting degeneracies becomes merely
521: an exercise in combinatorics. We first introduce some notations. We
522: recall (see Section~\ref{s:package}) that $c = \{c_1, \dots, c_N \}$
523: is a set of $N$ integers chosen amongst $\{1, \dots, L \}$; moreover
524: $\{1, \dots, L \}$ is partitioned in $p$ packages ${\cal P}_1, \dots,
525: {\cal P}_p$, each containing $l = L/p$ integers with $p = \gcd(L,N)$
526: (see equations(\ref{eq:defp}--\ref{eq:defpack})).
527: For a given set $c$ and for $0 \le i \le l$, we denote by $a_i$ the
528: number of packages ${\cal P}_k$ with $i$ elements in $c$ (i.e., such that
529: ${\cal P}_k \cap c $ has $i$ elements). Thus $a_0$ is
530: the number of packages that do not intersect $c$:
531: such packages will be referred to as `empty' packages.
532: The number of the `full' packages (i.e.,
533: entirely included in $c$) is $a_l$.
534: We call {\em partial} packages those that
535: are neither empty nor full. Following this definition, we have
536: \begin{equation}
537: a_i \ge 0
538: \ \ , \ \
539: \sum_{i=0}^l a_i = p
540: \ \ , \ \
541: \sum_{i=0}^l i \, a_i = N \, ,
542: \label{eq:ai}
543: \end{equation}
544: $p$ being the total number of packages and $N$ the cardinality of the set
545: $c$. We call $a = (a_0, a_1, \dots, a_l)$ an {\em admissible
546: partition} if it satisfies the relations in
547: equation~(\ref{eq:ai}). Equivalently an admissible partition
548: corresponds to a partition of the integer $N$ in which each term is
549: $\le l$ and which contains at most $p$ terms.
550:
551:
552:
553: The total number $\omega(a)$ of choice sets $c$ corresponding
554: to a given admissible partition $a$ is
555: \begin{equation}
556: \omega(a) =
557: \frac{p!}{a_0!a_1! a_2!\dots a_l!} {l \choose 0}^{\displaystyle a_0}
558: {l \choose 1}^{\displaystyle a_1} {l \choose 2}^{\displaystyle a_2}
559: \dots {l \choose l}^{\displaystyle a_{l}} =
560: p! \prod_{i=0}^l \frac{1}{a_i!} \
561: {l \choose i}^{\displaystyle a_i} \, .
562: \label{eq:atoc}
563: \end{equation}
564: In this equation, the first factor enumerates the number of choices
565: for each type of packages among the $p$ available packages. The
566: factors of the type $ {l \choose i}^{a_i}$ give the number of choices
567: of $i$ elements among $l$ for each of the $a_i$ packages. According to
568: the one-to-one hypothesis, $\omega(a)$ represents also the number of
569: eigenvalues associated with the admissible partition $a$.
570:
571:
572:
573:
574: We have shown at the end of the previous section that two sets $c$ and
575: $c'$ provide a degenerate eigenvalue $E_c = E_{c'}$ if they are built
576: from the same partial packages and differ only by
577: the selected empty and full packages. Thus the eigenvalue
578: $E_c$ is $d(a)$ times degenerate with
579: \begin{equation}
580: d(a) = {a_0 + a_l \choose a_l} \, .
581: \label{eq:da}
582: \end{equation}
583: This relation is obtained by enumerating all the choice sets $c'$
584: obtained from $c$ by keeping the partial packages unchanged and
585: choosing $a_l$ full packages from the remaining $a_l+a_0$
586: packages. We remark that $c$ and $c'$ correspond to the same
587: admissible partition $a$. We also emphasize that the degeneracy
588: order depends only on
589: $a$ and not on the precise choice set $c$. To resume,
590: a single order of degeneracy $d(a)$ is associated with
591: the admissible partition $a$.
592:
593: Consequently, the $\omega(a)$ eigenvalues corresponding to the
594: admissible partition $a$ form $m(a)$ multiplets of $d(a)$ degenerate
595: eigenvalues, where $m(a)$ is given by
596: \begin{eqnarray}
597: m(a) = \frac{ \omega(a) } { d(a) }
598: = \frac{p!}{a_1! a_2!\dots a_{l-1}! (a_0+a_l)!}
599: {l \choose 1}^{\displaystyle a_1} {l \choose 2}^{\displaystyle a_2}
600: \dots {l \choose l-1}^{\displaystyle a_{l-1}} \, .
601: \label{eq:ma}
602: \end{eqnarray}
603: Because the value of $E_c$ depends only on the roots $Z_i$ belonging
604: to the partial packages, we remark that this equation can also be
605: obtained by enumerating the number of choices for these roots: the
606: first factor counts the number of choices for the partial packages
607: among the $p$ packages and the other factors enumerate the choices of
608: $i$ elements among $l$ for each of the $a_i$ partial packages.
609:
610:
611: In order to know the total number $m(d)$ of multiplets with degeneracy
612: of order $d$, we must sum over all admissible partitions $a$ with
613: $d(a) = d$,
614: \begin{equation}
615: m(d) = \sum_{a;\, d(a) = d} m(a).
616: \label{eq:md}
617: \end{equation}
618:
619:
620: In the particular case of {\em half-filling} ($L=2N$), we have $p=N$
621: and $l=2$, $n=1$. The admissible partitions and the corresponding
622: degeneracies are parameterised by $a_0$: equation~(\ref{eq:ai}) leads
623: to $a_2=a_0$, $a_1=N-2a_0$ and $d(a) = {2a_0 \choose a_0}$. The
624: relation between the admissible partitions and orders of
625: degeneracies is therefore one-to-one
626: (i.e., two different admissible partitions have different orders of
627: degeneracies): thus the sum in
628: equation~(\ref{eq:md}) reduces to a single term. Explicit formulae
629: and numerical results are given in (Golinelli and Mallick 2004).
630:
631: For fillings other than 1/2, we have $l > 2$
632: and two different admissible partitions can lead to the same order of
633: degeneracy. Equation~(\ref{eq:md}) can not be further simplified
634: and the enumeration of admissible
635: partitions seems mandatory. Nevertheless, we can verify the sum rule
636: \begin{equation}
637: \Omega = \sum_{d \ge 1} d \ m(d) =
638: \sum_{a} d(a) \ m(a) = \sum_{a} p! \prod_{i=0}^l \frac{1}{a_i!} \
639: {l \choose i}^{\displaystyle a_i}
640: \label{eq:sr}
641: \end{equation}
642: where the last sum runs over the admissible partitions and $\Omega$,
643: defined in equation~(\ref{eq:defomega}), is
644: the size of the Markov matrix. We use the identity
645: \begin{equation}
646: (x+1)^L = \left[(x+1)^l\right]^p
647: = \left[ \sum_{i=0}^l {l \choose i} \ x^i \right]^p
648: = \sum_{a_0, \dots, a_l} p! \prod_{i=0}^l \frac{1}{a_i!} \ {l \choose
649: i}^{a_i} x^{ia_i}
650: \end{equation}
651: where $\sum_i a_i = p$. We remark that $\Omega$ is the coefficient of
652: $x^N$ in $(x+1)^L$, whereas the coefficient of $x^N$ on the r.h.s. is
653: precisely the number of admissible partitions defined in
654: equation~(\ref{eq:ai}) and is identical to the r.h.s of
655: equation~(\ref{eq:sr}).
656:
657:
658: \begin{table} \centering
659: \begin{tabular}{c|rrrr| r r}
660: packages & $a_0$& $a_1$ & $a_2$& $a_3$ & $d(a)$ & $m(a)$ \\
661: \hline
662: \includegraphics[width=\packagewidth]{1-5.eps}
663: & 0 & 5 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 243 \\
664: \includegraphics[width=\packagewidth]{2111.eps}
665: & 1 & 3 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1620 \\
666: \includegraphics[width=\packagewidth]{221.eps}
667: & 2 & 1 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 810 \\
668: \hline
669: \includegraphics[width=\packagewidth]{311.eps}
670: & 2 & 2 & 0 & 1 & 3 & 90 \\
671: \includegraphics[width=\packagewidth]{32.eps}
672: & 3 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 4 & 15 \\
673: \end{tabular}
674: \caption{
675: An example of calculation of the degeneracies with $L=15$ and $N=5$.
676: Each row
677: describes an admissible partition $a=(a_0,\dots,a_l)$
678: where $a_i$ counts the packages with $i$ chosen roots.
679: In the first column of this table, we have drawn one example
680: of a choice set corresponding to $a$ that selects $N =5$ roots
681: amongst the $p=5$ packages of $l=3$ roots each.
682: The eigenvalues corresponding to $a$ form $m(a)$
683: multiplets of order of degeneracy $d(a)$, where $d(a)$ and $m(a)$
684: are given by equations~(\ref{eq:da},
685: \ref{eq:ma}). The number of singlets ($d=1$) is obtained by summing
686: the first three contributions, so 2673 singlets.
687: }
688: \label{tab:15-5}
689: \end{table}
690:
691:
692: In Table \ref{tab:15-5}, the explicit example $L=15$ and $N=5$ is worked
693: out. We list the admissible partitions, calculate the corresponding order
694: of degeneracy from formula~(\ref{eq:da}) and enumerate the corresponding
695: multiplets by using equation~(\ref{eq:ma}).
696:
697: These results are invariant under `particle - hole' exchange: the
698: exclusion process with $N$ particles jumping to the right can be
699: mapped to a system with $L-N$ particles jumping to the left after
700: performing a particle - hole exchange. Of course the spectrum of the
701: Markov matrix does not depend on the jumping direction. Thus, we know
702: a priori that the Markov matrices of the TASEP with $N$ and $L-N$
703: particles have the same spectrum. We now verify this symmetry on the
704: formulae derived above. Denoting with a `tilde' the quantities for
705: the model with $\tilde{N} = L-N$ particles, we find that $p =
706: \tilde{p}$ (because $\gcd(L,N) = \gcd(L-N,N)$), $\tilde{l}=l$ and
707: $\tilde{n} = l-n$. By a particle - hole exchange, a partition $a =
708: (a_0, \dots, a_l)$ is transformed to $\tilde{a}$ where $\tilde{a_i} =
709: a_{l-i}$. Hence, according to equations~(\ref{eq:da}, \ref{eq:ma}),
710: we obtain $d(\tilde{a}) = d(a)$ and $m(\tilde{a}) = m(a)$, i.e.,
711: degeneracies are indeed invariant by the particle - hole exchange.
712:
713:
714:
715:
716:
717: %\pagebreak
718: \section{Discussion}
719: %=====================
720:
721: In this section, we draw some consequences of
722: equations~(\ref{eq:ai}-\ref{eq:md}).
723:
724:
725: We first verify that these equations always predict the existence of
726: singlets (i.e., isolated eigenvalues with degeneracy $d=1$). In
727: equation~(\ref{eq:da}), we see that $d=1$ if and only if the partition
728: has no empty package ($a_0=0$) or no full package ($a_l=0$) or if both
729: $a_0 = a_l =0$. For instance, the stationary
730: eigenvalue 0 is always a singlet thanks to Perron-Frobenius theorem:
731: in fact, the choice set for the stationary state is $c = \{1,\dots, N\}$
732: and hence each package ${\cal P}_k$ has $n = N/p$ selected elements.
733: The corresponding partition is thus given by $a_i = 0$ for $i \ne n$
734: and $a_n = p$: this implies $d=1$, as expected.
735:
736:
737: \begin{table} \centering
738: \begin{tabular}{rr|rrrrr}
739: $L$ & $N$ & $m(1)$ & $m(2)$ & $m(6)$ & $m(20)$ & $m(70)$
740: \\ \hline
741: 2 & 1 & 2 \\
742: 4 & 2 & 4 & 1 \\
743: 6 & 3 & 8 & 6 \\
744: 8 & 4 & 16 & 24 & 1 \\
745: 10 & 5 & 32 & 80 & 10 \\
746: 12 & 6 & 64 & 240 & 60 & 1 & \\
747: 14 & 7 & 128 & 672 & 280 & 14 & \\
748: 16 & 8 & 256 & 1792 & 1120 & 112 & 1 \\
749: 18 & 9 & 512 & 4608 & 4032 & 672 & 18 \\
750: \end{tabular}
751: \caption{\em
752: Spectral degeneracies in the TASEP at filling $\rho = 1/2$: $L$ is the
753: size of the lattice, $N$ the number of particles; the other columns
754: give $m(d)$ the number of multiplets with degeneracy $d$.
755: }
756: \label{tab:1/2}
757: \end{table}
758:
759:
760: \begin{table} \centering
761: \begin{tabular}{r|r r|rrrrrr}
762: $\rho$ & $L$ & $N$ & $m(1)$ & $m(2)$ & $m(3)$ & $m(4)$ & $m(5)$ & $m(15)$
763: \\ \hline
764: 1/3 & 9 & 3 & 81 & & 1 \\
765: & 12 & 4 & 459 & & 12 \\
766: & 15 & 5 & 2673 & & 90 & 15 \\
767: & 18 & 6 & 15849 & & 540 & 270 & & 1 \\
768: & 21 & 7 & 95175 & & 2835 & 2835 & 189 & 21 \\
769: \hline
770: 1/4 & 16 & 4 & 1816 & & & 1 \\
771: & 20 & 5 & 15424 & & & 20 \\
772: & 24 & 6 & 133456 & & & 240 & 36 \\
773: \hline
774: 1/5 & 25 & 5 & 53125 & & & & 1 \\
775: 2/5 & 15 & 6 & 4975 & 15 \\
776: \end{tabular}
777: \caption{\em
778: Examples of spectral degeneracies in the TASEP at filling $\rho \ne
779: 1/2$: $L$ is the size of the lattice, $N$ the number of particles; the
780: other columns give $m(d)$ the number of multiplets with degeneracy $d$.
781: }
782: \label{tab:other}
783: \end{table}
784:
785: In order to obtain degenerate eigenvalues i.e., admissible partitions
786: with $d \ge 2$, we must have $a_0 \ne 0$ and $a_l \ne 0$, i.e., at
787: least one empty package and one full package. According to
788: equation~(\ref{eq:ai}), the existence of degeneracies is given by the
789: condition $l \le N \le L-l$ or equivalently by
790: \begin{equation}
791: L \le pN \le pL-L
792: \label{eq:lnl}
793: \end{equation}
794: where $p = \gcd(L,N)$. Some numerical examples are given in Tables
795: \ref{tab:1/2} and \ref{tab:other}.
796:
797: We now analyse the TASEP at a fixed value of the filling $\rho =
798: n/l$, $n$ and $l$ being mutually prime. The two integers $(L,N)$ are
799: parameterised by the single number $p$ defined in equation~(\ref{eq:defp}).
800: According to the condition~(\ref{eq:lnl}), degeneracies appear when
801: \begin{equation}
802: p \ge \max\left( \frac{1}{\rho}, \frac{1}{1-\rho} \right) \, .
803: \end{equation}
804: This condition can always be fulfilled when $0 < \rho < 1$.
805: Moreover, when the
806: system size $L$ and the number of particles $N$ increase with a given
807: rational $\rho$, higher and higher orders of degeneracies appear and become
808: generic in the large $p$ (or $L$) limit. The admissible partition $a=(a_0,
809: \dots, a_l)$ that maximises $ \omega(a) = d(a) \, m(a)$ (i.e., the total
810: number of eigenvalues associated with $a$) is given by
811: \begin{equation}
812: a_i \sim p {l \choose i} \rho^i (1-\rho)^{l-i}
813: \ .
814: \label{opt1}
815: \end{equation}
816: The corresponding order of degeneracy increases exponentially with the
817: size $L$
818: as $d \propto D^L$ where
819: \begin{equation}
820: D = \left( 1 +\frac{v}{u} \right)^{u/l}
821: \left(1 +\frac{u}{v} \right)^{v/l}
822: \label{eq:d}
823: \ \mbox{with} \
824: u = \rho^l
825: , \
826: v = (1-\rho)^l
827: .
828: \end{equation}
829: For example, $D_{1/2}=2^{1/4} \approx 1.189$ for $\rho = 1/2$;
830: $D_{1/3} = (9^3/2^8)^{1/27} \approx 1.040$ for $\rho = 1/3$, etc...
831: $D$ converges rapidly to 1 when the denominator $l$ of $\rho$ grows.
832: That explains why, in numerical studies of systems of limited size,
833: degeneracies are found only when $l$ is rather small, i.e., when
834: $\rho$ is a `simple' fraction.
835:
836: Similarly, we can also determine the admissible partition $a$ that
837: maximises $m(a)$, the number of multiplets. This optimal partition has
838: $a_l=0$ when $\rho < 1/2$, and $a_0=0$ when $\rho > 1/2$. In either case,
839: this corresponds to $d=1$. Thus the most numerous multiplets for $\rho \ne
840: 1/2$ are singlets. This result does not contradict equations~(\ref{opt1},
841: \ref{eq:d}) in which the product $d(a)\, m(a)$ is maximised. For the
842: special case, $\rho = 1/2$, the partition that maximises $m(a)$ has both
843: $a_0$ and $a_l$ different from 0 and the corresponding order of degeneracy
844: increases as $d \propto 2^{L/6}$ (Golinelli and Mallick 2004).
845:
846: Furthermore, for a given number $N$ of particles, we can search the
847: values of $L$ where degeneracies appear. Because of the particle -
848: hole symmetry (i.e., $N \Leftrightarrow L-N$), we need to consider
849: only the case $N \le L/2$. Then, the condition~(\ref{eq:lnl}) becomes
850: $2N \le L \le pN$. Because $p \le N$, this implies that $L \le N^2$:
851: only a finite number of $L$ values are possible.
852: In the dilute limit (when $L$ becomes large and $N$ remains fixed),
853: the TASEP has thus no degeneracy.
854:
855: All these results have been derived on the basis of the `one-to-one'
856: hypothesis stated at the beginning of section~\ref{s:oto}. It is
857: therefore crucial to compare our formulae with numerical results.
858: We have numerically diagonalised the Markov matrix of the TASEP for
859: certain values of the parameters $(L,N)$. We use the translation
860: symmetry to split the matrix of size $\Omega$ into $L$ matrices of
861: size about $\Omega/L$. The spectrum is then computed by using Lapack
862: library (Anderson et al 1999) and degeneracies are counted; details
863: about this procedure are given in (Golinelli and Mallick 2004). We
864: have investigated systematically all the systems $(L,N)$ with $L \le
865: 19$. For $L \ge 20$, we have studied the systems $(L,N)$ in which
866: non-trivial degeneracies are predicted and in which the size of the
867: diagonalised matrix remains less than 6000. Results are given in
868: Table~\ref{tab:1/2} for $\rho = 1/2$ and in Table~\ref{tab:other} for
869: other values of $\rho$. The numerical results are in perfect
870: agreement with our analytical predictions,
871: equations~(\ref{eq:da}-\ref{eq:md}).
872:
873:
874:
875:
876: The degeneracies for systems much larger than those listed in Tables
877: \ref{tab:1/2} and \ref{tab:other} can be calculated from the
878: formulae~(\ref{eq:da}-\ref{eq:md}) for systems with several
879: hundred sites and particles. However, the full numerical
880: diagonalisation of the Markov matrix consumes a computer time of the
881: order of $\Omega^3 \propto (\rho^\rho (1-\rho)^{1-\rho})^{-3L}$. Such
882: a fast growth limits the comparison between numerical diagonalisations
883: and the exact formulae.
884:
885:
886:
887:
888:
889: \section{Conclusion}
890: %===================
891:
892:
893:
894: The spectrum of the Markov matrix of the TASEP on a one-dimensional
895: periodic lattice has a rich structure with multiplets having
896: degeneracies of high order. This structure depends on the filling
897: fraction and presents arithmetical properties related to some
898: particular partitions of the total number of particles. We have
899: derived analytical formulae for the spectral degeneracies by analysing
900: the Bethe equations for the TASEP. These predictions have been
901: verified by numerical calculations and we conjecture that the formulae
902: we propose are exact. Our arguments are based on a `one-to-one
903: hypothesis' which is stronger than assuming the completeness of the
904: Bethe Ansatz. Although the agreement between numerical results and
905: analytical predictions is a strong argument in favour of the
906: one-to-one hypothesis, it is possible that this hypothesis is not
907: satisfied but that a weaker formulation, leading to the same spectral
908: structure, holds good. We plan to study the completeness of the Bethe
909: Ansatz and this one-to-one hypothesis more precisely in a future work.
910:
911:
912: Our derivation of the spectral structure from the Bethe equations is
913: rather indirect. In fact, the presence of such high orders of
914: degeneracies is a strong evidence for hidden symmetries in the model.
915: In other words, the TASEP should be invariant under a group operating
916: on the configuration space such that each multiplet of a given order
917: of degeneracy is an irreducible representation of this group. The
918: orders of degeneracies would then classify the dimensions of
919: irreducible representations and the number of multiplets of a given
920: order would represent the multiplicity of a given irreducible
921: representation in the global representation over the configuration
922: space. By using the techniques of the algebraic Bethe Ansatz, we have
923: constructed a series of nonlocal operators that act on multiple
924: particles and that commute with the Markov matrix. We hope that a
925: study of the representations of these operators will allow us to
926: understand the structure of the spectrum in a purely algebraic manner
927: without having to analyse the solutions of the Bethe equations.
928:
929: The TASEP evolution can be generalized by introducing a fugacity parameter
930: $\lambda$, i.e., by multiplying each non-diagonal term of the Markov
931: matrix by a factor $\lambda.$ This parameter has been used to
932: calculate the large deviation function of the total
933: particle displacement (Derrida and
934: Lebowitz 1999). We verified that the spectral degeneracies for the
935: `TASEP + fugacity' model are the same as those found for TASEP. This
936: is not surprising because the properties of the Bethe equations are
937: not altered by introducing a fugacity and the arguments given in
938: sections 4 and 5 can be generalized without any difficulty. However,
939: in the case of the {\it partially} asymmetric exclusion process, in which
940: particles can jump in both directions, the spectrum has a much simpler
941: structure: eigenvalues are either singlets or doublets. Lastly, for
942: the TASEP on an open lattice, the spectrum is made only of singlets.
943:
944:
945: \subsection*{Acknowledgements}
946: %============================
947:
948: We thank M. Gaudin and V. Pasquier for useful discussions. We are
949: thankful to S. Mallick for a critical reading of the manuscript.
950:
951: \appendix
952: \section*{Appendix: Layout of the solutions of the Bethe equations}
953: %=====================================================================
954:
955: In this Appendix, we explain how to label the $L$ solutions
956: $(Z_1,\dots, Z_L)$ of the polynomial equation of degree $L$
957: \begin{equation}
958: (1-Z)^N (1+Z)^{L-N} = Y \, ,
959: \label{eq:zzy}
960: \end{equation}
961: ($0 \le N \le L$), in such a way that each $Z_k(Y)$ is an analytic
962: function of the parameter $Y$ in the complex plane with a branch cut
963: along the real semi-axis $[0,+\infty)$.
964:
965:
966: \begin{figure}
967: \centering \includegraphics[width=\figwidth, keepaspectratio] {cassini.eps}
968: \caption{\em
969: Labelling the roots of the Bethe equations. Here $L = 15$, $N=
970: 6$, $\phi = \pi/2$ and $r/r_c = 0.8,1, 1.2$ (see text). The
971: (resp. blue, black and red)
972: continuous curves are the
973: corresponding Cassini ovals. When $r$ is fixed and $\phi$ varies
974: from 0 to $2\pi$, each $Z_k$ slips counterclockwise along a part
975: of the Cassini oval. When $\phi$ is fixed and $r$ varies from
976: $\infty$ to 0, each $Z_k$ travels along a dashed curve from
977: $\infty$ to points +1 or -1. }
978: \label{fig:cassini}
979: \end{figure}
980:
981:
982: A non-zero complex number $Y$ can be written in a unique way as
983: \begin{equation}
984: Y = r^L \, e^{i \phi}
985: \ \ \mbox{with}\ \
986: 0 \le \phi < 2 \pi
987: \ ,
988: \end{equation}
989: $r$ being a positive real number. This determination of the argument
990: has a branch cut along $[0,+\infty)$. For a given value of $r$, the
991: complex numbers $Z_k$ belong to the generalized Cassini oval defined
992: by
993: \begin{equation}
994: |Z-1|^{\rho} |Z+1|^{1-\rho} = r
995: \end{equation}
996: where $\rho = N/L$ is the filling of the system. As shown in
997: Fig.~\ref{fig:cassini}, the topology of the Cassini oval depends on
998: the value of $r$ with a critical value
999: \begin{equation}
1000: r_c = 2 \rho^\rho(1-\rho)^{1-\rho}
1001: :
1002: \end{equation}
1003: \begin{itemize}
1004: \item for $r < r_c$, the curve consists of two disjoint ovals with $N$
1005: solutions on the oval surrounding $+1$ and $L-N$ solutions on the
1006: oval surrounding $-1$.
1007:
1008: \item for $r = r_c$, the curve is a deformed Bernoulli lemniscate
1009: with a double point at $Z_c = 1 - 2 \rho$.
1010:
1011: \item for $r > r_c$, the curve is a single loop with $L$ solutions.
1012: \end{itemize}
1013: The Cassini ovals are symmetrical only if $\rho = 1/2$.
1014:
1015: In order to label the solutions, we start by considering the limit $r
1016: \to \infty$ for a given $\phi$. Equation~(\ref{eq:zzy}) then becomes
1017: \begin{equation}
1018: Z^L \sim r^L \, \exp [i(\phi - N\pi)] \, .
1019: \end{equation}
1020: The solutions $Z_k$ are labelled by
1021: \begin{equation}
1022: Z_k \sim r \, \exp\left[ \frac{i}{L} [\phi - N\pi + 2(k-1)\pi] \right]
1023: \ \ \mbox{with}\ \
1024: k = 1, \ldots, L
1025: \, .
1026: \label{eq:zk}
1027: \end{equation}
1028: In other words, the $Z_k$ are regularly distributed along a large
1029: circle of radius $r$ with
1030: \begin{equation}
1031: \frac{\phi - N\pi}{L} \le \arg Z_1 < \dots < \arg Z_L <
1032: \frac{\phi - N\pi}{L} + 2\pi
1033: \, .
1034: \end{equation}
1035:
1036: This labelling, obtained for large $r$, is extended by analytic
1037: continuation to all values of $r$, keeping $\phi$ {\em fixed}. The
1038: loci of the $Z_k$ are drawn in Fig.~\ref{fig:cassini} (dashed curves):
1039: they are orthogonal to the Cassini ovals. A singularity appears along
1040: the branch $\phi = 0$ because $Z_1$ and $Z_{N+1}$ collapse into each
1041: other at the double point $Z_c$ when $r=r_c$; we circumvent it by
1042: choosing $\phi = 0^+$.
1043:
1044: With this labelling, the solutions are ordered along the Cassini
1045: ovals. Moreover, when $r < r_c$, the solutions $(Z_1,\dots,Z_N)$
1046: group together on the right oval and $(Z_{N+1}, \dots, Z_L)$ on the
1047: left oval.
1048:
1049: \section*{References}
1050: %=========================
1051:
1052: \begin{itemize}
1053:
1054: \item Anderson E. and al., 1999, {\em LAPACK Users' Guide},
1055: (Philadelphia, SIAM)
1056:
1057:
1058:
1059: \item Derrida B., 1998, {\em An exactly soluble non-equilibrium
1060: system: the asymmetric simple exclusion process}, Phys. Rep. {\bf
1061: 301}, 65.
1062:
1063:
1064:
1065: \item Derrida B., Evans M.~R., Hakim V., Pasquier V., 1993, {\em Exact
1066: solution of a 1D asymmetric exclusion model using a matrix
1067: formulation}, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 26}, 1493.
1068:
1069:
1070:
1071:
1072: \item Derrida B. and Lebowitz J.~L., 1998, {\em Exact large deviation
1073: function in the asymmetric exclusion process}, Phys. Rev. Lett.
1074: {\bf 80}, 209.
1075:
1076:
1077:
1078: \item Derrida B., Lebowitz J.~L., Speer E.~R., 2003, {\em Exact large
1079: deviation functional of a stationary open driven diffusive system:
1080: the asymmetric exclusion process}, J. Stat. Phys. {\bf 110}, 775.
1081:
1082:
1083: \item Dhar D., 1987, {\em An exactly solved model for interfacial
1084: growth}, Phase Transitions {\bf 9}, 51.
1085:
1086:
1087: \item Evans M.~R., Kafri Y., Koduvely H.~M., Mukamel D., 1998, {\em
1088: Phase separation in one-dimensional driven diffusive systems},
1089: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 80}, 425.
1090:
1091:
1092: \item Gaudin M., 1983,
1093: {\em La Fonction d'Onde de Bethe}, (Masson, Paris).
1094:
1095: \item Gaudin M. and Pasquier V., 2004, {\em private communication}.
1096:
1097:
1098: \item Golinelli O. and Mallick K., 2004, {\em Hidden symmetries in the
1099: asymmetric exclusion process}, JSTAT P12001; cond-mat/0412353.
1100:
1101:
1102: \item Gwa L.-H., Spohn H., 1992, {\em Bethe solution for the
1103: dynamical-scaling exponent of the noisy Burgers equation}, Phys.
1104: Rev. A {\bf 46}, 844.
1105:
1106:
1107: \item Kim D., 1995, {\em Bethe Ansatz solution for crossover scaling
1108: functions of the asymmetric XXZ chain and the
1109: Kardar-Parisi-Zhang-type growth model}, Phys. Rev. E {\bf 52},
1110: 3512.
1111:
1112:
1113: \item Sch\"utz G.M., 2001 Phase Transitions and Critical Phenomena,
1114: Vol. 19, (Academic, London).
1115:
1116:
1117: \end{itemize}
1118:
1119: \end{document}
1120: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End of LaTeX file %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1121:
1122: