1: \documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}

2: \usepackage{amsmath,epsfig}

3: \setlength{\textwidth}{15cm}

4: \begin{document}

5:  

6: \begin{titlepage}

7: %

8: \renewcommand{\thefootnote}{\fnsymbol{footnote}}

9: %

10: \begin{flushright}

11: %{\bf DRAFT 4}\\

12: MPI-PhT/2000-44\\

13: %hep-th/9612039

14: \end{flushright}

15: 

16: \vspace{1cm}

17: 

18: \begin{center}

19: {\LARGE Kosterlitz-Thouless theory and lattice artifacts}

20: \vspace{1.6cm}

21:  

22: {{\large J. Balog\footnote{on leave of absence from the Research 

23: Institute for Particle and Nuclear Physics, Budapest, Hungary}\\[8mm]

24: {\small\sl Max-Planck-Institut f\"{u}r Physik}\\

25: {(\small\sl Werner Heisenberg Institut)}\\[3mm]

26: {\small\sl F\"{o}hringer Ring 6, 80805 Munich, Germany}}}

27: 

28: \vspace{2.4cm}

29: {\bf Abstract}

30: \end{center}

31: 

32: \begin{quote}

33: The massive continuum limit of the $1+1$ dimensional $O(2)$

34: nonlinear $\sigma$-model (XY model) is studied using its

35: equivalence to the Sine-Gordon model at its asymptotically free

36: point. It is shown that leading lattice artifacts are universal but

37: they vanish only as inverse powers of the logarithm of the correlation 

38: length. Such leading artifacts are calculated for the case of the scattering

39: phase shifts and the correlation function of the Noether current using

40: the bootstrap S-matrix and perturbation theory respectively.

41: \end{quote}

42: \vfill

43: \setcounter{footnote}{0}

44: %

45: \end{titlepage}

46: 

47: 

48: %

49: %

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

51: %\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}

52: \newcommand{\ba}{\begin{eqnarray}}

53: \newcommand{\ea}{\end{eqnarray}}

54: %

55: %

56: 

57: 

58: \section{Introduction}

59: In this paper we study the properties of the two-dimensional

60: $O(2)$ nonlinear $\sigma$-model, better known as the XY model.

61: This model has been the subject of extensive theoretical and numerical

62: analysis, starting with the seminal papers of Kosterlitz and Thouless (KT)

63: \cite{KT}. For a review of KT theory, see \cite{ZinnJ}.

64: 

65: Analitical work is usually based on a series of mappings that starts at

66: the original (lattice) XY model and arrives at the Sine-Gordon (SG) model

67: or its fermionic equivalent, a (deformed) version of the chiral Gross-Neveu

68: (CGN) model. This latter formulation is most useful if one wants to study

69: questions related to the dynamically generated $SU(2)$ symmetry of the model.

70: 

71: Most papers on the XY model study its properties interesting for

72: Statistical Physics, in particular the pecularities of the KT phase

73: transition, which is of infinite order. In this paper we look at the XY

74: model as an example of $1+1$ dimensional relativistic Quantum Field Theory. 

75: More precisely, we study the massive continuum limit of the lattice theory,

76: which, in the language of Statistical Physics, means that we approach the

77: KT phase transition point from the high temperature phase.

78: 

79: Treating the XY model as the $n=2$ member of the family of $O(n)$

80: nonlinear $\sigma$-models gives additional insights, since a lot is

81: known about the $n\geq3$ models~\cite{ZZ}. More importantly, using the

82: SG language, we show that the approach to the continuum limit in this

83: model is much slower than in most other lattice models. Lattice artifacts

84: vanish in this model, instead of the

85: usual Symanzik type behaviour~\cite{Sym} (i.e. integer powers of the 

86: lattice spacing), as inverse powers of the logarithm of the lattice 

87: spacing only. On the other hand, we can show that the leading artifacts

88: are universal and calculable. Our main result is Eqs. (\ref{gammaexp})

89: and (\ref{xiexp}) in Section 4, which allow us to calculate leading

90: lattice artifacts in terms of SG data.

91: 

92: We can make use of the fact that the SG model is exactly solvable

93: and its bootstrap S-matrix is exactly known. We calculate the leading 

94: artifacts for the scattering phase shifts using the bootstrap results.

95: An alternative method is perturbation theory (PT). Since the SG model

96: is asymptotically free if we use suitable expansion parameters

97: \cite{Amit}, the methods of renormalization group (RG) improved PT

98: are thus available.

99: 

100: In Section 2 we review the relation of the XY model to the $O(n)$ models

101: with $n\geq3$ and describe the chain of mappings leading from the XY model

102: to the SG model and its equivalent fermionic formulation.

103: 

104: In Section 3 we recall the analysis of the phase diagram of the model

105: in the vicinity of the KT phase transition point. This is described in the

106: SG language.

107: 

108: In Section 4 we explain how to calculate the lattice artifacts and apply

109: this to the case of the scattering phase shifts.

110: 

111: Finally in Section 5 we calculate the lattice artifacts for the 

112: two-point correlation function of the Noether current corresponding

113: to the $O(2)$ symmetry. Here we use the method of RG improved PT.

114: To calculate the value of a non-perturbative constant needed here,

115: we also consider the system in the presence of an external field coupled

116: to the Noether charge. (This calculation is analogous to the one used

117: previously to determine the $M/\Lambda$ ratio for the $O(n)$ models

118: \cite{HMN}.) We give here a parameter-free two-loop formula for the

119: lattice artifacts. 

120: 

121: A precision MC study of the massive continuum limit of the $O(2)$ model

122: will be described in a forthcoming paper \cite{paper3}.

123: 

124: 

125: 

126: \section{From the XY model to the Sine-Gordon model and beyond}

127: 

128: In this section we describe in some detail the chain of mappings starting

129: with the XY model and ending at the SG model and its fermionic equivalent.

130: 

131: We can treat the XY model as the $n=2$ member of the family of

132: $O(n)$ nonlinear $\sigma$-models with Lagrangean

133: \be

134: {\cal L}^{O(n)}=\frac{1}{2g^2}\,\partial_\mu S^a\partial_\mu S^a

135: \quad ;\quad S^aS^a=1,\qquad a=1,2,\dots n.

136: \label{LagOn}

137: \end{equation}

138: The $n\geq3$ models are known to be integrable. Polyakov \cite{Poly}

139: and L\"uscher \cite{Lusch} have shown the existence of 

140: respectively local and nonlocal higher spin conserved charges, whose

141: existence implies quantum integrability. Assuming the spectrum of the

142: model consisted of an $O(n)$ vector multiplet of massive particles the

143: exact S-matrix of the $n\geq3$ models was found by bootstrap methods

144: \cite{ZZ}:

145: \be

146: S_{ab;cd}(\theta)=

147: \sigma_1(\theta)\delta_{ab}\delta_{cd}+

148: \sigma_2(\theta)\delta_{ac}\delta_{bd}+

149: \sigma_3(\theta)\delta_{ad}\delta_{bc},

150: \label{OnSmatrix}

151: \end{equation}

152: where

153: \begin{alignat}{1}

154: \sigma_1(\theta)&=\frac{-2\pi i\theta}{i\pi-\theta}

155: \,\cdot\,\frac{s^{(2)}(\theta)}

156: {(n-2)\theta-2\pi i}\,,\nonumber\\

157: \sigma_2(\theta)&=(n-2)\theta

158: \,\cdot\,\frac{s^{(2)}(\theta)}

159: {(n-2)\theta-2\pi i}\,,\label{sig2}\\

160: \sigma_3(\theta)&=-2\pi i

161: \,\cdot\,\frac{s^{(2)}(\theta)}

162: {(n-2)\theta-2\pi i}\nonumber

163: \end{alignat}

164: and the \lq isospin 2' phase shift $s^{(2)}$ is given by

165: \be

166: s^{(2)}(\theta)=-\exp\left\{2i\int_0^\infty\frac{d\omega}{\omega}

167: \sin\omega\theta \tilde K_n(\omega)\right\}

168: \label{iso2}

169: \end{equation}

170: with

171: \be

172: \tilde K_n(\omega)=

173: \left[\frac{e^{-\pi\omega}+e^{-2\pi\frac{\omega}{n-2}}}

174: {1+e^{-\pi\omega}}\right].

175: \label{Kn}

176: \end{equation}

177: 

178: Much less is known about the $O(2)$ model. A simple observation

179: is that (\ref{sig2}) and also (\ref{Kn}) have a smooth

180: $n\to2$ limit. It is natural to assume that the $O(2)$ model is

181: also integrable, its spectrum consists of a single $O(2)$ doublet

182: of massive particles whose scattering is indeed described by the

183: $n\to2$ limit of the S-matrix (\ref{OnSmatrix}).

184: 

185: Although taking the formal $n\to2$ limit of the bootstrap results

186: valid for $n\geq3$ is not convincing in itself, the conclusion

187: turns out to be correct because as we will see it also follows from 

188: the Kosterlitz-Thouless theory \cite{KT} of the XY model. 

189: 

190: Before turning to the KT theory we make a small digression to

191: discuss the two-dimensional Sine-Gordon (SG) model.

192: Its Lagrangean can be written as

193: \begin{equation}

194: {\cal L}^{\rm SG}=\frac12\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi

195: +\frac{\alpha}{\beta^2a^2}\left[1-\cos(\beta\phi)\right],

196: \label{LagSG}

197: \end{equation}

198: where $\alpha$ is the dimensionless mass parameter, $a$ is

199: a constant of dimension mass$^{-1}$ and $\beta$ is

200: the SG coupling. It is also integrable and its spectrum and S-matrix

201: was also found in \cite{ZZ}. The spectrum depends on $\beta$ 

202: in a complicated way but it becomes simple for the range 

203: $8\pi>\beta^2>4\pi$ when it is free of any bound states

204: and consists of a single $O(2)$ vector of massive particles whose S-matrix

205: can again be written as (\ref{OnSmatrix}) but now

206: \begin{alignat}{1}

207: \sigma_1(\theta)&=\cosh\frac{i\pi\nu}{2}

208: \sinh\frac{\theta\nu}{2}\,\,\frac{s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)}

209: {\sinh\frac{(i\pi-\theta)\nu}{2}}\,,\nonumber\\

210: \sigma_2(\theta)&=-\sinh\frac{i\pi\nu}{2}

211: \sinh\frac{\theta\nu}{2}\,\,\frac{s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)}

212: {\cosh\frac{(i\pi-\theta)\nu}{2}}\,,\label{sig2SG}\\

213: \sigma_3(\theta)&=\cosh\frac{i\pi\nu}{2}

214: \cosh\frac{\theta\nu}{2}\,\,\frac{s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)}

215: {\cosh\frac{(i\pi-\theta)\nu}{2}}\,,\nonumber

216: \end{alignat}

217: where we have introduced the parametrization 

218: \be

219: \nu=\frac{8\pi}{\beta^2}-1.

220: \label{gammapar}

221: \end{equation}

222: The \lq isospin 2' phase shift for the SG model is 

223: \be

224: s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)=-\exp\left\{2i\int_0^\infty\frac{d\omega}{\omega}

225: \sin\omega\theta\,\tilde k(\omega)\right\}

226: \label{iso2SG}

227: \end{equation}

228: with

229: \be

230: \tilde k(\omega)=\frac{\sinh\frac{\pi\omega(1-\nu)}{2\nu}}

231: {2\cosh\frac{\pi\omega}{2}\sinh\frac{\pi\omega}{2\nu}}.

232: \label{tildek}

233: \end{equation}

234: Note that in the $\beta^2\to8\pi$ ($\nu\to0$) limit the SG S-matrix

235: coincides with the $n\to2$ limit of the $O(n)$ S-matrix, in particular

236: $\lim_{\nu\to0}\tilde k(\omega)=\lim_{n\to2}\tilde K_n(\omega)$.

237: 

238: The identification of the XY model with the $\nu\to0$ limit of the

239: SG model is surprising since in this limit the bootstrap

240: S-matrix (\ref{sig2SG}) becomes SU(2) symmetric, coinciding with

241: the S-matrix of the $SU(2)$ chiral Gross-Neveu (CGN) model \cite{pew}.

242: It is not obvious where this enlarged symmetry comes from. 

243: The existence of a nontrivial XY model is even more surprising in the

244: light of the fact that the beta-function of the coupling $g^2$

245: in (\ref{LagOn}) vanishes for $n=2$ and by making the substitution

246: $S^1=\cos\varphi\,,\,S^2=\sin\varphi$ the Lagrangean (\ref{LagOn}) 

247: naively becomes free.

248: 

249: Kosterlitz and Thouless \cite{KT} argued that the fact that $\varphi$

250: is a periodic (angular) variable plays an important role and therefore

251: the model has nontrivial dynamics. They have shown that topologically

252: nontrivial objects, vortices, are present in typical spin configurations

253: and their interaction makes the theory nontrivial. 

254: 

255: The standard lattice action of the XY model is

256: \be

257: S_{\rm XY}=K\sum_{x,\mu}\big[1-

258: \cos\big(\varphi(x)-\varphi(x+\hat\mu)\big)\big].

259: \label{standardS}

260: \end{equation}

261: We denoted by $K$ the inverse of the XY model coupling to avoid confusion

262: with the SG coupling $\beta$. Assuming universality, not only the cosine

263: function but any other $2\pi$-periodic function $W(\varphi)$ which has a local 

264: minimum at $\varphi=0$ defines a possible XY model lattice action.

265: The Villain model action \cite{Villain} is chartacterized by

266: \be

267: W(\varphi)=-\frac{1}{K_V}\ln\Big[\sum_m\exp\big\{-\frac{K_V}{2}

268: (\varphi-2\pi m)^2\big\}\Big].

269: \label{VillainS}

270: \end{equation}

271: 

272: Kosterlitz and Thouless showed that typical spin configurations

273: can be represented as a mixture of smooth, topologically trivial

274: configurations (spin waves) and a gas of vortices (of integer topological

275: charge). The KT vortices are not interacting with the spin waves, but 

276: there is a logarithmic interaction potential between the vortices which

277: are therefore identical to a two-dimensional Coulomb gas. 

278: This spin wave $+$ Coulomb gas (SWCG) picture is only approximate 

279: if we start from the standard action (\ref{standardS}) but it is an exact 

280: duality transformation \cite{Jose} for the Villain action corresponding to

281: (\ref{VillainS}).

282: That the XY model with standard action is in the same universality class

283: as the Villain model was demonstrated using Monte Carlo renormalization

284: group techniques \cite{Hasenbusch}. On the other hand, it has been

285: shown rigorously \cite{FrohSpen} that the Coulomb gas has a phase transition

286: point at some finite critical coupling $K_c$. KT interpreted this phase

287: transition as one of vortex condensation and by a (heuristic) energy-entropy

288: consideration showed that in the vicinity of $K_c$ vortices of topological

289: charge $\pm1$ only are important, higher vortices can be neglected.

290: It is easy to see that this system (SWCG with unit charge vortices only) 

291: is exactly equivalent to the SG model. In ref. \cite{Amit} it was shown that

292: the extremal SG fixed point $\beta^*=\sqrt{8\pi}\,,\alpha^*=0$ is 

293: appropriate to discribe the KT phase transition. The renormalizabilty

294: of the SG model around this point was explicitly demonstrated up to

295: two-loop order in a simultaneous perturbative expansion in $\alpha$

296: and $\delta=\frac{\beta^2-8\pi}{8\pi}$.

297: 

298: Finally, there is a further transformation that explains the dynamical

299: $SU(2)$ symmetry of the XY model. The SG model can be exactly mapped 

300: \cite{Banksetal} to a fermionic model formulated in terms of a two-component

301: Dirac fermion $\psi$. The transformation is similar to the well-known one

302: that relates the SG model to the massive Thirring model \cite{Coleman}.

303: Here the fermionic model is a deformation of the chiral Gross-Neveu model 

304: with four-fermion interaction: 

305: \be

306: {\cal L}_F=i(\overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\partial_\mu\psi)-

307: g_0(J_\mu^1)^2-g_0(J_\mu^2)^2-(g_0+f_0)(J_\mu^3)^2\,,

308: \label{LagF}

309: \end{equation}

310: where

311: \be

312: J_\mu^a=\frac{1}{2}\,\overline{\psi}\gamma_\mu\sigma^a\psi

313: \label{SU2curr}

314: \end{equation}

315: is the fermionic $SU(2)$ current. The relation between the SG couplings

316: $\delta\,,\alpha$ and the fermion couplings $g_0\,,f_0$ is

317: \be

318: \alpha=\frac{8}{\pi}g_0+\cdots,\qquad\qquad

319: \delta=-\frac{1}{\pi}(g_0+f_0)+\cdots,

320: \label{g0f0}

321: \end{equation}

322: where the dots indicate that the relations (\ref{g0f0}) receive higher

323: order corrections in perturbation theory. In the fermionic formulation

324: the KT fixed point is the Gaussian one and for vanishing deformation

325: parameter, $f_0=0$, the model is manifestly $SU(2)$ symmetric. The

326: corresponding relation in the SG language is $\alpha+8\delta=0$ at

327: lowest order. 

328: 

329: To summarize, the XY model in the vicinity of the Kosterlitz-Thouless 

330: transition point is believed to be described by the SG model with

331: extremal coupling $\beta=\sqrt{8\pi}$. This is further equivalent to

332: the two-component chiral Gross-Neveu model around its Gaussian point.

333: We will use the SG language throughout this paper.

334: 

335: 

336: 

337: 

338: 

339: 

340: 

341: 

342: \section{The SG description of the $O(2)$ model}

343: 

344: In this section we review the SG description of the KT theory 

345: closely following the approach of Amit et al. \cite{Amit}. 

346: Without loss of generality we can adopt the somewhat

347: unusual regularization scheme of the authors, 

348: since, as we will see, all important results are universal, 

349: i.e. independent of the regularization scheme. Nevertheless, it would 

350: be interesting to repeat all the calculations below using some of the

351: more customary regularizations like the lattice or dimensional regularization.

352: 

353: Our starting point is the Euklidean Lagrangian \cite{Amit}

354: \begin{equation}

355: {\cal L}=\frac12\partial_\mu\phi\partial_\mu\phi

356: +\frac{m_0^2}{2}\phi^2+\frac{\alpha_0}{\beta_0^2a^2}\left[

357: 1-\cos(\beta_0\phi)\right],

358: \label{Lag}

359: \end{equation}

360: where $m_0$ is an IR regulator mass and $a$ is the UV

361: cutoff (of dimension length). We have denoted the dimensionless

362: SG couplings by $\beta_0$ and $\alpha_0$ to emphasize that they are

363: bare (unrenormalized). UV regularized correlation functions are 

364: calculated by using

365: \begin{equation}

366: G_0(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\,K_0\left(m_0\sqrt{x^2+a^2}\right)

367: \label{G0}

368: \end{equation}

369: where $K_0$ is the modified Bessel function, as the 

370: $\phi$ propagator. Our strategy is slightly different from

371: \cite{Amit}, who really considered the renormalization of

372: the massive SG model (\ref{Lag}) of mass $m_0$. We treat

373: $m_0$ as an IR regulator mass and consider IR stable

374: physical quantities for which we can take the limit 

375: ${m_0\to0}$ already at the UV regularized level

376: (before UV renormalization). All renormalization constants are,

377: for example, IR stable and independent of $m_0$.

378: 

379: The SG coupling $\beta_0$ is close to its special value $\sqrt{8\pi}$

380: and a simultaneous perturbative expansion in the mass 

381: parameter $\alpha_0$ and the deviation $\delta_0$ is defined, where

382: \be

383: \beta_0^2=8\pi(1+\delta_0)

384: \end{equation}

385: and the parameters are renormalized according to

386: \ba

387: \alpha_0&=&Z_\alpha\alpha\,,\\

388: \beta_0^2&=&Z_\phi^{-1}\beta^2\,.

389: \ea

390: Here the Z-factors are functions of the renormalized couplings

391: $\alpha$ and $\delta$ and the combination

392: \be

393: l=\ln\mu a\,,

394: \end{equation}

395: where $\mu$ is an arbitrary mass parameter (basically the normalization

396: point). Similarly, a renormalization constant $Z$ is necessary to make

397: ${\cal G}$, the spin-spin 2-point function finite:

398: \be

399: {\cal G}_R=Z{\cal G}\,.

400: \end{equation}

401: 

402: 

403: 

404: 

405: 

406: 

407: 

408: For vanishing mass parameter $\alpha$ the Lagrangian (\ref{Lag}) is trivial

409: and $Z_\phi=1$ since there is no need to renormalize the SG coupling. The

410: spin-spin correlation function (which is an exponential of

411: the basic field $\phi$) gets renormalized even in this point, but in this

412: case its renormalization constant is simply

413: \be

414: Z=(\mu a)^{-{1\over4(1+\delta)}}\,.

415: \end{equation}

416: In addition, there is a symmetry $\alpha\leftrightarrow-\alpha$ 

417: (which corresponds to a $\pi\over\beta_0$ shift in the basic field). 

418: 

419: Taking into account the above constraints, the perturbative expansion

420: of the Z-factors must be of the form

421: \ba

422: Z_\phi&=&1+f_1\alpha^2l+\alpha^2\delta(\bar f_2l^2+f_2l)+\cdots\,,\\

423: Z_\alpha&=&1+g_1\delta l+\alpha^2(\bar g_2l^2+g_2l)+\delta^2(\bar g_3l^2+

424: g_3l)+\cdots\,,\\

425: Z&=&e^{-{l\over4(1+\delta)}}\big\{1+\alpha^2(\bar h_1l^2+h_1l)+

426: \cdots\big\}\,.

427: \ea

428: Amit et al. \cite{Amit} found the following results.

429: \ba

430: f_1={1\over32}\,,\qquad\qquad\bar f_2&=&-{1\over16}\,,\qquad\qquad\ \ 

431: f_2=-{3\over32}\,,\nonumber\\

432: g_1=-2\,,\qquad\qquad\bar g_2&=&\phantom{-}{1\over32}\,,\qquad\qquad\ \  

433: g_2=-{5\over64}\,,\label{Am2}\\

434: \bar g_3&=&\phantom{+}\ 2\,,\qquad\qquad\ \ \  g_3=

435: \phantom{-}\ 0\,.\nonumber

436: \ea

437: Furthermore $\bar h_1=-1/256$, but the number $h_1$ is not known at present.

438: The above two-loop beta-function coefficients were calculated also by

439: other methods. The original calculation has recently been reconsidered and

440: the results (\ref{Am2}) have been confirmed \cite{BH}.

441: 

442: 

443: 

444: The spin-spin correlation function satisfies the equation

445: \be

446: {\cal D}{\cal G}=\gamma{\cal G}\,,

447: \label{RGE}

448: \end{equation}

449: where ${\cal D}$ is the renormalization group (RG) operator 

450: \be

451: {\cal D}=-a{\partial\over\partial a}+D=

452: -a{\partial\over\partial a}

453: +\beta_\alpha(\alpha_0,\delta_0){\partial\over\partial\alpha_0}

454: +\beta_\delta(\alpha_0,\delta_0){\partial\over\partial\delta_0}

455: \end{equation}

456: and the $\beta$ and $\gamma$-functions are given by

457: \ba

458: \beta_\alpha(\alpha_0,\delta_0)&=&-g_1\alpha_0\delta_0-g_2\alpha_0^3-

459: g_3\alpha_0\delta_0^2+\cdots\,,\label{beta1}\\

460: \beta_\delta(\alpha_0,\delta_0)&=&f_1\alpha_0^2+(f_1+f_2)\alpha_0^2\delta_0

461: +\cdots\,,\label{beta2}\\

462: \gamma(\alpha_0,\delta_0)&=&-{1\over4}+{1\over4}\delta_0-{1\over4}\delta_0^2+

463: h_1\alpha_0^2+\cdots\,.\label{gamma}

464: \ea

465: 

466: Now, as is well known, not all $\beta$-function coefficients are universal.

467: For example, under a redefinition

468: \ba

469: \tilde\alpha_0&=&\alpha_0+L\alpha_0\delta_0+\cdots\,,\label{Redef1}\\

470: \tilde\delta_0&=&\delta_0+K\alpha_0^2+\cdots\,,\label{Redef2}

471: \ea

472: the coefficients change as

473: \ba

474: \tilde g_1&=&g_1\,,\phantom{-Kg_1-Lf_1,}\qquad\qquad\tilde f_1=f_1\,,

475: \nonumber\\

476: \tilde g_2&=&g_2-Kg_1-Lf_1\,,\qquad\qquad\tilde f_2=f_2

477: -2Kg_1-2Lf_1\,,\label{redef2}\\

478: \tilde g_3&=&g_3\,.\nonumber

479: \ea

480: ((\ref{Redef1}-\ref{Redef2}) is the most 

481: general perturbative redefinition respecting 

482: the $\alpha_0\leftrightarrow-\alpha_0$ symmetry together with the requirement 

483: that for $\alpha_0=0$ $\delta_0$ is not redefined.)

484: From (\ref{redef2}) we see that

485: in addition to the one-loop coefficients $g_1$ and $f_1$ there exist also

486: two-loop invariants. They are $g_3$ and the combination

487: \be

488: J=2g_2-f_2\,.

489: \label{J}

490: \end{equation}

491: 

492: Two important physical quantities are the correlation length

493: \be

494: \xi={1\over Ma}=e^{\Psi(\alpha_0,\delta_0)}\,,

495: \label{xi}

496: \end{equation}

497: where $M$ is the mass of the physical particle

498: and the dimensionless susceptibility

499: \be

500: \chi={1\over a^2}\int d^2 x\,{\cal G}(x)=e^{\Phi(\alpha_0,\delta_0)}\,.

501: \label{chi}

502: \end{equation}

503: From (\ref{RGE}) it follows that the exponents satisfy

504: \ba

505: D\Psi&=&1\,,\label{Psi}\\

506: D\Phi&=&2+\gamma\,.\label{Phi}

507: \ea

508:  

509: It is useful to introduce the RG invariant quantity $Q(\alpha_0,\delta_0)$

510: which satisfies $DQ=0$. Introducing the inverse function $k(\delta_0,Q)$

511: that satisfies

512: \be

513: \alpha_0=k(\delta_0,Q(\alpha_0,\delta_0))\,,

514: \end{equation}

515: we can define new $\beta$- and $\gamma$-functions:

516: \ba

517: b(\delta_0,Q)&=&\beta_\delta(k(\delta_0,Q),\delta_0)\,,\label{b}\\ 

518: \Gamma(\delta_0,Q)&=&\gamma_\delta(k(\delta_0,Q),\delta_0)\,.\label{Gamma}

519: \ea

520: The advantage of using the variables $\delta_0$ and $Q$ is that the RG

521: invariant $Q$ can be treated in many respects as if it were a numerical

522: constant and $\delta_0$ were a single coupling constant. For example,

523: if we write

524: \be

525: \Psi(\alpha_0,\delta_0)=\Psi_1(\delta_0,Q(\alpha_0,\delta_0))

526: \end{equation}

527: and

528: \be

529: \Phi(\alpha_0,\delta_0)=\Phi_1(\delta_0,Q(\alpha_0,\delta_0))

530: \end{equation}

531: then the functions $\Psi_1$ and $\Phi_1$ can be determined from

532: \be

533: {\partial\over\partial\delta_0}\Psi_1(\delta_0,Q)={1\over b(\delta_0,Q)}

534: \label{Psi1diff}

535: \end{equation}

536: and

537: \be

538: {\partial\over\partial\delta_0}\Phi_1(\delta_0,Q)=

539: {2+\Gamma(\delta_0,Q)\over b(\delta_0,Q)}

540: \label{Phi1diff}

541: \end{equation}

542: respectively.

543: 

544: Using (\ref{beta1}) and (\ref{beta2}) $Q$ can be determined. 

545: \be

546: Q(\alpha_0,\delta_0)=\frac{1}{32}\alpha_0^2-2\delta_0^2+

547: 2g_2\alpha_0^2\delta_0+F_2\delta_0^3+\cdots

548: \label{Q}

549: \end{equation}

550: and using this in (\ref{b}) we find

551: \be

552: b(\delta_0,Q)=Q+2\delta_0^2+AQ\delta_0+B\delta_0^3+\cdots\,,

553: \label{bb}

554: \end{equation}

555: while the $\Gamma$ function to this order is

556: \be

557: \Gamma(\delta_0,Q)=-{1\over4}+{1\over4}\delta_0+\cdots\,.

558: \end{equation}

559: Here

560: \be

561: A=1-\frac{J}{f_1}\,,\qquad\qquad

562: B=-\frac{2}{3}g_3+\frac{2}{3}A\,,\qquad\qquad

563: F_2=\frac{2}{3}g_3+\frac{4}{3}A

564: \label{ABF2}

565: \end{equation}

566: or numerically

567: \be

568: A=3\,,\qquad\qquad B=2\,,\qquad\qquad F_2=4\,,

569: \label{ABF2num}

570: \end{equation}

571: but we will keep these constants in the following to explicitly

572: demonstrate that all our results are universal.

573: 

574: We know that a one-parameter renormalizable subspace 

575: in the $\delta_0$--$\alpha_0$ plane is equivalent to the SU(2) 

576: chiral Gross-Neveu model. (This is most evident in the fermionic formulation.)

577: This subspace must correspond to the $Q=0$ RG trajectory

578: because we know that it goes through the point 

579: $\alpha_0=\delta_0=0$. Moreover, it must be the $\delta_0<0$ branch

580: of the $Q=0$ trajectory, since it is the one that is asymptotically

581: free in perturbation theory.

582: 

583: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

584: \begin{figure}[htb]

585: \leavevmode

586: \epsfxsize=170mm

587: %\epsfysize=19.5cm 

588: \hspace{-1.0cm}

589: \epsfbox{PD.eps}

590: 

591: \vspace{0.1cm}

592: 

593: \caption{\footnotesize

594: Phase diagram of the KT theory. The entire Region I is

595: critical. The model is massive in Region III ($Q>0$) and

596: Region II ($Q<0$). The dotted lines are RG trajectories.

597: The full lines $S_1$ and $S_2$ correspond to the critical

598: surface of the XY model and the (bare) CGN model respectively.

599: The dashed curve is the XY model hitting the critical surface

600: at $c$.

601: } 

602: \label{extra1}

603: \end{figure}

604: 

605: 

606: Following \cite{Amit} the phase diagram of our model is represented

607: in Figure 1. 

608: The CGN model corresponds to the separatrix $S_2$ on this plot,

609: which will be referred to as PD for short. Region III 

610: corresponds to $Q>0$, whereas Regions I and II correspond to 

611: $Q<0,\delta_0>0$ and $Q<0,\delta_0<0$, respectively. 

612: 

613: In the neighbourhood of $S_2$, i.e. close to the CGN case

614: we have

615: \be

616: b(\delta_0,Q)=b_0(\delta_0)+Qb_1(\delta_0)+\cdots\,,

617: \end{equation}

618: where

619: \ba

620: b_0(\delta_0)&=&2\delta_0^2+B\delta_0^3+\cdots\,,\label{b0}\\

621: b_1(\delta_0)&=&1+A\delta_0+\cdots\,.\label{b1}

622: \ea

623: It is a crucial observation that near the CGN line the correlation

624: length exponent $\Psi_1$ is a smooth analytic function of $Q$:

625: \be

626: \Psi_1(\delta_0,Q)=H_0(\delta_0)+QH_1(\delta_0)+\cdots\,,

627: \label{Psi1CGN}

628: \end{equation}

629: where

630: \ba

631: H_0(\delta_0)&=&-{1\over2\delta_0}-\frac{B}{4}\ln\vert2\delta_0\vert+

632: \Psi_0+\cdots\,,\\

633: H_1(\delta_0)&=&{1\over12\delta_0^3}+\frac{A-B}{8\delta_0^2}+\cdots\,.

634: \ea

635: We will calculate the value of the nonperturbative constant $\Psi_0$ 

636: in Section 5.

637: 

638: Now we can integrate (\ref{Psi1diff}) using the perturbative expansion

639: (\ref{bb}) and for $Q>0$ we get 

640: \ba

641: \Psi_1(\delta_0,Q)&=&{1\over\sqrt{2Q}}\Bigg({\pi\over2}+{\rm arctg}

642: {\sqrt{2}\delta_0\over\sqrt{Q}}\Bigg)-\frac{B}{8}\ln2(Q+2\delta_0^2)

643: \nonumber\\

644: &+&\frac{2A-B}{8}{Q\over Q+2\delta_0^2}+\Psi_0+\cdots\,.\label{pertI}

645: \ea

646: Here the dots stand for higher order terms in the perturbative expansion

647: (these are, in principle, calculable) and also for an unknown 

648: (nonperturbative) function of $Q$ only. For small $Q$ (\ref{pertI}) 

649: becomes

650: \be

651: \Psi_1(\delta_0,Q)={\pi\over\sqrt{2Q}}\,\Theta(\delta_0)+

652: H_0(\delta_0)+QH_1(\delta_0)+\cdots\,,

653: \label{smallQ}

654: \end{equation}

655: where the dots stand for terms higher order in Q. They come from the

656: higher perturbative terms of (\ref{pertI}) and also from the 

657: nonperturbative function mentioned above. The point is that there are

658: no terms, singular in $Q$, coming from any of these two sources. This

659: is obvious for the perturbative terms, but must also be true for the

660: nonperturbative contributions, since otherwise $\Psi_1$ would be

661: singular on the $S_2$ line. Requiring it to be nonsingular on $S_2$,

662: we force $\Psi_1$ to diverge on $S_1$, which is therefore part of the

663: critical surface of the phase diagram PD. An other line, on which we 

664: know the correlation length must diverge is the $\delta_0$

665: axis $\alpha_0=0$, because this corresponds to a free, massless model.

666: 

667: For $Q<0$, it is convenient to parametrize $Q$ in terms of the 

668: $\delta_0$ value at which the RG trajectory intersects this axis.

669: In other words, we have to express $Q$ in terms of $d$ that solves

670: \be

671: b(d,Q)=0\,.

672: \label{d}

673: \end{equation}

674: (Note that in this parametrization $\vert\delta_0\vert\geq\vert d\vert$, 

675: because of $\alpha_0^2\geq0$.)

676: The perturbative solution of (\ref{d}) is

677: \be

678: Q=-2d^2+(2A-B)d^3+\cdots\,.

679: \label{Qsol}

680: \end{equation}

681: Using this parametrization the perturbative solution for $Q<0$ is

682: \ba

683: \Psi_1(\delta_0,Q)&=&-{1\over4d}\ln\Big({\delta_0+d\over\delta_0-d}

684: \Big)\Big[1+\frac{2A-3B}{4}d\Big]

685: +\frac{2A-B}{8}{d\over\delta_0+d}\nonumber\\

686: &-&\frac{B}{4}\ln2\vert\delta_0+d\vert+y(d)+\cdots\,,\label{pertII}

687: \ea

688: where

689: \ba

690: {\rm for\ }d<0\qquad y(d)&=&\Psi_0+\cdots\,,\label{dneg}\\

691: {\rm for\ }d>0\qquad y(d)&=&\infty\,.\label{dpos}

692: \ea

693: (\ref{dneg}) is obtained by matching (\ref{pertII}) to

694: (\ref{Psi1CGN}) for small $Q$, while (\ref{dpos}) is formally true

695: since this is the only way to achieve that the correlation length

696: diverges on the positive half of the $\delta_0$ axis. 

697: (Without the infinite constant $\xi$ actually {\it vanishes}

698: there.)

699: 

700: Now we can discuss the phase diagram of our model. The entire Region I

701: is critical. The massive phase is Regions II and III and the critical

702: surface bordering them is $S_1$ plus the negative part of the $\delta_0$

703: axis. They are smoothly connected across $S_2$, which is the (bare)

704: CGN model. The $O(2)$ NLS model corresponds to the dashed curve of PD.

705: In a MC experiment we are approaching the critical point $c$ from the

706: massive phase (Region III). We will denote the $\delta_0$ coordinate of

707: $c$ by $d_0$. Because the RG trajectories are running

708: basically parallel to $S_1$, it is physically irrelevant at which point

709: the critical surface is reached and therefore the parameter $d_0$ is

710: irrelevant. The continuum model will be the same for all points on

711: $S_1$, including the origin. But the origin is the point, where

712: (coming along $S_2$) the continuum CGN model is defined! So our

713: continuum theory is inevitably identical to the (massive part of the)

714: $SU(2)$-invariant CGN model.

715: 

716: If we start from somewhere in the middle of Region II, we can define

717: a massive continuum limit by approaching the negative half of the

718: $\delta_0$ axis. The intercept $d$ is then relevant. The continuum

719: theory is the SG model with 

720: \be

721: \beta^2=8\pi(1+d).

722: \label{betad}

723: \end{equation}

724: 

725: Returning to the $O(2)$ model, the dashed trajectory can be parametrized

726: as

727: \ba

728: \delta_0&=&d_0+d_1\tau+\cdots\,,\\

729: \alpha_0&=&k(d_0,0)+\alpha_1\tau+\cdots\,,

730: \ea

731: where 

732: \be

733: \tau=K_c-K

734: \label{tau}

735: \end{equation}

736: is the reduced coupling and we have assumed that physical

737: quantities are analytic in $K$. ($K_c=1.1197(5)$ 

738: \cite{Hasenbusch}.) Then also $Q$ is analytic in $\tau$:

739: \be

740: Q\sim\tau\,.

741: \end{equation}

742: From (\ref{smallQ}) we see that along the $O(2)$ curve

743: \be

744: \ln\xi={\pi\over\sqrt{2Q}}+H_0(d_0)+\cdots\,,

745: \label{logxi}

746: \end{equation}

747: where the dots stand for terms analytic in $Q$ (and vanishing for $Q=0$).

748: In other words, for the $O(2)$ model \cite{KT}

749: \be

750: \xi=C\exp\Big\{\frac{b}{\sqrt{\tau}}\Big\}\big(1+

751: {\cal O}(\sqrt{\tau})\big),

752: \label{xiKT}

753: \end{equation}

754: where the constants $C$ and $b$ are not universal. This is the famous KT

755: formula showing that the phase transition is of infinite order in the

756: reduced temperature.

757: 

758: It is more important for us that (\ref{logxi}) can be rewritten as

759: \be

760: Q={\pi^2\over2(\ln\xi +u)^2}+{\cal O}\big((\ln\xi)^{-5}\big),

761: \label{Qdef}

762: \end{equation}

763: where

764: \be

765: u=-H_0(d_0)\,,

766: \label{u}

767: \end{equation}

768: which is given (if $d_0$ is sufficiently small) perturbatively by

769: \be

770: u\approx{1\over2 d_0}+\frac{B}{4}\ln(2d_0)-\Psi_0\,.

771: \end{equation} 

772: Note that the leading $1/(\log\xi)^2$

773: term in (\ref{Qdef}) is universal and only the subleading terms 

774: (depending on the value of the parameter $u$) are model-dependent.

775: 

776: The susceptibility exponent $\Phi_1$ can be studied similarly. It can

777: be written as

778: \be

779: \Phi_1={7\over4}\,\Psi_1+\tilde\Phi_1={7\over4}\,\Psi_1+

780: {1\over16}\ln(2\delta_0^2+Q)+\cdots\,,

781: \end{equation}

782: where $\tilde\Phi_1$ satisfies

783: \be

784: {\partial\tilde\Phi_1\over\partial\delta_0}={\Gamma(\delta_0,Q)+{1\over4}

785: \over b(\delta_0,Q)}\,.

786: \end{equation}

787: 

788: Now the crucial observation is again that, for small $Q$,

789: \be

790: \Phi_1={7\over4}\,\Psi_1+c_1+c_2Q+\cdots\,,

791: \label{Phi1smallQ}

792: \end{equation}

793: because the (calculable) perturbative terms are analytic in $Q$, while 

794: the (not calculable) purely $Q$-dependent terms in $\tilde\Phi_1$ must

795: also be analytic in $Q$ otherwise these latter singularities would

796: also turn up for the CGN line $S_2$, where they must not.

797: 

798: From (\ref{Phi1smallQ}) we have

799: \be

800: \chi=\xi^{{7\over4}}\,e^{c_1}\Big(1+c_2Q+\cdots\Big)\,,

801: \label{chixi}

802: \end{equation}

803: i.e. there are no (multiplicative) log corrections in the scaling

804: relation for the susceptibility. The possibility of such

805: multiplicative logarithmic corrections is discussed in \cite{JankeKI}.

806: 

807: \section{Determination of the lattice artifacts}

808: 

809: 

810: Recall that the RG invariant $Q$ has

811: a completely different meaning for Region III (which contains the

812: massive phase of the XY model) and for Region II (where the usual

813: massive SG model with $\beta^2<8\pi$ can be defined). Indeed, in

814: the positive $\delta_0$  part of Region III, 

815: close to $S_1$, the (positive) parameter $Q$ merely measures the 

816: distance from the XY

817: critical surface on which it vanishes, whereas in Region II $Q$ is

818: a relevant (negative) parameter related to the SG coupling $\beta$ 

819: by (\ref{d}) and (\ref{betad}). 

820: Our main assumption is that in spite of this difference

821: physical quantities are smoothly depending on $Q$ in the vicinity of the 

822: separatrix $S_2$ connecting the two regions. More precisely, we will

823: assume that close to $S_2$ any physical quantity $U$ has the form

824: \be

825: U(Q)=U_0+U_1Q+{\cal O}(Q^2).

826: \label{Qexp}

827: \end{equation}

828: Here $U_0=U(0)$ is its value for the CGN model (and thus also in the

829: continuum limit of the XY model). The first correction coefficient $U_1$

830: can be calculated from the SG model as follows. Using the identification

831: (\ref{d}) and its perturbative solution (\ref{Qsol}) together with

832: (\ref{betad}) and (\ref{gammapar}) we have

833: \be

834: Q=-2\nu^2 +{\cal O}(\nu^4).

835: \label{Qgamma}

836: \end{equation}

837: This means that if in the SG model, close to the CGN point $\nu=0$,

838: we have

839: \be

840: U(\nu)=u_0+u_1\nu^2+{\cal O}(\nu^4),

841: \label{gammaexp}

842: \end{equation}

843: then

844: \be

845: U_0=u_0\qquad\qquad{\rm and}\qquad\qquad U_1=-u_1/2.

846: \label{u0u1}

847: \end{equation}

848: Translated to the language of lattice artifacts by (\ref{Qdef}) we thus

849: have

850: \be

851: U(\xi)=u_0-\frac{u_1\pi^2}{4(\ln\xi+u)^2}+{\cal O}\big((\ln\xi)^{-4}\big).

852: \label{xiexp}

853: \end{equation}

854: This means that lattice artifacts typically go away very slowly, only as

855: $1/(\log\xi)^2$. On the other hand the leading artifacts are universal and

856: calculable.

857: 

858: We apply this method first to the scattering phase shifts. Recall 

859: the SG model S-matrix (\ref{OnSmatrix}) with (\ref{sig2SG}).

860: The three distinct S-matrix eigenvalues are

861: \ba

862: s^{(0)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)=2\sigma_1(\theta)+\sigma_2(\theta)+\sigma_3(\theta)

863: &=&\phantom{-}\frac

864: {\sinh\frac{\nu}{2}(i\pi+\theta)}

865: {\sinh\frac{\nu}{2}(i\pi-\theta)}s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta),\label{s0}\\

866: s^{(1)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)=\sigma_2(\theta)-\sigma_3(\theta)

867: &=&-\frac

868: {\cosh\frac{\nu}{2}(i\pi+\theta)}

869: {\cosh\frac{\nu}{2}(i\pi-\theta)}s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)\label{s1}

870: \ea

871: and

872: \be

873: s^{(2)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)=\sigma_2(\theta)+\sigma_3(\theta)

874: =-\exp\Big\{2i\int_0^\infty\frac{d\omega}{\omega}

875: \sin(\theta\omega)\,\tilde k(\omega)\Big\}

876: \label{s2}

877: \end{equation}

878: where $\tilde k(\omega)$ is given by (\ref{tildek}).

879: 

880: We now write

881: \be

882: s^{(i)}_{\rm SG}(\theta)=\exp\big\{2i\delta_0^{(i)}(\theta)+2i

883: \nu^2\delta_1^{(i)}(\theta)+{\cal O}(\nu^4)\big\}

884: \label{phaseshifts}

885: \end{equation}

886: for $i=0,1$ and $2$. Here $\delta^{(i)}_0$ are the CGN phase shifts

887: which, as remarked before, coincide with the $n\to2$ limit of the

888: $O(n)$ phase shifts. 

889: The first correction coefficients can be obtained by a simple

890: calculation. The result is 

891: \be

892: \delta^{(0)}_1(\theta)=0,\qquad

893: \delta^{(1)}_1(\theta)=\frac{\pi\theta}{6},\qquad

894: \delta^{(2)}_1(\theta)=-\frac{\pi\theta}{12}.

895: \label{1correction}

896: \end{equation}

897: This can be used to obtain the leading lattice artifacts in the

898: XY model by the relation (\ref{xiexp}).

899: 

900: 

901: \section{Current-current 2-point function and free energy}

902: 

903: Consider the 2-point function of the Noether current 

904: \be

905: J_\mu=i{\beta_0\over2\pi}\epsilon_{\mu\nu}\partial_\nu\phi\,.

906: \label{defJ}

907: \end{equation} 

908: Its Fourier transform $I(p)$ is defined by

909: \be

910: \langle J_\mu(x)J_\nu(y)\rangle=\int {d^2p\over(2\pi)^2}\,

911: e^{-ip(x-y)}{p_\mu p_\nu-p^2\delta_{\mu\nu}\over p^2}\,I(p)\,.

912: \end{equation}

913: It is easy to calculate $I(p)$ to second order:

914: \be

915: I(p)={2\over\pi}\Bigg\{1+\delta_0+\alpha_0^2\Big[\Omega(p,a)+\cdots

916: \Big]\Bigg\}\,,

917: \label{curr}

918: \end{equation}

919: where

920: \be

921: \Omega(p,a)=f_1(\ln pa +\Omega_0)

922: \label{Omega}

923: \end{equation}

924: and 

925: \be

926: \Omega_0=C-{1\over2}-\ln2\,,

927: \label{Omega0}

928: \end{equation}

929: $C$ being Euler's constant. 

930: 

931: Standard RG considerations give

932: \be

933: I(p,\delta_0,Q,a)=I(p_0,\bar\lambda,Q,a)=\tilde I(p/M,Q)\,,

934: \label{RGI}

935: \end{equation}

936: where the running coupling is the solution of

937: \be

938: \Psi_1(\bar\lambda,Q)=\ln{p\over M}-\ln p_0a\,.

939: \label{lambdabar}

940: \end{equation}

941:  

942: Let us consider the $Q<0$, $\delta_0<0$ case (Region II) first.

943: For $p\rightarrow\infty$ also $\Psi_1\rightarrow\infty$ and therefore

944: $\bar\lambda\rightarrow d$, where $d$ is defined by

945: \be

946: b(d,Q)=0\qquad\qquad{\rm or\ equivalently}

947: \qquad\qquad\alpha_0=k(d,Q)=0\,.

948: \end{equation}

949: This gives

950: \be

951: \tilde I(\infty,Q)={2\over\pi}(1+d)\,,

952: \label{Iinfty}

953: \end{equation}

954: where $d$ parametrizes $Q$ according to (\ref{Qsol}). 

955: (\ref{Iinfty}) is consistent with the identification (\ref{betad}).

956: 

957: Next we study the case of small $Q$, because this is relevant if

958: we are interested in the approach to the continuum limit along

959: the $O(2)$ curve. We assume that $\tilde I$ is analytic in $Q$:

960: \be

961: \tilde I(z,Q)=\tilde I_0(z)+Q\tilde I_1(z)+\cdots\,.

962: \label{Iexpand}

963: \end{equation}

964: It is a standard exercise to obtain the asymptotic

965: expansion of the coefficients $\tilde I_0$ and $\tilde I_1$ in perturbation

966: theory. One gets

967: \ba

968: \tilde I_0(p/M)&=&{2\over\pi}\Bigg\{1-\lambda+2\kappa\lambda^2+\cdots\Bigg\}

969: \,,\label{I0}\\ 

970: \tilde I_1(p/M)&=&{2\over3\pi}\Bigg\{{1\over2\lambda}+\kappa

971: +\frac{2B-3A}{4}+\cdots\Bigg\}\,,\label{I1}

972: \ea

973: where

974: \be

975: \kappa=\Omega_0-\Psi_0

976: \label{kappa}

977: \end{equation}

978: and the coupling $\lambda$ is the solution of

979: \be

980: {1\over2\lambda}-\frac{B}{4}\ln(2\lambda)=\ln{p\over M}\,.

981: \end{equation}

982: The asymptotic expansions (\ref{I0}) and (\ref{I1}) are valid for

983: $\lambda\ll1$, i.e. for $p\rightarrow\infty$ but also $Q$ must

984: satisfy

985: \be

986: Q\ll6\lambda^2

987: \label{Qsmaller}

988: \end{equation}

989: so that the expansion (\ref{Iexpand}) makes sense.

990: 

991: It is by now standard how the nonperturbative constant $\kappa$

992: can be calculated. For this it is necessary to consider the free

993: energy in an external field and we now turn to this calculation.

994: We follow here \cite{Zamolodchikov} and start from the modified

995: Lagrangian

996: \be

997: {\cal L}_h={1\over2}(\partial_\mu\phi)^2-{\alpha_0\over\beta_0^2 a^2}

998: \cos(\beta_0\phi)+{\beta_0 h\over2\pi}\partial_1\phi\,,

999: \label{Lagh}

1000: \end{equation}

1001: which corresponds to adding a term $ihJ_2$ to the Lagrangian density.

1002: The modified ground state energy must be of the form

1003: \be

1004: {\cal E}(h)=-{h^2\over\pi}\,{\cal F}(h)\,,

1005: \end{equation}

1006: where ${\cal F}(h)$ is dimensionless.

1007: 

1008: In perturbation theory we get

1009: \be

1010: {\cal F}(h)=1+\delta_0+\alpha_0^2\Big[\tilde\Omega(h,a)+\cdots

1011: \Big]\,,

1012: \label{calF}

1013: \end{equation}

1014: where

1015: \be

1016: \tilde\Omega(h,a)=f_1(\ln ha +\tilde\Omega_0)

1017: \label{TOmega}

1018: \end{equation}

1019: and 

1020: \be

1021: \tilde\Omega_0=C-{1\over2}+\ln2\,.

1022: \label{TOmega0}

1023: \end{equation}

1024: For $Q=0$ therefore ${\cal F}(h)$ has the following asymptotic expansion

1025: \be

1026: {\cal F}(h)=1-{1\over2\ln{h\over M}}-\frac{B}{8}

1027: {\ln\ln {h\over M}\over\ln^2{h\over M}}+

1028: {\kappa+\ln4\over2\ln^2{h\over M}}+

1029: {\cal O}\Bigg({\Big(\ln\ln {h\over M}\Big)^2\over\ln^3{h\over M}}

1030: \Bigg)\,.

1031: \label{pertF}

1032: \end{equation}

1033: This is to be compared to the exact result \cite{Forgacs}

1034: \be

1035: {\cal F}(h)=1-{1\over2\ln{h\over M}}-

1036: {\ln\ln {h\over M}\over4\ln^2{h\over M}}+

1037: {{3\over2}\ln2-{1\over4}-{1\over2}\ln\pi

1038: \over2\ln^2{h\over M}}+

1039: {\cal O}\Bigg({\Big(\ln\ln {h\over M}\Big)^2\over\ln^3{h\over M}}

1040: \Bigg)\,.

1041: \label{exF}

1042: \end{equation}

1043: It is a nontrivial check on the overall consistency of our considerations

1044: that using (\ref{ABF2num}) for the numerical value of our 

1045: universal constant $B$ the third term in (\ref{pertF}) matches the

1046: corresponding one in (\ref{exF}).

1047: Comparing (\ref{pertF}) to (\ref{exF}) we also get

1048: \be

1049: \kappa=-{1\over4}-\ln\sqrt{2\pi}\,.

1050: \label{kappaEX}

1051: \end{equation}

1052: Using the exact value (\ref{kappaEX}) we obtain the asymptotic

1053: expansion of the first correction in $Q$:

1054: \be

1055: \tilde I_1(p/M)={2\over3\pi}\Bigg\{{1\over2\lambda}-{3\over2}-

1056: \ln\sqrt{2\pi}\Bigg\}={2\over3\pi}\Bigg\{{1\over2\lambda}-2.419

1057: \Bigg\}\,.

1058: \label{deltaI}

1059: \end{equation}

1060: Note that the leading correction term (\ref{deltaI}) does not contain any

1061: free parameter.

1062: 

1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1064: 

1065:  

1066: 

1067: \vspace{1cm}

1068: {\tt Acknowledgements}

1069: 

1070: \noindent 

1071: This investigation was supported in part by the Hungarian National 

1072: Science Fund OTKA (under T030099 and T029802). I thank the members of the

1073: \lq$\sigma$ collaboration',

1074: M. Niedermaier, F. Niedermayer, A. Patrascioiu, E. Seiler and P. Weisz,

1075: for many thorough and interesting discussions. I also thank the 

1076: Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik for hospitality.

1077: 

1078: 

1079: 

1080: \clearpage

1081: 

1082: 

1083: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

1084: 

1085: \bibitem{KT}

1086: J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless,

1087: J. Phys. {\bf C6} (1973) 1181;\\ 

1088: J. M. Kosterlitz,

1089: J. Phys. {\bf C7} (1974) 1046.

1090: 

1091: \bibitem{ZinnJ}

1092: J. Zinn-Justin, {\it Quantum Field Theory and Critical 

1093: Phenomena}, Oxford, 1989.

1094: 

1095: \bibitem{ZZ}

1096: A. B. and Al. B. Zamolodchikov,

1097: Ann. Phys. {\bf 120} (1979) 253; \\

1098: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B133} (1978) 525.

1099: 

1100: \bibitem{Sym}

1101: K. Symanzik, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B226} (1983) 187.

1102: 

1103: \bibitem{Amit}

1104: D. J. Amit, Y. Y. Goldschmidt and G. Grinstein, J. Phys. {\bf A13} 

1105: (1980) 585.

1106: 

1107: \bibitem{HMN}

1108: P.~Hasenfratz, M.~Maggiore and F.~Niedermayer,

1109: Phys. Lett. {\bf B245} (1990) 522;\\

1110: P.~Hasenfratz and F.~Niedermayer,

1111: Phys. Lett. {\bf B245} (1990) 529.

1112: 

1113: \bibitem{paper3}

1114: J.~Balog, M.~Niedermaier, F.~Niedermayer, A.~Patrascioiu, E.~Seiler

1115: and P.~Weisz, in preparation.

1116: 

1117: \bibitem{Poly}

1118: A. Polyakov,

1119: Phys. Lett. {\bf B72} (1977) 224.

1120: 

1121: \bibitem{Lusch}

1122: M.~L\"uscher,

1123: Nucl. Phys. {\bf B135} (1978) 1.

1124: 

1125: \bibitem{pew}

1126: B. Berg and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B146} (1979) 205;\\

1127: E. Abdalla, B. Berg and P. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B157} (1979) 387.

1128: 

1129: \bibitem{Villain}

1130: J. Villain, J. Physique {\bf 36} (1975) 581.

1131: 

1132: \bibitem{Jose}

1133: J. V. Jos\'e et al., Phys. Rev. {\bf B16} (1977) 1217.

1134: 

1135: \bibitem{Hasenbusch}

1136: M. Hasenbusch, M. Marcu and K. Pinn, Physica {\bf A208} (1994) 124.

1137: 

1138: \bibitem{FrohSpen}

1139: J. Fr\"ohlich and T. Spencer, Comm. Math. Phys. {\bf 81} (1981) 527.

1140: 

1141: \bibitem{Banksetal}

1142: T. Banks, D. Horn and H. Neuberger, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B108} (1976) 119.

1143: 

1144: \bibitem{Coleman}

1145: S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. {\bf D11} (1975) 2088.

1146: 

1147: \bibitem{BH}

1148: J. Balog and \'A. Heged\H us, J. Phys. {\bf A33} (2000) 6543.

1149: 

1150: \bibitem{JankeKI}

1151: R. Kenna and A. C. Irving, Nucl. Phys. {\bf B485} (1997) 583;\\

1152: Phys. Lett. {\bf B351} (1995) 273.\\

1153: W. Janke, {\tt hep-lat/9609045}.

1154: 

1155: \bibitem{Zamolodchikov}

1156: Al. B. Zamolodchikov, Int. J. of Mod. Phys. {\bf A10} (1995) 1125.

1157: 

1158: \bibitem{Forgacs}

1159: P. Forg\'acs, S. Naik and F. Niedermayer, Phys. Lett. 

1160: {\bf B283} (1992) 282.

1161: 

1162: 

1163: 

1164: 

1165: 

1166: \end{thebibliography}

1167: 

1168: \end{document}

1169: 

1170: