Arxiv:2004.04927V2 [Math-Ph]

Home , Approximation theory

arXiv:2004.04927v2 [math-ph] 29 Dec 2020 u ehnc SS M 13,tepotential the [1–3], QM) (SUSY mechanics tum V usdb hr ta.[]wt h ioci potential Ginocchio the with dis- [7] already al. was et This Khare by spectrum. reproduces cussed condition bound-state is SWKB potential exact the the the that of invariance order shape in the necessary not or whether the here is of arises solvability that exact question natural the A for Schrödinger (but sufficient condition equation. It a necessary) is [6]. a invariance al. not shape et the that Dutt known by well repro- spectra is (3) bound-state condition exact the SWKB duces the has construction. that it demonstrated by [5], been groundstate potentials shape-invariant the conventional all for For exact is condition by where tsol eepaie htteaoepotential above the that emphasized be should It nwhich in omlygvnb h rudtt iefnto fthe of eigenfunction groundstate the system by given formally orsod othe to corresponds M(h WBcniin rpsdb Comtet by proposed condition) SWKB (the QM reads ∗ † ueia td fteSK odto fnvlcasso exa of classes novel of condition SWKB the of study Numerical Z ( [email protected] [email protected] Z h elkonWBqatzto odto sgiven is condition quantization WKB well-known The nteohrhn,aWBlk odto nSUSY in condition WKB-like a hand, other the On x a x b R x L q R = ) V ,b a, p E φ ( n 0 x E x ( E − = ) n L x r h ot f( of roots the are n as ) − accuracy. n h te a h ri–de emt,Lger n Jaco and Laguerre the Hermite, remove cl Krein–Adler always novel the a can two has polynomials other the Jacobi the and for Laguerre and condition multi-indexed syst SWKB the the the has oscilla even one examine radial polynomial, we extended orthogonal paper, the exceptional this for the exact the not invariaof was shape the condition with SWKB systems mechanical quantum solvable ( ntecneto uesmercquan- supersymmetric of context the In . and ~ ~ h uesmercWB(WB odto sspoe ob ex be to supposed is condition (SWKB) WKB supersymmetric The V ∂ 2 x .INTRODUCTION I. ( x x ln ( d ) R ∂ aihn rudtt energy groundstate vanishing | x φ r h trigpoints”; “turning the are ln x 0 ( = x | φ ) eateto hsc,Gaut colo cec n Techn and Science of School Graduate Physics, of Department 0 | ) ( 2 n x ~ ) d + ∂ | oy nvriyo cec,Nd,Cia2881,Japan 278-8510, Chiba Noda, Science, of University Tokyo x ) x 2 1 2 = ln + ~ nπ | dpnec rmtecniin n ti aifidwt cer a with satisfied is it and condition, the from -dependency ∂ φ π x 2 0 ~ ~ ( ln uaNasuda Yuta x ) | | φ ) 0 2 ( ( ( n n x = ) ∈ ∈ | Dtd aur ,2021) 1, January (Dated: E V , Z tal et n Z V E . ( > This . > x 0 ( 0 V 0 L x ) ∗ 0. = ) [4] . = ) is ) ( (3) (2) (1) , n ouuiSawado Nobuyuki and x , ) ih niaeta h oeta eog oteclass the to belongs potential the condition the that of indicate exactness might The imply? condition SWKB system. quantum the context of the regime in the semi-classical discussed that the be means of not apparently should It exactness SWKB (3). condition show, SWKB shall the we as fact, In e,w retain we ses, tnadWBfrua lhuhms ftelitera- the of of unit most the Although employs the ture from formula. obtained WKB is condition standard systems SWKB the semi-classical the the where of for regime, context a condition in invariance SWKB shape without the of novel non-exactness the on analysis II potentials. numerical shape-invariant Section further of a class condition. guar- to SWKB not devoted the does is of invariance the exactness shape the the lacks antee that it possibility a because is suggestive. wrong of is treatment is exactness proper suffi- analysis SWKB not their is the invariance However, for shape the condition poten- that cient shape-invariant claim for Their exact tials. always not is condition os hnWBfrteArhmMsssses[8], systems DeLaney Abraham–Moses by never solvable, the pointed nor are for also exact which WKB neither was is than it condition worse SWKB time, the same that the out shape condition not Around are SWKB which invariant. the potentials, above-mentioned of the non-exactness for Varshni the and reported Khare exactly shape-invariant. [7] all the not are the are examine which but to to examples solvable closer worthwhile new [7] come is for Ref. to condition it SWKB of order question, In this conjecture of yet. the still answer proved is then been condition not and SWKB has the present, of at exactness absent the of proof or condition. SWKB the condition necessary of conjecture a exactness the be the could for at invariance arrived but shape They har- solvable the 1D that invariant. exactly the are shape which to not of are isospectral both is which oscillator, potential monic a also and ee udmna usinaie:wa osthe does what arises: question fundamental a Here, nRf.[1 2,teatostidt nesadthe understand to tried authors the 12], [11, Refs. In eety Bougie Recently, swsmnindi e.[] n ulttv argument qualitative any [4], Ref. in mentioned was As mpsesstesaeivrac.In invariance. shape the possesses em c.Rcnl,i a lie htthe that claimed was it Recently, nce. h anprso h eigenfunctions, the of parts main the s iplnmas o l fte,one them, of all For polynomials. bi o,woeegnucin consisted eigenfunctions whose tor, se featyslal systems: solvable exactly of asses ~ † nti ae o ioosdiscussions. rigorous for paper this in c o l nw exactly known all for act tal et ~ enwraieta hr still there that realize now We . 1]soe htteSWKB the that showed [10] . ology, ~ ~ tyslal systems solvable ctly ,t ipiyteanaly- the simplify to 1, = srmvdcmltl from completely removed is andge of degree tain tal et [9]. . 2 of conventional shape-invariant ones. Breaking of the The authors employed the extended radial oscillator, SWKB condition somehow reflects the discrepancy be- which was equivalent to the exceptional Laguerre or tween the potential of our concern and the corresponding the type II X1-Laguerre polynomial [16–22], to show shape-invariant system, which might be depicted by an that the SWKB condition was not exact for all additive unknown factor. For the moment, we have only a vague shape-invariant potentials. The extended radial oscilla- notion to realize it. Thus, it is worth performing the nu- tor can be seen as a special case of the multi-indexed merical study of several novel classes of solvable systems systems. We note that they alleged that the additive to get an insight for the factor. shape invariance was realized for the parameters ai such In this paper, we study the systems with the multi- that ai+1 = ai + ~ (also in Refs.[23–26]) and expanded indexed Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials [13] as the the superpotential W in power of ~ where the conven- main parts of the eigenfunctions and the Krein–Adler sys- tional shape-invariant superpotentials are the lowest or- tems [14, 15]. They are obtained by deforming the har- der (~0). Note stress that the SWKB condition has no monic oscillator (H), the radial oscillator, or the pseudo- dependencyO on ~ and no room for their expansion param- harmonic oscillator, (L) and the Pöschl–Teller potential eter ~. The analysis is thus quite questionable. (Another (J) (we set 2m = 1): drawback of their analysis is discussed in Appendix A.) We carry out a further numerical analysis not only (∗) ~2 2 (∗) = ∂x + V (x) , (4) on the extended radial oscillator but also on the multi- H − ω2x2 ~ω = H indexed systems, which are more general cases of the − ∗  ~2g(g 1) novel shape-invariant potentials. ω2x2 + − ~ω(2g + 1)  x2 − (∗)  V (x)=  =L  ~2g(g 1) ~2h(h 1) ∗ − + − ~2(g + h)2 A. Multi-indexed Laguerre/Jacobi systems sin2 x cos2 x −   =J  ∗ The multi-indexed Laguerre and Jacobi polynomi-  with the Schrödinger equations als [13] are obtained through deformations of two of the three exactly solvable systems (4) via the virtual-state (∗) (∗) (∗) (∗) Z φ (x)= φ (x) (n ≥0), (5) wavefunctions ϕn(x) , which are defined as H n En n ∈ { } 2n~ω = H z g (g− 1 ) (∗) ~ ∗ (L),I 2 2 2 n =  4n ω =L , ϕn (x) :=e z Ln ( z) , (6) E 2 ∗ −  4~ n(n + g + h) =J z 1−g 1 (L),II − ( 2 −g) ∗ 2 2 2 ϕn (x) :=e z Ln (z) , (7) − ωx  e 2~ , = H g 1−h (∗) 2 ∗ 2 2 1 1  − ωx g (J),I 1 y 1+ y (g− 2 , 2 −h) φ0 (x)= e 2~ x , =L . ϕ (x) := − Pn (y) ,  n 2 2 (sin x)g (cos x)h, ∗ =J ∗ (8)   1−g h The shape invariance is achieved by g g + 1 and 2 2 1 1 → (J),II 1 y 1+ y ( 2 −g,h− 2 ) h h+1. We note that the significant parts of the eigen- ϕn (x) := − Pn (y) , → (∗) 2 2 functions φn (x) are described by Hermite polynomials { } (9) Hn for the harmonic oscillator (H), Laguerre polynomials (α) Ln for the radial oscillator (L) and Jacobi polynomials where (α,β) Pn for the Pöschl–Teller potential (J), respectively. We shall see that for both of the multi-indexed and the ω ξ x, z ξ2 , y cos2x , (10) Krein–Adler systems, the SWKB condition is exact only ≡ r ~ ≡ ≡ for the groundstates n = 0, which is obvious by construction, but they could be a good approximation especially and the parameters g,h must satisfy for sufficiently higher excited states. We shall also discuss the mathematical implications of the results in Sec. IV. 3 1 L: g > max N + , dII + , (11) 2 j 2 1 II. MULTI-INDEXED SYSTEMS AND THE II J: g > max N +2, dj + , SWKB CONDITION 2 1 h> max M +2, dI + . (12) In this section, we examine the SWKB condition for j 2 the novel class of shape-invariant potentials, i.e., the multi-indexed systems. We employ the virtual-state wavefunctions with n = I II I I II II I ∈ D Bougie et al. [10] discuss non-exactness of the SWKB = d1,...,dM d1 ,...,dN and d1 < < DI ∪ DII { II }∪{ } ··· condition for the additive shape-invariant potentials. d , d < < d Z> as the seed solutions, and M 1 ··· N ∈ 0 3 deform φn(x) through the multiple Darboux transfor- For the case of the radial oscillator (L), with the mation{ to construct} the multi-indexed systems. The re- groundstate eigenfunction (17) and the energy eigenvalue sulting deformed systems are (16) reduces to

b′ (M,∗) 2 := (∗) (M,L) (M,L) D I := 4n ∂ξ ln φD;0 (x) dξ = nπ (20) H H ′ r Za − ~2 2 (∗),I (∗),I (∗),II (∗),II 2 ∂x ln W ϕdI ,...,ϕdI , ϕdII ,...,ϕdII (x) ′ ′ − h 1 M 1 N i with a and b being the roots of the equation (13) 2 (M,L) ∂ξ ln φD;0 (x) =4n . (21) with does not depend upon ~ (M,∗) (M,∗) (M,∗) (M,∗) Note that this formula ,ω but φ (x)= φ (x) (n Z> ) , (14) HD D;n ED;n D;n ∈ 0 depends on g. φ(M,∗)(x) Similarly for the P¨oschl–Teller potential, the SWKB D;n condition becomes, using the groundstate eigenfunction (∗),I (∗),I (∗),II (∗),II (∗) (18) and the energy eigenvalue (16), W ϕdI ,...,ϕdI , ϕdII ,...,ϕdII , φn (x) = h 1 M 1 N i , (∗),I (∗),I (∗),II (∗),II I(M,J) := W ϕ I ,...,ϕ I , ϕ II ,...,ϕ II (x) d1 dM d1 dN ′ h i b 2 (15) 2 (M,J) n(n + g + h) (1 y ) ∂y ln φD;0 (x) ′ r (M,∗) (∗) Za − − D;n = n . (16) E E dy = nπ , (22) in which =L, J and × 1 y2 ∗ − p j−1 which is independent of ~. Our correct and explicit incor- W[f , ,fn](x) = det ∂ fk(x) 1 ··· x 16j,k6n poration of the ~-dependency ﬁgure out that the integrals I(M,∗) do not depend on ~ for both cases. is the Wronskian. Especially, the groundstates are writ- ten as

(M,L) M+N C. Results 2 φD;0 (x)= z (L),I (L),I (L),II (L),II (L) We calculate the SWKB conditions numerically to see W ϕdI ,...,ϕdI , ϕdII ,...,ϕdII , φ0 (z) h 1 M 1 N i , the accuracy the SWKB conditions for the multi-indexed × (L),I (L),I (L),II (L),II (M,∗) W ϕdI ,...,ϕdI , ϕdII ,...,ϕdII (z) systems. We plot the values of the integral I /π and h 1 M 1 N i (17) the relative errors for the conditions deﬁned as (M,J) M+N (M,∗) 2 2 I nπ φD;0 (x) = [ 2(1 y )] Err := − (23) − − I(M,∗) (J),I (J),I (J),II (J),II (J) W ϕ I ,...,ϕ I , ϕ II ,...,ϕ II , φ0 (y) d1 dM d1 dN where n is the number of nodes. In Fig.1, we show the h i . 1 × (J),I (J),I (J),II (J),II result of the type II X1-Laguerre system , which cor- W ϕdI ,...,ϕdI , ϕdII ,...,ϕdII (y) h 1 M 1 N i responds to the analysis of Ref. [10]. The SWKB con- (18) dition is not exact; while the errors are less than 10−2. For the larger parameter g, the error decreases and the The special cases [ I = ℓ and II = ∅] and [ I = ∅ condition becomes closer to the exact one. The claim of II D { } D D and = ℓ ] are called the type I and the type II Ref. [10] still holds in our analysis, where the explicit D { } Xℓ-Laguerre/Jacobi system, respectively. In Ref. [10], ~-dependence is properly taken into account. the authors discussed the problem for the type II X1- Fig.2 presents the typical examples of the analysis of Laguerre system. the cases with the multi-indexed Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials. The plots are for the cases of [ I = 1 and II = 2 ] and [ I = 1, 2 and II = 2D, 3 ], with{ } B. The SWKB condition for the multi-indexed appropriateD { choices} ofD parameters.{ } TheD behaviors{ } look systems similar in all cases; the maximal errors occur around the smaller n with the values of orders 10−3. For larger n, ∼ For the multi-indexed systems, the SWKB condition it gradually reduces and in the limit n , the SWKB → ∞ (3) reads condition will be restored. The Laguerre system is always underestimated, while the Jacobi is overestimated.

b 2 (M,∗) ~∂ ln φ(M,∗)(x) dx = nπ~ r D;n x D;0 Za E − 1 We adopt the rescaling for the plot of the error of as (n Z> ) . (19) sgn(Err)2log10 |Err|. ∈ 0 4

20 1 2 (a) (b) 5 (K ,H) ∂ξ ln φD (x) ;0 15 0 1 . E D;2 /π 0 01 . 4

, 10 0 Err (M −0 01 . I 3 5 −0.1 ED 0 −1 ;1 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 2 n n

1 FIG. 1. The accuracy of the SWKB condition for the type II X1-Laguerre system. The parameter g is chosen as (a) g = 3 ξ E and (b) g = 10. The blue dots are the value of the integration -2 -1 O D;0 1 2 (M,L) I (20) and the red squares are the corresponding errors -1 deﬁned by eq. (23), while the blue line and the red chain line mean that the SWKB condition is exact and also Err = 0 . FIG. 3. The plot of the square of the superpotential 2 ∂ φ(K,H) x d n ξ ln D;0 ( ) for = 4. When = 1, this system has more than one set of turning points.

20 1 (a) (b) 15 0.1 A. Krein–Adler systems /π 0 01 .

, 10 0

Err (M −0 01 . I The Krein–Adler systems are obtained by the defor- 5 −0.1 mations of the three exactly solvable polynomials (4). 0 −1 20 1 We choose the eigenfunctions with n = d, d +1 (c) (d) ∈ D { } Z and d >0 as the seed solutions, deforming φn(x) 15 0.1 ∈ { }

/π 0 01 . through the multiple Darboux transformation to obtain

J) , 10 0 Err the Krein–Adler polynomials. Note that, during the (M −0 01 . I 5 −0 1 . transformation, the dth and (d + 1)th eigenstates are deleted, and the new systems are no longer shape in- 0 −1 0 5 10 15 20 0 5 10 15 20 n n variant. The resulting deformed systems read (K,∗) (∗) ~2 2 (∗) (∗) FIG. 2. The accuracy of the SWKB condition for the case of D := 2 ∂x ln W φd , φd+1 (x) (24) H H − h i (a), (b) the multi-indexed Laguerre systems with g = 5, and (c),(d) the multi-indexed Jacobi systems with (g, h) =(5, 6). with I II We choose D as (a),(c) [D = {1} and D = {2}], and (b),(d) (K,∗)φ(K,∗)(x)= (K,∗)φ(K,∗)(x) , (25) [DI = {1, 2} and DII = {2, 3}]. The blue dots are the value of HD D;˘n ED;˘n D;˘n the integration I(M,L) (20), I(M,J) (22) and the red squares are (∗) (∗) (∗) W φd , φd+1, φn˘ (x) the corresponding errors deﬁned by eq. (23), while the blue (K,∗) φD;˘n (x)= h i , (26) line and the red chain line mean that the SWKB condition (∗) (∗) W φd , φd+1 (x) is exact and also Err = 0 . The maximal errors |Err| are (a) h i 9.7 × 10−4, (b) 4.7 × 10−3, (c) 1.3 × 10−3, (d) 2.2 × 10−3, where = H, L, J and respectively. ∗ n (0 6 n 6 d 1) n˘ := − (n Z>0) (27) n + 2 (n > d) ∈ with the number of nodes n. Especially for the groundstate (n = 0),

III. KREIN–ADLER SYSTEMS AND THE 2 (K,H) ξ W[Hd,Hd+1, 1] (ξ) − 2 SWKB CONDITION φD;0 (x)=e , (28) W[Hd,Hd+1] (ξ) (g− 1 ) (g− 1 ) W L 2 ,L 2 , 1 (z) (K,L) z g+2 d d+1 − 2 2 In this section, we examine the SWKB conditions φD;0 (x)=e z h 1 1 i , (29) (g− 2 ) (g− 2 ) for the systems with no shape invariance, so-called the W Ld ,Ld+1 (z) h i Krein–Adler systems. From an exactly solvable Hamil- (K,J) g+2 h+2 φ (x)=(1 y) 2 (1 + y) 2 tonian, one can construct inﬁnitely many variants of ex- D;0 − g 1 ,h 1 g 1 ,h 1 actly solvable Hamiltonians and their eigenfunctions by ( − 2 − 2 ) ( − 2 − 2 ) W Pd , Pd+1 , 1 (y) Krein–Adler transformations. The resulting systems are, h i , (g− 1 ,h− 1 ) (g− 1 ,h− 1 ) however, not shape invariant, even if the starting systems × 2 2 2 2 W Pd , Pd+1 (y) are. We study this class of systems in order to see the h i (30) roles of the shape invariance, and the eﬀects of SWKB in the exact solvabilities of the systems. respectively. 5

(a) 25 (b) (c) 15 40 0.1 20 0 01 /π 30 . 10 15 H) 0 , 20 −0 01 Err (K 10 . I 5 −0.1 10 5 0 0 0 −1 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 n n n

FIG. 4. The accuracy of the SWKB condition for the case of the Krein–Adler Hermite system (34) for (a) D = {3, 4}, (b) D = {15, 16} and (c) D = {24, 25}. The blue dots are the value of the integration I(K,H) (34) and the red squares are the corresponding errors deﬁned by eq. (23) with M → K, while the blue line and the red chain line mean that the SWKB condition is exact and also the Err = 0 . The maximal errors |Err| are (a) 2.7 × 10−1, (b) 5.6 × 10−2, (c) 3.6 × 10−2, respectively.

1 (a) (b) (c) 25 15 15 0 1 20 . 0 01

/π . 10 10 15

L) 0 , Err (K 10 −0.01 I 5 5 −0 1 . 5 0 0 0 −1 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 n n n

FIG. 5. The accuracy of the SWKB condition for the case of the Krein–Adler Laguerre system (35) for (a) g = 3, D = {3, 4}, (b) g = 30, D = {3, 4} and (c) g = 3, D = {15, 16}. The blue dots are the value of the integration I(K,L) (35) and the red squares are the corresponding errors deﬁned by eq. (23) with M → K, while the blue line and the red chain line mean that the SWKB condition is exact and also Err = 0 . The maximal errors |Err| are (a) 3.4 × 10−1, (b) 2.8 × 10−1, (c) 6.5 × 10−2, respectively.

B. The SWKB conditions for the Krein–Adler SWKB condition for the system is deﬁned as the sum of systems the integrals in the l.h.s. of eq. (32) for all sets of turning points a′ ,b′ ; { i i} For the Krein–Adler systems, the SWKB condition (3) reads

b 2 (K,∗) (K,∗) b′ ~∂ ln φ (x) dx = nπ~ i 2 r D;˘n x D;0 (K,H) (K,H) Za E − I := 2˘n ∂ξ ln φD;0 (x) dξ = nπ . Za′ r − Z i i (n >0) . (31) X ∈ (34) , For the case of the harmonic oscillator (H), with the We note that I(K H) does not depend upon ~,ω. groundstate eigenfunction (28) and the energy eigenvalue (26), Eq. (3) reduces to For the radial oscillator (L) and the P¨oschl–Teller po- ′ tential (J), the formulations are done in the same man- b 2 (K,H) ner. With the groundstate eigenfunction of the radial os- 2˘n ∂ξ ln φD;0 (x) dξ = nπ (32) ′ r Za − cillator (29) and the energy eigenvalue (26), the SWKB

condition is with a′ and b′ being the roots of the equation

2 (K,H) ∂ξ ln φD;0 (x) = 2˘n . (33) ′ b i 2 dz Unlike the conventional shape-invariant systems, how- (K,L) (K,L) I := n˘ z ∂z ln φD;0 (x) = nπ . Za′ r − √z ever, this equation may possess more than two roots, i.e., Xi i ′ ′ ′ ′ there are sets of turning points: ai,bi with ai 6 bi (see (35) Fig. 3). The following prescription{ must} be employed For the P¨oschl–Teller potential, using the groundstate for the calculation of the integral in (32). That is, the eigenfunction (30) and the energy eigenvalue (26), we 6

1 (a) (b) (c) 25 15 15 0.1 20 0.01 /π 10 10 15 J) 0 , Err

(K 10 −0.01

I 5 5 −0 1 . 5 0 0 0 −1 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15 20 25 n n n

FIG. 6. The accuracy of the SWKB condition for the case of the Krein–Adler Jacobi system (36) for (a) (g, h) = (3, 4), D = {3, 4}, (b) (g, h) = (30, 40), D = {3, 4} and (c) (g, h) =(3, 4), D = {15, 16}. The blue dots are the value of the integration I(K,J) (36) and the red squares are the corresponding errors defined by eq. (23) with M → K, while the blue line and the red chain line mean that the SWKB condition is exact and also Err = 0 . The maximal errors |Err| are (a) 4.2 × 10−1, (b) 2.9 × 10−1, (c) 8.1 × 10−2, respectively. obtain the SWKB condition act one. The cases of the Laguerre, Jacobi polynomials are more moderate. I(K,J) := ′ bi 2 2 (K,J) n˘(˘n + g + h) (1 y ) ∂y ln φD;0 (x) IV. DISCUSSION ′ r − − Zai Xi dy = nπ . (36) As we have seen in Secs. II and III, ~ is always factored × 1 y2 out of the SWKB condition (3), that is, the SWKB con- − p dition is totally independent of ~, for the systems we have I(K,L) and I(K,J) are also independent of ~. We can say analyzed in this paper. (See Eqs. (20),(22),(34)–(36).) the same thing as the case of the multi-indexed systems Also, the SWKB condition cannot be derived from the for the Krein–Adler systems: the integrals I(K,∗) do not WKB formalism because of the ~-dependency of super- depend on ~ for all the cases after the ~-dependency is potentials. We have to say that the formal derivation of correctly and explicitly taken into account. Eq. (3) from Eq. (1) is just a fictitious, and the SWKB condition is a distinct condition from the WKB quantization condition. Hence, the SWKB condition means C. Results nothing about semi-classical approximation. The exactness of the SWKB condition is one inde- We examine the SWKB conditions (34)–(36) numeri- pendent criterion that can be considered in contrast to cally and show how accurate they are. We compute the the WKB quantization condition; the WKB quantization cases of = 3, 4 , 15, 16 and 24, 25 for the Her- condition is exact for the case of the harmonic oscillator mite. WeD also{ calculate} { the} cases{ of }= 3, 4 and or the Morse potential, while the SWKB condition is ex- 15, 16 with the parameters g =3, 30 forD the{ Laguerre,} act for any conventional shape-invariant potentials. {and with} (g,h) = (3, 4), (30, 40) for the Jacobi polyno- The latter half of this section is devoted to the interpre- mials. The results are shown in Fig. 4 (Hermite), Fig. 5 tation of our numerical results. From the results of the (Laguerre) and Fig. 6 (Jacobi). Notable feature of these multi-indexed polynomials (see Figs. 1 and 2), we found results is that the maximum of the error occurs at the that the shape invariance was not the sufficient condition vicinity of the deleted levels and as moving away from the of the exactness of the SWKB condition. Thus, the shape point, the error decreases and the SWKB condition tends invariance does not explain the exactness of the SWKB to be exact. Also, the errors tend to be of opposite sign condition. between the below and the above of the deleted levels. An interesting thing is that the SWKB conditions for Note that the behavior at n 0 and n is not sym- all the systems we study are not exact, but near to the metrical, i.e., for the smaller→n, the value→ ∞ still decreases exact values. One may be curious about what guarantees but seems not to go to the exact condition. For the larger the (approximate) satisfaction of the SWKB condition. value of the parameters g,h, it is expected that the error Figures 4–6 indicate that the whole distribution of the decreases, and we confirm the behavior (Figs. 5(b) and energy eigenvalues, or simply the level structure, guaran- 6(b)). When we delete higher levels (larger d), we see tees the exactness of the SWKB condition. The maximal different features. (See Figs. 4(b), 4(c), 5(c) and 6(c).) errors are seen around the deleted levels and the er- Among these, the most distinctive behavior is seen in rors go closer to zero as n where the levelD structure the Herimite polynomial. At below the deleted level, the of the systems are almost→ identical ∞ to that of the con- integral value exhibits oscillating behavior around the ex- ventional shape-invariant ones. The modifications of the 7 conventional shape-invariant potentials change the level the discrepancy qualitatively. We note here that structures of the systems, and so does the values of the the SWKB conditions for the conventional shape- integral of the SWKB condition. This is how the SWKB invariant systems reduce to the proper quantization exactness breaks. rules [29]. It is worth examining the proper quan- Since the SWKB condition is exact for all conventional tization rule for the systems we investigated in this shape-invariant potentials, this suggests that the SWKB Letter. integral characterize a system in terms of the net devia- • tion from the conventional shape-invariant systems. The As mentioned in Sec. I, our work is to be completed breaks of the condition equation indicates the discrep- when the “unknown parameter” is identified. ancy between a system in question and the corresponding These issues are currently studied and the results will be shape-invariant system. Therefore, we propose that the reported in our subsequent papers. analyses on other solvable systems through the SWKB condition is important to formalize the deviation from the conventional shape-invariant systems. Appendix A: Erroneous analysis in Ref. [10] Before closing this section, we make a comment on the multi-indexed systems. Since these systems are seen as In this Appendix, we discuss how the modeling of the deletion of several “negative” levels from the conven- Ref. [10] is not correct. The point is basic one; the system tional shape-invariant systems, a similar discussion to the the authors considered is irrelevant to the known quan- above can be done. tum mechanical problems such as the well-known radial oscillator for the explicit factor ~. They alleged that the additive shape invariance was realized for the parameters V. CONCLUSION ai such that ai+1 = ai + ~. Their analysis was based on the expansion of the superpotential W (ai, ~) in power of In this paper, we studied the SWKB conditions for the ~, assuming that W was independent of ~ except through new classes of exactly solvable systems with the multi- the above shift of the parameter ai. The main drawback indexed Laguerre and Jacobi polynomials and the Krein– in the analysis was that they overlooked the dependence Adler Hermite, Laguerre and the Jacobi systems. The of the parameter ai on ~. Such wrong expansion with ~ problem on their exactness of the SWKB conditions were inevitably leads to the devious result. already studied for the special case of the extended radial Let us consider the eigenfunctions ψn(x) of the sys- oscillator [10] and the results indicated that the SWKB 1 { ℓ } tem with the superpotential W = ωx in Ref. [10]. condition was not exact. However, in their analysis, the 0 2 − x treatment of the ~ was peculiar and the results were prob- The Schrödinger equation is ~ lematical. We first studied the correct -dependency of 2 ~ 2 d 2 dW0 the condition, and turned out that can always be fac- ~ + W0 ~ ψn(x) tored out of the SWKB condition. Then, we numerically − dx2 − dx 2 ~ computed the integrals of the SWKB conditions, and the 2 d ℓ(ℓ ) 1 2 2 ω = ~ + − + ω x (2ℓ + ~) ψn(x) results clearly indicated that the conditions were always − dx2 x2 4 − 2 not exact but satisfied with some degree of accuracy for =2n~ωψ (x) . (A1) the systems we studied. n This paper constitutes an initial step for a full under- The eigenfunctions are obtained as standing of the mathematical implications of the SWKB 2 ℓ 1 2 ωx ℓ ~ − ωx conditions. We now confident from our numerical stud- − ~ ~ ( 2 ) ψn(x) e 4 x Ln , (A2) ies that the SWKB condition is related to the devia- ∝ 2~ tion from conditional shape-invariant potentials, espe- (α) cially their level structures. However, the mathemati- where Ln (y) is the associated Laguerre polynomial. cal explanation is still absent for this statement, and the On the other hand, many textbooks on quantum me- following questions still remain: chanics tell us the eigenfunctions of the radial oscillator φn(x) • Several more solvable systems are known: Investi- { } ′ 1 2 gation of the SWKB conditions for the condition- ωx2 ′ ℓ + ωx − ~ ℓ +1 ( 2 ) φn(x) e 4 x Ln , (A3) ally exactly soluble potentials [27] and the quasi- ∝ 2~ exactly-solvable potentials [28] with the parameter dependency may be valuable for the better under- ~2ℓ′(ℓ′ + 1) 1 with the potential V (x) = + ω2x2 and standing of the accuracy of the SWKB. x2 4 ℓ′ is the angular momentum quantum number. Here, • The SWKB condition is only approximately sat- Eq. (A2) and (A3) must coincide because both are the isfied in the new types of exactly solvable poly- solutions of the same problem. As a result nomials studied in this Letter. It would be a good challenge to identify the mechanism causing ℓ = ~(ℓ′ + 1) . (A4) 8 which means that without ℓ being taken to be dependent The authors would like to thank Ryu Sasaki for his care- upon ~, the model in Ref. [10] never be equivalent to the ful and useful advice and comments. We also appreci- well-known radial oscillator. The modeling in Ref. [10] is ate Naruhiko Aizawa, Yuki Amari, Atsushi Nakamula for apparently not correct and the results are devious. valuable discussions. Y.N. thanks Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics, Kyoto University. Discussions during the YITP workshop YITP-W-19-10 on “Strings and Fields 2019” were useful to complete this work. N.S. was supported in part by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP Acknowledgment 16K01026 and B20K03278(1).

[1] Edward Witten, “Dynamical Breaking of Supersymme- son, “Supersymmetry and algebraic darboux transforma- try,” Nucl. Phys. B188, 513 (1981). tions,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General [2] Edward Witten, “Constraints on supersymmetry break- 37, 10065 (2004). ing,” Nuclear Physics B 202, 253–316 (1982). [17] David Gómez-Ullate, Niky Kamran, and Robert Milson, [3] Fred Cooper, Avinash Khare, and Uday Sukhatme, “An extended class of orthogonal polynomials defined “Supersymmetry and quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rept. by a Sturm–Liouville problem,” Journal of Mathemat- 251, 267–385 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9405029 [hep-th]. ical Analysis and Applications 359, 352–367 (2009). [4] A. Comtet, A. D. Bandrauk, and D. K. Campbell, “EX- [18] David Gómez-Ullate, Niky Kamran, and Robert Milson, ACTNESS OF SEMICLASSICAL BOUND STATE EN- “An extension of Bochner’s problem: exceptional invari- ERGIES FOR SUPERSYMMETRIC QUANTUM ME- ant subspaces,” Journal of Approximation Theory 162, CHANICS,” Phys. Lett. 150B, 159–162 (1985). 987–1006 (2010). [5] L E Gendenshtein, “Derivation of exact spectra of the [19] C. Quesne, “Exceptional orthogonal polynomials, ex- schrodinger equation by means of supersymmetry,” Jetp actly solvable potentials and supersymmetry,” Journal Lett 38, 356–359 (1983). of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 41, 392001 [6] Ranabir Dutt, Avinash Khare, and Uday P. Sukhatme, (2008). “Exactness of Supersymmetric WKB Spectra for Shape [20] Satoru Odake and Ryu Sasaki, “Infinitely many shape Invariant Potentials,” Phys. Lett. B181, 295–298 (1986). invariant potentials and new orthogonal polynomials,” [7] Avinash Khare and Y. P. Varshni, “IS SHAPE INVARI- Phys. Lett. B679, 414–417 (2009), arXiv:0906.0142 ANCE ALSO NECESSARY FOR LOWEST ORDER [math-ph]. SUPERSYMMETRIC WKB TO BE EXACT?” Phys. [21] Satoru Odake and Ryu Sasaki, “Another set of infinitely Lett. A (1989). many exceptional (Xℓ) Laguerre polynomials,” Phys. [8] PB Abraham and HE Moses, “Changes in potentials due Lett. B684, 173–176 (2010), arXiv:0911.3442 [math-ph]. to changes in the point spectrum: anharmonic oscilla- [22] Ryu Sasaki, Satoshi Tsujimoto, and Alexei Zhedanov, tors with exact solutions,” Physical Review A 22, 1333 “Exceptional laguerre and jacobi polynomials and the (1980). corresponding potentials through darboux–crum trans- [9] David DeLaney and Michael Martin Nieto, “SUSY-WKB formations,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and is not exact for all solvable potentials,” Phys. Lett. B247, Theoretical 43, 315204 (2010). 301–308 (1990). [23] Jonathan Bougie, Asim Gangopadhyaya, and Jeffry V [10] Jonathan Bougie, Asim Gangopadhyaya, and Con- Mallow, “Generation of a complete set of additive shape- stantin Rasinariu, “The supersymmetric WKB formalism invariant potentials from an euler equation,” Physical re- is not exact for all additive shape invariant potentials,” J. view letters 105, 210402 (2010). Phys. A51, 375202 (2018), arXiv:1802.00068 [quant-ph]. [24] Jonathan Bougie, Asim Gangopadhyaya, Jeffry Mallow, [11] R Adhikari, R Dutt, A Khare, and UP Sukhatme, and Constantin Rasinariu, “Supersymmetric quantum “Higher-order wkb approximations in supersymmetric mechanics and solvable models,” Symmetry 4, 452–473 quantum mechanics,” Physical Review A 38, 1679 (2012). (1988). [25] Jonathan Bougie, Asim Gangopadhyaya, Jeffry V Mal- [12] Ranabir Dutt, Avinash Khare, and Uday P Sukhatme, low, and Constantin Rasinariu, “Generation of a novel “Supersymmetry-inspired wkb approximation in quan- exactly solvable potential,” Physics Letters A 379, 2180– tum mechanics,” American Journal of Physics 59, 723– 2183 (2015). 727 (1991). [26] Jeffry V Mallow, Asim Gangopadhyaya, Jonathan [13] Satoru Odake and Ryu Sasaki, “Exactly Solvable Quan- Bougie, and Constantin Rasinariu, “Inter-relations be- tum Mechanics and Infinite Families of Multi-indexed tween additive shape invariant superpotentials,” Physics Orthogonal Polynomials,” Phys. Lett. B702, 164–170 Letters A 384, 126129 (2020). (2011), arXiv:1105.0508 [math-ph]. [27] A. de Souza Dutra, “Conditionally exactly soluble class [14] M. G. Krein, “On a continuous analogue of a Christof- of quantum potentials,” Phys. Rev. A47, R2435–R2437 fel formula from the theory of orthogonal polynomials,” (1993). Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 113, 970–973 (1957). [28] Alexander V Turbiner, “One-dimensional quasi-exactly [15] VE Adler, “A modification of crum’s method,” Theoret- solvable Schrödinger equations,” Phys. Rept. 642, 1–71 ical and Mathematical Physics 101, 1381–1386 (1994). (2016), arXiv:1603.02992 [quant-ph]. [16] David Gómez-Ullate, Niky Kamran, and Robert Mil- [29] Fernando Serrano, Xiao gu, and Shihai Dong, “Qiang- 9 dong proper quantization rule and its applications to exactly solvable quantum systems,” Journal of Mathemat- ical Physics 51, 082103–082103 (2010).