Fractional Exclusion Statistics as an Occupancy Process
Extracted source text ยท arXiv 1905.06943
\documentclass[12pt,a4paper]{article}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage[margin=1in,footskip=0.5in]{geometry}
%\textheight 22cm
%\textwidth 16cm
%\topmargin 1mm
%\oddsidemargin 5mm
%\evensidemargin 5mm
%\usepackage{ccfonts}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\usepackage{lscape}
\usepackage{mathtools}
\usepackage{appendix}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{amssymb,latexsym}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{fancyhdr}
\usepackage{cite}
\usepackage[english]{babel}
\usepackage{nicefrac}
\usepackage{bbm}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{tabularx}
\usepackage{epsfig}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amscd}
\usepackage{amsmath,amsthm}
\usepackage{setspace}
\setstretch{1,1}
%\usepackage{lmodern}
%\usepackage[varg]{txfonts}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
%\usepackage{fontspec}
%\setmainfont{Ubuntu Mono}
%\usepackage{kantlipsum}
%\usepackage[utopia]{mathdesign}
%\RequirePackage{mathpazo}
%\RequirePackage{palatino}
\RequirePackage{wasysym}
\RequirePackage{setspace}
%\usepackage[dvipdfm,linktocpage, colorlinks=true,pdfhighlight =/O]{hyperref}
%\hypersetup{urlcolor=blue,linkcolor=blue,citecolor=blue,colorlinks=true}
\usepackage{enumerate}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
% use this command to create hyperlinks (optional and recommended)
\usepackage[linktocpage, colorlinks=true,citecolor=blue,linkcolor=blue,urlcolor=blue]{hyperref}
% use these commands for typesetting doi and arXiv references in the bibliography
\newcommand{\doi}[1]{\href{http://dx.doi.org/#1}{\texttt{doi:#1}}}
\newcommand{\arxiv}[1]{\href{http://arxiv.org/abs/#1}{\texttt{arXiv:#1}}}
% all overfull boxes must be fixed; i.e. there must be no text protruding into the margins
% use \sloppy to avoid overly wide text
\sloppy
% declare theorem-like environments
%\numberwithin{equation}{section}
\theoremstyle{plain}
\newtheorem*{thm}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}
\newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
\newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
\newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
\newtheorem{fact}[theorem]{Fact}
\newtheorem{observation}[theorem]{Observation}
\newtheorem{claim}[theorem]{Claim}
\theoremstyle{definition}
\newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
\newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
\newtheorem{conjecture}[theorem]{Conjecture}
\newtheorem{open}[theorem]{Open Problem}
\newtheorem{problem}[theorem]{Problem}
\newtheorem{question}[theorem]{Question}
\theoremstyle{remark}
\newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
\newtheorem{note}[theorem]{Note}
%======================================
\renewcommand\appendix{\par
\setcounter{section}{0}
\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\setcounter{figure}{0}
\setcounter{table}{0}
\renewcommand\thesection{Appendix \Alph{section}}
\renewcommand\thefigure{\Alph{section}\arabic{figure}}
\renewcommand\thetable{\Alph{section}\arabic{table}}
}
%======================================
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\bfa}{\begin{fact}}
\newcommand{\efa}{\end{fact}}
\newcommand{\bin}{\begin{inequality}}
\newcommand{\ein}{\end{inequality}}
%\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.2}
\newcommand{\pnom}[3]{{#1 \choose #2}_{\hskip -3pt \mathrm{#3}}}
\newcommand{\enom}[3]{{#1 \choose #2}_{\hskip -3pt #3}}
\def\per {{\operatorname{per}}}
\def \a {{\mathbf a}}
\def\b {{\mathbf b}}
\def\c {{\mathbf c}}
\def\l {{\lambda}}
\def\T {{\mathsf{T}_{\hskip-1pt m}}}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% if needed include a line break (\\) at an appropriate place in the title
\title{ Fractional Exclusion Statistics\\
as an Occupancy Process}
% input author, affilliation, address and support information as follows;
% the address should include the country, and does not have to include
% the street address
\author{Nour-Eddine Fahssi\\
\small \it Department of Mathematics, FSTM, Hassan Second University\\[-0.8ex]
\small \it BP 146, Mohammedia, Morocco.\\
\small and \\
\small \it Lab of High Energy Physics, Modeling and Simulation,\\[-0.8ex]
\small \it Faculty of Science, Mohammed V University at Agdal, \\[-0.8ex]
\small \it Rabat, Morocco. \\
\small \href{mailto:noureddine.fahssi@univh2c.ma}{\tt noureddine.fahssi@univh2c.ma}}
% \date{\dateline{submission date}{acceptance date}\\
% \small Mathematics Subject Classifications: comma separated list of
% MSC codes available from http://www.ams.org/mathscinet/freeTools.html}
\date{}
\begin{document}
%\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{pageHeader}
\maketitle
\begin{abstract}
We show the possibility of describing fractional exclusion statistics (FES) as an occupancy process with global and \textit{local} exclusion constraints. More specifically, using combinatorial identities, we show that FES can be viewed as ``ball-in-box" models with appropriate weighting on the set of occupancy configurations (merely represented by a partition of the total number of particles). As a consequence, the following exact statement of the generalized Pauli principle is derived: for an $N$-particles system exhibiting FES of extended parameter \mbox{$g=q/r$} ($q$ and $r$ are co-prime integers such that $0 < q \leq r$), (1)~the allowed occupation number of a state is less than or equal to $r-q+1$ and \emph{not} to $1/g$ whenever $q\neq 1$ and (2)~the global occupancy shape is admissible if the number of states occupied by at least two particles is less than or equal to $(N-1)/r$ ($N \equiv 1 \mod r$). These counting rules allow distinguishing infinitely many families of FES systems depending on the parameter $g$ and the size $N$.
\medskip
\noindent PACS numbers: 05.30.Pr, 02.10.Ox\\
\end{abstract}
%\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:introduction}
Although, the elementary particles seem to be exhausted by the Pauli classification into bosons and Fermions, topological considerations allow us to generalize the standard statistics in 1D (exchange/anyon statistics~\cite{leinas}) and in 2D (fractional/exclusion statistics~\cite{poly}). In arbitrary dimensions, Haldane~\cite{Hald}, motivated by the properties of quasi-particles in the fractional quantum Hall effect and in one dimensional inverse-square exchange spin chains, introduced the fractional exclusion statistics (FES)~\cite{Hald}. His proposal is to consider systems with a generalized Pauli blocking interpolating between ``no exclusion'' and ``perfect exclusion''. More explicitly, consider $N$ particles on a lattice of dimension $K$. If we fix the positions of $N-1$ particles, then the remaining single particle can occupy $d_N=K-g(N-1)$ positions. The constant $g$ is a ``statistical interaction'' parameter given by $g=-\Delta d / \Delta N$ where $\Delta d$ is the change in the dimension of a single particle space and $\Delta N$ is the change in the number of particles. The conventional Bose-Einstein (BES) and Fermi-Dirac (FDS) statistics correspond, respectively, to $g = 0$ and $g = 1$. Now, clear confirmations for FES have been found as well as applications in numerous models of interacting particles; see, e.g.,~\cite{ref2,ref3,ref4,ref5,ref6,anghel,anghel2,CS,Hu} and references therein. In these notes, we designate FES with parameter $g$ by FES$_g$, and term particles obeying FES$_g$ $g$-ons.
In his seminal paper, Haldane postulated that the full Hilbert space for $g$-ons systems has the size:~\cite{Hald, ref3} \be \label{HW} W_{g}(K,N)= {d_{N}+N-1 \choose N},\ee where the generic binomial coefficient $\binom{a}{b}$ equals $a!/(b!(a-b)!)$ if $0 \leq b \leq a$, and vanishes otherwise. However, no concrete counting procedure is behind the interpolating formula \eqref{HW} as is the case for conventional statistics. Indeed, BES and FDS are examples of ball-in-box models, i.e., models for random allocations of unlabeled balls/particles in labeled boxes/states, subject to global exclusion constraints. The combinatorial weight --the number of micro-states-- coincides here with the number of ways to distribute the balls among the boxes. In this letter, we want to see if~\eqref{HW} is the combinatorial weight of a ball-in-box model.
First, we must have $N\equiv 1 \pmod r$ so that the dimension $d_N$, and accordingly $W_g(K,N)$, is a whole number. Thus, if $N = r P +1$ for some integer $P$ and $g=q/r$ ($q<r$ are coprime), then $d_{N+r}-d_N=-q$, viz. adding $r$ particles reduces the number of available states by $q$. The weight~\eqref{HW} takes now the form \be \label{HWbis} W_g(K,0)=1, \quad \hbox{and} \quad W_g(K,N) ={K+(r-q)P \choose r P+1}. \tag{$1'$}\ee Note that $W_g(K,N)=0$ if $P > (K-1)/q$.
Certainly, dealing with FES using standard techniques of statistical mechanics, allows to describe the thermodynamic properties of $g$-ons~\cite{ref3,ref4,Nayak}, but leads to some inconsistencies when we attempt to find the probabilities for various occupation numbers of a single state~\cite{Nayak}. For instance, Polychronakos~\cite{Poly} proposed a \textit{multiplicative} model which accurately gives back the statistical mechanics of FES in the thermodynamic limit. Multiplicativity here means that, at least for large $K$, the grand partition function is the $K$-th power of a $K$-independent function~\cite{Poly}. However, the price paid for this microscopic realization is the occurrence of negative probabilities. Now, we understand that this problem occurs because Haldane statistics is not multiplicative and, unlike the Pauli principle, the exclusion operates on more than one level. Chaturvedi and Srinivasan~\cite{chat}, and subsequently Murthy and Shankar~\cite{neg}, showed with a remarkable tour de force how negative weights may be avoided for $g=1/2$ (semions) and for $g=1/3$. The more general case of FES$_{1/m}$ was worked out subsequently and explicitly realized in models in one dimension, see~\cite[Chapters 3 \& 4]{ref6}.
In this letter, we revisit and solve this problem in a closed form when the parameter $g$ is generally any irreducible fraction: $g=q/r$, where $q$ and $r$ are coprime and $0 < q \leq r$. Our approach is purely combinatorial. It consists of regarding FES as a ball-in-box model, i.e. as an ideal quantum gas, with appropriate weighting on the set of occupancy configurations. To do so, we write the dimension $W_{g}(K,N)$ in the generic form~\eqref{Wbis} below. While calculating the corresponding weights, we deduce the following exclusion rules: An occupancy configuration is allowed if (1) the maximal number of particles that each state can accommodate is $r-q+1$, and not to $g^{-1}$ whenever $q\neq 1$, and (2) the configurations in which the number of states with two or more particles is greater than $(N-1)/r$ are forbidden. This will allow us to distinguish infinitely many families of FES$_g$ systems depending on $g$ and $N$.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{Multiplicative vs. non-multiplicative statistics}\label{s2}
Let us first set the notation for our combinatorial analysis. The terminology comes mainly from the theory of integer partitions.
A \emph{partition} of a non-negative integer $N$ is a non-increasing sequence of positive integers whose sum is $N$. To indicate that $\l$ is a partition of $N$, we write $\l \vdash N$ and denote \mbox{$\l=(1^{k_1} 2^{k_2} \ldots N^{k_N})$}, where $\sum_{i=1}^N i k_i = N$ and $k_i$ designates the multiplicity of the part $i$; the sum $\ell(\l)=\sum_{i=1}^N k_i$ is called the \emph{length} of $\l$. The \emph{Ferrers diagram} of $\l$ is a pattern of dots, with the $j$th row having the same number of dots as the $j$th term in $\l$.
Suppose we have $N$ ideal particles to be randomly distributed into $K$ states. In this work, this quantum system will be referred to as a ball-in-box model (indistinguishable balls and labeled boxes). An \emph{occupancy configuration} of the system is said to be of shape $\l=(1^{k_1} 2^{k_2} \ldots N^{k_N}) \vdash N$ if $k_i$ states are occupied by $i$ particles ($i=1,\ldots, N$) and the number of non-vacant states $\ell(\l)$ is less than or equal to $K$. Moreover, if no parts of $\l$ exceed a fixed integer $m$, the corresponding configuration is additionally characterized by $\ell(\l^*) \leq m$, where $\l^*$ stands for the \emph{conjugate} partition of $\l$, that is, the partition whose Ferrers diagram is obtained from $\l$ by reflection with respect to the diagonal so that rows become columns and columns become rows. For instance, the fermionic configuration is of shape $(1^N)$, characterized by $\ell(\l^*) \leq 1$.
\subsection{A basic formula}
We begin with a simple observation.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop1} For bosons and fermions, the combinatorial weight can be uniquely written as weighted sums over partitions: \be \label{Wbis} W(K,N)= \sum_{{\l=(1^{k_1} 2^{k_2} \ldots N^{k_N})\; \vdash N}}w(\l) \frac{\ell(\l)!}{k_1! \, k_2! \cdots k_N!} \binom{K}{\ell(\l)}, \ee where the function $w$ is given by \[w(\l)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{\emph{for bosons};} \\
\delta_{\l,(1^N)}, & \hbox{\emph{for fermions}.}
\end{array}
\right.\] ($\delta$ is the Kronecker symbol.)
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} We shall apply the generating function method dear to combinatorialists~\cite{wilf}. For bosons, it is well-known that the grand partition function (or the generating function of $W(K,N)$ with respect to $N$) is \[\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \binom{K+N-1}{N} z^N= (1-z)^{-K}= \left(\sum_{i=0}^\infty z^i\right)^K.\] where $z$ is the fugacity. On the other hand, by the expansion of power series raised to integral powers~\cite[page 823]{stegun}:
\be \left(\sum_{i=0}^{\infty}a_{i}z^{i} \right)^{K} =
\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left(\sum \frac{K!}{k_{0}! k_{1}! \cdots
k_{n}!} a_{0}^{k_{0}}a_{1}^{k_{1}} \cdots a_{n}^{k_{n}}\right)
z^n ,\ee where the inner sum is over the set $\{k_{i} |
\sum_{i=0}^{n} k_{i}=K \, \mbox{and} \sum_{i=1}^{n}i k_{i}=n \}$,
we write the partition function as
\[\sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \binom{K+N-1}{N} z^N = \sum_{N=0}^{\infty} \left(\sum_{\{k_i\}} \frac{K!}{(K-k_1- \ldots -k_N)! \, k_1! \cdots k_N!}\right) z^N,\] where the inner sum runs over all $N$-tuples $(k_1, \ldots , k_N)$ subject to $k_1+2k_2 + \ldots + N k_N =N $, i.e., over all partitions of $N$. Equating the coefficients on both sides, the bosonic combinatorial weight takes the form \[\sum_{\{k_i\}}\binom{K}{k_1+ \ldots + k_N} \frac{(k_1+ \ldots + k_N)!}{k_1! k_2! \cdots k_N!}=\sum_{{\l\; \vdash N}} \frac{\ell(\l)!}{k_1! \, k_2! \cdots k_N!} \binom{K}{\ell(\l)}.\] Thus, for bosons, $w(\l)=1$. As for fermions, since the partition function is $(1+z)^K$, we find similarly that $w(\l)=1$ if $k_1=N$ and $w(\l)=0$ otherwise.
\end{proof}
The expression~\eqref{Wbis} is generic for multiplicative models where the grand partition function is the $K$-th power of an analytic function: $\sum_i a_n z^n$ with positive and $K$-independent Taylor coefficients ($a_0=1$). Reproducing the proof of Proposition~\ref{prop1} yields the weight $w(\lambda) = \prod_{n=1}^N a_n^{k_n}$~\cite{fahssi}. A particularly well-studied example of multiplicative models is the intermediate Gentile statistics of order $G \geq 1$~\cite{gent} for which $a_n=1$ if $n \leq G$ and $a_n=0$ otherwise. So, the one-configuration weight reads here
\be \label{wG} w_G(\l)= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & \hbox{if} \quad \ell(\l^*) \leq G; \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right. \ee
The summands of Eq.~\eqref{Wbis} have the following interpretation: for a fixed configuration of shape $\l$, the factor $\frac{\ell(\l)!}{k_1! \, k_2! \cdots k_N!} \binom{K}{\ell(\l)}$ is the number of ways to choose $\ell(\l)$ non-vacant states out of $K$ ones and arrange $k_i$ states with $i$ particles among them; $i=1, \ldots, N$. The result is then weighted by a non-negative function $w(\l)$. Of course, a configuration $\l$ with $w(\l)=0$ does not contribute to the counting and therefore is not permitted. Thus, the function $w(\lambda)$ encodes the counting rules of the statistics : for bosons, all the configurations contribute equally in the counting, while, for fermions, the Kronecker's delta $\delta_{\l,(1^N)}$ is a manifestation of the Pauli principle.
The FES is not multiplicative in the sense of the definition above. For instance, it is easy to verify that the grand partition function for semions is given by \be \sum_{n\geq0}W_{1/2}(K,N)z^N=\frac{2}{\sqrt{z^2+4}}\left(\frac{z}{2}+\sqrt{1+\frac{z^2}{4}}\right)^{2K}.\ee
As discussed in the introduction, Polychronakos, through a slight modification of $W_g(K,N)$~\cite[Eq.5]{Poly} which leads to the same statistical mechanics, proposed a microscopic realization of FES based on multiplicativity. It can be shown that the Polychronakos modified grand partition function is effectively the $K$-th power of \be {1 \over 4}\left(z+\sqrt{4+z^2}\right)^2= 1+z+\frac{z^2}{2}+\frac{z^3}{8}-\frac{z^5}{128}+\frac{z^7}{1024}-\frac{5
z^9}{32768}+\cdots \ee The Taylor coefficients of this function are not always positive. Therefore, their interpretation as probabilities is problematic~\cite{Nayak}.
Interestingly, the dimension~\eqref{HWbis} can be cast in the generic form~\eqref{Wbis} with a well-defined and positive weighting function $w(\l)$. It is the latter that must be perceived as probability of (global) occupation. More precisely, we show
\begin{theorem} \label{HWweight} For $g=q/r$ and $N \equiv 1 \pmod{r}$ , the number of micro-states \emph{\eqref{HWbis}} can uniquely be written in the form~\eqref{Wbis}, where
\be w_g(\l) = \label{HWw} \binom{(N-1)/r}{\ell(\l)-k_1} \binom{\ell(\l)}{k_1}^{\!\!-1} \,\prod_{j=0}^{r-q} \binom{r-q}{j}^{k_{j+1}}. \ee In particular, $w_g(\l)=0$ if $\ell(\l^*) > r-q+1$.
\end{theorem} \noindent We postpone the proof of our main result to Sub-section.~\ref{proof}.
In the case with $g=1/2$, the weight~\eqref{HWw} reads
\[w_{1/2}(\l)=\binom{(N-1)/2}{k_2}\binom{k_1+k_2}{k_1}^{-1}, \qquad \l=(1^{k_1}2^{k_2}) \vdash N\] which is exactly the formula derived by Chaturvedi and Srinivasan in their microscopic interpretation of semion statistics~\cite{chat}. For $g=1/3$, \[w_{1/3}(\l)= \binom{(N-1)/3}{k_2+k_3}\binom{k_1+k_2+k_3}{k_1}^{-1} 2^{k_2}, \qquad \l=(1^{k_1}2^{k_2}3^{k_3}) \vdash N, \] formula obtained by Murthy and Shankar using a different approach~\cite{neg}.
From the expression~\eqref{HWw}, we underline the following features: \begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)] the weights $w_g (\l)$ are fractional and non-negative definite,
\item[(2)] the weights $w_g(\l)$ depend only upon $P \coloneqq (N-1)/r$ and the difference $r-q$,
\item[(3)] the allowed occupation number for a single-state does not exceed $r-q+1$ and \emph{not} $1/g$ whenever $q\ne 1$. We recall, however, that the average occupation number is less than $1/g \leq r-q+1$~\cite{ref3},
\item[(4)] Since the binomial coefficient $\binom{P}{\ell(\l)-k_1}$ in~\eqref{HWw} vanishes if $P < \sum_{i=2}^m k_i$ , the corresponding configuration does not contribute to the counting.
\end{enumerate} The last observation is crucial. It stipulates that a necessary condition for permissible configurations is that the number of states occupied by two particles or more is less than or equal to $P$. In other words, the Ferrers diagram of the partition $(2^{k_{2}} \ldots (r-q+1)^{k_{r-q+1}})$, extracted from $\l$, must fit inside the rectangle $[P \times (r-q+1)]$.
Let us incorporate the above-formulated rules as follows:
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Generalized Exclusion Principle}.
\emph{A configuration of shape $ \l \vdash n$ is admissible if and only if the following constraints are fulfilled:}
\begin{enumerate}[leftmargin=5cm]
\item[$C_1$\; \emph{:}] \quad $\ell(\l) \leq K$ \; \quad (\emph{by definition}),
\item[$C_2$\; \emph{:}] \quad $\ell(\l^*) \leq r-q+1$ \quad (\emph{at most $r-q+1$ particles per state}),
\item[$C_3$\; \emph{:}] \quad $\displaystyle \sum_{i=2}^m k_i \leq \frac{N-1}{r} \leq \frac{K-1}{q}$ \quad ($w_g(\l) \neq 0$ \emph{and} $d_N \geq 1$). \end{enumerate}
Therefore, the exclusion operates not only on the ``microscopic'' level (condition $C_2$), but also on the ``macroscopic'' level (condition $C_3$). To illustrate, we implement this in two specific examples. First, let, say, $g=1/3$ and $N=10$. Here the maximal allowed occupancy of a state is $3$. By the constraint $C_2$, 14 configurations may contribute (depending on $K \geq 4$), among which the configurations $(1^2 2^4)$, $(2^5)$, $(1 2^3 3)$ and $(2^2 3^2)$ are forbidden by the constraint $C_3$:
\begin{center}\qquad \quad \includegraphics[width=6cm]{ferrers.pdf}\end{center}
As a second example, take $g=3/5$ and $N=16$. Here the maximal allowed occupancy is again $3$. Among the 231 partitions of 16, only 10 may contribute to the total weight:
\begin{center}
{\footnotesize \begin{tabular}
{c||c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c}
% after \\: \hline or \cline{col1-col2} \cline{col3-col4} ...
$\lambda$ & $(1^{16})$ & $(1^{14} 2)$ & $(1^{12} 2^2)$ & $(1^{10} 2^3)$ & $(1^{13} 3)$ & $(1^{11} 2\,3)$ & $(1^9 2^2 3)$ & $(1^{10} 3^2)$ & $(1^7 3^3)$&$(1^8 2\,3^2)$\\
%&&&&&&&&&&\\
\hline
%&&&&&&&&&&\\
$w(\lambda)$ & $1$& $2/5$ & $12/91$ & $4/143$ & $3/14$ & $1/13$ & $1/55$ & $1/22$ & $1/120$& $2/165$ \\
\end{tabular},}
\end{center}
each of which contributes only if its length is less than or equal to $K \geq 10$. We check readily that summing the contributions of all allowed configurations yields $\binom{K+6}{16}=W_{3/5}(k,16)$.
It is worth noting that, in view of the constraints $C_2$ and $C_3$, we can distinguish infinitely many families of $g$-ons systems according to $P=(N-1)/r$ and the difference $ r-q $. Indeed, representing an $N$-particle system fulfilling FES$_g$ by the pair $(N,g=q/r)$, two systems $(N,g=q/r)$ and $(N',g')$ are subject to the same exclusion rules if there exist an integer $j >0$ not a multiple of $r-q$ such that
\be g'=\frac{j}{r-q+j}, \quad \hbox{and} \quad
\frac{N'-1}{r-q+j}=\frac{N-1}{r}.\ee
The semions, for example, belong to the family with $g=j/(j+1)$, the \emph{semionic family}. Clearly, the Bose and Fermi statistics are recovered in the limits $j=0$ and $j \to \infty$ respectively.
\begin{proposition} \label{prop3}
For $N \leq K$, the number of permissible configurations is \be \label{conf} \binom{(N-1)/r +r-q}{r-q}. \ee
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Clearly, when $N \leq K$ the condition $C_1$ and the inequality in the right of the constraint $C_3$ are satisfied. Thus, a configuration $\l$ is likely if and only if the inequality in the left of the condition $C_3$ holds true. Therefore, the number of allowed configurations is the number of solutions of $k_2 + k_3 + \cdots + k_m \leq (N-1)/r$ in nonnegative integers. The result follows from the known fact that the number of solutions of $x_1 + x_2 + \cdots + x_k \leq p$ is given by $\binom{p+k}{k}$ (cf.~\cite[p.103]{vanLint}). \end{proof}
%==============================
By way of comparison, the exact exclusion rules for the Gentile statistics are, in addition to $C_1$, $\ell(\l^*) \leq G$ and $N \leq G K$. Thus, the number of permitted configurations is simply that of the partitions of $N$ with no more than $K$ parts; no part exceeding $G$. This number is the coefficient of $q^N$ in the Gaussian polynomial $\left[ \!{K+G \atop K} \!\right]_q$~\cite[Chap.3]{Andr}. When $N\leq K$, this reduces to the number of partitions with largest part not exceeding $G$. We also emphasize that if $G=r-q+1$, then $W_G(K,N)$ majorizes $W_g(K,N)$ since the exclusion principle of FES is more restrictive.
\subsubsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{HWweight}\label{s4}}
\label{proof}
To prove Theorem~\ref{HWweight}, we need the following identity:
\begin{lemma} Let $P$, $n$ and $k$ be positive integers. Then
\be \label{HF} \binom{k P}{n}= \sum_{\{l_i\}} \frac{P!}{l_1! \cdots l_k!(P-l_1- \cdots -l_k)!}
\prod_{i=1}^k \binom{k}{i}^{l_i}, \ee where the sum runs over all $k$-tuples $(l_1, \ldots , l_k)$ subject to the constraint $l_1+2l_2 + \ldots +k l_k =n $. \end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We shall again use the technique of generating function. Let $z$ be an indeterminate. On one hand, we have by application of the binomial theorem \be \label{ex1} (1+z)^{kP}=\sum_{n=0}^{kP}\binom{kP}{n} z^n,\ee and, on the other hand, by the well-known multinomial theorem: \bea \nonumber (1+z)^{kP}&=&\left((1+z)^k\right)^P = \left(\sum_{i=0}^k \binom{k}{i}z^i\right)^P = \sum_{l_0 + l_1 + \cdots l_k=P} \frac{P!}{l_0! \, l_1! \, \cdots l_k!}\prod_{i=0}^k \left( \binom{k}{i}z^i \right)^{l_i} \\
\label{ex2} &=& \sum_{(l_1 , \ldots , l_k)} \left(\frac{P!}{ l_1! \, \cdots l_k! \, (P-l_1-l_2-\cdots l_k)! }\prod_{i=0}^k \binom{k}{i}^{l_i}\right) \; z^{l_1+2l_2+\cdots +k l_k}. \eea The identity~\eqref{HF} follows by equating the coefficients of $z^n$ in the two expansions~\eqref{ex1} and~\eqref{ex2}.\end{proof} \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{HWweight}] Inserting the weight $w_g(\l)$, the RHS of \eqref{Wbis} can be displayed as \[ \sum_{{\l \vdash N \atop \ell(\l^*) \leq r-q+1}} \left(
\frac{P!}{k_2! \cdots k_{r-q+1}!(P-k_2-\cdots-k_{r-q+1})!} \prod_{i=1}^{r-q}
{{r-q}\choose i}^{k_{i+1}} \right) {{K}\choose \ell(\l)}, \] where $P=(N-1)/r$. Taking into account that $\ell(\l)=\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}k_{i}=N-\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}ik_{i+1}$
and putting $s=\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}ik_{i+1}$ (the integer $s$ ranges
from 0 to $(r-q)P$ since $k_{r-q+1} \leq P$), we
re-express the last formula as a double sum:
\be \label{A2} \sum_{s=0}^{(r-q)P} \left( \sum_{\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}ik_{i+1}=s}\frac{P!}{k_2! \cdots k_{r-q+1}!(P-k_2-\cdots-k_{r-q+1})!} \prod_{i=1}^{r-q} {{r-q}\choose i}^{k_{i+1}}\right) {{K}\choose N-s}.\ee Now we make the change of summation indices $l_i=k_{i+1}$ to write the inner sum as the RHS of formula~\eqref{HF}:
\be \label{A3} \sum_{\sum_{i=1}^{r-q}i l_{i}=s}\frac{P!}{l_1! \cdots
l_{r-q}!(P-l_1-\cdots-l_{r-q})!} \prod_{i=1}^{r-q} {{r-q}\choose i}^{l_{i}} = {{(r-q)P}\choose s}.
\ee
We deduce finally that the RHS of Eq.~\eqref{Wbis} reads \be \label{Vander} \sum_{s=0}^{(r-q)P}{{(r-q)P}\choose s}{{K}\choose N-s}={{K+(r-q)P}\choose N}=W_g(K,N), \ee where, to obtain the last equality, we employed the well-known Vandermonde's formula for binomial coefficients~\cite{vander}. \end{proof}
We stress, finally, that for $g>1$ ($r<q$), one may follow the proof above to check that $W_g(K,N)$ can as well be formally written in the form~\eqref{Wbis}, but the constraint of maximal occupancy became relaxed and the weights \emph{inevitably negative} for some configurations. Indeed, in this case, the weights are not positive definite since $\binom{r-q}{i}<0$ for odd $i$.
%=========================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{leinas}
J.M. Leinaas, J. Myrheim, ``On the theory of identical particles,'' Nuovo
Cimento 37B (1977) 1--23. For an earlier work on the subject see: M.G.G.
Laidlaw, C.M. de Witt, ``Feynman Functional Integrals for Systems of
Indistinguishable Particles,'' Phys. Rev D3 (1971) 1375.
\bibitem{poly}
A.P. Polychronakos, ``Nonrelativistic Bosonization and Fractional
Statistics,'' Nucl. Phys. B324 (1989) 597.
\bibitem{Hald}
F.D. Haldane, ``Fractional statistics in arbitrary dimensions: A
generalization of the Pauli principle,'' {\it Phys. Rev. Lett}. {\bf 67} 937 (1991).
\bibitem{ref2}
A. D. de Veigy and S. Ouvry, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 600 (1994).
\bibitem{ref3}
Y.-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 922 (1994).
\bibitem{ref4}
S. B. Isakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2150 (1994).
\bibitem{ref5}
M. V. N. Murthy and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3331 (1994).
\bibitem{ref6}
M. V. N. Murthy and R. Shankar (2013), \emph{Exclusion Statistics: From Pauli to Haldane}, Report of The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India, \href{http://www.imsc.res.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/334}{http://www.imsc.res.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/334}
\bibitem{CS}
N. R. Cooper and S. H. Simon, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} 114, 106802 (2015), \arxiv{1411.4168} [cond-mat.quant-gas].
\bibitem{anghel}
D. V. Anghel, Phys. Scr. 2012, 014079. \arxiv{1207.6534}
\bibitem{anghel2}
D. V. Anghel, G. A. Nemnes, and F. Gulminelli, \emph{Phys. Rev. E} 88:042150 (2013). \arxiv{1303.5493} [cond-mat.stat-mech].
\bibitem{Hu}
Y.~Hu, S.~D.~Stirling, and Y-S. Wu. \emph{Phys. Rev.} B \textbf{89}, 115133 (2014)
\bibitem{Poly}
A.P. Polychronakos, Probabilities and path-integral realization of exclusion statistics, {\it Phys. Lett}. B {\bf 365}, 202 (1996)~;
\bibitem{neg}
M. V. N. Murthy, R. Shankar, Phys. Rev B {\bf 60} (9), 1999. \arxiv{cond-mat/9903278}.
\bibitem{gent}
G. Gentile, {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 17} 493 (1940) ; {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 19} 109 (1942).
\bibitem{stegun}
M.~Abramowitz and I.~A.~Stegun, (eds), \emph{Handbook of Mathematical Functions},
Dover Publications, INC. New York 1965.
\bibitem{vanLint}
J.H. van Lint and R.M. Wilson, \emph{A Course in Combinatorics}, Cambridge University Press 1992.
\bibitem{Nayak}
C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett}. {\bf 73}, 2740 (1994)
\bibitem{chat} S. Chaturvedi and V. Srinivasan, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett}. \textbf{78}, 4316 (1997).
\bibitem{fahssi}
N.-E.~Fahssi, \emph{Polynomial triangles revisited}. \arxiv{1202.0228} [math.CO] (July 2012).
\bibitem{Andr}G. Andrews, \textit{The theory of partitions}, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
\bibitem{vander} R.~Askey, \emph{Orthogonal polynomials and special functions}, Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, 21, Philadelphia, 1975, PA: SIAM, pp. viii+110.
\bibitem{wilf}
H. S. Wilf, \emph{Generatingfunctionology}, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1994. Available
at \texttt{http://www.cis.upenn.edu/$\sim$wilf/}.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{abstract}
This paper is a rigorous revision of the combinatorics of fractional exclusion statistics (FES). More specifically, using combinatorial identities, we show that FES can be viewed as ball-in-box models with appropriate weighting of occupancy configurations (merely represented by a partition of the total number of particles). As a consequence, the following exact statement of the generalized Pauli principle is derived: for an $N$-particles system exhibiting FES of extended parameter \mbox{$g=q/r$} ($q$ and $r$ are co-prime integers such that $0 < q \leq r$), we found that the allowed occupation number of a state is smaller than or equal to $r-q+1$ and \emph{not} to $1/g$ whenever $q\neq 1$ and, moreover, the global occupancy shape is admissible if the number of states occupied by at least two particles is less than or equal to $(N-1)/r$ ($N \equiv 1 \mod r$). These counting rules allow distinguishing infinitely many families of FES systems depending on the parameter $g$ and the size $N$. As an application of the main result, we study the probability distributions of occupancy configurations. For instance, the number of occupied states is found to be a hypergeometric random variable. Closed-form expressions for the expectation values and variances in the thermodynamic limit are presented. By way of comparison, we obtain parallel results regarding the Gentile intermediate statistics and demonstrate subtle similarities and contrasts with respect to FES.
\\
%\noindent PACS numbers: 05.30.Pr, 02.10.Ox\\
\end{abstract}
\maketitle
\tableofcontents
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\section{The state-occupancy distributions in the thermodynamic limit} \label{s5} In Balls-in-Boxes models, a problem of interest is the statistics of occupation patterns, for example, the probability distributions of occupied/vacant cells or those accommodating a fixed number of balls, etc. In this section, we comparatively investigate these questions and more for FES and GS, and give a probabilistic application of our main result to the statistics of occupancies in the thermodynamic limit (i.e. $ N, K \to \infty $ and $ N / K $ is held bounded).
\subsection{Two probability measures} The combinatorial expression~\eqref{Wbis} suggest the following probability measures on the set of partitions of $N$, \be \label{prob} \p_\alpha(\l) = \frac{w_\alpha(\l )}{W_\alpha(K,N)}\, \frac{\ell(\l)!}{k_1! \, k_2! \cdots k_N!} \binom{K}{\ell(\l)},\ee the Haldane measure ($\alpha \equiv g$) and the Gentile measure ($\alpha \equiv G$). We regard $\p_\alpha (\l)$ as the probability of configuration $\l$. Actually, the probability so defined is the joint distribution of the random variables $k_2,k_3, \ldots,k_m$ ($m=r-q+1$ or $G$). For the semionic family and GS$_2$, we have \bea \label{probg} \p_{g=1/2} (\l) &=& \dfrac{1}{ \binom{P+K}{N}} \binom{P}{k_2} \binom{K}{N-k_2}, \\ \label{probG} \p_{G=2} (\l) &=& \frac{1}{W_{G=2}(K,N)} \binom{N-k_2}{k_2} \binom{K}{N-k_2} , \eea respectively.
Interestingly, the distribution~\eqref{probg} shows that $k_2$ (or $\ell(\l)=N-k_2)$ is a usual \emph{hypergeometric} random variable of parameters $P$, $P+K$ and $N$, that is, $\p_{1/2}(\l)$ describes the probability of getting $k_2$ successes in $N$ draws without replacement where the sample population is $P+K$. Each draw is either success or failure and the population consists of exactly $P$ successes~\cite{feller}. More generally, we show that the number of occupied states follows a hypergeometric law with parameters $K$, $(r-q)P+K$ and $N$; see Eqs. \eqref{A2}, \eqref{A3} and \eqref{Vander}. On the other hand, the distribution~\eqref{probG} relative to GS$_{2}$ is unusual.
Consider now the average number of states with $i$ particles $$ \langle k_i \rangle_\alpha = \sum_{\l \vdash n}k_i \p_\alpha (\l), \quad (\alpha \equiv g,G ),$$ and set \be \kappa_i^{(\alpha)} \coloneqq \lim\limits_{{N,K \to \infty \atop N/K=r\r}} \frac{1}{K} \langle k_i \rangle_\alpha,\ee for the proportion of states accommodating $i$ particles. The variable $\r$ controls the thermodynamic limit. We also define the normalized variance:
\be \nu_i^{(\alpha)} \coloneqq \lim\limits_{{N,K \to \infty \atop N/K=r\r}} \frac{1}{K}\left(\langle k_i ^2 \rangle_\alpha -\langle k_i \rangle_\alpha^2\right). \ee These limits exist for both GS and FES as we will show.
Using the expressions of the expectation value and the variance of hypergeometric distributions~\cite{feller}, we find the thermodynamic limit of the normalized mean and variance of the number of occupied states:
\be \lim\limits_{{N,K \to \infty \atop N/K=r\r}} \frac{1}{K}\langle \ell(\l) \rangle_g = \frac{r \r}{1+(r-q) \r} ,\ee and \be \lim\limits_{{N,K \to \infty \atop N/K=r\r}} \frac{1}{K}\left(\langle \ell(\l) ^2 \rangle_g -\langle \ell(\l) \rangle_g^2 \right) = \frac{ r (r-q)(1-q \r )\r ^2}{(1+
(r-q)\r)^3}, \ee where $\r = P/K$. Note that $\r$ ranges in the interval $(0,1/q)$ due to the constraint $C_3$. For the semion family $g=(j-1)/j$, we find
\bea \nonumber \kappa_1^{(g)}(\r) = \frac{j \r (1-\r)}{1+\r},&& \quad \kappa_2^{(g)} (\r) =\frac{j \r^2}{1+\r}, \\ \nonumber \kappa_0^{(g)} (\r)= \frac{1-(j-1)\r}{1+\r},\qquad && \quad \nu_2^{(g)} (\r )= \frac{j(1-(j-1)\r ) \r ^2}{(1+\r)^3}.\eea
For $r-q\geq 2$, we do not have such explicit expressions. As for the Gentile statistics, we show the following
\begin{proposition} \label{Gent} In the thermodynamic limit, the mean number of states with $i$ particles is given by \be \label{asym} \kappa_i^{(G)} (\r) = \frac{\big(1-x(\r)\big)x(\r)^i}{1-x(\r)^{G+1}},\ee for $i=0,1, \ldots , G$, where $\r=N/(GK)$ and $x(\r)$ is the (unique) positive solution of \be \label{eq} G \r = \frac{t \left(1-(G+1) \, t^G + G \, t^{G+1}\right)}{(1-t)
\left(1-t^{G+1}\right)}.\ee Moreover, the following duality relation holds true \be \label{dua} \kappa_i^{(G)}(1-\r)=\kappa_{G-i}^{(G)}(\r).\ee \end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The mean number of states with $i$ particles under the Gentile measure is given by
\bea \nonumber \langle k_i \rangle_G &=& \frac{1}{W_G(K,N)} \sum_{\sum_j jk_j=N} \frac{ k_i K!}{k_1! \cdots k_G!(K-k_1- \cdots -k_G)!}\\
\nonumber &=& \frac{1}{W_G(K,N)} \sum_{\sum_j jk_j=N} \frac{ K (K-1)!}{k_1! \cdots (k_i-1)! \cdots k_G!(K-k_1- \cdots -k_G)!} \\
\nonumber &=& \frac{K}{W_G(K,N)} \sum_{\sum_j jr_j=N-i} \frac{ (K-1)!}{r_1! \cdots r_i! \cdots r_G!(K-1-r_1- \cdots -r_G)!} \\
&=& K \dfrac{W_G(K-1,N-i)}{W_G(K,N)}, \quad \hbox{for all $K$ and $N$.} \eea
To compute the thermodynamic limit, we use the following asymptotic estimate~\cite{fahssi} : \[ W_G(K,N) \sim \frac{(1+x+x^2+ \cdots + x^G)^K}{x^{N+1}\sqrt{2\pi C K }} , \quad \hbox{uniformly as $N,K \to \infty$, and $N/K$ finite,}\] where $x=x(\r)$ is the positive real solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq} and $C$ is a constant depending on $x$ only. Whence,
\[\k^{(G)}_i(\r)= \lim\limits_{{N,K \to \infty \atop N/K=G\r}}\dfrac{W_G(K-1,N-i)}{W_G(K,N)}= \frac{x(\r)^i}{1+x(\r)+x(\r)^2 + \cdots + x(\r)^G}= \frac{\big(1-x(\r)\big) x(\r)^i}{1-x(\r)^{G+1}}, \] as desired.
The duality~\eqref{dua} follows immediately from the symmetry relation: $W_G(K,N)=W_G(K,GK-N)$~\cite{fahssi2}.\end{proof} Consequently, the normalized average number of occupied states under the Gentile measure is \[ \sum_{i=1}^G \kappa_{i}^{(G)}=\frac{x(\r) \left(x(\r)^G-1\right)}{x(\r)^{G+1}-1}.\]
Closed explicit expressions are possible for $G \leq 4$. For instance,
\bea \nonumber \kappa_1^{(G=2)} (\r) &=& -\frac{1}{3}+
{1 \over 3} \sqrt{1+12 \r -12 \r ^2
}, \\ \nonumber \kappa_2^{(G=2)} (\r)&=& \frac{1}{6}+\r-\frac{1}{6} \sqrt{1+12 \r -12 \r ^2}\\
\nonumber \kappa_0^{(G=2)} (\r) &=& {7 \over 6}- \r -\frac{1}{6} \sqrt{1+12 \r -12 \r ^2} . \eea
%==================================
%================================
\begin{figure}
\centering
% Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{k0123.pdf}
\caption{(Color online) The mean numbers $\kappa_0$, $\kappa_1$, $\kappa_2$, $\kappa_3$ vs $\r$, for FES$_{1/3}$ and GS$_3$.}\label{comp3} \end{figure}
%=======================================
Comparing $\kappa_i^{(\alpha)}$ for semion statistics and GS$_2$, we see in Fig.~\ref{kappa2} that qualitatively both models display a very close behavior. Also, the fluctuations of $k_2$ under both measures are comparable, although the distribution is slightly more dispersed under the Haldane one.
\begin{figure}
\centering
% Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
\includegraphics[width=13cm]{kvar2.pdf}\\
\caption{(Color online) The normalized mean numbers $\kappa_i$ ($i=0,1,2$) and The normalized variance $\nu_2$ vs. $\r$, for semions and GS$_2$.} \label{kappa2}
\end{figure}
%=================================
Particularly at half filling ($\r=1/2$), we highlight the following points: (i) For semions statistics and GS$_2$ all the $\kappa_i^{(\alpha)}$ coincide. This feature, though systematic for GS, is not shared by FES$_g$ with $r-q\geq 2$ (Fig.\ref{comp3}). (ii) It is easy to see that the unique positive solution of Eq.~\eqref{eq} for $\r=1/2$ is $x(1/2)=1$, and, consequently, $\kappa_i^{(G)} (1/2) = 1/(G+1)$ for all $i=0, \ldots G$, illustrating the uniform distribution of occupancies under Gentile measure at half-filling, (iii) If $g=1/G$, the mean numbers of occupied states are the same ($=G/(G+1)$) under the two measures (Fig.~\ref{ell3}).
\section{Conclusion}\label{s6}
%======================================================
\begin{figure}
\centering
% Requires \usepackage{graphicx}
\includegraphics[width=6cm]{comp.pdf}\\
\caption{(Color online) The normalized mean number of occupied states vs. $\r$ in the thermodynamic limit, for FES$_{1/3}$ and GS$_3$.} \label{ell3}
\end{figure}
%========================================================
In the present work, we have shown that FES$_{q/r}$ can be regarded as describing ideal particles with appropriate weighting function on the set of occupancy configurations and we have derived the exact statement of the generalized exclusion principle. We argue that the weighting ``absorbs'' the interaction between particles
In the Haldane's seminal paper, the interpolating formula~\eqref{HW} was not derived from a concrete counting procedure as is the case for conventional statistics or GS. The author believes that any combinatorial interpretation should shed more light on the exclusion process. In Ref.~\cite{fahssi}, the author presented several interpretations of $W_G(K,N)$ (the so-called polynomial coefficients, or extended binomial coefficients), namely as number of restricted integer compositions, as score in drawing balls, as counting certain directed lattice paths or spin chain models, etc. It would be instructive to seek similar interpretations for $W_{g}(K,N)$. For example, in terms of generalized integer compositions, it has been observed~\cite[Sequence A078812]{OEIS} that $W_{g=1/2}(K,N)$ is the number of ways of writing $K$ as the sum of $P+1$ strictly positive integers when there are 1 kind of part 1, 2 kinds of part 2: $2_1$ and $2_2$, and so on~\footnote{See the comment of Emeric Deutsch on the sequence A078812~\cite{OEIS}.}. For example, $W_{1/2}(4,2) = 10$ since there are 10 such compositions of 4: $(1,3_1)$, $(1,3_2)$, $(1,3_3)$, $(3_1,1)$, $(3_2,1)$, $(3_3,1)$, $(2_1,2_1)$, $(2_1,2_2)$, $(2_2,2_1)$ and $(2_2,2_2)$. As usual in combinatorics, the main goal is to find a one-to-one correspondence between the set of such compositions and the set of occupancy configurations for semions.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{thebibliography}{99}
\bibitem{leinas}
J.M. Leinaas, J. Myrheim, ``On the theory of identical particles,'' Nuovo
Cimento 37B (1977) 1--23. For an earlier work on the subject see: M.G.G.
Laidlaw, C.M. de Witt, ``Feynman Functional Integrals for Systems of
Indistinguishable Particles,'' Phys. Rev D3 (1971) 1375.
\bibitem{poly}
A.P. Polychronakos, ``Nonrelativistic Bosonization and Fractional
Statistics,'' Nucl. Phys. B324 (1989) 597.
\bibitem{Hald}
F.D. Haldane, ``Fractional statistics in arbitrary dimensions: A
generalization of the Pauli principle,'' {\it Phys. Rev. Lett}. {\bf 67} 937 (1991).
\bibitem{ref2}
A. D. de Veigy and S. Ouvry, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 72}, 600 (1994).
\bibitem{ref3}
Y.-S. Wu, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 922 (1994).
\bibitem{ref4}
S. B. Isakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 2150 (1994).
\bibitem{ref5}
M. V. N. Murthy and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 73}, 3331 (1994).
\bibitem{ref6}
M. V. N. Murthy and R. Shankar (2013), \emph{Exclusion Statistics: From Pauli to Haldane}, Report of The Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India, \href{http://www.imsc.res.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/334}{http://www.imsc.res.in/xmlui/handle/123456789/334}
\bibitem{CS}
N. R. Cooper and S. H. Simon, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett.} 114, 106802 (2015), \arxiv{1411.4168} [cond-mat.quant-gas].
\bibitem{anghel}
D. V. Anghel, Phys. Scr. 2012, 014079. \arxiv{1207.6534}
\bibitem{anghel2}
D. V. Anghel, G. A. Nemnes, and F. Gulminelli, \emph{Phys. Rev. E} 88:042150 (2013). \arxiv{1303.5493} [cond-mat.stat-mech].
\bibitem{Hu}
Y.~Hu, S.~D.~Stirling, and Y-S. Wu. \emph{Phys. Rev.} B \textbf{89}, 115133 (2014)
\bibitem{Poly}
A.P. Polychronakos, {\it Phys. Lett}. B {\bf 365}, 202 (1996)~; \emph{Generalized statistics in one dimension}, Les Houches
lectures, Summer 1998. \arxiv{hep-th/9902157}.
\bibitem{neg}
M. V. N. Murthy, R. Shankar, Phys. Rev B {\bf 60} (9), 1999. \arxiv{cond-mat/9903278}.
\bibitem{gent}
G. Gentile, {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 17} 493 (1940) ; {\it Nuovo Cimento} {\bf 19} 109 (1942).
\bibitem{stegun}
M.~Abramowitz and I.~A.~Stegun, (eds), \emph{Handbook of Mathematical Functions},
Dover Publications, INC. New York 1965.
\bibitem{vanLint}
J.H. van Lint and R.M. Wilson, \emph{A Course in Combinatorics}, Cambridge University Press 1992.
\bibitem{Nayak}
C. Nayak and F. Wilczek, {\it Phys. Rev. Lett}. {\bf 73}, 2740 (1994)
\bibitem{chat} S. Chaturvedi and V. Srinivasan, \emph{Phys. Rev. Lett}. \textbf{78}, 4316 (1997).
\bibitem{fahssi}
N.-E.~Fahssi, \emph{Polynomial triangles revisited}. \arxiv{1202.0228} [math.CO] (July 2012).
\bibitem{fahssi2} N-E.~Fahssi,
Some Identities Involving Polynomial Coefficients,
\emph{Fibonacci Quart.} \textbf{54} (2016), no. 2, 125--136.
\bibitem{Andr}G. Andrews, \textit{The theory of partitions}, Cambridge University Press, 1984.
\bibitem{feller} W. Feller, \emph{An introduction to Probability Theory and its Applications} (vol. 1, 3rd ed.), New York: Jhon Wiley.
\bibitem{vander} R.~Askey, \emph{Orthogonal polynomials and special functions}, Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, 21, Philadelphia, 1975, PA: SIAM, pp. viii+110.
\bibitem{OEIS} Sloane, N. J. A. \emph{The On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences}. Published electronically at \href{http://oeis.org/}{http://oeis.org/}
\bibitem{wilf}
H. S. Wilf, \emph{Generatingfunctionology}, 2nd ed., Academic Press, San Diego, 1994. Available
at \texttt{http://www.cis.upenn.edu/$\sim$wilf/}.
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}
In Sec.~\ref{s2}, we establish a basic formula giving the combinatorial weight for multiplicative models, and review the occurrence of negative probabilities in the microscopic formulation of FES. In Sec.~\ref{s3}, we state our main result (Theorem~\ref{HWweight}) and interpret its consequences. In Sec.~\ref{s4}, we prove Theorem~\ref{HWweight}. Finally, some conclusions and discussions are presented in Sec.~\ref{s5}.