You are on page 1of 221

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

Searching for doubly charged Higgs bosons at the LHC


in a 3-3-1 model
J.E. Cieza Montalvo a , Nelson V. Cortez Jr. b, , J. S Borges a ,
Mauro D. Tonasse c
a Instituto de Fsica, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro,
Rua So Francisco Xavier 524, 20559-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
b Rua Justino Boschetti 40, 02205-050 So Paulo, SP, Brazil
c Campus Experimental de Registro, Universidade Estadual Paulista,
Rua Tamekishi Takano 5, 11900-000 Registro, SP, Brazil

Received 24 April 2006; received in revised form 12 August 2006; accepted 18 August 2006
Available online 7 September 2006

Abstract
Using a peculiar version of the SU(3)L U(1)N electroweak model, we investigate the production of
doubly charged Higgs boson at the Large Hadron Collider. Our results include branching ratio calculations
for the doubly charged Higgs and for one of the neutral scalar bosons of the model.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
PACS: 11.15.Ex; 12.60.Fr; 14.80.Cp

1. Introduction
In the last few years we have seen a tremendous experimental progress in the realm of the
weak interactions. However, these advances do not attain the scalar sector yet. This is the sense
in which LHC (Large Hadron Collider) facilities may shed some light especially on the Higgs
boson. One of the main ingredients of the Standard Model is the Higgs mechanism which, in
principle, explains how the particles gain masses through the introduction of an isodoublet scalar
field. The scalar field is the responsible for the spontaneous breakdown of the gauge symmetry.
After electroweak symmetry breaking, the interaction of this scalar with the gauge bosons and
* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: nelson.v.cortez@gmail.com (N.V. Cortez Jr.).


0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.013

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

fermions generate the mass of the particles. In this process there remains a single neutral scalar,
manifesting itself as the Higgs particle.
The Standard Model possibly is a low energy effective theory which must be generalized by
some GUT (grand unified theory). However, there are several motivations to extend the electroweak theory below the GUT scale. Supersymmetric models, for example, provide a solution
to the hierarchy problem through the cancellation of the quadratic divergences via fermionic and
bosonic loop contributions [1]. The little Higgs model, recently proposed, predicts that the Higgs
boson is a pseudo-Goldstone boson of some approximate broken global symmetry [2]. Therefore, this model is also able to solve the naturalness problem of the Higgs mass. One of the main
motivations for the left-right models and for the study of their phenomenological consequences
is that in which the Higgs triplet representation furnishes a seesaw type neutrino mass matrix associated with the presence of a doubly charged Higgs boson [3]. Therefore, these models suggest
a route to understanding the pattern of the neutrino masses.
Doubly charged Higgs bosons appear in several popular extensions of the Standard Model
such as left-right symmetric models [3] and Higgs triplet models [4]. However, there is another
interesting class of electroweak models which also predict particles like that. This class of models
is called 3-3-1 models [5,6]. This is the simplest chiral extension of the Standard Model. It
is able to solve the fermion familys replication problem through of a simple relation between
the number of colors and the anomaly cancellation mechanism. It is important to notice that a
solution to this problem is not furnished even in the context of the GUTs. The 3-3-1 models have
other interesting features, as for example the upper bound on the Weinberg mixing angle, through
the relation sin2 W < 1/4. This feature does not happen in any kind of others electroweak models
except GUTs, where the value of sin2 W is predicted. This result leads to an upper bound for
the energy scale of the model when this parameter is evolved to high values [7]. In a similar
fashion as occurs in left-right model, the seesaw mechanism can be naturally incorporated in
some versions of the 3-3-1 models [8].
No Higgs bosons have yet been found. In the meantime, it is the last brick that is lacking to
finish the construction of the building of the standard electroweak theory. Besides, it is possible
that the Higgs sector brings to light a non-standard physics.
Since that the 3-3-1 models are good candidates for physics beyond the Standard Model,
it is interesting to evaluate if the future accelerators will produce events in sufficient numbers
to detect some of the 3-3-1 Higgs bosons. In particular, there is an increasing interest in the
phenomenology associated with doubly charged Higgs bosons, a kind that appears in models that
admit scalars in triplet representation of the gauge group [9]. Here we are interested in one of such
version of the 3-3-1 models for which the scalar fields come only in triplet representation [6,8].
It predicts three new neutrals, four single charged and two doubly charged Higgs bosons. These
scalars can be disclosed in relatively low energies, which make them interesting for searches in
the next generation of particle accelerators.
Our work is organized as follows. In Section 2 we summarize the relevant features of the
model, in Section 3 we present the cross section calculations and in Section 4 we give our conclusions.
2. Overview of the model
The underlying electroweak symmetry group is SU(3)L U(1)N , where N is the quantum
number of the U(1) group. Therefore, the left-handed lepton matter content is (a a La )TL transforming as (3, 0), where a = e, , is a family index (we are using primes for the interaction

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

eigenstates). LaL are lepton fields which can be the charge conjugates aR C [5], the antineutrinos
 C [10] or heavy leptons P + (P + = E + , M + , T + ) [6].
La
aL
aL
L
L
L
The model of Ref. [6] has the simplest scalar sector for 3-3-1 models. In this version the
charge operator is given by

Q 1
(1)
= (3 38 ) + N,
e
2
where 3 and 8 are the diagonal Gell-Mann matrices and e is the elementary electric charge. The
right-handed charged leptons are introduced in singlet representation of SU(3)L as 
aR (1, 1)
+
(1, 1).
and PaR
The quark sector is given by


u1
d




2
1
Q1L = d1 3,
(2)
,
QL = u 3 , ,
3
3

J1 L
J L
where = 2, 3, J1 and J are exotic quarks with electric charge 53 and 43 respectively. It must
be notice that the first quark family transforms differently from the two others under the gauge
group, which is essential for the anomaly cancellation mechanism [5].
The physical fermionic eigenstates rise by the transformations
L,R

aL,R = Aab bL,R ,

UL,R

=U

L,R

UL,R ,

L,R +
+
PaL,R
= Bab
PbL,R ,

DL,R

=D

L,R

DL,R ,

(3a)

JL,R

=J

L,R

JL,R ,

(3b)

where UL,R = (u c t)L,R , DL,R = (d s b)L,R , JL,R = (J1 J2 J3 )L,R and AL,R , B L,R , U L,R ,
DL,R , J L,R are arbitrary mixing matrices.
The minimal scalar sector contains the three scalar triplets
0
+

= 1 (3, 0),
(4)
=
(3, 1),
= (3, 1).

2+

++

The most general, gauge invariant and renormalizable Higgs potential, which conserves the leptobaryon number [11], is



2
2
2
V (, , ) = 21 + 22 + 23 + 1 + 2 + 3












+ 4 + 5 + 6 + 7





1

+ 8 + 9 + f ij k i j k + H.c. .
(5)
2
The neutral components of the scalars triplets (4) develop non-zero vacuum spectration val2 = (246 GeV)2 . This mechaues 0  = v ,  0  = v and  0  = v , with v2 + v2 = vW
nism generate the fermion and gauge boson masses [12]. The pattern of symmetry breaking


,

is SU(3)L U(1)N SU(2)L U(1)Y U(1)em . Therefore, we can expect v v , v .


In the potential (5) f and j (j = 1, 2, 3) are constants with dimension of mass and the i
(i = 1, . . . , 9) are adimensional constants with 3 < 0 and f < 0 from the positivity of the scalar
masses [12]. The and scalar triplets give masses to the ordinary fermions and gauge bosons,
while the scalar triplet gives masses to the new fermion and gauge bosons. In this work we are

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

using the eigenstates and masses (see Appendix B) of Ref. [12]. For others analysis of the 3-3-1
Higgs potential see Ref. [13].
Symmetry breaking is initiated when the scalar neutral fields are shifted as = v + + i ,
with = 0 , 0 , 0 . Thus, the physical neutral scalar eigenstates H10 , H20 , H30 and h0 are related
to the shifted fields as
 

 0 
H1

1 c s
(6a)
ih0 ,

,
H30 ,
vW s c

H20
and in the charged scalar sector we have
1+ = s H1+ ,

2+ = s H2+ ,

+ = c H1+ ,

+ = c H2+ ,

++ = s H ++ ,

(6b)

++ = c H ++ ,

(6c)

with the condition that v v , v in Eqs. (6a) and c = cos = v / v2 + v2 , s = sin ,




c = cos = v / v2 + v2 , s = sin , c = cos = v / v2 + v2 , s = sin . The H10 Higgs
boson in Eq. (6a) can be the Standard Model scalar boson, since its mass (see Appendix B) has
no dependence on the spectration value v [12].
The Yukawa interactions for leptons and quarks are, respectively,

L = Gab aL bR + Gab aL PbR
+ H.c.,




 u 



d 
LQ = Q 1L
+ Gd1i DiR
+
UiR + Fi
DiR
Gu1i UiR
Q L Fi
i

+ G Q 1L J1R +
j

j

G QL JR

+ H.c.

(7a)

(7b)

In Eqs. (7), as before mentioned a, b = e, , and = 2, 3.


Beyond the standard particles , Z and W the model predicts, in the gauge sector, one
neutral (Z  ), two single charged (V ) and two double charged (U ) gauge bosons. The interactions between the gauge and Higgs bosons are given by the covariant derivative


j


D i = i ig W .
j ig  N i B ,
2 i

(8)

and B are field tensors


where N are the U(1) charges for the Higgs triplets ( = , , ). W
are Gell-Mann matrices and g and g  are coupling constants
of SU(2) and U(1), respectively,
for SU(2) and U(1), respectively.
Introducing the eigenstates (3) and (6c) in the Lagrangians (7b) we obtain the Yukawa interactions as function of the physical eigenstates, i.e.,




1 1

c U e H1+ + v + s H10 c H20 e + s P + U P e H ++ M e GR e


L =
2 v



1

c V
+
P H2 + c e V eP H + v + H30 + ih0 P + M E GR P +
v
+ H.c.,

(9a)

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115







 
  
1
c s
c
s c
s
u
0
LQ =
+
+

U GR 1 +
V H1 + +
V u H20 M u U
2
v
v
v
v
v v





 
  
R 1 + c + s c V D H 0 + s c + s V D H 0 M d D
+ DG
1
2
v
v
v
v
v
v




c s
s
+ U GR
VCKM H1 +

V ud H1+ M d D
v
v
v





R c VCKM H + + s c V ud H M u U + H.c.,
+ DG
(9b)
1
1
v
v v


1

LJ = JGR J L N U L M u U + RDL M d D
2



L X2 + JJ L X0 J L M J GR J + H.c.,
+ U U L X1 + DD
(9c)
where GR = 1 + 5 , VLU VLD = VCKM , the CabibboKobayashiMaskawa mixing matrix, U e ,
U P e , V e , V eP , V u = VLU VLU , V d = VLD VLD and V ud = VLU VLD are arbitrary mixing
matrices, M e = diag(me m m ), M P = diag(mE mM mT ), M u = diag(mu mc mt ), M d =
diag(md ms mb ) and M J = diag(mJ1 mJ2 mJ3 ). In Eq. (9c) we have defined

s H2+ /v
N =
0
0

s H /v s H /v ,
s H /v s H /v

1 0 0
v + H30 + ih0
0 1 1,
X0
v
0 1 1
s H ++ /v

0
0

0
s H2 /v s H2 /v ,
R=
0
s H2 /v s H2 /v

0
0
c H2
1
X1 =
0
c H ++ c H ++ ,
v
0
c H ++ c H ++
c H
0
0

1
0
c H2+ c H2+ .
X2 =
v
0
c H2+ c H2+

(10a)

(10b)

(10c)

We call attention to the fact that non-standard field interactions violate leptonic number, as can
be seen from the Lagrangians (7b) and (8). However the total leptonic number is conserved [5].
3. Cross section production
The main mechanism for the production of Higgs particles in pp collisions occurs through
the mechanism of DrellYan and gluongluon fusion as shown in Fig. 1. In all calculations we
are considering that the charged fermionic mixing matrices [see Eqs. (3)] are diagonals. Using
the interaction Lagrangians (5) and (9) we first evaluate the differential cross section for the
DrellYan process, i.e., pp H ++ H through the exchange of , Z, Z  , H10 and H20 in the

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

Fig. 1. Feynman diagrams for production of doubly charged Higgs bosons via (a) DrellYan process, where
X = , Z, Z  , H10 , H20 and (b) gluongluon fusion.

s-channel. Therefore we obtain the differential cross section for this reaction as

d
1 
|M |2 + |MH 0 |2 + |MH 0 |2 + |MZ |2 + |MZ  |2 + 2 Re MH 0 MH 0 ,
=
2
1
2
1
2
d
64 s
where

d
H [1 (1) (s )mq v v ]2 + [2 (2) (s )]2 (v4 m2u + v4 m2d )
=
d cos
24
(2vW v v )2

 2
8 mq + m2H 4u 4t







2 Qq 2

2
2
2
2

+ 3
s 2mq s 4mH s + 2mq (t u)

sin W
s
+

H 2 2Z(Z  )

36 sin2 W cos2 W s (s m2Z(Z  ) + imZ(Z  ) Z(Z  ) )2


 q(q  )2

q(q  )2
8m4H gV
+ gA

 q(q  )2
 q(q  )2
q(q  )2
q(q  )2
+ 8m2H 2m2q t u gV
+ 8m4q gV
+ gA
+ gA
 q(q  )2
q(q  )2
q(q  )2
8m2q (t + u)
+ 8m2q s gA
gV
+ gA
 q(q  )2
 q(q  )2
q(q  )2
q(q  )2
+ 2s 2 gV
.
+ 2(t + u)
2 gV
+ gA
+ gA
Z,Z 

(11)

Here, s is the CM (center of mass) energy of the q q system. For the Standard Model parameters
we assume PDG values, i.e., mZ = 91.19 GeV, sin2 W = 0.2315, and mW = 80.33 GeV [14].
Z(Z  ) are the total width of the boson Z(Z  ) [15,16]. The velocity of the Higgs in the CM of the
process is denoted through H . The i (i = 1, 2) are the vertex strengths for H10 H H ++
and H20 H H ++ , respectively, while is one for H H ++ and the Z(Z  ) is for the
bosons Z(Z  )H H ++ . The analytical expressions for these vertex strengths are



1 = 2i 2 (6 + 9 )c2 + (22 + 9 )s2 s v




(12a)
+ c 2 5 c2 + 4 s2 v + f c s ,




2
2 = ic 2 (5 + 6 + 9 )c + 2(22 4 9 )s v + f c s ,
(12b)
 2

= e c s2 (p q) ,
(12c)

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

Z = e

4 sin2 W (v2 v2 ) v2
4(v2 + v2 ) sin W cos W

Z  = e

(p q) ,

(12d)

(10 sin2 W 1)v2 + (1 7 sin2 W )v2



(p q) .
4(v2 + v2 ) sin W 3 cos2 W (1 4 sin2 W )

(12e)

The Higgs parameters i (i = 1, . . . , 9) must run from 3 to +3 in order to allow perturbative calculations. For H0 ( = 2, 3) we take mH0 = (0.23.0) TeV, while we assume
mH 0 = 230 GeV for the Standard Model scalar one. It must be notice that here there is no con1

tribution from the interference between the scalar particle H10 and a vectorial one ( , Z or Z  ).
The kinematic invariant t and u are,




2
4m
4m2H
s

q
1
1 cos 1
,
t = m2q + m2H
(13a)
2
s
s




2
4m
4m2H
s

q
2
2
u = mq + mH
(13b)
1
1 + cos 1
.
2
s
s
The total cross section ( ) for the process pp H ++ H is related to the cross section ( ) of
the subprocess qq H ++ H through
=

1

ln min

qi =u,d,s,c min ln
min

d dy fqi

 y  y
e fqi e (, s ),

(14)

where min = s /s and fqi and fqi


are the structure functions of the quark and antiquark in the
proton, for which the factorization scale is taken equal to the center of mass energy of the q q
system and used in our numerical calculations.
Another form to produce a pair of doubly charged Higgs is via the gluongluon fusion through
the reaction gg H ++ H (see Fig. 1(b)). As the final state is neutral, the s-channel involves
the exchange of the three neutral Higgs H10 , H20 and H30 . The exchange of a photon is not allowed
by C conservation (Furrys theorem). Therefore, the differential cross section for gluongluon
fusion can be expressed by
1

d
|MH 0 |2 + |MH 0 |2 + |MH 0 |2
=
1
2
3
d
64 2 s



+ 2 Re MH 0 M 0 + Re MH 0 M 0 + Re MH 0 M 0 .
1

H2

H3

H3

(15)

In order to make explicit the different contributions to the elementary cross section, we will
present them separately. The quark-loop contributions involve the Higgs Hi , where i = 1, 2, 3,
which are exchanged in the s-channel. For the H10 we have
H 0
1

2


 




2
H ++

(1) 2 1 
2 

s 1
=
q1 mq Id  + s 
q1 q 2 + (4q 1)Iq 
s  q
8192 3
q

 



r
r
+q
+q
2
m2q q ln
ln2
2 .
r
r
q
q
q

(16)

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

We fix the scale parameter = 0.2 GeV and the appropriate scale where the strong coupling
constant s is evaluated as being equal to the center of mass energy of the subprocess, both, used
in our numerical calculations. The sums in Eq. (16) run over all generations where q = m2q /s

and rq = 1 1 4q . The q1 is the q qH
10 vertex strength,
mq
GR .
2vW

q1 = i

(17)

We also define the propagator for Higgs bosons,


(i) (s ) =

1
,
s m2Hi + imHi Hi

(18)

where H 0 are the total width of the H10 and H20 boson, with i = 1 for q = u, c, t, d, s, b and
i

i = 2 for u(c, t) or d(s, b), separately [16]. Eq. (18) defines also the propagator for H30 with
i = 3. However, H30 does not contribute to the DrellYan process.
For the Higgs H20 we have


2
 (2)  2 1
H ++

2 v
2 v


H 0 =

(
s
)

+
m
|Iq |2

m
s 2
q2
u
d
2
s q
v
v
8192 3


 

2
v v 2 
+ s
+
q2 q 2 + (4q 1)Iq 
v
v  q


 

v2
v2
r+q
2
2
+ 4
q2 ln
(19)
mu 2 + md 2 q ,
rq
v
v
q
20 vertex, i.e.:
where q2 is the strength of the q qH


v
v
i
q2 =
GR mu + md
.
2vW
v
v

(20)

The contribution of H30 to the cross section is




++
 (3)  2 

2
H



2 3
J 3 J 2 + (4J 1)IJ  ,
H 0 =

3
8192 3

(21)

J =J1 ,J2 ,J3

where J 3 describe the quark vertex with the Higgs H30 and 3 for the H30 with H , i.e.,
mJ
GR ,
2v


3 = 2iv (6 9 )s2 + (23 + 9 )c2 .

J 3 = i

(22a)
(22b)

We note that H30 decays only into exotic leptons and quarks because it becomes massive at the
first symmetry breaking. Therefore, the H30 total width is obtained from


H30 all = J0 J + J0 J + J0 J + 3P0 P + H0 0 H 0 + H0 H
1 1

+ H0 H
2
2

2 2

3 3

+ H0 H
1
2

+ U0 U ,

(23)

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

0 = (H 0 XY ). The partial widths are shown in Appendix A.


where XY
3
The total width of the decay of the Higgs H in quarks, leptons, standard charged gauge boson and charged Higgs (W H2 ), single charged Higgs (H1 H2 ), doubly charged gauge bosons
and a photon (U ), doubly charged bosons and Higgs (U h0 , U H10 , U H20 , U H30 ),
doubly charged bosons and Z or Z  (U Z, U Z  ), and charged extra gauge boson and Higgs
(V H1 ) is given by



+ q
+ J
+ e
H all = J
P + +
q
q
u,c,t J2,3
W H
H H
2,3 u,c,t

1 d,s,b

+ U

+ U
h0

+ U
Z

+ U
Z 

H10

U
+ V
H
1

H20

H30

(24)

with XY
= (H XY ) (see Appendix A for the partial widths).
The contribution for the interference of the H10 and H20 is given by

d H 0 H 0
1

4 1 2 k k (2) (s )ab
s
1
2
8
q ,q
u


ka1 kb2 ab

+i
2 + (4 1)Iq
2
s 2
 (a) (b)


k1 k2 k1 k2 v 2
v 2

m Iq m Iq
v u u v d d
s 2


ka1 kb2 v


+i
,
U 2 + (4U 1)Iqu D 2 + (4D 1)Iqd
2
v
v
(a)

k1 k(b)
k1 k2
2

m2q Iq

(25)

where , are the polarizations, k1,2 are the gluon momentum vectors, mqu are the masses of
the u, c, t quarks (5 MeV, 1.5 GeV and 175 GeV respectively), mqd are the masses of the d, s,
b quarks (9 MeV, 150 MeV and 5 GeV respectively) [14], is referred to all quarks and U for
the quark u, c, t and D for d, s, b respectively and is the antisymmetric tensor.
The contribution for the interference of H10 and H30 gives
d H 0 H 0
1

s4 1 3 q1 q3 (1) (s ) (3) a  b qa qb ab


1
2
i
2 + (4 1)Iq
=
2
256
q
 a b

q q

q(a) q(b)
2
i 1 2 2 + (4 1)Iq 1
,
2
s 2

(26)

and finally we have the following for the H20 and H30
d H 0 H 0
2

s4 2 3 q2 q3 (2) (s ) (3) (s )a  b qa qb ab


1
2
i
2 + 4(4 1)Iq
=
2
256
q



v 2
v 2
(a) (b)
q1 q2
m Iq m Iq
v u u v d d


qa1 qb2 v


+i
.
u 2 + (4u 1)Iqu d 2 + (4d 1)Iqu
2
v
v

(27)

10

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

The loop integrals involved in the evaluation of the elementary cross section can be expressed in
terms of the function Iq (q ) Iq which is defined through


dx
(1 x)x
Iq =
ln 1
x
q
0


q > 1/4,
1 4 arcsin2 [1/(2 q )],
=
2
2 [ln(r+q /rq ) + 2i] ln(r+q /rq ) , q < 1/4.
1

(28)

Here, q stands for the quarks running in the loop (Fig. 1(b)).
The total cross section ( ) for the process pp gg H H ++ is related to the total cross
section ( ) through the subprocess gg H H ++ , i.e.,
1

ln min




d dy G ey , Q2 G ey , Q2 (, s ),

=
min

(29)

ln min

where G(x, Q2 ) is the gluon structure function, for which the factorization scale is taken equal
to the center of mass energy of the subprocess and used in our numerical calculations.
4. Results and conclusions
In this work we have calculated the pair production of doubly charged Higgs by computing
the contributions due the DrellYan and quark loop processes. In Section 3 we have given the
analytical expressions that allow the numerical evaluations of these contributions and it was
showed that the dominant contribution come from the well-known DrellYan process. We have
presented the cross section for the process pp H H ++ involving the DrellYan mechanism
and the gluongluon fusion, to produce such Higgs bosons at the LHC (14 TeV).
Taking into account that the masses of the gauge bosons, Higgs and some other parameters
must satisfy the limits imposed by the model (see Section 2), besides the approximations in the
calculations of masses (Appendix B) and eigenstates (Section 2) given in Ref. [12], we have
considered two possibilities: f  0 and f = 99.63 GeV (see Table 1). For both possibilities
we have assumed the values v = 195 GeV, v = 1300 GeV, 1 = 1.2, 2 = 3 = 6 =
8 = 1, 4 = +2.98, 5 = 1.56, 7 = 3, but for 9 we have used 9 = 1 when f 0 and
9 = 1.9 when f = 99.63 GeV.
The masses of the exotic bosons in Table 1 are in accordance with the estimated values of
CDF and D experiments, which probe their masses in the range from 500 GeV to 800 GeV
[17], while the reach of the LHC will be in the range 1 TeV < mZ   5 TeV [18].
In Fig. 2 we show the cross section for the process pp H ++ H for f  0 GeV. Considering that the expected integrated luminosity for the LHC will be of order of 3 105 pb1 /yr
Table 1
Approximated values of the masses (see Appendix B) used in this work. All the values in this table are given in GeV
f

mE mM

mT

0
194 1138 2600
99.63

mH 0 mH 0
1
2

mH 0

mh 0 mH mH mV
1
2

mU

mZ 

m J1

m J2

m J3

874

2600

0
520

601

2220

1300

1833

1833

1322

426
218

1315
1295

603

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

Fig. 2. Total cross section for the process pp H H ++ as a function of mH for f = 0 GeV at
for DrellYan (solid line) and gluongluon fusion (dot-dash line).

11

s = 14 000 GeV

Fig. 3. Total cross section for the process pp H H ++ as a function of mH for f = 99.63 GeV at

s = 14 000 GeV for DrellYan (solid line) and gluongluon fusion (dot-dash line).

then the statistics give a total of  2 104 events per year for DrellYan and  0.2 events per
year for gluongluon fusion, for mH = 1309 GeV.
In Fig. 3, we show the results for the same process when f = 99.67 GeV. This value was
calculated considering the exotic boson masses in the range from 500 to 800 GeV and v having a
minimum value of 194.5 GeV, which assure the values of the i between 3 to +3, so we obtain
the mass of the doubly charged Higgs, i.e., mH ++ = 1780 GeV. Considering the same integrated
luminosity as above this gives a total of 585 events per year for DrellYan and 0.13 events per

12

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

Table 2
Branching ratios for the H30 decay with mH 0 = 2600 GeV. The notation used in this table is BR0XY = BR(H30 XY )
3

f (GeV)

105 BR0

108 BR0

BR0

BR0

BR0E + E

BR0M + M

0
99.63

3.35
3.14

2
4

no
4 107

0.9999

2 107

2 106

H10 H20

H1+ H1

H2+ H2

H1+ H2

Table 3
3 BR(H XY )
Branching ratio for the H decay with mH = 1309 GeV. Here BR
XY = 10
f (GeV)

BR

BR
 E

BR
 M

0
99.63

0.001
2

0.08
0.001

0.005
0.004

f (GeV)

BR

BR

BR

BR

0
99.63

no
0.09

19
13

no
329

no
6

J1 q

W H2

V H1

BR++
+ E +
3
0.4

H1 H2

BR++
+ M +
6
4

H10

BR
U Z
444
146

BR
U
29
2
BR

h0

2
0.5

year for gluongluon fusion. We present in Table 2 the branching ratios for H30 all with f  0
and f = 99.63 GeV and we can observe that, due to the coupling constant, the largest width
corresponds to H30 H1+ H2 decay. In Table 3 we present the branching ratios for H
all. From Table 3 it can also be noticed that, as the branching ratio (BR) for H H1 H2 ,
H U Z and H U are large, these channels could lead to some interesting
signal.
We emphasize that the window for varying the free parameters is small because of the constraints imposed on the model. In summary, the analysis of the values in Tables 13 show that,
although a large number of doubly charged Higgs can be produced by the DrellYan mechanism,
the decays of these particles into ordinary quarks and leptons do not lead to a good signature for
its detection even for energies which the LHC can reach.
Appendix A. Partial widths
In this appendix we present the partial widths for Higgs decays from Eqs. (23) and (24). We
define


1
R(a, b; x) =
(A.1)
x (ma + mb )2 x (ma mb )2
16x 3/2

and we obtain the partial widths for H30 , with s = mH 0 as


3




mJi 2  2
J0 J = 3R(Ji , Ji ; s)
mH 0 2m2Ji ,
i i
v
3

2

mP  2

mH 0 2mP ,
P0+ P = R P + , P ; s
v
3
 0 0

2
0
H 0 H 0 = R H1 , H2 ; s 4(5 6 )c v v + f (c v s v ) ,
1 2
2


H0 H + = R H1+ , H1+ ; s 2v (5 s v + 6 c v ) + f c v ,
1

(A.2a)
(A.2b)
(A.2c)
(A.2d)

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

2


H0 H + = R H2+ , H2+ ; s 2v (5 c v + 6 s v ) + f s v ,
2
2



0
H H + = R H1+ , H2+ ; s (6 5 )c v v + f (s v c v ) ,
1

 m 0 2 

 m 0 2 
g 4 v 
H3
H3
1
,
R U ,U ;s 3
2
mU ++
2mU ++



= 4v R H , H ; s (6 + 9 )s2 + (23 + 9 )c2 ,

13

(A.2e)
(A.2f)

U0 U ++ =

(A.2g)

H0 H ++

(A.2h)

0 (H 0 XY ). Finally we present the partial widths for the H decays, with


where XY
3

s = mH ++ ,




mq s 2  2
mH ++ m2J1 m2d,s,b ,
= 3R(J1 , q; s)
1 d,s,b
v



mJ2,3 c 2  2
++
qu,c,t J2,3 = 3R(J2,3 , q; s)
mH ++ m2J2,3 m2u,c,t ,
v

 2
mqu,c,t s 2  2

J++
mH ++ m2J2,3 m2u,c,t ,
=
3R(J
,
q;
s)
2,3
2,3 qu,c,t
v
2


R(e, P ; s) me s  2
e++
mH ++ m2e m2P ,
P =
4
v



R(e, P ; s) mP c 2  2
++
e+ P + =
mH ++ m2e m2P ,
4
v
2

R(W, H2 ; s)
ec c
++
W H =
32
sin W mW
2
2


 2

mH ++ m2W + m2H + m2H + m2H ++ + m2W ,
2
2




H++
(7 + 9 )s2 + (7 + 8 )c2 s s
= R H2 , H2 ; s
H
1
2

(8 9 )c c v + f s s

,
+
v2 + v2

J++
q

U++

++

++

3
=
4mH ++

H10

H20

e 2 c v

2 

mU ++
1
mH ++

(A.3b)
(A.3c)
(A.3d)
(A.3e)

(A.3f)

(A.3g)

2 

,
sin2 W
2

R(U , H10 ; s)
ec v
=
32
mU ++ vW sin W
2


 2

2
mH ++ mU ++ + m2H 0 m2H 0 2 m2H ++ + m2U ,
=

(A.3a)

2

R(U , H20 ; s)
ec v
32
mU ++ vW sin W
2


 2

2
mH ++ mU + m2H 0 m2H 0 2 m2H ++ + m2U ++ ,

(A.3h)

(A.3i)

(A.3j)

14

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

++

H30


2
R(U , H30 ; s)
ec
32
mU ++ sin2 W


 2

mH ++ m2U ++ + m2H 0 m2H 0 2 m2H ++ + m2U ++ ,
3
3
 2
2


c
v
e

U++
, Z; s
Z = R U
cos


2
(m ++ m2Z )2 + m2U ++ (m2U ++ 2m2H ++ )
5+ H
,
2m2U ++ m2Z


ev v (10 sin2 W 1) 2
R(U , Z  ; s)
U++
=
Z 
12(sin2 W 1)(4 sin2 W 1)
sin2 W


2
2
2
2
2
(m ++ mZ  ) + mU ++ (mU ++ 2m2H ++ )
5+ H
,
2m2U ++ m2Z 

2

ev s
=
R
V
,
H
;
s
V++
H
1
vW sin W
1


 2

2 2
mH ++ mV + m2H 0 m2H + 2 m2H ++ + m2V .

(A.3k)

(A.3l)

(A.3m)

(A.3n)

++
(H ++ XY ).
Here, XY

Appendix B. 3-3-1 particle masses


In this appendix we present the expressions of gauge, Higgs boson and fermion masses predicted in 3-3-1 energy scale in terms of the VEVs and the parameters of the potential.
m2H 0 4

2 v4 21 v4

m2H 0

v2 v2
2


2 
f v 2
v v
m2h =
vW +
,
v v
v
1

mH =

v2 + v2

m2H =
1

m2H 0 43 v2 ,

2
vW
(f v 27 v v ),
2v v

m2H =

(B.1a)

v2 + v2

(f v 29 v v ),
2v v
2v v
 2 2
 2 2


v + v2
v + v2
1 evW 2
e
e
2
2
2
,
mV =
,
mU =
,
mW =
2 sW
sW
2
sW
2




2 )
ev 2
ev 2 2(1 sW
1
,
m2Z 
.
m2Z
2 )
sW
2(1 sW )
sW
3(1 4sW
2

(f v 28 v v ),

2
vW
v2 ,
2v v2

(B.1b)
(B.1c)
(B.1d)
(B.1e)

In the calculations of Ref. [12] the following conditions in imposed:


4 2

2 v2 1 v2
v2 v2

5 v2 + 26 v2

v v
.
2

(B.2)

From the Lagrangian (9a) we can see that me , m , m v and mE , mM , mT v . Concerning


the ordinary quarks the masses can be obtained from the Lagrangian (9b) taking into account

J.E. Cieza Montalvo et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 115

15

mu  mc  mt and md  ms  mb . Therefore, we have


mu =
md =

G1u v v
,
G2u v + G3u v
G1d v v
G2d v + G3d v

mc =

G1c v + G2c v
v ,
G3c v + G4c v

mt = G1t v + G2t v ,

(B.3a)

ms =

G1s v + G2s v
v ,
G3s v + G4s v

mb = G1b v + G2b v ,

(B.3b)

and from the Lagrangian (9c) the heavy quark masses are mJ1 , mJ2 , mJ3 v . In Eqs. (B.3) the
q
parameters G , q = u, c, t, d, s, b and = 1, 2, 3, 4 are functions of the Yukawa couplings.
References
[1] J. Wess, B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974) 39;
J. Wess, B. Zumino, Phys. Lett. B 49 (1974) 52;
J. Iliopoulos, B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 76 (1974) 310;
S. Ferrara, J. Iliopoulos, B. Zumino, Nucl. Phys. B 77 (1974) 413;
E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 188 (1981) 513.
[2] N. Arkani-Hamed, et al., JHEP 0208 (2002) 021;
M. Scmaltz, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 117 (2003) 40.
[3] J.C. Pati, A. Salam, Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974) 275;
R.N. Mohapatra, J.C. Pati, Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975) 566;
G. Senjanovic, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 12 (1975) 1502;
T. Rizzo, Phys. Rev. D 25 (1982) 1355.
[4] H. Georgi, M. Machacek, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 463;
J.F. Gunion, R. Vega, J. Wudka, Phys. Rev D 42 (1990) 1673;
J.F. Gunion, C. Loomis, K.T. Pitts, hep-ph/9610237.
[5] F. Pisano, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 410;
P.H. Frampton, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 2889;
R. Foot, O.F. Hernandez, F. Pisano, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47 (1993) 4158.
[6] V. Pleitez, M.D. Tonasse, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2353.
[7] A.G. Dias, R. Martinez, V. Pleitez, Eur. Phys. J. C 39 (2005) 101;
P. Jain, S.D. Joglekar, Phys. Lett. B 407 (1997) 151.
[8] N.V. Cortez, M.D. Tonasse, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 073005;
J.C. Montero, C.A. de S. Pires, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 095001.
[9] For some recently papers see A.G. Akeroyd, M. Aoki, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 035011;
CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 0151801;
CDF Collaboration, D. Acosta, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 221802;
D Collaboration, V.M. Abazov, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 141801;
L3 Collaboration, P. Achard, et al., Phys. Lett. B 576 (2003) 18;
OPAL Collaboration, G. Abbiendi, et al., Phys. Lett. B 577 (2003) 93.
[10] J.C. Montero, F. Pisano, V. Pleitez, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 2918;
H.N. Long, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1996) 437;
R. Foot, H.N. Long, T.A. Tran, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 34.
[11] V. Pleitez, M.D. Tonasse, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 5274.
[12] M.D. Tonasse, Phys. Lett. B 381 (1996) 191.
[13] P.V. Dong, H.L. Long, D.T. Nhung, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 035004;
R.A. Diaz, R. Martinez, F. Ochoa, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2006) 095009, and references cited therein.
[14] Particle Data Group, S. Eidelman, et al., Phys. Lett. B 592 (2004) 1.
[15] J.E. Cieza Montalvo, M.D. Tonasse, Nucl. Phys. B 623 (2002) 325.
[16] J.E. Cieza Montalvo, M.D. Tonasse, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 095015.
[17] M. Carena, A. Daleo, B.A. Dobrescu, T.M.P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 093009;
D Collaboration, V.M. Abazov, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 061802;
CDF Collaboration, T. Pratt, Talk at the SUSY 2004 Conference, June 2004.
[18] A. Freitas, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 015008.

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

Graviton production from D-string recombination


and annihilation
Jean Louis Cornou a , Enrico Pajer b , Riccardo Sturani c,d,
a cole Normale Superieure de Paris, France
b Ludwig Maximilians Universitt Mnchen, Germany
c Department of Physics, University of Geneva, Switzerland
d INFN, Italy

Received 31 July 2006; accepted 25 August 2006


Available online 12 September 2006

Abstract
Fundamental superstrings (F-strings) and D-strings may be produced at high temperature in the early
Universe. Assuming that, we investigate if any of the instabilities present in systems of strings and branes
can give rise to a phenomenologically interesting production of gravitons. We focus on D-strings and find
that D-string recombination is a far too weak process for both astrophysical and cosmological sources. On
the other hand if D-strings annihilate they mostly produce massive closed string remnants and a characteristic spectrum of gravitational modes is produced by the remnant decay, which may be phenomenologically
interesting in the case these gravitational modes are massive and stable.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
After the dismissal of cosmic string as candidate seeds for the formation of structure, they
received a fair share of attention in the last few years from both the theoretical and observational
perspective.
Scenarios of inflation involving branes have become popular recently [1,2], because of the
appealing feature of providing a working model of inflation based on a fundamental theory on one
side, and because they can represent a phenomenological handle for string theory on the other.
* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: cornou@clipper.ens.fr (J.L. Cornou), enrico.pajer@physik.lmu.de (E. Pajer),


riccardo.sturani@physics.unige.ch (R. Sturani).
0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.018

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

17

In this kind of scenarios the production of D-strings as cosmic defects, by Kibble mechanism, is
a generic prediction [3], even if their (meta-)stability is not at all ensured [4].
In general, cosmic defects like monopoles, strings and walls can be problematic as their redshift is slower than the one of radiation: if present in the early Universe and if cosmologically
stable they tend to overclose the Universe, unless they are diluted by some release of entropy into
the Universe after their creation. While this is certainly true for stable monopoles, whose annihilation rate is negligible for standard choice of parameters [5], in the standard scenario cosmic
strings loose energy by chopping off small loops and finally reach scaling solutions on which
they make up a constant fraction of the energy density of the Universe during both the era of
radiation and matter domination [6]. This allows the density of long strings to be always roughly
few per Hubble volume, while the small loops disappears by emitting gravitational radiation.
The situation is less clear for domain walls, as the existence of scaling solutions and the time
required for the solution to fall into these kind of attractors in presently under investigation [7].
In this work we concentrate on cosmic strings. In particular we want to identify cosmic strings
with the D-strings of string theory.
The production of lower-dimensional defect can result for instance from Dp Dp-brane annihilation, which will produce D(p 2n)-branes as remnants. In a type II theory Dp-branes
are BPS only if p has a definite parity (even in IIA, odd in IIB), Dp-branes with the wrong
dimensionality will decay immediately (on time scale given by the string scale).
Actually in type I string theory non BPS D0-branes can be stable, because the unstable mode
is projected out by the orientation projection taking type IIB into type I. Still it has to be remembered that the presence of a type I excitation spectrum is related to the presence of orientifolds.
Even if the starting setup is endowed with a space filling orientifold, since some of the dimensions
may get small during cosmological evolution, T-dualities over those directions getting smaller
than the string length confine the orientifold hyperplane to subspace of strictly positive codimension, so the bulk physics, away from the orientifolds, will be again unoriented, i.e. of type IIA or
IIB. Thus even taking a full type I configuration as a starting point, the general assumption that
only the BPS Dp-branes are stable is justified on general grounds.
Strictly speaking BPS D-strings are present in type IIB and type I theories and not in type IIA,
but we can consider Dp-branes with arbitrary p wrapped around (p 1)-dimensional cycles to
be D-strings from the 4-dimensional point of view, allowing a variety of values for the tension
of the effective D-string. For instance, the tension of a Dp-brane is p  (p+1)/2 gs1 (being
 ls2 the square of the string fundamental length) and assuming that a D(2 + n)-brane wraps
around a n-dimensional flat torus with radii R1 , . . . , Rn the effective tension of the resulting
4-dimensional D-string is
=

n

1
Ri
.
ls
2ls 2 gs
i=1

Moreover the internal dimensions do not need to be flat, but can be warped ( la Randall
Sundrum [8], for instance), so that their tension can be redshifted (or blue-shifted) by huge factors
and in principle it can take any value.
One important and not completely settled issue is the stability one. The (effective) D-strings
are generically created but for them to play a role in cosmology they must be stable, or at least
metastable over cosmological time scale.
An instability already pointed out in [9] is the following. D-strings couple electrically to a
2-form, whose dual in 4 dimensions is a scalar, axion-like field. Once supersymmetry is broken

18

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

the axion acquires a periodic potential with several degenerate minima, so the axion is expected
to condense to different minima in different regions of space, separated by domain walls. Finite
domain walls are bound by D-strings, and the domain wall tension, unless it is exceedingly small,
will make D-strings shrink and collapse.
Another source of instability is breakage, which is present whenever systems of Dp- and
Dq-branes are present at the same time. Let us define as the number of dimensions in which
the Dp-branes are extended and the Dq are not or vice-versa, i.e. the total number of Neumann
Dirichlet (ND) plus DN dimensions. If = 2 the axion symmetry is Higgsed, there are no axion
domain walls, so the branes can break. Strings can in general break or annihilate if they meet
a brane with = 2, if = 4 or = 8 the system is stable and supersymmetric, but we fall
back into the domain wall problem when supersymmetry is broken (if = 6 branes repel each
others).
The branes come with orientation, so meeting a brane with opposite orientation they can also
annihilate, whereas if they have exactly the same orientation and = 0, 4, 8 the full system is
still BPS. Of course intermediate situation are possible, when branes meet at angle. A description
of the microscopic mechanism leading to recombination is given in [10,12].
The stability issue is thus far from settled but it can be solved in specific models. Here we will
focus on the effects triggered by two of the aforementioned sources of instability, the meeting of
a D-string at angles and the annihilation of D-strings. This kind of processes can be addressed
in the context of string theory and the dynamic of the instability can be studied through the time
evolution of a specific tachyonic mode of the system [13].
Since everything is coupled to gravity such instabilities can be expected to give rise to some
gravitational radiation, which we study quantitatively in the present work. Modeling the string
sources with an effective energy momentum tensor the amount of emitted gravitational radiation
can be computed, but a negligible result is found.
Actually, rather than the emission by a time dependent dynamics we can consider the closed
string remnant left by a braneanti-brane annihilation [14], whose decay can be an interesting
source of gravitational radiation, as we will show.
It is also worth noticing that no cosmic string has ever been observed directly and that the
cosmic microwave background constrains cosmic string tension to be GN < 107 , where
GN is the Newton gravitational constant.
The outline of the paper is the following. In Section 2 the salient features of the analysis of [10]
of the D string reconnection are reproposed and the GW emission in such a process is computed,
then generalised to a cosmological setup like in [15]. In Section 3 the annihilation process be string is analysed, finding again a negligible gravitational radiation
tween a D string and a D
emission. In Section 3.2 we study the gravitational radiation emitted by the decay of the massive

closed strings which constitute the remnant of the D D-brane


annihilation and conclusions are
finally drawn in Section 4.
2. Gravitational radiation from stringstring reconnection
The reconnection process of D-strings meeting at an angle and zero relative velocity has been
studied in [10]. Adding a relative velocity between the strings boils down to introducing a non
one (and non-zero) probability of interaction [12,16].
Stacks of parallel D-branes admit a low energy description in terms of a U (N ) super-Yang
Mills theory, where N is the number of D-branes into play. The bosonic excitations of the Fstrings stretched between the D-strings are gauge vectors (scalars) from the point of view of the

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

19

Fig. 1. Two D-branes at an angle 2 before and after recombination.

D-string Poincar group, if polarised along (orthogonally to) the brane. The system is described
by a (1 + 1)-dimensional YangMills theory coupled to as many scalars as transverse direction.
The scalar fields parametrise the displacements of the brane in the orthogonal directions.
2.1. Almost parallel D-strings
2.1.1. Reconnection dynamics
Following the analysis of [10], let us consider a system made of 2 almost parallel D-strings at
an angle 2 , see Fig. 1. The low energy dynamics of the system is described by the action



1
1

F F + D i D i ,
S = (2  )2 Tr dx dt
(1)
2
4
2
where = 0, 1 and i {2 . . . d} runs over the dimension orthogonal to t and x.
In order to describe two D-strings at an angle the previous action (1) has to be expanded
(b)
(b)
around the background i , A
(b)

= i,2 qx 3 ,

A(b)
= 0,

(2)

with q tan /(  ) and i the Pauli matrices which form the algebra of SU(2), plus the fluc(f )
tuations (f ) , A


(f )
)
2
A(f
i = i,2 (t, x) 3 + (t, x) 1 ,
(3)
= ,1 a(t, x) .
To lowest non-trivial order in interactions, the resulting Lagrangian density is,1
 1
 q2
1
1
L a 2 + 2 + 2  2 +  2
q  a  (qx + )
2
2
2
2

1 
+ a(q +  ) a 2 q 2 x 2 + 2qx ,
2
and it takes to the equations of motion

(4)

a + qx  q + aq 2 x 2 = 0,
1 The set of fluctuations 2 , A 1 decouple from 1 , A 2 and its Lagrangian is another copy
2
1
2
2
of (4).

20

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

 a  qx 2aq = 0,
 + a  + 2a  + a 2 qx = 0,

(5)

where it is understood that a dot stands for a time derivative and a prime for a derivative with
respect to x.
We note that consistency of the equations requires that a, are of the same order, while
is O(a 2 ), so that the first two equations of (5) can be solved for a and and then the result
plugged into the equation for . This justifies a posteriori the choice made in (4) to drop O(a 3 )
terms as well as O(a 2 ).
For the coupled a, system it is convenient to take the anstze

a(t, x) =
An eimn t an (x),
n>0

(t, x) =

Fn eimn t an (x),

(6)

n>0

where the equation of motions force the condition m2n = (2n 1)q.
Both a and have an unstable lowest lying mode, with a Gaussian profile, so that neglecting
the positive mass squared mode the solution can be written as [10]
a(t, x) = A0 e

qt qx 2 /2

= (t, x).

(7)

The expression for is slightly more complicated, but again its non-trivial part is concentrated
in an area of size q 1/2 around x = 0

e

e2 qx erf( qx + 1) + e2 qx erf( qx 1) 2 sinh(2 qx) .


(t, x) = A20 e2 qt
2 q
(8)
In the previous (8) the integration constant of the solution to the homogenous part of the
equation is fixed by requiring that the limx = 0 independently of t .
To give a geometrical interpretation we remind that the i s keep trace of the displacements
of the D-strings in the orthogonal directions, their eigenvalues are proportional to the locations
of the D-branes in the ith direction. In our case the distance dy along the y direction between the
2 D-strings is dy = 2 2  y where y is given by


1 qx +
0 (x)
y =
0 (x) qx
2


q 2 x 2 + 2qx + 02
0
1

(9)
,
2
0
q 2 x 2 + 2qx + 02
where in the previous (9) a gauge transformation has been performed to diagonalise the field
and only the first order in has been kept. The dynamics of the YangMills system tells the
D-strings to recombine smoothly around the intersection point. This analysis neglects in the
Lagrangian terms of the order a 4 and higher, thus it is valid for

A0 e qt eqx /2 < q.
(10)

By a shift in time we can set A0 = q (as we will do in the rest of the paper), so the solution (7)
can be expected not to be valid for t > 0.

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

21

Here we neglected the effect of a relative velocity v between the D-strings, which affects the
probability of the reconnection taking place. It has been studied in [12], with the result that the
probability P 1 if v 1, which takes to the condition
qt

(11)
qe
q.
Again this restriction suggests that this picture is a good description only for negative times.
2.1.2. Energymomentum tensor
Having understood the dynamics of the recombination via the effective action of the lightest string modes, it is then possible to compute the energy momentum tensor of the system to
estimate the amount of gravitational radiation emitted during the process. We take the definition
2 S
.
T =
g g

(12)

Considering the system described by Eq. (1), localized on the D-string world volume, the t, x
components of the energy momentum tensor can be explicitly written on the solutions (7) as

 2
q /2 q 
q
T = 2 2  2
(13)
.
q
a 2 q q  q 2 /2
In Eq. (13) we recognise the constant contribution from the background configuration of the
tilted D-strings, which is T-dual to a constant magnetic field on a D2-brane. The time dependent
part is the source of the gravitational radiation. This energy momentum tensor is conserved, but
it would not have been conserved without the inclusion of in the anstze (3), like in [10], where
the solution considered have = 0. This should not come as a surprise as forcing the solution (2)
with = 0 would imply an explicit breaking of Lorentz invariance, which would necessarily let
no right to expect a conserved energymomentum tensor. The inclusion of turns the Lorentz
symmetry breaking of the background into a spontaneous one, thus allowing the conservation of
the energy momentum tensor.2
By linearising general relativity over a flat background
g = + h ,

(14)

we have
2 h = 16GN T ,

h h 1/2 h

(15)

has been defined and the condition


= 0 has been imposed,
where
consistently with the conservation of the energy momentum tensor. Following [17] the energy
momentum tensor can be Fourier transformed both in space and time



T (, k) = T (t, x )ei(tk x ) dt d 3 x,
(16)

2 Note that in [11] the energy momentum tensor of the recombining D-strings is derived with a different method and
additional terms to (13) are found. Such terms are not localized on the D-strings world volume but in the region between
the D-strings. Here we do not take them into consideration, limiting our consideration to the physical system defined
by (1) consisting of (1 + 1)-D YangMills with a scalar field. As we will show the production of gravitational wave is
phenomenologically negligible, and no important enhancement is due to the insertion of the new terms obtained in [11].

22

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

to obtain the formal solution to (15) as




d d 3 k
1
x)
i((t| x x  |)k
T (, k)e
h (t, x) = 4GN d 3 x 

|
x x |
2 (2)3

2GN

i(tx) d,
T (, n)e
x

(17)

where n is the unit vector pointing into the direction of x and the local wave zone approximation
x |.
|
x x  | x x  n has been used, with x |
Given (13) and the explicit solution (7)
a(t, x) =

qe

qt qx 2 /2

(18)

for t < 0

one can compute h 11 , say, to be



2

2

h11 (t, x ) = 4 GN q 3/2  2 3/2 d 1
ei(tx) e 4q + + e 4q
x
2 q + i

4
= GN q 3/2  2 5/2 e2 q(tx) f (t x, , ),
x

(19)

valid for t < x, where f (t x, , ) takes account of the angular dependence of the radiation
and its explicit form is






q
q
2
2
f (u, , ) e+ 1 + erf
(20)
u + + + e 1 + erf
u + ,
+

where = | sin (cos q  sin )| and , are the usual polar angles. Actually the details
of the angular distribution are of little importance in view of the intensity of the radiation, as we
will now show.
To compare with experimental sensitivity it is convenient to express the previous result in
terms of the (double sided) spectral density Sh (f ) which for a short burst of (Fourier transformed)
) and duration t reduces to
amplitude h(f
Sh (f ) h 2 (f )/t.

(21)

From the computation (19) we can estimate a spectral density function, neglecting the angular
dependence in the exponential,
(GN )2 q 5/2  4
Sh (f ) 103
x2

e 4q
1 + 2 /(4q)
2
2
 
3/2 
4q 
GN 2

x
120
1
5/2 e
10
Hz (tan )
,
2
7
1 Mpc
TeV2
1 + 10
4q

(22)

where redshift factors has been neglected. The typical signal frequency is q/((1 + z)). For
presently working experiments Sh  1042 Hz1 [18], so the result (22) is ridiculously small.
This is due to the inherently microscopic origin of the dynamics, whereas to generate a consistent
amount of radiation a coherent motion of a macroscopic mass is needed. Let us now investigate
if a cosmological population of such recombining D-strings may help in enhancing the signal.

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

23

2.1.3. Cosmological rate


One can expect that several processes like the one described in the previous section take place
in the Universe and that the signal resulting from the sum of all of them is highly enhanced with
respect to the one found in (22).
We assume the Universe evolution is the standard one after cosmic string production, i.e.
radiation domination followed by matter domination. Very sketchily, simulations of the evolution
of a network of strings show that no matter what is the initial density of strings, within few
Hubble times they reach a scaling solution characterised by few long open strings per Hubble
volume whose length stretches with the horizon, and a large number of small closed strings [6].
A network of long open strings has a negative effective pressure pop = op /3, thus it redshifts
more slowly than both radiation and non-relativistic matter, but it does not overclose the Universe
as open strings loose energy by chopping off small loops which eventually decay by emission
of gravitational radiation. At an effective level one can write down a continuity equation which
takes into account both the Universe expansion and the energy lost into loops
op
op
(23)
= 2Hop
,
L
L
where 0 < < 1 is a number taking account of the possibility of a non-unity value of the probability of reconnection. For a generic Hubble parameter H = /t and /L2 Eq. (23) admits
the scaling solution
op = 3H (op + pop )

L=

t,
2(1 )

(24)

allowing the string network to track the dominant energy source of the Universe and to make up
a constant fraction of it.
String loops have typical size lcl and density ncl roughly given by
lcl t,

ncl 1 t 3 .

(25)

The value of is not known, as an indication we can take the value given in [20] GN
where 50, so that it can well be that 1 (we remind that smoothness of cosmic microwave
background requires GN < 107 ). A relation similar to (25) between lop , nop and t can be
expected to hold for long, open strings with 1. Given (25) the number of reconnection events
between open strings per unit of spacetime volume can be estimated to be
opop (t) = n2op vopop P t 4 ,

(26)

2 , with P the reconnection


where the cross section opop has been estimated as opop P lop
probability, see (11), and relativistic velocities has been considered. Had we considered instead
the interaction between open and closed strings we would have obtained

opcl (t) = nop ncl vopcl P t 4 1/3 ,

(27)

which is slightly higher than (26), where it has been used that the average distance traveled by a
1/3
string before meeting another one is ncl .
We want now to relate the time variable t to the redshift factor (1 + z) as in [15]. Let us
consider the usual FRW metric


ds 2 = dt 2 + a 2 (t) dr 2 + r 2 d 2 ,
(28)

24

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

the comoving distance r between an object emitting light at a time t (z), where (1 + z) denotes
the redshift factor, and the observer at present time t0 is given by
t0
r(z) =

dt 
.
a(t  )

(29)

t (z)

Parameterising the scale factor as



aeq (t/teq )1/2 , ti < t < teq ,
a=
a0 (t/t0 )2/3 ,
teq < t < t0 ,

(30)

where ti mark the epoch of the beginning of radiation domination and teq denotes the time of
matter-radiation equality, the redshift-comoving distance relation is obtained


1/2 (1 + z )1/2 1 + 2 zzeq , z > z > z ,
eq
i
eq
3t0 (1 + zeq )
3 1+z
r(z) =
(31)
(1+z)1/2 1
a0
,
zeq > z > 0,
(1+z)1/2
which, neglecting numerical factors, can be well interpolated by
t0 z
r(z)
.
a0 1 + z
The previous formulae allow us to write the volume element as
dV (z) = 4a 3 (t0 )r 2 dr 102 t03

z2
1
dz.
13/2
(1 + z)
(1 + z/zeq )1/2

(32)

(33)

Let us introduce N(z), the reconnection rate for events occurring at a given redshift z. Its differential is given by
dV
102 3 (1 + z/zeq )3/2
z
d ln z,
d ln z
dz
t0
(1 + z)3/2
where the time-redshift relation
dN = (1 + z)1 (z)z

(34)

t (z) = t0 (1 + z)3/2 (1 + z/zeq )1/2

(35)

has been used. The observer at r = 0 sees a burst with duration t0 = t (1 + z), being t the
proper time burst duration. By comparing (t0 )1 with dN/d ln z we can verify if the signals
actually overlap to make a continuous background, or if they are resolved in time. Since N (z)
is a growing function of z, it turns out that for z > z the signal is made by a collection of
bursts whereas signals originated at higher redshift than z combine into a stochastic background.
Comparing (34) with t0 one obtains
  1/2 1/4

.
z 1010 (tan )1/8 1/4
(36)
TeV1
The average over introduces a numerical factor 0.9. In the case of continuous background,
i.e. for events generated at redshift z > z , taking into account the cosmological redshift, the
spectral density function can be estimated as
zin
 
2 dN (z )
Sh (f ) = h f (1 + z ) 
d ln z ,
d ln z
z

(37)

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

25

(1 + z)) stands
where zin stands for the red-shift of the set in of the scaling solution and h(f
for a sum over metric polarisation and average over directions n of h (f (1 + z), n).
Since
dN (z)/d ln z z3 at large z, the integral in Eq. (37) can be approximated by the value of the
integrand at the upper limit of integration region
3
 
2 102 zin
,
Sh (f ) = h f (1 + zin ) 
3/2
t0 zeq

(38)

) can be read from (22) with the aid of (21) after averaging over orientations. With
where h(f
3 /(t z3/2 )
respect to the signal from an astrophysical source given by (22) there is a factor 102 zin
0 eq
1/2
(1 + z), leading to an enhancement for high enough redshift, but again the
instead of t0 q
final result is negligible

 
2 

GN 2

zin 3
2 2  2
Sh (f ) 10144 Hz1 e f zin
(39)
,
107
1010
TeV2
where an average over D-string meeting at angle 2 has been performed and the distance x from
the source has been expressed as a function of the red-shift according to (32). Moving to higher
redshift brings competing effects: a higher distance from the source, see Eq. (32), and a decreased
integration volume, see Eq. (33), both of which tend to suppress the signal, and increased event
rate, see Eq. (26), which tends to increase the signal and it is actually the dominant effect. We
remind the relation between redshift z and temperature T during standard cosmological evolution


T
9
z 10
(40)
.
MeV
Actually before the scaling solution sets in, the density can be higher than (25) and consequently the rate of string encounter higher than (26). One could consider the very extreme case
of an initial density of cosmic D-strings
nex 3/2 

(41)

at the epoch of cosmic string creation (inflation ending), characterised by a redshift zex . Such a
density would correspond to a Hagedorn energy density h  2 , which is generally a limiting energy density for open string systems. The corresponding rate of reconnection events per
volume is
(ex)
2  4
op
,
op

(42)

while the standard scaling solution is recovered in a few Hubble times. The highly non-standard
form of the D-brane tachyon action, which suppresses gradients of the field, allows us to assume
a far higher density of defects than the standard Kibble argument would allow as we will see in
the next section, see [19]. With this assumption we can reconsider the integral (37), noting that
it will be dominated by the early epoch z zex thus giving, analogously to (39),
2 3 5
(GN )2  2 2 f 2  zex
2 10 t0 zex zeq
e
x 2 (zex )
2  4

2 


zex 5
2 2  2
1091 Hz1 e f zex
,
1010
TeV2
1/2

Sh (f ) 103

(43)

26

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

which is still way too small for detection. It has also to be noted that the Kibble density is smaller
than the extremal density nex given in (41) only if
1/3 4/3
ls
.

(44)

< GN

With the process considered so far one cannot obtain a large enough result, as an inherently
microscopic mechanism is involved, which affects a portion of the string of size the order of the
string length in a huge Universe. For the gravitational emission to give a sizeable effect we need
it to be produced in a coherent motion of all its world volume. In Section 3 we move to the study

of systems of D-string D-string


which annihilate, but before doing that we complete the analysis
of recombination by describing two almost anti-parallel D-strings, which is a system close to the

D D-string
case.
2.2. Almost anti-parallel case
2.2.1. System dynamics
If the system of two D-strings is close to a braneanti-brane pair it can still be analysed
through a YangMills low energy effective action, but a scalar tachyon has to be added to the
spectrum, as it comes from the lowest lying excitations of the string stretched between the brane
and the anti-brane [10]. The action is then
 


1
1
1
m2 2
 2

i i

S = (2 )
dt dx Tr F F + D D + D T D T
T
,
4
2
2
2
(45)
with m2 = 1/(2  ). Now the expansion has to be taken around the background (again q
tan /(  ))
(b)

= i,2 qx 3 ,

A(b)
= 0,

T (b) = 0,

(46)

and the fluctuations


(f )

= i,2 (t, x) 3 ,

)
A(f
= 0,

T (f ) = (t, x) 2 .

(47)

In terms of the anstze (46) and (47) the Lagrangian, up to lowest order interaction, can be written
as

1
1 2 1
1
1
1
1
L 2  q 2 q 2 x 2 + 2qx 2 +  2 + 2  2 .
(48)
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
The analysis follows straightforwardly as in the previous case to obtain the equations of motion
 + q 2 x 2 /(2  ) = 0,
 + 2 qx = 0.

(49)

Again the unstable mode solution is


(t, x) = C0 et eqx /2 ,
(50)




e
1
(t, x) = C02 e2t
cosh(2x) e2x erf(1 + x) + e2x erf(1 + x) , (51)
4
2

where 1/(2  ) q.
2

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

27

2.2.2. Gravitational radiation


From the dynamics exposed in the previous section and analogously to (13), the t, x components of the energy momentum tensor localized on the D-brane world volume can be estimated
to be

 2
q /4 2  /2
2 /2
T = 2 2  2
(52)
.
2 /2
2 2 /2 2  /2 q 2 /4
It is then straightforward in full analogy with Section 2.1.2 to estimate the gravitational radiation,
obtaining the same result.
3. Stringanti-string annihilation
We have seen that the recombination process of D-strings described in Section 2 is not a
phenomenologically interesting source of gravitational radiation. This was due to the smallness
of the size of the interaction region, which was of the order of the string length. In general
interesting sources of gravitational radiation are related to coherent motion of large and extended
portions of mass.
We thus now turn to study a process in which two D-strings meet and annihilate, thus enabling
a much larger reservoir of energy to be converted into gravitational radiation. Such systems have
been studied in detail in a full string theory context for different configurations of the tachyon
describing the instability [13].
In particular it has been shown that the tachyon can acquire different spatial profiles, triggering
the decay of the original system into different final states. For instance a trivial tachyon profile in
the space dimensions will lead the brane anti-brane system towards the so called tachyon matter

which will be discussed in Section 3.2, whereas a kink profile will let a Dp Dp-brane
system
decay into a D(p 1)-brane, a vortex configuration into a D(p 2)-brane and so on. We show
next that in the case of a trivial spatial configuration, important conclusions can be drawn for the
production of gravitational radiation.
3.1. Recombination and annihilation
For ordinary phase transitions the presence of defects is related to the global configuration
of some field triggering the transition. In an expanding Universe with Hubble rate H , the defect
separation d must be smaller than the Hubble length H 1 , as any super-horizon correlation
would violate causality, thus leading to the lower bound of one defect per Hubble volume (Hubble
density), and the actual number of defects per Hubble volume is as large as a few.
However the density of defects can be much larger than the Hubble one as this picture does
not apply to the tachyon condensation, whose dynamics is described by the Lagrangian


S = d p+1 x V (T ) 1 + T T g ,
(53)
where the V (T ) is a symmetric, positive potential, which vanishes asymptotically for T
as eT [23] (it is not very important here the exact form of such potential).
As shown in [19], the non-standard form of the kinetic terms implies that once the tachyon
has rolled to large values, gradients are exponentially suppressed, essentially eliminating the
restoring force which would tend to eliminate gradients within a casual volume, thus allowing a
higher defect density than the Kibble value.

28

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

We assume that the density nex as in (41) can be achieved, corresponding to an energy density
of the order of the Hagedorn scale, which is a limiting energy density for open strings [26].
Actually in the evolution of an ordinary string network, the initial conditions are not crucial
as the network reaches the scaling solution in a few Hubble time, long strings loose energy by
chopping off small loops, which in standard simulations then looses energy by emitting gravitational wave until disappearance. If we take the extremal case of Hagedorn energy density like
in the end of Section 2.1.3 the long string inter-separation is dex 1/2  rather than the Kibble
1/2
value dK H 1 GN 1 , which is eventually reached after few Hubble times.
The high starting density of strings is anyway not enough in itself to produce a large amount
of gravitational wave if the usual picture is assumed, i.e. that small loop radiates as in [15] via
the formation of cusps and kinks. Again this is due to the smallness of the physical size of the
radiating objects, in this case the small loops, whose typical
size is some orders of magnitude
smaller than the Hubble scale, see Eq. (25), where H GN lPl / ls2 , taking for the extremal Hagedorn density.3 In this picture the emission is originated in the early Universe, when
the size of cosmic string is small as they had no time to stretch with cosmological expansion, so a
small amount of radiation is produced. In [15] for instance, a typical signal close to experimental
sensitivity at a frequency f , with rate N , originated at redshift z is obtained from a kink in a
cosmic loop of size lcl roughly given by



lcl 1020 m (1 + z)3/2 (1 + z/zeq )1/2


(54)
,
106
and the rate N of such an event at a given frequency f is roughly given by
N = 2 106 year1



8/3 
z3 (1 + z/zeq )11/6

f 2/3
.
kHz
(1 + z)7/6
106

(55)

3.2. Annihilation with spatially trivial tachyon profile

So far we have dealt with an effective field theory description of D-string D-string
annihilation, the excitations of the branes have been described as classical fields subject to ordinary
second order differential equations (for a quantum description of creation of open and closed
strings by D-brane recombination see [21]).
On the other hand the annihilation process admits an exact description in terms of the fundamental string theory, i.e. in terms of the two-dimensional world-sheet theory, by adding to the
standard world sheet action



1
1
a

Sws =
(56)
d d
a X X g + g ,
4

a boundary term

0
Sb d 0 eX /(2ls ) 1 .

(57)

3 Here we have a limiting density different from [19], where the energy scale of the string tension and the inverse
distance between them are identified.

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

29

The world-sheet (disk) partition function Zws , with the world sheet couplings interpreted as
space-time fields, corresponds to the space time action S [25], given by




S S

S = Zws d p x g
(58)
dX d e ws b .
The boundary term describes the condensation of the tachyon to a profile of the type

2ls )

T = et/(

1 .

(59)

Giving an expectation value to the tachyon shifts the mass squared of the open string modes by
an amount m2 T 2 , eventually dropping them out of the physical spectrum as the tachyon
increasing expectation value makes them more and more massive.
A D-brane in the free theory can be described by a specific boundary state |B, the |B |B
vacuum amplitude is written as the so called cylinder amplitude
ABB = B|P |B,

(60)

where P is the closed string propagator. When the internal particle running in the propagator
goes on shell the amplitude ABB picks an imaginary part. Once written the expansion of |B into
a set of complete states as

|B =
(61)
U (f )|f ,
f

by the optical theorem we have


Im ABB =

 1 

U (f )2 ,
2f

(62)

where f is the energy of the state f . In the unperturbed theory, where the tachyon has vanishing
expectation value, the brane boundary state can be written as
|B = O|, k,

(63)

where O is an operator build out of fermionic and bosonic matter oscillators and ghost oscillators
and |, k is the Fock vacuum with momentum k. The specific form of the vacuum will not be
needed here, as we shall simply quote known results, see [22,23]. Taking the initial condition to
be that of D-strings, the addition of the boundary term (57) turns |B into |BT , whose energy
momentum tensor is obtained from (58) via (12)


T = 2 diag 1, g(t), 0, . . . , 0 ,

(64)

with
g(t) =

1 + 2 2 2 e 2t/ ls

(65)

The boundary state |BT at t corresponds to |B, and at t tends to a state without
the original D-strings but endowed with the same amount of energy and vanishing pressure.

30

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

Applying the optical theorem as in (62) one can find, see [14,27], that the expansion coefficient UT (f ) relative to |BT turns out to be just the Fourier transform of g(t), which is4



/ 2
UT (f ) =
(66)
.
sinh(ls f / 2)
The imaginary part of T B|BT is related to the average numerical density n and energy density
of particles emitted by
n =

 1 

U (f )2 ,
2f

(67)

 1

U (f )2 ,
2

(68)

where the sums run over a basis of closed string states, implicitly including both the sum over
excitation level N of the closed string and the momenta of the spatial directions transverse to the
brane. For large N the degeneracy of states G(N ) of a closed string in D dimensions is

G(N ) = N (D+1)/2 e

D2
6

(69)

and here we assume D = 10 from superstring theory. Given the degeneracy of the states and the
mass formula for closed strings


1
 m2 = 4 N
(70)
,
2
the exponential in Eqs. (66) and (69) combine to leave a power law spectrum for the radiated
energy according to

dE E p/2 ,
(71)
for Dp-branes, with a total emitted energy which is ultraviolet divergent for p  2. Of course the
emitted energy cannot be larger then the mass of the initial brane, so back-reaction is expected
to set in and cut off the emission, with the result that the total radiated energy is finite and of
the order of the initial mass of the brane. In particular cutting off the integral in Eq. (71) at
Ecut lop would give all the energy into closed string modes, emitting most of their energy
into very massive strings.
Actually Eq. (71) seems to suggest that for p > 2 the amount of energy of the initial Dp-brane
going into closed string modes is rather small. However the decay described by the boundary
term (57) is spatially homogeneous and it is not expected to realistically describe the decay
process. Perturbations with a non-trivial spatial profile can still be tachyonic and thus contribute
the decay. We should expect the decay to take place rather inhomogeneously and the original
Dp-brane can be thought of decomposing into a collection of small patches. In each of this small
patches, disconnected one from the other, the behaviour of a Dp-brane is similar to that of a
collection of D0-branes [24].
4 This is actually the coefficient for the expansion over NeveuSchwarz states, which is the interesting sector for
gravitons.

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

31

3.3. Gravitational mode production


The problem of gravitational emission has now been traded from the study of annihilating
D-branes to the one of decaying of a highly massive (hence highly excited) closed fundamental
string. Two-body decays of F-strings have been studied in literature for both the bosonic string
[28] and the superstring [29,30]. The decay of a closed string into n closed strings is a perturbative process whose amplitude gcn , thus in the perturbative regime gc 1 the dominant
process is two-body decay.
Let
us consider the amplitude decay A of a specific initial closed string state N of mass
M 2 N / ls into two given final states N1 , N2 of masses respectively m1,2 2 N1,2 / ls .
The inclusive decay width of a generic fundamental string excited at mass level N , into two
generic final states at mass level N1 , N2 is obtained by integrating the amplitude squared over
the available final states, and averaging over initial states at mass level N . We assume to have
d = 3 + 1 large ordinary dimensions and dc small ones, and a highly energetic (larger than the
string scale) closed fundamental string which can both wrap and have momentum around the
small dimensions. Phase space integration includes a sum over winding and momenta.
The differential decay width dclm1,2 is then given by averaging over initial states and summing over final ones [28,29]
dclm1,2 =


1
|A|2 df1 ,f2
2MG(N )
i

gc2
2M

(N N1 N2 )2

G(N1 )G(N2 )
df1 ,f2 .
G(N )

(72)

The two-body phase space in d = 3 + 1 dimensions is


df(3+1)
=
1 ,f2

k
d,
16 2 M

(73)

where k is the modulus of the momentum of the decay states and the solid angle. Considering
for simplicity flat internal compact dimensions, the inclusion of momentum and winding modes
in the mass formula (70) adds a sum over momenta and windings in the compact directions.
The closed string mass formula which generalises (70) in the presence of discrete momenta and
windings is

 
2
2
1
 ni
2 Ri
+
2 + wi  ,
m =4 N
2

Ri


(74)

which for large energies can be written as




wi2 Ri2
1  n2i ls
+ 3
ls m 2 N +
.
2
ls m
Ri2 m
i

(75)

This allows to approximate the summations over ni and wi as Gaussian integrals in the case
respectively m  ls Ri2 and m  Ri2 / ls3 . Using the asymptotic formula for the density of

32

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

states (69) the amplitude (72) can be integrated to5



 d3


2(2/a)dc (m1 m2 )2 als E m1 m2 (Ddc +1) 2Em1 m2 2
clm1,2
e
,
(76)
M
M
M 2dc ls3+Dd2dc

where a = 4/ 3, dc the number of compact dimensions along which the closed strings have
momenta and windings, the kinetic energy of the decay objects
M
k2
2m1 m2
has been introduced and the approximate relation

N N1 N2  M k 2 + m21 m21  m1 m2
E M m1 m2

(77)

(78)

has been used.


Let us call m the total rate of production of a string of mass m, which is obtained by summing over all values
N2 . The sum over N2 can then be trade for a continuous integral over E
with the substitution N2  m2 dE, obtaining

(ls M)Dd+1 (d1)/2
(m)
m
E (d3)/2 eals E dE,
clm1,2 gc2
(79)
R
ls2 m
where mR m(M m)/M. Since in an interval N corresponds to  mm/2, the density of
states per mass level is (m) =  m/2, thus we can define the differential decay width per mass
interval6
dclm1,2
(m)
(80)
= clm1,2 (m) gc2 M(ls M)Dd (ls mR )(d1)/2 .
dm
The differential decay rate (80) clearly shows that light strings are more easily produced than
heavy ones. Thus we can safely assume that a consistent fraction of the initial rest mass is converted into massless closed strings, i.e. radiation.
We are then lead to consider the amplitude inclusive over m2 and with m1 = 0 which is [28]
eals k
ls M(ls k)d1 dk,
1 eals k
similar to a black body spectrum, leading to a total decay rate
dclrad gc2

(81)

clrad gc2 M.

(82)

Thus in a time much shorter than the string scale a D-string and a D-string
decay efficiently into
radiation.
If it is so, one of the two decay objects can be massless from the 10-dimensional point of view
but it will be massive from the effective 4-dimensional theory. In this case the decay width (81)
5 We assume that the closed strings have enough energy to possess momenta and windings along the compact dimen
R
sions. If this were not the case the right-hand side of (76) should be divided by 31/4 ls m 2li for each direction i along
s

ls
which the momentum modes are not excited and 31/4 ls m 2R
for each direction with unexcited winding modes.
i
6 Note that we obtain a dependence on M and m different from [29]. This happens because here we have summed over

KaluzaKlein momenta and winding modes of the decaying object, thus obtaining the expected dependence on m of (80)
instead of the weird m(D1+dc )/2 factor of [29].

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

33

Fig. 2. Two D-branes at an angle before and after recombination.

Fig. 3. Recombination of two almost anti-parallel D-strings. It is highlighted the region of space where tachyon condensation occurs.

should have been modified by the inclusion of an additional integral

dc
als k 2 +m2

2 e
ls M(ls k)d1 dk
Ri dki
dclKK = gc

2
2
1 eals k +m
i

2
2
gc2 eals k +m mdc 1 dm.

(83)

Then integration over the momenta inthe compact dimensions have the effect of multiplying
the differential decay width by a factor Ri / ls , for Ri  ls , because of the opening up of new
decay channels, and it does not modify the result (81) for Ri ls .
If two D-strings are not exactly anti-parallel but meet at an angle 2 , as in Fig. 2, the tachyon
condensation makes the D-string disappear not over the entire world-volume of the D-strings,
but only as long as the D-strings are separated by a distance shorter than 2ls , which for strings
meeting at angle 2 happens for a region of size Lx = 2ls / tan , see Fig. 3.
The energy density in gravitational waves gw is related to the spectral density function by [31]

GN gw =
2


df f 2 Sh (f ).

(84)

The energy a single annihilation of D-branes make available for radiation can be estimated
as Lx which eventually expands spherically. From (81) and (84) one can then compute the
strain due to a gravitational wave emitted at a distance x from us (here we neglect red-shift for

34

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

the moment, thus having f ls 1 at interesting frequencies)


2 GN Lx  ls f eals f

1 eals f
x2
als f  G   3/2  x 2
N
108
1 e
10
Hz
.
tan 107
Mpc
TeV2

Sh (f )

(85)

Of course Sh (f ) cannot diverge for 0, as the naive estimation for Lx does, but for small
one has to substitute 2ls / tan with lop , the (open) cosmic string length. In this optimal case of
perfect anti-alignment one has
(opt)

Sh

2 GN lop  ls f (1 + z)eals f (1+z)

x2
1 eals f (1+z)



(1 + z)1/2
GN

1070 Hz1 eals f (1+z) 2
,
z (1 + z/zeq )1/2 107
TeV2

(f )

(86)

where it has been used that ls f (1 + z) 1, as a frequency ls1 at an epoch characterised by a temperature T = ls1 , once red-shifted corresponds to 100 GHz today, assuming standard adiabatic
evolution in between.
Assuming that the radiation is produced by an annihilation event during cosmological evolution when the scaling solution has set in, the expected rate of such an event is
N=

P
P
(1 + z)3/2 (1 + z/zeq )1/2 .
t
t0

(87)

It is clear that here again we have to assume an extremal initial density of strings well above
the Kibble density to hope to have a detectable signal. Let us then assume an initial density of
annihilation (42) at an epoch characterised by a red-shift zex . Annihilation will thus take place in
a region of volume V (zex ), see Eq. (33), and for a time duration
 
 
 dt 
 dt 


z  
zex
t (zex ) =  
dz z=zex
dz z=zex
to give
(ex)

Sh (f ) =

dgw
2
GN
ex V t
2
df
f

t04 z4
2 GN lop  ls f (1 + z)eals f (1+z) 1
t02 z2 /(1 + z)2
2  4 (1 + z)9 (1 + zzeq )
1 eals f (1+z)

1 
3
z2 eals f (1+z)


50
1
Hz
,
10
(1 + z)17/2 (1 + zzeq )3/2
TeV2
107 G1
N

(88)

where we have considered the optimal case Lx = lop . Since the extremal case of a Hagedorn
energy density has been assumed, zex has to be high enough to accommodate such a high density phase. Assuming standard adiabatic expansion after this extremal density phase the relation
between the red-shift factor z and the string scale is Eq. (40)

1/2

z = 1015
(89)
,
TeV2

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

35

which takes the estimate (88) very far from both experimental sensitivity and phenomenological
bound. In particular the nucleosynthesis bound requires that not too much radiation is present at
the time of the synthesis of the primordial elements, in order not to spoil the beautiful agreement
between theory and observation of primordial element abundances. Such bound constraints
3

51
1 kHz
Hz
.
Sh (f ) < 10
(90)
f
Substituting (89) into (88) we can obtain
eals f (1+z)
Sh (f ) = 1072 Hz1
1 eals f (1+z)

1/2 
5/2 



f

.
1011 Hz
TeV2
107 G1
N

(91)

In our toy model the spectral strength can saturate the nucleosynthesis bound only around
10100 GHz, i.e. at the end of the spectrum. This is hardly surprising as most of the energy
of the F-string decay is concentrated for frequencies f 1 ls (1 + zex ).
On the other hand if KaluzaKlein modes are created and if they are absolutely stable, they
can rapidly overclose the Universe. In this case of extremal production their initial energy density
is a non-negligible fraction of the total energy density, so their decay is necessary otherwise they
would start dominating as soon as they become non-relativistic. Their final abundance is then set
by the annihilation cross section [32], which may not be Planck scale, as gravity can be strong
much below the Planck scale in large extra dimension scenarios.
If instead we consider the standard scenario with the spacetime rate of open string-open
string encounters given by (26), we can estimate the fraction of the critical energy density going
into the production of massive gravity modes, which may eventually play the role of dark matter
(see [33] for an accurate computation of the decay amplitude of closed strings into KaluzaKlein
modes).7 Let us suppose that each encounter give rise to the production of massive modes for a
total energy EKK = Lx , thus giving an energy density per Hubble volume KK Lx /t 3 . By
normalizing it by the critical energy density c = 3H 2 /(8GN ) (8GN t 2 )1 and integrating
over the history of the Universe, using Eq. (35), we have
KK (znr )
ls
= 32 2 GN
KK (znr )
c (znr )
t0
10

2
50 zin

zeq

GN
107



zin
(1 + z )1/2 (1 + z /zeq )1/2 dz
znr


TeV2

1/2
,

(92)

where zin denotes as in Eq. (37) the time of the onset of the scaling solution. Note that the
integral in (92) has been halted at znr , the red-shift at which the KaluzaKlein modes become
non relativistic. For znr > z > zeq , KK keeps earning a factor of z over c thus resulting into a
present fractional energy density KK KK (z = 0) given by


1
znr
GN

1011
,
KK = KK (znr )
(93)
zeq
107
TeV2
7 See also [34] and [35] for different methods of creating dark matter candidates from cosmic strings.

36

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

where for simplicity we have assumed the mass of the KaluzaKlein modes to be  1/2 , see
Eq. (83), and substituted the relation (89) for z = zin = znr .
This result can be phenomenologically relevant still for a moderate value of the string scale.
4. Conclusions
Motivated by the recent revival in cosmic strings we have studied cosmic strings by modeling
them as D-branes, the solitonic objects of string theory and computed the amount of gravitational
waves emitted in recombination processes which can take place in the moderately early Universe.
We have found that in general such processes are well below present sensitivities. Still the process
leading to string annihilation can result into a production of gravity modes of fundamental strings
which can be massive at an effective 4-D level and can thus have a cosmological effect. Such
effect depends ultimately, in our simple model, on the string scale value, and it can be interesting
even if the string scale is well below the Planck scale. From a more theoretical point of view, this
mechanism represents a way for producing out of equilibrium, very massive particles.
Acknowledgements
It is a pleasure to thank F. Dubath, R. Durrer, M. Kunz and M. Sakellariadou for very useful
discussions. J.L.C. and E.P. thank the theoretical physics department of the University of Geneva
for kind hospitality during the completion of part of this work.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, J. Maldacena, L. McAllister, S.P. Trivedi, JCAP 0310 (2003) 013, hep-th/0308055.
N. Jones, H. Stoica, S.H.H. Tye, JHEP 0207 (2002) 051, hep-th/0203163.
S. Sarangi, S.H.H. Tye, Phys. Lett. B 536 (2002) 185, hep-th/0204074.
E.J. Copeland, R.C. Myers, J. Polchinski, JHEP 0406 (2004) 013, hep-th/0312067.
J. Preskill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 1365.
A. Vilenkin, E. Shellard, Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1994.
P.P. Avelino, J.C.R. Oliveira, C.J.A. Martins, Phys. Lett. B 610 (2005) 1, hep-th/0503226;
P.P. Avelino, C.J.A. Martins, J. Menezes, R. Menezes, J.C.R. Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 123519, astro-ph/
0602540.
M. Gogberashvili, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11 (2002) 1635, hep-ph/9812296;
L. Randall, R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83 (1999) 4690, hep-th/9906064.
E. Witten, Phys. Lett. B 153 (1985) 243.
K. Hashimoto, S. Nagaoka, JHEP 0306 (2003) 034, hep-th/0303204.
K. Hashimoto, W. Taylor, JHEP 0310 (2003) 040, hep-th/0307297;
K. Hashimoto, JHEP 0404 (2004) 004, hep-th/0401043.
A. Hanany, K. Hashimoto, JHEP 0506 (2005) 021, hep-th/0501031.
A. Sen, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 20 (2005) 5513, hep-th/0410103.
J.L. Karczmarek, H. Liu, J. Maldacena, A. Strominger, JHEP 0311 (2003) 042, hep-th/0306132.
T. Damour, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 064008, gr-qc/0104026;
T. Damour, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 063510, hep-th/0410222.
M.G. Jackson, N.T. Jones, J. Polchinski, JHEP 0510 (2005) 013, hep-th/0405229.
S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley, New York, 1972.
B. Abbott, et al., LIGO Collaboration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95 (2005) 221101, astro-ph/0507254.
N. Barnaby, A. Berndsen, J.M. Cline, H. Stoica, JHEP 0506 (2005) 075, hep-th/0412095.
D.P. Bennett, F.R. Bouchet, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60 (1988) 257.
T. Sato, Nucl. Phys. B 682 (2004) 117, hep-th/0304237.
F. Larsen, A. Naqvi, S. Terashima, JHEP 0302 (2003) 039, hep-th/0212248.

J.L. Cornou et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 1637

[23] A. Sen, JHEP 0207 (2002) 065, hep-th/0203265;


A. Sen, JHEP 0204 (2002) 048, hep-th/0203211.
[24] A. Sen, JHEP 0405 (2004) 076, hep-th/0402157.
[25] E.S. Fradkin, A.A. Tseytlin, Nucl. Phys. B 261 (1985) 1;
C.G. Callan, E.J. Martinec, M.J. Perry, D. Friedan, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 593.
[26] J.J. Atick, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 310 (1988) 291.
[27] J. Shelton, JHEP 0501 (2005) 037, hep-th/0411040.
[28] J.L. Manes, Nucl. Phys. B 621 (2002) 37, hep-th/0109196.
[29] B. Chen, M. Li, J.H. She, JHEP 0506 (2005) 009, hep-th/0504040.
[30] R. Iengo, J.G. Russo, JHEP 0602 (2006) 041, hep-th/0601072;
R. Iengo, JHEP 0605 (2006) 054, hep-th/0602125.
[31] M. Maggiore, Phys. Rep. 331 (2000) 283, gr-qc/9909001.
[32] G. Servant, T.M.P. Tait, Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 391, hep-ph/0206071.
[33] D. Chialva, G. Shiu, B. Underwood, JHEP 0601 (2006) 014, hep-th/0508229.
[34] R. Jeannerot, X. Zhang, R.H. Brandenberger, JHEP 9912 (1999) 003, hep-ph/9901357.
[35] T. Matsuda, JCAP 0604 (2006) 005, hep-ph/0509064.

37

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Particle creation from Q-balls


Stephen S. Clark
Institut de Thorie des Phnomnes Physiques, Ecole Polytechnique Fdrale de Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland
Received 26 July 2006; accepted 25 August 2006
Available online 11 September 2006

Abstract
Non-topological solitons, Q-balls can arise in many particle theories with U (1) global symmetries. As
was shown by Cohen et al. [A.G. Cohen, S.R. Coleman, H. Georgi, A. Manohar, The evaporation of Q-balls,
Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 301], if the corresponding scalar field couples to massless fermions, large Q-balls
are unstable and evaporate, producing a fermion flux proportional to the Q-balls surface. In this paper we
analyse Q-ball instabilities as a function of Q-ball size ans fermion mass. In particular, we construct an exact
quantum-mechanical description of the evaporating Q-ball. This new construction provides an alternative
method to compute Q-balls evaporation rates. We shall also find the new expression for the upper bound
on evaporation as a function of the produced fermion mass and study the effects of Q balls size on particle
production.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
A scalar field theory with an unbroken continuous global symmetry admits a remarkable class
of solutions, non-topological solitons or Q-balls. These solutions are spherically symmetric nondissipative solutions to the classical field equations [13]. In a certain way they can be viewed
as a sort of BoseEinstein condensate of classical scalars. The construction of these solutions
uses the fact that they are absolute minima of the energy for a fixed value of the conserved
U (1)-charge Q. So in the sector of fixed charge the Q-ball solution is the ground state and all its
stability properties are due to charge conservation. An important amount of work has been done
on Q-ball dynamics and on their stability versus decay into scalars [1,4]. Apart some existence

E-mail address: sclark@tiscali.fr (S.S. Clark).


0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.019

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

39

theorems that depend on the type of symmetry and the potentials involved [3], the stability of
Q-balls is due to the fact that their mass is smaller than the mass of a collection of scalars.
In realistic theories the scalar field has a coupling with fermionic fields. The addition of this
coupling modifies the criterions of Q-ball stability since they can now produce fermions. This
fact will have an important interest for cosmology since Q-balls can play the role of dark matter
[5,6]. Particle production from the Q-ball will reduce its charge Q and at a certain point the
Q-ball will become unstable versus decay into scalars to finally disappear. This problem has
been considered in [2,3] for the production of massless fermions by a large Q-ball. The method
used was to construct the quantum field as a superposition, with operator valued coefficients, of
the classical solutions. In most cases we can express the general solution as a superposition of
partial waves. The next step will be to use the asymptotic behaviour of the fields, considering the
far past and the far future where the fields can be identified to free ones. In most configurations
the fields in the far past and in the far future are free fields and the relation, the S-matrix, linking
them together contains all the information needed to answer the question of particle production.
The problem we have here is that the Q-ball is a time-dependent configuration, so we need to be
careful when we identify the asymptotic states to free (static) ones. We must make sure that the
identification is made before the interaction is turned on and after it is turned off.
To avoid the problems linked to the time dependence of the Q-ball we shall propose an alternative method. This uses Heisenbergs picture of quantum mechanics. We shall construct the
time independent state representing particle production, it is done by solving the condition that
no fluxes are coming from infinity (no particles are moving towards the Q-ball). We can then
build the Heisenberg field operator containing all the relevant information and time dependence.
Particle creation is then computed by using the number operator, but any other operator valued
quantity can be calculated. The use of this method needs no limit calculations on the Q-balls
size, so it can be used to study small Q-ball as well. The difficulty now lies in solving the production condition. This condition can be solved considering asymptotics of the fields far away
from the Q-ball.
The major difference between the standard construction and this one lies in the kinematical
conditions used. The standard S-matrix based method will solve matching conditions to compute
all the reflection and transmission amplitudes of an incident wave. The approach used here is
different in the sense that we construct a state having no incoming wave, making the computation
of scattered amplitudes useless. Using this construction implies that all the particles are created
inside the Q-ball, since they all move away from the Q-ball.
The other important fact to investigate is the production of massive fermions. Can a Q-ball
produce any type of fermions, and is the fermion mass relevant for the Q-balls life time? To
answer this question we can use both pictures, the problem is now that solutions to massive field
equations have twice as many degrees of freedom. Even if the construction of the Heisenberg
field operator is possible and not very difficult, the resolution of the particle production condition
is a complex task to achieve, so we shall use the S-matrix picture. The partial wave expansion of
the solution can easily be obtained when working with one space dimension. In fact using this
simple picture allowed us to obtain analytical results describing a fermion field being scattered
by a Q-ball. Computing the evaporation rate as a function of the produced fermion mass will lead
to a new definition for the absolute upper bound of evaporation rate. An other important question
we can ask is the role of the Q-balls size on the different particle creation regimes. To answer
this question we shall study both very big and small Q-balls.
The paper is organised as follows. We first give a review of the simplest 3-dimensional Q-ball
model to build up its basic properties and we then reduce it to 1 space dimension. We then con-

40

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

sider interaction of Q-balls with massless fermions and construct a solution where there are only
fermions moving away from the Q-ball, this construction will give us the evaporation rate of
Q-balls for production of massless fermions. We then consider production of massive fermions,
using the incident wave outside the Q-ball. This requires the knowledge of the reflection and
transmission amplitudes on the Q-balls surface. Finally we extend our results to 3 1 dimensions.
2. A simple Q-ball model
We review here the basic properties of a 3-dimensional Q-ball using the simplest possible
model. As we mentioned in the introduction, the Q-ball is the ground state of a scalar theory
containing a global symmetry. We can now build the simplest model in 3 1 dimensions having
a Q-ball solution: it is a SO(2) invariant theory of two real scalar fields (in fact it is the U (1) theory of one complex scalar field) [1]. We start by writing down the Lagrangian and the equations
of motion for the scalar field, to obtain the conserved charge and current. The Lagrangian of the
scalar sector is given by:
 
L =  U || .
(1)
The U (1) symmetry is
ei .
The conserved current is
 


j = i   ,

(2)

and the conserved charge is



Q = d 3 x j0 .

(3)

We build a solution with the minimal energy: if U (0) = 0 is the absolute minimum of the potential, = 0 is the ground state and the U (1) symmetry is unbroken. It was shown in [1] that new
U
particles (Q-balls) appear in the spectrum, if the potential is such that the minimum of ||
2 is at
some value 0 = 0.


Min 2U/||2 = 2U0 /|0 |2 < 2 = U  (0).
(4)
The charge and energy of a given field configuration are:


1 
t  + c.c. d 3 x,
Q=
2i

 
1 2 1
2
E=
|| + || + U () d 3 x.
2
2

(5)

The Q-ball solution is a solution with minimum energy for a fixed charge, we thus introduce the
following Lagrange multiplier




1  
t + c.c. d 3 x .
= E + Q
(6)
2i

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

41

Minimising this functional with the standard Q-ball ansatz:


= (
x )eit ,

(7)

where (r) is a monotonically decreasing function of distance to the origin, and zero at infinity.
Inserting the Q-ball ansatz in the equations of motion gives in spherical coordinates
d 2
2 d
(8)
=
2 + U  ().
2
r dr
dr
If we interpret as a particle position and r as time this equation is similar to a Newtonian
equation of motion for a particle of unit mass subject to viscous damping moving in the potential
1 2 2
2 U . We are searching for a solution in which the particle starts at t = 0 at some position
(0), at rest, d
dr = 0, and comes to rest at infinite time at = 0. Solving this problem is not
difficult (see [1] for details). One of the solutions can be the localised step function. Although
we can solve exactly the equation of motion, we will not do it in this work.
This construction is the Q-ball we where looking for, in the sense that it is the ground state
of the theory with constant charge. We used only one field to describe it but it is in fact made
of a collection of scalars. Q-balls rotate with constant angular velocity in internal space and are
spherically symmetric in position space. As the charge Q goes to infinity, approaches

0 = 2U0 / 2 ,
(9)
where U0 is the value of the potential at the minimum. In this limit, resembles a smoothedout step function. The two regions (r < R and r > R) are separated by a transition zone of
thickness 1 . This leads to the consideration of two approximations the thick and thin wall
regime (see [3] and [7] for details). The radius of the Q-ball can easily be calculated using the
definition of charge:
4
Q = R 3 0 02 .
(10)
3
This calculation has been done (r) = 0 if r > R. All the properties of the Q-ball are now
known except the exact profile of the Q-ball field. We shall now build up the Q-ball solution to
our problem. The energy is given by the integral (5) and using the previous properties and taking
the limit V , where V is the volume of the Q-ball, the energy becomes
1
E = 2 ||2 V + U V .
2
The charge becomes
Q = 0 ||2 V .

(11)

(12)

We wish to minimise the energy with fixed charge. Using Eq. (12) to eliminate , we have in the
limit of Q ,
E=

1 Q
+ UV.
2 ||2 V

As a function of V it has its minimum at


Q
.
V=

2||2 U

(13)

(14)

42

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Here the energy is given now by



2U
.
E=Q
2

(15)

With some little modifications this construction can be adapted to any dimensions. The model
we shall use in the next section is a 1 1-dimensional model. In one space dimension the Q-ball
profile will be the standard step function localised in a space region of size l.
3. Production of massless fermions
The solution to the problem of particle creation by a Q-ball can be solved using two different
pictures. The first one is based on the S-matrix formalism, using the idea that the field is free
for t . This construction is done by finding the solution to the equations of motion for
a fermion interacting with a Q-ball, in terms of a superposition of classical solutions. The quantisation is made by upgrading expansion coefficients to operators, this will give us the Heisenberg
field operator. The S-matrix will then be constructed by identifying the fields in the far past and
in the far future to fields having the exact positive and negative frequency behaviour. This method
was widely used to solve the problem for particle creation. This method was used to compute the
evaporation rate of Q-balls [2,3] where the expansion was made using rotational eigenfunctions.
Once the total solution is known it is simple to build the transformation from the far past to the far
future. In the far past only the incoming wave will survive and in the far future only the outgoing
ones.
The construction we are going to use here is different, we shall in the first place solve the
equations of motion and obtain the Heisenberg field operator representing a fermion interacting
with a Q-ball. In one space dimension this solution will be expressed in the form,


 +
1

(
, t, z)A(
) + Q
(
, t, z)B(
) ,
d
Q
Q =
4

where the Q
(
, t, z) are a basis of the solution to the Dirac equation for fermions interacting with a Q-ball of charge Q. A(
) and B(
) are operators depending on energy, their
anti-commutation relations are the standard ones if the solutions satisfy proper orthogonality conditions. The next step we shall use is consider the space asymptotics of this solution. Far
away from the Q-ball (z = for one space dimension) the solution is the standard free field
solution. This identification will give us a relation between the solution operators A(
), B(
) and
the free asymptotic ones a(p), b(p). The only difficulty in this identification is that the quantisation of the solution was made using energy (due to the time dependence of interaction) while
the asymptotical operators depend on momentum. The next step will be to define and solve the
particle production condition, saying that no particles are moving towards the Q-ball. In terms of
asymptotic operators it is

aL (p)|
= bL (p)|
= 0 for p > 0, on the left,
aR (p)|
= bR (p)|
= 0

for p < 0, on the right.

(16)

The last step of the resolution will consist in using the total Heisenberg operator , and the
particle productive state to compute the fermionic flux giving evaporation rate. The main idea
used here is to construct a solution having no incoming wave, so we do not need to compute
any reflected or transmitted coefficients. This way all the particles come from inside the Q-ball.

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

43

As mentioned before this new construction gives a good alternative to the standard scattering
kinematics. The other advantage of this picture is to allow us giving a consistent treatment of
time continuity.
In the next two subsections we shall build the solution and the relation to asymptotic operators, while in the two last subsections we shall solve the production condition and compute the
evaporation rate.
3.1. Solutions to the equations of motion
Writing down the Lagrangian of a massless fermion having a Yukawa interaction with a scalar
field gives in one spatial dimension,


+ g C + h.c. ,
Lferm. = i
(17)
where the C superscript indicates the charge conjugated fermion. The equations of motion and
their solutions are fully described in literature on the subject [13]. Instead of treating separately
the fermion and the anti-fermion, we shall construct the exact global solution to this problem,
this solution will be made of different parts first the solution inside the Q-ball (for z [l, l]).
Equations of motion for the two components of the field are:
(i0 + iz )1 g2 = 0,
(i0 iz )2 g  1 = 0,
and = 0 ei0 t in the zone from l to +l and zero everywhere else. Using the ansatz:


0
A i
t+i(k+ 20 )
1
0
ei 2 t
e
,
=
0t

i
B
2
0
e 2

(18)

(19)

the equations of motion are reduced to the following 2 2 linear system




k

M
A
= 0.
M
(k +
)
B

The determinant of the system gives k =


2 M 2 k
. Solving for the two cases k = +k

and k = k
, we obtain the solution inside the Q-ball:

k
+



1
1
ik
z
M
+
B
=
A
e
eik
z ,
Q =
(20)
k
+

2
1
M
where M = g0 , g is the coupling constant and 0 the value of the scalar field. The second part
is the solution when 0 = 0 (outside the Q-ball) it is,

L,R i
z
C1 e
1
i
t
=
(21)
=e
,
2
C2L,R ei
z
where superscripts L, R indicate the left and right side of the Q-ball. In order to solve Diracs
equation everywhere the solution needs to be continuous in space. Space continuity gives at
z = l:
C1L = Aei(k
+
)l + B
ei(k

)l ,
C2L = A
ei(k

)l + Bei(k
+
)l ,

44

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

and at z = +l,
C1R = Aei(k
+
)l + B
e+i(k

)l ,
C2R = A
ei(k

)l + Be+i(k
+
)l .
These matching relations are used to express the solution only using the parameters coming from
the inner part of the solution. This construction will allow us to build a state where there is no
incoming fermion, all the fermions are now produced inside the Q-ball. Putting together all these
parts gives the full solution continuous in space and time:

0
0
 i
l

e (Aeik
l + B
eik
l )ei(
+ 2 )t ei(
+ 2 )z
z
<
l
ei
l (A eik
l + Beik
l )ei(
20 )t ei(
20 )z


0
0


ik
z + B eik
z )ei(
+ 2 )t ei 2 z

(Ae

(22)
= d

l  z  +l

,
i(
20 )t i 20 z
ik
z
ik
z
2

(A
e
+ Be )e
e

ei
l (Aeik
l + B
eik
l )ei(
+ 20 )t ei(
+ 20 )z

z > +l
0
0
i(

)t
i(

)z
i
l
ik
l
ik
l
2
2
e (A
e
+ Be
)e
e
where
k
+

(23)
.
M
A little work on the solution and on its orthogonality properties leads to a solution of the form:

 +
 0
1

Q =
(24)
(
)A(
) + Q
(
)B(
) ei 2 z (t),
d
ei
t Q
4

with


(t) =

and

ei 2
0

i 20 t


(25)

f1 (
, l)ei
z


z < l

(f2 (
, l)) ei
z

ik
z
ik
z

+
e )
(e

= N
l  z  +l ,
ik
z
ik
z

(
e
+ e
)

i
z
f1 (
, l)e
z
>
+l
(f2 (
, l)) ei
z

(26)

and the functions f1,2


having the form



1
ei
l eik
l +
eik
l ,
4N


1


f2 (
, l) =
ei
l
 eik
l + eik
l .
4N

f1 (
, l) =








N = 4 cosh Im[k
]l 1 + |
|2 cos Re[k
]l Re[
] .

(27)
(28)

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

45

Finally the time-dependent matrix was introduced for simplicity, the N are the normalisation
constants. Quantisation of solution (24) was made using equal time anti-commutation relations

for . If the functions satisfy dz ( (
 )) (
) =  (

) we can show that,



 +

  +    

A(
), A (
 ) = dz dz Q
(z,
) Q
(z ,
) Q , ( Q ) = (

).



(z z)

The Q solution we obtained has now being upgraded to a Heisenberg field operator describing
fermions interacting with a Q-ball.
3.2. Relation to asymptotic operators
First we conjugate the second component of the above solution, in order to compare it with the
standard free solution for a massless fermion in 1 1 dimensions (see [8] for details). We look at
the asymptotic behaviour of the Q-ball solution (24). On the left and right-hand side of the Q-ball,
it has to be the standard free solution since the interaction is zero outside the Q-balls volume.
After elimination of integrals and standard manipulations and variable changes, we obtain at
z :




1
(p)
(p)
a(p) +
b (p)

(p)
2 (p)
+


f1 (
, l)A(
)|
=p 0
f1 (
, l)B(
)|
=p 0
2
2
=
(29)
+
.
f2+ (
, l)A (
)|
=p+ 0
f2 (
, l)B (
)|
=p+ 0
2

(p) is the heavy-side function, (p) = 0 if p is negative and (p) = 0 when p is positive.
 (p)
 (p) 
Multiplying Eq. (29) by (p) and by (p) we obtain the two following equations:


1
aL (p) = f1+ (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) 
=p 0 (p)
2
2

 +

+ f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
) 
=p+ 0 (p),
2



1
(p) = f1+ (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) 
=p 0 (p)
bL
2
2

 +


+ f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
)
=p+ 0 (p).

(30)

In these two equations the l subscript indicates we are on the left-hand side of the Q-ball, the
same manipulations on the right-hand side lead to:


1
aR (p) = f1+ (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) 
=p 0 (p)
2
2

 +


+ f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
)
=p+ 0 (p),
2



1
(p) = f1+ (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) 
=p 0 (p)
bR
2
2

 +


+ f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
)
=p+ 0 (p).

(31)

Checking the anti-commutation relations of operators aL,R and bL,R is a tedious task but using

the different energy ranges and orthogonality properties of the f1,2


it can be done. These four

46

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

equations will be the basis of the construction of particle productive state, since they give a
relation between free operators (lower case) and solution operators (upper case). These relations
will give the solution in terms of free operators, so the next task we need to achieve is to define
and construct the particle productive state.
3.3. Construction of particle productive state
As mentioned before, the construction of this quantum state will be done using the fact that
there are no particles moving towards the Q-ball. These are negative momentum particles on the
left and positive momentum particles on the right. In terms of aL,R , and bL,R operators:
aL (p)|
= bL (p)|
= 0 for p > 0, on the left,
aR (p)|
= bR (p)|
= 0

for p < 0, on the right.

(32)

This construction will lead to the opposite sign of the fermionic current on the left and on the
right-hand side of Q-ball using Eqs. (30), (31). We then obtain four equations. For positive p, we
have:

 +
f1 (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) 
=p 0 |
= 0,
2



 +
f1 (
, l) A (
) + f1 (
, l) B (
)
=p 0 |
= 0,
(33)
2

and for negative p



 +
f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
) 
=p+ 0 |
= 0,
2




 +
f2 (
, l) A(
) + f2 (
, l) B(
)
=p+ 0 |
= 0.

(34)

Due to the relation between


, p, 20 given in the subindices of Eqs. (33), (34) and the fact that
p is either positive or negative, we can identify three ranges for
:
For
> + 20 we only have the following two equations:
 +

f1 (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) |
= 0,
 +




f2 (
, l) A(
) + f2 (
, l) B(
) |
= 0.

(35)

< 20

For the negative range

we have:




 +
f1 (
, l) A (
) + f1 (
, l) B (
) |
= 0,

 +
f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
) |
= 0.

(36)

For the middle range


[ 20 , + 20 ] we have:
 +

f1 (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
) |
= 0,

 +
f2 (
, l)A (
) + f2 (
, l)B (
) |
= 0.

(37)

The range where |


| > + 20 is easy to solve, since we expect the solution to be the vacuum and
to lead to no evaporation. The determinant of the matrix:




f1 (
, l)
f1+ (
, l)
= 2 1
2 ,
det
(38)
+



(f2 (
, l)) (f2 (
, l))

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

47

is always different from zero. The only solution for an evaporating state in this range is the trivial
solution given by:
A(
)|
= B(
)|
= 0 for
>

0
,
2

0
(39)
.
2
In fact these two equations are the same, because we can always use the transformation A(
) =
A (
) (
) + B  (
) (
), all equations will have vacuum solutions. Here the anti-commutation
relations are trivial to check because of the two different energy ranges. For the middle range

[ 20 , + 20 ] things are a little more complicated, this being the range where particle production
occurs as first shown in [2]. Taking a look at solution (26) in this range, only particles are created
and changing the sign of 0 changes the particle type. We now need to check normalisation
of these new operators describing the evaporating state and their anti-commutation relations.
Defining the evaporation operators in all the energy ranges, we have

(
),

< 20 ,

ae (
) =
(40)
8(f1+ (
, l)A(
) + f1 (
, l)B(
)),
[ 20 , + 20 ],

0
A(
),

>+ 2 ,
A (
)|
= B (
)|
= 0 for
<

and


(
),

be (
) =
8(f1+ (
, l) A (
) f1 (
, l) B (
)),

B(
),

1
where the 8 factor is the normalisation +

< 20 ,

[ 20 , + 20 ],

. The anti-commutation relations

|f1 (
,l)|2 +|f1 (
,l)|2
use the fact that |f1 |2

of these operators are easy to check. They


state is now fully characterised by the simple relation:
ae (
)|
= be (
)|
= 0.

(41)

> + 20 ,

1
4 .

The particle production


(42)

This simple relation gives the ground state for a Q-ball producing fermions. We could now compute lots of different properties of these fermions but we compute their number. The state defined
by this relation has no incident fermion, it is exactly the state we wanted to build. The final step
will now be to compute the fermionic flux and obtain the particle production rate.
3.4. Particle production rate
(x), which in

The particle production rate is given by the current operator j (x) = (x)
our case is

1 1 2 2 = j(x)

(43)

that we shall apply on the evaporating state defined by the vacuum for ae and be operators. First
we invert the systems (40) and (41) to obtain:
"
0
A(
) = ae (
),

< ,
(44)
2
B(
) = be (
),

48

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

"
0
A(
) = ae (
),
,

>
B(
) = be (
),
2

 A(
) =

0
0
,

, +
B(
) =
2
2

(45)
1
(a (
) + be (
)),
82f1+ (
,l) e
1

(a (
) be (
)).
8 2f1 (
,l) e

(46)

Now we can compute the first term of the current on the left-hand side of the Q-ball: using anticommutation relations and the separate range of integrals and the definition of A(
) and B(
) in
terms of evaporation operators ae (
), be (
) we obtain:
0

2
0|1 1 |0
=

2

2


d
f1+ (
, l) 0|ae (
)ae (
)|0
+ f1 (
, l) 0|be (
)be (
)|0

1
8

0
2

0
2


 +
 f (
, l) f1 (
, l) 2
 0|be (
)b (
)|0
.

d
 1
e
2
2 

(47)

The other term of the current, proportional to 2 2 , is very similar but we need to be careful
with the fact that 2 is proportional to f2 (
, l). Applying the same method we obtain:
+

0|2 2 |0
=

1
8

0
2

0
2

+
+
+

 +

 (f2 (
, l)) (f2 (
, l)) 2

 0|ae (
)a (
)|0

d

+
e
2f1+ (
, l)
2f1 (
, l) 


2
d
 f2+ (
, l)  0|ae (
)ae (
)|0

0
2


 2

+  f (
, l)  0|be (
)b (
)|0
.
2

(48)

It is easy to check that |f2 (


, l)|2 = |f1 (
, l)|2 leading to the compensation of terms with infinite
bounds. Finally the expression for the fermionic current on the left is:
+

jL =

0
2

0
2

+ 2


 +


 (f2 (
, l)) (f2 (
, l)) 2

sinh[2ik
l] 2
 =


d

d

+
 e2ik
l 2 e2ik
l  .
2f1+ (
, l)
2f1 (
, l) 

(49)

0
2

If the real part of k


equals zero ( 20  M), we use the definitions

k
+

,
|
|2 = 1
k
= i M 2
2 ,

=
M
and the current is then:
+

0
2

jL =

20

sinh2 [2 M 2
2 l]
d

2
2
2
2
|e2 M
l
2 e2 M
l |2

(50)

In the limit Ml we can neglect the negative exponentials and the only factor we are left
with is the 12 coming from the hyperbolic sine. The right-hand side the current is the same except

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

49

0 = 0.5.
Fig. 1. Particle production rate for small values of Ml and for a fixed value of 2M

for the sign, so the total current is equal to one half. Using the continuity equation we can write:

j0 j1
dQ
(51)
+
=0
= z j (z) dz = jL jR = 2jL .
t
z
dt
The current does not depend on z so the value of the current is constant on both sides, so after
integration of the current over
we obtain:
dQ
1
(52)
=
0 .
dt
4
This expression gives the particle production rate as a function of 0 when 0 is smaller than M
in the limit of big Ml. It is in fact [2] an evaporation rate since it does not depend on the Q-balls
size. The other importance of this result is that it gives a absolute upper bound on evaporation
rate. The case when the imaginary part of k
is equal to zero is a bit more complicated to solve.
In this case we need to explicitly compute the current integral, so this case will be studied numerically. The value obtained for the evaporation rate in (52) is the 1 1 equivalent of the results
found in literature on the subject.
3.4.1. Production rate in function of size
We shall first consider the limit where l is small. In this case we write

2




 2

2
2 2
2
2
2
sinh 2 M
l = 4 M
l = 4(Ml) 1
,
M

 2 M 2
2 l
 
2
2 2
2
2
2
2
e

2 e2 M
l  = e4 M
l + e+4 M
l 2 Re
2



2
2
M 2
=2 1 2 .
=2 1
M2
M
These two terms will simplify to give after integration over
:
0
jL = l 2 M 2 ,
8
leading to the particle production rate:

(53)

(54)

1
dQ
= l 2 M 2 0 .
(55)
dt
4
This result ensures us the fact that when Ml = 0, the Q-ball does not exist, the evaporation rate
is zero. This behaviour is shown on Fig. 1. The next limit we shall study is the very large Q-ball

50

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

0 = 0.5.
Fig. 2. Particle production rate in function of Ml and for a fixed value of 2M

0
dN
Fig. 3. Particle production rate 2
M dt as a function of 2M in the limit of very big Ml parameter.

limit. To do so we take a look at the production rate for large values of the size parameter, Ml and
observe that the production rate becomes constant for big values of the size parameter (see Fig. 2
and Fig. 3). These considerations also stand for all the possible values of the frequency parameter
0
the only difference is when 2M
gets bigger the stability of the evaporation rate comes for bigger
values of Ml.
3.4.2. Energy flux far away form the Q-ball
The next calculation we can do is the calculation of the energy flux far away from the Q-ball.
In the case where we consider the observer very far from the Q-ball the only relevant coordinate
is the distance to the Q-ball, we are in a one spacial dimension case. The energy flux a distant
observer can measure is given after normalisation by M,
dE
=
M dt d

+ 2M0

2M0


M 

( M
) sinh[2i k( M
) l]
e

2ik(

l
M)

(2
) e

2ik(

2 2



,
l 
M
)

(56)

this expression is obtained by computing the energy flux through a sphere containing the Q-ball.
When the real part of k
equals zero the fraction becomes equal to one. The result in this range
will be proportional to 03 [2,3] (see Fig. 4).

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

51

0
1
dN
Fig. 4. Normalised particle production rate 2
M dt upper bound as a function of 2M in the limit of a very big Ml parameter.

3.4.3. Results of numerical integration


We can now give the evaporation rate of a Q-ball into massless fermions in function of its
internal frequency. In Fig. 1 we can observe a limit in the evaporation rate. The absolute upper
bound can be computed using
+

dN

dt

0
2

d
= 0 ,

20

this absolute upper bound will be used to normalise the evaporation rate.
4. Production of massive fermions
The evaporation of a Q-ball into massive fermions is more complicated than the previous case.
We can quite easily obtain the Heisenberg field operator but solving the evaporation condition
is a difficult task, even with only one space dimension. So the method we are going to use
is the same S-matrix based method used in [2,3]. This picture will need as starting point the
expression of the solution as a superposition of wave packets. It is done by expressing the motion
equations in matrix form and then expanding the solutions over the eigenfunctions. This gives
the separation into left and right movers. Choosing which wave is the incident one, we can write
the solution as


L = B1 ei p1 x up1 + B2 ei p2 x up2 + r1 ei p1 x up1 + r2 ei p2 x up4 ,
(57)

 i p x
i p 2 x
1
R = t1 e
(58)
up1 + t2 e
up2 ,
where the us and ps
describe the solution away from the Q-ball and the L, R subscripts stand
for the left- or right-hand side of the Q-ball. This solution has two incident waves associated
with particles or anti-particles moving towards the Q-ball, giving two solutions. The reflected
and transmitted waves are associated with particles moving away from the Q-ball. The same
construction is done on the other side of the Q-ball, to give four solutions. Finally we obtain the
total solution as a superposition of these four solutions with the expansion coefficients becoming
operators. This canonical quantisation does not introduce any big problem and can be done in
a straightforward way. The next step will be to consider that in the far past only the incoming
wave survives, giving us a relation between the operators in the far past and in the far future
(where only outgoing waves survives). The last step we shall do is compute the number operator.

52

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

The only difficult task is the computation of reflection and transmission amplitudes appearing
in the solutions. Will shall provide two methods for calculating these amplitudes. One method
will consist in calculating all the scalar products of the motion eigenvectors, while the other one
will consist in the diagonalisation of the motion matrices. The results are fully consistent, and the
two methods serve to illustrate a variety of physical insights. The main objective we shall reach
is the computation of the new value of the upper bound on evaporation rate. This bound will now
depend on the produced fermion mass and not only on the internal Q-ball frequency.
The first three subsections describe the solutions in terms of eigenvectors of 4 4 matrices.
In the three next subsections we compute the transmission and reflection amplitudes for massive waves on the Q-balls surface. In the last subsections we compute the evaporation rate and
simplify the problem by diagonalisation of the motion matrices.
4.1. Preliminaries
Using the same Lagrangian as for the massless case and adding a Dirac mass coupling for
massive fermions, gives the fermionic Lagrangian:



+ g C + h.c. + MD (x).
L = i
(59)
The equations of motion using two component -field, in 1 1-dimensions are
(it + iz )1 Mei

0
2 t

(it iz )2 + Mei

0
2 t

2 + MD 2 = 0,
1 + MD 1 = 0.

(60)

These equations can be solved if we use fields with four degrees of freedom. Solving this system
will give us the solution inside the Q-ball, which is the first step. To solve these equations of
motion we use the following ansatz
1 = f1 (z)ei(

2 = g1 (z)e

i(

0
2 )t

+ f2 (z)ei(
+

0
2 )t

0
2 )t

i(
+

0
2 )t

+ g2 (z)e

(61)

Due to the separation of time components this ansatz will lead to four equations. These equations
can easily be modified to reduce the numbers of parameters: we divide all equations by M = 0.
We shall now re-write these equations, taking
f1 (z) = Aeipz ,

f2 (z) = Beipz ,

g1 (z) = Ceipz ,

g2 (z) = Deipz .

(62)

After some re-arrangement of the equations we obtain:

f1 g2 + MD g1 = pf1 ,

g1 f2 MD f1 = pg1 ,

+ f2 + g1 MD g2 = pf2 ,

+ g2 + f1 + MD f2 = pg2 ,


0
2

(63)
0
2 .

and
+ =
+
This arrangement has the advantage that we can now write
where
=

the -field in terms of four component spinors as:
f
1
g1

=
(64)
 .
f2
g2

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

53

The idea of using four-component spinors is that now the fermion field contains both energy
components, just like the solution used in the previous chapter. The other advantage is that this
rearrangement leads to the standard four component spinor solution. The equations of motion
become in matrix form,

A
A
0
1

MD
1
0 B
B
MD

(65)
= Mp .

C
C
0
1

+ MD
1
0
MD

+
D
D
All the parameters are normalised by M. The fact that we have the M factor one the right-hand
side will allows us to simplify the space components and replace l by Ml. All the parameters we
are left with now are all dimensionless, we should read the matrix elements to be all divided by
M and thus dimensionless. These satisfy
M = M T ,

(66)

with = Diagonal Matrix [1, 1, 1, 1]. This symmetry will be used to perform the normalisation of eigenvectors.
4.2. Solution inside the Q-ball
Using the dimensionless parameters and the eigenvectors of the motion matrix we can write
the time independent solution inside the Q-ball in the form:
Q =

4
#

Cj vj eipj z .

(67)

j =1

The vs are the eigenvectors of the motion matrix while the ps are its eigenvalues. We shall not
compute here the exact form of these eigenvectors, but we can prove that the eigenvalues are
either purely imaginary or purely real. For reasons that will become clear later on, the first two
terms of this solution have positive momentum while the two last have negative momentum. This
arrangement does not modify the shape or any properties of the solution, but will greatly simplify
the rest of the work. Inside the Q-ball the time-dependent solution is:
=

4
#



up
Cj ei(
)t vpj ei pj z + Cj ei(
+)t vpdown
ei pj z ,
j

(68)

j =1

where the up superscript stands for the first two components of the eigenvectors, while the down
one indicates we take the two last components.
4.3. Solution without Q-ball background
Outside the Q-ball the solution is given by the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the following
matrix:

A
A
0
0

MD
0
0 B
B
MD

(69)
= p .

0
0

+ MD
C
C
0
0
MD

+
D
D

54

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Fig. 5. Sketch of the possible ranges for


.

All its parameters are normalised by M, so they are all dimensionless. The eigenvalues are given
by:

2 M 2 p ,
p 1,3 =

1
D

2 M 2 p .
p 2,3 =
+
(70)
2
D
Let us stress that all parameters are dimensionless since we have to read them as being divided
by M, the Majorana mass coupling. The exact eigenvectors can be easily calculated but we do
not need them. Here the p 1,2 momentum can be complex or real. If we want some particle to
propagate outside Q-ball we need both p 1,2 to be real, it gives for

|
|  MD ,
to solve this we must identify two cases. The first case is,
0
,

 0

2
0 0
>
,

 M D
 M D +
2
2
the last inequality is verified if 20  MD . The second case is,
0
,
2
0 0

MD 
,

 MD
2
2
once more the last inequality is valid when 20  MD . A similar calculation for |
+ |  MD gives:

 0

0
0
(71)
and
 MD
.
2
2
The only way to avoid the gaps and have the two waves (both p1 and p2 ) is for
to be in the
range (see Fig. 5):


0 0
,
MD .

MD
(72)
2 2

 MD

This range will mix both the particles and anti-particles and thus lead to the non-trivial Bogolubov transformation. We also have:
0
(73)
 MD .
2
This range is the equivalent as the range defined for the massless case. Following the same
construction as in the previous section, the static solution outside the Q-ball can also be written

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

55

in the form
0 =

4
#

Aj uj ei pj z ,

(74)

Bj uj ei pj z ,

(75)

j =1

0 =

4
#
j =1

this time the Bj coefficients are on the left-hand side of Q-ball while the Aj are on the right-hand
side. The time-dependent solution is once more given by,
4
#




up
i p j z 
(Aj , Bj )ei(
)t upj ei pj z + Aj , Bj ei(
+)t udown
.
=
pj e

(76)

j =1

These considerations allow us to find the particle production energy range where particles can
propagate outside the Q-ball. The first part of our calculation is over, the next task is to compute
the reflection and transmission amplitudes. It is in fact solving the matching equations in matrix
form. The solution will give a relation from the far left to the far right of the Q-ball and the centre
part (the Q-ball itself) will not appear directly.
4.4. Construction of scattering matrix
We want to construct the matrix linking the solution at z = to the solution at z = +.
We are searching for the matrix:


A1
B1
B
A
2
2
(77)
= V .
B3
A3
B4
A4
As a reminder the Bs are on the left while the As are the right-hand side of the Q-ball. This
construction will not contain directly any inside parameters so the A and B can be considered
as free parameters while the reflection and transmission amplitudes will be contained in the V
matrix. To compute the matrix elements we need to solve the matching equations.
4.5. Matching in space
We first start by matching the solutions at z = l we have:
B1 up1 ei p1 l + B2 up2 ei p2 l + B3 up3 ei p3 l + B4 up4 ei p4 l
= C1 vp1 eip1 l + C2 vp2 eip2 l + C3 vp3 eip3 l + C4 vp4 eip4 l .

(78)

We redefine the Bi and the Ci in the way


B i = Bi ei pi l ,

Ci
C i = .
Ni

(79)

Multiplying Eq. (80) by u Ti , orthogonality property coming from the symmetry of the motion
matrices:
B i uTpi upi =

4
#
j =1

uTi vj eipj l C j .

(80)

56

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Doing the same for all the Bs and writing down all the relations in matrix form we obtain:


C1
B1
C2
B2
U = SE ,
(81)
B3
C3
B4
C4
with,

uT1 v1 uT1 v2
uT v1 uT v2
2
2
S=
uT v1 uT v2
3
3
uT4 v1 uT4 v2
ip1 l
e
0
eip2 l
0
E(l) =
0
0
0
0
and

uT u
p 1
p 1

0
U =

0
0

uT1 v3
uT2 v3
uT3 v3
uT4 v3
0
0

eip3 l
0

0
T
up2 up2
0
0

uT1 v4
uT2 v4
,
uT v4
3
uT4 v4

0
0
0

(82)

(83)

0
.

0
T
up4 up4

(84)

eip4 l

0
0
uTp3 up3
0

We can then write for the expression we obtain at z = l




B1
C1
C2
B2

1
= U SE .
B3
C3
B4
C4
At z = +l we have using the same definitions as for before:


A1
C1
A2
C2
U = SE(l) .
A3
C3
A4
C4

(85)

(86)

Mixing up these two relations we obtain for the total transformation matrix V the following
relation:


B1
A1
B
A
2
1
 1 1 2
(87)
= U SEE S U .
B3
A3
B4
A4
Using the definition
E(l)E(l)1 E,

(88)

we can easily show that:


[E, ] = 0.

(89)

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

57

As we shall find out later on the last form is a transformation that allows us to diagonalise the
motion matrix inside the Q-ball. Using this matrix we shall construct all the reflection and diffusion coefficients for all the waves moving inside and outside of the Q-ball. Before we continue
we need to remember that p3 = p1 and p4 = p2 for both sets of ps (barred ones and no bar
ones). We see here that the choice for normalisation of eigenvectors will just act on the U matrix that can be either the identity or the matrix or any other choice we can make. Finally the
diffusion matrix V we where looking for is given by:
V = U 1 SES 1 U.

(90)

In fact nothing we shall do depends on these matrices but we have shown the full procedure for
completeness.
4.6. Construction of reflection and transmission amplitudes
We shall first construct the reflection and transmission amplitudes from the left side to the
right-hand side of the Q-ball. To do so we shall use the definition of the V matrix given by
Eq. (77). The first two coefficients are linked to right-moving waves while the last two coefficients are linked to left-moving waves. This choice for arranging the waves was done for
simplicity, we can show that any other arrangement leads to same results. In fact, we choose the
simplest possible arrangement. Due to the shape of the u spinors and the matrix in front the
first and the third coefficients of the free solution have the same energy while the second and the
fourth coefficients correspond to another energy wave. We shall identify these two energy ranges
to the type one particles (1) and type two particles (2). Using Eq. (77) and separating the matrix
into four two by two blocs we can write:

t1

V11 V12 t2

(91)
,
=
0
r1
V21 V22
0
r2
where the two arrows stand for the incoming waves, the first two coefficients will be replaced by
one. Using the bloc separation of the matrix we find:


t

= V11 1 ,
(92)
t2



t
r1
= V21 1 ,
(93)
r2
t2
leading to


t1
1
= V11
,
t2


r1
r2

.
  

1
= V21 V11

(94)

(95)

The R and T matrices will give the reflection and transmission amplitudes when they are applied
on the incoming wave coefficients. These two matrices are two by two the first line corresponding
to transmission or reflection of particles with two different incoming waves, while the second

58

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Fig. 6. Sketch of both cases used to build the solution: we have each time two incident particles, two reflected and two
transmitted. It is an effect of massive particles because we cannot identify any more the particles with the anti-particles.

line gives the coefficients for anti-particles. We shall construct the transmission and reflection
coefficients from the right- to the left-hand side of Q-ball. Using the same method as before we
have this time:


0

r1
V11 V12 r2
0
(96)
=
,
t1

V21 V22
t2

leading this time to





0
r

= V11 1 + V12
,
0
r2





rp

t1
= V21
+ V22
.
rap

t2

(97)
(98)

Solving these two equations gives the reflection and transmission matrices for incoming particles
from the left, they are:
= V12 V 1 ,
R
11
1
T = V22 V21 V11
V12 .

(99)
(100)

Now that all the coefficients are known we can construct and quantise the solution.
4.7. Construction of standard solution
Using the transmission and reflection coefficients we can identify two different cases the first
case is when incident particles are on the left-hand side of the Q-ball, while the other case stands
for incident particles coming from the right-hand side (see Fig. 6). We shall treat separately the
solution on the left and the solution on the right, the matching coefficients are those found in the
previous section, they link the expansion coefficients on the right to those on the left. Writing
down these two possibilities we have:


L = B1 ei p1 x up1 + B2 ei p2 x up2 + r1 ei p1 x up1 + r2 ei p2 x up4 ,
(101)
 i p x

R = t1 e 1 up1 + t2 ei p2 x up2 ,
(102)
for the first case, the two incident particles coming from the left-hand side of the Q-ball and


L = t1 ei p1 x up1 + t2 ei p2 x up2 ,
(103)

 i p x
i p 2 x
i p 1 x
i p 2 x
1
up1 + r2 e
up2 + A1 e
up1 + A2 e
up2 ,
R = r1 e
(104)

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

for the second case. In both of these definitions we have:






B1
t1
B1
r1
=R
,
=T
,
r2
B2
t2
B2




A1
r1
t1
A1 ,
=R
= T
.
r2
A2
A2
t2

59

(105)
(106)

To clearly understand the construction, the Bs are the incident amplitudes from the left while
the As are the amplitudes from the right. The 1 and 2 subscript indicate the type of particle we
are dealing with, we have two different exponentials in (t). We then need to take the complex
conjugate of the terms corresponding to the two last components of spinors. To continue building
the solution we still need to separate each of these two cases in two, considering only one type
of incident particle at the time. This construction leads to the four following pieces, that will be
identified to the four degrees of freedom that our solution has:
 


L = ei p1 x up1 + r11 ei p1 x up1 + r12 ei p2 x up2 ,
 


R = t11 ei p1 x up1 + t12 ei p2 x up2 ,
(107)
for the one incident type one particle from the left and
 


L = r21 ei p1 x up2 + ei p2 x up2 + r22 ei p2 x up2 ,
 


R = t21 ei p1 x up1 + t22 ei p2 x up2 ,
for an incident type two particle. The coefficients are given by:




1
t11
1
r11
=R
,
=T
,
0
0
r12
t12




0
t21
0
r21
=R
,
=T
.
1
1
r22
t22

(108)

(109)
(110)

The two other pieces for particles incident from the right we have:
 


L = t11 ei p1 x up1 + t12 ei p2 x up2 ,
 


R = r11 ei p1 x up1 + ei p1 x u3 + r12 ei p2 x u2 ,

(111)

for one incident type one particle from the right and
 


L = t21 ei p1 x up1 + t22 ei p2 x up2 ,
 


R = r21 ei p1 x up1 + r22 ei p2 x up2 + ei p2 x up2 ,

(112)

for an incident type two particle and finally the coefficients are given by:




1
r11
t11
1 ,
=R
= T
,
0
0
r12
t12




0
r21
t21
0 ,
=R
= T
.
1
1
r22
t22

(113)
(114)

If we want to easily remember the coefficients there is an easy trick. For the coefficients without
the tilde we read the subscript from the left to the right, r21 is the coefficient for an incident
type two particle being reflected as a type one particle. The same lecture stands also for the tilde
coefficients representing incident particles from the right.

60

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

4.8. Quantisation and Bogolubov transformation


Quantisation of solution is now easy, the total quantised solution will be a linear combination
of all four parts, with expansion coefficients becoming operators after the normalisation is made.
The solution is given by:
=

4
#

(Aj , Bj )ei(

0
2 )t

0 



up
i p i z 
upj ei pj z + Aj , Bj ei(
+ 2 )t udown
,
pi e

(115)

j =1

in our case only the eigenvectors corresponding to the p1 eigenvalue have up components, while
only the eigenvectors corresponding to p2 have down components.
0 
0 

up
up 
L = ei(
2 )t ei p1 x up1 + r11 ei p1 x up1 + ei(
+ 2 )t r12 ei p2 x up2 ,
(116)
incident particle is the wave containing up1 , all this superposition must be represented using the
same operator so we are sure to have only four degrees of freedom. Quantisation will be done
using energy, for the incident wave we have:
0
 MD ,
2
0
,

 MD +
2
leading for this first wave to
ei(

0
2 )t

u1

0 

up
up 
d
ei(
2 )t ei p1 x u1 + r11 ei p1 x u3

L =
MD +

(117)

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t



 
r12 ei p2 x udown
b (p 1 ),
p2

i(
+ 20 )t

after the conjugation of the term proportional to e




we have,

0 

up
up 
d
ei(
2 )t ei p1 x up1 + r11 ei p1 x up1 bp1

L =
MD +

(118)

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t

  i p  x  down   
r12 e 2 up2
bp1 .

(119)

Applying the same method to all the terms we finally obtain for the total solution having four
degrees of freedom:


0 

up
up 
d
ei(
2 )t ei p1 x up1 + r11 ei p1 x up1 bp1

L =
MD +

0
2

+ ei(
+

+
MD

0
2

0
2 )t

  i p  x  down   
r12 e 2 up2
bp1

0 

up 
d
ei(
2 )t r21 ei p1 x up1 ap2

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t


0
2

0 



 


up 
i(
+ 20 )t  i p 2 x down 
t22 e
up2
ap2 .
d
ei(
2 )t t21 ei p1 x up1 a
p 2 + e

+
MD

 i p  x 

  
 i p 2 x down 
e 2 up2 + r22
up2
ap2
e

0 



 


up 
i(
+ 20 )t  i p 2 x down 
t12 e
up2
bp1
d
ei(
2 )t t11 ei p1 x up1 b
p 1 + e

+
MD +

61

0
2

The upper integration bound is


operators,

0
2

MD so we are only left with the terms containing the a

0
2 MD

0 

up 
d
ei(
2 )t r21 ei p1 x up1 ap2

L =
MD

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t

 i p  x  down 

  
 i p 2 x down 
e 2 up2
up2
ap2
+ r22
e

0
2 MD

0 

up 
d
ei(
2 )t t21 ei p1 x up1 a
p 2

+
MD

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t

  i p  x  down  

t22 e 2 up
ap2 .
2

(120)

One interesting result can be found here is that like in the massless case if we change the sign of
0
2 we change the particle type since we change the operator type. For the moment the a coefficients are only expansion coefficients since we have not quantised the wave yet. The solution on
the right-hand side of the Q-ball is given by:
0
2 MD

R =


 

  i p  x
t12 ei p1 x up1 ap2 + t22
e 2 up2 ap2

0
2
0
2 MD

MD





  i p x
i p 1 x
1 u
r12 ei p1 x up1 a
up2 ap 2 .
p2 + e
p 2 + r22 e

(121)

MD 20

At t = + only the terms without any incident wave will survive we have then


r22
a(p 2 ) + t22
a(p 2 ) + r21 a (p 2 ) + t12 a (p 2 ) = aout (p 2 ),

(122)

this is the Bogolubov transformation we where looking for. If we want the aout coefficient to be
a operator we need to check that it satisfies the same anti-commutation relations as ain . We have:
 
   
  
  
   
aout , aout = r21
ap2 + r22
ap  + t21
ap2 + t22
ap 
2
2



+
(t
)a
(r12 )ap2 + (r22 )ap2 + (t21 )a
22 p 2
p 2

  
  
    
  
r21 + r22
r22 + t21
= r21
t21 + t22
t22 ain , ain .

62

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

This relation can also be obtained if we set that the incident current is equal to the outgoing one,
or even with the normalisation of wave packets. At this stage it can be important to use some
normalised eigenvectors. As will shall show later on it is always the case if we diagonalise the
matrix outside the Q-ball. The number of created particles is now given by


|r21 |2 + |t21 |2

(123)
(

 ).
in 0|aout aout |0
in =
|r21 |2 + |r22 |2 + |t21 |2 + |t22 |2
We need to smooth out this result, to do so we shall use the same argument as [2] to finally obtain
dN
1
=
dt
2

0
2 MD

MD 20


|r21 |2 + |t21 |2
d
.
|r21 |2 + |r22 |2 + |t21 |2 + |t22 |2

(124)

Since we are dealing with a Bogolubov transformation we have




|r21 |2 + |t21 |2
 1,
(125)
|r21 |2 + |r22 |2 + |t21 |2 + |t22 |2
dN
 0 2MD .
(126)
dt
In fact the best thing to do is to consider the solution in all space on the left and on the right
instead of considering only one side. To do so we just need to consider an incident particle on the
left and build the solution without tilde factors. The rest of the procedure is the same we have,
0
2 MD

0 

up 
d
ei(
2 )t r21 ei p1 x up1 ap2

L+R =
MD

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t



  
 
 i p 2 x down 
ei p2 x udown
up2
ap2 ,
+ r22
e
p2

0
2 MD

0 

up 
d
ei(
2 )t t21 ei p1 x up1 a
p 2

+
MD

0
2

+ ei(
+

0
2 )t


 

 i p 2 x down 
t22
up2
ap2 ,
e

(127)

this time leading to


dN
1
=
dt
2

0
2 MD

MD 20


|r21 |2 + |t21 |2
d
,
|r21 |2 + |r22 |2 + |t21 |2 + |t22 |2

(128)

after normalisation of operators. These results seem to be correct because when the fermions
become massless there is identification of both types of produced particles so the total coefficient
becomes equal to one as in the previous section and there is total reflection. We could stop our
calculations here since we have got the expression of particle production state and all the matrix
elements are known. But we can greatly simplify this problem so the expressions we obtain
become simpler and more readable.

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

63

4.9. Direct construction of S-matrix


Using the shape of the different matrices we deal with we think there is a simpler way to
construct the diffusion matrix. In fact all the matrices of motion equations can be diagonalised
using simple transformations that preserve the symmetry of the problem. If the matrices can be
diagonalised the eigenvectors will have automatic orthogonality and normalisation properties.
This diagonalisation will be done using simple transformations depending on six parameters.
The symmetry to conserve is given in (66).
Taking a look at the M0 matrix defined in Eq. (69) we can diagonalise it using the Lorentz
boost-transformation:
M0 = v1T M0 v1 ,

(129)

with,

0
cosh(x1 ) sinh(x1)
0
sinh(x1 ) cosh(x1 )
v1 =
0
0
cosh(x2 )
0
0
sinh(x2 )

0
0

,
sinh(x2 )
cosh(x2 )

v1T v1 = .

(130)
(131)

The last equation ensures us the fact that v T = v 1 and that the symmetry of the problem is
conserved. Setting x1 and x2 being solutions of:

sinh(2x1 )
,
MD

+ sinh(2x2 )
cosh(2x2 ) =
,
MD
cosh(2x1 ) =

we find for the M0

k1
0

M0 =
0
0

matrix the following diagonal form,

0
0
0
0
k1 0
,
0
0
k2
0
0 k2

(132)

(133)

where
2
2 ) sinh(x )
(MD
1

,
MD
2
2 ) sinh(x )
(MD
2
+
.
k2 =
MD

k1 =

(134)

All the parameters we find after this transformation are real, the ks that we find represent the
momentum of the particles in this new base. The same transformation applied on the M1 matrix
defined by Eq. (65) gives:

k1
0
sinh(x)
cosh(x)
cosh(x)
sinh(x)
k1
0
M1 =
(135)
,
0
sinh(x) cosh(x)
k2
cosh(x) sinh(x)
0
k2

64

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

with x = x1 + x2 . We can check that this new matrix has the same symmetry properties as M1 .
This simple transformation allows us to eliminate the Dirac coupling of our equations but in
presence of the Q-ball it is replaced by a double Majorana coupling. Since this transformation is
made every where, it will not change any of the properties. A solution of Eqs. (132) is easy to
construct it is:


cosh(2x1 )

(136)
, 2x1 = argcoth
= coth(2x1 ) =
.
sinh(2x1 )
MD
MD
Once this transformation is made inside and outside of the Q-ball the eigenvectors outside of the
Q-ball only contain one non-zero component, the important fact here is that the M0 matrix is now
self adjoint so its eigenvectors have the standard orthogonality properties without the matrix.
When we do the matching in space Eq. (80) instead of multiplying by uTi we multiply by ui
and the S-matrix is made of the components of M1 eigenvectors, so the only thing we did was to
diagonalise the transformed matrix. To continue the diagonalisation process we now transform
M1 in the way:
M1 = (s1 s2 )T M1 (s1 s2 )
with,

cosh[y/2]
0
0
sinh[y/2]
0
cosh[y/2] sinh[y/2]
0

s1 =
,
0
sinh[y/2] cosh[y/2]
0
sinh[y/2]
0
0
cosh[y/2]

cos[z/2]
0
sin[z/2]
0
0
cos[z/2]
0
sin[z/2]

s2 =
.
sin[z/2]
0
cos[z/2]
0
0
sin[z/2]
0
cos[z/2]
As before we have:

(137)

(s1 s2 )T (s1 s2 ) = ,

(138)

(139)

(140)

to preserve the symmetry of the problem. This set of transformations looks more complicated
then the simple boost we used to start, it is the case for the parameters we shall need to use. But
it is of great use for the final simplifications and results. Setting y and z to be solutions of:
2 cos(z) cosh(y) sinh(x)
k 1 k2
2 cosh(y) cosh(x)
sinh(y) =
k1 + k2
2 cosh(y) sinh(x)
tan(z) =
,
k1 k2
2 cosh(x)
,
tanh(y) =
k 1 + k2
we have

A M
0
0

0
0
M A
M1 =
,
0
0
B
M
0
0
M B
sin(z) =

(141)
(142)

(143)

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

65

with,




4 cosh(x)2
1
(k1 k2 ) cos(z) + k1 + k2
cosh(y)
2
k 1 + k2

4 cos(z) sinh2 (x) cosh2 (y)
+
(144)
,
k1 k2



4 cosh(x)
1
(k1 + k2 ) cos(z) + k1 + k2
cosh(y)
B=
2
k1 + k2

4 cos(z) sinh2 (x) cosh2 (y)

(145)
,
k1 k2
cosh(y) sinh(2x)
.
M =
(146)
k1 + k2
Taking a look at this M1 matrix we see it has the same form as the M0 matrix so we shall
diagonalise it using the same boost transformation. This time the transformation will not be
a boost since some parameters can be complex. In fact before going any further we have to find
the solution to Eq. (142) that night be complex, k1 + k2 is small so the fraction on the right-hand
side is always bigger than one. We shall have to set y = i 2 + , this little trick allows us to easily
solve all these equations. Finally to finish the diagonalisation we transform using the v1 matrix:
A=

M1 = v1T M1 v1 = v1T v2T M1 v2 v1 = v3T M1 v3 ,

(147)

with v3 = v2 v1 . This last transformation can also be done using a slightly different matrix the v1
matrix defined by:

cosh(a) sinh(a)
0
0
0
0
sinh(a) cosh(a)

v1 =
(148)
,
0
0
cosh(b) sinh(b)
0
0
sinh(b) cosh(b)
T

v1 v1 = .
(149)
We finally have for the M1 matrix the form

1
0
0
0
0
0 1 0
M1 =
,
0
0
0
2
0
0
0 2
with


1 = A2 M 2 sinh(2a),
M


2 = B 2 M 2 sinh(2b),
M

(150)

(151)

where
M cosh[2a] = A sinh(2a),
M cosh[2b] = B sinh(2a).

(152)

Using these transformation the diffusion matrix V can be expressed in terms of the diagonalisation matrices in the way:
V = (s1 s2 v1 )T E(s1 s2 v1 ).

(153)

66

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

Fig. 7. Particle production rate for small values of the size parameter.

Fig. 8. Particle production rate for small values of the size parameter.

This form will be in fact far more simple then all the other possible ones, so this is the reason why
we decided to use it rather then the form with the scalar products of the eigenvectors. What we
do is exactly the same since we work in a base where the matrix of motion equations is diagonal.
If we keep the scalar products with the matrix we see that the only to vectors having negative
values are the negative moving ones, with a simple calculation we could link the matrix to
the helicity operator. This final expression we obtained will lead to simple results and is used to
compute all the reflection and transmission amplitude the results are given in the next section.
4.9.1. Small sized Q-balls
Using the results of previous section we where able to compute all the amplitudes for
small sized Q-balls. The method used was to replace the exponentials in the E matrix by:
(1 ip1,2,3,4 l). These amplitudes still have complicated expressions but all of them except t22
are proportional to the size parameter Ml l. In the limit where l goes to zero all the amplitudes
fall to zero except t22 going to one. The t22 amplitude representing the probability of a fermion
remaining a fermion. This probability is obviously one if the Q-ball disappears. If the size parameter is small the amplitudes will become proportional l 2 as for massless particle production.
This quadratic behaviour is shown on Fig. 7.
5. Results of numerical integration
We first tested the stability of production rate in function of size to see if like in the previous
case the particle production rate becomes constant and stable for big values of the size. If the
production becomes constant above a certain size then we do not need to care about complex
averaging processes. Fig. 8 shows the stability of evaporation rate for large Q-balls. The little

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

67

dN
Fig. 9. Evaporation rate, 2
M dt for infinite (very big) Q-balls in function of the frequency parameter for different values
of the fermion mass parameter.

oscillations are due to numerical instabilities that vanish for very big values of size. We can now
compute the evaporation rate for values of the Dirac mass smaller then the Majorana mass (the
coupling inside the Q-ball). The next task we need to do is test the stability of our computations
when the fermion mass parameter is bigger then the Majorana coupling inside the Q-ball, it is
the case when MD  1. This case shows exactly the same behaviour of the other one except for
the fact that it takes more computer time to obtain the plot of evaporation. The results are on
Fig. 9 and Fig. 10. A quick analysis of these results shows that there is a superior limit for all
parameter sets, this limit does not depend on the mass parameter. Is seems to be normal since
an infinite Q-ball with an infinite internal frequency can produce any mass fermions. The last
words we shall say about these results is that the angle in the curve correspond to the value of
the frequency where the imaginary part of the impulsion inside the Q-ball becomes zero, it is the
point where particles start to propagate inside the Q-ball. The normalisation of evaporation by its
upper bound will lead to the same shape as the massless case but there will be a gap from zero to
the value of the fermion mass.

68

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

dN
Fig. 10. Evaporation rate, 2
M dt for infinite (very big) Q-balls in function of the frequency parameter for different values
of the fermion mass parameter bigger then one.

0 once for a very big Q-ball and once for a small


Fig. 11. Energy spectrum far away from the Q-ball in function of 2M
one.

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

69

6. Energy flux far away from the Q-ball


The last step we need to achieve is compute the energy flux far away from the Q-ball it is done
by considering the flux through a sphere surrounding the Q-ball. As before if the observer is far
away from the Q-ball the only important dimension is the distance to the Q-ball. We have,

dE
=
M dt d

+ 2M0

MD
M

M
2M0 + MD


|r21 |2 + |t21 |2

2 d
,
|r21 |2 + |r22 |2 + |t21 |2 + |t22 |2

(154)

the transmission amplitudes disappear when the Q-balls size is very big. This integration can be
done numerically and we can also introduce the Q-balls size to see its influence on the energy
flux (see Fig. 11). The only difference is that a small Q-ball will produce less energy until the
value of the frequency parameter becomes big. We could normalise these figures with the absolute upper bound. This normalisation does not introduce any new features since the normalised
curve for very big Q-ball would start with a constant part to then fall down. For the small one we
will not find any constant part in the normalised curve.
7. Conclusions
As we have seen the coupling between the scalar field and fermionic field leads to particle production from the Q-ball [2]. To study this particle production we constructed the exact
quantum-mechanical state describing the particle producing Q-ball. We used Heisenbergs picture of quantum mechanics, the state describing the produced fermions is fully characterised by
the fact that no fluxes are moving towards the Q-ball. This condition is solved considering the asymptotics of the fields far away from the Q-ball. Using this state we constructed the Heisenberg
field operator describing massless fermions produced by a Q-ball. This construction allowed us
to prove that for large Q-balls in one space dimension the particle production does not depend on
the Q-balls size. While for small Q-balls the particle production rate is proportional to l 2 . The
extension of these results to three space dimensions is simple. For large Q-balls particle production is an evaporation, while for small Q-balls it depends on the size. The other result we need
to point out is that we can consider a variety of kinematical constructions to compute the evaporation rates. The first one is the standard one where we compute the reflection and transmission
amplitudes for an incoming wave. The second one we used is based on the fact that no particles
are moving towards the Q-ball. We proved that these two pictures are equivalent.
The fact that fermions acquire a Dirac mass does not introduce many changes. In 1 1 dimensions the particle production rate does not depend on the Q-balls size for sufficiently big
ones. This result is not very surprising, since taking the limit m 0 leads to the same results
as the coupling with massless fermions. In this case the only difference is that evaporation occurs in a different range. The internal frequency 0 , the energy of one single scalar forming
the Q-ball, must be bigger than the produced fermion mass. This result is also quite intuitive,
the scalars forming the Q-ball desintegrate into fermions so their energy must be bigger than
the fermion mass. The second fact is that particle production occurs in the range mixing positive and negative frequency terms. In this range the Bogolubov transformations we build are
non trivial. Using these two results we proved that evaporation can only take place in the range:
[MD 20 ; 20 MD ], with 20  MD . This result is in total accordance with the previous work

70

S.S. Clark / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 3870

done on the subject [2,3], and extends it a significant way. This new definition for the evaporation
range will introduce a new upper bound for the evaporation rate.
When the Q-balls size becomes small there is no more evaporation since the production rate
depends on the size. For small sized Q-balls the particle production rate is proportional to l 2 .
The size will also slow down the energy flux a distant observer can measure. Taking the limit
l does not need any complex averaging processes since the evaporation rate is constant
and l independent for big values of the size.
We also computed all the transmission and reflection coefficients for a massive fermion being
scattered by a large Q-ball. This construction allowed us to compute the exact profile of the
evaporation rate. Using these profiles we proved that both constructions are equivalent. The last
result we have proved is that evaporation rate is proportional to 0 in one space dimension while
it is proportional to 03 in three dimensions. In fact in three dimensions it is proportional to
( 20 MD )3 . These reflection and transmission amplitudes will be used to study the behaviour
of Q-balls in matter.
Acknowledgement
The author would like to thank M. Shaposhnikov for suggesting this problem and for useful
discussions.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]

S. Coleman, Nucl. Phys. B 262 (1985) 263283.


A.G. Cohen, S.R. Coleman, H. Georgi, A. Manohar, The evaporation of Q-balls, Nucl. Phys. B 272 (1986) 301.
T. Multamaki, I. Vilja, Nucl. Phys. B 574 (2000) 130152.
M. Axenides, et al., Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 085006.
A. Kusenko, L. Loveridge, M. Shaposhnikov, hep-ph/0405044.
A. Kusenko, M.E. Shaposhnikov, Phys. Lett. B 418 (1998) 46.
A. Kusenko, Phys. Lett. B 404 (1997) 285.
E. Abdalla, M.C.B. Abdalla, K.D. Rothe, Non-Perturbative Methods in 2-Dimensional Quantum Field Theory,
World Scientific, Singapore, 1991.

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

Once more on the interrelation between Abelian


monopoles and P-vortices in SU(2) LGT
P.Yu. Boyko a , V.G. Bornyakov a,b , E.-M. Ilgenfritz c, , A.V. Kovalenko a ,
B.V. Martemyanov a , M. Mller-Preussker c , M.I. Polikarpov a ,
A.I. Veselov a
a Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, B. Cheremushkinskaya 25, Moscow 117259, Russia
b Institute for High Energy Physics, Protvino 142281, Russia
c Institut fr Physik, Humboldt-Universitt, Newtonstrasse 15, 12489 Berlin, Germany

Received 20 July 2006; received in revised form 21 August 2006; accepted 30 August 2006
Available online 20 September 2006

Abstract
We study the properties of configurations from which P-vortices on one hand or Abelian monopoles on
the other hand have been removed. We confirm the loss of confinement in both cases and investigate in what
respect the modified ensembles differ from the confining ones from the point of view of the complementary
confinement scenario.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
There are two popular phenomenological explanations of confinement in lattice gluodynamics: the monopole [1] and the center vortex [28] confinement mechanism that have been critically discussed in Ref. [9]. Monopoles and center vortices are defined by projection to U (1)N1
or Z(N) gauge fields, respectively. Hence, the center vortices are called P-vortices in order to
emphasize the difference from extended (continuum) vortices.1 These two types of excitations
reproduce, respectively, about 90% [10] and about 70% [11] of the non-Abelian string tension
and are able to explain other non-perturbative properties. Therefore, removing monopole fields
* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: ilgenfri@physik.hu-berlin.de (E.-M. Ilgenfritz).


1 We will interchangeably use both terms in the following.

0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.025

72

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

[12,13] or P-vortices [14] should leave only inert gauge field configurations, unable to confine
external charges or to break chiral symmetry.
It was very attractive to conjecture [15,16] that monopoles and P-vortices are geometrically
interrelated. Indeed, this was found to be the case in SU(2) gluodynamics: more than 90% of
monopole currents are localized on the P-vortices [1618]. One of our goals in the present paper
is to elaborate on this interrelation between monopoles and vortices.
In Ref. [14] the operation of center vortex (P-vortex) removal has been invented, and it was
demonstrated that the quark condensate and the topological charge are destroyed thereby. Later it
has been found [19] that the number of links that have to be modified in this operation can be essentially reduced when the Z(2) gauge freedom is used to minimize the number of negative trace
links. The remaining negative links can be interpreted in terms of three-dimensional domains.
The operation of monopole removal has been invented by Miyamura et al. in Refs. [12,13].
It has been shown that not only the quark condensate and the topology is destroyed thereby, but
that the Abelian monopole field alone, completed again by the non-diagonal gluons, carries all
necessary degrees of freedom in order to allow the reconstruction of chiral symmetry breaking
and topological charge.
All technical details (including those of gauge fixing) relevant for our study are relegated to
Appendix A.
de Forcrand and DElia [14] were the first to ask what happens to the Abelian monopoles when
P-vortices are removed. We have started our work from the opposite question: what remains
from the center vortex degrees of freedom when Abelian monopoles are subtracted from the
Abelian part of the gauge fields. Originally, it was only for completeness that we also repeated
the study of Ref. [14]. Not unexpectedly, we found that the results depend on the method of
gauge fixing and details of its algorithmic implementation. But turning again to de Forcrands
and DElias problem with the perfectionated gauge fixing has resulted in a paradox that has led
us to a closer investigation what properties the network of monopole world lines must possess in
order to confine.
Most of the above mentioned results in the literature was obtained for the direct center gauge
(DCG) [4] and for the indirect center gauge (ICG) [2]. In the present paper we also use both of
them. The Laplacian center gauge [20], also used for studies of the P-vortices, is not studied here.
Although the absence of the Gribov ambiguity is a virtue of this gauge, we consider the absence
of scaling of the resulting density of P-vortices [21] as a less appealing feature. We have been
doing all gauge fixings by means of simulated annealing, repeating however the procedure for a
number of copies. In this respect we have done our best (according to the present state of the art)
to circumvent the infamous Gribov ambiguity.
In all studies described in this paper we have used a confining ensemble of 100 configurations
on a 243 6 lattice, generated at = 2.35 using the Wilson action. This corresponds to a lattice

spacing given by a = 0.3108(17) [22],2 in other words, to a temperature T /Tc = 0.7562(80),

where the ratio Tc / = 0.7091(36) (obtained for SU(2) gluodynamics with Wilson action in
Ref. [23]) has been used. Adopting the standard value of the string tension, = (440 MeV)2 , the
estimated lattice spacing would be a = 0.139(1) fm, resulting in a spatial volume of (3.336 fm)3 .

2 We thank Mike Teper for confirming that this value actually refers to = 2.35.

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

73

In order to demonstrate the confining property or the loss of confinement in the case of finite
temperature adopted here, we use the correlator of the Polyakov loop,
aV (r) =



1
log P (
x )P (
y)
N

(1)

with r = |
x y|. Strictly speaking, this is the excess free energy related to the presence of a
quarkantiquark pair. For simplicity we will call it potential, however. For the full non-Abelian
potential the Polyakov loop

1 
Ux,t;4
Tr
2

P (
x)=

(2)

t=1

is used. When the monopole-generated potential shall be sorted out, the monopole part of the
Abelian Polyakov loop,
N

N




mon
mon
mon
(
x ) = Re exp
ix,t,4 = cos
x,t,4 ,
P
(3)
t=1

t=1

mon is defined in Eq. (A.7) in


is entering the correlator. The monopole part of the gauge field x,
Appendix A. Finally, in order to measure the vortex contribution to the potential, the Polyakov
loop is constructed in terms of the Z(2) projected links

P vort (
x)=

N


Zx,t;4 ,

(4)

t=1

with Zx, defined in Eq. (A.2) in Appendix A.


As already said, in the course of the present paper, we are studying monopole currents in
configurations where the P-vortices are removed and P-vortices in configurations where the
monopoles are removed. The results are trivial for the case of ICG, as we will show in Section 3.
Here, only non-percolating monopole currents or only small, non-percolating center vortices,
respectively, are left over.
Note that in the Laplacian center gauge the monopoles are located on the center vortices [20]
and thus removal of the vortices automatically leads to removal of the monopoles. We expect
that, similar to ICG, removal of monopoles in this gauge will give rise to non-percolating center
vortices.
In the case of DCG, when the emerging center vortices are removed, the situation is more
challenging (as described in Section 4). We observed that removing P-vortices leads to gauge
field configurations with monopole currents even more dense and still percolating although confinement is lost. This is possible since monopole and vortex degrees of freedom are, at first sight,
only loosely connected in DCG, in contrast to ICG. This intriguing observation has prompted
us to search for the necessary conditions for monopole percolation to generate confinement. We
found the reason why monopole percolation, although necessary, is not sufficient to create a
non-vanishing string tension. We shall argue below that this effect is due to a very special structure of the percolating monopole cluster: it is highly correlated at small distances which screens
monopole currents more than this is the case in normal configurations.
Finally, in Section 5, we analyse how the subtraction of singular components in the Abelian
gauge field (generated by monopoles) changes the P-vortex structure. In Section 6 we draw some
conclusions.

74

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

2. Monopole and vortex percolation


The paradox mentioned in the introduction is the observation that monopole percolation is
not sufficient to guarantee confinement. This is surprising because monopole percolation has
become synonymous for monopole condensation. The monopole condensation mechanism of
confinement has been, together with the dual superconductor picture, proposed by t Hooft [24]
and Mandelstam [25] implying that long-range physics is dominated by Abelian degrees of freedom (Abelian dominance). Gauge fixing and Abelian projection have been suggested [26] as a
method to verify this idea. On the lattice this has been first implemented in Ref. [27].
When Abelian dominance of the string tension had been verified on the lattice [28], this has
boosted the development in two directions. At first, several observables have been constructed in
terms of the monopole currents (which are immediately available in the projected theory) serving
the intention that each of them should reflect the phenomenon of monopole condensation. In this
paper we will not comment on the second direction, the construction of a true monopole condensation disorder parameter, following the early proposals in Refs. [29,30]. This observable should
have a non-vanishing expectation value in the confining phase (hopefully independently of the
particular Abelian projection [26]) indicating the spontaneous breakdown of the corresponding
magnetic U (1) symmetry of the latter [3133].
Returning to the direct monopole observables in MAG, the first proposal was to measure the
monopole current density mon and to establish its scaling property with respect to at zero
temperature [34]. The monopole density and similarly the vortex density are defined as
mon =

Nmon 
4Ns3 N

and vort =

Nvort 
,
6Ns3 N

(5)

where Nmon is the number of dual links occupied by monopole currents and Nvort the number of
dual plaquettes belonging to the vortex area.
The observed scaling of the monopole density has later found to be premature. Moreover,
the density lacks scaling and universality [35,36] and requires to be separated into ultraviolet and infrared component, the scaling behavior of which is different, meaning that the UV
component reflects only short distance artefacts without relevance for confinement. Only the
IR component turned out to be scaling and relevant for condensation [37] and for confinement.
Relatively soon after the first quantitative study of mon [34], the focus has turned to structural properties of the network of monopole currents, which has found to be clearly undergoing a
change at the deconfinement phase transition [38]. The change concerned the distribution of connected clusters with respect to the length L (i.e. the number of participating monopole currents).
This distribution is denoted as N (L) and counts the number of connected clusters of given size L
in the ensemble of configurations. In [38], and later in Refs. [39] and [40,41] it has been clearly
demonstrated that, in the confinement phase, each configuration contains a single macroscopic
cluster (in modern parlance the infrared monopole component) of many connected dual links
carrying non-vanishing monopole current, apart from a big number of small clusters (the ultraviolet monopole component). The macroscopic clusters were found to be percolating. This is
meant in the sense that they are impossible to enclose in a 4D cuboid smaller than the periodic
lattice in one ore more directions or in the sense of a cluster two-point function [37] not to vanish
at infinite distance. Obviously, this notion of percolation does not take into recognition the
orientation of the monopole currents. The eventual occurrence of more than one macroscopic
cluster was found to be an effect of smaller volume.

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

75

Of course, it is not difficult just to evaluate Wilson loops under the influence of the Abelian
field due to all monopole currents [1,42,43], a procedure that clearly takes the orientation into
account. In this way, monopole dominance [1,10] has been demonstrated. Later it has been found
that the macroscopic clusters (and only these) build up the Abelian string tension [41]. The
essence of the deconfinement transition in this light had already earlier been identified [38] as
the decomposition of the macroscopic cluster into many smaller ones, i.e. a qualitative change
of the size distribution of the clusters, accompanied by the generation of an anisotropy of the
current density. In the Euclidean time direction, the percolation property of the remaining larger
clusters persists above Tc , whereas there is no percolation anymore in the spatial directions.
All this contributed to the common belief that spacelike percolation is a necessary and sufficient condition for confinement. In this paper we find an interesting counter example showing
that a percolating cluster does not necessarily confine, as the direct evaluation of the monopole
contribution to the Wilson loops reveals.
In the case of the P-vortex mechanism, the direct evaluation of their contribution to Wilson
loops (by a factor (1)linking number for each vortex), the fact of center dominance (of the string
tension) and the scaling property of the P-vortex density vort (being equal to the density of negative plaquettes) have been emphasized from the very beginning [5]. Also here, the existence of
one macroscopic P-vortex, a closed surface consisting of many dual plaquettes, was found to be a
prerequisite of confinement, and this P-vortex itself was found percolating [44] in all directions.
The deconfinement transition was later identified, in analogy to the monopole mechanism, with
a de-percolation transition [7,45,46], i.e. with the macroscopic vortex being replaced by smaller
ones. If big enough, these are percolating in the time direction, but no more in spatial directions.
In our investigation, for P-vortices we did not find any indication that vortices would persist
to be spatially percolating in the case confinement has been destroyed (e.g. by the removal of
monopoles).
3. Indirect center gauge
ICG fixing includes two steps. First, the maximally Abelian gauge (MAG) is fixed and Abelian
projection is made. Then the Abelian gauge fields (and the remaining Abelian gauge invariance)
are used to fix the (Abelian) maximal center gauge. After the center projection is made, the
emerging Z(2) configuration is looked up for negative links Zx, = 1 (see Appendix A for
further details). In Fig. 1 the length spectrum N (L) of the monopole clusters, obtained after
fixing the MAG, is compared with the same spectrum after the P-vortices have been removed.
More precisely, here and later N (L) represents the number of clusters of size L found in all 100
configurations. Note, that the vortex removal operation consists in changing the sign of links with
negative cos(x, ) in the (Abelian) maximal center gauge, and that this operation preserves the
MAG [10].
The original monopole density (per dual link) is mon = 0.0357 0.0002 and the original
vortex (area) density (per dual plaquette) is vort = 0.0805 0.0002.
It is seen that the percolating monopole clusters with length around 7 000 that are present
before in each lattice configuration, are absent from the length spectrum after the vortices have
been removed. Only small monopole clusters survive. The density of monopoles mon is reduced
by a factor 0.500 0.003. Combining this observation with the above-mentioned fact of strong
correlation between monopoles in MAG and vortices in ICG we conclude that the removal of
P-vortices gives rise to removal of almost all monopoles belonging to the infrared part of the
monopoles. It is well known that the string tension vanishes in the modified ensemble.

76

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

(a)

(b)

Fig. 1. The monopole clusters length distribution N (L) for Wilson = 2.35 on 243 6 lattices before (a) and after (b)
removing the center vortices found according to ICG.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 2. The area spectrum of center vortices for Wilson = 2.35 on 243 6 lattices (a) for the original ensemble put into
ICG, and (b) after monopoles have been removed.

In Fig. 2 the area spectrum of P-vortices, as it is found after ICG of the original ensemble, is compared with the spectrum that is obtained when the singular (monopole) part is
subtracted from the Abelian projected gauge field after MAG, before the ICG is finally accomplished. Thereby the original vortex density vort = 0.0805 0.0002 is reduced to one fifth,
vort = 0.0162 0.0003, without monopoles.
As long as the monopole fields are retained there is one big percolating vortex with an area
of about 40 000 plaquettes present in each configuration (in addition to a lot of small size ones,
with area  100). After the monopole contributions to the Abelian field are removed the percolating P-vortex has disappeared from all configurations, the largest vortices being smaller in
area than 6 000 plaquettes. Thus we observe that removing monopoles does not lead to the loss
of all big P-vortices (which would be analogous to what happens to the monopoles after vortex
removal), but rather to splitting of the single percolating P-vortex into a number of still relatively
extended P-vortices.

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

77

The above results are in agreement with both scenarios of confinement, claiming that a
non-vanishing string tension is due to percolating clusters of monopoles [40,41] or due to the
existence of percolating center vortices [44], respectively.
4. Direct center gauge: removing center vortices
When DCG fixing and center projection is completed, the vortex density is vort = 0.0605
0.0002. As we mentioned already in the introduction we found something unexpected for the case
of DCG, when center vortices are removed from the configurations. This is done in the following
way. Each Monte Carlo configuration is gauge-fixed twice, to the MAG and to the maximal
center gauge by DCG. The non-Abelian gauge field is then projected either to an Abelian U (1)
gauge field (from MAG) or to an Z(2) gauge field (from DCG). In DCG, the remaining Z(2)
gauge freedom is exploited to reduce the number of negative (Zx, = 1) links.
In Ref. [14], de Forcrand and DElia noticed already the existence of a few percolating monopole clusters after the removal of vortices, clearly reduced in comparison to the amount of
huge monopole clusters in the normal case. He mentioned, that only a handful of large clusters survives, whereas most of them are broken into pieces. Moreover, even the remaining largest
clusters, according to his observation, did not contain monopole loops that wind around the periodic lattice. For the case of asymmetric lattices (finite temperature) considered in our work
this observation would imply the absence of spatial winding. Qualitatively our results are in
agreement with this expectation. Here we do not consider the winding number of the emerging
monopole network clusters. Instead, we shall apply the decomposition of the clusters into nonintersecting monopole loops and find that none of them is spatially winding around the lattice.
Note that certain quantitative differences are possible due to the fact that DCG and MAG both
are afflicted by their Gribov ambiguities. Our method differs from the method in Ref. [14] that we
(i) always used the simulated annealing version of the gauge fixing procedure in question, i.e. we
obtained higher local maxima for respective gauge fixing functionals, and (ii) the Z(2) Landau
gauge is realized. Both modifications are expected to lead to a minimal number of non-vanishing
monopole currents and a minimal number of negative Z(2) links, respectively. The realization of
the Z(2) Landau gauge has no effect on the monopole configuration. The procedure of P-vortex
removal then requires the multiplication of each link by Zx, . This is applied not only to the
original non-Abelian configuration but also to the Abelian projected configuration. In this way
the monopole content of configurations with P-vortices removed can be easily compared with
the monopole content of the original configuration. The monopole density mon is enhanced
to mon = 0.0551 0.0003. We found, in particular, that the monopole clusters still contain a
percolating component in agreement with Ref. [14].
The apparent paradox is demonstrated in Fig. 3 where the monopole cluster length spectrum
before and after center vortex removal is compared. On the other hand, the non-Abelian string
tension vanishes as it should [14] although only a minimal number of links has actually been
changed. As expected in such a case, the monopole string tension also vanishes as it is shown in
Fig. 4 where the non-Abelian and the monopole potentials before and after vortex removing are
depicted.
Thus, monopole percolation is not sufficient to generate a confining potential. The monopole
string tension, and consequently the Abelian string tension, may vanish if the percolating monopole cluster is highly correlated at small distances. In the following we will present several pieces
of numerical evidence pointing out that the geometrical properties of monopole clusters after the
removal of center vortices in DCG are indeed very different from the confining case.

78

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

(a)

(b)

Fig. 3. The same as Fig. 1, but (b) shows the situation after the center vortices found according to DCG have been
removed.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 4. The non-Abelian potential (aV (r), denoted by squares) and the monopole potential (aVmon (r), denoted by circles)
at = 2.35 on 243 6 lattices before (a) and after (b) removing of center vortices.

(i) The number of selfintersections of the percolating cluster after removing of center vortices
is substantially larger than before, as can be seen in Fig. 5(a).
(ii) A useful quantity to discriminate between confinement and deconfinement phases at finite
temperature is suggested by the following fact. The monopole part P mon (
x ) of the Polyakov
loop in any three-dimensional point x is defined in Eq. (3). Using Eq. (A.7) one can express the
monopole part P mon (
x ) as
x ) = ei(x )/2 ,
P mon (

(6)

where (
x ) is the solid angle of all monopole trajectories (projected onto a single time slice,
with proper regard of the direction of the monopole current) as monitored from the locus x of
the Polyakov loop (thought to be located in the same time slice).
(
x ) has been introduced as an observable characterizing the difference between the confinement and deconfinement phase in Ref. [47]. It has turned out that the distribution of the local

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

(a)

79

(b)

Fig. 5. The ratio of the total length of the largest cluster to the number of crossings in it (a) and the solid angle
distribution (b) for normal configurations (full circles) and configurations free of center vortices (empty circles). The
error bars in (b) are less than symbols.

values (
x ) (the histogram summed over all configurations of an ensemble) is flat in confinement and has a Gaussian form in the case of deconfinement. Fig. 5(b) shows the distributions
of (
x ) as found for normal confining configurations and for the ensemble cleaned from center
vortices. The distribution for the latter is qualitatively very similar to that in the deconfinement
phase.
(iii) In order to describe the correlations within the apparently percolating monopole clusters, it is useful to decompose the cluster by subtracting from bigger clusters closed, oriented
and irreducible (non-selfintersecting) loops, stepping up in loop size (lengths of 4, 6, 8, etc.)
until nothing remains to be subtracted. The result of this procedure can be presented as a his
togram N(L)
of irreducible loops (with respect to the loop size) in place of the histogram N (L)
of connected clusters (with respect to the length of monopole currents inside the clusters). Fig. 6
is the analog to Fig. 3, showing now the respective loop length distributions. It turns out from
comparing Figs. 6 and 3 that the percolating but non-confining monopole clusters can be completely decomposed into loops of comparably small size. The irreducible monopole loops of the
original ensemble (before removing center vortices) ranges to three times larger loops. Among
them are such wrapping around the lattice.
This result is corroborated by the following random simulation of non-confining, yet percolating monopole clusters. We have tried to model the monopole configurations left over after removal of vortices by a random gas of small monopole loops. Such configurations were
created by the following procedure. A set of NDPL Dirac plaquettes were put on the lattice
with randomly chosen location in a randomly chosen plane, with random sign of mx, . In
Fig. 7 the resulting distribution of (
x ) and the static potential are shown for NDPL = 6 000.
For this number of Dirac plaquettes we find as the result of the procedure that a large connected monopole cluster of a length of O(10 000) has grown up and the total number of
monopole currents (including also smaller clusters) is close to that in the P-vortex-removed

80

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

(a)

(b)

Fig. 6. The length distribution N (L) of irreducible loops emerging from the decomposition of monopole clusters, for
= 2.35 on 243 6 lattices in DCG before (a) and after (b) removing the center vortices.

(a)

(b)

Fig. 7. The solid angle distribution (a) for a random monopole configurations obtained as described in the text and the
static monopole-generated potential (b) for these configurations (full circles) compared with the ensemble free of center
vortices (empty circles). Error bars are within symbol size.

configurations. In Fig. 7 one can see that both the distribution of (


x ) and the static potential are qualitatively similar to those in the ensemble of configurations free of center vortices.
The facts (i), (ii) and (iii) show that percolating monopole clusters, unexpectedly appearing in
configurations without P-vortices and without confinement, are really highly correlated at small
distances and that this can be directly related to the lack of confinement. The simulation based
on independent 1 1 Dirac plaquettes shows that this might be an almost realistic model of how
these clusters could have been randomly created.

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

(a)

81

(b)

Fig. 8. The same as Fig. 2 but with vortices defined in DCG, (a) before and (b) after monopoles have been removed.

5. Direct center gauge: removing monopoles


Finally, we describe what effect the removal of Abelian monopoles has on the P-vortex content
in DCG. The basic ensemble of configurations has been put into the MAG with the help of the
simulated annealing method. From the Abelian projected gauge field the singular (monopole)
part has been removed before the modified non-Abelian field has been reconstructed using the
coset part left out in the Abelian projection. This is explained in Eqs. (A.7)(A.9) in Appendix A.
Finally we put the two lattice fields into DCG and view the corresponding P-vortex content. The
P-vortex density vort = 0.0605 0.0002 (i.e. the total vortex area relative to the total number
of plaquettes in the lattice) of the ensemble with monopoles is reduced to vort = 0.0131
0.0002 (i.e. roughly one fifth of the original density) in the ensemble where monopoles have been
removed. In Fig. 8 we compare the area distribution of individual center vortices after monopole
removal (b) with the original distribution obtained without modifying the gauge fields (a). This
figure is very much similar to Fig. 2 obtained in ICG. While Fig. 8(a) shows a significant part of
clusters with very large area consisting of more than O(20 000) dual plaquettes, after monopole
removal such large clusters do not occur any more. The largest ones have an area less by one
order of magnitude in the number of dual plaquettes and cannot be isolated from the smallest
vortices occurring in the area distribution. This corresponds to our expectation.
Fig. 9 shows the contribution of center vortices to the quarkantiquark potential in DCG
before (upper linearly rising curve) and after removal of Abelian monopoles (lower flat curve).
This picture clearly shows that the left-over, comparably short-ranged center vortices do not
provide a confining potential.
6. Conclusions
In this paper we have tried to give an answer to the question of the mutual interdependence
of the two types of topological gauge field fluctuations, condensation of which is popularly
held responsible for quark confinement: center vortices (more precisely, P-vortices) and Abelian
monopoles. For this we have applied techniques of respective removal of one type of these fluctuations in order to study the result with respect to the other type. Center vortices were identified
within the projected Z(2) gauge field obtained in two ways: (i) from the indirect center gauge,
where the maximally Abelian gauge is applied as a first step and the (Abelian) maximal center

82

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

Fig. 9. The center vortex contribution to the quarkantiquark potential, rising for the original ensemble put into DCG
(denoted by squares), flat for DCG after Abelian monopoles have been removed (denoted by circles).

gauge is fixed within the residual Abelian gauge symmetry, before the projection to the center
subgroup Z(2) is made, and (ii) through the direct maximally center gauge achieved within the
non-Abelian gauge freedom. Abelian monopoles were throughout studied within the maximally
Abelian gauge. The gauges were iteratively fixed with the help of a simulated annealing algorithm, whichwhen applied to the consecutive step of complimentary gauge fixinghas erased
the memory with respect to the first step of gauge fixing.
We have found a clear correlation between both types of objects. We confirm that the removal
of each of these types leads to a loss of confinement described in terms of the other type, respectively. However, in case of removing P-vortices detected within the direct center gauge, we found
much more monopole currents and larger (spanning) monopole clusters than seen before P-vortex
removal. A closer inspection showed that these monopole clusters are strongly correlated at short
range such that they are reducible into a large number of considerably short monopole loops, the
latter not contributing to a linearly rising confinement potential. This somewhat surprising observation shows, that spatial percolation of infrared monopole clusters alone is not a sufficient
condition for real monopole condensation and thus for quark confinement (for the connection of
the latter see Refs. [33,48]).
We have restricted our investigations to the case of just one temperature value within the
confinement phase. We are convinced that this does not represent a real loss of generality as long
as T < Tc .
Acknowledgements
The authors want to thank M.N. Chernodub for valuable discussions and Ph. de Forcrand for
useful remarks on a first version of this paper. The work was partially supported by grants RFBRDFG 06-02-04010 and DFG-RFBR 436 RUS 113/739/2. The ITEP group (A.I.V., B.V.M., M.I.P.,
V.G.B., A.V.K. and P.Yu.B.) was partially supported by grants RFBR 06-02-16309, 05-02-16306,
05-02-17642 and 04-02-16079, and by the EU Integrated Infrastructure Initiative Hadron Physics
(I3HP) under contract RII3-CT-2004-506078. The work of E.-M.I. is supported by DFG through
the Forschergruppe FOR 465 (Mu932/2).

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

83

Appendix A
Here we give the standard definitions for SU(2) lattice gauge theory which we have used in
the studies described in the text. We perform our analyses both in the direct [4]and in the
indirect [2]maximal center gauges (DCG and ICG). The DCG in SU(2) lattice gauge theory is
defined by the maximization of the functional

2
F1 (U ) =
(A.1)
Tr g Ux, ,
x,

with respect to gauge transformations g SU (2). Ux, is the lattice gauge field and g Ux, =
the gauge transformed lattice gauge field. Maximization of (A.1) fixes the
g (x)Ux, g(x + )
gauge up to Z(2) gauge transformations, and the corresponding, projected Z(2) gauge field is
defined as:


Zx, = sign Tr g Ux, .
(A.2)
After this identification is made, one can make use of the remaining Z(2) gauge freedom in order
to maximize the Z(2) gauge functional

z
F2 (Z) =
(A.3)
Zx,
x,

with respect gauge transformations z(x) Z(2), Zx, z Zx, = z (x)Zx, z(x + ).
This is the
Z(2) equivalent of the Landau gauge. In distinction to Ref. [14], this final step is automatically
understood here before the vortex removal operation (to be defined below) is done.
The ICG goes an indirect way. At first, one fixes the maximally Abelian gauge (MAG) by
maximizing the functional
 


F3 (U ) =
(A.4)
Tr g Ux, 3 g Ux, 3 ,
x,

with respect to gauge transformations g SU (2). The maximization fixes the gauge up to
g U (1). Therefore, the following projection to an U (1) gauge field through the phase of the
diagonal elements of the links, x, = arg((g Ux, )11 ), is not unique. The non-Abelian link field
is split according to Ux, = ux, Vx, in an Abelian (diagonal) part ux, = diag{exp(ix, ),
exp(ix, )} and a coset part Vx, SU (2)/U (1), the latter representing non-diagonal gluons. Exploiting the remaining U (1) gauge freedom, which amounts to a shift x, x, =
one can maximize the Abelian gauge functional
(x) + x, + (x + ),
 
2
F4 (u) =
(A.5)
cos x, ,
x,

that serves the same purpose as (A.1). Finally, the projected Z(2) gauge field is defined as

 
Zx, = sign cos x, .
(A.6)
This second step in ICG is completely analogous to the DCG case, in other words one maximizes F1 (U ) in Eq. (A.1), however for all Ux, restricted to the projected links ux, =
diag{exp(ix, ), exp(ix, )}, admitting only U (1) gauge transformations denoted by . The
Z(2) gauge variables are used to form Z(2) plaquettes. Most of them are equal to +1, typically 30 000 plaquettes are equal to 1 after center projection via DCG (and 40 000 after

84

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

center projection via ICG, respectively). The P-vortex surfaces are actually formed by plaquettes dual to the negative plaquettes. The vortex density is therefore vort = 0.0605 0.0002 and
vort = 0.0805 0.0002 in DCG and ICG, respectively.
In order to fix the maximally Abelian and the direct maximal center gauge we have created
10 randomly gauge transformed copies of the original gauge field configuration and applied the
Simulated Annealing algorithm [10] to find the optimal non-Abelian gauge transformation g. We
have used for further analyses always that copy g U (or ) which corresponds to the maximal
value of the respective gauge fixing functional. In order to perform the second step of the indirect
maximal center gauge via configurations, that have been first fixed to the maximally Abelian
gauge and projected to U (1) fields u, we have started again from 10 random Abelian gauge
transforms of the latter.
We have used the standard DeGrandToussaint definition [49] of monopole currents defined
by the phase x, of ux, . The typical number of monopole currents per configurations amounts
to 12 000 dual links, corresponding to a density of mon = 0.0357 0.0002. The part of the
Abelian gauge field originating from the monopoles is

mon
x,
(A.7)
= 2
D(x x ) mx , .
x

Here D(x) is the inverse lattice Laplacian, and is the lattice backward derivative. The Dirac
sheet variable, mx, , is defined as the integer multiple of 2 part of the plaquette angle x, ,
whereas the reduced plaquette angle x, (, ] is the fractional part: x, = 2mx, +
x, . The Abelian gauge field with monopoles removed is defined as [13]:
monopole removed

ux,



= umon
x, ux, ,

(A.8)

mon
mon
where umon
x, = diag{exp(ix, ), exp(ix, )}. Upon multiplication with the coset field Vx, ,
this holds also for the non-Abelian links


monopole removed
= umon
Ux,
(A.9)
x, Ux, .

Analogously the gauge fields with the P-vortices removed are defined as [14]:
vortex removed
= Zx, Ux, ,
Ux,

where Zx, is given by (A.2).


References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]

H. Shiba, T. Suzuki, Phys. Lett. B 333 (1994) 461.


L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Greensite, S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D 55 (1997) 2298.
M. Faber, J. Greensite, S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D 57 (1998) 2603.
L. Del Debbio, M. Faber, J. Giedt, J. Greensite, S. Olejnik, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 094501.
K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, O. Tennert, Phys. Lett. B 419 (1998) 317.
K. Langfeld, O. Tennert, M. Engelhardt, H. Reinhardt, Phys. Lett. B 452 (1999) 301.
M. Engelhardt, K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, O. Tennert, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 054504.
J.M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 065004.
J. Greensite, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 51 (2003) 1.
G.S. Bali, V. Bornyakov, M. Mller-Preussker, K. Schilling, Phys. Rev. D 54 (1996) 2863.
V.G. Bornyakov, D.A. Komarov, M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B 497 (2001) 151.
O. Miyamura, Phys. Lett. B 353 (1995) 91.

(A.10)

P.Yu. Boyko et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 7185

85

[13] S. Sasaki, O. Miyamura, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 63 (1998) 507;


S. Sasaki, O. Miyamura, Phys. Lett. B 443 (1998) 331;
S. Sasaki, O. Miyamura, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 094507.
[14] P. de Forcrand, M. DElia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 4582.
[15] J.M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 61 (2000) 085012;
J.M. Cornwall, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 085045.
[16] J. Ambjorn, J. Giedt, J. Greensite, JHEP 0002 (2000) 033.
[17] A.V. Kovalenko, M.I. Polikarpov, S.N. Syritsyn, V.I. Zakharov, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 129 (2004) 665.
[18] A.V. Kovalenko, M.I. Polikarpov, S.N. Syritsyn, V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 054511.
[19] A.V. Kovalenko, M.I. Polikarpov, S.N. Syritsyn, V.I. Zakharov, Phys. Lett. B 613 (2005) 52.
[20] P. de Forcrand, M. Pepe, Nucl. Phys. B 598 (2001) 557.
[21] K. Langfeld, H. Reinhardt, A. Schfke, Phys. Lett. B 504 (2001) 338.
[22] B. Lucini, M. Teper, JHEP 0106 (2001) 050.
[23] B. Lucini, M. Teper, U. Wenger, JHEP 0401 (2004) 061.
[24] G. t Hooft, in: A. Zichichi (Ed.), High Energy Physics, Editrici Compositore, Bologna, 1976.
[25] S. Mandelstam, Phys. Rep. 23C (1976) 245.
[26] G. t Hooft, Nucl. Phys. B 190 (1981) 455.
[27] A.S. Kronfeld, M.L. Laursen, G. Schierholz, U.J. Wiese, Phys. Lett. B 198 (1987) 516.
[28] T. Suzuki, I. Yotsuyanagi, Phys. Rev. D 42 (1990) 4257.
[29] J. Frhlich, P.A. Marchetti, Commun. Math. Phys. 112 (1987) 343.
[30] L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo, G. Paffuti, Phys. Lett. B 349 (1995) 513;
L. Del Debbio, A. Di Giacomo, G. Paffuti, P. Pieri, Phys. Lett. B 355 (1995) 255.
[31] A.I. Veselov, M.I. Polikarpov, M.N. Chernodub, JETP Lett. 63 (1996) 411;
M.N. Chernodub, M.I. Polikarpov, A.I. Veselov, Phys. Lett. B 399 (1997) 267.
[32] J. Frhlich, P.A. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. D 64 (2001) 014505.
[33] V.A. Belavin, M.N. Chernodub, M.I. Polikarpov, JETP Lett. 75 (2002) 217;
V.A. Belavin, M.N. Chernodub, M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B 554 (2003) 146.
[34] V.G. Bornyakov, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, M.L. Laursen, V.K. Mitrjushkin, M. Mller-Preussker, A.J. van der Sijs, A.M.
Zadorozhnyi, Phys. Lett. B 261 (1991) 116.
[35] V.G. Bornyakov, M. Mller-Preussker, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 106 (2002) 646.
[36] V.G. Bornyakov, E.-M. Ilgenfritz, M. Mller-Preussker, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 054511.
[37] T.L. Ivanenko, A.V. Pochinsky, M.I. Polikarpov, JETP Lett. 53 (1991) 543;
T.L. Ivanenko, A.V. Pochinsky, M.I. Polikarpov, Phys. Lett. B 302 (1993) 458.
[38] V.G. Bornyakov, V.K. Mitrjushkin, M. Mller-Preussker, Phys. Lett. B 284 (1992) 99.
[39] S.i. Kitahara, Y. Matsubara, T. Suzuki, Prog. Theor. Phys. 93 (1995) 1.
[40] A. Hart, M. Teper, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998) 014504.
[41] A. Hart, M. Teper, UKQCD Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 60 (1999) 114506.
[42] J.D. Stack, S.D. Neiman, R.J. Wensley, Phys. Rev. D 50 (1994) 3399.
[43] J.D. Stack, R.J. Wensley, S.D. Neiman, Phys. Lett. B 385 (1996) 261.
[44] R. Bertle, M. Faber, J. Greensite, S. Olejnik, JHEP 9903 (1999) 019.
[45] M.N. Chernodub, M.I. Polikarpov, A.I. Veselov, M.A. Zubkov, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 73 (1999) 575.
[46] M. Engelhardt, H. Reinhardt, Nucl. Phys. B 585 (2000) 591.
[47] S. Ejiri, S.i. Kitahara, Y. Matsubara, T. Okude, T. Suzuki, K. Yasuta, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 47 (1996) 322.
[48] A. Di Giacomo, Acta Phys. Pol. B 36 (2005) 3723, and references therein.
[49] T.A. DeGrand, D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2478.

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

A rotating KaluzaKlein black hole with squashed


horizons
Tower Wang
Institute of Theoretical Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, PO Box 2735, Beijing 100080, China
Received 18 May 2006; accepted 1 September 2006
Available online 18 September 2006

Abstract
We find a rotating KaluzaKlein black hole solution with squashed S 3 horizons in five dimensions. This
is a Kerr counterpart of the charged one found by Ishihara and Matsuno [H. Ishihara, K. Matsuno, Kaluza
Klein black holes with squashed horizons, hep-th/0510094] recently. The spacetime is geodesic complete
and free of naked singularities. Its asymptotic structure is a twisted S 1 fiber bundle over a four-dimensional
Minkowski spacetime. We also study the mass and thermodynamics of this black hole.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Very recently, Ishihara and Matsuno [1] have found a black hole solution in the fivedimensional EinsteinMaxwell theory. It is a charged static black hole with a non-trivial asymptotic topology. Horizons of the black hole are in the shape of squashed S 3 , and the spacetime is
asymptotically locally flat, approaching a twisted S 1 bundle over a four-dimensional Minkowski
spacetime. For simplicity, we will refer to this solution as an IshiharaMatsuno black hole
or an IM1 black hole for short, and use the name KerrIM for the Kerr counterpart with the
same asymptotic geometry, etc.
The IshiharaMatsuno black holes deserve further investigations for several reasons.
First, string theory tells us that spacetime has ten dimensions, and the idea of large extra
dimensions suggests a possibility to produce black holes smaller than the extra dimensions at
colliders [2,3]. The IshiharaMatsuno black holes bring us a new toy model to study. In this
E-mail address: wangtao218@itp.ac.cn (T. Wang).
1 Maybe RNIM is a more suitable name to adopt, but anyhow we will not do it here.

0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.09.001

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

87

spacetime, one extra dimension can be smaller than four uncompactified dimensions, but is
much lager than other dimensions. The size of this large extra dimension is characterized by an
adjustable parameter r [1].
Second, it is a long-standing problem to define and compute conserved quantities in a space
time with a non-flat asymptotic structure or a non-trivial boundary topology. Some breakthroughs
have been made [46], and more attention was attracted on this problem in recent years [712].
IshiharaMatsuno black holes have a non-trivial asymptotic structure, hence provide a new arena
to study diverse techniques we have got. According to calculations performed by Cai et al. [13],
the boundary counter-term method [10] and the generalized AbbottDeser method [7] result in
the same mass (energy) for IM black holes, which also satisfies the first law of thermodynamics.
However, as the compactified dimension expands, such a mass increases, even in the absence of
five-dimensional black holes. This is a little counterintuitive but may be explained by comparing
IM black holes with KaluzaKlein monopoles [14].
Third, from the discussion in [1], it is clear that horizons of IshiharaMatsuno black holes
are deformed owing to the non-trivial asymptotic structure. There is an interesting problem to
ask: what will happen if we switch on angular momenta, the cosmological constant and Chern
Simons terms [15] or replace the black hole by a black ring [16]? We have tried to answer this
question, but only bite a bit, that is, we obtain a KerrIM black hole solution with equal angular
momenta in Einstein theory whose cosmological constant is zero. The KerrIM black hole with
non-equal angular momenta is too complicated to struggle with. When looking for the metric of
dSIM black holes we lose our way. As far as we know, in five-dimensional asymptotically flat
spacetime, charged rotating black holes have not been obtained analytically in pure Einstein
Maxwell theory yet [17]. So a KerrNewmanIM black hole solution seems to be equally hard
to get. The solution for KaluzaKlein multi-black holes see [18].
The organization of this paper is as follows. We produce the KerrIM black hole and identify
its asymptotic spacetime in the next section. Then we prove in Section 3 that such a KerrIM
spacetime is geodesic complete and free of naked singularities. Sections 4 and 5 are dedicated
to computing the thermodynamic quantities as well as checking the first law. In Section 5, we
also analyze the results and make some comments on the relation between IM black holes and
KaluzaKlein monopoles. Finally, a brief summary is given in Section 6. Through the entire
paper we exploit the abbreviations introduced at the beginning of this section.
2. KerrIM black holes
2.1. A prescription to squash black holes
By observing the KaluzaKlein black hole with squashed horizons [1], and comparing it with
the five-dimensional ReissnerNordstrm black hole, we guess that there is a general prescription which transforms some known five-dimensional black hole into a new one with squashed
horizons. We further conjecture a detailed squashing transformation as the following
(1) Write the original black hole metric in terms of the left-invariant MaurerCartan 1-forms
on S 3
1 = sin d + cos sin d,
2 = cos d + sin sin d,
3 = d + cos d,

(1)

88

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

where
0 < < ,

0 < < 2,

0 < < 4

(2)

are Euler angles [13]. The Euler angles are related to ordinary angles (o , o , o ) via [15]
o o = ,

o + o = ,

(2) Modify the metric as


dr k dr,

k1 ,

1
o = .
2
2

k2

(3)

(4)

while k is a function of r in the form


k(r) =

2 r 2 )(r 2 r 2 )
(r
+

,
2 r 2 )2
(r

(5)

r = r+ corresponds to the outer horizon and r = r the inner horizon. r characterizes the size
of a S 1 fiber at infinity. We impose to them a constraint 0  r  r+ < r .
When we apply this procedure to Kerr black holes with non-equal angular momenta, it gives
a metric too complicated to struggle with. So in the rest parts of this article, we focus on the
squashed Kerr black holes with equal angular momenta, to which we sometimes refer as Kerr
IM black holes.
2.2. From Kerr to squashed Kerr
In terms of MaurerCartan 1-forms, a five-dimensional Kerr black hole with two equal angular
momenta takes the form

2


r 2 + a2  2
m
a
ds 2 = dt 2 + dr 2 +
(6)
.
1 + 22 + 32 + 2

dt

4
2
r + a2
The parameters are given by


= r 2 r 2 + a2 ,

2
= r 2 + a 2 mr 2 .

(7)

Taking the second step of the squashing transformation we have described in Section 2.1,
with
k(r) =

2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r

2 r 2 )2
(r

(8)

it follows that a Kerr black hole with squashed horizons is


ds 2 = dt 2 +


2


m
2 2 r 2 + a2   2
a
.
k dr +
k 1 + 22 + 32 + 2

dt

4
2
r + a2

(9)

It is straightforward to check that metric (9) satisfies the vacuum Einstein equation
1
R Rg = 0.
2

(10)

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

89

We set the order of parameters as 0 < r  r+ < r , with an outer horizon at r = r+ and an
inner horizon at r = r , and restrict r within the range 0 < r < r , then metric (9) is geodesic
complete and has no naked singularity, as we will establish in Section 3. In particular, if we take
the limit r and at the same time concentrate on a region with a finite value of rrr , the
KerrIM metric (9) will reduce to a five-dimensional Kerr metric. This is similar to the IM black
hole, which reduces to a five-dimensional ReissnerNordstrm black hole in the same limit [1].
2.3. Asymptotic structure
In order to see the asymptotic structure, we introduce a new radial coordinate as
= 0

r2
2 r2
r

(11)

with

k0  2
r + a 2 ,
4
2
(r 2 + a 2 )2 mr
k0 = k(r = 0) =
4
r

02 =

(12)

and rewrite the metric (9) as



2


a
ds 2 = dt 2 + U d 2 + R 2 12 + 22 + W 2 32 + V dt 3 ,
2

(13)

where K, V , W , R and U are functions of in the form


K2 =
V=

+ 0
+
m

a2
2 +a 2 0
r

K 2,

2 + a2
r
r 2 + a2
W2 = 2
4K

m
,
4V

( + 0 )2
,
R2 =
K2

2
02
r2
.
U= 2 2
r2

r + a
W 2 4 +
V
0

(14)

In the limit , i.e., r r , it approaches


ds = dt + d +
2

12

+ 22


2
2 + a2
r
m
a
2
+
3 + 2
dt 3 .
4
2
r + a 2

(15)

At first sight, the cross-term between dt and 3 appears to imply a pathology of the space
time. Nevertheless, if we change the coordinates as
=

2
(r

2ma
t,
+ a 2 )2 + ma 2

90

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699


t =

2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r

t
2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r

(16)

and take the notation 3 = d + cos d, the asymptotic spacetime is actually all right

 (r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2 2
3 .
ds 2 = d t 2 + d 2 + 2 12 + 22 + 2
4(r + a 2 )

(17)

This asymptotic topology is the same as that of the IM spacetime [1]: a twisted S 1 bundle over a
four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. We have expected it because the asymptotic structure
should not be affected by angular momenta or any other charges of black holes. From the same
point of view, we predict that the asymptotic geometry ought to be a twisted S 1 bundle over a
four-dimensional anti-de Sitter spacetime for a AdSIM black hole if it really exists.
At infinity, the size of the compactified dimension is controlled by r , m and a together
rather than r alone, implied by metric (17). One should not be bothered by this illusion of
2 for
parametrization. A better parameter may be obtained if we trade r
2
r
=

2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r
2 + a2
r

(18)

in which the size of the compactified dimension is apparently decoupled from m and a, but that
will only make our formulas more scattered. In our expressions, for brevity, we will always use
 . But one should keep in mind that the geometric interpretation is
the parameter r instead of r

clearer for r than for r .
We stress that the coordinate transformation (11) is valid only for a finite r value, i.e.,
r < . In the limit r , one merely finds 0. Thus we will carry out most computations based on the metric in the form (9) instead of (13). But the calculations of mass and
angular momenta are inconvenient from (9), so we will in Section 5 resort to the coordinate
introduced in (11). We believe the calculations should always be right for a finite r , given that
the boundary counter-term method and the generalized AbbottDeser method work.
3. Absence of naked singularities
3.1. Ingoing Eddington coordinates
The metric (9) beaks down at = 0, i.e., r = r . These singularities can be removed by a
coordinate transformation
k(r 2 + a 2 )2
dr,

2ak(r 2 + a 2 )
dr.
d = d +

In the new coordinates (v, r, , , ), metric (9) turns to


dv = dt +





m
r 2 + a2   2
a  2
ds 2 = dv 2 +
k 1 + 22 + 3  2 + 2

dv

4
2 3
r + a2


a
+ 2k dv 3 dr
2

(19)

(20)

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

91

in which we make use of a notation 3 = d + cos . The new coordinates are nothing but the
ingoing Eddington coordinates. The metric is regular now at r = r .
In fact, r = r are where Killing horizons sit. We will only discuss outer horizon r = r+ in
this article. By exchanging r+ r one immediately gets the results for inner horizon r = r .
From (20) we can write down the Killing vector of the event horizon at r = r+
= 0 (v + H ),
2a
,
H = 2
r+ + a 2

(21)

where 0 is a normalization constant to be determined in Section 4. In coordinates (t , r, , , ),


the Killing vector takes the form
= 0 (t + H ).

(22)

This result may also be worked out from (9) directly.


3.2. Geodesic completeness
In the following, we will prove that the spacetime of a KerrIM black hole is geodesic
complete. The same recipe will be efficacious for the IM black hole found by Ishihara and Matsuno [1].
The action of a particle with mass mpart is given by [19]
I = mpart


 dx () dx () 1/2
d g x()
.
d
d

(23)

Inserting (9), and taking = t, it becomes


+
dt L
I=

= mpart

r 2 + a2 2 r 2 + a2
dt 1 k 2 r 2
k
k sin2 2

4
4

2 1/2

+ a2
m
a a
2

( + cos ) 2
1 cos
4
2
2
r + a2
r

dr
r 2 + a2

= mpart
1 k 2 r 2
k sin2 2
r

4
r2

2 1/2

r 2 + a2
m
a
a
2
cos
( + cos )

4
2
2
r 2 + a2

(24)

in which a dot denotes a derivative with respect to t , and we have assumed = 0. As will be
shown later, this assumption is consistent with geodesic equations.

92

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

In order to be brief, we introduce a notation



 dx () dx () 1/2
u = g x()
d
d

2
2

r +a
r 2 + a2
2
= 1 k 2 r 2
k sin2 2
( + cos )

4
4
2 1/2

m
a a

2
.
1 cos
2
2
r + a2

(25)

Then the Hamiltonian is


L
x L
x

mpart 2 2 r 2 + a 2
r 2 + a2
2
=
k r +
k sin2 2 +
( + cos )
u

4
4



m
a
a
a a
cos
+ 2

cos

+ mpart u
1

2
2
2
2
r + a2



mpart
m
a
a
cos .
=
1 2

u
2
2
r + a2

H =E=

(26)

For a stationary spacetime the energy E is a constant, and the first integrals of and are
found to be
P =

mpart r 2 + a 2
r 2 + a2

k sin2 +
cos ( + cos )
u
4
4


a a
m a
,
cos

cos

2
2
2
r + a2 2

2


2
L mpart r + a
m a
a a

=
P =
( + cos ) 2
1 cos .
u
4
2
2
r + a2 2

=

(27)

We will assume P = 0, P = 0 and show the consistency a little later. Using these assumptions
to solve (27), we get a clean result
= 0,
=

(r 2

2ma
.
+ a 2 )2 + ma 2

(28)

Combining (27) and (28) yields


mpart (r 2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
,
E (r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2

1 (r 2 + a 2 )2 mr 2 (E 2 m2part )(r 2 + a 2 )2 + m(m2part r 2 + E 2 a 2 )
.
r =
k (r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
E 2 r 2 (r 2 + a 2 )
u=

(29)

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

93

At last, the integration of the proper time is [19]



+
+

r

 dx () dx () 1/2
dr
d =
d g x()
=
u
d
d
r

r
2
mpart
(r 2 + a 2 )2 mr
dr 2
=
2
2
E
(r r )
0

E 2 r 2 (r 2 + a 2 )

.
2
2
2
(E mpart )(r + a 2 )2 + m(m2part r 2 + E 2 a 2 )

(30)

For E 2 > m2part this integration is divergent when and only when r approaches r , that is, for a
particle with enough energy, their geodesics can be extended to all values of . Accordingly we
can expect the KerrIM spacetime is geodesic complete, and it is clear now that r r indeed
corresponds to spatial infinity.
In the above, we have assumed = 0, P = 0 and P = 0. To be rigorous, we now demonstrate that these assumptions are consistent with geodesic equations. Christoffel connections are
easy to derive from metric (9), and we find the expected vanishing components

=
=0

(, = t, r, ).

(31)

This is consistent with our earlier assumptions = 0, P = 0, P = 0. Note that P


P cos = 0 is equivalent to = 0.
4. Some thermodynamic quantities
4.1. Temperature
To discuss the surface gravity and the temperature, it is convenient to rewrite metric (9) by
defining coordinates and t exactly as (16), then the KerrIM metric (9) and Killing vector (22)
have the form
 (r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2 2 r 2 + a2  2
( 3 d t )2 ,
k dr +
k 1 + 22 +

4
4(r 2 + a 2 )
= 0 (t + H )
(32)

ds 2 = g 00 d t 2 +

and
2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r 2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r

,
2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2 (r

 2

(r + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2ma
2ma
2
,

=
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r + a ) + ma
(r + a ) + ma
(r


2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r

,
0 = 0
2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r

 2
(r + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2ma
.

H = H 2
2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r

g 00 =

(33)

94

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

This form of metric has the merit that g 00 1 and 0 at spatial infinity r r .
Correspondingly the two-dimensional Euclidean Rindler spacetime is
dsE2 =

2 2
k dr + g 00 d 2 .

(34)

It has a conical singularity at r = r+ until we make a periodic identification +



2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r
1
r+ r

= 2
2
2
(r + a 2 )2 mr
r+ + a 2 k(r+ )


2 r2
2 + r r )2 + r r (r + r )2
r
(r+ r ) (r
+
+ +

+
=
.

2 r2 )
2 r2
r+ (r+ + r )(r
r

2
,

with

(35)

The same result can also be derived from (9) and (22), using |r=r = , and
choosing a normalization to ensure g 00 t t 1 as r r , that is

2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
(r
.
0 =
(36)
2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r

Having the surface gravity on the outer horizon, one immediately obtains the temperature of
the black hole


2 r2
2 + r r )2 + r r (r + r )2
r

(r+ r ) (r
+
+ +

+
T=
(37)

.
=
2 r2 )
2 r2
2
2r+ (r+ + r )(r
r

4.2. Angular velocity and entropy


Different angular-velocity-like quantities have appeared in Sections 3.1 and 4.1: H , H
and .
Which is the physical one? Notice that on the outer horizon = H , so the problem to
determine angular velocity on the outer horizon is reduced to a choice between H and H .
Their difference originates from different definitions of time and angular coordinates. As we
have mentioned, the metric form (32) has better behaviors at spatial infinity, that is, a vanishing
angular momentum and a satisfactory normalization of the temporal component. Hence we are
sure now a meaningful angular velocity on the event horizon is H , given by (33), taking the
form

2 + r 2 + 2r r
2 r2 )
r
r (r
2
+
+
+

.
H =
(38)

2 r2 )
2 + r r )2 + r r (r + r )2
r+ + r
r+ (r
(r
+
+ +

It is not surprising that we should take into account asymptotic properties of metric at infinity when computing thermodynamic quantities on the event horizon. The key point is that all
thermodynamic quantities are seen from infinity.
In [13] it has been found that the area formula of entropy still survives in spite of a deformation
of the horizon. Hereby we calculate the entropy of KerrIM black hole according to the area
formula. Starting with (9), (13), (20) or (32), one easily obtains a unique consequence
A = 2 2 r+ (r+ + r )2

2 r2
r

2 r2
r
+

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

S=

2 r2
A 2 r+ (r+ + r )2 r

.
=

2 r2
4
2
r
+

95

(39)

5. The first law of thermodynamics


5.1. AbbottDeser mass
In the previous section, we argue that when calculating thermodynamic quantities, the asymptotic behavior of metric should be taken into consideration. Especially, a suitable form of metric
to derive those quantities must asymptotically normalize the temporal components and annihilate angular momenta. The metric form (32) has these properties, whereas a more convenient
form would be an analogous one in terms of . It can be obtained from (13), after coordinate
transformation (16), or from (32), after coordinate transformation (11)

 (r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2 K 4
( 3 d t )2
ds 2 = g 00 d t 2 + U d 2 + R 2 12 + 22 + 2
4(r + a 2 )K 2

(40)

in which U , R and K are given by (14). g 00 and are the same as those in (33), also taking the
form
2 + a 2 )2 m(r 2 + a 2 )K 2 + ma 2 K 4
(r
(r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2

2
,
2
2
2
2
4
2
(r + a ) + ma K
(r + a 2 )2 mr
 2

(r + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2ma
2maK 4
2
.

=
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
(r + a ) + ma K
(r + a ) + ma
(r

g 00 =

(41)

In Abbott and Desers definition, conserved charges are associated with isometries of the
asymptotic geometry which is supposed to be the vacuum of the system [4]. In KerrIM space
time, corresponding to (40), the asymptotic geometry is described by (17).
Taking = t as the canonically normalized time-like Killing vector, and repeating the
computation done in [13], one is led to the generalized AbbottDeser mass of the KerrIM black
hole
MKerrIM =
=

2 + a 2 )2 + m(r 2 + 2a 2 )

(r
(r 2 + a 2 )2 ma 2


2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2 + a 2 ) (r 2 + a 2 )2 mr 2
4
(r
(r

(r 2 + r+ r )2 r+ r (r+ + r )2

2 + r r )2 + r r (r + r )2
4
(r
+
+ +

2 + 2r r + r 2 )(r 2 + 2r r + r 2 )
(r
+
+

+
.
2
2
2
2
2
(r + r+ r ) (r r+ )(r r )

(42)

This mass and the mass of IM black hole obtained in [13] will be analyzed in Section 5.4.
5.2. Angular momentum and the first law
Starting with (40), after a few calculations, the Komar integrals give the angular momenta
J = 0,
J = J =

r+ r (r+ + r )2 .
ma =
4
4

(43)

96

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

The first law of black hole thermodynamics in our case


dM T dS H dJ = 0

(44)

involves five parameters. All of them have been obtained now. To check the first law, one might
view r+ , r as variables while keep r as a constant. But that will break (44). Remember that for
 , as we have explained
KerrIM spacetime the geometric parameter at infinity is not r but r

in Section 2.3. In deed, if we fix r rather than r , the first law of black hole thermodynamics
(44) is obeyed.
5.3. The counter-term method
For a spacetime with an asymptotic boundary topology R S 1  S 2 , a simple counter-term
in gravitational action is introduced by Mann and Stelea [10]. As a matter of fact, asymptotic
structures are the same for IM black holes and KaluzaKlein monopoles, the latter of which
are treated in [10]. An advantage of the counter-term method over the background subtraction
method is that it is independent of reference backgrounds hence leads to a unique result. The
stress tensor for the asymptotically flat spacetimes was proposed for the first time by Astefanesei
and Radu in [9]. For different boundary topologies there exist different counter-terms, but the
form of the stress tensor is generic.
We still start with (40). After a substantial amount of calculations, we find the non-vanishing
components of stress tensor
 
2 + a 2 )4 + m(r 2 + a 2 )3 m2 a 2 (r 2 + 2a 2 )
(r
1
1


+
O
8GT tt =
,
2
2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2 ] (r 2 + a 2 )3 mr 2 (r 2 + a 2 ) r
r3
4[(r



 
2 + a2
r
cos
ma
1
t
+O 3 ,
8GT =
2
2
2
2
2
4 (r + a ) + ma r
r



2 + a2
r
1
ma
1
+
O
,
8GT t =
2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2 r 2
4 (r
r3
8GT =

2 + a 2 )4 m(r 2 5a 2 )(r 2 + a 2 )2 m2 (r 4 + 3a 2 r 2 + a 4 ) 1
(r

2 + a 2 )3 mr 2 (r 2 + a 2 )]
32[(r
r3

 
1
+O 4 ,
r

2 + a 2 )4 m(r 2 5a 2 )(r 2 + a 2 )2 m2 (r 4 + 3a 2 r 2 + a 4 ) 1
(r

2 + a 2 )3 mr 2 (r 2 + a 2 )]
32[(r
r3

 
1
+O 4 ,
r

 
3/2
2 + a2
1
r
1

+
O
8GT t = ma
,
2
2
2
2
2
(r + a ) + ma
r
r3
 
2 + a 2 )4 m(r 2 + a 2 )3 + m2 a 2 (r 2 a 2 )
cos
2(r
1


+O 3 ,
8GT =
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
r
r
4[(r + a ) + ma ] (r + a ) mr (r + a )
 
2 + a 2 )4 m(r 2 + a 2 )3 + m2 a 2 (r 2 a 2 )
1
2(r
1


+
O
8GT =
(45)
.
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
r
r
4[(r + a ) + ma ] (r + a ) mr (r + a )

8GT =

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

97

Associated with the Killing vector t, the conserved mass is the same as (42). Corresponding
to and respectively, the angular momenta are given by (43).
5.4. Comments and conjectures
In a recent paper [13], Cai et al. have got an expression similar to (42). In their notations, the
IM black hole mass is
MIM = MCT = MAD =

4 3r 2 r 2 + r 2 (r 2 + r 2 ))
(r
+

+
.
2 r 2 )(r 2 r 2 )
4 (r
+

(46)

Besides a background subtraction method, i.e., the generalized AbbottDeser method [7], they
also employed the counter-term method [10].
Both (42) and (46) grow as r increases, that is, as the size of the compactified dimension
increases. This is a little counterintuitive. More surprisingly, when the black hole disappears, i.e.,
in the empty limit r+ = r = 0, both masses tend to
2
r
(47)
.
4
We observe that (47) is just the mass expression for KaluzaKlein monopoles in four dimensions [10,14]. Furthermore, if we set r+ = 0 and r = 0, the metrics for both IM and KerrIM
black holes simply reduce to the metric for KaluzaKlein monopoles [14], whose geometry is
perfectly regular in five dimensions. This indicates the physical meaning of (42) and (46): they
express the masses of the KaluzaKlein black holes in the sight of four dimensions. The Kaluza
Klein charges [14] account for their counterintuitive behaviors. In a five-dimensional point of
view, there are no KaluzaKlein charges, and (47) is the contribution of energy from background
geometry. A further observation is that if we subtract (47) from (46), the first law of thermodynamics checked in [13] will not be affected, for they have fixed the value of r .
Strictly speaking, the expressions (42) and (46) for mass are reliable only in the case of a
finite r value, as we remarked in the end of Section 2.3. Yet we want to extrapolate the result to
the limit r r . Then we propose the following conjectures for an arbitrary value of positive
r .

Mmon =

(1) Formula (46) represents the mass of IM black holes observed in four dimensions. Subtracting the monopole contribution (47), we conjecture the mass well-defined in five dimensions
MIM =

4 3r 2 r 2 + r 2 (r 2 + r 2 ))
(r
r 2
+

+
.
4
2 r 2 )(r 2 r 2 )
4 (r
+

(48)

(2) Similarly, the formula (42) represents the mass of KerrIM black holes observed in four
dimensions. Subtracting the monopole contribution (47), we conjecture the mass well-defined in
five dimensions

2
2 + a 2 )2 + m(r 2 + 2a 2 )

(r
(r + a 2 )2 ma 2


MKerrIM =

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
(r + a ) (r + a 2 )2 mr
(r + a ) + ma

(r 2 + a 2 )2 + ma 2
2
(49)
.
r + a 2

98

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

 instead
Here we have considered that the size of the compactified dimension is controlled by r
of r .

Obviously, the masses MIM and MKerrIM also satisfy the first law of black hole thermodynamics in five dimensions. To inspect and improve our conjectures, one may check the law in four
 variable. It
dimensions with MIM and MKerrIM , by including monopole charges and allowing r
3(r 2 +r 2 )

is remarkable that in the flat limit r r , we find MIM


and MKerrIM 3m
8
8
respectively, which are the masses of ordinary five-dimensional ReissnerNordstrm black holes
and Kerr black holes, respectively. In the empty limit r+ = r = 0, both MIM and MKerrIM
vanish. It would be interesting and important to look for a new background and a new counterterm to fundamentally produce the masses (48) and (49), and at the same time the angular
momenta (43). But it is not the aim of this article.

6. Summary
In this paper, we have extended the recently found static KaluzaKlein black holes with
squashed horizons [1] to rotating counterparts. Our investigations are restricted to black holes
with two equal angular momenta. These counterparts are geodesic complete and free of naked
singularities. The thermodynamic quantities have been calculated and the first law has been
checked. The angular momenta are computed using Komar integrals, then reproduced with the
counter-term method. We calculated the mass by both background subtraction and counter-term
method, and found a counterintuitive behavior as the compactified dimension expands. This behavior is also hidden in the mass of static black holes. We attributed it to KaluzaKlein charges
and gave some comments on it.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Li-Ming Cao, Miao Li, Jian-Xin Lu, Wei Song and Yushu Song
for useful discussions and kind help. We are especially grateful to Rong-Gen Cai for a careful
reading of the manuscript and many helpful discussions.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]

H. Ishihara, K. Matsuno, KaluzaKlein black holes with squashed horizons, hep-th/0510094.


T. Banks, W. Fischler, A model for high energy scattering in quantum gravity, hep-th/9906038.
S.B. Giddings, S. Thomas, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 056010, hep-ph/0106219.
L.F. Abbott, S. Deser, Nucl. Phys. B 195 (1982) 76.
A. Ashtekar, A. Magnon, Class. Quantum Grav. 1 (1984) L39.
A. Ashtekar, S. Das, Class. Quantum Grav. 17 (2000) L17, hep-th/9911230.
W. Chen, H. L, C.N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 104036, hep-th/0510081.
P. Kraus, F. Larsen, R. Siebelink, Nucl. Phys. B 563 (1999) 259, hep-th/9906127.
D. Astefanesei, E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 044014, hep-th/0509144.
R.B. Mann, C. Stelea, Phys. Lett. B 634 (2006) 531, hep-th/0511180.
S. Hollands, A. Ishibashi, D. Marolf, Class. Quantum Grav. 22 (2005) 2881, hep-th/0503045.
R.G. Cai, L.M. Cao, JHEP 0603 (2006) 083, hep-th/0601101.
R.G. Cai, L.M. Cao, N. Ohta, Phys. Lett. B 639 (2006) 354, hep-th/0603197.
R.D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51 (1983) 87.

T. Wang / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 8699

[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]

99

M. Cvetic, H. L, C.N. Pope, Phys. Lett. B 598 (2004) 273, hep-th/0406196.


R. Emparan, H.S. Reall, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 101101, hep-th/0110260.
J. Kunz, F. Navarro-Lrida, A.K. Petersen, Phys. Lett. B 614 (2005) 104, gr-qc/0503010.
H. Ishihara, M. Kimura, K. Matsuno, S. Tomizawa, KaluzaKlein multi-black holes in five-dimensional Einstein
Maxwell theory, hep-th/0605030.
[19] S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology, Wiley, New York, 1972.

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

Effects of non-standard neutrinoelectron interactions


on relic neutrino decoupling
Gianpiero Mangano a , Gennaro Miele a , Sergio Pastor b, ,
Teguayco Pinto b , Ofelia Pisanti a , Pasquale D. Serpico c
a Dipartimento di Scienze Fisiche, Universit di Napoli Federico II and INFN, Sezione di Napoli,

Complesso Universitario di Monte S. Angelo, Via Cintia, I-80126 Naples, Italy


b Instituto de Fsica Corpuscular (CSIC-Universitat de Valncia), Ed. Institutos de Investigacin,

Apdo. 22085, E-46071 Valencia, Spain


c Max-Planck-Institut fr Physik (Werner-Heisenberg-Institut), Fhringer Ring 6, D-80805 Munich, Germany

Received 3 August 2006; accepted 1 September 2006


Available online 22 September 2006

Abstract
We consider the decoupling of neutrinos in the early Universe in presence of non-standard neutral current neutrinoelectron interactions (NSI). We first discuss a semi-analytical approach to solve the relevant
kinetic equations and then present the results of fully numerical and momentum-dependent calculations,
including flavor neutrino oscillations. We present our results in terms of both the effective number of neutrino species (Neff ) and the impact on the abundance of 4 He produced during big bang nucleosynthesis.
We find that the presence of neutrinoelectron NSI may enhance the entropy transfer from electron
positron pairs into neutrinos instead of photons, up to a value of Neff  3.12 for NSI parameters within
the ranges allowed by present laboratory data, which is almost three times the effect that appears for standard weak interactions. Thus non-standard neutrinoelectron interactions do not essentially modify the
density of relic neutrinos nor the bounds on neutrino properties from cosmological observables, such as
their mass.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Early Universe; Neutrinos; Non-equilibrium kinetics

* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: sergio.pastor@ific.uv.es (S. Pastor).


0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.09.002

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

101

1. Introduction
In the early Universe, neutrinos were kept in thermal contact with the electromagnetic primordial plasma by rapid weak interactions with electrons and positrons. When the temperature
dropped below a few MeV, these weak processes became ineffective and the process of neutrino
decoupling took place, while shortly after the e pairs began to annihilate almost entirely into
photons thus producing a difference between the temperatures of the relic photons and neutrinos.
This difference can be easily calculated if we assume that neutrinos were completely decoupled
when the e pairs transferred their entropy to photons, leading to the well-known temperature
ratio T /T = (11/4)1/3  1.40102. Indeed, this simplified picture should be improved since
some relic interactions between e and neutrinos exist all along the e annihilation stage, leading to a slightly smaller increase of the comoving photon temperature and to small distortions (at
the percent level) of the neutrino momentum distributions.
Presently, there exist compelling evidences for flavor neutrino oscillations from a variety of
experimental data on solar, atmospheric, reactor and accelerator neutrinos (see e.g. [1,2]). These
results are well understood by assuming that neutrinos have masses and mix, which in turn seems
to point out the necessity of some new physics beyond the Standard Model (SM) of fundamental
interactions. Interestingly, non-zero neutrino masses usually come with non-standard interactions
(NSI) that might violate leptonic flavor and/or break weak universality. Recent analyses [36]
have considered the neutral current NSI in a phenomenological way, showing that they can be
bound using measurements of neutrinoelectron scattering, as well as data from LEP and from
related charged lepton processes.
The aim of this paper is to study the neutrino decoupling process in presence of additional
interactions between neutrinos and electrons, a possibility already noted in [3,5]. In this case,
neutrinos could be kept in longer contact with e and thus share a larger amount of the total entropy transfer than in the SM. Actually, if the non-standard neutrinoelectron interactions
were large enough, the neutrino momentum distribution would be significantly different from
the standard case. In turn, this would modify the final yield of light nuclei during the epoch of
big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN), as well as the radiation content of the Universe, affecting the
anisotropies of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the power spectrum of large scale
structures (LSS). Our goal is to calculate how the decoupling is modified taking into account
NSI with couplings which are still allowed by present laboratory data, and to discuss the possibility that cosmological observations can be used as a complementary way to bound these exotic
scenarios.
The paper is organized as follows. We begin in Section 2 by describing the formalism adopted
for the non-standard electronneutrino interactions and summarize the current bounds from a
variety of experimental data. We then consider the process of relic neutrino decoupling in the
presence of non-standard electronneutrino interactions, giving first an estimate by using a semianalytical approach in Section 3. Finally, in Section 4 we report the results of the full momentumdependent numerical calculations for the neutrino spectra and the effect on the primordial 4 He
yield and other cosmological observables. We present our conclusions in Section 5.
2. Non-standard neutrinoelectron interactions
The long-standing evidence of flavor change in atmospheric and solar neutrino experiments
represents a strong indication of some new physics beyond the SM of fundamental interactions.
For several years these experimental results have been interpreted in terms of neutrino masses

102

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

(flavor oscillations) or by introducing new neutrino interactions. Recently, reactor and accelerator data have confirmed that neutrino masses are indeed the main mechanism explaining the
atmospheric and solar anomalies, while the role of NSI can be only sub-leading. In any case,
most extended particle physics models that account for neutrino masses naturally lead to new
NSI, whose value strongly depends on the model. For instance, NSI may arise from the structure
of the charged and neutral current weak interactions in seesaw-type extended models [7].
In the present analysis we will follow [3,5] and assume that new physics induces NSI only
through the four fermion operators ( )(ff ), where f is a charged lepton or quark, but not
new charged lepton physics at tree level. In particular, since we are interested in the decoupling
process of relic neutrinos, we consider only the NSI related to electrons which, together with the
standard weak interactions, are described by the effective Lagrangian

LNSI
Leff = LSM +
(1)
,

which contains the four-fermion terms




 





LSM = 2 2GF e Le (e
Le) +
P e) ,
gP L (e

(2)

P ,




P
LNSI = 2 2GF
L (e
P e)

(3)

for energies much smaller than the Z boson mass, as in our case, with GF the Fermi constant and
P = L, R = (1 5 )/2 the chiral projectors. Greek indices label lepton flavors (, = e, , )
and the Z couplings are gL = 12 + sin2 W and gR = sin2 W .
P can induce a breaking of lepton universality ( = ) or rather a
The NSI parameters
flavor-changing contribution ( = ). Their values can be constrained by a variety of laboratory
experiments, as discussed in [3,5,6]. In what follows we summarize the present bounds and refer
the reader to the analyses mentioned above for all details. When considering the bounds on the
P parameters, it is important to notice that they are usually obtained taking only one-at-a-time,

L,R
). This implies that the derived constraints
or at most combining two of them (such as the pair ee
are expected to be weaker but more robust if many NSI parameters are simultaneously included,
since cancellations may occur.
A remark is in order. Since isospin-changing weak interactions converting neutrons into protons and vice versa are important for the BBN yields, one might wonder if it is legitimate
to neglect the neutrino NSI with quarks. We argue that this approximation is well justified
since, while relic neutrino distributions affect n p processes in a crucial way, vice versa is
not true. The highly suppressed density of baryons with respect to electromagnetic particles
(nb /n  6 1010 ) allows one to neglect completely neutrino scattering on quarks for calculating the neutrino momentum spectrum. In addition, what contributes to the n p rates are
neutrino charged-current interactions, where possible non-standard terms are severely bounded
by the accurate agreement of SM calculations for several processes with the data (e.g. leptonic
and hadronic weak decays). For baryon thermalization, neutral current neutrino reactions are
completely negligible with respect to electromagnetic interactions with e and photons. Also
note that any tiny non-standard effect in the weak rates is effectively taken into account by our
prescription of rescaling the theoretically predicted neutron lifetime to the experimentally measured value (see [8] for details).

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

103

Finally, we comment on a possible role of exotic four-fermion neutrinoneutrino interactions


of the kind parameterized in Eq. (3), reporting the bounds quoted in [9]. If only left-handed neutrinos are involved, the accurate measurement of the Z-boson width constrains the NSI coupling
to be at most of the same strength of the neutral current ones in the SM, and thus we expect
that they will have a sub-leading effect on our results (see Section 4). Instead, for NSI terms
coupling left-handed to right-handed components, a stringent BBN bound of O(103 ) applies,
coming from the request that more than one neutrino-equivalent degree of freedom which was
thermally populated in the early Universe is excluded. Finally, extra interactions coupling only
right-handed states might be large, but this case is of no interest for the process of neutrino
decoupling.
2.1. Bounds from tree level processes
Neutrino scattering experiments
The magnitude of the NSI parameters can be constrained from the analysis of data from
neutrinoelectron scattering experiments, which can probe the SM electroweak predictions with
good precision (see e.g. [10]).
First, we focus on e e (data from the LSND experiment [11]) and e e scattering (data from
the Irvine [12] and MUNU [13] experiments). The total e e cross section including NSI is



2G2F me E 
1
L 2
R 2
(e e e) =
+ gR + ee
1 + gL + ee

3
 2 1 2

L + R
+
(4)
e
3 e
=e

while the LSND measurement is


(e e e) = (1.17 0.17)

G2F me E
.

(5)

In [5] this result was compared with the SM prediction = 1.0967G2F me E / including
electroweak corrections and best fit value for sin2 W to obtain the following allowed regions
around the SM value, assuming only one operator at a time
L
R
0.07 (0.14) < ee
< 0.11 (0.16),
0.99 (1.14) < ee
< 0.53 (0.67),
R
L
< 0.7 (0.9)
< 0.4 (0.5),
e
e

(6)
(7)

P more severe bounds are obtained


at 90% CL (we added 99% CL bounds in parentheses). For e
R , L plane is an elliptic
using radiative effects, see later. In general, the allowed region in the ee
ee
L,R
corona as given in Fig. 1, assuming e = 0 for = e. As shown in [6], with the addition
of data from e e scattering the allowed LSND region can be substantially reduced. Since one
must exchange gL gR with respect to Eq. (4) one obtains a perpendicular ellipse. The allowed
L,R
are shown in Fig. 1, while the one-parameter 90% CL bounds are now [6]
regions for ee
L
R
0.05 [1.58] < ee
< 0.12 [0.12],
0.04 [0.61] < ee
< 0.14 [0.15],
R
L
< 0.27 [0.38].
< 0.44 [0.85],
e

(8)

104

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

L , R ) allowed at 99% CL by LSND data, while the dashed regions


Fig. 1. The ellipse corresponds to the values of (ee
ee
are those allowed at 1 and 99% CL when including data from antineutrinoelectron experiments, as found in [6]. Here
we assumed vanishing off-diagonal NSI parameters. We have calculated the full neutrino decoupling process for the
indicated points (see Section 4).

When leaving the corresponding flavor-changing NSI parameters free, the bounds are relaxed
R
to the numbers in square parentheses: note the significant reduction especially for negative ee
values.
We also have data on e scattering from the CHARM II collaboration [14]. The obtained
results for the vector and axial vector e couplings can be translated into the following 90%
CL bounds on NSI parameters (see e.g. [5])
L
< 0.03,
0.025 <
P
< 0.1,

R
0.027 <
< 0.03,

(9)
(10)

which imply that the e interactions must be very close to the SM predictions.
LEP data on e+ e
As pointed out in [3], neutrino NSI can be also constrained by measuring the e+ e
cross section. This is actually the only way to get bounds on the L,R
parameters from laboratory
data. The approximate limits for these parameters can be extracted from Fig. 3 of [4],
0.7  L  0.5,

0.5  R  0.6

(11)

at 99% CL when the other parameter is left free. For the e e NSI the bounds are comparable to
those obtained from neutrinoelectron scattering.
2.2. One loop effects
The non-standard neutrinoelectron interactions also lead to corrections at the one-loop level
to processes such as the decays of the electroweak gauge bosons or lepton flavor violating decays
of charged leptons. These corrections arise from effective non-renormalizable interactions and
in principle their computation requires the knowledge of the complete theory leading to these

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

105

effective terms in the low-energy regime. Nevertheless for mW , where is the energy scale
setting the limit of validity of the effective theory, the leading term is independent of the specific
theory and has a logarithmic behavior, ln(/mW ) [5]. Using conservatively ln(/mW )  1, one
gets the following 90% CL bounds from the decay rates of the electroweak gauge bosons
L,R
 0.5
(12)

which are of the same order of Eq. (11).


Similarly, from the strong experimental limit on the branching ratio Br( e e+ e ) <
12
10 , it is possible to obtain a severe bound on the flavor changing parameter (90% CL)
P
 5 104 .
(13)
e
2.3. Summary of bounds on NSI parameters
After reviewing the bounds on NSI parameters, we conclude that they

P as shown in Fig. 1;
restrict the ee
P
force the to be very small and negligible for the purposes of the present paper;
allow large P , almost of order unity, see (11);
P , (7), moderate P , (10),
as far as flavor changing parameters are concerned, allow large e

P
and very tiny e , the latter being too small to have any impact on neutrino decoupling
dynamics.

Again it is useful to remind the reader that the bounds on NSI parameters are relaxed when more
than one parameter is allowed to vary simultaneously, as shown in [6].
As noted in [5], the leptonic measurement of sin2 W at a neutrino factory will be sensitive
to values of the e, e NSI parameters of O(103 ). Additional information on the NSI can be
extracted from a consistency comparison of the results of solar neutrino experiments with those
of an experiment detecting reactor neutrinos such as KamLAND. The former depend on the NSI
parameters through the matter potential felt by solar neutrinos and/or via the neutrino neutral
current detection. Instead, KamLAND data is essentially unaffected by the NSI. Ref. [5] found
that the combination of SNO and KamLAND data1 will provide bounds on the P comparable
but slightly better to those in Eqs. (11) or (12). However, it has been noted in several works [15
19] that while NSI are expected to play a subdominant role on the oscillations of atmospheric
and solar neutrinos, there exist degenerate directions in the parameter space where large NSI are
still allowed. Future data from short and medium baseline neutrino beams will help to resolve
these degeneracies [20].
3. Neutrino decoupling in presence of NSI
3.1. Delayed neutrino decoupling in the instantaneous limit
In the early Universe, thermally produced neutrinos were in equilibrium with other particles down to temperatures of few MeV, when weak interactions became ineffective and neutrino
1 The Borexino detector was considered in [4].

106

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

decoupled from the plasma. As a first approximation, the thermal FermiDirac momentum spectrum is preserved after the freeze-out of weak interactions, since neutrinos decoupled when
ultra-relativistic and both neutrino momenta and temperature redshift identically with the Universe expansion. A neutrino chemical potential would exist in the presence of a neutrino
antineutrino asymmetry, but it was shown in [21] that the stringent BBN bounds on e (for an
updated limit see e.g. [22]) apply to all flavors, since neutrino oscillations lead to flavor equilibrium before BBN. Thus we shall ignore a relic neutrino asymmetry in the following.
It proves useful to define the following dimensionless variables instead of time, momenta and
photon temperature
x mR,

y pR,

z T R,

(14)

where m is an arbitrary mass scale which we choose as the electron mass me and R is the Universe scale factor. The function R is normalized without loss of generality so that R(t) 1/T
at large temperatures, T being the common temperature of the particles in equilibrium far from
any entropy-transfer process. With this choice, R 1 can be identified with the temperature of
neutrinos in the limit of instantaneous decoupling. After decoupling, neutrinos enter cosmological observables mainly via their energy density. Since they also remain relativistic for most of
the cosmological evolutiondown to a temperature of the order of their sub-eV mass scaleit
is customary to parameterize their contribution to the radiation energy density R in terms of the
effective number of neutrinos Neff [23,24]



4
3

+X 0
z0
Neff
= 3+

,
0
z

(15)

where z0 (x) describes the photon to neutrino temperature ratio in the limit of instantaneous neutrino decoupling. For x 1 the e annihilation phase is over, and z0 (11/4)1/3  1.4010.
The energy densities 0 and 0 refer respectively to the photon plasma and to a single neutrino
species in the limit of instantaneous decoupling, while is the actual energy content of the
photon plasma and +X the total energy content of weakly interacting particles (including possible exotic contributions). The second equality in Eq. (15) follows when only the three active
neutrinos contribute to +X ; eventually, the actual photon temperature evolution accounts for
the second factor in Eq. (15) and the possible energy-density distortion in the th neutrino flavor
is given by ( 0 )/0 . Note that from Eq. (15) it follows


7 4
R = 1 + z0 Neff ,
8

(16)

which, replacing z0 with (11/4)4/3 , is often used in the literature to define Neff in the asymptotic
limit x 1. Clearly, well after e annihilation, three thermally distributed neutrinos correspond
to Neff = 3 in the instantaneous decoupling limit.
In order to estimate analytically how large would be the impact of NSI on the decoupling
mechanism, let us discuss a simple toy-model, which we shall later compare with the results
obtained solving the relevant kinetic equations. Consider the general case where 3 N neutrinos
interact via standard weak processes, while the remaining N have extra contributions from NSI
which enhance the interaction rates over e . In the instantaneous decoupling limit for both the
neutrino species, the plasma can be described by a single additional parameter, the non-standard

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

107

Fig. 2. Contribution to the radiation energy density parameterized in terms of Neff , when 1, 2 or 3 neutrino species are
coupled to the electromagnetic plasma until a given value of the decoupling temperature Td .

neutrino temperature T or, equivalently, by w T R  1. From Eq. (15), one obtains




z0 4


 z0 4
Neff = (3 N ) + N w 4
= 3 + N w4 1
,
z
z

(17)

where the second step reflects the fact that, for a single NSI neutrino species, the distortion is
given by = (w 4 1). If we denote with xd Td R the epoch of the standard neutrino decoupling, and parameterize with xd Td R the decoupling temperature of the non-standard species,
we can easily calculate the functions w(x) and z(x) from the conservation of entropy per comoving volume,

w(x) = z(x) = 1,
x < xd ,

N s (xd )+s (xd )+se (xd ) 1/3

,
xd  x  xd ,
w(x) = z(x) = N s (x)+s (x)+se (x)
N s (x )+s (x )+s (x ) 1/3

,
w(x) = wd N s (xd )+s (xd )+se (xd )

d
d
e
d

x > xd ,

z(x) = w s (xd )+se (xd ) 1/3 ,


d

s (x)+se (x)

where s , s and se are respectively the specific entropy of one species, of the photons and
of the e .
In Fig. 2 we show the results for Neff in the instantaneous decoupling limit as function of the
decoupling temperature Td and for various choices of N . As expected, Neff grows if neutrinos
decouple at a smaller temperature and shows two regimes. For very small NSI contribution to
the neutrino interaction rates we have wd  1 and Neff  3 since neutrinos decouple long before
any e annihilation. On the other hand, for N neutrinos tightly coupled to the electromagnetic
component down to very small temperatures when all e pairs have already annihilated,


22 + 7N 1/3
z
(18)
,
w  z.
8 + 7N

108

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

Thus, in the tightly coupled limit, one finds Neff {7.0, 9.7, 11.5} for N = {1, 2, 3} respectively, as shown in Fig. 2. Note that one obtains a contribution to the radiation energy density of
order Neff 4 if neutrinos are kept in equilibrium down to temperatures of 0.20.3 MeV.
3.2. Decoupling temperature with NSI
In order to dynamically predict the decoupling temperature Td when NSI are present, we have
to solve the relevant kinetic equations taking into account the new couplings . For a first analytical estimate, we can compare the interaction rate with e with the expansion rate of the
Universe given by the Hubble parameter H . Since H T 2 , and (1 + )2 T 5 , the decoupling
temperature at which H = decreases as Td (1 + )2/3 . As we have argued in the previous
section, in order to produce changes of O(1) in Neff the decoupling temperature should be lowered down to Td 0.20.3 MeV, i.e. should be one order of magnitude smaller than for ordinary
neutrinos. This implies  20, which would largely exceed present laboratory bounds. We thus
expect at most changes in Neff of O(0.010.1). To improve further our treatment, we can use an
approximate solution of the kinetic equation for the neutrino distribution function f (x, y),
Hx

f (x, y)
= Icoll ,
x

(19)

where Icoll is the collision term that includes all relevant neutrino interaction processes. Following [25], we shall keep only the direct reaction term in the collision integral using the appropriate
matrix elements for neutrino elastic scattering and the inverse annihilation e+ e in the
relativistic limit (me 0). Assuming that all particles that interact are close to equilibrium, the
collision integral can be estimated in the Boltzmann approximation leading to
Hx

80G2F (gL2 + gR2 )y


f

f x
3 3 x 5

(20)

with gL2 (1 + gL )2 for the case of e . This equation can be easily integrated in x, leading to
the values Td (e )  1.8 MeV and Td (, )  3.1 MeV for an average momentum of y = 3.15.
This exercise can be repeated in the presence of neutrinoelectron NSI in order to find their
L,R
or L,R
influence over the decoupling of neutrinos, adding ee
to the couplings gL and gR . The
L,R
calculated decoupling temperature is shown in Fig. 3 for the case of non-zero ee
and L,R
.
In general, a significant increase of the NSI parameters from the SM prediction leads to a larger
interaction of neutrinos with e and thus to a lower decoupling temperature. However, for a
region close to the pair of values (L , R ) that minimize the interaction by accidental cancellation
with SM couplings, the decoupling temperature is significantly raised. Finally, one can relate
the value of the decoupling temperature in presence of NSI with an estimate of the change in
Neff following the instantaneous decoupling approximation previously described. The results are
shown in Fig. 4. As already noticed, large modifications of Neff require that the neutrinoelectron
interactions are much larger than ordinary weak processes and are thus excluded by laboratory
bounds.
Nonetheless, this study suggests that additional distortions in the neutrino spectra comparable
to or larger than the ones predicted in the SM are possible, and it is still interesting to assess
exactly how large these effects might be. However, the treatment followed till now assumes a
series of approximations (such as me 0, no QED corrections to the plasma, no effect of the
active neutrino oscillations, etc.) that in the next section we shall check using a fully numerical
and momentum-dependent calculation.

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

109

Fig. 3. Contours of equal neutrino decoupling temperature in MeV for different values of the parameters characterizing
the e e and the e diagonal NSI.

Fig. 4. Contours of equal Neff for different values of the NSI parameters as found in the instantaneous decoupling
approximation.

4. Numerical calculation: momentum-dependent kinetic equations


4.1. Method
The instantaneous decoupling approximation does not take into account that neutrinoelectron
interactions are more efficient for larger neutrino energies. Thus one expects a priori that more
energetic neutrinos will remain longer in thermal contact, leading in general to non-thermal
distortions in the neutrino spectra and a slightly smaller increase of the comoving photon temperature z. This is actually the case for standard weak interactions, as noted in previous works
(for early references, see [26] and the full list given in the review [25]).
A proper calculation of the process of non-instantaneous neutrino decoupling demands solving the momentum-dependent Boltzmann equations for the neutrino spectra, a set of integro-

110

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

differential kinetic equations that are difficult to solve numerically. In the early 1990s several
works [2729] performed momentum-dependent calculations assuming some approximations,
such as Boltzmann statistics for neutrinos, while the full numerical computation was later carried out in [3033]. Finally, a further refinement involves the inclusion of finite temperature QED
corrections to the electromagnetic plasma, [34,35], while the last works also include the effect of
flavor neutrino oscillations [36,37].
Here we will follow our previous work [37]. In particular, we will describe the neutrino ensemble in the usual way by generalized occupation numbers, i.e. by 3 3 density matrices  for
neutrinos and antineutrinos as described in [38,39], with elements  where , = e, , . The
diagonal elements correspond to the usual occupation numbers of the different flavors, while the
off-diagonal terms are non-zero in the presence of neutrino mixing or flavor-changing NSI. The
equations of motion for the density matrices relevant for our situation of interest in an expanding
Universe are [38]

i(t Hpp )p =


M 2 8 2GF p
E
,


p + C[p ],
2p
3m2W

(21)

where mW is the W boson mass. We use the notation p = (p, t) and [, ] denotes the commutator. The vacuum oscillation term is proportional to M 2 , the mass-squared matrix in the flavor
basis that is related to the diagonal one in the mass basis diag(m21 , m22 , m23 ) via the neutrino mixing matrix U , which in turn depends on the neutrino mixing angles 12 , 23 and 13 (we assume
CP conservation). From a global analysis of experimental data on flavor neutrino oscillations, the
values of mixing parameters can be extracted. As a reference, we take the best-fit values from [1]


m221

m231

,
105 eV2 103 eV

, s2 , s2 , s2
2 12 23 13

= (8.1, 2.2, 0.3, 0.5, 0),

(22)

where s2ij = sin2 ij for i, j = 1, 2, 3. In Ref. [37] we have shown that the results are not essentially modified for other values within the allowed regions, in particular for non-zero 13 close to
the experimental upper bound. Since we assume maximal 23 and zero 13 the spectra of and
will be the same after decoupling.
The effects of the medium in Eq. (21) are contained in the collision term C[] and in a refractive term that corresponds in Eq. (21) to the term proportional to the diagonal matrix E,
that represents the energy densities of charged leptons. See [37] for a description of both terms.
The kinetic equations (21) should be numerically solved along with the equation governing the
evolution of the electromagnetic temperature during the process of e annihilations. This can be
found from the continuity equation for the total energy density ,
d
= 3H ( + P ),
dt

(23)

with P the pressure, which can be cast into a first order differential equation for z as function of
x, see e.g. [35].
We have generalized the results of [37] calculating the full evolution of neutrino during decoupling in presence of non-standard interactions with electrons, which modify the equations in
L,R L,R
L,R
, or e
,
two different ways. First, the couplings are modified inserting the parameters ee
which implies a variation on the collisional term in Eq. (21). Second, neutrino refraction in the

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

111

Fig. 5. Evolution of the distortion of the e and , spectra for a particular comoving momentum (y = 10) with standard
weak interactions (solid line) and with e NSI (dotted line). The line labeled with T corresponds to the distribution
of a neutrino in full thermal contact with the electromagnetic plasma.

medium is modified by the NSI, which we took into account in the refractive term in Eq. (21)



1 + ee 0 e
8 2GF p
e
Hmatt =
(24)
0
0 0 ,
3m2W
0

L + R ,
where e is the energy density of the background electrons and positrons and =

since matter effects are sensitive only to the vector component of the interaction. The above
equation includes only those NSI parameters that are not constrained to be smaller than O(0.1)
(see Section 2), and thus represents the leading-order correction to the refractive index.
We have numerically solved the kinetic equations Eq. (21) using a discretization in a grid
of 100 dimensionless neutrino momenta in the range yi [0.02, 20]. We start to compute the
evolution of the system at a value xin , when weak interactions were effective enough to keep
neutrinos in equilibrium with the electromagnetic plasma but flavor oscillations are suppressed
by medium effects. The system of equations is then solved from xin until a value of x when both
the neutrino distortions and the comoving photon temperature z are frozen, approximately at
xfin  35. In some cases, we made the calculation for different initial conditions and concluded
that the results are stable within per cent accuracy unless we start the numerical evaluation at
xin  0.2. For other technical details, we refer the reader to [37].

4.2. Numerical results


We have numerically calculated the evolution of the neutrino density matrix solving the system of Eqs. (21) and (23), during the full process of neutrino decoupling. Since a complete scan
of all possible combinations of the NSI parameters cannot be done, we have performed the calculation for a selection of values for the NSI parameters, representative of the regions allowed
by present bounds (see Section 2).
As an example, in Fig. 5 we plot the distortion of the neutrino distribution as a function
of x for a particular neutrino momentum (y = 10), both in the case of SM weak interactions

112

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

and in presence of large NSI between tau neutrinos and e , corresponding to L = R = 2. The
behavior of f has been previously described e.g. in [31,33,37]. At large temperatures or x  0.2,
neutrinos are in good thermal contact with e and their distributions only change keeping an
equilibrium shape with the photon temperature [exp(y/z(x)) + 1]1 (the T line in the figure).
In the intermediate region 0.2  x  4, the standard weak interactions become less effective
in a momentum-dependent way, leading to distortions in the neutrino spectra which are larger
for e s than for the other flavors. Finally, at larger values of x neutrino decoupling is complete
and the distortions reach their asymptotic values. In the case of large e NSI, neutrinos are
kept in thermal contact with e for a longer time, leading to larger distortions for all neutrino
L,R
L,R = 0, the electron and muon neutrinos also
=
flavors, in particular for , (although ee
acquire significant distortions due to the effect of flavor oscillations). For the particular neutrino
momentum in Fig. 5, if L = R = 2 the final values of the distribution are 9.8% for the e s and
14.3% for the , s larger than in the limit of neutrino decoupling before any e annihilation.
For comparison, the corresponding values for standard weak interactions are 4.4% for the e s
and 2% for the , s.
As in Ref. [37], we will summarize the results in terms of the following frozen values: dimensionless photon temperature zfin , the fractional changes in the neutrino energy densities
and the asymptotic effective number of neutrinos Neff as defined in Eq. (15). We have considered
four main sets of NSI parameters:
L,R
(1) Only ee
: our results are summarized in Table 1. We have calculated various combinations of the two e e NSI parameters, that correspond to the points shown in Fig. 1. For
L = R = 4 (already
illustrative purposes, we considered the case with extremely large NSI ee
ee
excluded by laboratory bounds), where the distortions in the distribution functions of neutrinos
lead to a significant change in Neff .
(2) Only L,R
: our results are summarized in Table 2 for values of both parameters up to order
unity in absolute value. Again, we also show one case with larger NSI L = R = 2, disfavored
by terrestrial experiments.
L,R
and L,R
(3) Combinations of ee
: our results are summarized in Table 3. Here we varied
L,R
the values of the ee pair, while the e NSI parameters were fixed to a value close to the
current upper bound from laboratory experiments, L = R = 0.5.
L,R
(4) Cases where the flavor-changing NSI parameters e
are non-zero, that for simplicity
we consider real. We consider both cases with vanishing diagonal NSI and with all possible NSI
parameters with the largest allowed values according to Eqs. (8).

The last column (Yp ) in Tables 14 reports the variation in the mass yield of 4 He synthesized
during BBN, which predicts typically Yp  0.248 for the baryon density b = 0.0223 0.0008
favored by CMB anisotropy studies [40]. Neutrinos affect the outcome of BBN in a flavor independent way through their contribution to the radiation energy density (change in Neff ). In
addition, the role played by electron neutrinos and antineutrinos in the weak reactions that
convert neutrons and protons is very important for fixing the primordial production of 4 He,
which is thus the nucleus mostly sensitive to non-standard physics in the neutrino sector. To
predict quantitatively the change Yp induced by NSI, we take exactly into account the modified thermodynamical quantities, while treating perturbatively the change in the weak rates. This
is justified given the relatively small effects we are considering. We closely follow the treatment
given in [37], to which we refer the reader for further details.

113

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116


Table 1
Frozen values of zfin , the neutrino energy densities distortion , Neff and Yp in presence of e e NSI
L
ee

R
ee

zfin

e (%)

, (%)

Neff

1.3978

0.73

0.52

3.046

2.1 104

0.1
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.0
0.07

0.5
1.0
0.1
1.0
1.5
1.0

1.3969
1.3966
1.3976
1.3969
1.3977
1.3973

1.20
1.32
0.81
1.17
1.45
0.99

0.72
0.77
0.56
0.71
0.83
0.64

3.062
3.067
3.048
3.061
3.060
3.055

2.8 104
3.0 104
2.0 104
2.7 104
2.9 104
2.6 104

4.0

1.3812

9.47

3.83

3.357

11.7 104

Yp

4.0

Yp

Table 2
Same as Table 1 but for e NSI
L

zfin

e (%)

, (%)

Neff

1.3978

0.73

0.52

3.046

2.1 104

0.5
1.0
1.0

0.5
1.0
1.0

1.3970
1.3966
1.3952

0.90
1.24
1.24

0.79
1.43
1.45

3.059
3.079
3.092

4.0 104
4.8 104
5.3 104

2.0

2.0

1.3911

2.04

2.96

3.168

10.0 104

Table 3
Same as Table 1 when both the e e and e NSI are non-zero. In all the cases we have fixed L = R = 0.5
L
ee

R
ee

0.1
1.0
1.5
1.0

0.5
1.0
1.0
0

zfin

e (%)

, (%)

Neff

Yp

1.3963
1.3960
1.3963
1.3977

1.30
1.41
1.28
0.54

0.95
0.99
0.94
0.66

3.073
3.077
3.073
3.047

3.6 104
3.7 104
3.4 104
2.6 104

Table 4
L,R
Same as Table 1 when the flavor-changing NSI parameters e
are non-zero. The last two cases correspond to the
results for all NSI parameters non-zero with values given by the bounds in Eqs. (8)
L
ee

0
0
0.12
0.61
0.12

R
ee

0
0
0.15
1.58
1.58

0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5

0
0
0.5
0.5
0.5

L
e

0.4
0.85
0.85
0.85
0.85

R
e

0.7
0.38
0.38
0.38
0.38

zfin

e (%)

, (%)

Neff

Yp

1.3960
1.3956
1.3949
1.3948
1.3937

1.32
1.46
1.68
1.69
2.21

1.03
1.16
1.38
1.41
1.66

3.077
3.085
3.098
3.100
3.120

3.9 104
4.4 104
5.0 104
5.1 104
6.0 104

The results are generally in agreement with the approximate ones predicted in Section 3 (see
in particular Fig. 4), apart for minor differences due to the improved treatment. Also, as one
L,R
enhance mostly the distortions in the electronic flavor, while large
naively expects, large ee
L,R
lead to larger distortions in the tau neutrino spectra. However, the differences between the
spectra of the three neutrino flavors are reduced by the partial re-shuffling of the entropy transfer
due to the effects of neutrino oscillations.

114

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

In general, we find that the presence of non-zero NSI enhances the transfer of entropy from
e to neutrinos, leading to values up to Neff  3.12 when all NSI parameters are close to the
boundaries of the allowed regions discussed in Section 2, which is almost three times the departure of Neff from 3 that already exists for SM weak interactions (the first row in Table 1). We
also obtained some significant departures of Neff from the standard value, such as Neff  3.36 for
L = R = 4, but only for NSI parameters well beyond the allowed regions. On the other hand,
ee
ee
for particular choices of the diagonal NSI parameters that minimize the e interaction we find
a reduction in the final value of the distortions or Neff with respect to the SM value, as expected
from our discussion in Section 3.2.
Finally, we mentioned in Section 2 that neutrinoneutrino interactions are poorly constrained.
In the case of interactions involving left-handed neutrinos only, they can still be twice as effective
as in the SM, as reported in [9]. Since enhanced neutrinoneutrino interactions will redistribute
the distortions more efficiently, they can modify the results described in this section. In order
to check this, we doubled the intensity of the contributions of the neutrinoneutrino interactions
to the collision integral and repeated the calculations for some of the cases considered above.
We found that the results are basically unchanged, confirming the unimportant role played by
neutrinoneutrino collisions in the process of neutrino decoupling.
5. Conclusions
The process of relic neutrino decoupling in the early Universe is sensitive to the strength of
the interactions between neutrinos and the plasma formed by electrons and positrons. If neutrinos were kept in longer thermal contact with them than in the standard case, they would share
a larger fraction of the entropy release from e annihilations. This would affect the predicted
characteristics of the cosmic background of neutrinos (CB), which in turn could modify the late
evolution of the Universe and the bounds on neutrino properties from the analysis of cosmological observables.
In this paper we have considered how the decoupling of relic neutrinos is modified in presence
of non-standard neutral current neutrinoelectron interactions. First, we have provided a rough
estimate of the size of NSI couplings needed to affect in a relevant way the properties of the CB
and of related observables. We find that needed couplings are by far larger than the existing laboratory bounds, as also confirmed by a semi-analytical solution of the relevant kinetic equations.
Thus, NSI can only play a minor role in shaping the CB. However, NSI might still contribute
with comparable or larger distortions in the neutrino spectra than predicted in the SM. In order
to quantify these deviations, we have performed fully numerical and momentum-dependent calculations of the density-matrix equations relevant for neutrino evolution in the early Universe,
including the effects of flavor neutrino oscillations.
Typically, we find that the enhancement in observables like Neff , which measures the change
in the radiation content, or the 4 He mass yield in the BBN can be up to three times larger than
the ones found in the standard case [37], for values of all NSI parameters close to the limits
placed by laboratory experiments. Nevertheless, even the variation of up to 0.2% that we found
in the 4 He abundance is yet too small (about one order of magnitude) when compared to the
observational error on Yp , which is unfortunately dominated by systematics, and as such difficult
to pin down in the near future. Instead, a value of Neff  3.12, which is still possible within the
present parameter space for NSI couplings, might even be barely detectable. Indeed, it has been
shown that the CMB satellite PLANCK will soon provide temperature and polarization data that
will probably measure the value of Neff with an uncertainty of order (Neff )  0.2 [41,42] (for

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

115

a previous, more optimistic forecast see [43]), or better when combined with data from a large
galaxy redshift survey such as SDSS [44]. Future CMB missions may reach the sensitivity of
0.040.05 needed to test the standard scenario [42], and might achieve a 2 hint for Neff  3.12
and eventually test the effect of large neutrinoelectron NSI.
However, barring some extreme cases, we conclude that the prediction of Neff  3 within a
few % is quite robust even when taking into account neutrinoelectron NSI of the four-fermion
type. Thus, their existence cannot modify in a significant way the bounds on neutrino properties from cosmological observables, in particular on their masses, as recently reviewed in [45].
Since it is likely that future experiments may narrow further the allowed range of NSI couplings,
their role in a cosmological context will be even smaller, at most a sub-leading correction to the
standard prediction of the CB properties. Turning the argument around, however, one can conclude that a significant deviation of Neff from 3 may require major revisions of the cosmological
model, like the introduction of new relativistic relics and/or of an exotic thermal history, or both
(see e.g. [46,47]).
Acknowledgements
We thank Omar Miranda and Clio A. de Moura for fruitful discussions. This work was
supported by a SpanishItalian AI, the Spanish grants FPA2005-01269 and GV/05/017 of Generalitat Valenciana, as well as a MEC-INFN agreement. S.P. was supported by a Ramn y Cajal
contract of MEC. P.S. acknowledges the support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft under grant SFB 375 and by the European Network of Theoretical Astroparticle Physics ILIAS/N6
under contract number RII3-CT-2004-506222.
References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]

M. Maltoni, T. Schwetz, M.A. Trtola, J.W.F. Valle, New J. Phys. 6 (2004) 122, hep-ph/0405172.
G.L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone, A. Palazzo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 57 (2006) 742, hep-ph/0506083.
Z. Berezhiani, A. Rossi, Phys. Lett. B 535 (2002) 207, hep-ph/0111137.
Z. Berezhiani, R.S. Raghavan, A. Rossi, Nucl. Phys. B 638 (2002) 62, hep-ph/0111138.
S. Davidson, C. Pea-Garay, N. Rius, A. Santamaria, JHEP 0303 (2003) 011, hep-ph/0302093.
J. Barranco, O.G. Miranda, C.A. Moura, J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 73 (2006) 113001, hep-ph/0512195.
J. Schechter, J.W.F. Valle, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 2227.
P.D. Serpico, et al., JCAP 0412 (2004) 010, astro-ph/0408076.
M.S. Bilenky, A. Santamaria, hep-ph/9908272.
A. de Gouva, J. Jenkins, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 033004, hep-ph/0603036.
L.B. Auerbach, et al., LSND Collaboration, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 112001, hep-ex/0101039.
F. Reines, H.S. Gurr, H.W. Sobel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37 (1976) 315.
Z. Daraktchieva, et al., MUNU Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 564 (2003) 190, hep-ex/0304011.
P. Vilain, et al., CHARM-II Collaboration, Phys. Lett. B 335 (1994) 246.
A. Friedland, C. Lunardini, C. Pea-Garay, Phys. Lett. B 594 (2004) 347, hep-ph/0402266.
M.M. Guzzo, P.C. de Holanda, O.L.G. Peres, Phys. Lett. B 591 (2004) 1, hep-ph/0403134.
O.G. Miranda, M.A. Trtola, J.W.F. Valle, hep-ph/0406280, JHEP, in press.
A. Friedland, C. Lunardini, M. Maltoni, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 111301, hep-ph/0408264.
A. Friedland, C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 053009, hep-ph/0506143.
A. Friedland, C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. D 74 (2006) 033012, hep-ph/0606101.
A.D. Dolgov, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 632 (2002) 363, hep-ph/0201287.
P.D. Serpico, G.G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 127301, astro-ph/0506162.
V.F. Shvartsman, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 9 (1969) 315, JETP Lett. 9 (1969) 184.
G. Steigman, D.N. Schramm, J.R. Gunn, Phys. Lett. B 66 (1977) 202.
A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rep. 370 (2002) 333, hep-ph/0202122.

116

[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34]
[35]
[36]
[37]
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44]
[45]
[46]
[47]

G. Mangano et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 100116

D.A. Dicus, et al., Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 2694.


S. Dodelson, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 3372.
A.D. Dolgov, M. Fukugita, Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) 5378.
B.D. Fields, S. Dodelson, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 4309, astro-ph/9210007.
S. Hannestad, J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 1764, astro-ph/9506015.
A.D. Dolgov, S.H. Hansen, D.V. Semikoz, Nucl. Phys. B 503 (1997) 426, hep-ph/9703315.
A.D. Dolgov, S.H. Hansen, D.V. Semikoz, Nucl. Phys. B 543 (1999) 269, hep-ph/9805467.
S. Esposito, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 590 (2000) 539, astro-ph/0005573.
N. Fornengo, C.W. Kim, J. Song, Phys. Rev. D 56 (1997) 5123, hep-ph/9702324.
G. Mangano, G. Miele, S. Pastor, M. Peloso, Phys. Lett. B 534 (2002) 8, astro-ph/0111408.
S. Hannestad, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 083006, astro-ph/0111423.
G. Mangano, et al., Nucl. Phys. B 729 (2005) 221, hep-ph/0506164.
G. Sigl, G. Raffelt, Nucl. Phys. B 406 (1993) 423.
B.H. McKellar, M.J. Thomson, Phys. Rev. D 49 (1994) 2710.
D.N. Spergel, et al., astro-ph/0603449.
R. Bowen, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 334 (2002) 760, astro-ph/0110636.
S. Bashinsky, U. Seljak, Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 083002, astro-ph/0310198.
R.E. Lopez, S. Dodelson, A. Heckler, M.S. Turner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 3952, astro-ph/9803095.
J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor, L. Perotto, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 045016, hep-ph/0403296.
J. Lesgourgues, S. Pastor, Phys. Rep. 429 (2006) 307, astro-ph/0603494.
P.D. Serpico, G.G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043526, astro-ph/0403417.
A. Cuoco, J. Lesgourgues, G. Mangano, S. Pastor, Phys. Rev. D 71 (2005) 123501, astro-ph/0502465.

Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

Geometric formulation for partially massless fields


E.D. Skvortsov , M.A. Vasiliev
I.E. Tamm Department of Theoretical Physics, P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute,
Leninsky prospect 53, 119991 Moscow, Russia
Received 5 June 2006; accepted 19 June 2006
Available online 5 July 2006

Abstract
The manifestly gauge invariant formulation for free symmetric higher-spin partially massless fields in
(A)dSd is given in terms of gauge connections and linearized curvatures that take values in the irreducible
representations of (o(d 1, 2)) o(d, 1) described by two-row Young tableaux, in which the lengths of the
first and second row are, respectively, associated with the spin and depth of partial masslessness.
2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.
PACS: 11.15.-q; 11.10.Kk
Keywords: Higher-spin fields gauge theory; Partially-massless fields; (anti)-de Sitter space

1. Introduction
An interesting property of massive higher-spin (HS) fields in spaces with nonzero curvature
like de Sitter (dS) and anti-de Sitter (AdS) is that for certain values of the parameter of mass,
the HS field equations acquire gauge invariance. This phenomenon was originally discovered by
Deser and Nepomechie in [1] and investigated further in [28]. The special values of the mass
parameter are scaled in terms of the curvature of the background space. The first special value of
the mass corresponds to the usual massless fields with the richest gauge symmetries. The other
special values correspond to different fields called partially massless fields. A gauge transformation law of a partially massless field has less parameters but more derivatives compared to the
massless fields. A number of degrees of freedom carried by a partially massless field is interme* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: eugene.skvortsov@gmail.com, skvortsov@lpi.ru (E.D. Skvortsov), vasiliev@lpi.ru


(M.A. Vasiliev).
0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.06.019

118

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

diate between the massless case (two for s > 0 in 4d) and the massive case (2s + 1 in 4d). In
the flat space limit all special values of the mass shrink to zero so that one is left with the usual
massless fields, i.e., partially massless theories do not exist in Minkowski space.
In AdSd spacetime, the phenomenon of partial masslessness has clear interpretation in terms
of representations of the AdSd algebra o(d 1, 2). Namely, a space of single-particle states of a
given relativistic field with the energy bounded from below forms a lowest weight o(d 1, 2)module, |E0 , s. Its lowest weight is defined in terms of the lowest energy E0 and spin s
associated with the weights of the maximal compact subalgebra o(2) o(d 1) o(d 1, 2).
For quantum-mechanically consistent fields, the modules |E0 , s correspond to unitary representations of o(d 1, 2) that requires in particular E0  E0 (s) where E0 (s) is some function of the
spin s found for the case of d = 4 in [9] and for the general case in [10] (see also [1115]). At
E0 = E0 (s) null states appear that form a submodule to be factored out. These signal a gauge
symmetry of the system. The corresponding fields are the usual massless fields. Modules with
lower energies E < E0 (s) correspond to non-unitary (ghost) massive fields. At certain values
Ei (s) of E the corresponding non-unitary module may contain a submodule that again signals
a gauge symmetry in the field-theoretical description. Such modules correspond to the partially
massless fields. Unfortunately, the lack of unitarity [8] makes their physical applications problematic in the AdS case.
In the dSd case with the symmetry algebra o(d, 1) the analysis is different because it admits
no unitary lowest weight (i.e., bounded energy) representations at all. Relaxing the concept of
bounded energy, it is possible to have unitary partially massless fields in that case [2,4,8].
In this paper we address the question what is a frame-like formulation of the symmetric partially massless fields, that generalizes the frame-like formulation of ordinary symmetric massless
fields elaborated in [1619]. Such a reformulation operates in terms of a gauge field (connection),
that takes values in some module of the (A)dSd algebra and makes gauge symmetries of the system manifest allowing to write down manifestly gauge invariant geometric actions. As shown
in [19], a usual spin-s massless field in (A)dSd is described by a 1-form connection, which takes
values in the finite-dimensional o(d 1, 2)-module spanned by traceless tensors of o(d 1, 2)
that have a symmetry of a length s 1 two-row rectangular Young tableau
. The main
result of this paper is that a spin-s partially massless symmetric gauge fields is analogously described by a 1-form connection, which is a o(d 1, 2)(o(d, 1))-tensor that has the symmetry
properties of a two-row Young tableaux with the first row of length s 1 and the second row of
an arbitrary length t = 0, 1, . . . , s 1,
.
Since the gauge fields of the frame-like formalism are interpreted as connections of a nonAbelian HS algebra of a full HS system, the results of such a reformulation may be useful to rule
out HS algebras incompatible with unitarity by requiring that physically relevant algebras considered as o(d 1, 2)-modules under its adjoint action should not contain the modules associated
with (non-unitary) partially massless fields. (Note that, as shown in [19,20], gauge fields associated with true massless fields in AdSd carry o(d 1, 2) indices of various o(d 1, 2)-modules
described by Young tableaux, that have first two rows of equal lengths.) Although in this paper
we consider integer spins, our approach admits a straightforward extension to fermions.
The layout of the rest of the paper is as follows. In Section 2 we recall the metric-like formulation of massive, massless and partially massless fields. The frame-like formalism for massless
HS fields is recalled in Section 3. The main results of our approach are presented in Section 4 and
then illustrated in Section 5 by the spin-2 and spin-3 examples. Possible further developments

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

119

are discussed in Section 6. Notation, Young tableau convention and explicit expressions for some
coefficients are collected in Appendices AC.
2. Metric formalism for free higher-spin fields
In this section we summarize known results on the description of massive, massless and partially massless HS fields, which are relevant to our analysis.
2.1. Massive higher-spin fields
A massive spin-s totally symmetric field in the flat Minkowski space can be described by a
{s}
rank-s symmetric tensor field m1 ...ms (x) that satisfies the equations [21]1


 + m2 {s} = 0,


{s} = divergence {s} = 0, s  1,



{s} = trace {s} = 0, s  2,
(2.1)
which form a complete set of local Lorentz-invariant conditions that can be imposed on {s} . The
first equation of (2.1) is the mass-shell condition. The third condition, that the field {s} is traceless, is an algebraic constraint. As pointed out by Fierz and Pauli in the pioneering paper [22], the
second condition, which is a differential equation, can be derived for s > 1 from a Lagrangian
without introducing new degrees of freedom by adding auxiliary fields that are expressed in terms
of (derivatives of) the dynamical fields by virtue of equations of motion. For totally symmetric
massive fields of integer spins, the Lagrangian formulation with a minimal set of auxiliary fields
was worked out by Singh and Hagen in [23]. For a spin s they introduced the set of auxiliary
fields that consists of symmetric traceless tensors of ranks s 2, s 3, . . . , 0.
For example, to describe a spin-2 field, one auxiliary scalar field is needed. It can be identified
with the trace of a traceful rank-2 field mn satisfying the FierzPauli equation


G2 = 2 + m2 (mn mn  ) + m n  + mn l p lp 2(m k kn) = 0.
(2.2)
One obtains
G2 = m2 (  )

(2.3)

and
2 G2

d 1 
m2 
G = m4
.
d 2 2
d 2

(2.4)

From Eq. (2.4) it follows that, if m2 = 0, is traceless (i.e., the auxiliary field is zero on-shell).
Then from (2.3) it follows that = 0.
If m2 = 0, Eq. (2.3) expresses Bianchi identities which manifest the spin-2 gauge symmetry.
Let us note that it is important that the higher-derivative part of the massive equations is the
same as for massless fields just to make it possible to express the auxiliary fields in terms of
the dynamical fields by virtue of algebraic constraints, that would not be possible for a different
choice of the coefficients in front of the second derivative terms in (2.2). This means that, for
1 Our notations and conventions are explained in Appendix A.

120

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

a different choice of the coefficients, the corresponding equations describe a dynamical system
with the propagating trace field, that possesses more degrees of freedom. A similar argument will
play crucial role in the subsequent analysis of a proper action for a partially massless field.
Note that equivalent dynamical systems can be formulated with the aid of different sets of
auxiliary fields. Particularly useful approaches to massive fields with different sets of auxiliary
fields include the gauge invariant formulation of [5,24] and the BRST approach of [25,26].
2.2. Massless higher-spin fields
The free action for a symmetric massless field of an arbitrary integer spin in the flat Minkowski
space was obtained by Fronsdal [27]. A symmetric spin-s massless field is described by a totally

symmetric double traceless tensor field {s} m1 ...ms (x), {s} = 0. The equations of motion


F s =  {s} {s} + 2 {s} = 0

(2.5)

are invariant under gauge transformations


{s} = {s1}

(2.6)

with a gauge parameter {s1} (x) being a symmetric rank-(s 1) traceless tensor field. The
gauge invariant Lagrangian is
1
1

Ls = {s} F s s(s 1) {s} F s  .
(2.7)
2
8
Note that alternative metric-like formulations of symmetric massless HS fields were also developed in [26,28,29].
2.3. Partially massless higher-spin fields
The (A)dSd space is described by a metric gm n satisfying the equation
Rm n,p q =

2
(gpm gnq gpn gmq ),
(d 1)(d 2)

(2.8)

where Rm n,p q is the Riemann tensor and the normalization of the cosmological constant is chosen as in [4,5]. is (negative) positive for (anti-)de Sitter space. Later on we use the notation
2
, where |1 | is the (A)dSd radius.
2 = (d1)(d2)
2.3.1. The approach of Deser and Waldron
In this subsection, we consider the case of d = 4 following to [4] (modulo the adjustment of
the coefficients to the mostly minus signature conventions used in this paper). To illustrate the
effect of partial masslessness let us start with the simplest example of spin two.
The deformation of the massive field Eq. (2.2) to (A)dSd is achieved by the addition of some
mass-like terms proportional to along with the replacement of the flat derivatives by the covariant ones D associated with gm n .
The (A)dSd deformation of Eq. (2.2) is


G2 = (2) + m2 ( g  ) + DD  DD + gD D = 0,
(2.9)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

where we use the notation of Deser and Waldron [4]




8
1
(2) =  +
g  .
3
4

121

(2.10)

Eqs. (2.3) and (2.4) modify to


D G2 = m2 (D D  ),

1
1 
D 2 G2 m2 G2  = m2 3m2 2  .
2
2

(2.11)
(2.12)

One observes that, for the critical value m2 = 23 ,  cannot be algebraically expressed in
terms of the other field and Eq. (2.12) becomes Bianchi identity signaling the appearance of a
gauge invariance which is



m n = D(m Dn) gm n
(2.13)
3
with a scalar gauge parameter . This invariance kills the helicity zero degree of freedom leaving
spin polarizations 1, 2. Note that although  cannot be expressed in terms of the other field,
this does not imply the appearance of extra degrees of freedom because it is pure gauge.
At m = 0, (2.11) is the Bianchi identity of the usual spin-2 massless theory in (A)dSd .
A spin-3 massive field requires a scalar auxiliary field and an auxiliary vector, which combines with a rank-3 traceless field into a rank-3 traceful tensor m n k . The equations of motion of
the massive spin-3 field m n k are [4]


16
DD + DD 
G3 = (3) + m2
3



11 
1
m
g (1) + m2
(2.14)
D D + DD  gD = 0,
3
2
4

3
G0 = (0) + 4m2 8 mD  = 0
(2.15)
2
with
2 
g ,
3
The following identities hold
3 =  + 5

(1)  =   +  ,

(0) = .



1
[D G3 ] = m (DD mD  + mD ) ,
2



m
m2 
5 
2
G3 = m 3m2 4 D m  ,
D 2 G3 + DG0
4
4
8
3





5
5
D 3 G3 m 3m2 4 G0 = m 3m2 4 m2 2 ,
12
2
where [. . .] is the projector to the traceless part.
At m = 0, (2.17) becomes the Bianchi identity associated with the gauge invariance
rank-2 traceless parameter {2}
= D {2} ,

= 0.

(2.16)

(2.17)
(2.18)
(2.19)
with a
(2.20)

122

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

In this case, the system decomposes into two independent subsystems: massless spin three with
two spin projections 3 is described by the Fronsdal field and massive spin zero is described
by .
At m2 = 43 , (2.18) becomes the Bianchi identity associated with the gauge invariance with
the rank-1 gauge parameter {1} , which has the form




2
2
{1}
=
D {1} .
= D g ,
(2.21)
3
3 3
This model describes a field with spin projections 2, 3.
At m2 = 2, (2.19) becomes the Bianchi identity that manifests the gauge invariance with the
scalar parameter {0}
 




2
10 {0}
3
{0}
= D gD ,
=
(2.22)
DD
,
2
3 3
3
leaving out the helicity zero degree of freedom. At non-critical m2 the scalar and vector  are
auxiliary. They are zero on shell and D = 0 as a consequence of the constraints (2.17), (2.18)
and (2.19). A generic non-critical system describes a massive spin-3 field with spin projections
(0, 1, 2, 3) (may be ghost and/or tachionic for negative m2 ).
For general spin s, the full set of fields contains a rank-s double traceless field along with
the traceless fields of ranks from 0 to s 3. As argued in [4], there exist s critical masses mt 2
(t = 0, 1, . . . , s 1) and the following properties are true for m2 = mt 2 :
The equations of motion are invariant under the gauge transformation
D {t} +
{s} = D

(2.23)

st

with s t derivatives and a rank-t traceless gauge parameter {t} .


A rank-t traceless combination of the equations of motion becomes a Bianchi identity.
The physical spin projections are (t + 1), . . . , s plus decoupled lower spin massive fields.
2.3.2. The approach of Zinoviev
A useful approach to the description of massless, massive and partially massless fields in
(A)dSd was proposed by Zinoviev in [5]. The Zinovievs Lagrangian is the sum of the covariantized Fronsdals Lagrangians Lscov (2.7) (with flat derivatives replaced by the covariant ones)
for the set of spin-k massless fields {k} with k = 0, . . . , s plus some lower-derivative terms, i.e.,
Ls =

k=s

Lkcov + Ls ,

(2.24)

k=0

where
L =
s

k=s










ak {k1} D {k} + bk {k} D {k1} + ck D {k} {k1}

k=0


2


 2

+ dk {k} + ek {k} + fk {k} {k2} .

(2.25)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

123

The coefficients in Ls are fixed by the condition that Ls is invariant under some gauge transformations of the form
1
{k} = D {k1} + k {k} + k g {k2}
k

(2.26)

with rank-k traceless gauge parameters {k} (k = 0, 1, . . . , s 1). The gauge invariance condition
expresses all the coefficients in terms of one free mass parameter m2 .
For generic m2 , the Lagrangian (2.24) describes a spin-s massive field. In that case all gauge
symmetries are Stueckelberg (i.e., algebraic for some of the fields). It is easy to see that the
gauge fixing of all gauge symmetries reproduces the set of fields of Singh and Hagen [23], i.e.,
the SinghHagen theory deformed to (A)dSd is a gauge-fixed version of the theory of Zinoviev.
In this approach it is still unclear, however, what is the fundamental principle that underlies the
gauge symmetry of the model, thus fixing the coefficients in the action (2.24).
At the critical values of the mass [5]
m2 t =

2
(s t 1)(d + s + t 4),
(d 1)(d 2)

t = 0, 1, . . . , s 1

(2.27)

some of the coefficients in the gauge transformation law (2.26) and in Ls vanish so that
the Lagrangian (2.24) splits into two independent parts. One contains the fields {k} with
k = t + 1, . . . , s and another one contains those with k = 0, . . . , t. The former Lagrangian describes a partially massless theory, including the usual massless theory as a particular case of
t = s 1, while the latter describes a spin-t massive field. In the flat limit 0 all critical
masses tend to zero and all lower derivative terms in the Lagrangian vanish so that Ls reduces to
the sum of the flat space Fronsdals Lagrangians of massless fields 0 , . . . , s of all spins from 0
to s.
3. Massless higher-spin fields in the frame-like formalism
3.1. Lorentz covariant approach
The Minkowski or (A)dSd geometry can be described by the frame field (vielbein) ea =
and Lorentz spin-connection 1-form a,b = dx m m a,b (a,b = b,a ), which obey the
equations

dx m em a

T a dea + a, b eb = 0,

(3.1)

R a,b da,b + a, c c,b 2 ea eb = 0,

(3.2)

where d = dx m xm is the de Rham operator, 2 is the cosmological constant and the exterior
product symbol will be systematically omitted in what follows. Eq. (3.1) is the zero-torsion
constraint that expresses the Lorentz connection m a,b via vielbein em a , provided that the vielbein is non-degenerate, which is required. Eq. (3.2) then describes the AdSd space with the
symmetry algebra o(d 1, 2) if 2 > 0, dSd space with the symmetry algebra o(d, 1) if 2 < 0
and flat Minkowski space if 2 = 0. The latter corresponds to the contraction of either o(d 1, 2)
or o(d, 1) to iso(d 1, 1) and can be described by m a,b = 0 and em a = m a in Cartesian coordinates. Dynamical gravity is described by the vielbein and Lorentz connection which satisfy the
zero-torsion condition (3.1) and Eq. (3.2) relaxed to the Einstein equations.

124

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

The Lorentz covariant derivative D acts as usual2


DC a(n),b(m),... = dC a(n),b(m),... + na, c C ca(n1),b(m),...
+ mb, c C a(n),cb(m1),... + ,

(3.3)

C a(n),b(m),... (x)

is an arbitrary Lorentz tensor field. As a consequence of (3.2), one obtains




D 2 C a(n),b(m),... = 2 nea ec C ca(n1),b(m),... + meb ec C a(n),cb(m1),... + .
(3.4)

where

Let us now recall how this approach extends to massless HS fields in flat and (A)dS spaces.
The generalization to HS massless fields in the Minkowski space [16] starts with the gauge fields
em a(s1) and m a(s1),b with the tangent Lorentz indices possessing the symmetry properties
of traceless Young tableaux of the form
coordinates, the gauge transformations are

and

, respectively.3 In Cartesian

em a(s1) = m a(s1) + a(s1), m ,


m a(s1),b = m a(s1),b + a(s1),b m ,

(3.5)

where the traceless gauge parameters a(s1) , a(s1),b and a(s1),bb have the symmetry properties of Young tableaux
,
and
, respectively.
In these terms the gauge invariant action can be written in the following simple form



1 m n1 ...ns2 p,
a1
ad3
n1 ...ns2 p
q,r
S=
dx dx
a1 ...ad3 pqr de
+ dx
.
m n1 ...ns2
2
d
M
(3.6)
It is easy to check its gauge invariance, although it is not manifest.
Further analysis [17,18] shows that, both in Minkowski and in (A)dSd cases, HS fields are
conveniently described by a set of 1-forms m a(s1),b(t) , t = 0, 1, . . . , s 1, possessing the
symmetry properties of the two-row traceless Young tableaux4

. The higher connec-

with t  2 called extra fields are gauge fields for higher gauge symmetries the
tions m
simplest of which is that with the gauge parameter a(s1),bb in the gauge transformations (3.5).
This leads to the gauge field a(s1),bb which in its gauge transformation contains a new gauge
parameter thus leading to the next extra field and so on.
The gauge transformation law for em a(s1) m a(s1) is
a(s1),b(t)

m a(s1) = Dm a(s1) + emc a(s1),c ,

(3.7)

where Dm is the Lorentz covariant derivative defined with respect to the background spin connection a,b and vielbein ea that describe either Minkowski or (anti-)de Sitter geometry. Raising
a form index by the vielbein a(s1)|b = m a(s1) em|b one observes that this field decomposes
into the following irreps of o(d 1, 1)
a(s1)|b =

(3.8)

2 As explained in more detail in Appendix A, upper or lower indices denoted by the same letter are automatically

symmetrized.
3 I.e., the 1-form a(s1),b is symmetric in the indices a, traceless in the indices a and b, and the symmetrization over
all indices gives zero: a(s1),a 0. See also Appendix B.
4 I.e., a(s1),b(t) is symmetric in indices a and b separately, traceless in all indices and a(s1),ab(t1) 0.

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

125

The first two components combine into the Fronsdal field: a rank-s double traceless tensor decomposes into traceless tensors of ranks s and (s 2). The last component is Stueckelberg. It
is gauged away by the traceless gauge parameter a(s1),c that has the same symmetry type.
As a result only the gauge parameter a(s1) is left and (3.7) gives rise to the Fronsdal gauge
transformation law (2.6).
With some rescaling of fields by the gauge transformations of the other connections have
the form
m a(s1),b(t)



= Dm a(s1),b(t) + emc a(s1),b(t)c + as,t (d)P a(s1),b(t1) em b ,

(3.9)

where as,t (d) are some coefficients and the projector P restores the tracelessness and the proper
Young symmetry. All the parameters a(s1),b(t) with t > 0 are Stueckelberg, eliminating some
components of the connections.
The field-strengths, which have analogous form5
 a(s1),b(t1) b 
a(s1),b(t)
a(s1),b(t)
a(s1),b(t)c
R{2}
= D{1}
+ ec {1}
+ as,t (d)P {1}
e ,
(3.10)
are demanded to be gauge invariant,
a(s1),b(t)

R{2}

= 0,

(3.11)

which condition fixes the coefficients as,t (d).


The frame-like HS field m a(s1) is called dynamical. The rest of the fields m a(s1),b(t) ,
t = 1, 2, . . . , (s 1) are expressed in terms of derivatives of the dynamical ones by virtue of
a(s1),b(t)
certain constraints [18] which set to zero some components of the HS curvatures R{2}
.
A length t of the second row of the Young tableau associated with a particular connection equals
to the highest order of derivatives of the dynamical field in the resulting expressions for the higher
connections


t a(s1)
a(s1),b(t)

(3.12)

+ .
x
For example, in the spin-2 case, the field a,b is the Lorentz connection. It is expressed in terms
of the first derivatives of the dynamical field, the vielbein ea . The field a(s1),b is analogous
to the Lorentz connection and is called auxiliary. The condition that the free action contains at
most two spacetime derivatives of the dynamical field is equivalent to the extra field decoupling
condition that requires the variation of the free action with respect to the extra fields to vanish
identically
S
0, t  2.
a(s1),b(t)
A general P -even, gauge invariant action in (A)dSd has the form [17,18]
S=


k=s2
1
c1 a(sq2),c2 b(s2)
aq
c1 ...cd ec5 ecd R{2}
R{2} c3 a(sq2) ,c4 b(s2) .
2
k=0

Md

5 A label in lower braces indicates the rank of a form; see Appendix A.

(3.13)

(3.14)

126

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

The extra field decoupling condition fixes the coefficients aq modulo a spin-dependent normalization factor. The resulting action is manifestly gauge invariant by (3.11), containing just two
derivatives of the dynamical field upon excluding the auxiliary field by virtue of its equation
of motion. As such, it is equivalent to the Fronsdal action in AdSd . (In fact, the free action for
massless fields in AdSd for any d was originally obtained in this form in [18].)
3.2. (A)dSd covariant approach
Eqs. (3.1) and (3.2) are equivalent to the zero-curvature condition for the 1-form connection
W0 A,B of o(d 1, 2) or o(d, 1)
dW0 A,B + W0 A, C W0 C,B = 0.

(3.15)

For definiteness, let us consider the AdSd case of o(d 1, 2). The Lorentz connection and frame
1-form are identified as
W0 a,b = a,b ,

W0 a, = ea .

(3.16)

denotes the extra time value of the o(d 1, 2) vector index compared to the o(d 1, 1) vector
index. (For more detail see Appendix A.) The dimensionful constant to be identified with
the inverse (A)dS radius is introduced to make the vielbein dimensionless. The curvature R =
dW0 + W0 2 decomposes as R = T a Pa + 12 R a,b Ma,b , where the o(d 1, 2) generators Pa and
Ma,b are associated with (A)dSd translations and Lorentz rotations, respectively. T a and R a,b
are the torsion tensor (3.1) and the modified Riemann tensor (3.2), respectively. Eq. (3.15) can
be rewritten as the nilpotency condition D0 2 = 0 for D0 = d + W0 .
As shown by MacDowell and Mansouri [30], modulo the topological GaussBonnet term, the
action6

1
S= 2 2
R a1 ,a2 R a3 ,a4 ea5 ead a1 a2 ...ad
(3.17)
4
Md

in d = 4 describes Einstein gravity with the cosmological term. The case of arbitrary d was
discussed in [19], where it was shown in particular that this action still describes a massless
spin two field at the linearized level although differs from the pure Einstein action with the
cosmological term at the nonlinear level (for more detail see also [31]).
A covariant generalization of the MacDowellMansouri approach proposed by Stelle and
West [32] is achieved by introducing a compensator field V A (x) that has a fixed norm
V A VA = 1

(3.18)

and carries no physical degrees of freedom. A sign (+) corresponds to the (A)dS case. The
Lorentz algebra o(d 1, 1) o(d 1, 2)(o(d, 1)) is identified with the stability subalgebra of
the compensator. The vielbein and spin connection admit the covariant definition
E A = DV A = dV A + W0 A, B V B ,


W0L A,B = W0 A,B E A V B E B V A .

(3.19)
(3.20)

6 The coefficient 2 instead of is due to a somewhat different dimension of fields describing background space in
comparision with dynamical ones. 2 is the gravitational constant.

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

127

As a consequence of (3.19) and (3.18) the vielbein is orthogonal to the compensator


E A VA = 0

(3.21)

and the Lorentz covariant derivative of the compensator with respect to the spin connection (3.20)
is zero
DL V A = dV A + W0L A, B V B = 0.

(3.22)

A convenient gauge choice, referred to as standard gauge, which breaks local o(d 1, 2)
(o(d, 1)) down to the local Lorentz algebra, is
V A = A

(3.23)

with the compensator vector pointing along the extra (d + 1)th direction. In the standard gauge,
the nonzero components E a of E A are identified with the vielbein ea .
The idea of the approach to the description of HS gauge fields proposed in [18,19] was to
replace the (A)dSd isometry algebra h = o(d 1, 2) or o(d, 1) by some its extension g called
HS symmetry algebra in such a way that the dynamics of massless HS fields is described in terms
of the connection 1-forms of g similarly to as gravity is described by the connections of o(d, 1)
(o(d 1, 2)). Note that g turns out to be infinite-dimensional.
The free field approximation results from the following perturbative expansion. A zero-order
vacuum (background) field 0 takes values in h g, i.e., it identifies with the 1-form W0A,B =
W0B,A . It is required to satisfy the zero-curvature equation for h thus describing (A)dSd space
time (or Minkowski in the flat limit).
1 describes first-order fluctuations of the fields of all spins including gravity. The HS field
strength is
R = R0 + R1 + o(1 ),

(3.24)

where
R0 = d0 + [0 , 0 ],

(3.25)

R1 = d1 + [0 , 1 ].

(3.26)

Here [ , ] is the Lie product of g. Since h g, the zero-order part of the curvature of the full HS
algebra g is zero R0 = 0. The first-order part is R1 = D0 1 , where D0 is the background covariant derivative built of the connection 0 . Since D0 2 = 0, R1 is invariant under the linearized
gauge transformations
1 = D0 ,

(3.27)

where is an arbitrary gauge parameter that takes values in g. This is the linearized HS gauge
transformation. Any action constructed in terms of R1 is therefore automatically HS gauge invariant at the linearized level.
In the known cases, g decomposes into an infinite direct sum of finite-dimensional h-modules
under the adjoint action of h g. Gauge fields 1s , corresponding to different irreducible submodules labeled by the integral weights s of h, describe fields of different spins s. In other
words, the connections 1s take values in irreducible tensor h-modules.
As an example, a spin-s symmetric massless field in (A)dSd can be described [19] by the
A(s1),B(s1)
with tangent indices that possess the symmetry of the two-row traceless
1-form Wm

128

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

(A)dSd Young tableau7


. (To distinguish between Young tableaux of o(d 1, 1) and
o(d 1, 2) the latter are drown in bold.) The gauge transformation law is
A(s1),B(s1)
A(s1),B(s1)
W{1}
= D0 {0}
.

(3.28)

The field strength


A(s1),B(s1)

R{2}

A(s1),B(s1)

= D0 W{1}

(3.29)

is gauge invariant by virtue of D0 2 = 0.


To make contact with the analysis of [18] explained in Section 3.6 one observes that the
decomposes (see Appendix B) into the set of o(d 1, 1)-modules

h-module

k = 0, 1, . . . , (s 1),

(3.30)

A(s1),B(s1)

a(s1),b(k) , k = 0, 1, . . . , (s 1). In particular, the vielbein-like field


i.e., W{1}
and the Lorentz connection-like auxiliary field are
m a(s1) = Wm a(s1),C(s1) VC1 VCs1 ,
m a(s1),b = Wm a(s1),bC(s1) VC1 VCs2 .

(3.31)

In the o(d 1, 2) covariant approach, a general P -even HS gauge invariant action is


Ss =


q=s2
1 s
bq
A1 ...Ad+1 V A5 E A6 E Ad+1
2
q=0

R{2}

Md
A1 B(s2),A2 C(q)D(sq2)

R{2} A3 B(s2) ,A4 C(q) D(sq2) VC(2q) ,

(3.32)

where VC(p) = VC VC . The coefficients bqs are fixed [19] modulo an overall factor


p

bqs = bs

(d 5 + 2q)!!(q + 1)
q!

(3.33)

by the condition that the variation with respect to the fields contracted with less than s 2
compensators is identically zero


S
L V C(k)
(3.34)
0, k < s 2,
W A(s1),B(sk1)C(k)
where L is the projector to the V A -transversal part of a tensor. By virtue of (3.31), this condition
is equivalent to the extra field decoupling condition (3.13). As a result, modulo total derivatives,
the action depends only on the vielbein-like and Lorentz connection-like fields (3.31), being free
of higher derivatives.
Now we are in a position to apply this approach to the description of partially massless fields.
For more detail on the HS gauge theory we refer the reader to [31,33].
7 I.e., the field W A(s1),B(s1) is symmetric in indices A and B separately, traceless and the symmetrization over
m
any s indices gives zero: Wm A(s1),AB(s2) 0.

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

129

4. Partially massless higher-spin fields in the frame-like formalism


4.1. Summary of results
Our main result is that a free partially massless field of spin-s and depth-t can be described by
A(s1),B(t)
, which has the symmetry of two-row traceless o(d, 1) or o(d 1, 2)
a gauge field W{1}
Young tableau8

with a gauge transformation law

A(s1),B(t)
A(s1),B(t)
W{1}
= D0 {0}

(4.1)

and a field strength


A(s1),B(t)
A(s1),B(t)
R{2}
= D0 W{1}
.

(4.2)

Since D0 2 = 0, the field strength is gauge invariant and satisfies Bianchi identities
A(s1),B(t)
R{2}
= 0,

A(s1),B(t)
D0 R{2}
= 0.

(4.3)

In the rest of this section we sketch the main results of our analysis leaving some details of
their derivation to a later publication [34], where it will be shown in particular, that all gauge
A(s1),B(t)
are Stueckelberg (i.e., analogous to the Lorentz symmetry
symmetry parameters {0}
parameters in the case of gravity) except for the parameter
A(s1),b(t)

b(t) = {0}

VA1 VAs1 ,
A(s1),B(t)

the most V -tangential part of {0}

ness and the symmetry properties of


the standard gauge V A = A

, which is traceless as a consequence of the traceless-

A(s1),B(t)
{0}

A(s1),b(t2)

b(t) bb = {0}

(4.4)
A(s1),B(t)

analogous to those of W{1}


...,b(t2)

VA1 VAs1 = {0}

0,

. Indeed, in
(4.5)

A(s1),B(t)
{0}

since the symmetrization over any s indices of


gives zero.
By dynamical fields we mean those which are neither pure gauge (i.e., Stueckelberg) nor
auxiliary (i.e., to be expressed in terms of derivatives of the other fields by virtue of constraints).
The dynamical fields in the system with t < s 1 are [34] traceless symmetric tensors a(s) ,
a(t) and a(t1) (the latter field is absent for t = 0) defined as follows


a(s) =  W a(s1),C(t)|a VC1 VCt ,
(4.6)
where [ ] is a projector to the traceless part,
a(t1) = Wm ma(t1)C(st1),C(t) VC1 VCs1 ,
and

a(t)

t >0

(4.7)

is a linear combination of the form

a(t) = Wm ma(t)C(st2),C(t) VC1 VCs2


+ Wm a(t)C(st1),C(t1)m VC1 VCs2 .

(4.8)

Note that the fields a(t) and a(t1) are automatically traceless (cf. (4.5)).
8 I.e., W A(s1),B(t) is a traceless tensor symmetric in indices A and B separately, that satisfies the antisymmetry
property W A(s1),AB(t1) 0.

130

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

The gauge transformation law for the field a(s) is


st

a(s)


=  D a D a a(t) .

(4.9)

It coincides with the transformation law (2.23) for partially massless fields found by Deser and
Waldron [4] and Zinoviev [5].
Gauge invariant combinations of derivatives of the dynamical fields that are nonzero on-shell
we call generalized Weyl tensors. In practice, to find generalized Weyl tensors, one should set
to zero as many components of the gauge invariant field strengths as possible by imposing
constraints that express auxiliary fields in terms of derivatives of the dynamical fields (these
generalize the zero-torsion condition in gravity). Other components of the gauge invariant field
strengths are zero by virtue of the field equations (these generalize the Einstein equations in
gravity). Some more vanish by virtue of Bianchi identities applied to the former two (e.g., the
cyclic part of the Riemann tensor in gravity is zero by virtue of the Bianchi identity applied to
the zero-torsion condition). What is left nonzero are the generalized Weyl tensors.
In the massless case with t = s 1, the generalized Weyl tensor is known [19] to be described
by the length s two-row rectangular o(d 1, 1) Young tableau. In the partially massless case, a
a(s1),b(t)
generalized Weyl tensor identifies [34] with the traceless component of R{2}
(which is the
A(s1),B(t)

V A orthogonal part of R{2}


), which has the symmetry property of
.
The case of t = 0, which corresponds to the conformal generalization of the Maxwell theory
discussed in [4], is special. The t = 0 generalized Weyl tensors are the components of Rmn a(s1)
with the symmetry properties of the Young tableaux
and
for s > 1.
The geometric formulation of the partially massless fields will be illustrated in Section 5 by
the examples of s = 2, t = 0 with the gauge field Wm A and s = 3, t = 1 with the gauge field
Wm AA,B . In the spin-2 example, the dynamical fields a(s) , a(t) correspond to [W (a|a) ] and
W m| m while a(t1) is absent as t = 0. In the spin-3 example a(s=3) = [W (aa|a) ], a(t=1) =
W am,| m + W [a,m]| m and a(t1=0) = W m,| m .
4.2. (A)dSd covariant action
Free gauge invariant action functionals are easily constructed in terms of the gauge invariant
linearized curvatures in the form

1 s,t
bk,m A1 A2 ...Ad+1 V A5 E A6 E Ad+1
S s,t =
2
k,m

R{2}

Md
A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 D(tm1)C(m)

R{2} A3 B(sk2) C(k),A4 D(tm1) C(m) VC(2k+2m) ,

(4.10)

where
s,t
s,t
= bk,m
(m) (k) (t m 1) (s m k 2)
bk,m

with

(n) = 1, n  0,
(n) = 0, n < 0

implies that the summation range is finite for a fixed spin.

(4.11)

(4.12)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

131

The parameters s and t , which determine a field type, are fixed. Different choices of the
s,t
coefficients bk,m
lead to different gauge invariant dynamical systems. To simplify formulae,
the range of summation over the indices k and m in (4.10) is chosen so that the terms with
k > s t 1 are not independent, being expressible via linear combinations of terms with
smaller k because the symmetrization over any s tangent indices of the HS curvatures gives
zero.
Generally, different gauge connections that enter the curvatures in (4.10) are independent
fields, which may carry their own degrees of freedom. Alternatively, all connections can be expressed in terms of (derivatives of) certain dynamical fields by virtue of imposing constraints
that generalize the zero torsion condition in gravity and require some components of the field
strengths to vanish. Plugging the resulting expressions back into the action gives rise to a gauge
invariant higher derivative action, which may again describe a system with extra degrees of freedom. To avoid these unwanted degrees of freedom, the coefficients in the action (4.10) should be
adjusted so that, in the flat limit, the action should amount to the sum of free massless actions for
spins from t + 1 to s in agreement with the construction of Zinoviev discussed in Section 2.3.2.
It turns out that for the models with t > 1 this is achieved by imposing the extra field decoupling
condition


S s,t
L V C(m+k)
0,
W A(sk1)C(k),B(tm)C(m)
m = 0, 1, . . . , t 2, k = 0, 1, . . . , s t 1,
(4.13)
which means that the variation is nonzero only for the components W A(s1),BC(t1) VC(t1) and
generalizes (3.34) to partially massless fields.
Using
R{2} A(s1),B(t) = D0 W{1} A(s1),B(t) ,

(4.14)

the symmetry properties of the field strength, the Bianchi identities (4.3), the definition of the
frame (3.19) along with its consequence D0 E A = 0 and the identities


A1 ...Ad+1 = V F VA1 F A2 ...Ad+1 + VA2 A1 F A3 ...Ad+1 + + VAd+1 A1 ...Ad F ,
(4.15)
A1 ...A5 H6 ...Hd+1 E F E H6 E Hd+1
 k=5


1
F
k+1
=
A ...A k ...A H ...H Ak ()
E H5 E Hd+1 ,
1
5 5
d+1
d 3

(4.16)

k=1

which manifest the fact that the antisymmetrization of d + 2 indices, which take d + 1 values, is
zero, we obtain

1
S s,t =
A1 A2 ...Ad+1 V A4 E A5 E Ad+1 VC(2k+2m+1)
d 3
k,m

Md

W A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 D(tm1)C(m) R A3 B(sk2) C(k), D(tm1) C(m+1)




 s,t
(k + 1)2 s,t
s,t
d 3 + 2(k + m) bk,m
(m + 1)bk,m+1
+
b
(s k 2) k+1,m

+ W A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 D(tm1)C(m) RB(sk2) C(k+1),A3 D(tm1) C(m)

132

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147




 s,t
(k + 1)(s k m 1) s,t

d 3 + 2(k + m) bk,m +
bk+1,m
(s k 2)

+ (W R) .

(4.17)

The extra field decoupling condition (4.13) demands most of the terms in the variation (4.17)
to vanish. This is achieved by virtue of imposing the following conditions on the coefficients

s,t
s,t

+ (k+1)(skm1)
bk+1,m
= 0,
[d 3 + 2(k + m)]bk,m

(sk2)

2
s,t
s,t
s,t
(k+1)
(4.18)
[d 3 + 2(k + m)]bk,m
(m + 1)bk,m+1
+ (sk2)
bk+1,m
= 0,

t > 1, k = 0, . . . , s t 1, m = 0, . . . , t 2,
s,t
which fix bk,m
up to an overall factor bs,t
s,t
bk,m
= bs,t

(s k m 1)!(d 5 + 2(k + m))!!


.
k!m!(s k 2)!(s m)!

(4.19)

The remaining nonzero part of the variation of the action is



1
A1 A2 ...Ad+1 V A4 E A5 E Ad+1 VC(2k+2t1)
S s,t =
d 3
k

Md



W A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 C(t1) R A3 B(sk2) C(k),C(t) + (W R)



 s,t
(k + 1)2 s,t

b
.
d 5 + 2(k + t) bk,t1 +
(s k 2) k+1,t1

(4.20)

As explained in Section 4.3, the coefficients (4.19) guarantee the consistency of the flat limit,
which is in agreement with the construction of Zinoviev. For the massless case of t = s 1, the
variation reduces to that of the action (3.32) [19].
The partially massless cases with t = 0 and t = 1 are special. In the case of t = 1, the variation
of the action is

1
s,1
S =
A1 A2 ...Ad+1 V A4 E A5 E Ad+1 VC(2k+1)
d 3


Md

W A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 R A3 B(s2k) C(k),C




(k + 1)2 s,1
s,1
(d 3 + 2k)bk,0
+
bk+1,0
(s k 2)
+ W A1 B(sk2)C(k),A2 RB(sk2) C(k+1),A3


(k + 1)(s k 1) s,1
s,1

(d 3 + 2k)bk,0 +
bk+1,0
(s k 2)

+ (W R) .

(4.21)

The extra fields decoupling condition (4.13) is not applicable for this case and the coefficients are
fixed directly from the requirement of consistency of the flat limit. As explained in Section 4.3,

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

133

upon an appropriate rescaling, the first term in (4.21) tends in the flat limit to the sum of variations
of massless actions for spins from (t + 1) to s, while the second term diverges. The correct flat
s,t
limit therefore requires the second term to be zero that fixes bk,0
in the form
(s k 1)(d 5 + 2k)!!
,
(4.22)
k!s!
i.e., (4.19) is still true.
In the case of t = 0, the action cannot be written at all in the form (4.10) because there is no
room for the indices A2 and A4 . For this case the action is constructed in terms of the generalized
Weyl tensor C a(s),b



1
1
S s,0 =
c1 ...cd ec1 ecd C a(s),b Ca(s),b C a(s1)m, m Ca(s1)n, n .
(4.23)
2
2
s,1
= bs,1
bk,0

Md

Note that, in d = 4, this case corresponds to the conformal partially massless fields of Deser
and Waldron [4] with 4d Maxwell electrodynamics as a particular case of s = 1, where C a,b
identifies with the Maxwell field strength. The form of the action (4.23) is in agreement with the
well-known fact that the Maxwell Lagrangian 4-form cannot be written as the exterior product
of the Maxwell 2-form field strengths.
4.3. Lorentz covariant formulation
The practical analysis of the field content of the model under consideration is more illuminating in terms of the Lorentz irreducible components of the fields. An irrep of o(d 1, 2)(o(d, 1))
with the Young symmetry type
o(d 1, 1)
=

k=s1,
 l=t

decomposes into the following set of irreps of

(4.24)

k=t, l=0

i.e., in terms of Lorentz tensors, the partially massless theory of spin-s and depth-t is described
{k,l}
a(k),b(l)
{1} with k = t, . . . , s 1, l = 0, 1, . . . , t.
by 1-forms {1}
The field strengths have the following structure
 {k,l} 
 {k,l} 
 {k+1,l} 
 {k,l+1} 
{k,l}
+ 2 {1}
R{2} = D0 {1} = D {1} + 1 {1}
 {k1,l} 
 {k,l1} 
+ +2 {1}
.
+ +1 {1}

(4.25)

The operators 1,2 have the form




+1 C a(k),b(l) = g(k, l)(k + 1) ea C a(k),b(l)

k
em C a(k1)m,b(l) aa
2(d + 2k 2)

l
em C a(k),mb(l1) ab
d +k+l3

k
a(k1)b,b(l1)m aa
+

em C
,
l(d + 2k 2)(d + k + l 3)

(4.26)

134

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

+2

a(k),b(l)


= G(k, l)(l + 1) eb C a(k),b(l)

k a a(k1)b,b(l)
e C
kl

l
em C a(k),b(l1)m bb
d + 2l 4
k(k l 1)

em C a(k1)m,b(l) ab
(k l)(d + k + l 3)
lk(d + 2k 4)
+
em C a(k1)b,b(l1)m ab
(k l)(d + 2l 4)(d + k + l 3)
k(k 1)
+
em C a(k2)mb,b(l) aa
(k l)(d + k + l 3)

lk(k 1)

em C a(k2)bb,b(l1)m aa ,
(k l)(d + k + l 3)(d + 2l 4)




l
1 C a(k),b(l) = f (k, l) em C a(k1)m,b(l) +
em C a(k1)b,b(l1)m ,
kl+1
 a(k),b(l) 


2
a(k),b(l1)m
C
= F (k, l) em C
,

(4.27)
(4.28)
(4.29)

where g(k, l), G(k, l), f (k, l) and F (k, l) are some coefficients, which can be either derived from
the covariant field strengths (4.2) or obtained directly from the condition of the gauge invariance
a(k),b(l)
. Their explicit form is given in Appendix C. (For more detail see [34].)
of R{2}
A general P -even o(d 1, 1)-covariant gauge invariant action has the following form in terms
of Lorentz covariant field strengths

1 s,t
S s,t =
a k,m c1 cd ec5 ecd R{2} c1 a(k1),c2 b(m1) R{2} c3 a(k1) ,c4 b(m1) , (4.30)
2
k,m

Md

where
s,t
s,t
a k,m
= ak,m
(k t) (m) (t m) (s k 1)

(4.31)

s,t
remain to be determined. This Lagrangian generalizes to partially massand the coefficients ak,m
less fields that introduced in [18] for massless fields (t = s 1).
Let us introduce the inner product

 {k,l}  {k,l}
c3
c1 a(k1),c2 b(l1)
,c4
{p} {q} = c1 c2 ...cd ec5 ecd {p}
a(k1)
b(l1) , (4.32)
Md
a(k),b(l)

a(k),b(l)

and q-form {q}


carry equivalent representations
which is nonzero if the p-form {p}
of the Lorentz group (in particular, have the same symmetry type) and are such that p + q = 4.
Then the action (4.30) reads
1 s,t  {k,m}  {k,m}
S s,t =
(4.33)
a k,m R{2} R{2} .
2
k,m

The normalization coefficients gk,l , Gk,l , fk,l and Fk,l are chosen so (see Appendix C) that
the operators +1,2 are conjugated to 1,2 with respect to this product
 {k,l}
 {k,l} 
 {k,l}  1,2  {k,l}
{p} + {q} = ()pq+p+q {q} 1,2 {p} .
(4.34)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

Making use of the Bianchi identities along with


 {k,m} 
 {k,m} 
 {k+1,m} 
 {k,m+1} 
{k,m}
R{2} = D0 {1}
= D {1}
+ 1 {1}
+ 2 {1}
 {k1,m} 
 {k,m1} 
+ +2 {1}
+ +1 {1}

135

(4.35)

the variation of the action amounts to



 
 s,t
s,t 
{k,m} 1 R {k+1,m} a k+1,m
a k,m
S s,t =
k,m

 

+ {k,m} 2 R {k,m+1}
 

+ {k,m} +1 R {k1,m}
 

+ {k,m} +2 R {k,m1}

 s,t
s,t 
a k,m+1 a k,m
 s,t
s,t 
a k1,m a k,m
 s,t
s,t 
a k,m1 a k,m
.

(4.36)

The 1-form W A(s1),B(t) is equivalent to the set of Lorentz 1-forms a(l),b(u) with l =
t, . . . , s 1 and u = 0, 1, . . . , t. It is easy to see that W A(s1),BC(t1) VC(t1) is equivalent to
a(l) and a(l),b with l = t, . . . , s 1. As a result, in terms of Lorentz tensors, the extra field
decoupling condition (4.13) takes the following simple form
S s,t
a(k),b(m)
It is satisfied with

0,

k = t, . . . , s 1,

m = 2, 3, . . . , t.

s,t
= a s,t .
ak,m

(4.37)

(4.38)

For the case of t > 1 we have


S s,t = a s,t

k=s1



 
 


{k,0} 2 R {k,1} {k,1} +2 R {k,0} .

(4.39)

k=t

Upon the rescaling


1
1
R a(k),b R a(k),b ,
a(k),b a(k),b ,

the field strengths (4.25) modify to


 {k,1} 
 {k,0} 
{k,0}
R{2} = D {1} + 1 {1} + O(),
 {k,1} 
{k,1}
R{2} = D {1} + O().

S S

(4.40)

(4.41)
(4.42)

In the flat limit 0, terms that mix different k tend to zero and the field strengths take the
form of the flat space field strengths for usual massless fields [18]
 {k,1} 
 {k,0} 
{k,0}
R{2} = D {1} + 1 {1} ,
(4.43)


{k,1}
{k,1}
R{2} = D {1} .
(4.44)
As a result, for t > 1, the extra field decoupling condition (4.37) guarantees that the flat limit
of the action (4.30) is a sum of free actions for massless fields of spins from t + 1 to s which is in
agreement with the construction of Zinoviev [5]. The totally symmetric parts a(k)|a of m a(k) ,
k = t, . . . , s 1, identify with the double traceless Fronsdal fields used by Zinoviev.

136

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

As it will be explained in more detail in [34], for = 0, all fields, that are not pure gauge,
can be expressed in terms of derivatives of the dynamical fields a(s) , a(t) and a(t1) by virtue
of constraints Rm n a(k) = 0, R a(k)m|a m = 0, which are particular field equations. As discussed
in Section 2.3.1, within the approach of Deser and Waldron [4], the constraints result from the
divergences of field equations. Note that the reduction of a number of fields compared to those
of the approach of Zinoviev does not imply the reduction of a number of degrees of freedom
because, as a result of resolution of constrains, the action expressed in terms of the dynamical
fields contains higher derivatives for a general partially massless system.
In the special case of t = 1, where the extra field decoupling condition (4.37) does not apply,
the variation of the action (4.30) in terms of the rescaled variables (4.40) is
S s,1 =

k=s1



 
 

 s,1
{k,0} 2 R {k,1} {k,1} +2 R {k,0} ak,0

k=1

1  {k,1}  1  {k1,1}  {k1,1}  1  {k,1}  s,1


s,1 
+ R
R

a k1,0 a k,0
.

(4.45)

s,1
= a s,1 so that (4.38) is still true.
To get rid of the term singular in the flat limit 0, we set ak,0
The remaining variation reduces in the flat limit to that of the sum of actions for massless fields
of spins from 2 to s.

5. Examples
In this section the proposed approach is illustrated by the simplest examples of spin-2 and
spin-3 partially massless fields.
5.1. Spin-2
A
Let us consider the model with s = 2, t = 0. The corresponding gauge field is a 1-form W{1}
with the gauge transformation law
A
A
= D0 {0}
.
W{1}

(5.1)

The gauge invariant field strength


A
A
R{2}
= D0 W{1}

(5.2)

satisfies the Bianchi identity


A
0.
D0 R{2}

(5.3)

The Lorentz reduction of the (A)dSd vector


, i.e.,

gives two Lorentz irreducible representations

A = 1 ,
{0}
{0}

a ,
a = {0}

A R
1
R{2}
m n = R{2} ,

a ,
Rm n a = R{2}

A = 1 W ,
W{1}
m
{1}

a ,
m a = W{1}

(5.4)

where the rescaling of the first component by is introduced for the future convenience. The
gauge transformation law (5.1) gives
m = Dm emb b ,

(5.5)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

137

m a = Dm a + 2 em a .

(5.6)

From the form of the variation (5.5) it follows that m can be gauge fixed to zero
m = 0

(5.7)

by adjusting the Stueckelberg parameter a . Then, from the condition m 0 it follows that
the leftover gauge symmetry with the parameter requires a = D a . Substituting this into the
gauge transformation law (5.6) we obtain
m a = Dm D a + 2 em a .

(5.8)

The field a|b = m a ebm decomposes into


[a|b]

, i.e., into antisymmetric part

= (a|b)

and traceful symmetric part


terms the gauge transformation law (5.6) reads

with the scalar trace field

= c|

[a|b] = 0,

(a|b)

c.

In these
(5.9)

= D D + .
(a

2 ab

b)

(5.10)

We see that [a|b] is gauge invariant while hab (a|b) transforms as a partially massless spin-2
field (2.13). The field strength (5.2) reduces to
Rm n = Dm n emb n b ,
R m n a = D m n a + 2 e m a n .

(5.11)

In the gauge (5.7) we have


Rm n = emb n b ,

Rm n a = D m n a .

(5.12)

The field strength Rm n has only one irreducible component,


Rm n a ebm ecn decomposes into

, with

. The field strength R a|bc =

= R [a|bc] ,

= R (a|b)c

and
= R m| m a .
From (5.12) we see that it is possible to impose the gauge invariant constraint
Rm n = 0,

(5.13)

which gets rid of the auxiliary field [a|b] . Note that analogous constraints express auxiliary fields
via derivatives of the other fields in more complicated systems.
The Bianchi identities (5.3) reduce to
Dm Rn k emb Rn k b 0,

Dm Rn k a + 2 em a Rn k 0.

(5.14)

From (5.13) it follows


emb Rn k b 0,

Dm Rn k a 0.

The first identity implies that the totally antisymmetric component

(5.15)
of the field strength Rn k a

A is therefore contained in C [ab],c R c|[ab] =


is zero. The nonzero part of the field strength R{2}
D [a hb]c which is a generalized Weyl tensor. Its trace part is C am m = D h Dh .

138

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

Since the gauge invariant tensor C [ab],c contains the first derivatives of the physical field haa ,
it is possible to impose the following second order equations of motion with the same structure
of indices as that of haa
Dm C (am,a) + D (a C a)m, m + aa Dn C nm, m = 0.

(5.16)

This equation is equivalent to








2h DD h 22 (dh h ) + 2D 2 h DD h + D 2 h h = 0.
(5.17)
By construction, it is gauge invariant under (5.10) for arbitrary , and . The condition that
the flat limit should give the massless field equations in Minkowski space, which is equivalent
to the requirement that the massless field gauge symmetry restores in the flat limit, fixes the
coefficients up to an overall factor = a/2, = a/2, = a. The resulting equations follow
from the Lagrangian
1
L = C [mn],a C[mn],a C [ms], s C[ms], s ,
2
equivalent to the Lagrangian (4.23) at s = 2. The explicit expression in terms of haa is

(5.18)

1
1
d2 2 2  2
L = (Dh)2 (D h)2 (Dh )2 h D 2 h +
(5.19)
h h .
2
2
2
2
Thus, the s = 2, t = 0 model of Section 2.3 is demonstrated to describe properly the partially
massless spin-2 theory of Deser, Waldron [4] and Zinoviev [5]. Note that, in agreement with the
general analysis of Section 4, because of the lack of indices carried by the field strength 2-form
in the degenerate case of t = 0, the Lagrangian of this model is formulated in terms of the tensor
C [mn],a rather than in terms of the exterior product of the field strength 2-forms as for t > 0
systems.
5.2. Spin-3
The case of spin-3 admits partially massless fields either with t = 0 or with t = 1. The case of
t = 0 is analogous to that considered in Section 5.1 for spin-2 and will not be discussed here. The
more interesting case of s = 3, t = 1 partially massless field reveals main features of a general
partially massless theory.
The gauge field of this model takes values in the irreducible (A)dS tensor representation
. In the manifestly antisymmetric basis it satisfies the
associated with the Young tableau
conditions W AB,C = W BA,C , W [AB,C] 0 and W AM,N MN 0 (square brackets denote antisymmetrization). The gauge transformation law, field strength and Bianchi identities read
[AB],C
[AB],C
= D0 {0}
,
W{1}
[AB],C
[AB],C
= D0 W{1}
,
R{2}
[AB],C
0.
D0 R{2}

(5.20)
decomposes into the following irreps of o(d 1, 1)

The (A)dSd Young tableau


=

(5.21)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

139

Let us introduce the following notation for the gauge parameters


a,
,
a = {0}
[a,b]
,
ab = {0}
(a,c)

a,c = {0}

ab,c
ab,c = {0}
+


1  a bc
b ac .
d 1

(5.22)

The fields m a , m ab , m a,c , m ab,c and the corresponding field strengths are defined analogously. In these terms the gauge transformation laws read
m a = Dm a + 3emm am + emm a,m ,
d
1
em [a b] + emm ab,m ,
d 1
2
d

em (a b) +
emm m ab + emm (am,b) ,
m a,b = Dm a,b
d 1
d 1
m ab = Dm ab +

m ab,c = Dm ab,c + em a bc + em a b,c em b ac em b a,c 2em c ab







bc emm 3 am + a,m
ac emm 3 bm + b,m .
+
d 1
d 1

(5.23)

The decomposition of the fields into irreps of the Lorentz algebra o(d 1, 1), that acts diagonally
on the fiber indices a, b, c, . . . and the base indices m, n, . . . , is as follows

m a =

1 a 32

(5.24)

= m| m ,

,
= [ abc (a,b|c) ],

(5.25)

 = 1 ,

= a,m| m ,
,

(5.26)
= [ab|c

m ab,c =

= [a|b] ,

= [a,b|c c,(a|b) ],

ab

m =

= (a|b) ,

m a,c =

[ab|c] ],

= [ab|c] ,

2 a 21

= am|

m,

,
(5.27)

= (am,c)| m ,

= [am,c]| m .

Explicit expressions are given here for those components, which appear in the subsequent analysis; the labels 1, 2 distinguish between different components of the same symmetry type.

140

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

From (5.23) it follows that the components

and

of m a and

of m a,c can be

gauge fixed to zero by the Stueckelberg gauge parameters a,c , ab and ab,c . We therefore set




 a,b|c c,(a|b) = 0.
 (a|b) = 0,
[a|b] = 0,
(5.28)
This gauge is not complete. In the leftover gauge transformations, that leave invariant the gauge
conditions, the parameters a,c , ab and ab,c are expressed in terms of derivatives of a , which
is the only non-Stueckelberg gauge parameter. The gauge transformation law of the component
aaa has the form (2.21) of the spin-3 partially massless theory, i.e., aaa identifies with the
dynamical field of Deser and Waldron.
The field strengths have the form
Rm n a = Dm n a + 3emm n am + emm n a,m ,
d
1
em [a n b] + emm n ab,m ,
d 1
2
d

Rm n a,b = Dm n a,b
em (a n b) +
emm n m ab + emm n (am,b) ,
d 1
d 1
Rm n ab = Dm n ab +

Rm n ab,c = Dm n ab,c + em a n bc + em a n b,c em b n ac em b n a,c 2em c n ab







+
(5.29)
bc emm 3n am + n a,m
ac emm 3n bm + n b,m .
d 1
d 1
Let us consider which gauge invariant conditions can be imposed on the fields by setting to zero
some of components of the field strengths. These may include either constraints, that express auxiliary fields in terms of derivatives of the dynamical fields, or impose differential field equations
on the dynamical fields.
The simplest constraint is Rm n a = 0. Taking into account the gauge conditions (5.28), it implies
= [ab|c] = 0,


=  ab|c [ab|c] = 0,
d 1 a
3
3
D 2 a + 1 a = 0.
d
2
2

(5.30)
(5.31)
(5.32)

The constraint (5.32) can be used to express the auxiliary field 2 a in terms of 1 a and the first
derivative of the scalar field . The constraint (5.31) in the gauge (5.28) implies that the hooksymmetry parts of ab and a,b are zero. As a result one is left with traces , 2 a of a , ab ,
with the totally symmetric component aaa of a,b , with its trace 1 a and the field ab,c , which
has not been yet considered.
Let us now impose the condition Rm n a,b = 0. It implies that




=  R a,[b|bb] =  [bb,a|b] = 0,
(am,a|a) = D m aaa + D (a a,a)|m ,

(5.33)
(5.34)

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

expressing the auxiliary fields (am,a|a) =


of aaa and setting the component

141

in terms of the first derivatives

= [aa,b|a] to zero.

The condition that the projection of R [ab],c to the components of the symmetry
is zero (i.e., R m(a,a|a) m = 0 and R st,a| st = 0) gives the following equation
1
d 2
 DD + DD1 32 + 2 1 2
D = 0,
2
3d
which is the dynamical equation on and its trace 1 .
The condition Rm n ab = 0 in the gauge (5.28) sets to zero the component

and

(5.35)
of ab,c and

[R (am|a) m ] = 0 implies




d 2 a a
(a
maa
a)
+
D D = 0,
 D 1 Dm
3d

(5.36)

while Rst st = 0 imposes the equation


Dm 2 m + d = 0.

(5.37)

Using (5.32) to exclude 2 a , we obtain


2(d 1)
(5.38)
 + Dm 1 m + d2 = 0,
3d
which is the equation on .
As a result, one has the dynamical equations (5.35), (5.38) on aaa , its trace 1 a and , plus
one differential constraint (5.36), which corresponds to Eq. (2.17) of the approach of Deser and
Waldron.
Consider a (A)dSd -covariant, gauge invariant action of the form



1
[A1 A2 ],B [A3 A4 ],
[A1 A2 ],C [A3 A4 ],C
S=
a1 R{2}
R{2}
R{2}
VC(2) A1 ...Ad+1
B + a2 R{2}
2
Md
A5

E A6 E Ad+1 .

(5.39)

In terms of Lorentz components rescaled according to (4.40), its variation turns out to be





S = [a1 a2 ] R a3 + a1 R [a2 a3 ] + [a1 a2 ], b R a3 , b + a1 , b R [a2 a3 ], b
Md


1 
+ [a1 a2 ], b R a3 b + [a1 b] R [a2 a3 ], b a1 ...ad ha4 had ,

(5.40)

where
=

2d
(a1 + a2 ),
d 1

= a1 ,

= a1

2
a2 .
d 3

(5.41)

To have correct flat limit we set = 0. As a result a2 = d3


2 a1 , which is in accordance with the
general formula (4.19). The resulting action gives the following equations of motion
S
= 0 Rm n a = 0,
m [ab]

(5.42)

142

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

S
(5.43)
= 0 Rst st = 0,

S
= 0 Rmn a,c = 0,
(5.44)
m [ab],c
S
= 0 R (am,a|a) m = 0.
(5.45)
aaa
These equations are equivalent to the conditions (5.30)(5.38) on the field strengths, which have
been just shown to describe properly the spin-3 partially massless theory of depth one.
6. Discussion
In this paper, partially massless fields in (A)dS space studied in [18] are shown to admit a
natural formulation in terms of gauge 1-forms that take values in irreducible tensor representations of the algebra (o(d, 1))o(d 1, 2), described by the various two-row Young tableaux. The
case of rectangular two-row Young tableaux corresponds to the massless fields [19]. Different
non-rectangular Young tableaux correspond to different partially massless fields. The manifestly
gauge invariant free Lagrangians are bilinears of gauge invariant field strengths.
One of the applications of the obtained results is that they impose strong restrictions on possible HS algebras. Actually, since partially massless fields in AdSd correspond to non-unitary
representations of o(d 1, 2), for a HS theory in AdSd to be unitary, it should be free of gauge
fields associated with partially massless fields. This means that a HS algebra g considered as
a o(d 1, 2)-module with respect to its adjoint action in g should not contain submodules described by the corresponding Young tableaux. This condition is indeed satisfied in the case of HS
algebras underlying HS theories of totally symmetric fields [14]. The simplest example of a HS
algebra, which is associated with the supersymmetric extension of the theory of symmetric HS
fields studied in [14], also satisfies this condition. It should be true, however, for any other unitary
HS theory including those that contain generic mixed symmetry fields [3537], thus imposing
nontrivial restrictions on a structure of a HS algebra and, therefore, on the spectra of HS gauge
fields that may appear in consistent HS gauge theories.
It would be interesting to extend the results of this paper to the case of general mixed symmetry partially massless bosonic and fermionic fields, originally discussed in [37]. Taking into
account the results of [20], where it has been shown that massless fields of a general symmetry
type are described by p-form gauge fields that carry a representation of o(d 1, 2) described
by a Young tableau with at least p + 1 cells in the shortest column, it is natural to conjecture
that partially massless fields as well as the non-unitary massless fields with the gauge parameters ruled out in [10] are described in terms of p-form gauge fields that are o(d 1, 2)-modules
depicted by Young tableaux with at most p cells in the shortest column. The analysis of this problem, that we leave for a future publication, will provide the full list of unitary and non-unitary
free HS models described by gauge p-form fields that take values in various finite-dimensional
o(d 1, 2)-modules.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge with gratitude the collaboration of V. Didenko at the early stage of
this work. E.S. is grateful to K.B. Alkalaev for useful discussions. The work was supported in
part by grants RFBR No. 05-02-17654, LSS No. 1578.2003-2 and INTAS No. 03-51-6346. The
work of E.S. was supported in part by the scholarship of Dynasty Foundation.

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

143

Appendix A. Notation
A.1. Index conventions
Latin indices A, B, . . . = 0, 1, . . . , d are vector indices of the isometry algebra o(d 1, 2) or
o(d, 1). Indices a, b, . . . = 0, . . . , d 1 are vector indices of the d-dimensional Lorentz algebra
o(d 1, 1). For definiteness, we consider the (A)dSd case of o(d 1, 2). For the decomposition
of irreps of o(d 1, 2) into irreps of o(d 1, 1) we use notations A = {a, }, where denotes
the extra value of the o(d 1, 2) vector index compared to the o(d 1, 1) vector index.
Underlined Latin indices m, n, k, . . . = 0, 1, . . . , d 1 are the indices of differential forms
in the spacetime base manifold. d = dx m m is the de Rham differential. To simplify formulae
we often omit the exterior differentials dx m and the wedge product symbol . The rank of a
differential form is indicated as a braced subscript. For example, {r} denotes a r-form m1 ...mr .
AB and ab are, respectively, o(d 1, 2) and o(d 1, 1) invariant metrics. We use the
d+1

mostly minus signature, i.e., AB = diag( + + ) and ab = diag( + ). A1 ...Ad+1


and a1 ...ad are Levi-Civita tensors of the algebras o(d 1, 2) and o(d 1, 1), respectively. em a
is the vielbein 1-form. The metric tensor gm n = em a en b ab is required to be non-degenerate. 1
is the radius of (A)dSd .
To simplify formulae we use multi-index notation. Namely, a group of indices of any kind
(in particular, vector indices of the algebras o(d 1, 2) and o(d 1, 1)) in which some tensor
C a1 a2 ...an ,b,c... is symmetric, that is
C a1 a2 ...ai ...aj ...an ,b,c,... = C a1 a2 ...aj ...ai ...an ,b,c,...

(A.1)
C [aa...a],...

is denoted

The similar notation

is used for
antisymmetric indices. More generally, symmetrized upper or lower indices are denoted by the
same letter. We use the normalization in which the symmetrization operator S is a projector
For example, for any vector V a and a totally symmetric rank-n tensor C a(n)
S 2 = S.
C a(n),b,c,...

V a C a(n) =

C (a1 a2 ...an ),b,c,... .

C a[n],...

i=n+1

1
V ai C a1 ...a i ...an+1 ,
n+1

(A.2)

i=1

where the hatted index has to be omitted.


A.2. Condensed notation
The traceless part of a tensor T is denoted [T ]. For example, for a rank-2 tensor, ab
1
ab c c .
(A.3)
d
A tensor field that has the symmetry properties depicted by the Young tableau composed of rows
of lengths n1 , . . . , np is denoted {n1 ,...,np } .
The following notation is often used for a totally symmetric rank-s tensor field m1 ...ms (x)
and its derivatives
[ab ] = ab

{s} m1 ...ms (x),

{s}

s( m1 m2 ...ms+1 ) (x),

(A.4)
(A.5)

144

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

2 {s} m m {s} ,

(A.6)

{s} m m m2 ...ms (x),




2 {s} {s} ,

(A.7)

{s}

m m3 ...ms (x),
2

{s} n n m2 ...ms (x)k k m2 ...ms (x),
{s}

(s + 2)(s + 1)
(m1 m2 m3 ...ms+2 ) .
2

(A.8)
(A.9)
(A.10)
(A.11)

Appendix B. Young tableaux


A Young tableau {ni } (i = 1, 2, . . . , p) is a set of positive integers such that ni  nj > 0,
i > j . It can be depicted as a set of rows of length ni .

Each box corresponds to an index of a tensor


C A1 A2 ...An1 ,B1 B2 ...Bn2 ,...,Z1 Z2 ...Znp ,

(B.1)

that has the following properties


(1) The tensor C A1 A2 ...An1 ,B1 B2 ...Bn2 ,...,Z1 Z2 ...Znp is symmetric in indices A1 An1 , B1 Bn2
and so forth, that is, in multi-index notation, it is C A(n1 ),B(n2 ),...,Z(np ) .
(2) Symmetrization of all indices of any group with an index of a subsequent groups is identically zero
C A(n1 ),...,(F (nk ),...,F )N (nm 1),...,Z(np ) = 0.

(B.2)

A scalar is symbolized by .
Different symmetry types of tensors are characterized by Young tableaux. One can use different bases in the vector space of tensors of a given type. The one we mostly use in this paper is
that with explicit symmetrizations. Alternatively, one can use the antisymmetric basis, which is
used in particular in Section 5.2 of this paper. (For more detail, see, e.g., [31].)
Since the metric and the Levi-Civita tensor A1 ...Ad are invariant tensors of the algebra o(r, q),
to single out its irreps the tracelessness condition, the condition that the height of any column does not exceed [d/2] have to be imposed. For even d and appropriate signature the
(anti)selfduality condition has to be imposed on the tensor representations associated with Young
tableaux that have at least one column of height d/2.
The decomposition of the tensor product of any irrep of sld with its vector representation
admits a natural description in terms of Young tableaux. Namely, it contains all tableaux that can

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

145

be obtained by adding a box to a given Young tableau. For example,

(B.3)

In the case of o(r, q), Young tableaux are associated with traceless tensors of one or another
symmetry type. The tensor product decomposition results from either adding or cutting one box
in various ways. The cutted diagrams result from traces between the tensor product factors. For
example, the o(r, q) decomposition analogous to (B.3) is

(B.4)

To decompose an irrep of o(d 1, 2) into irreps of its subalgebra o(d 1, 1) it is convenient


to identify the latter with the stability subalgebra of some nonzero time-like vector V A . The
mnemonic is that to obtain a set of tableaux of o(d 1, 1) one has to cut off boxes of the Young
tableau of o(d 1, 2) in all possible ways so that no two boxes were cut off in the same column. For example, for the o(d 1, 2) tableau
we obtain the following set of o(d 1, 1)
tableaux

(B.5)

In this paper, fields, gauge parameters and field strengths are p-forms with fiber indices in
finite-dimensional modules of o(d 1, 1) or o(d 1, 2), described by various Young tableaux.
Replacing the form index of a 1-form by the fiber one with the help of the vielbein em a (e.g.,
a(3),b|c = m a(3),b em|c ), the resulting fiber tensor decomposes into irreps of o(d 1, 1) according to the general rule for the tensor product with the vector representation. For instance, one
obtains for a(3),b|c

(B.6)

corresponds to m a(3),b em b .

In particular, here

Appendix C. Coefficients
The final result is
!
g(k, m) =

h(k, m)
!

G(k, m) =

H (k, m)


f (k, m) =
F (k, m) =

k+1
,
k(d + k 2)
km
,
(d + m 3)(k m + 1)

(k 1)(d + k 3)
,
k
(d + m 4)(k m + 2)
H (k, m 1)
,
km+1

h(k 1, m)


(C.1)

(C.2)
(C.3)
(C.4)

where
h(k, m) =

(k t + 1)(d + k + t 2)(s k 1)(d + s + k 2)


,
(k m + 1)(d + k + m 2)(d + 2k)

(C.5)

146

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

H (k, m) =

(s m)(d + s + m 3)(t m)(d + t + m 3)


.
(k m + 1)(d + u + m 2)(d + 2m 2)

(C.6)

These coefficients satisfy the following relations


(d + k 2)k
g(k, m),
(k + 1)
(d + m 3)(k m + 1)
F (k, m + 1) =
G(k, m)
(k m)
f (k + 1, m) =

(C.7)
(C.8)

which insure that the operators +1,2 are conjugated to 1,2 with respect to the scalar product
(4.32). Also note that
h(k, m) = f (k + 1, m)g(k, m),
H (k, m) = F (k, m + 1)G(k, m).

(C.9)
(C.10)

References
[1] S. Deser, R.I. Nepomechie, Phys. Lett. B 132 (1983) 321;
S. Deser, R.I. Nepomechie, Ann. Phys. 154 (1984) 396.
[2] A. Higuchi, YTP-85-22;
A. Higuchi, Nucl. Phys. B 282 (1987) 397;
A. Higuchi, J. Math. Phys. 28 (1987) 1553;
A. Higuchi, J. Math. Phys. 43 (2002) 6385, Erratum;
A. Higuchi, Class. Quantum Grav. 6 (1989) 397;
A. Higuchi, Nucl. Phys. B 325 (1989) 745.
[3] I. Bengtsson, J. Math. Phys. 36 (1995) 5805, gr-qc/9411057.
[4] S. Deser, A. Waldron, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 031601, hep-th/0102166;
S. Deser, A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B 607 (2001) 577, hep-th/0103198;
S. Deser, A. Waldron, Phys. Lett. B 508 (2001) 347, hep-th/0103255;
S. Deser, A. Waldron, Phys. Lett. B 513 (2001) 137, hep-th/0105181;
S. Deser, A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B 662 (2003) 379, hep-th/0301068;
S. Deser, A. Waldron, Conformal invariance of partially massless higher spins, hep-th/0408155.
[5] Y.M. Zinoviev, On massive high spin particles in (A)dS, hep-th/0108192.
[6] I.L. Buchbinder, D.M. Gitman, V.D. Pershin, Phys. Lett. B 492 (2000) 161, hep-th/0006144.
[7] K. Hallowell, A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B 724 (2005) 453, hep-th/0505255.
[8] L. Dolan, C.R. Nappi, E. Witten, JHEP 0110 (2001) 016, hep-th/0109096.
[9] N.T. Evans, J. Math. Phys. 8 (1967) 170.
[10] R.R. Metsaev, Phys. Lett. B 354 (1995) 78;
R.R. Metsaev, Arbitrary spin massless bosonic fields in d-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, hep-th/9810231.
[11] E. Angelopoulos, M. Laoues, Rev. Math. Phys. 10 (1998) 271, hep-th/9806100.
[12] L. Brink, R.R. Metsaev, M.A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 586 (2000) 183, hep-th/0005136.
[13] S. Ferrara, C. Fronsdal, Conformal fields in higher dimensions, hep-th/0006009.
[14] M.A. Vasiliev, JHEP 0412 (2004) 046, hep-th/0404124.
[15] F.A. Dolan, Character formulae and partition functions in higher dimensional conformal field theory, hepth/0508031.
[16] M.A. Vasiliev, Yad. Fiz. 32 (1980) 855.
[17] M.A. Vasiliev, Fortschr. Phys. 35 (1987) 741, Yad. Fiz. 45 (1987) 1784 (in Russian).
[18] V.E. Lopatin, M.A. Vasiliev, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 3 (1988) 257.
[19] M.A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 616 (2001) 106, hep-th/0106200;
M.A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 652 (2003) 407, Erratum.
[20] K.B. Alkalaev, O.V. Shaynkman, M.A. Vasiliev, Nucl. Phys. B 692 (2004) 363, hep-th/0311164.
[21] P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 155 (1936) 447.
[22] M. Fierz, W. Pauli, Proc. R. Soc. London A 173 (1939) 211.
[23] L.P.S. Singh, C.R. Hagen, Phys. Rev. D 9 (1974) 898.

E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 117147

[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]

[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]

[34]
[35]
[36]

[37]

147

M. Bianchi, F. Riccioni, Massive higher spins and holography, hep-th/0601071.


I.L. Buchbinder, V.A. Krykhtin, Nucl. Phys. B 727 (2005) 537, hep-th/0505092.
I.L. Buchbinder, V.A. Krykhtin, BRST approach to higher spin field theories, hep-th/0511276.
C. Fronsdal, Phys. Rev. D 18 (1978) 3624.
I.L. Buchbinder, V.A. Krykhtin, A. Pashnev, Nucl. Phys. B 711 (2005) 367, hep-th/0410215.
D. Francia, A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 543 (2002) 303, hep-th/0207002;
D. Francia, A. Sagnotti, Class. Quantum Grav. 20 (2003) S473, hep-th/0212185;
D. Francia, A. Sagnotti, Phys. Lett. B 624 (2005) 93, hep-th/0507144.
S.W. MacDowell, F. Mansouri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 739;
S.W. MacDowell, F. Mansouri, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38 (1977) 1376, Erratum.
X. Bekaert, S. Cnockaert, C. Iazeolla, M.A. Vasiliev, Nonlinear higher spin theories in various dimensions, hepth/0503128.
K.S. Stelle, P.C. West, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 1466.
M.A. Vasiliev, Higher spin gauge theories: Star-product and AdS space, hep-th/9910096;
M.A. Vasiliev, C. R. Physique 5 (2004) 1101, hep-th/0409260;
E. Sezgin, P. Sundell, Nucl. Phys. B 644 (2002) 303, hep-th/0205131;
E. Sezgin, P. Sundell, Nucl. Phys. B 660 (2003) 403, Erratum;
D. Sorokin, AIP Conf. Proc. 767 (2005) 172, hep-th/0405069;
N. Bouatta, G. Compere, A. Sagnotti, An introduction to free higher-spin fields, hep-th/0409068.
E.D. Skvortsov, M.A. Vasiliev, in preparation.
K.B. Alkalaev, O.V. Shaynkman, M.A. Vasiliev, JHEP 0508 (2005) 069, hep-th/0501108.
T. Curtright, P.G.O. Freund, Nucl. Phys. B 172 (1980) 413;
T. Curtright, Phys. Lett. B 165 (1985) 304;
C.S. Aulakh, I.G. Koh, S. Ouvry, Phys. Lett. B 173 (1986) 284;
J.M.F. Labastida, T.R. Morris, Phys. Lett. B 180 (1986) 101;
J.M.F. Labastida, Phys. Rev. Lett. 58 (1987) 531;
J.M.F. Labastida, Nucl. Phys. B 322 (1989) 185;
M. Dubois-Violette, M. Henneaux, Lett. Math. Phys. 49 (1999) 245, math.QA/9907135;
M. Dubois-Violette, M. Henneaux, Commun. Math. Phys. 226 (2002) 393, math.QA/0110088;
C. Burdik, A. Pashnev, M. Tsulaia, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 16 (2001) 731, hep-th/0101201;
P. de Medeiros, C. Hull, JHEP 0305 (2003) 019, hep-th/0303036;
P. de Medeiros, Class. Quantum Grav. 21 (2004) 2571, hep-th/0311254;
X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger, Commun. Math. Phys. 245 (2004) 27, hep-th/0208058;
C.C. Ciobirca, E.M. Cioroianu, S.O. Saliu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 4579, hep-th/0403017;
R.R. Metsaev, Class. Quantum Grav. 22 (2005) 2777, hep-th/0412311;
K.B. Alkalaev, Mixed-symmetry gauge fields in AdS(5), hep-th/0501105;
K.B. Alkalaev, Theor. Math. Phys. 140 (2004) 1253, Teor. Mat. Fiz. 140 (2004) 424, hep-th/0311212.
Y.M. Zinoviev, On massive mixed symmetry tensor fields in Minkowski space and (A)dS, hep-th/0211233;
Y.M. Zinoviev, First order formalism for mixed symmetry tensor fields, hep-th/0304067;
Y.M. Zinoviev, First order formalism for massive mixed symmetry tensor fields in Minkowski and (A)dS spaces,
hep-th/0306292.

Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

Transverse FierzPauli symmetry


E. lvarez a , D. Blas b, , J. Garriga b , E. Verdaguer b
a Instituto de Fsica Terica UAM/CSIC, C-XVI, and Departamento de Fsica Terica, C-XI,

Universidad Autnoma de Madrid, E-28049-Madrid, Spain


b Departament de Fsica Fondamental, Universitat de Barcelona, Diagonal 647, 08028 Barcelona, Spain

Received 16 June 2006; accepted 8 August 2006


Available online 30 August 2006

Abstract
We consider some flat space theories for spin 2 gravitons, with less invariance than full diffeomorphisms.
For the massless case, classical stability and absence of ghosts require invariance under transverse diffeomorphisms (TDiff), h  h + 2( ) , with = 0. Generic TDiff invariant theories contain a
propagating scalar, which disappears if the symmetry is enhanced in one of two ways. One possibility is
to consider full diffeomorphisms (Diff). The other (which we denote WTDiff) adds a Weyl symmetry, by
which the Lagrangian becomes independent of the trace. The first possibility corresponds to General Relativity, whereas the second corresponds to unimodular gravity (in a certain gauge). Phenomenologically,
both options are equally acceptable. For massive gravitons, the situation is more restrictive. Up to field
redefinitions, classical stability and absence of ghosts lead directly to the standard FierzPauli Lagrangian.
In this sense, the WTDiff theory is more rigid against deformations than linearized GR, since a mass term
cannot be added without provoking the appearance of ghosts.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It has long been known that, in theories containing a massless spin 2 graviton propagating
in flat space, unitarity requires invariance under transverse diffeomorphisms. The argument
runs as follows [1]. Consider a graviton of momentum k travelling in the z direction. The little
group of Lorentz transformations which leave k invariant has three generators. One of them, Iz ,
corresponds to rotations in the x, y plane. The other two, I0x and I0y , correspond to transverse
* Corresponding author.

E-mail address: dblas@ffn.ub.es (D. Blas).


0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.003

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

149

boosts combined with rotations in the x, z and y, z plane.1 This little group is isomorphic to the
Euclidean group in 2 dimensions. The standard helicity polarizations of the graviton2 h+ ih ,
transform unitarily under Iz (picking up phases exp(2i) under rotations of angle ) cf. [1,2].
But unitary representations of the non-compact translations I0i would be infinite dimensional,
leading to an infinite number of polarizations for given k. This catastrophic degeneracy is avoided
by declaring the equivalence of polarizations which are related to one another by standard gauge
transformation h  h + 2k( ) . It can then be shown that the effect of I0i on the standard
helicity eigenstates is pure gauge, and in this sense I0i act trivially, producing no new states of
momentum k. The interesting point, however, is that the trace h = h is Lorentz invariant
(and hence invariant under I0i ), and therefore it is sufficient to consider the equivalence under
transverse gauge transformations, which do not affect the trace,
k = 0.

(1)

These form a subgroup which we shall refer to as transverse FierzPauli symmetry, or transverse
diffeomorphisms (TDiff).
This paper is devoted to the study of some flat space theories containing spin two, that have
less invariance than the full diffeomorphisms (Diff) of the standard FierzPauli Lagrangian. We
start our discussion, in Section 2, with the most general Lorentz invariant Lagrangian for a massless graviton. We show that a simple requirement of classical stability and absence of ghosts
leads directly to TDiff invariance (and no more invariance than that).
In the non-linear regime, TDiff symmetry is realized in the so-called unimodular theories. The
best known example is Einsteins 1919 theory (cf. [2] for a recent reference), which corresponds
to the traceless part of the usual Einsteins equations. This theory can be obtained from an action
which is still generally covariant, but where the determinant of the metric is not dynamical [3].
The equations of motion are obtained from a restricted variational principle where

|g| = 0.
(2)
The trace-free equations enjoy the property that a cosmological term in the matter Lagrangian is
irrelevant. Nevertheless, the trace of Einsteins equations can be recovered with the help of the
Bianchi identity, and then a cosmological term reappears in the form
of an integration constant.
Alternatively, we may start with a variational principle where |g| is unrestricted, and with
an action which is invariant only under TDiff [4]. Generically, this leads to scalar-tensor theories, where the determinant of the metric plays the role of a new scalar. As we shall see, this
new degree of freedom can be eliminated by imposing an additional Weyl symmetry (by which
the action becomes independent of the determinant of the metric). Thus, Einsteins unimodular
theory can be thought of as the theory of massless spin two fields which is invariant under TDiff
plus certain Weyl transformations.3
Section 3 is devoted to the massive theory. Mass terms which preserve TDiff would give
mass to the new scalar, but not to the spin 2 polarizations. Graviton mass terms necessarily
break all invariance under diffeomorphisms. For massive particles, the little group is that of
1 These rotations correct for aberration of k under the respective boosts.
2 Up to overall normalization, h+ dx dx dy dy and h dx dy + dy dx.
3 Also, in the absence of this additional Weyl symmetry, the new scalar can be given a mass (which may be expected

from radiative corrections, since it is not protected by any symmetry). If the mass is large enough, this leads us back to
the situation where the extra scalar does not propagate at low energies, which is effectively equivalent to the scenario
described by Eq. (2).

150

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

ordinary spatial rotations O(3), which leads to finite dimensional unitary representations without
the need of invoking any gauge symmetry. Naively, one might think that this would increase the
arbitrariness in the choice of the kinetic term. Nevertheless, as we shall see, the only theory
with massive gravitons which is free from tachyons or ghosts is equivalent to the FierzPauli
theory, where the kinetic term is invariant under Diff (not just TDiff), and the mass term is of the
standard form m2 (h h h2 ) (see also [5]). In Section 4 we consider the propagator for TDiff
invariant theories, and the coupling to conserved matter sources. We conclude in Section 5.
Throughout this paper we will follow the LandauLifshitz time-like conventions; the ndimensional flat metric in particular, reads = diag(1, 1, . . . , 1). Lagrangians are written
in momentum space as well as in configuration space, depending on the context. It is usually
trivial to shift from one language to the other.
2. Massless theory
Let us begin our discussion with the most general Lorentz invariant local Lagrangian for a
free massless symmetric tensor field h ,
L = LI + LII + aLIII + bLIV ,

(3)

where we have introduced


1
1
LII = h h ,
LI = h h ,
4
2
1
1
LIV = h h.
LIII = h h ,
(4)
2
4
The first term is strictly needed for the propagation of spin two particles, and we give it the
conventional normalization. Before proceeding to the dynamical analysis, which will be done in
Section 2.4, it will be useful to consider the possible symmetries of (3) according to the values
of , a and b.
2.1. TDiff and enhanced symmetries
Under a general transformation of the fields h  h + h , and up to total derivatives,
we have
1
LII = h ( h)
LI = h 2h ,
,
2

1
1
LIII = h h + h h ,
LIV = h2h.
2
2
It follows that the combination [2]
LA LI + LII

(5)

(6)

is invariant under restricted gauge transformations


h = 2( ) ,

(7)

= 0.

(8)

with

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

151

Since LIII and LIV are (separately) invariant under this symmetry, the most general TDiff invariant Lagrangian has = 1, and arbitrary coefficients a and b:
LTDiff LA + aLIII + bLIV .

(9)

An enhanced symmetry can be obtained by adjusting a and b appropriately. For instance,


a = b = 1 corresponds to the FierzPauli Lagrangian [6], which is invariant under full diffeomorphisms (Diff), where the condition (8) is dropped. In fact, a one parameter family of Lagrangians
can be obtained from the FierzPauli one through non-derivative field redefinitions,
h  h + h

( = 1/n)

(10)

where n is the spacetime dimension and the condition = 1/n is necessary for the transformation to be invertible. Under this redefinition, the parameters in the Lagrangian (9) change
as


a  a + (an 2),
b  b + 2(nb a 1) + 2 bn2 n(2a + 1) + 2 .
(11)
Starting from a = b = 1, the new parameters are related by
b=

1 2a + (n 1)a 2
.
(n 2)

(12)

It follows that Lagrangians where this relation is satisfied are equivalent to FierzPauli, with the
exception of the case a = 2/n, which cannot be reached from a = 1 with = 1/n.
A second possibility is to enhance TDiff with an additional Weyl symmetry,
2
h = ,
(13)
n
by which the action becomes independent of the trace. In the generic transverse Lagrangian
LTDiff [h ] of Eq. (9), replace h with the traceless part
h  h h (h/n) .

(14)

This is formally analogous to (10) with = 1/n, but cannot be interpreted as a field redefinition. As such, it would be singular, because the trace h cannot be recovered from h . The
resulting Lagrangian
LWTDiff [h ] LTDiff [h ],

(15)

is still invariant under TDiff (the replacement (14) does not change the coefficients in front of the
terms LI and LII ). Moreover, it is invariant under (13), since h is. Using (11) with = 1/n,
we immediately find that this WTDiff symmetry corresponds to Lagrangian parameters
n+2
2
b= 2 .
a= ,
(16)
n
n
This is the exceptional case mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph. Note that the densitized metric g = g 1/n g + h enjoys the property that g = 1. This is the starting
point for the non-linear generalization of the WTDiff invariant theory, which is discussed in
Section 2.5.
It is easy to show that Diff and WTDiff exhaust all possible enhancements of TDiff for a Lagrangian of the form (3) (and that, in fact, these are its largest possible gauge symmetry groups).
Note first, that the variation of LI involves a term 2h . For arbitrary h , this will only cancel

152

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

against other terms in (5) provided that the transformation is of the form
2
,
n
for some and . The vector can be decomposed as
h = 2( ) +

(17)

= +

(18)

where

= 0. Using (5) we readily find

 



(b a)22 h + (2 a 1)2 h
L = ( 1)2 h +
2


+ (bn a 1)2h + (2 na) h .
(19)
n
TDiff corresponds to taking = 1, with arbitrary transverse and with = = 0. This symmetry can be enhanced with non-vanishing and satisfying the relation
n(a 1)2 = 2(2 an),

(20)

provided that
1 2a + (n 1)a 2
.
(21)
(n 2)
Eq. (20) ensures the cancellation of the terms with h , and Eq. (21) eliminates terms containing the trace h. Eq. (21) agrees with (12), and therefore the Lagrangian with the enhanced
symmetry is equivalent to FierzPauli, unless a = 2/n, which corresponds to WTDiff.4
b=

2.2. Comparing Diff and WTDiff


Let us briefly consider the differences between the two enhanced symmetry groups. A first
question is whether the FierzPauli theory LDiff is classically equivalent to LWTDiff . Since Diff
includes TDiff, we can use (15) to obtain


SWTDiff [h] SDiff [h]
1

(22)
=
( )
.
h
n
h
Hence, the WTDiff equations of motion are traceless
SWTDiff [h]
0.
h
In the WTDiff theory, the trace of h can be changed arbitrarily by a Weyl transformation, and we
can always go to the gauge where h = 0. Likewise, in the familiar Diff theory we can choose a
gauge where h = 0. Then, h = h , and the WTDiff equations of motion (e.o.m.) are just the
traceless part of the FierzPauli e.o.m. Differentiating Eq. (22) with respect to x and using the
Bianchi identity


SDiff [h]

= 0,
h
4 Incidentally, it may be noted that for n = 2 both possibilities coincide, since in this case the symmetry of the Fierz
Pauli Lagrangian is full diffeomorphisms plus Weyl transformations.

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

153

one easily finds that SWTDiff [h]/h = 0 implies


SDiff [h]
= .
h
Hence, the trace of the FierzPauli e.o.m. is also recovered from the WTDiff e.o.m. (in the gauge
h = 0), up to an arbitrary integration constant which plays the role of a cosmological constant.5
Thus, the two theories are closely related, but they are not quite the same.
Let us now consider the relation between the corresponding symmetry groups. Acting infinitesimally on h they give
D h = 2( ) = 2( ) + ,
(23)
2
W T D h = 2( ) + ,
(24)
n
where = = 0. In (23) we have decomposed = + into transverse and longitudinal part. The intersection of Diff and WTDiff can be found by Eqs. (23) and (24)
2
2( ) + = 2( ) + .
n
Taking the trace, we have
2 = 2.

(25)

(26)

The divergence of (25) now yields


n1
2 .
n
Taking the divergence once more, we have
2( ) =

(27)

2 = 0.

(28)

Taking the derivative of (27) with respect to , symmetrizing with respect to and , and using
(25) and (26), we have (n 2) 2 = 0. For n = 2 this implies = 0, i.e.
= b x + c,
where b and c are constants. Hence, not every Weyl transformation belongs to Diff, since only
the s which are linear in x qualify as such. Conversely, the subset of Diff which can be
expressed as Weyl transformations are the solutions of the conformal Killing equation for the
Minkowski metric [7],
1
CD
( )
= ,
n

(29)

where = CD (and, as shown above, has to be a linear function of x ). These solutions


generate the so-called conformal group, which we may denote by CDiff. In conclusion, the enhanced symmetry groups Diff and WTDiff are not subsets of each other. Rather, their intersection
is the set of TDiff plus CDiff.
5 Here we assume = O(h).

154

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

2.3. Traceless FierzPauli and WTDiff


An alternative route to the WTDiff invariant theory is to try and construct a Lagrangian which
will yield the traceless part of Einsteins equations.
It is clear, however, that we can only obtain traceless equations of motion from a Lagrangian
which is invariant under Weyl transformations. If the e.o.m. are traceless, then S = 0 for variations of the form for h . This symmetry is not included in Diff, and therefore the
traceless part of Einsteins equations cannot be recovered from this Lagrangian in every gauge.
Rather, we should look for a Lagrangian which will yield the traceless part of Einsteins equations in some gauge.
Let us consider the Diff e.o.m. in momentum space
SDiff [h]

= KDiff h ,
h

(30)

where



8KDiff = k 2 + 2


k k + k k + k k + k k 2k k 2k k .
(31)
We can also define the traces

n 2
k k k 2 ,
4
(n 1)(n 2) 2

tr tr KDiff = KDiff =
k .
4

tr KDiff = KDiff =

(32)

The traceless part of the KDiff ,




1

t
8KDiff
= 8 KDiff tr KDiff ,
n

(33)

cannot be derived from a Lagrangian as it is not symmetric in the indices ( ) vs. (). Nevertheless, we can still define traceless symmetric Lagrangians. One might think of substituting

in the previous expression by tr KDiff , and dividing by its trace. However, this would be
non-local.
For a local Lagrangian which is still invariant under TDiff, we must restrict to deformations
which correspond to changes in the parameters a and b in (3). The most general symmetric
Lagrangian with these properties is of the form

KtDiff KDiff M M ,

(34)

with M a symmetric operator at most quadratic in the momentum. Asking that the result be
traceless leads to:

1

M = tr KDiff (tr M) ,
(35)
n
which implies
tr M =

1
tr tr KDiff .
2n

(36)

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

Therefore
M



1
1

=
tr KDiff (tr tr KDiff )
,
n
2n

155

(37)

and we can write

8KtDiff = k 2 ( + ) (k k + k k + k k + k k )
2(n + 2) 2
4

(38)
k + (k k + k k ).
2
n
n
Moving back to the position space, this corresponds to the WTDiff Lagrangian, i.e. the case
in (9). As shown before, this yields the traceless part of the FierzPauli
a = n2 and b = n+2
n2
e.o.m. in the gauge h = 0.
A similar analysis could be done for the massive case. However, as we shall see in the next
section, the corresponding Lagrangian has a ghost.
2.4. Dynamical analysis of the general massless Lagrangian
The little group argument mentioned in the introduction indicates that the quantum theory
is not unitary unless the Lagrangian is invariant under TDiff. In fact, in the absence of TDiff
symmetry the Hamiltonian is unbounded below. This leads to pathologies such as classical instabilities or the existence of ghosts.
To show this, as well as to analyze the physical degrees of freedom of the general massless
theory (3), it is very convenient to use the cosmological decomposition in terms of scalars,
vectors, and tensors under spatial rotations SO(3) (see e.g. [8]),
h00 = A,

h0i = i B + Vi ,

hij = ij + i j E + 2(i Fj ) + tij ,

(39)

= ij = = 0. The point of this decomposition is that in the linearized


where
i =
theory the scalars (A, B, , E), vectors (Vi , Fi ) and tensors (tij ) decouple from each other.
Also, we can easily identify the physical degrees of freedom without having to fix a gauge (see
Appendix A).
The tensors tij only contribute to LI , and one readily finds
iF

(t)

i Vi

it

tii

1
L = t ij 2tij .
4

(40)

The vectors contribute both to LI and LII . Working in Fourier space for the spatial coordinates
and after some straightforward algebra, we have
(v)

2 1
2

1 
L = k2 V i F i + ( 1) k2 F i + V i .
2
2

(41)

For = 1, corresponding to TDiff symmetry, there are no derivatives of V i in the Lagrangian.


Variation with respect to V i leads to the constraint V i F i = 0, which upon substitution in (41)
shows that there is no vector dynamics.
Other values of lead to pathologies. The Hamiltonian is given by
(v)

H=

(F + k2 V )2 [V + (1 )k2 F ]2 (1 )k4 F 2 k2 V 2

,
2(1 )
2
2
2k2

(42)

156

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

where the momenta are given by F = k2 (F V ) and V = ( 1)(k2 F + V ), and we have


suppressed the index i in the vectors F and V . Because of the alternating signs in Eq. (42), the
Hamiltonian is not bounded below. Generically this leads to a classical instability. The momenta
satisfy the equations F = k2 V and V = F . These have the general oscillatory solution


|k|V + iF = C exp i |k|t + 0 ,
where C and 0 are real integration constants. On the other hand, V and F satisfy

F ,
(43)
( 1)

F + k2 F =
(44)
V .
( 1)
For = 0 these are equations for forced oscillators. For large times, the homogeneous solution
becomes irrelevant and we have




Ct
exp i |k|t + 0 ,
V + i|k|F
( 1)|k|
V + k2 V =

whose amplitude grows without bound, linearly with time. This classical instability is not present
for = 0. However, in this case F and V decouple and we have
2 1 
2
1 
(v)
L=0 = k2 F i V i ,
2
2
so Vi are ghosts.
Hence, the only case where the vector Lagrangian is not problematic is = 1, corresponding
to invariance under TDiff. The scalar Lagrangian is then given by6

1
(s)
LTDiff = ( A)2 2k2 ( B)2 + N ( )2 2k2 E + k4 ( E)2
4
2


1 
A + k2 B k2 B 2 k2 2 + 2k4 E k6 E 2 + 2k2 B k2 E

2





a 
A N + k2 E A + k2 B k2 A N + k2 E B + k2 E
+
2
2
b 
A N + k2 E ,
(45)
4
where N = n 1 is the dimension of space. It is easy to check that B is a Lagrange multiplier,
leading to the constraint
(N 1) = (a 1)h,

(46)

+ k2 E

where h = A N
is the trace of the metric perturbation. Substituting this back into the
scalar action (45) we readily find
(s)

LTDiff =

b
( h)2 ,
4

(47)

where
b b

1 2a + (n 1)a 2
.
n2

6 The equivalent expression in terms of gauge invariant combinations is given in Appendix A.

(48)

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

157

Hence, the scalar sector contains a single physical degree of freedom, proportional to the trace.
Whether this scalar is a ghost or not is determined by the parameters a and b. For b = (1 2a +
(n 1)a 2 )/(n 2), corresponding to the enhanced symmetries which we studied in the previous
subsection, the scalar sector disappears completely, and we are just left with the tensor modes.
2.5. Non-linear theory
Non-linear generalizations of TDiff invariant theories have been discussed in [4] (see also
[9]). The basic idea is to split the metric degrees of freedom into the determinant g, and a new
= 1. Note that g is a tensor density,
metric g = |g|1/n g , whose determinant is fixed |g|
and under arbitrary diffeomorphisms (for which g = 2( ) ) it transforms as
2
g = 2g ( ) g ,
(49)
n
where denotes covariant derivative with respect to g . Next, one defines transverse diffeomorphisms as those which satisfy
= = 0,

(50)

where in the first equality we have used |g|


= 1. Under such TDiff, the new metric transforms as
a tensor
g = 2g ( ) ,
while g transforms as a scalar
g = g.
Moreover [4], the only tensors under TDiff which can be constructed from g are the geometric
and its contractions. It follows that the most general action invariant
ones, such as R [g]
under TDiff which contains at most two derivatives of the metric takes the form


2 [g, ]
R[g ] + L[g, , g ] d n x.
S=
(51)

2
Here, is a scalar made out of the matter fields and g. Thus, the TDiff invariant theories can be
seen as unimodular scalar-tensor theories, where g plays the role of an additional scalar. These
are very similar to the standard scalar-tensor theories, except for the presence of an arbitrary
integration constant in the effective potential. Following [4], we may go to the Einstein frame by
defining g = 2 g , and we have


1 
S=
(52)
gR[
g ] d n x + SM + d n x,
2
where
SM =

(n 1)(n 2)
n
n
g
g

L[,
,
g

d n x.

2 2

(53)

Here, we have first eliminated g in favor of , and we have then implemented the constraint
g = 2n [g, ] through the Lagrange multiplier (x). Note that the invariance under full diffeomorphisms which treat g as a metric and and as scalars is only broken by the last term
in (52). In particular, SM is Diff invariant, and since = , it is straightforward to show

158

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

that if the equations of motion for , and are satisfied, then


|g|
1/2 T = .
Here, we have introduced T = 2|g|
1/2 SM / g . On the other hand, the Einsteins equations which follow from (52) imply the conservation of the source T = 0, and therefore we
are led to
= const.
This is the arbitrary integration constant, which will feed into the equations of motion as an extra
term in the potential for , corresponding to the last term in Eq. (53). In general, this will shift
the height and position of the minima of the potential for the scalar fields on which depends.
In the particular case where we have [g, ] = 1 in Eq. (51), the effect is just an arbitrary shift
in the cosmological constant.
Diff invariance is recovered when all terms in SM , given in Eq. (53), except for the last one,
are independent of . In that case, is a Lagrange multiplier which sets = 0, so the freedom
to choose the height (or position) of the minimum of the potential is lost.
Likewise, if the action (51) does not depend on g, then the symmetry is WTDiff. The situation
is exactly the same as in the TDiff case, where now = []. For instance the simple action

1
SWTDiff =
(54)
d n x R[g ],
2
which has = 1, leads to the equations of motion
1
R R g = g ,
2

(55)

with arbitrary integration constant (note that in this case g = g ). This coincides with the
standard Einsteins equations in the gauge |g| = 1. The same action can be expressed in terms of
the original metric g as



1
(n 1)(n 2)
d n x(g)1/n R[g ] +
SWTDiff =
(56)

ln
g
ln
g
.

2
4n2
This is invariant under Weyl transformations
g  2 (x)g ,

(57)

since g is unaffected by these. Of course, it is also invariant under transverse diffeomorphisms


and provides, therefore, an example of a consistent non-linear completion of a pure spin two Lagrangian (namely the WTDiff Lagrangian which we considered in Section 2), which is different
from GR.
Note that the equations of motion can be derived in two different ways: directly from (54)
under restricted variations of g (since by definition |g|
= 1), or from (56) under unrestricted
variations of g . Whichever representation is used may be a matter of convenience, but there
seems to be no fundamental difference between the two. In the latter case, the equations of motion
will be completely equivalent to (55), although they will only take the same form in the gauge
|g| = 1.
It is worth mentioning that equations of the form (55) with an arbitrary can also be derived
under unrestricted variations of an action which is not invariant under (57). An example is given

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

159

by



1 
S=
(58)
gR + f (g) d n x.
2
Here, the second term breaks Diff to TDiff, and there is no Weyl invariance. However, the equations of motion will give

1
R Rg = gf (g)g ,
2
and from the Bianchi
identities it follows that g is an arbitrary constant (except in the Diff invariant case when f g ), a situation identical to (55). It is unclear whether the action (58) is of
any fundamental significance, since the remaining TDiff symmetry does not forbid an arbitrary
function of g in front of R, and additional kinetic terms for g. Nevertheless, Lagrangians similar
to (58) do arise in the context of certain bigravity theories where the interaction term between
two gravitons breaks Diff Diff to the diagonal Diff times a TDiff symmetry [10].
To conclude, it should be stressed that it seems to be very difficult to determine from experiment whether Diff, WTDiff or just TDiff is the relevant symmetry. The difference between
WTDiff and the rest of TDiff theories is just the absence of the extra scalar. However, this scalar
may well have a mass comparable to the cut-off scale, and in this case it would not be seen at
low energies. Also, at the classical level, the WTDiff differs only from Diff in that the cosmological constant is arbitrary. Of course the measurement of this constant does not reveal too much
about its origin. Therefore, the only observable differences between both theories may be in
the quantum theory [2,3,1114].
3. Massive fields
Let us now turn our attention to the massive case. The most general mass term takes the form7
1
1
Lm = m21 h h + m22 h2 .
4
4
First of all, let us note that for m1 = 0, this mass term is still invariant under TDiff. The term
m22 h2 gives a mass to the scalar h, but not to the tensor modes tij , which are traceless. Hence,
the analysis of the previous section remains basically unchanged. If m22 > 0 is larger than the
energy scales we are interested in, the extra scalar effectively decouples, and we are back to the
situation where only the standard helicity polarizations of the graviton are allowed to propagate.8
When m1 = 0, we must repeat the analysis.9 With the decomposition (39), the Lagrangian for
the tensor modes becomes

1 
(t)
L = t ij 2 + m21 tij ,
(59)
4
7 Here, we are disregarding the possibility of Lorentz breaking mass terms, which has been recently considered in
[10,15].
8 Note also that the addition of the term m2 h2 to both the Diff or the WTDiff Lagrangian does not change the propa2
gating degrees of freedom of the theory. The analogous statement in a non-linear context is illustrated by the Lagrangian
(58), where a potential f (g) is added to a Diff invariant Lagrangian (something does change, though, by the addition
of the potential, since the new theory does have the arbitrary integration constant ). Hence, one may in principle construct classical Lagrangians which propagate only massless spin 2 particles, and whose symmetry is only TDiff, although
in this case radiative stability is not guaranteed (i.e. we may expect other terms, such as kinetic terms for the determinant
g, which are not protected by the symmetry, to be generated by quantum corrections).
9 For a similar analysis in terms of spin projectors see [5].

160

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

and in order to avoid tachyonic instabilities we need m21 > 0. For the vector modes, and for = 1,
the potential term
Hv =

m21  2  i 2  i 2 
,
k F V
2

is added to (42). The contribution proportional to V 2 is negative definite. Hence, to avoid ghosts
or tachyons we must take = 1. In this case, V i does not appear in the Lagrangian and V i can
be eliminated in favor of F i . This leads to




1 k2 m21
(v)
L=
F i 2 + m21 F i .
(60)
2 k2 + m21
Out of the (N 2 + N 2)/2 polarizations of the massive graviton in N + 1 dimensions, (N 2
N 2)/2 of these are expressed as transverse and traceless tensors tij , and N 1 are expressed
as transverse vectors F i . The remaining one must be contained in the scalar sector. The scalar
Lagrangian can be written as
(s)

L = (s) LTDiff + (s) Lm ,

(61)

where the first term is given by (45) and the second is given by
 m2 
2
m21  2
A 2k2 B 2 + N 2 2k2 E + k4 E 2 + 2 A N + k2 E .
4
4
Variation with respect to B leads to the constraint



m21 B = (1 a) A + k2 E (1 aN).
(s)

Lm =

(62)

To proceed, it is convenient to eliminate E in favor of the trace h,


k2 E = h + N A,
and to further express A and in terms of new variables U and V ,


(N 1)A = (aN 1)h + 2(N 1)k2 N m21 U,
(N 1) = (a 1)h m21 (U V ).

(63)

With these substitutions, and after some algebra, we find


(s)

L=

 W (h, U, V )
b 2 [N m21 2(N 1)k2 ]m21  2
,
h +
V U 2 +
4
4(N 1)
4(N 1)2

where b is given by (48) and




 



W (N 1)2 k2 b + m22 1 + 1 4a + a 2 N + a 2 N 2 m21 h2


+ (N 1)m41 (N 2)k2 N m21 V 2




m21 4(N 1)2 k4 + 2 + N 3N 2 m21 k2 + N (N + 1)m41 U 2


+ 4(N 1)m21 k2 N m21 (N 1)k2 U V




+ 2m21 (N + 1)a 2 N m21 (N 1)k2 U (N 1)k2 V h.

(64)

(65)

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

161

For 2(N 1)k2 < N m21 the variable U has negative kinetic energy, whereas for 2(N 1)k2 >
Nm21 the same is true of V . Thus, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below, unless
b = 0.

(66)

In this case, h is non-dynamical, and it will implement a constraint between U and V provided
that the coefficient of h2 in W vanishes identically. This requires


1 + (1 4a + a 2 )N + a 2 N 2
m21 .
m22 =
(67)
(N 1)2
As discussed in Section 2, as long as a = 2/(N + 1), all kinetic Lagrangians with b = 0 are
related to the FierzPauli kinetic term by the field redefinition (10). Thus, there are only two possibilities for eliminating the ghost: either the kinetic term is invariant under Diff or it is invariant
under WTDiff.
3.1. Diff invariant kinetic term
Without loss of generality, we can take a = b = 1, and from (67) we have the usual FierzPauli
relation
m21 = m22 .
Variation with respect to h leads to the constraint


(N 1)k2 V = N m21 (N 1)k2 U.

(68)

In combination with (63), this yields




(N 1)k2 = m21 N m21 2(N 1)k2 U.

(69)

Substituting (68) in the Lagrangian, and using (69) we obtain


(s)

L=



N
2 + m21 ,
4(N 1)

(70)

which is the remaining scalar degree of freedom of the graviton.


The tensor, vector and scalar Lagrangians (59), (60) and (70) are not in a manifestly Lorentz
invariant form, and the actual form of the propagating polarizations is obscured by the fact that
the components of the metric must be found from F i and with the help of the constraint
equations. Nevertheless, once we know that the system has no ghosts and all polarizations have
the same dispersion relation, it is trivial to repeat the analysis in the rest frame of the graviton,
k = 0. In this frame, the metric is homogeneous i h = 0 and we may write
h00 = A,
where

tii

(t)

h0i = Vi ,

hij = ij + tij ,

= 0. The Lagrangian for tensors becomes


1 
L = t ij 2 + m21 tij .
4

(71)

Vectors contribute to LI and LII , giving


(v)

1
1
L = ( 1)Vi2 + m21 Vi2 ,
2
2

(72)

162

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

which is non-dynamical in the present case because = 1. Likewise, it can easily be shown
that the scalars A an are non-dynamical. Therefore, in the graviton rest frame the propagating
polarizations are represented by the [N (N + 1)/2] 1 independent components of the symmetric
traceless tensor tij .
3.2. WTDiff invariant kinetic term
For a = 2/n = 2/(N + 1), the last term in Eq. (65) disappears, and U and V do not mix with
h. Because of that, there are no further constraints amongst these variables and the ghost in the
kinetic term in (64) is always present for m21 = 0. This means that the WTDiff theory cannot be
deformed with the addition of a mass term for the graviton without provoking the appearance of
a ghost.
Note that this is so even in the case of a mass term compatible with the Weyl symmetry, i.e.
m21 = nm22 . This relation causes h to disappear from the Lagrangian, but of course it does nothing
to eliminate the ghost.
4. Propagators and coupling to matter
In this section we shall consider the propagators and the coupling to external matter sources,
for the different trouble-free Lagrangians which we have identified in the previous sections.
On one hand, we have the standard massless and massive FierzPauli theories, which have
been thoroughly studied in the literature. There are also the generic ghost-free TDiff theories,
which satisfy the condition
b b

1 2a + (n 1)a 2
< 0.
n2

(73)

These may include a mass term of the form m2 h2 , which affects the scalar mode but does not
give a mass to the tensor modes. The WTDiff invariant theory completes the list of possibilities.
Throughout this section, we will make use of the spin two projector formalism of [16], which
is very useful in order to invert the equations of motion. The properties of these projectors are
summarized in Appendix B.
4.1. Gauge fixing
As noted in [2], for the TDiff gauge symmetry there is no linear covariant gauge fixing condition which is at most quadratic in the momenta. This is in contrast with the FierzPauli case,
where the harmonic condition contains first derivatives only. The basic problem is that a covariant gauge-fixing carries a free index, which leads to n independent conditions. This is more than
what transverse diffeomorphisms can handle, since these have only (n 1) independent arbitrary
functions. To be specific, let us consider the most general possibility linear in k,
M h = 0,

(74)

where
M = a1 ( k ) + a2 k .

(75)

In order to bring a generic metric h to this gauge by means of a TDiff, we have


M h = M .

(76)

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

163

However, deriving the r.h.s. of the previous expression with respect to x and summing in , this
terms cancels, which implies that the integrability condition
M h = 0,

(77)

must be satisfied. This simply means that the gauge condition cannot be enforced on generic
metrics.
It is plain, however, that the transverse part of the harmonic gauge (which contains only n 1
independent conditions) can be reached by a transverse gauge transformation. The corresponding
gauge fixing piece is obtained by projecting the harmonic condition with k 2 k k k 2 :
2
1 
h 2 h .
(78)
2M 4
The gauge fixing parameter is now dimensionful, and this has been explicitly indicated by denoting it by M 4 . A study of this kind of term and its associated FP ghosts and BRST transformations
can be found in [13].
By contrast, in the case of WTDiff, the additional Weyl symmetry allows for the use of gauge
fixing terms which are linear in the derivatives (such as the standard harmonic gauge).
Lgf =

4.2. Propagators
The generic Lagrangian can be written in Fourier space as
L = LI + LII + aLIII + bLIV + Lm + Lgf
1
= h K h
4




1
= h k 2 m21 P2 + (1 )k 2 m21 + 2 (k) P1
4

+ as P0s + aw P0w + a P0
h ,

(79)

where P1 and P2 are the projectors onto the subspaces of spin 1 and spin 0 respectively, while the
operators P0s , P0w and P0 P0sw + P0ws project onto and mix the different spin 0 components.
The definitions and properties of these operators are discussed in Appendix B. The coefficients
in front of the spin 0 projectors are given by


as = 1 (n 1)b k 2 m21 + (n 1)m22 ,
aw = (1 2 + 2a b)k 2 m21 + m22 ,



a = n 1 (a b)k 2 + m22 .

(80)

In (79), we have included the term 2 (k)P1 which can be used to gauge fix the TDiff symmetry
whenever it is present. Indeed, (78) can be written as

Lgf = 2 (k)h P1

h ,

(81)

where 2 (k) = (1/4M 4 )k 6 . Even though we are primarily interested in the TDiff Lagrangian
(which corresponds to = 1), we have kept generic throughout this subsection. This can
be useful to handle the cases with enhanced symmetry, since a generic arises, for instance,
from the conventional harmonic gauge fixing term (as we shall see below). When invertible,

164

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

the previous Lagrangian yields a propagator  K 1 ,


=

k2


P2
P1
1 
+
aw P0s + as P0w a P0 ,
+
2
2
2
2
m1 (1 )k m1 + (k) g(k)

where,
2
g(k) = as aw a
.

Consider a generic coupling of the form



1
1
Lint (x) = 1 T + 2 T h Ttot h .
2
2
For conserved external sources,
T = 0,

(82)

(83)

(84)

this coupling is invariant under TDiff for all values of 1 and 2 . Moreover, it is Diff invariant
when 2 = 0, and WTDiff invariant for the special case 1 = n2 . The interaction between
sources is completely characterized by [17]


1
1
d n k Lint (k) =
d n k Ttot (k)  Ttot (k) .
Sint
(85)
2
2
From the properties of the projectors Pi listed in Appendix B, it is straightforward to show
that
 
P2

T + P0 |T |2 ,
Lint (k) = 12 T
(86)
k 2 m21
where the operator


2




1 aw
1
a
+ 22 (n 1)aw + as 2 n 1a
P0 =
+ 21 2 aw
g(k) (n 1)
n1
(87)
encodes the contribution of the spin 0 part. We are now ready to consider the different particular
cases, which we present by order of increasing symmetry.
4.3. Massive FierzPauli
In this case the parameters in the Lagrangian are given by = a = b = 1 and m21 = m22 . From
(82), we have
g(k) = (n 1)m42 ,
which does not depend on k. Because of that, the denominator of the operator P0 does not
contain any derivatives. Its contribution to Eq. (86) corresponds only to contact terms, which
do not contribute to the interaction between separate sources. We are thus left with the spin 2
interaction, which ignoring all contact terms, can be written as
 


12
P2
1
2

2
Lint = 1 T
(88)
|T | .
T =
T T
(n 1)
k 2 m21
k 2 m21
The factor 1/(n 1) is different from the familiar 1/(n 2) which is encountered in linearized
GR, and produces the well known vDVZ discontinuity in the massless limit [1820].

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

165

4.4. TDiff invariant theory


In this case, we set m21 = 0 and = 1. Note that the gauge fixing term (81) will not play a
role, since the term proportional to P1 does not contribute to the interaction between conserved
sources. With these values of the parameters we have


g(k) = (n 2) bk 2 m22 k 2 ,
(89)
which is quartic in the momenta. The terms proportional to 2 in the numerator of Eq. (87) are
also proportional to k 2 , so this factor drops out and we obtain the propagators for an ordinary
massive scalar particle (provided that b < 0, in agreement with our earlier dynamical analysis).
However, for the first term in Eq. (87) (the one proportional to 12 ) there is no global factor of
k 2 in the numerator, and we must use the decomposition


1
1
1
1

=
.
(90)
g(k) (n 2)m22 k 2 k 2 m22
b
Substituting in (87), and disregarding contact terms, we obtain



2
12
1
1a
1
P0 =

+
.

2
1
2
2
(n 1)(n 2) k
n2
bk m22

(91)

Substituting in (86) and adding the contribution of P2 for m21 = 0, which can be read off form
(88), we have



2
|T |2
1
1a
1

T
.
|T |2 2 2 +
1
Lint = 12 T
(92)
(n 2)
n2
k
bk 2 m22
Note that the massless propagator in (91) combines with the second term in the spin 2 part to
give the factor 1/(n 2) in front of |T |2 . Eq. (92) shows that the massless interaction between
conserved sources is the same as in standard linearized general relativity.
In addition, there is a massive scalar interaction, with effective mass squared
m2eff =

m22
>0
b

(93)

(note that both parameters m22 and b must be negative, according to our earlier analysis), and
effective coupling given by

2
1
1a
2
=
2 +
1 .
eff
(94)
b
n2
These are subject to the standard observational constraints on scalar tensor theories. If the scalar
field is long range, then the strength of the new interaction has to be very small eff  105 1 [21,
22]. Alternatively, the interaction could be rather strong, but short range, shielded by a sufficiently
large mass meff  (30 m)1 [2123].
4.5. Enhanced symmetry
From general arguments, the interaction between sources in the WTDiff theory is expected
to be the same as in standard massless gravity, since both theories only differ by an integration
constant but have the same propagating degrees of freedom.

166

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

In fact the result for WTDiff can be obtained from the analysis of the previous section by
setting b = 0. In this case, the term m22 h2 can be thought of as the additional gauge fixing
which removes the redundancy under the additional Weyl symmetry. With b = 0 the second
term in (92) becomes a contact term, and we recover the same result as in the standard massless
FierzPauli theory [17],10


1
1

Lint = 12 T
T
(95)
|T |2 2 ,
(n 2)
k
as expected.
Note that in the Diff and WTDiff invariant theories, there is a different possibility for gauge
fixing. Rather than using the term (81) in order to take care of the TDiff part of the symmetry,
and then the m22 h2 to take care of the Weyl part, we can gauge fix the entire symmetry group with
a standard term of the form
2

Lgf = h + h ,
(96)
4
where and are arbitrary constants. This can be absorbed in a shift of the parameters a, b
and
2

,
 .
2
2
With these substitutions, the propagator becomes invertible, even if it is not for the original values
of a, b and which correspond to Diff or to WTDiff. Needless to say, the result calculated in
this gauge coincides with (95).
a  a + ,

b  b

5. Conclusions
In this paper we have expanded somewhat the classification of flat space spin 2 Lagrangians
given by van Nieuwenhuizen in [5]. For the massless theory, we have explicitly shown that unless
the TDiff symmetry is imposed, the Hamiltonian is unbounded below and a classical instability
generically develops. We have also presented in some detail a few potentially interesting theories
which are invariant under this symmetry.
Generic massless TDiff theories contain a propagating scalar proportional to the trace h (note
that this is gauge invariant under TDiff), which disappears when the symmetry is enhanced
in one of two ways. The standard choice is to consider the full group of diffeomorphisms Diff.
Another possibility (which we call WTDiff) is to impose an additional Weyl symmetry, by which
the action depends only on the traceless part of the metric h = h (1/n)h . This theory
is equivalent to one in which the determinant of the metric g = + h is kept fixed to unity.
In practice, however, it may be convenient to use the formulation in which this extra symmetry
is present, since it can make the covariant gauge fixing somewhat simpler. Non-linear extensions
of the TDiff theory have been discussed in [4], and they correspond to scalar-tensor theories with
an integration constant. The non-linear extension of the WTDiff theory is a particular case where
the additional scalar is not present.
It is sometimes claimed that general relativity is the only consistent theory for spin 2 gravitons.
Such discussions [2428], however, always assume linearized Diff invariance as an input. In the
10 Note also that the WTDiff invariant coupling to conserved sources requires = n . Using this and a = 2/n in
1
2
(94) we have eff = 0, which again eliminates the scalar contribution.

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

167

light of the present discussion, it seems that linearized TDiff or WTDiff invariances should be
just as good starting points.
In fact, it may be very difficult to distinguish between the various options experimentally. The
additional scalar may be very heavy, in which case it can be integrated out leaving no distinctive
traces at low energies. As for the cosmological constant, it seems clear that we cannot tell from
its measurement whether it corresponds to an integration constant or to a fixed parameter in the
Lagrangian.
An interesting difference between linearized GR and TDiff invariant theories is that, as we
have shown, the latter cannot be extended with a mass term for the graviton without provoking the
appearance of a ghost. In this sense, the WTDiff theory is more rigid against small deformations
than the standard linearized GR.
It is at present unclear whether Diff (rather than TDiff, or WTDiff) is a fundamental symmetry
of Nature. Even in string theory, the connection with GR is on-shell, which does not seem to
exclude the fundamental symmetry from being WTDiff (see however [29] for a discussion in
the context of closed string field theory). Classically the two theories are almost identical, but
there may be important differences in the quantum theory [2,3,1113]. These deserve further
exploration, and are currently under research [14].
Acknowledgements
This work was begun while one of us (E.A.) was a guest at the Departamento di Fisica at
the University of Roma I (La Sapienza). He is indebted to all members of this group for their
wonderful hospitality. J.G. thanks Jaume Gomis and Alex Pomarol for useful discussions, and
the members of the theory group at the University of Texas at Austin for warm hospitality during
the last stages of this project. This work has been partially supported by the European Commission (HPRN-CT-200-00148) and by research programmes FPA2003-04597 and FPA2004-04582
(MEC, Spain) and DURSI 2005SGR00082. The work of D.B. has been supported by FPU20020501 (MEC, Spain).
Appendix A. TDiff Lagrangians in terms of gauge invariant quantities
As the Lagrangian of (9), LTDiff , is invariant under transverse transformations, one should be
able to write it in terms of invariants under this transformations (for the Diff case see e.g. [8,30,
31]). It is easy to see that under a general transformation h  h + 2( ) the fields of the
cosmological decomposition transform as
tij  tij ,

Vi  Vi + 0 iT ,

B  B + 0 + 0 ,

Fi  Fi + iT ,

E  E + 2,

A  A + 20 0 ,

 ,

where i = iT + i , with i iT = 0. Whereas for a Weyl transformation h  h + n1


only A and change as

,
 .
n
n
For general transverse transformations the only gauge invariant combinations are
A  A +

tij ,

wi = Vi 0 Fi ,

(A.1)

168

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

in the tensor and vector sectors respectively and


= A 20 B + 02 E,

= (A E),

(A.2)

for the scalars. In terms of these combinations, the tensor, vector and scalar part of the Lagrangian
(9) can be written as (we write also the mass term LV = m2 h2 )
1
1
(v)
LTDiff = t ij 2tij ,
LTDiff = w i w i ,
4
2

1
(s) I (s) II
2
L + L = ( 2) 2( ) + (n 3) + (n 1) 2 ,
4


a 
(s) III
L =
(n 1) ( ) ,
4
 

2 
b 
(s) IV
L =
(n 1) + (n 1)  (n 1) ,
4
2
2
m
(s) V
L =
(n 1) ,
4

where  = i i i = i i . From this decomposition we easily see that is a Lagrange multiplier whose variation yields the constraint



 1 (n 1)a (1 a) = 0.
(A.3)
(t)

In the case of general diffeomorphisms (a = b = 1), only two scalar combinations are gauge
invariant, namely and . Thus, the Lagrangian for the scalar part can be expressed as

(2 n) 
2 + (n 1) 2 + (n 3) .
(A.4)
4
Concerning the Weyl transformations, we can write only two scalar invariants which are also
scalars for transverse transformations,
(s)

LDiff =

= + ,

= + .

Thus, for the Weyl choice a =

2
n,

b=

(A.5)
n+2
,
n2

we can write the Lagrangian as




 
1 
(n 2) 2n (n 1)  2 3n + n2 2 .
2
4n
Thus, varying the Lagrangian with respect to we find the constraint
(s)

LWTDiff =

 = 0.

(A.6)

(A.7)

Besides, the mass term can be written as


L =

(s) V

m2
( n)2 .
4

(A.8)

Appendix B. BarnesRivers projectors


A useful tool for analyzing the Lagrangians involving two component tensors is provided
by the Barnes and Rivers projectors [16] (see also [5]). We start with the usual transverse and
longitudinal projectors

k k
,
k2

k k
.
k2

(B.1)

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170

169

and then define projectors on the subspaces of spin two, spin one, and the two different spin
zero components, labelled by (s) and (w). We introduce also the convenient operators that map
between these two subspaces.
1
1
,
P2 ( + )
2
(n 1)
1
P0s
,
(n 1)
P0w ,
1
P1 ( + + + ),
2
1
1
sw
P0ws
,
.
P0
(n 1)
(n 1)

(B.2)

These projectors obey


Pia Pjb = ij ab Pib ,
Pia Pjbc = ij ab Pjac ,

Piab Pjcd = ij bc ad Pja ,


Piab Pjc = ij bc Pjac .

(B.3)

And the traces:


tr P0s = ,
tr P0w = ,
tr P2 (P2 ) = 0,

1
.
tr P0sw = n 1 ,
tr P0ws =
tr P1 = 0,
n1
Apart from the previous expressions, these projectors satisfy
1
P2 + P1 + P0w + P0s = ( + )
2
and any symmetric operator can be written as
K = a2 P2 + a1 P1 + aw P0w + as P0s + asw P0 ,

(B.4)

(B.5)

(B.6)

where P0 = P0sw + P0ws . The inverse of the previous operator is easily found from (B.3) to be
K 1 =

 ws

1
1
as
aw
asw
P0 + P0sw
P2 + P1 +
P0w +
P0s
2
2
2
a2
a1
as aw asw
as aw asw
as aw asw
(B.7)

2 never vanishes.
provided that the discriminant as aw asw

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]

J.J. van der Bij, H. van Dam, Y.J. Ng, Physica A 116 (1982) 307.
E. Alvarez, JHEP 0503 (2005) 002, hep-th/0501146.
W.G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 40 (1989) 1048.
W. Buchmuller, N. Dragon, Phys. Lett. B 207 (1988) 292.
P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, Nucl. Phys. B 60 (1973) 478.
M. Fierz, W. Pauli, Proc. R. Soc. London A 173 (1939) 211.
R.M. Wald, General Relativity, Univesity of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984.
V.F. Mukhanov, H.A. Feldman, R.H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rep. 215 (1992) 203.
J.B. Pitts, W.C. Schieve, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 33 (2001) 1319, gr-qc/0101058.

170
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]

E. lvarez et al. / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 148170


D. Blas, C. Deffayet, J. Garriga, in preparation.
M. Kreuzer, Class. Quantum Grav. 7 (1990) 1303.
N. Dragon, M. Kreuzer, Z. Phys. C 41 (1988) 485.
E. lvarez, J.J. Lpez-Villarejo, in: Proceedings of the Spanish Relativity Meeting 2005, ERE05, in press.
E. lvarez, D. Blas, J. Garriga, E. Verdaguer, in preparation.
V.A. Rubakov, hep-th/0407104.
R.J. Rivers, Nuovo Cimento 34 (1964) 386.
D.G. Boulware, S. Deser, Phys. Rev. D 6 (1972) 3368.
H. van Dam, M.J.G. Veltman, Nucl. Phys. B 22 (1970) 397.
V.I. Zakharov, JETP Lett. 12 (1970) 312.
A.I. Vainshtein, Phys. Lett. B 39 (1972) 393.
C.M. Will, gr-qc/0510072.
C.M. Will, Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 4, gr-qc/0103036.
E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel, A.E. Nelson, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53 (2003) 77, hep-ph/0307284.
V.I. Ogievetsky, I.V. Polubarinov, Ann. Phys. B 35 (1965) 167.
S. Deser, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 1 (1970) 9, gr-qc/0411023.
D.G. Boulware, S. Deser, Ann. Phys. 89 (1975) 193.
R.M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 33 (1986) 3613.
N. Boulanger, T. Damour, L. Gualtieri, M. Henneaux, Nucl. Phys. B 597 (2001) 127, hep-th/0007220.
D. Ghoshal, A. Sen, Nucl. Phys. B 380 (1992) 103, hep-th/9110038.
J.M. Bardeen, Phys. Rev. D 22 (1980) 1882.
J.M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. 7 (1990) 1169.

Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Impurity non-preserving 3-point correlators


of BMN operators from PP-wave holography II:
Fermionic excitations
Suguru Dobashi
Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo 060-0810, Japan
Received 11 April 2006; received in revised form 15 June 2006; accepted 9 August 2006
Available online 1 September 2006

Abstract
The holographic principle in the PP-wave limit proposed in our previous works is further confirmed by
studying impurity non-preserving processes which contain a fermionic BMN operator with one scalar and
one fermion impurities. We show that the previously proposed duality relation between the matrix elements
of the three point interaction Hamiltonian in the holographic string field theory and the OPE coefficients
in super-YangMills theory holds to the leading order in the large limit. Operator mixing is required to
obtain the BMN operator of definite conformal dimension which corresponds to the string state with one
scalar and one fermion excitations. The mixing term plays a crucial role for our duality relation to be valid.
Our results, combined with those in the previous papers, provide a positive support that our duality relation
holds for the general process regardless of the kind of impurities and of whether impurities conserve or not.
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Holography is the key concept to the duality between string theory and gauge theory in the
AdS/CFT correspondence. The holographic relation proposed by GKP/W [1] relates the degrees
of freedom in the string theory defined in the bulk AdS space and those in the gauge theory
defined on the conformal boundary of the AdS spacetime. Based on this proposal, a large amount
of work has been done giving many positive supports for this relation [2]. In particular, the nonrenormalization property of chiral primary operators has been confirmed [3]. However in the

E-mail address: doba@particle.sci.hokudai.ac.jp (S. Dobashi).


0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.004

172

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

BMN limit of the AdS/CFT correspondence [4], how this holographic relation is realized has not
been clear because of the lack of the clear spacetime picture.
In the previous papers [58], we gave an answer to this problem. We showed that the PPwave background emerges as the geometry around a tunneling null geodesic, which starts from a
point on the AdS boundary and returns to another point on the boundary. This trajectory can be
obtained as a dominant path in the large angular momentum limit for the path integral which is
expected to give the two point function of gauge theory operators in the GKP/W prescription.1
The string/gauge duality in the PP-wave limit can be understood as the correspondence between
the oscillation modes of strings around this trajectory and gauge theory operators sitting around
its endpoints on the boundary. This picture allows a natural correspondence between an S-matrix
calculation on the string theory side and an operator product expansion on the gauge theory side.
As for three point functions, with the assumption that the free string basis corresponds to the
BMN operators of definite conformal dimension, we proposed a duality relation between the
matrix elements of the string interaction Hamiltonian and the OPE coefficients.
Our proposal in [7] has an advantage over the previous two types of duality relations, presented in [10,11] and [12], in that it is applicable to impurity non-preserving cases. Indeed, we
checked that our duality relation holds for impurity non-preserving processes which consist of
BMN operators with only bosonic impurities in the previous paper [8], as well as for the impurity
preserving processes [7]. To establish the duality relation for impurity non-preserving processes
is important for studying the unsolved problem of string/gauge correspondence at higher genus
level, since impurity non-preserving processes are known to appear as intermediate states of a
string loop amplitude [1315].
The aim of this paper is to show that our proposal also holds for the impurity non-preserving
cases involving fermionic impurities. Checking our duality relation for such processes is important because our proposal was originally obtained as an extension of the duality relation for
chiral primary operators to the general string excitations. It is not trivial this relation is satisfied
for the non-BPS sector in general. Since we have already checked our proposal for impurity
preserving sector with several different kinds of impurities, including bosons and fermions, and
for impurity non-preserving sector with only bosonic impurities, what remains to be studied is
impurity non-preserving processes which contain fermionic impurities. Though it is desirable to
study the general processes, we restrict ourself in this paper to simple impurity non-conserving
processes, where the fermionic BMN operators involved contain only one scalar and one fermionic impurities. Even for these simple examples, our duality relation holds in a very non-trivial
way.
When studying the duality relation, it is important how to relate the basis between the two
theories. In our prescription, the correspondent on the gauge theory side to the free string basis
is a set of BMN operators of definite conformal dimension. As in the case of the singlet sector
of several two impurity states [1619], the operator mixing is required for the fermionic BMN
operator we are now considering so that it obtains a definite conformal dimension. We will see
that this operator mixing plays a crucial role for our duality relation to hold. In addition, the
phase factor of the BMN operator must be properly chosen up to O(1/J ) in order to give the
correct world sheet momentum dependence.
The result of this paper, in addition to those in the previous papers, strengthens the expectation
that our duality relation is valid for general processes regardless of the kind of impurities and of
1 See also [6,9] for more general discussions.

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

173

whether impurities conserve or not. We believe that the successful clarification of the duality
relation at the first order of the string interaction lays the foundation for the study of the duality
relation at higher genus level.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we briefly review our proposal for the duality
relation. In Section 3 we calculate two examples of the string amplitude for fermionic impurity
non-preserving processes. In Section 4 we first identify the gauge theory operator which corresponds to the string states with one scalar and one fermion excitations. We show by explicit
perturbation calculations that for the corresponding BMN operator to obtain a definite conformal dimension, in addition to the operator with one fermion and one scalar impurities, another
operator with the same classical dimension and R-charge is required. With this operator, we compute three point functions which correspond to the string amplitudes calculated in the previous
section. We will see that our duality relation holds to the leading order of the effective gauge
coupling and the operator required for the diagonalization plays a crucial role. We conclude in
Section 5. Appendix A is devoted to the details of the perturbative calculations required for the
two point function of the BMN operators with one scalar and one fermion impurities. We list
the explicit forms of the prefactors in Appendix B and the asymptotic behavior of the Neumann
coefficients in the large limit in Appendix C.
2. Review of the holographic duality relation
Our duality relation at the first order of the string interaction relates the basic ingredients
which characterize the three point interaction on each theory side, the matrix element of the 3point interaction Hamiltonian H123 on string theory side and the OPE coefficient C123 on gauge
theory side. Identifying the free string basis with the set of BMN operators of definite conformal
dimension, we propose that the duality relation is given by


 2 +3 1 
2
1
2 + 3 1
J2 J 3

f
+ 1 H123 ,
C123 =
(2 + 3 1 )
J1
2

(2.1)

where r and Jr are the conformal dimension and the U(1) R-charge, respectively, of the gauge
theory operator Or (r = 1, 2, 3) which corresponds to the string state |r, Jr  satisfying the re(r)
(r)
lation H2 / = r Jr . Here, H2 and are the light-cone free Hamiltonian and the mass
parameter of the string theory, respectively, and J denotes the angular momentum around the
large circle of S 5 on the string theory side. The effective gauge theory coupling is related as
2 N/J 2 = 1/(p +  )2 in the PP-wave limit of AdS/CFT correspondence. The duality
 = gYM
relation (2.1) is expected to hold to all orders with respect to  , as long as we properly identify
the BMN operators of definite dimension, but we restrict ourself here to the leading order of 
expansion for simplicity. The definition of f in (2.1) is given by some combination of Neumann
coefficients (see Ref. [7]). In what follows, we need only its asymptotic behavior in the large
limit which is given by
f

J1
J2 J3

,
J1
4|(1) |

(2.2)

where (r) denotes (r)  pr+ and we take (1) (= (2) (3) ) < 0, (2) , (3) > 0. The relation (2.1) is expected to hold to all order of  = 1/((1) )2 , but we restrict ourself to checking
the relation to the leading order in the large limit in this article.

174

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

The OPE coefficient C123 is defined as, for scalar operators,





O1 (x1 )O2 (x2 )O3 (x3 ) =

C123
,

|x12 | 1 2 3 |x23 | 2 +3 1 |x31 |3 +1 2

(2.3)

under the normalization of O1 O2  = 12 /|x12 |2 . It is known that for the impurity preserving
sector, we should take into account the operator mixing of single and double trace operators
[20,21]. However, for the impurity non-preserving process, the effect of such mixing is suppressed by 1/N , so we need not consider this type of operator mixing as long as we are interested
in the planar limit. The operator mixing we should consider later to obtain the BMN operator of
definite conformal dimension is the one among single-trace operators with the same conformal
dimension and R-charge.
The H123 is the matrix element of the 3-string interaction Hamiltonian defined as

J1 J2 J3
|H3 h ,
H123 = (1) 1|(2) 2|(3) 3|
(2.4)
N
under the canonical normalization of the string field theory action such as




1
1
| + |H
2 | ,
| |
S2 = d |
(2.5)
2
2


J J J
1
(2) |(3) | 1 2 3 |H3 h + h.c.,
d (1) |
S3 =
(2.6)
2
N





1
(r)
H2 =
(2.7)
n(r) n(r) n(r) + n(r) n(r) , with n(r) = n2 + ((r) )2 .
|(r) | n=
We proposed that the specific form of the string interaction Hamiltonian |H3 h is the equal
weight sum of the two interaction vertexes presented so far,
1
1
|H3 h = |H3 SV + |H3 D ,
(2.8)
2
2
where |H3 SV is constructed in [22,23] and further developed in [2427] as a generalization of the
well-known interaction Hamiltonian in the flat space to the PP-wave background, while |H3 D
is proposed in [12] and its prefactor takes the form of energy difference. These two vertexes
both satisfy the SUSY algebra, as well as, the continuity condition and momentum conservation. The interaction Hamiltonian of the latter type is not adopted in the flat space case because
it does not affect S-matrix calculations due to the energy conservation, but in our formalism
where world-sheet time is naturally Wick-rotated, it can give indispensable contribution. The
combination (2.8) is required so that the bosonic zero-mode sector should properly reduce to the
form which is obtained by taking the BMN limit of the effective action for the fluctuation fields
around AdS background which corresponds to the chiral primary operators.2 Though in [29] it
is claimed that the |H3 D part has to be modified in order to respect the U(1)Y symmetry in the
supergravity sector, the modification gives no effect for the process we are now considering, as
for all the cases we have confirmed so far. We will discuss the processes in the non-BPS sector
for which such modification cannot be ignored in the future study [30].
2 In the scalar impurity sector this vertex reduces to the phenomenological interaction vertex proposed in [28], which
is successfully related with the genuine OPE coefficient through the relation (2 + 3 1 )C123 = H123 in the
impurity preserving process.

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

175

For the impurity preserving processes, where 2 + 3 1 = 0 + O( ), the duality relation (2.1) reduces to a simple form (2 + 3 1 )C123 = H123 , the one first conjectured
in [31] from a different viewpoint. We checked that this relation holds to the leading order
in the large limit for several non-trivial processes including bosonic and fermionic impurities in the previous paper [7]. For the impurity non-preserving cases, the factor f in the
duality relation plays a crucial role: due to the dependence of Neumann coefficients, the
asymptotic behavior of H123 in the large limit is suppressed by  = 1/(p +  )2 as the difference in the number of the impurities between in- and out-states increases, while the factors
(f J2 J3 /J1 )(1 2 3 )/2 give a compensating contribution. Indeed, in [8], we showed that the
contributions from each factor on the right-hand side of (2.1) nicely combined to give the OPE
coefficients C123 which has an appropriate dependence. In what follows, we confirm that this
is also the case for the impurity non-preserving processes which contain fermionic BMN operators.
3. String theory calculation
We consider fermionic impurity non-preserving processes on the string theory side. In this
paper we restrict ourself to simple but non-trivial processes which consist only of one boson and
one fermion impurities such as
(3)j

(2)i (2)
1 2 ,m + n
vac m
(1)j
n(1)i
n1
1

(2)
n(2)i
1 2 ,n2
2

(3)
,
1 2 ,n

(3.1)

(3)j (3)
+ n3 1 2 ,n3 .

(3.2)

Even for these simple processes, we will see that the characteristic property that the interaction
vertex is given by the equal weight sum of |H3 SV and |H3 D , and the non-trivial dependence
on the right-hand side of (2.1) play important roles for our duality relation to hold. In (3.1)
(r)i
(r)
and (3.2), n (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) and 1 2 ,n denote the nth bosonic excitation mode in a scalar
direction and the nth fermionic excitation mode, respectively, in the exponential basis of rth
string which are defined in terms of sin/cos oscillators, an /an (or bn /bn for a fermion), such
as
1
n = (an ian ),
2
1
n = (bn ibn ),
2

0 = a0 ,
0 = b 0 ,

1
n = (an + ian ),
2
1
n = (bn + ibn ).
2

(3.3)
(3.4)

The SO(8) spinor indexes is decomposed as SO(8) = (SU(2) SU(2)) (SU(2) SU(2)), and
the subscripts of 1 2 ,n denotes (2, 1) (2, 1) sector of the decomposition 8s = (2, 1) (2, 1)
(1, 2) (1, 2), while we denote the (1, 2) (1, 2) sector as 1 2 ,n .
(3)j

(2)i (2)

3.1. vac m 1 2 ,m + n

(3)

1 2 ,n

The matrix element of the interaction vertex for the process (3.1) is given by
(3)

(3)j

v|1 2 ,n n

(2)

(2)i
1 2 ,m m
|H3 h ,

where |H3 h is the equal weight sum of the |H3 SV and |H3 D such as in (2.8).

(3.5)

176

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Let us first calculate the contribution from |H3 D of the interaction Hamiltonian |H3 h . Noting

(r)
that the prefactor is given by 2 3r=1 n /(r) 4 due to the form of the prefactor, |H3 D =
(2)
(3)
(1)
(H2 + H2 H2 )|E, we can easily see that the contribution from the vertex |H3 D is given
by
23
i  32
ij

Qnm Q23
mn Nmn 1 1 2 2 . (3.6)
2
Here we used the form of the overlap vertex state such as
(3)j

(3)

v|1 2 ,n n

(2)

(2)i
1 2 ,m m
|H3 D = 4

|E = |Ea |Eb ,


 3


 (r) (s)
i
(r)1 2 (s)
1 2
|Eb  = exp
n,1 2
Qrs
mn m
n,1 2 + m
2
r,s=1 m,n=1

 0
(r)1 2 (s)
(r)1 2 (s)
E ,


|Ea  = exp

n,1 2

n,1 2

(3.7)

(3.8)


(r) rs (s)
m
Nmn n

|v,

(3.9)

r,s=1 m,n=

where |Eb0  is the overlap vertex including the fermionic zero-mode sector whose detailed form
does not concern the present calculation, and the definition of Qrs
mn is

|(s) |  1/2 1/2 rs 1/2 1/2
rs
Qmn = e((r) )
(3.10)
C(s) mn ,
U C N C
|(r) | (r)
with U(r) = C 1 (C(r) (r) ), and Cmn = mmn , C(r)mn = m(r) mn . The details are referred
23
to Ref. [26]. In the large limit, the form of Q32
nm and Qmn are given in terms of Neumann
coefficients such as
m
n
23
Q23
(3.11)
,
Q32
N mn
N 32 .
mn =
nm =
y|(1) |
(1 y)|(1) | nm
With this relation and the asymptotic behavior in the large limit of the bosonic Neumann
23 = N
32 , which is listed in Appendix C, the contribution from the interaction
nm
coefficient N mn
vertex |H3 D is given by
(3)

(3)j

(2)

(2)i
v|1 2 ,n n 1 2 ,m m
|H3 D


m
n
1
ij .
= i

2
2
y
1 y 8 |(1) |3 y(1 y) 1 1 2 2

Here we have used the notation y = (2) /(1) , (1 y = (3) /(1) ).


As for the interaction Hamiltonian |H3 SV , there are two types of contraction,
[]()

or [][],

(3.12)

where [XY ] and (XY ) denote the contractions of X and Y through the prefactor and overlap,
respectively. For example, []() means v|PSV |v v||Eb . There are no combination from ()(), [](), etc. because of the form of the prefactor PSV presented in
Appendix B.

177

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Using the property that, for purely bosonic external states, the interaction vertex |H3 SV can
be rewritten as
|H3 SV = |H3 D XII2 |E,

3
(r)


 (r) (s)
m  rs
(r) (s)
rs
N N mn
m n + m m |E
(r) mn

XII2 |E =

r,s=1 m,n=1


 (r)
3


(r) (s)
n(s)  rs
m
rs
m n |E,
+
Nmn N mn
+
(r)
(s)

(3.13)

r,s=1 m,n=1

where XII is a bosonic constituent of the prefactor whose explicit form is given in Appendix B,
we can see that the contribution from []() is given by the product of two contributions,

(2)i (3)j 
(2)i (3)j
v|m
n PSV |E = v|m n 2 XII2 |E
 (2)
(3) 

ij m
m  23
23
23
= 2N mn
ij +
+
Nmn N mn
2 (2)
(3)
23
ij
= 2N mn ,
(3.14)




i
(3)
(2)
23
v|1 2 ,n 1 2 ,m |E = 1 1 2 2
(3.15)
Q32
nm Qmn .
2
Then, the net result of []() is half of the contribution from |H3 D ,


23 23
ij
[]() = i Q32
nm Qmn Nmn 1 1 2 2


m
n
1
ij .
= i

2
2
y
1 y 8 |(1) |3 y(1 y) 1 1 2 2

(3.16)

As for the [][] contribution, the only relevant term in the prefactor PSV is
i
i
j
K i K j Yij2 = XIi XII Yij2 .
4
2

(3.17)

For the definition of XI , XII , and Yij2 , being bosonic and fermionic constituents of the prefacij

tor PSV , see Appendix B. Noticing that Yij2 = Y 1 2 Y 1 2 1 1 is defined in terms of cos mode

(r) (r)1 2 and that the relation between sin/cos and exponential
basis such as Y 1 2 =
n=0 Gn bn
basis is given by (3.4), the contribution of [] contraction is
1
(3)
(2)
(3)
Y 1 2 Y 1 2 ij1 1 |v
v|1 2 ,n m,1 2 Yij2 |v = v|b1 2 ,n b(2)
1 2 ,m
2

(2)
(3)
= 2 2 ij G
m Gn .

(3.18)

1 1

Here, ( ij )1 1 is defined as ( ij )1 1 = 1 1 1/2( i j j i )1 1 . Similarly, the bosonic


contraction [] is given by
(3)j

(2)i
n
v|m

j ]

(2)i
XI[i XII |v = v|m
n

(3)j

(r) [i  (s)j ]
an |v
Fm(r) Fn(s) Un(s) am

r,s=1 m=0,n=1


 
1
= Fm(2) Fn(3) Um(2) Un(3) i[i j ]j .
2

(3.19)

178

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Combining the two contributions, (3.18) and (3.19), and using the asymptotic form for F and G
listed in Appendix C, the contribution from [][] is evaluated as



m
1
n
.
[][] = i
(3.20)

2 2 ij
3
1 1 16 2 2 |
y
1y
(1) | y(1 y)
Combining all the contributions, (3.13), (3.16), and (3.20), we obtain the matrix element of
the interaction vertex |H3 h for the process (3.5) in the large limit,
(3)

(2)

(2)i
v|1 2 ,n n(3)i 1 2 ,m m
|H3 h




m
1  ij
n
1
3
ij

= i

.


1 1
y
1 y 16 2 2 |(1) |3 y(1 y) 2 2 2 1 1
2

(3.21)

In order to obtain the OPE coefficient according to the duality relation (2.1), the G factor


 2 +3 1 
2
J1 J2 J3
2 + 3 1
J2 J 3
1

f
+1
G
(2 + 3 1 )
J1
2
N


2
1
J1 J2 J3
J1
=
(3)
4 4|(1) |
N

2
2 1/2 1
= 8 |(1) | J1
N
y(1 y),

(3.22)

must be multiplied with (3.21). Therefore, the CFT coefficient C123 which should be obtained
from the corresponding three point correlation function on the gauge theory side is expected to
be




3/2 1/2
gYM J1
N
i m
1
n
3
2 2

1 1 + ij .
C123 =
(3.23)

1 1
2 y
1y
2
2
y(1 y)
We should note that the interaction vertexes |H3 SV and |H3 D are both necessary to obtain this
results and that the G factor properly adjust the -dependence to give O(gYM ) = O(1/) result.
(1)i (1)j

(2)i (2)

(3)j

(3)

3.2. n1 n1 n2 1 2 ,n2 + n3 1 2 ,n3


Next, we proceed to calculate the matrix element of the string interaction vertex for the
process (3.2), which is given by
(3)

(3)j

(2)

(1)j

n(1)i
n1 |H3 h .
v|1 2 ,n3 n3 1 2 ,n2 n(2)i
2
1

(3.24)

We restrict ourself to the case i = j for simplicity.


In almost the same way as the previous case, the contribution from the |H3 D is given by
(3)j

(1)j

v|(3)
(2)
(2)i n(1)i
n1 |H3 D
1 2 ,n2 n2
1
1 2 ,n3 n3





i  32
ij
31
21
= 2
Qnm Q23
mn Nn3 ,n1 Nn2 n1 1 1 2 2
2


1
n3
sin2 (yn1 )
ij n2

=i 2

1 1 2 2
n3 ,
2
y
1 y (n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
)
4 |(1) | y(1 y)

(3.25)

where we used the asymptotic form of the Neumann coefficients in the large limit presented
in Appendix C.

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

179

On the other hand, because of the form of the prefactor PSV , for the case i = j , the possible
contribution from |H3 SV is that only one pair of is contracted through the prefactor and others
are through the overlap vertex:


 (3)

(3)j (1)j 
(2)
n3 n1 n(2)i
1 2 ,n3 1 2 ,n2
or
n(1)i
2
1
 (3)j (1)j  (2)i (1)i  (3)

(2)
n3 n1 n2 n1 1 2 ,n3 1 2 ,n2 .

(3.26)

In particular, when i = j , the contraction through the prefactor (3.17) is not possible because
of the anti-symmetric property of i and j in Yij2 and the fact that only a pair of oscillators with
the same scalar index can be contracted through the overlap vertex. This type of contraction is
possible when we consider, for example, the case where the excitation of the incoming string is
(1)i (1)k
given by n1 n1 |v (k = j ) and will play an important role for our duality relation to hold.
The amplitude of the first term in (3.26) is the product of three amplitude such as
(3)j (1)j

(3)

(2)

v|n3 n1 PSV |v v|n(2)i


n(1)i
|E v|1 2 ,n3 1 2 ,n2 |E.
2
1

(3.27)


At the first factor, the prefactor PSV can be replaced with r Er XII2 in the same way as in the
previous subsection. But in contrast to the situation there, it gives the order O(1/) contribution
as in the impurity preserving processes:
(3)j (1)j
v|n3 n1


Er |E =

(3)
(1) 
n
n
+
N n313 ,n1 = O(1/).
(r)
(r)

(3.28)

Since the contribution from XII is of the same order and the orders of the remaining contributions
are


(3)
(2)
v|1 2 ,n3 1 2 ,n2 |E = O 1/2 ,

n(1)i
|E = O(1),
v|n(2)i
2
1

(3.29)

the net result of (3.27) gives a sub-leading contribution and negligible compared to the result (3.25) in the large limit. The same is true for the second case of (3.26).
Therefore only the interaction vertex |H3 D gives the leading contribution such as
(3)

(3)j

(1)j

(2)

v|1 2 ,n3 n3 1 2 ,n2 n(2)i


n(1)i
n1 |H3 h
2
1


1
n3
sin2 (yn1 )
n2

=i 2

n3 .
1 y (n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
)
8 |(1) |2 y(1 y) 1 1 2 2 y

(3.30)

Taking into account the G factor for this process,



G=

J1
4|(1) |

1
(2)

J1 J2 J3 1
1/2 
y(1 y)N 1 ,
= 2|(1) |J1
N
2

(3.31)

the OPE coefficient predicted from the string theory side is




1/2 1/2
gYM J1
N
n3
sin2 (yn1 )
n2


C123 = i

n3 .
1
1
2
2
y
1 y (n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
)
4 2 y(1 y)

(3.32)

180

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

4. Gauge theory calculation


Now that we have calculated two examples of the three point amplitude for the impurity nonpreserving process which contain fermionic impurity operators, (3.1) and (3.2), rewritten as
(3)

(3)j

v|1 2 ,n n
(3)

(2)

(2)i
1 2 ,m m
|H3 h ,

(3)j

(2)

(4.1)
(1)j

v|1 2 ,n3 n3 1 2 ,n2 n(2)i


n(1)i
n1 |H3 h ,
2
1

(4.2)

let us proceed to calculate the corresponding gauge theory three point correlators and derive the
OPE coefficients.
For this purpose, it is important to identify properly the operator which corresponds to the
string state ni 1 2 ,n |v with the angular momentum J around S 5 . According to the prescription of inserting an impurity into the vacuum state Tr(Z J ) with an appropriate phase factor,
the operator with the proper U(1) R-charge and the conformal dimension satisfying the relation
H / = J might be given by


J



2in
(4.3)
exp
(l + 1) Tr i Z l r Z J l ,
J +2
l=0

where the subscript r of r is the spinor index of the (2, 1)+1/2 sector in the decomposition of
SU(4) R-symmetry vector index A of Weyl fermion A
in the d = 4, N = 4 SYM theory, such
as
4 = (2, 1)+1/2 (1, 2)1/2 .

(4.4)

Here the subscript 1/2 denotes the charge of U(1)J R-symmetry subgroup we have picked up.3
However, as we will show in what follows, in order to obtain the operator of definite conformal
dimension, we must consider a linear combination of (4.3) and the operator
 i r 

(4.5)
r Tr r Z J +1 ,
which is the unique possibility of the operator with the same classical dimension and U(1) Rcharge as the operator (4.3). Here r is the (1, 2)1/2 sector in the decomposition of (4.4) and
( i )rr is the ClebschGordan coefficient for a SO(4) vector under SO(4) = SU(2) SU(2) decomposition.
The operator (4.5) is expected to be obtained when the SUSY transformation and the rotation in the iZ-plane of R-symmetry act on one and the same constituent Z of the vacuum state
Tr(Z J +2 ), while (4.3) is obtained when these two generators act on different Zs with an appropriate phase dependence [3234]. Though the order of the number of the latter case is O(J )
while the former is of O(1), we cannot omit this term when we identify the BMN operator which
corresponds to the free string basis as in the case of the singlet sector of the operator with two
bosonic or fermionic impurities studied so far [1619].
In what follows, we first determine the weight of the linear combination of (4.3) and (4.5) so
that the two point function of the BMN operator takes the canonical form. Next, with the proper
linear combination thus determined, we calculate the gauge theory three point functions which
correspond to (4.1) and (4.2), respectively. We will see that the OPE coefficients which can be
read from the three point functions exactly agree with (3.23) and (3.32).
3 The correspondence of the spinor indexes between string and gauge theory side is ( , ) (r, ).
1 2

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

181

4.1. Diagonalization and the necessity of the operator mixing


The operator on the gauge theory side which corresponds to a free string state should have
a definite conformal dimension and the form of the two point function of these operators takes
the canonical form determined by the conformal symmetry. The desired form of the two point
function in the present case is
 J,i

J,j
ij
Or,m (x)O s ,n
(y) = mn rs

 (x y)
1

(x y)2
(x y)2(J +2)


1  n2 ln(x y)2 2 .

(4.6)

In order to obtain an operator of definite conformal dimension, we consider the linear combination such as
J,i
Or,m


 r 


ql Tr i Z l r Z J l + b i r Tr r Z J +1 ,

(4.7)

l=0

and chose the parameter b so that the two point function,


J

 




J,i J,j
ql rl  Tr i Z l r Z J l Tr Z J l s Z l j
Or
Os =

l,l  =0



J
 r 



+ b i r Tr r Z J +1
rl Tr Z J l s Z l j
+ b

 J

l=0

ql Tr Z J l r Z l


i


j s



s Tr Z J +1 s

l=0

+ |b|

 i r 
 s 

r Tr r Z J +1 j s Tr Z J +1 s ,

(4.8)

takes the canonical form of (4.6). Here we have defined the phase factor ql and rl such as




2im
2in
ql exp
(4.9)
(l + 1) ,
rl exp
(l + 1) .
J +2
J +2
i
The complex conjugate with lower indexes is defined as O ri rs O is
rs (Os ) . Note that
and are defined as
 i


 i sr 

r s i i , 1 ,
(4.10)

i i , 1 ,

where i s are Pauli matrices, and the complex conjugate of the matrix is (( i )r s ) = ( i )sr .
We will call the contributions in the first, second, third and fourth line in (4.8) as (++), (+),
(+), and () sector, respectively.
In order to determine b, it is enough to focus on the log divergent part in (4.6). Let us first
compute the log divergences which appear in the (++) sector. The divergence comes form
self-energy, 4Z-interaction, 2Z-interaction, 2Z-interaction, and 2-interaction, which will
be explained bellow. The calculation is partially same as in Ref. [35] where the anomalous
dimension of the operator with two scalar impurities is calculated, but here the calculation becomes a little bit complicated because we must consider additional interactions which involve

182

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

fermions. We calculate here 4Z-interaction, etc. which have already been calculated in [35] for
self-containedness. The details of the calculations are referred to Appendix A.
The two point functions of Z a s and ar s at the one-loop level are given by
 2 2
 a

ln(x y)2 2
1 gYM
Z (x)Z b (y) =
(4.11)
N ab
,
2
2 4
(x y)2
 2 2


 a


g
1
r (x) bs (y) = YM2 N ab rs x
(4.12)
ln(x y)2 2 .
4
(x y)2
Hereafter, we focus only on the log divergent part and omit the other terms. The net log divergence from the self-energy in the planer limit is obtained by replacing one of the free bosonic or
fermionic propagator with (4.12) or (4.12), respectively, for each possible free contraction. Then
we obtain


J

1
CSE =
(4.13)
ql rl (J + 1) + (1) 1 ij rs ,
2
l=0

where, q, r, and are defined as




2 N
2 J +2

gYM
1
N gYM
1
x
ln(x y)2 2 .

2 4 2
4 2
(x y)2
(x y)2(J +1)

(4.14)

The contribution from the 4Z-interaction is obtained by replacing the two adjacent free propagators of Z and Z with the 4-point correlator calculated at one-loop order such as
 2 3
 a

gYM
ln(x y)2 2
a2
b1
b2
1

Z (x)Z (x)Z (y)Z (y) =


(f
f
+
f
f
)
.
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
4 2
(x y)4
(4.15)
Apart from the phase factor, the log divergence from one possible contraction through the 4Zinteraction is given by



2 J 1
2


gYM
1 N gYM
1

ij rs x
Tr T a1 T a2 T b2 T b1
2 2 4 2
4 2 (x y)2
(x y)2(J 1)
 2 3
gYM
ln(x y)2 2 1
(fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 + fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 )
= ij rs ,

(4.16)
2
2
4
(x y)4
where we have used the formula


a1

a2

b1

fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 Tr T T T T


b2

N
=N
2

fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 Tr T a1 T a2 T b1 T b2 = 0.

3 


1
1 2 ,
N

(4.17)
(4.18)

When and sit adjacent to each other, there are J 1 ways of insertion of the 4Z-interaction,
otherwise J 2 ways. Therefore, with the phase factor appropriately taken into account, the
one-loop order contribution from 4Z-interaction is


J
1
1
C4Z = (q0 r0 + qJ rJ )(J 1) +
(4.19)
ql rl (J 2) ij rs .
2
l=1

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

183

Fig. 1. 2Z-interaction.

In the case of 2Z-interaction, the weight of the log divergence is different according to the
relative position of and Z, since the correlator of 2Z-interaction is given by
 2 3 


 a
gYM
1

f
+
f
f
f
r1 (x)Z a2 (x) bs 1 (y)Z b2 (y) =
rs
pa1 b2 pa2 b1
pa1 b1 pa2 b2
2
4 2


1
1

(4.20)
x
ln(x y)2 2 .
2
(x y)
(x y)2
In this case, there are 4 types of configuration of and Z for each possible replacement as
depicted in Fig. 1. The log divergence from the crossing configurations of and Z, which are
depicted in Fig. 1 with the relative phase dependence q or r , is obtained by contracting (4.20)
with Tr(T a1 T a2 T b1 T b2 ), giving 1/2ij rs , while the others obtained by contracting (4.20) with
Tr(T a1 T a2 T b2 T b1 ), giving 1/4ij rs . Here, we have taken into account the free contractions
of remaining operators. Then, the total contribution from 2Z-interaction is


J
1
1
1
ql rl
(1 + q r ) + (r + q) ij rs ,
C2Z =
(4.21)
4
2
l=0

where q = exp(2im/(J + 2)) and r = exp(2in/(J + 2)), respectively.


The correlator of the 2Z-interaction is
 2 3
 ia

gYM
ln(x y)2 2
1 (x)Z a2 (x) j b1 (y)Z b2 (y) =
ij fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1
.
2
4
(x y)4

(4.22)

From this form of the 4-point correlator and the formula (4.18), we can easily see that only the
crossing configuration of and Z gives non-zero contribution. So, we obtain, including the free
contractions of the other operators, the log divergence from the 2Z-interaction,
C2Z =

J
1
l=0

1
ql rl (r + q)
ij rs .
2

(4.23)

The last contribution we should consider in the (++) sector is the 2-interaction, which
occurs only when and impurities sit adjacent to each other. Since the four point correlation
function is given by

 a
r1 (x) ia2 (x) bs 1 (y) ib2 (y)
 2 3 

 j i
1 gYM
1 i j
=
rs fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 + rs fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2 + ij rs fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2
2 4 2
2


1
1

(4.24)
x
ln(x y)2 2 ,
(x y)2
(x y)2

184

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

we can easily see that the contribution from 2-interaction is




1
1
C2 = (q0 r0 + qJ rJ ) ij rs + (i j )rs
4
8


1
1
+ (q0 rJ + qJ r0 ) ij rs + (i j )rs .
2
8

(4.25)

Combining all the results so far, the net contribution from one-loop interactions in the (++)
J,i
and O sJ,i
sector of the two point function of the operators Or
is
CSE + C4Z + C2Z + C2Z + C2
 2in 2
J ( J ) ij rs + 12 ( i j )rs + O(1/J 2 )
=
+ 12 ( i j )rs + O(1/J 2 )

(m = n),
(m = n),

(4.26)

which shows that the two point function does not take the canonical form, therefore the operator (4.3) cannot be the correspondent of the ni rn |v. Since the O(1) factor ( i j )rs in (4.26)
breaks the canonical form, the basic requirement for the BMN conjecture is not satisfied that the
2 N /J 2 should match the first order perturbaanomalous dimension to the first order of  gYM
tion expansion of the free string energy spectrum in terms of 1/2 , under the identification of
 = 1/(p +  )2 .
The extra term in (4.26) is eliminated by choosing b properly. In the (+) sector, there appears the contribution from the 4-point correlator


 2 3
 i

1 gYM
1

f
+
f
f
f
ar1 (x) ia2 (x)rb1 (y)Z b2 (y) =
pa1 b2 pa2 b1
pa1 a2 pb1 b2
r r
2
2 4 2





1
1

ln x y 2 2 . (4.27)

2
2
(x y)
(x y)

With the formula (4.17) and (4.18), we can easily see that
each of 4 possible configurations

of (x), (x), (y) and Z(y)


gives the same contribution, 2/8( i )r r , except for a phase
factor. The same is true for the (+) sector. Then, the log divergences from the (+) and (+)
sectors with appropriate phase dependences, are given by

1 
1  i j
r0 + rJ )
b(q0 + qJ ) i j rs + b(
rs .
2 2
2 2

(4.28)

As for the () sector, in addition to the self-energy contribution,






1
|b|2 (J + 1) 1 1 i j rs ,
2

(4.29)

where 1/2 comes from the self-energy of a boson propagator and 1 from fermion, and the
4Z-interaction contribution,

1 
|b|2 J i j rs ,
2

(4.30)

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

185

we have to consider the 2 Z-interaction which gives the log divergence,


 2 3
 a1

1 gYM
r (x)Z a2 (x)sb1 (y)Z b2 (y) =
(fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2 fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 )
2 4 2



1
1

r s x
ln(x y)2 2 .

(x y)2
(x y)2
(4.31)
We have non-vanishing contribution only when and Z sit in the crossing position, and therefore
the Z-interaction gives the log divergence such as
1 i j
rs .
4
From (4.29), (4.30) and (4.32), the total contribution in the () sector is


|b|2 i j rs .
|b|2 2

(4.32)

(4.33)

Combining all the contributions form the (++), (+), (+) and () sectors, the total log
divergence is given by


2 + 1 (1 + 2(b + b)
+ 2|b|2 )( i j )rs + O(1/J 2 ) (m = n),
J ( 2in
ij rs
J )
2
(4.34)
1
2
i
j
+ 2|b| )( )rs + O(1/J 2 )
(m = n),
+ 2 (1 + 2(b + b)
from which we conclude that we should choose
1
b = ,
2

(4.35)

J,i
takes the canonical form.
in order that the two point function of the operator Ors
J,i
in (4.7). In
Here we should comment on the choice of the phase factor of the operator Or,m
fact, we can obtain the operators of definite conformal dimension which are diagonalized up
to O(1/J 2 ), even if we adopt the other phase dependence, for example, exp(2iml/(J + 1)) or
exp(2iml/J ). However, according to [32,33], we have chosen the phase factor so that the level
matching condition for the world sheet momentum of the closed string is naturally realized when
J,i
we regard the BMN operator Orm
is obtained by acting the rotation in the R-symmetry space
and the SUSY transformation on the vacuum state Tr(Z J +2 ) accompanied by the phase factor q
such as





O1 (x)O2 (x) On (x) = O1 (x) O2 (x) On (x) + qO1 (x) O2 (x) On (x)


+ + q n1 O1 (x)O2 (x) On (x) .
(4.36)

With this prescription, we have



 J
+1




 2 J

(q1 q2 )l
q2l+1 Tr (1 Z)Z l (2 Z)Z J l + Tr (2 1 Z)Z J +1 . (4.37)
2 1 Tr Z =
l=0

l=0

Then, the level matching condition is realized when we choose qi such as qi = exp(2imi /
(J + 2)) (i = 1, 2). As explained at the end of the next subsection, this choice of the phase factor
is necessary for our duality condition to hold.

186

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Fig. 2. (++) sector of three point function.

Fig. 3. (+) sector of three point function.

4.2. Three point function


Having properly identified the operator which corresponds to the string state with one scalar
and one fermion excitation, ni r,n |v, we proceed to calculate the three point functions which
correspond to (4.1) and (4.2).
(3)j

(2)i

(3)

4.2.1. vac n2 (2) 1 2 , n2 + n3 1 2 ,n3


We first calculate the correspondent on the gauge theory side to the string three point function (4.1), such as
 J

1 (x )O J2 ,i (x )O J3 ,j (x ) .
O vac
(4.38)
1
r,m 2
s,n 3
The normalization factor of each operator is chosen as
J1
Ovac
=

1
(J1 + 1)N0J1 +1

Jr ,i
Os,m
=



Tr Z J1 +1 ,

1
2(Jr + 1)N0Jr +2

J
r

N0

2im(l+1)
Jr +2

2
N gYM
,
2 4 2

(4.39)






 i l

s

Tr Z s Z Jr l + b i s Tr s Z Jr +1 ,

l=0

(4.40)
1/|x|2

J
Ovac

for
and takes the canonical form (4.6)
so that the two point function is normalized to

J,i
for Or,m . The coefficient b has been determined in the previous subsection as b = 1/ 2.
Similarly to the two point function, there are four sectors of the three point function to be calculated: three of them are depicted in Figs. 24, which we also call (++), (+) and () sector,
respectively, and the remaining one is the (+) sector, for which we have omitted the figure.
Apart from the normalization factors in (4.39) and (4.40), the (++) sector of the three point
function (4.38) at the leading order in terms of the genus and the gauge interaction expansions is

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

187

Fig. 4. () sector of three point function.

given by
 
 2 J1 +1
(J1 + 1)ij
1 N J1 1 gYM
4 2
4 2
|x23 |2 |x12 |2J2 |x31 |2J3





+ qJ2 r0 Tr(r s Z)
,
q0 rJ3 Tr(s r Z)
where the three point correlator in this expression is given by
 2 3
1



  a
gYM
fa1 b1 c1 rs
Tr Z 1 (x1 )br1 (x2 )cs1 (x3 ) = i 2 2
2
gYM 4

1
1
1

u
u
.
(x1 u)2
(x2 u)2
(x3 u)2

(4.41)

(4.42)

Integrating by part and using the formula (A.1), the symmetric part in terms of the spacetime
indexes and in the integral can be evaluated as

1
1
1
d 4u
u
u
2
2
(x1 u)
(x2 u)
(x3 u)2
 


1
1
1
1
4
d u
=

2
(x1 u)2
(x2 u)2 (x3 u)2

1
1
1
1



(x2 u)2 (x3 u)2 (x2 u)2 (x3 u)2


1
1
1
2
= 2
(4.43)

.
|x12 |2 |x31 |2 |x12 |2 |x23 |2 |x23 |2 |x31 |2
Therefore, with the relations, ( ) = + ( ) , where ( ) (
) /2, and fa1 b1 c1 Tr(T a1 T b1 T c1 ) = iN 3 /4 + O(N 2 ), the (++) sector of the three point
function is given by


2 J1 +2

1
m
n
N gYM
2i
ij rs

2
2J
2
y
1y
2 4
|x12 | |x31 |2J3 |x23 |2
 

1
1
1

|x12 |2 |x31 |2 |x12 |2 |x23 |2 |x23 |2 |x31 |2




1
1
1

+ d 4 u
(4.44)

.
u
u
(x1 u)2
(x2 u)2
(x3 u)2
The world sheet momentum dependence comes from




2im
2in(J3 + 1)
exp
q1 rJ3 +1 qJ2 +1 r1 = exp
J2 + 2
J3 + 2

188

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206





2im(J2 + 1)
2in
exp
exp
J2 + 2
J3 + 2


n
m
4iJ1

y
1y

(4.45)

where y = (2) /(1) = J2 /J1 and 1 y = (3) /(1) = J3 /J1 and we take the leading term
in the large J limit. We should note
that this momentum dependence cannot be obtained if we
choose the phase factor such as Jl=0 exp(2in/J ) Tr( i Z l Z J l ) often adopted in the literature.
As in the case of two point function, the (+) and (+) sectors are indispensable for our
duality relation, while the () sector depicted in Fig. 4 gives a vanishing results since it does
not contain a phase factor. The (+) sector of the three point function depicted in Fig. 3 is
 
 2 J1 +1
 j s
1 N J1 1 gYM
(J1 + 1)
s
4 2
4 2
|x12 |2J2 |x31 |2J3 +2
 
 


Tr i (x2 )r (x2 )s (x3 ) + qJ Tr r (x2 ) i (x2 )s (x3 ) .
(4.46)
The perturbation calculation to the one-loop order gives

  ai
Tr 1 (x2 )br1 (x2 )sc1 (x3 )
 2 3
 

gYM
1
= 2
ifa1 b1 c1 i r s
2
gYM 4

1
1
1
d 4u
u
u
.
(x2 u)2
(x2 u)2
(x3 u)2

(4.47)

This time, since the antisymmetric pert in terms of the indexes and can be eliminated, the
integral is transformed as

1
1
1
u
d 4 u u
4
2
(x2 u)
(x3 u)2

1
1
1
1
= d 4 u

= 2 2
,
(4.48)
4
2
2
(x2 u) (x3 u)
(x2 x3 )4
and then the (+) sector of the three point function becomes

2 J1 +2 

1
m N gYM
i j rs
.
ib
2
2J
y 2 4
|x12 | 2 |x31 |2J3 +2 |x23 |4
Similarly, the amplitude of the (+) sector is given by

2 J1 +2 

n
1
N gYM
ib
i j rs
.
2
2J
+2
2
1 y 2 4
|x12 |
|x31 |2J3 |x23 |4

(4.49)

(4.50)

In the situation we are now considering, where = |x2 x3 |  |x1 x2 |, the integral in (4.44)
can be neglected because


1
1
1
d 4u
u
u
0 (x3 x2 ).

(4.51)

2
2
(x1 u)
(x2 u)
(x3 u)2
Therefore, combining all the contributions, (4.44), (4.49) and (4.50), and taking into account the
j
normalization factors in (4.39) and (4.40), the three point functions where Os,n (x3 ) sits in the

189

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Fig. 5. (++) sector of three point function.


i
neighborhood of Or,m
(x2 ) is given by

 J
1 (x )O J2 ,i (x )O J3 ,j (x + )
O vac
1
r,m 2
s,n 2


3/2 1/2
gYM J1
N
n
1
i m

2 y
1y
y(1 y) |x12 |2J1 +2 4



b
b 

2 + ij rs ij rs ,
2
2

(4.52)

where ( ij )rs is defined as ( ij )rs = st 1/2( i j j i )tr . The final result (4.52) shows that
the OPE coefficient which can be obtained in the limit x3 x2 exactly
agrees with the expected
result from the string theory calculation, (3.23), just when b = 1/ 2. This non-trivial matching
confirms that the diagonalization up to O(1/J ) is crucial for our duality relation.
(1)i (1)j

(3)j

(2)i (2)

(3)

4.2.2. n1 n1 n2 1 2 ,n2 + n3 1 2 ,n3


Next, we consider the gauge theory correlation function corresponding to the process (4.2),

 J1 ,ij
J3 ,j
J2 ,i
(x2 )Os,n
(x3 ) ,
O n1 (x1 )Or,n
(4.53)
2
3
at the leading order in terms of the genus and the gauge interaction expansion. Here the operator
J ,ij
On11 (x1 ) is the two-scalar impurity state defined as
J ,ij

On11

1
(J1 + 2)N0J1 +3

J1

2in1 (l1 +1)


J1 +2



Tr i Z l1 j Z J1 l1 .

(4.54)

l1 =0

We consider the case where i = j for simplicity as in the corresponding calculation on the
string theory side. Since in this case too the () sector does not contribute to the lowest order
calculation with respect to the gauge theory interaction, it is enough to consider the (++), (+),
and (+) sectors.
The (++) sector of this correlator at the planer level is depicted in Fig. 5 and given by
 2 J1 +2  J1
1
1 gYM
N
4 4 2
2
|x12 |2(J2 +1) |x13 |2(J3 +1)

J
2 ,J3

2i(l2 +1)
J2 +2
J2 +2 (n2 J1 +2 n1 )

2i(l3 +1)
J3 +2
J3 +2 (n3 J1 +2 n1 )

l2 ,l3 =0

 2in1 J3  
2in1 (J3 +1) 




1 )r (x2 )s (x3 ) .
1 )s (x3 ) + e J1 +2 Tr Z(x
e J1 +2 Tr r (x2 )Z(x
(4.55)

190

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Fig. 6. (+) sector of three point function.

1 )s (x3 )) in (4.55) can be evaluated in the


The vacuum expectation value of Tr(r (x2 )Z(x
same way as (4.42). The sum of the phase factor at the leading order of the large J limit is
estimated as
J
2 ,J3

2i(l2 +1)
J2 +2
J2 +2 (n2 J1 +2 n1 )

2i(l3 +1)
J3 +2
J3 +2 (n3 J1 +2 n1 )

l2 ,l3 =0

sin2 (yn1 )
J1 2i JJ2 +2
n1
1 +2
e
n3 .
2
(n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
)

(4.56)

Then, the (++) sector of the three point function in the situation |x23 | =  |x12 | is given by
J1 +3
2  g2
gYM
1
J1
n1 sin2 (yn1 )
YM N
i 2 2
(4.57)

rs
n3 .
)
4
4 2 2
|x12 |2(J1 +3) 2 (n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
On the other hand, the (+) sector in Fig. 6 is
b

 2 J1 +2  J1
J2
2i(l2 +1)
J +2

1 gYM
1
N
(n 2 n )  s
e J2 +2 2 J1 +2 1 j s
2
2(J
+1)
2(J
+1)
4 4
2
|x12 | 2 |x13 | 3
l2 =0
 
2in1 (J3 +1) 




J1 +2
Tr s (x3 )r (x2 ) j (x1 ) .
Tr j (x1 )r (x2 )s (x3 ) + e

(4.58)

The vacuum expectation value Tr( j (x1 )r (x2 )s (x3 )) can be calculated in the same way as
(4.47), and the sum of the phase factor in the large J limit is
J2

l2 =0

2i(l2 +1)
J2 +2
J2 +2 (n2 J1 +2 n1 )

J1
1
2i n1


n2
y


1 e2iyn1 .

Therefore, the result for the (+) sector is



 2
 j j J1 sin2 (yn1 )
g2
gYM N J1 +3
1
ib YM2
rs
,
n1 ny2
4
4 2 2
|x12 |2(J1 +3) 2

(4.59)

(4.60)

where we do not take the sum over the superscript j . A parallel computation for the (+) sector
gives
J1 +3
2  g2
 i i J1 sin2 (yn1 )
gYM
1
YM N
ib 2
(4.61)
rs
n3 .
n1 + 1y
4
4 2 2
|x12 |2(J1 +3) 2

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

191

With the relation ( i i )rs = rs (with no sum over i), and taking into account the normalization
factors of BMN operators, we obtain

 J1 ,ij
J3 ,j
J2 ,i
(x2 )Os,n
(x
+
)
O n1 (x1 )Or,n
2
2
3

1/2 1/2
N
2gYM J1
1
rs
=

2(J
2
4 y(1 y) |x12 | 1 +3) 2

 



sin2 (yn1 )
n2
1
n3

(4.62)
2 i + ib n1 ib

.
n3
(n1 ny2 )(n1 + 1y
)
y
1y
2
This shows thatthe contribution from all sectors nicely combine to match exactly the result (3.32)
when b = 1/ 2. As in the previous example, the non-trivial matching is realized for the operators of definite conformal dimension.
J ,ij
It is not difficult to consider a more general case where On11 is replaced by OnJ11 ,kl . In this
case, the interaction Hamiltonian |H3 SV contributes to the calculation on the string theory side
jl
ik (or (i j ) counterparts). We can easily see
and gives the term proportional to ik rs or j l rs
that these terms also appear in the corresponding gauge theory calculation and will give the complete agreement. This gives another verification of the necessity for the both contributions from
the vertexes |H3 D and |H3 SV . We should note that when k = l, the operator mixing between a
J +1 ) will also play an important role
operator with scalar two impurities and the operator Tr(ZZ
for the duality relation.
Finally, we should comment on the normalization and the phase factor of the BMN operator
J,i
Or,m . The normalization has been chosen so that two point function takes the form (4.6). With
this choice of the normalization, our duality relation holds for the case (4.53) regardless of the
choice of the phase factor, that is, whether we chose exp(2im/J ), exp(2im/(J + 1)), or
exp(2im/(J + 2)). On the other hand, with the normalization thus fixed, in order for our duality
relation to be valid, we must chose the phase factor exp(2im/(J + 2)); otherwise we cannot
obtain the result with the appropriate world-sheet momentum dependence and the normalization
factor, as is easily seen from the calculation (4.45). Two simple examples we studied here is
J,i
enough to fix both the normalization and the phase factor of the BMN operator Ors,m
.
5. Conclusion and discussion
In this paper we confirm that the duality relation we proposed in [7] holds for the impurity
non-conserving process which contains fermionic BMN operators. In the process of the proof, it
is crucial that (a) the operator correspondent to the free string basis has the definite conformal
dimensions, (b) the string interaction Hamiltonian takes the form of the equal weight sum of the
two interaction vertex |H3 SV and |H3 D and (c) the structure of G factor in (3.22), in particular,
the factor f balances the dependence between C123 and H123 especially in the impurity nonpreserving processes.
However, though our duality relation holds in a very non-trivial way with the choice of the
equal weight sum of |H3 SV and |H3 D , we cannot conclude that this form of the string interaction vertex has proved to be completely correct. Since we cannot uniquely fix the form of the
interaction vertex only from the requirement to respect the SUSY in the PP-wave background, it
is not enough to check only a particular sector. In the previous paper [7] we have fixed the form of
the interaction vertex so that it is consistent with the effective action for the chiral primary fields
constructed in [3]. However, it has been claimed that the holographic string interaction vertex

192

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

should be further modified in order to respect the U(1)Y symmetry existing in the supergravity
sector [29]. They claimed that the |H3 D should be replaced as
|H3 D =

(r)
H2 |E

r=1


(r)
H2

r=1

1
1 Y4
12




1 4
1 Z |E.
12

(5.1)

The new terms do not affect all the processes we have studied in previous works. The simplest example to test this modification is a impurity non-preserving process where the vacuum
state splits into two BMN operators with two fermionic impurities. For this process, in contrast to the impurity preserving process where the energy difference gives O(1/) contributions,
(r)
the new term r H2 Y 4 |E can play a significant role. In fact, it seems that for the process
(2)
(2)
(3) (3)
v|b11,m b12,m b21,n b22,n |H h the new term cancels the contribution from the prefactor in
|H3 SV and only |H3 D contribution survives, which is of sub-leading order in the large limit
compared with |H3 SV . For our duality relation to be valid, this cancellation seems to be necessary in order to obtain the correct dependence expected from the gauge theory calculation. In
this case too, the proper identification of the BMN operator which corresponds to the free string
states is crucial to check our duality relation. The details will be reported in the future work [30].
Anyway, with the results obtained in the previous works [7,8] that our duality relation holds
for the impurity preserving process which consists of the BMN operators with scalar, vector
and fermionic impurities, as well as, for the impurity non-preserving processes which consist of
those with scalar and vector impurities, our duality relation itself is strongly expected to hold for
the general processes regardless of the kind of impurities and of whether impurities conserve or
not, as long as we choose the appropriate form of the interaction Hamiltonian in the PP-wave
background and properly identify the dictionary between string and gauge theory basis.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank T. Yoneya for valuable discussions and the collaboration at an early
stage of this work.
Appendix A. Feynman graph
In this appendix, we give the details of the calculation required to derive the log divergence
of the two point function (4.8). As the regularization scheme, we adopt the differential regularization method developed in the reference [36]. With this method the anomalous dimension
of the operator with two vector impurities is calculated in [33]. The formulae necessary for our
calculation are
1
1 ln((x y)2 2 )
= 
,
4
4
(x y)
(x y)2

1
= 4 2 (4) (x y).
(x y)2

(A.1)

With these formulae and partial integration, the two integrals needed in the calculations below to
derive log divergences can be evaluated as

2 2
1
1
2 ln(x y)
d 4u
(A.2)
=
2
,
(x u)4 (y u)4
(x y)4

2 2
1
1
2 ln(x y)
d 4u
(A.3)
=

.
(x u)4 (y u)2
(x y)2

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

193

This regularization method is used in the calculations of the three point correlators in (4.42)
and (4.47).
A.1. N = 4 super-YangMills action
Here we present the N = 4 super-YangMills action in the 4-dimensional spacetime and
summarize the notation. The field content is 4 gauge fields A ( = 1, 2, 3, 4), 6 real scalar
fields I (I = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and 4 Weyl spinor fields A
(A = 1, 2, 3, 4). All these are in the
adjoint representation such as
A = Aa T a ,

I = aI T a ,

a
aA
T ,

where T a satisfies
 a b
T , T = ifabc T c ,

 1

Tr T a , T b = ab ,
2
with the structure constant fabc for SU(N) symmetry, which satisfies


fpqr fpqr = N N 2 1 .
fapq fbpq = Nab ,

(A.4)

(A.5)

(A.6)

We pick up the U(1) subgroup of the R-symmetry such as SO(6) = U(1) SO(4) for scalar
field and SU(4) = U(1) SU(2) SU(2) for spinor fields and decompose the field such as


I i , Z, Z ,
(A.7)
A
(r , r ),

where Z ( 5 + i 6 )/ 2 which has the U(1) R-charge 1 under the rotation in the 56-plane.
The indexes I , i and A are vector indexes of SO(6), SO(4) and SU(4) symmetry, respectively.
The decomposed fermionic fields r and r denote the (2, 1)+1/2 and (1, 2)1/2 sectors in the
decomposition above, where 1/2 is the charge under the U(1) R-symmetry we have picked up.
With the decomposed field in (A.7) the d = 4, N = 4 super-YangMills action is given by
1 a a 1
2
gYM
S = F
F
D ia D ia D Z a D Z a ra D a r + ar D ar
4
2
1
1
a b c d
fpab fpcd i j i j fpab fpcd ia Z b ic Z d + fpab fpcd Z a Z b Z c Z d
4 
2

 i br c
a i r r b c
ar
ifabc r
r i + r r i



1 
1 
ra br ar br Z c + ra br ar br Z c ,
(A.8)
2
2
where F = x A A i[A , A ], D Z = Z i[A , Z]. The matrix and i are
defined as







= i i , 1 ,
= i i , 1 ,
(A.9)
 i

 i r r 

 i

= i i , 1 .
r r = i , 1 ,
(A.10)
These satisfy the relation
( ) + ( ) = 2 ,
(i j )r s + (j i )r s = 2ij rs ,

( ) + ( ) = 2 ,
(i j )r s + (j i )r s = 2ij sr .

(A.11)
(A.12)

194

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Note that for the lowered indexes we have (i j )rs + (j i )rs = 2ij rs . The spinor indexes,
as for both Lorentz and R-symmetry, are raised and lowered by the invariant tensor rs and rs
respectively such as




0 1
0 1
r rs s ,
(A.13)
r = rs s ,
rs
,
rs
1 0
1 0
and we use the usual convention as
r r = ,

r r = .

(A.14)

We have omitted the Lorentz spinor indexes in (A.8) using this abbreviation.
From the SYM action (A.8), the propagators are given, in the Euclidean space, by
2

 a

g2
1
1
b
ab gYM
,
Z
(x)Z
(y)
=

,
ai (x) bj (y) = ab ij YM2
2
2
4 (x y)
4 (x y)2


2
 a

1
ab s gYM

r (x) bs
(y)
=

,
x
r

4 2
(x y)2


2

 a
1
bs
ab s gYM

x
.
r (x) (y) = r
4 2
(x y)2

(A.15)
(A.16)
(A.17)

A.2. Feynman diagram


We give the details of the perturbation calculations required to derive the log divergence api
.
pearing in the two point function of the operator Or,m
A.2.1. Z a (x)Z b (y)
The diagram of fermion loop self-energy is

 
ifapq ifbpq
1
4 2 2 rs rs
2
2gYM 2gYM


2
gYM

4 2

4 
d 4u d 4v

1
1
1
1
u
u
, (A.18)
(x v)2 (y u)2
(u v)2
(u v)2

where the factor 1/2 4 comes from the perturbation expansion and the symmetric factor. With

the basic formula, ( ) ( ) = 2 , the integrand can be transformed by partial integral


such that

1
1
1
1
u
u
d 4u d 4v
2
2
2
(x v) (y u)
(u v)
(u v)2



1
1
1
1
1
1
= d 4u d 4v

(A.19)

.
(x v)2 (y u)2 2 (u v)4
(u v)2 (u v)2
Since we focus only on the log divergence in this paper, we neglect the second term, which also
should be canceled by the contribution of the same degree of divergence from other diagrams.
The log divergence of the first term in (A.19) can be estimated using the formula (A.1) and (A.3).

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Then, the log divergence from the diagram (A.18) is given by


 2 2
ln(x y)2
1 gYM
N

ab
2 4 2
(x y)2
The diagram whose intermediate states consist of s also gives the same contribution.
The contribution of the gluon emissionabsorption process is

195

(A.20)

fapq fbqp
1
2 2
2
2
gYM gYM


2 4 
gYM
1
1
1
1

d 4u d 4v
u
v
.
(A.21)
2
2
2
2
4
(u v) (x u)
(u v)
(y v)2
Integrating by part and using the formula (A.1) and (A.3), the log divergence from gluon exchange is reduced to
 2 2
ln(x y)2 2
1 gYM
N

.
(A.22)
ab
2 4 2
(x y)2
The log divergence which appears in the self-energy of Z is

 2 2
ln(x y)2 2
1 gYM
N ab
.
2
2 4
(x y)2

(A.23)

A.2.2. r (x) s (y)


The gluon emissionabsorption diagram gives


fapq fbqp 
1

2 rs 2
2
2
gYM gYM


2 4 
gYM
1
1
1
1
d 4 ud 4 v

x
u
v
.
2
2
2
2
4
(u v)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2
With the identity




= 2 ,
= + + i ,

and by partial integral, this integral reduces to



 2 4

gYM
fapq fbpq 
1
1
1

d 4u
rs 2

x
2
2
4
4 2
(x

u)
(u

v)
(y

v)2
gYM gYM

(A.24)

(A.25)
(A.26)

196

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206


+ i

( ) x

1
1
1
d u
u u

.
(x u)2
(u v)4 (y v)2
4

(A.27)

The second term vanish because of the antisymmetric property of , and with the formula
(A.1) and (A.3), we obtain the log divergence
 2 2



1 gYM
1

(A.28)
N rs ab x
ln(x y)2 2 .
4 4 2
(x y)2
There are two kinds of contribution from the Yukawa interaction, where the intermediate states
are , Z and , , respectively. The former diagram is



ifapq ifbpq
1
8 2 2 sr
2
2gYM 2gYM


2 4 
gYM
1
1
1
1
d 4u d 4v
x
v
v
2
2
2
2
4
(u v)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2
 2 2



1 gYM
1
=
N rs ab x
(A.29)
ln(x y)2 2 ,
4 4 2
(x y)2

where the integral has been performed in the same way as the gluon emissionabsorption process.
The latter contribution is



ifapq ifbpq  i  i ut
1

r u
ts
2 2
2
2
gYM gYM


2
gYM
4 2

4 
d 4u d 4v

1
1
1
1
x
v
v
.
(u v)2
(x u)2
(u v)2
(y v)2
(A.30)

Since

( i )r u ( i )ut

2
1 gYM
2 4 2

= +4rt ,

2

this gives the result two times of (A.29),





1

N rs ab x
ln(x y)2 2 .
(x y)2

(A.31)

The net contribution of logarithmic divergence from the fermion self-energy is


=

2
gYM
4 2

2


N rs ab x


1
ln(x y)2 2 .
(x y)2

(A.32)

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

197

A.2.3. Z a1 (x)Z a2 (x)Z b1 (y)Z b2 (y)


The amplitude for the gluon exchange diagram is given by


 2 5
gYM
fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1
fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2
1
+
2
2
2
2
2
2
4 2
gYM
gYM
gYM
gYM


d 4u d 4v

1
1
1
1

u
(u v)2 (x u)2
(y u)2 (x v)2

1
.
(A.33)
(y v)2
Performing partial integral and using the formula (A.1), the integrand can be transformed as


1
2
(A.34)
(Y
+
Y
)

X
(x + y )Hxyxy + 4 2
,
xxy
xyy
xxyy
2
(x y)2
where we have defined Xabcd and Yabc as

1
1
1
1
1
,
Habcd = d 4 u d 4 v
(A.35)
2
2
2
2
(a u) (b u) (u v) (c v) (d v)2

1
1
1
1
,
Xabcd = d 4 u
(A.36)
(a u)2 (b u)2 (c u)2 (d u)2

1
1
1
.
Yabc = d 4 u
(A.37)
2
2
(a u) (b u) (c u)2
As long as we are concerned with the logarithmic divergence, the first term in (A.34) can be
neglected and the other terms can be evaluated with the use of the formulae (A.2) and (A.3). The
result is
 2 3
ln(x y)2 2
1 gYM
(f
f
+
f
f
)
.
(A.38)
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
1 1
2 2
1 2
2 1
2 4 2
(x y)4
On the other hand, the scalar 4-point interaction is easily calculated as

 2 4 
g
1
1
d 4u
= 2 (fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 + fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 ) YM2
4
4
(x

u)
(y

u)4
gYM
1

 2 3
1 gYM
ln(x y)2 2
=
(f
f
+
f
f
)
.
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
pa
b
1 1
2 2
1 2
2 1
2 4 2
(x y)4
Then, we obtain


=

2
gYM
4 2

3
(fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 + fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 )

ln(x y)2 2
.
(x y)4

(A.39)

(A.40)

198

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206



A.2.4. ar1 (x)Z a2 (x) bs1 (y)Z b2 (y)
The log divergence which comes through the Yukawa coupling interaction is

 2 5

g
ifpa b ifpa b
1

8 12 2 22 1 rs YM2
2
4
2gYM 2gYM


d 4 u d 4 v x

1
1
1
1
1
v
v
.
2
2
2
2
(x u) (y u)
(u v)
(y v) (x v)2
(A.41)

The integral in the second line can be evaluated as





1
x H + 2 2 x Xxxyy ,
2

(A.42)

where H is defined as

d 4u d 4v

1
1
1
1
1
u

.
2
2
2
2
(x u) (y u)
(u v) (x v) (y v)2

(A.43)

The first term in (A.42) does not give the log divergence, and the result is


2
gYM
4 2

3




1
1
x
rs fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1
ln(x y)2 2 .
(x y)2
(x y)2

(A.44)

The gluon exchange gives the contribution

 2 5
g
fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 
1
= 2 2
rs YM2
2
2
4
gYM gYM


1
1
1
1
1

(x u)2
(y u)2 (u v)2 (x v)2 (x v)2
 2 5


gYM fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2
1
1
2
=
rs
x Yxxy
x x Hxxyy + 8
2
2
4
4 2
(x y)2
gYM
gYM
 2 3


1 gYM
1
1

=
rs fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2
( ) x
ln(x y)2 .
2 4 2
(x y)2
(x y)2
(A.45)

d 4 u d 4 v x

199

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Then the net result is



1
rs fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 + fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2
2


1
1

ln(x y)2 2 .

x
(x y)2
(x y)2


2
gYM
4 2

3

(A.46)

A.2.5.  ia1 (x)Z a2 (x) j b1 (y)Z b2 (y)


The gluon exchange gives

 2 5
gYM
fpa b fpa2 b2
1
4 21 1

ij
2
2
4 2
gYM 2gYM


d 4u d 4v

1
1
1
1
1

u
v
(u v)2 (x u)2
(y u)2 (x v)2
(y v)2

 2 3
ln(x y)2 2
1 gYM
=
f
f

pa
b
pa
b
ij
1
1
2
2
2 4 2
(x y)4
while the scalar 4-point function is

(A.47)

 2 3
ln(x y)2
1 gYM
=
(f
f

f
f
)
.
pa
b
pa
b
pa
a
pb
b
ij
1 2
2 1
1 2
1 2
2 4 2
(x y)4

(A.48)

Then, using the Jacobi identity, we obtain



=

2
gYM
4 2

3
fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 ij

ln(x y)2 2
.
(x y)4

A.2.6. ar1 (x) ia2 (x) bs 1 (y) ib2 (y)


There are two possible contraction through Yukawa interactions:
 2 5
g
ifpa1 b2 ifpb1 a2  i t  j 
1
s r t YM2
= 2 2
2
2
4
gYM gYM

(A.49)

200

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

1
1
1
1
1
x
u
v
2
2
2
2
(x v) (y u)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2
 2 5


gYM fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1  j i 
1
2

rs 2 x Xxxyy + x H
=
2
2
2
4 2
gYM
gYM
 2 3



1
1 gYM  j i
1

rs fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1
x
=
2 4 2
(x y)2
(x y)2

d 4u d 4v

ln(x y)2 2 ,

ifpa1 a2 ifpb1 b2 
2
gYM

2
gYM

d 4u d 4v

(A.50)

 2 5
t  i 
g
YM2
s r t
4

1
1
1
1
1
x
u
v
2
2
2
2
(x u) (y v)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2


gYM 5 fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2  i j 
rs 2 x Xxxyy
=
2
2
4 2
gYM
gYM
 2 3


 i j

1
1 gYM
1

=
f
f

pa1 a2 pb1 b2
rs (x y)2
x
4 4 2
(x y)2
ln(x y)2 2 .

(A.51)

The gluon exchange is the same as (A.45),

 2 3



1
1 gYM
1

f
f

ln(x u)2 2 .
pa1 b1 pa2 b2 rs
x
2 4 2
(x y)2
(x y)2
(A.52)

Then we obtain

 2 3 



1 gYM
1
=
j i rs fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 + i j rs fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2
2
2 4
2



1
1

+ ij rs fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2

ln(x y)2 2 .
x
(x y)2
(x y)2

(A.53)

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

201

A.2.7. ar1 (x) ia2 (x)sb1 (y)Z b2 (y)


There are two kinds of the Yukawa interaction such as

 2 5
gYM
ifpa b ifpa2 b1  i 
1

4 21 2
r r
4 2
2
2
g
2gYM
YM


1
1
1
1
1
x
v
y
(x v)2 (y u)2
(x u)2
(u v)2
(y v)2


 2 3
 i

1
1 gYM
1

=
f
f

r r pa1 b2 pa2 b1 (x y)2


x
(x y)2
2 4 2

d 4u d 4v

ln(x y)2 2 ,

(A.54)

 2 5
 i ifpa1 a2 ifpb1 b2 
g
1
= 4 r r
2 YM2
2
2
4
gYM
2gYM


1
1
1
1
1
x
u
y
2
2
2
2
(x u) (y v)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2


 2 3

gYM  i
1
1
1

=
f
f

r r pa1 a2 pb1 b2 (x y)2


x
(x y)2
2 2 4 2

d 4u d 4v

ln(x y)2 2 .

(A.55)

Then the sum of the above contribution gives the result (4.27):

(A.56)



 2 3
 i
1 gYM
1
r r fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 + fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2
=
2
2 4 2



1
1

x
ln(x y)2 2 .
2
(x y)
(x y)2
A.2.8. ra1 (x)Z a2 (x)sb1 (y)Z b2 (y)
The contribution from the Yukawa coupling is
 2 5
g
fpa1 a2 fpb2 b1 
1
= 8 2
r s YM2
2
2
4
gYM gYM

(A.57)

202

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

1
1
1
1
1
u
v
y
2
2
2
2
(x u) (y v)
(x u)
(u v)
(y v)2

 2 3


1
1 gYM
1

=
fpa1 a2 fpb1 b2 r s
2
2
2 4
(x y)
(x y)2

d 4u d 4v

ln(x y)2 2 .

(A.58)

The gluon exchange is the same as (A.45),

 2 3



1
1 gYM
ln(x u)2 2

f
f

.
pa1 b1 pa2 b2 r s
x
2 4 2
(x y)2
(x y)2

(A.59)

Therefore we obtain

 2 3
1 gYM
(fpa1 b2 fpa2 b1 fpa1 b1 fpa2 b2 ) r s
2 4 2


1
1

ln(x y)2 2 .
x
(x y)2
(x y)2

(A.60)

Appendix B. Prefactor
The form of the prefactor of the interaction vertex |H3 SV is4
|H3 SV = PSV |E,



1  i j
PSV =
K K + ij Vij K K + V
2

K 1 1 K 2 2 S1 2 (Y )S1 2 (Z) K 1 1 K 2 2 S1 2 (Y )S 1 2 (Z) ,

(B.1)

(B.2)

where K I , K I (I = i/ denotes a scalar/vector direction) and Y 1 2 , Z 1 2 are bosonic and


fermionic constituents of the prefactor defined as
K J = XIJ + XIIJ ,
XI =

K J = XIJ XIIJ ,

Fn(r) an(r) ,

XII =

r=1 n=0

Y 1 2 =

3

r=1 n=0

(B.3)
(r)
iUn(r) Fn(r) an ,

(B.4)

r=1 n=1
(r)1 2
(r)
G
,
n bn

Z 1 2 =

(r) 1 2
(r)
G
,
n bn

(B.5)

r=1 n=0

4 This definition differs form the one in (3.28) of [26] by a factor 2/  . Note also the difference of the total factor
of K i between here and there.

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

with




1/2 (r)
(r)

(1 4K) Fn ,
Gn = (1 4K)1/2 G(r)
n ,



2
2
(2) (3) ,
F (3) =
(3) (2) ,
F (1) = 0,
F (2) =



1

1  1 1/2
U(r) C(r) CN r n (n > 0),
Fn(r) =

1 4K (r)


1
1
(2)
(3)
G =
(2) (3) ,
G =
(3) (2) ,
G(1) = 0,


1

e((r) )  1/2 1/2 1/2 r



U(r) C(r) C N n (n > 0).
G(r)
n = 
1 4K |(r) |

203

Fn(r) =

The other quantities in the prefactor is defined as





1 4 4
1 4
Vij ij 1 +
Y + Z4 +
Y Z
12
144
 





i 2
1 4
1 4
1
2
Yij 1 + Z Zij 1 + Y
+ Y 2 Z 2 ij ,
2
12
12
4



1 4 4
1 4
4
Y +Z +
Y Z
V 1
12
144







i 2
1
1
1
2
Y
1 Z 4 Z
1 Y 4 + Y 2 Z 2 ,
2
12
12
4
i 3
S(Y ) Y + Y ,
3

(B.6)
(B.7)
(B.8)
(B.9)
(B.10)

(B.11)

(B.12)
(B.13)

with
r r

K r r K i i

Y1 2 Y12 ,

Y31 2 Y21 1 Y21 ,


Y21 1

ij

Y 2ij Y 21 1 1 1 ,


K r r K i i r r

Y22 2

(r = 1, 2),

(B.14)

Y1 2 Y21 ,

(B.15)

Y 4 Y21 1 Y 21 1 ,

Z 2ij Z 2 1 1

ij

(B.16)

1 1

Y 2Z


2 ij

Y 2k(i Z 2j )k .

We refer the reader to Ref. [26] for details.


On the other hand, the interaction vertex presented in [12], which is of the form
 8


3
8
(r)


m (r)I (r)I (r)a (r)a
|H3 D =
am am +
bm bm
|E

m= (r)
r=1

I =1

(B.17)

(B.18)

a=1

can be written as
|H3 D = PD |E,

1
PD = K 2 + K 2 Y 1 2 Y1 2 Z 1 2 Z 1 2 ,
4

(B.19)
(B.20)

204

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

where
Y 1 2 =

3

n (r) (r)1 2
G b
,
(r) n n

Z 1 2 =

r=1

3

n (r) (r)1 2
G b
.
(r) n n

(B.21)

r=1

Appendix C. Large behavior


rs is given [37], for (m, n) = (0, 0), by
The large behavior of N mn

(1)m+n
22
=
,
N mn
4|(1) |y
33
=
N mn

23
=
N mn

1
,
4|(1) |(1 y)

(1)m+n+1 sin(ny)
21
N mn
=
,

y(n m/y)
and, for m = n = 0, by
11
N 00
= 0,

12
N 00
= y,

1
,

4|(1) | y(1 y)
1
33
N 00
=
.
4|(1) |(1 y)

23
=
N 00

(1)m+1
,

4|(1) | y(1 y)

(C.1)

(1)m+n+1 sin(my) sin(ny)


11
=
N mn
,
|(1) |
31
=
N mn

(1)n sin(ny)
1 y(n m/(1 y))


13
N 00
= 1 y,
22
=
N 00

(C.2)
(C.3)

(C.4)

1
,
4|(1) |y
(C.5)

(r)
(r)
When we compute string amplitudes for fermions, the large behavior of Fn(r) , G
n , Um
5
and 1 4K are also useful :

(1)n+1
(2)
(3)

,
Fn = 
,
Fn = 
|(1) |y
|(1) |(1 y)

(1)n+1 n sin(ny)
(1)


Fn =
(C.6)
,
(|(1) |)3

(2)
(3)
(1)
,
F0 = 0,
,
F0 = 
F0 = 
(C.7)
2|(1) |y
2|(1) |(1 y)

(1)n+1
1
(3)
(2)
,
,
G
G
n = 
n = 
2|(1) |y
2|(1) |(1 y)

(1)n+1 2 sin(ny)
(1)


Gn =
,
|(1) |
1
1
(2) = 
(3) = 
,
G
,
G
0
0
4|(1) |y
4|(1) |(1 y)

(C.8)
(1) = 0,
G
0

(C.9)

5 Note that the definition of the Neumann vector N r here, with which F (r) is defined, differs by C 1/2 U from that
r
n
n
(r)

of Ref. [37].

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

Un(2) =

n
,
2|(1) |y

1 4K =

Un(3) =

n
,
2|(1) |(1 y)

1
.
4|(1) |y(1 y)

Un(1) =

2|(1) |
,
n

205

(C.10)
(C.11)

References
[1] S.S. Gubser, I.R. Klebanov, A.M. Polyakov, Gauge theory correlators from noncritical string theory, Phys. Lett.
B 428 (1998) 105, hep-th/9802109;
E. Witten, Anti-de Sitter space and holography, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 253, hep-th/9802150.
[2] O. Aharony, S.S. Gubser, J.M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, Y. Oz, Large N field theories, string theory and gravity, Phys.
Rep. 323 (2000) 183, hep-th/9905111;
E. DHoker, D.Z. Freedman, Supersymmetric gauge theories and the AdS/CFT correspondence, TASI 2001 Lecture
Notes, hep-th/0201253.
[3] S.-M. Lee, S. Minwalla, M. Rangamani, N. Seiberg, Three point functions of chiral operators in D = 4, N = 4 SYM
at large N , Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998) 697, hep-th/9806074.
[4] D. Berenstein, J.M. Maldacena, H. Nastase, Strings in flat space and pp waves from N = 4 super-YangMills,
JHEP 0204 (2002) 013, hep-th/0202021.
[5] S. Dobashi, H. Shimada, T. Yoneya, Holographic reformulation of string theory on AdS5 S 5 background in the
PP-wave limit, Nucl. Phys. B 665 (2003) 94, hep-th/0209251.
[6] T. Yoneya, What is holography in the plane wave limit of AdS(5)/SYM(4) correspondence?, hep-th/0304183 (expanded from the paper published in the Proceedings, Prog. Theor. Phys. 152 (2003) 108).
[7] S. Dobashi, T. Yoneya, Resolving the holography in the plane-wave limit of AdS/CFT correspondence, hepth/0406225.
[8] S. Dobashi, T. Yoneya, Impurity non-preserving 3-point correlators of BMN operators from PP-wave holography I:
Bosonic excitations, hep-th/0409058.
[9] M. Asano, Y. Sekino, T. Yoneya, PP-wave holography for Dp-brane backgrounds, Nucl. Phys. B 678 (2004) 197,
hep-th/0308024;
M. Asano, Y. Sekino, Large N limit of SYM theories with 16 supercharges from superstrings on Dp-brane backgrounds, hep-th/0405203;
M. Asano, Stringy effect of the holographic correspondence for Dp-brane backgrounds, hep-th/0408030.
[10] D.J. Gross, A. Mikhailov, R. Roiban, A calculation of the plane wave string Hamiltonian from N = 4 super-Yang
Mills theory, JHEP 0305 (2003) 025, hep-th/0208231.
[11] J. Gomis, S. Moriyama, J. Park, SYM description of SFT Hamiltonian in a pp wave background, Nucl. Phys. B 659
(2003) 179, hep-th/0210153.
[12] P. Di Vecchia, J.L. Petersen, M. Petrini, R. Russo, A. Tanzini, The three string vertex and the AdS/CFT duality in
the pp wave limit, hep-th/0304025.
[13] R. Roiban, M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, On light cone SFT contact terms in a plane wave, JHEP 0310 (2003) 055,
hep-th/0211220.
[14] P. Gutjahr, A. Pankiewicz, New aspects of the BMN correspondence beyond the planar limit, hep-th/0407098.
[15] G. Grignani, M. Orselli, B. Ramadanovic, G.W. Semenoff, D. Young, Divergence cancellation and loop corrections
in string field theory on a plane wave background, hep-th/0508126.
[16] J. Gomis, S. Moriyama, J. Park, SYM description of pp wave string interactions: Singlet sector and arbitrary impurities, Nucl. Phys. B 665 (2003) 49, hep-th/0301250.
[17] C.S. Chu, V.V. Khoze, G. Travaglini, BMN operators with vector impurities, Z2 symmetry and pp-waves,
JHEP 0306 (2003) 050, hep-th/0303107.
[18] G. Georgiou, V.V. Khoze, G. Travaglini, New tests of the pp wave correspondence, JHEP 0310 (2003) 049, hepth/0306234.
[19] G. Georgiou, G. Travaglini, Fermion BMN operators, the dilatation operator of N = 4 SYM, and pp wave string
interactions, JHEP 0404 (2004) 001, hep-th/0403188.
[20] N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G.W. Semenoff, M. Staudacher, BMN correlators and operator mixing in N = 4
super-YangMills theory, Nucl. Phys. B 650 (2003) 125161, hep-th/0208178.
[21] N.R. Constable, D.Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, Operator mixing and the BMN correspondence,
JHEP 0210 (2002) 068, hep-th/0209002.

206

S. Dobashi / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 171206

[22] M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, Superstring interactions in a pp-wave background, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 086004,
hep-th/0204146.
[23] M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, Superstring interactions in a pp-wave background 2, JHEP 0301 (2003) 036, hepth/0206073.
[24] A. Pankiewicz, More comments on superstring interactions in the pp-wave background, JHEP 0209 (2002) 056,
hep-th/0208209.
[25] A. Pankiewicz, B. Stefanski Jr., PP-wave light cone superstring field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 657 (2003) 79, hepth/0210246.
[26] A. Pankiewicz, An alternative formulation of light cone string field theory on the plane wave, JHEP 0306 (2003)
047, hep-th/0304232.
[27] A. Pankiewicz, B. Stefanski Jr., On the uniqueness of plane wave string field theory, hep-th/0308062.
[28] C.S. Chu, V.V. Khoze, Correspondence between the three point BMN correlators and the three string vertex on the
pp-wave, JHEP 0304 (2003) 014, hep-th/0301036.
[29] S. Lee, R. Russo, Holographic cubic vertex in the PP-wave, Nucl. Phys. B 705 (2005) 296, hep-th/0409261.
[30] S. Dobashi, in preparation.
[31] N.R. Constable, D.Z. Freedman, M. Headrick, S. Minwalla, L. Motl, A. Postnikov, W. Skiba, PP-wave string interactions from perturbative YangMills theory, JHEP 0207 (2002) 017, hep-th/0205089.
[32] A. Parnachev, A.V. Ryzhov, Strings in the near plane wave background and AdS/CFT, JHEP 0210 (2002) 066,
hep-th/0208010.
[33] U. Gursoy, Vector operators in the BMN correspondence, hep-th/0208041.
[34] N. Beisert, BMN operators and superconformal symmetry, Nucl. Phys. B 659 (2003) 79, hep-th/0211032.
[35] C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka, G.W. Semenoff, M. Staudacher, A new double scaling limit of N = 4 super-YangMills
theory and pp-wave strings, Nucl. Phys. B 643 (2002) 3, hep-th/0205033.
[36] D.Z. Freedman, K. Johnson, J.I. Latoree, Differential regularization and renormalization: A new method of calculation in quantum field theory, Nucl. Phys. B 371 (1992) 353.
[37] Y.H. He, J.H. Schwarz, M. Spradlin, A. Volovich, Explicit formulas for Neumann coefficients in the plane wave
geometry, Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 086005, hep-th/0211198;
See also, J. Lucietti, S. Schafer-Nameki, A. Sinha, On the plane-wave cubic vertex, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 026005,
hep-th/0402185.

Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

Supergeometry and arithmetic geometry


A. Schwarz ,1 , I. Shapiro
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Davis, CA, USA
Received 16 May 2006; received in revised form 29 June 2006; accepted 28 August 2006
Available online 11 September 2006

Abstract
We define a superspace over a ring R as a functor on a subcategory of the category of supercommutative
R-algebras. As an application the notion of a p-adic superspace is introduced and used to give a transparent
construction of the Frobenius map on p-adic cohomology of a smooth projective variety over Zp (the ring
of p-adic integers).
2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
It is possible that all physical quantities are measured in rational numbers (or even in integers
if there exist elementary length, elementary unit of time, etc.). All other numbers should be
introduced only for mathematical convenience as it is much more practical to work with an
algebraically closed field that is complete with respect to some norm.
Let us consider an oversimplified example where time and space are quantized and the motion
of a particle satisfies the equation


2 x(t) = F x(t), t .
(1)
Here 2 stands for the second difference:

 

2 x(t) = x(t + 2) x(t + 1) x(t + 1) x(t)
= x(t + 2) 2x(t + 1) + x(t).
* Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: schwarz@math.ucdavis.edu (A. Schwarz), ishapiro@math.ucdavis.edu (I. Shapiro).


1 Partly supported by NSF grant No. DMS 0505735.

0550-3213/$ see front matter 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2006.08.024

(2)

208

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

Eq. (1) which is the finite difference analogue of the Newtons second law, permits us to calculate
recursively x(t) for t Z if we know x(0), x(1) and F ; if the initial data x(0), x(1) and the
force F are all integers then all coordinates x(t) will also be integers. In some sense, all
physical questions can be answered if we know only integer numbers. However, if we would like
to write down an explicit solution of (1) even in the simplest situation when F is a linear function
of x(t) and does not depend explicitly on t we need irrational and complex numbers. Indeed, the
general solution to the equation
2 x(t) = ax(t)

(3)

has the form


x(t) = A1 t1 + A2 t2 ,

(4)

where 1 , 2 are solutions of a quadratic equation.


Usually we take 1 , 2 C; we are working with the field of complex numbers that is algebraically closed and complete with respect to the natural norm. However it is possible to make
another choice. It is well known that every norm on Q is equivalent to either the standard norm
x = |x| or p-adic norm
xp = p ordp x ,
where p is a prime number. Here ordp x is equal to the multiplicity of p in the prime decomposition of x if x Z; in general, ordp (x/y) = ordp x ordp y. Completing Q with respect to
the p-adic norm we obtain the field of p-adic numbers Qp ; the completion of Z in the p-adic
norm gives the ring of p-adic integers Zp . Since Qp is not algebraically closed, sometimes it is
p of the
convenient to work with the field Cp obtained as a completion of the algebraic closure Q
field Qp with respect to an appropriate norm. The field Cp is algebraically closed and complete;
in many ways it is as convenient as the field of complex numbers.
Of course, in most cases it is better to work with the familiar complex numbers, but situations
do arise where p-adic methods are more efficient. Let us suppose, for example, that the space
variable x in (3) is periodic with period N , or, in other words, x takes values in cyclic group ZN .
(We are using the notation Zp for Z/pZ to distinguish it from the ring of p-adic integers Zp .)
Then Eq. (3) splits into independent equations corresponding to prime factors of N ; it is natural
to study the elementary equations by means of p-adic methods.
There were numerous attempts to use p-adic numbers in quantum field theory and string
theory (see, for example, [2] for review of p-adic strings). It is clear that taking p-adic physics
seriously (i.e., considering it not as a formal gadget, but as physical reality) one should work
with all prime numbers simultaneously (in other words one should work with adeles). We would
like to emphasize that we think that not only p-adic numbers, but also irrational and complex
numbers should be regarded as a formal tool in the theory based on rational numbers. If we
accept this viewpoint there is no necessity to work in the adelic setting.
In general, p-adic methods have a good chance to be useful when interesting physical quantities are represented by integer or rational numbers. This is the case for topological sigma-models.
It was shown in [4,5] that the instanton numbers for sigma-models over complex numbers can
be expressed in terms of p-adic B-model, or, in other words, in terms of the variation of Hodge
structure on p-adic cohomology. More precisely, it was proven that instanton numbers can be expressed in terms of the Frobenius map on p-adic cohomology and this fact was used to analyze
integrality of instanton numbers.

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

209

Recall that the Frobenius map of a field of characteristic p transforms x into x p . This map is
an endomorphism of the field, it is furthermore an automorphism for finite fields and an identity
map for the field Fp consisting of p elements. Of course the pth power map is an algebra homomorphism for any Fp -algebra.2 This last observation leads to the Frobenius map on a variety
over Fp . One can consider the pth power map also on the p-adic numbers, but in this case it is
not a homomorphism. We can define the Frobenius map on the n-dimensional affine or projective
space over Zp by raising the coordinates to the pth power. However, a variety sitting inside (an
affine or projective variety) will not, in general, be invariant with respect to the Frobenius map.
Nevertheless, one can define the Frobenius map on the cohomology with coefficients in the ring
of p-adic integers Zp .
The standard approach to the construction is quite complicated; it is based on the consideration of the so-called DP-neighborhood of a variety that has the same cohomology as the original
variety and at the same time is invariant with respect to the Frobenius map. One of the main goals
of the present paper is to give a simplified construction of the Frobenius map in terms of supergeometry. The logic of our construction remains the same, but the role of a DP-neighborhood is
played by a p-adic superspace having the same body as the original variety.3
We hope that our approach to the Frobenius map will be much more accessible to physicists
than the standard one based on the consideration of the crystalline site and DP-neighborhoods [1].
Our considerations, as presented here, are not completely rigorous; we did not want to exceed
significantly the level of rigor that is standard for a physics journal. However, we believe that
our results are of interest also to pure mathematicians and therefore we have written a rigorous
exposition of our construction of the Frobenius map [8].
It seems that arithmetic geometry should play an essential role in string theory; the paper [4]
sketches one way of applying arithmetic geometry, but there are also other ways (let us mention
a series of papers by Schimmrigk, for example [10]). The present paper shows that, conversely,
some ideas borrowed from physics can be used to clarify some important notions of arithmetic
geometry.
As we mentioned, our construction is based on the notion of a p-adic superspace. We hope
that this notion will have also other applications. In particular, we expect that it can be used
to construct supersymmetric sigma-models and topological sigma-models in the p-adic setting.
The p-adic B-model used in [4] was defined completely formally as the theory of variations of
Hodge structures. However it is natural to conjecture that it can be defined in the framework of
Lagrangian formalism and that it is related to the (conjectural) p-adic supersymmetric sigmamodel.
One should notice that in an appropriate coordinate system the operations in the (super)group
of supersymmetries are given by polynomial formulas with integer coefficients; this means that
one can define the supersymmetry group over an arbitrary commutative ring R assuming that the

2 An R-algebra is a ring A equipped with a ring homomorphism R A. This notion is perhaps more familiar in the
case when R is a field. All rings are assumed to be unital and associative.
3 Varieties we consider are defined over the ring of p-adic integers Z . The elements of this ring can be represented
p

as formal power series ak pk where the coefficients a0 , a1 , . . . are integers between 0 and p 1. If the series is finite
it specifies a conventional integer and the operations on p-adic numbers coincide with operations in Z. Assigning the

coefficient a0 to a series
ak pk we obtain a homomorphism of Zp onto the field Fp . Using this homomorphism we
obtain from every variety over the p-adic integers a variety over Fp ; we say that this variety is the body of the variety
over the p-adic integers.

210

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

coordinates belong to this ring (for example, one may consider the supersymmetry group over Z;
then we can talk about supersymmetry over integers).
To construct supersymmetric objects it is natural to introduce a notion of superspace over
ring R; this can be done in many ways. In the conventional superspace over real numbers coordinates are considered as even or odd elements of a Grassmann algebra. The algebra of functions
on the (m, n)-dimensional affine superspace over R can be considered as a tensor product of the
algebra of smooth functions of m real variables and the Grassmann algebra with n generators. In
mathematical formulation [7] the conventional superspace is regarded as a functor on the category of Grassmann algebras with values in the category of sets (we assign to every Grassmann
algebra the set of points with coordinates from ). A function on a superspace is defined as
a map of functors. It is clear that the functions on superspace described above specify maps of
functors (natural transformations). It is not so clear that there are no other natural transformations, but this can be proven [11]. One can consider also superspaces where in addition to m even
and n odd coordinates we have r even nilpotent coordinates; then there is an additional factor
(the algebra of formal power series with r variables) in the tensor product specifying the algebra
of functions (see [3]). It is important to notice that even considering only superspaces over real
numbers one can modify the definition of a superspace in a variety of ways to obtain different
classes of functions. For example, we can assume that the coordinates are even and odd elements
of an arbitrary supercommutative algebra over R; then only polynomial functions are allowed.
If we take as the starting point the functorial approach, the definition of a superspace over a
ring R becomes very natural: we should fix a subcategory of the category of supercommutative
R-algebras and define a superspace as a functor from this subcategory to the category of sets. The
algebra of functions depends on the choice of a subcategory. Notice that the functorial approach
is common in algebraic geometry where a variety over a ring R specifies a functor on the category of R-algebras with values in the category of sets. (A variety is singled out by polynomial
equations with coefficients in R in affine or projective space over R. These equations make sense
if the coordinates are considered as elements of an R-algebra; we can consider the corresponding set of solutions. Similarly one can define the notion of a supervariety singled out by means
of polynomial equations in an affine or projective superspace and construct the corresponding
functor.)
We are interested in the case when R is the ring of p-adic integers Zp and we define the
subcategory (p) as the category of rings of the form B where B is a commutative ring
such that pN0 B = 0 and B/pB does not contain nilpotent elements; stands for a Grassmann
ring. By definition, a p-adic superspace is a functor on the category (p) with values in the
category of sets. As always, we can define an affine superspace as a space with m even, r even
nilpotent and n odd coordinates. Functions on such a superspace are described in [8]. In this
paper we need only the 
case when m = n = 0. If r = 1 (one even nilpotent coordinate), then
cn n
functions have the form
n! z where cn Zp . The superspace at hand can be considered as an
 of a point on a line; it follows from the description of functions that
infinitesimal neighborhood pt
 coincides with the cohomology of a point (this is a crucial observation that
the cohomology of pt
 r with r even nilpotent coordinates
is used in the construction of the Frobenius map). The space pt
can be regarded as an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point in the r-dimensional affine space; its
 r does
cohomology also coincides with the cohomology of a point. Notice that the superspace pt
not have any odd coordinates (even though Grassmann algebras were used in its construction).
Let us restrict the functor defining a p-adic superspace to the subcategory of Fp -algebras
without nilpotent elements. If there exists a variety over Fp that specifies the same functor we
say that this variety is the body of the superspace at hand.

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

211

Consider a projective variety V over Zp . We mentioned already that the Frobenius map acts
on the projective space sending a point with homogeneous coordinates (x0 : . . . : xn ) to the point
p
p
with coordinates (x0 : . . . : xn ). The variety V is not invariant with respect to the Frobenius map,
but its body is invariant. (We can define the body considering the functor XV corresponding to the
variety V or we can use the simpler definition in the footnote 3; both definitions lead to the same

result.) Now we consider the maximal subsuperspace X
V of the projective space having the same

body as V (and call it the infinitesimal neighborhood of XV ). It is obvious that X
V is invariant
with respect to the Frobenius map. This means that the Frobenius map induces a homomorphism

on the cohomology groups of the p-adic superspace X
V . If V is smooth one can prove that the

are
isomorphic
to
the
cohomology
groups of V . (The comparison
cohomology groups of X
V
of cohomology groups can be reduced to local calculations and locally we use the isomorphism
 r and the cohomology of a point.) We thus obtain an action of
between the cohomology of pt
Frobenius map on cohomology groups of a non-singular projective variety over Zp (Section 6).
In the last section we demonstrate the properties of Frobenius map that were used in [4]. In the
paper [9] the same properties were used to express the Frobenius map on the cohomology of a
CalabiYau threefold in terms of the mirror map and instanton numbers.
2. Superspaces
Let us denote by A a supercommutative ring (i.e., a Z2 -graded ring A = A0 A1 where
a0 b = ba0 , a1 a1 = a1 a1 if a0 A0 , a1 , a1 A1 , b A).
One can say that Ap,q = {(x1 , . . . , xp , 1 , . . . , q ) | xi A0 , i A1 } is a set of A-points of
(p, q)-dimensional superspace (of space with p commuting and q anticommuting coordinates).
One can consider Ap,q as an Abelian group or as an A0 -module, but these structures will not be
important in what follows.
A parity preserving homomorphism : A A induces a map F () : Ap,q A p,q . It is obvious that F () = F () F () and F (id) = id. This means that we can consider a functor Ap,q
on the category of supercommutative rings taking values in the category of sets and assigning
Ap,q to the ring A.
One can define a superspace as a functor from the category of supercommutative rings into
the category of sets; then Ap,q represents the (p, q)-dimensional affine superspace (over Z).
We define a map of superspaces as a map of functors. In particular a map of (p, q)dimensional superspace into a (p , q )-dimensional superspace is defined as a collection of maps

A : Ap,q Ap ,q that are compatible with parity preserving homomorphisms of rings. In other
words, for every parity preserving homomorphism : A A the diagram
Ap,q

F ()

Ap ,q

F ()
A


A p,q
A p ,q
should be commutative.
p,q
Let us denote by OZ a Z2 -graded ring of polynomials depending on p commuting and q
anticommuting variables and having integer coefficients. In other words:




p,q
OZ = Z x 1 , . . . , x p Z 1 , . . . , q

is a tensor product of the polynomial ring Z[x 1 , . . . , x p ] and the Grassmann ring Z [ 1 , . . . , q ],
the Z2 -grading comes from Z2 -grading of the Grassmann ring.

212

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218


p,q

It is easy to check that an even element of OZ determines a map of the (p, q)-dimensional
p,q
affine superspace into the (1, 0)-dimensional affine superspace and an odd element of OZ determines a map into (0, 1)-dimensional affine superspace. More generally, a row (f1 , . . . , fp ,
p,q
p,q
1 , . . . , q ) of p even elements of OZ and q odd elements of OZ specifies a map of (p, q)
dimensional superspace into (p , q )-dimensional superspace (a map of functors Ap,q Ap ,q ).
p,q
The construction is obvious: we substitute elements of the ring A instead of generators of OZ .


One can prove that all maps of functors Ap,q Ap ,q are described by means of this construction.
More examples of superspaces can be constructed as affine supervarieties. Affine supervariety
(as usual affine variety) can be defined by means of polynomial equations:


f1 x 1 , . . . , x p , 1 , . . . , q = 0,
..
.


fp x 1 , . . . , x p , 1 , . . . , q = 0,


1 x 1 , . . . , x p , 1 , . . . , q = 0,
..
.


q x 1 , . . . , x p , 1 , . . . , q = 0.

More formally, we consider a map of functors F : Ap,q Ap ,q corresponding to a row


(f1 , . . . , fp , 1 , . . . , q ) and define a set BA of A-points of the supervariety B as a preimage of

zero by the map F (A) : Ap,q Ap ,q . It is obvious that every parity preserving homomorphism
: A A induces a map BA BA .
Notice that to every affine supervariety we can assign an affine variety (underlying variety)
by dropping the equations i = 0 and setting i = 0 in the equations fi = 0, i.e., we neglect odd
variables and equations.
One can easily move from the affine to the projective picture as in the usual commutative
case. Recall that the functor of points corresponding to the projective space Pn can
 be defined
by the formula Pn (A) = (An+1 ) /A , where (An+1 ) = {(x0 , . . . , xn ) An+1 | Axi = A},
the group A of invertible elements of the ring A acts by means of componentwise multiplication. We can define the super version of the projective space by setting Pn,m (A) =

{(x0 , . . . , xn , 1 , . . . , m ) (An+1
0 ) A1 }/A0 where A is a supercommutative ring. One easily
checks that this results in a functor thereby defining the projective superspace.
As before we may get a more general object, namely a projective supervariety by considering
the solutions of graded homogeneous equations in the variables x i and i , that is solutions of a
system:


f1 x 0 , . . . , x n , 1 , . . . , m = 0,
..
.


fs x 0 , . . . , x n , 1 , . . . , m = 0,


1 x 0 , . . . , x n , 1 , . . . , m = 0,
..
.


t x 0 , . . . , x n , 1 , . . . , m = 0,

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

213

where fi OZn+1,m is an even homogeneous element and i OZn+1,m is an odd homogeneous


element.
Again we can associate to the projective supervariety its underlying variety: a projective variety obtained by neglecting the odd variables and equations.4 The above constructions produce
affine and projective supervarieties as functors on the category of supercommutative rings, hence
they can be considered as superspaces. A map of superspaces is a natural transformation of the
functors. Similarly, a function on a superspace is a natural map to the affine superspace A1,1 .
There are some important modifications to these constructions that will be useful to us. First
of all instead of rings one can consider algebras over a field or more generally R-algebras, where
R is some fixed commutative ring. Modifying the source category for our functors in this way
leads to the notion of a superspace over R. Furthermore, we can consider instead of the category of all supercommutative R-algebras its various subcategories. It is worthwhile to note that
the functions on a superspace depend on the particular subcategory that we choose. The most
important example for us will be the subcategory of supercommutative R-algebras that consists
of rings of the type B Z [ 1 , . . . , q ] where B is a commutative R-algebra. The concepts of
affine and projective supervarieties modify readily to this more general setting.
The construction of Ap,q can be generalized in the following way. Given an arbitrary
Z2 -graded R-module E = E0 E1 , we can define a superspace over R, by setting E(A) =
E0 A0 E1 A1 .5 When R = Z and E is a free Abelian group we obtain Ap,q .
An important example of a superspace that does not belong to the types described above

is defined by setting spt(A)
= Anilp where Anilp is the subring of nilpotent elements. We will
nilp

actually be more interested in pt(A)
= A0 . This is an example of a more general and key
construction to be discussed later.
Using the functorial approach to supergeometry it is easy to define the notion of supergroup,
super Lie algebra and their actions. Namely one should replace the target category of sets in the
definition of the superspace with the category of groups, Lie algebras, etc., A0,1 for instance can
be given the structure of a supergroup or that of a super Lie algebra. A differential on a Z2 -graded
R-module generates an action of A0,1 on the corresponding superspace, conversely an action of
A0,1 gives a differential. (Recall that a differential on a Z2 -graded R-module is a parity reversing
R-linear operator d, with d 2 = 0, satisfying the (graded) Leibniz rule.)
3. Body of a superspace
Let us consider a subcategory C of the category of supercommutative R-algebras having the
property that for every A C the quotient A/Anilp of the ring A by the ideal of nilpotent elements
is also in C. The rings A/Anilp where A C form a subcategory of the category of commutative
R-algebras. Note that by assumption, it is a subcategory of C as well, denote it by Cred .
Recall that a superspace is a functor on C. Define the body of the superspace to be its restriction to Cred . We will always assume that the body of a superspace is an algebraic variety. This
means that there exists a variety over R such that the restriction of the corresponding functor
4 In the terminology of algebraic geometry a system of polynomial equations in affine or projective space specifies an

affine or projective scheme. The term variety is reserved for schemes where local rings do not have nilpotent elements;
we will assume that this condition is satisfied. Similarly one should talk about affine superschemes reserving the word
supervariety for the case when underlying scheme is a variety.
5 A different (in general) superspace can be obtained by considering E (A) = Hom (E, A) where we require the
R
morphisms to be parity preserving. When E is free over R, this is the same as the tensor construction.

214

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

on R-algebras to Cred coincides with the restriction of the superspace to Cred . This variety is not
unique, however in the situation we consider later, there exists such an ideal M R that Cred can
be identified with the subcategory of commutative R-algebras consisting of R/M-rings without
nilpotent elements, thus the body is a unique R/M-variety. If our superspace is an affine or projective supervariety then the notion of body agrees with the notion of underlying variety (if the
body is considered as a variety over R).
If X is a superspace we will denote its body considered as a variety by Xbody . Every
subvariety Z Xbody determines a subsuperspace X|Z of X that can be thought of as the
largest subsuperspace of X with body Z. More precisely, for every A C we have a map
A : X(A) X(A/Anilp ) induced by the morphism A A/Anilp . The subvariety Z specifies a
subset Z(A/Anilp ) X(A/Anilp ), we define X|Z (A) = A1 (Z(A/Anilp )).
Consider an inclusion of superspaces X Y , that is a natural transformation i such that for
every A, iA : X(A) Y (A) identifies X(A) with a subset of Y (A). Note that the variety Xbody is
a subvariety of Ybody . Define the infinitesimal neighborhood X of X in Y , by setting X = Y |Xbody .
For example, if X is the origin in Y = A1 , the infinitesimal neighborhood of X
Clearly X X.
 defined earlier.
is the superspace pt
4. de Rham cohomology of a superspace
Given a general superspace X, we associate to it a new superspace T X called the odd
tangent space, defined by T X(A) = X(A Z [ ]). It should be thought of as the superspace
parameterizing the maps from A0,1 to X.
To make the definition more transparent, consider the following more familiar situation. Let us
assume that X is an affine algebraic supervariety defined by polynomial equations fi (x j , k ) = 0
and i (x j , k ) = 0 as before. Then T X is given by polynomial equations obtained by setting
x i = y i + i and j = j + zj in fi = 0 and j = 0. (Here y i , zj are even variables and i ,
i j
i
j
j , are odd.) T X is then an affine supervariety
with coordinates
 i
 j y , z i, j, constrained
i
j
i
j
by the even equations fk (y , ) = 0 and y i k (y , ) + z j k (y , ) = 0 as well as


the odd equations k (y i , j ) = 0 and i y i fk (y i , j ) + zj j fk (y i , j ) = 0.
The functions on T X are (by definition) differential forms on X. The differential on the ring
of functions on T X (the ring (X) of differential forms on X) can be defined by dy i = i ,
di = 0, d j = zj , and dzj = 0.
The differential on T X has geometric origin that permits one to define it for every superspace X. Namely A0,1 has a structure of a supergroup and therefore it acts on itself in an
obvious way. Viewing T X as the superspace parameterizing maps from A0,1 to X we obtain an action of A0,1 on it. Similarly we have an action of A on T X derived from the
action of A on A0,1 via A (A) A0,1 (A) A0,1 (A) which is just the multiplication map
A A1 A1 . The actions of A0,1 and A on T X are compatible in the sense that the
semi-direct product A0,1  A acts on T X. Furthermore this construction is functorial, i.e.,
a natural transformation : X Y induces a natural transformation between the odd tangent
spaces d : T X T Y that is compatible with the action of A0,1  A .
The action of A0,1 on T X and thus on the differential forms on X (= functions on T X)
specifies a differential d on (X) that can be used to define the cohomology groups ker d/ im d.
These groups are in fact R-modules. The action of A descends to the subquotient and gives a
grading on the cohomology.
In the case when X is a smooth affine algebraic variety (considered as a functor) and the
source category is the full category of supercommutative R-algebras, the cohomology groups

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

215

coincide with the familiar de Rham cohomology. They may or may not coincide with them if the
source category is different.
To define the de Rham cohomology in a non-affine (but still smooth case6 ) recall that we
assumed that the body of the superspace X is an algebraic variety. For every open subvariety
(U ) as the R-algebra of differU Xbody , consider the restriction X|U of X to U . Define X/R
(U ) is a differential
ential forms on X|U , i.e., functions on T (X|U ). As observed above X/R
0,1
R-algebra with the differential given by the action of A and the grading given by the action
(U ) for every U specify a sheaf of differential R-modules on
of A . The collection of X/R
Xbody . We define the de Rham cohomology of X as hypercohomology of this sheaf. That is we

consider the R-module of Cech


cochains with values in X/R
and define the differential on these

as the sum of the differential on X/R (U ) and the Cech


differential. Corresponding cohomology groups are by definition the de Rham cohomology of X. If X is a smooth projective variety
this definition will produce cohomology groups isomorphic to the familiar de Rham cohomology
groups for a choice of the source category that will interest us.
It is easy to see from the definitions that the de Rham cohomology is a contravariant functor
from the category of superspaces to the category of graded R-algebras. Thus any endomorphism
of X induces an endomorphism on the cohomology.
5. Cohomology of an infinitesimal neighborhood
As we mentioned already an infinitesimal neighborhood of a point pt in the affine line A1 is
 given by a functor that assigns to a supercommutative ring A, the nilpotent
the superspace pt
nilp
part A0 of A0 . If the source category is the category of all supercommutative Q-algebras, then
 is easily seen to be the ring of formal power series over Q, namely
the ring of
functions on pt


= { an zn
+ bn zn dz}.
Q[[z]] = { an zn }. The ring of differential forms is then Q[[z]][dz] 
(Here z is even and dz odd as usual.) The differential transforms
an zn + bn zn dz into

n1
dz. We see immediately that any element of ker d belongs to im d except a0 , thus the
nan z
 is an isomorphism.
map on cohomology induced by the embedding of pt into pt
It was important to work with Q-algebras in the above considerations. If we instead consider
the category of all supercommutative rings then we should replace Q[[z]] and Q[[z]][dz] with
 now has non-trivial higher cohomology.7
Z[[z]] and Z[[z]][dz], respectively. It is clear that pt
However one can define a subcategory of the category of supercommutative rings in such
 are naturally isomorphic. Namely we should use the
a way that the cohomology of pt and pt
category (p) consisting of objects B = B Z [ 1 , . . . , q ] where B is a commutative ring
such that p N0 B = 0 and B/pB has no nilpotent elements.8 Here p is a fixed prime (sometimes
we need to assume that p > 2). A superspace with the source category (p) will be called a
p-adic superspace. In what follows we work with p-adic superspaces.


 can then be identified with formal series an zn /n! and the forms on pt
The
onpt
functions
with an zn /n! + bn zn /n! dz where an , bn Zp .

6 In the non-smooth case one follows the procedure below applied to Y | instead of X itself, where Y is smooth and
X

contains X. For this to work one has to choose an appropriate source category for the functors specifying the superspaces.
7 Naturally because we can no longer divide by n.
8 Examples of such rings B are Z
pk and Zpk [x].

216

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

It is not difficult to prove that every series of this kind specifies a function (or a form). We
nilp
+
notice first that B = pB + +
B , where we denote by B the ideal generated by i s. Then the
claim above follows from these observations:
(A) For every nilpotent element 
Z we can consider n /n! as an element of Z , furthermore
n
/n! = 0 for n large, thus an zn /n! can be evaluated at .
(B) 
The ring B can be considered as a Zp -algebra since multiplication by an infinite series
an p n makes sense since we have p N0 B = 0.
n /n! in the
(C) For every pB the expression n /n! makes sense as an element of B since p
reduced form has no p factors in the denominator. Furthermore,
if p > 2 then
an zn /n!

n
can be evaluated at p to obtain an element of Zp and so an z /n! can be evaluated at .
 is more complicated. The proof is given
The statement that these are all the functions on pt
in [8], Section 4.1. From the viewpoint of a physicist this proof is irrelevant: we can restrict
ourselves to the functions described above and not worry about other
 functions.
 is given by the formula d( an zn /n! + bn zn /n! dz) =
The
differential
on
forms
on
pt


an zn1 /(n 1)! dz. It follows immediately from this formula that the cohomology of pt
coincides with that of pt.
Let us now consider the cohomology of the infinitesimal neighborhood X of a smooth variety X singled out by a single equation f (z) = 0. Locally the infinitesimal neighborhood is
 hence its cohomology coincides with the cohomology of X.
a direct product of X with pt;
w=
More
precisely
we
have
a
local
expression for a differential form of degree s on X:


an f n /n! + bn f n /n! df , where an and bn are differential forms on X of degree s and
s 1, respectively. One can derive the fact we need from the formula
h(w) = (1)s1

bn f n+1 /(n + 1)!.

n=0

This expression establishes a homotopy equivalence between sheaves of differential forms on X

and X.
The above statements are particular cases of a general theorem valid for a smooth subvariety
X of a smooth variety Y . (More generally, X and Y can be supervarieties.) That is: If X and Y are
considered as superspaces over the category (p) or over the category of all supercommutative
Q-algebras then the cohomology of the infinitesimal neighborhood X of X in Y is naturally
isomorphic to the cohomology of X.9
It follows from the above theorem that the cohomology of an infinitesimal neighborhood of a
smooth X does not depend on which particular embedding into a smooth Y one chooses.10
9 Recall that we defined cohomology as hypercohomology of the complex of sheaves. The embedding of X into
X induces a map of the corresponding complexes of sheaves that one can show, through local analysis, is a quasiisomorphism by constructing an explicit homotopy. In the case when X has codimension 1 this homotopy was constructed
above.
10 It seems one can prove that this remains true even in the case of a singular X. This prompts a definition of the
cohomology of a singular X as the cohomology of its infinitesimal neighborhood in some smooth Y . In the case of a
p-adic superspace X obtained from a variety over Fp we should obtain the crystalline cohomology of the variety as the

cohomology of X.

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

217

6. Frobenius map on the p-adic cohomology


Let V be a smooth projective variety over the ring Zp of p-adic integers. There is a standard
way to define its de Rham cohomology H (V ; Zp ) with coefficients in Zp . One can define the
action of the Frobenius morphism on H (V ; Zp ). The usual way to obtain this action is based on
crystalline cohomology. We will demonstrate a simpler construction in terms of supergeometry.
Let us consider V as a functor on the category (p) and denote it by XV .11 We noticed
previously that a ring belonging to (p) can be considered as a Zp -algebra, thus the de Rham
cohomology of XV as defined previously yields a graded Zp -algebra. As mentioned previously,
the de Rham cohomology of XV coincides with the de Rham cohomology of its infinitesimal
n

neighborhood X
V in the projective space P (considered as a functor on (p)). Note that while


XV is obtained from a variety V , there is no variety that yields X
V . The body of X
V coincides
with the body of XV and is a variety over the field Fp . (The body is defined as a functor on
the category (p)red of rings of the form B/pB without nilpotent elements. This is exactly the
category of Fp -algebras without nilpotent elements.)
The Frobenius map on the projective space over Zp transforms a point with homogeneous
p
p
coordinates (x0 : . . . : xn ) into the point with homogeneous coordinates (x0 : . . . : xn ), this is
clearly a natural transformation on the p-adic superspace Pn . The subfunctor XV is not preserved

by this map, but its infinitesimal neighborhood X
V is invariant. This follows immediately from
the definition of 
XV as the maximal subsuperspace with the same body as XV since the body of
XV is invariant inside the body of Pn under the Frobenius map.12

Now the action of the Frobenius on X
V induces an action on the de Rham cohomology of

XV which is the same as the de Rham cohomology of XV which in the smooth projective case
is the same as the usual de Rham cohomology of V . We thereby obtain the celebrated lifting of
Frobenius to characteristic 0.13
7. Hodge filtration
The grading on the sheaf of differential forms on a variety V determines a descending filtration
F k (namely F k consists of forms of degree at least k). The filtration on forms specifies a filtration
on the cohomology, called the Hodge filtration, denoted by F k as well. To analyze the behavior
of the Frobenius map with respect to the Hodge filtration on H (V ; Zp ), where V is a smooth
projective variety, one should define a filtration F k on the sheaf of differential forms on the
11 V being a variety over Z defines a functor from commutative Z -algebras to sets. For any (p) define
p
p
B
even is a commutative Z -algebra, this is well defined. We note that V considered as a
XV (B ) = V (even
p
B ). Since B
functor on (p) is not the same thing, for a general V , as V considered as a variety, rather it is the p-adic completion.
However it is known that the de Rham cohomology of V is isomorphic to the de Rham cohomology of XV in the smooth
projective case.
12 The invariance of the body of X inside the body of Pn is most easily explained by pointing out that the Frobenius
V
map on Pn as defined above has a more natural (equivalent) definition when restricted to the subcategory of (p)
consisting of Fp -algebras (i.e., we consider only those B with pB = 0). It can be constructed by observing that since the
pth power map is a homomorphism of Fp -algebras (as a p = a for a Fp ) it induces an endomorphism of any functor
on the subcategory of Fp -algebras. Because the body is defined as the restriction of the functor to the subcategory
(p)red which contains only Fp -algebras, this constructs an action of Frobenius on the body of any p-adic superspace
that evidently preserves any subbody.
13 As a bonus we see that the cohomology of V depends only on its restriction to F .
p

218

A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro / Nuclear Physics B 756 [PM] (2006) 207218

infinitesimal neighborhood V of V in such a way that the isomorphism between H (V ; Zp ) and


H (V ; Zp ) identifies the two filtrations. (The exposition given here is inspired by [6].)
Let us assume for simplicity that V can be singled out locally by one equation f = 0; as
we have
already, there is the following local expression for a differential form on V :

 mentioned
n
w = an f /n! + bn f n /n! df , where an and bn are differential forms on V . We say that w
above belongs to F k if an F kn and bn F kn1 . The filtration F k has the desired property.14
Unfortunately the Frobenius does not preserve the Hodge filtration, however certain pdivisibility conditions are satisfied. These divisibility estimates were crucial in the proof of
integrality of instanton numbers [4,5].
It is easy to check that if a is a local function then Fr(a) = a p + pb where b is some other local
p
p
function, thus Fr(f k /k! da1 das ) = (f p + pg)k /k! d(a1 + pb1 ) d(as + pbs ) is divisible
by p k /k! p s . Using this one can show that
 
Fr F k p k H (V ; Zp ), if p > dim V .
This follows from the estimate Fr(F k ) p [k] H (V ; Zp ) where [k] is maximal such that p [k]
divides all numbers p n /n! with n  k. If k < p then p [k] = p k and in the case when k > dim V ,
F k is trivial, thus one can assume that k  dim V .
Acknowledgements
We are deeply indebted to V. Vologodsky for his help with understanding of the standard
approach to the construction of Frobenius map and to M. Kontsevich and A. Ogus for interesting
discussions.
References
[1] P. Berthelot, A. Ogus, Notes on Crystalline Cohomology, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ, 1978, University of
Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1978.
[2] P.G.O. Freund, p-adic strings and their applications, hep-th/0510192.
[3] A. Konechny, A. Schwarz, Theory of (k l|q)-dimensional supermanifolds, Selecta Math. (N.S.) 6 (2000) 471486,
hep-th/9706003.
[4] M. Kontsevich, V. Vologodsky, A. Schwarz, Integrality of instanton numbers and p-adic B-model, Phys. Lett. B 637
(2006) 97101, hep-th/0603106.
[5] M. Kontsevich, V. Vologodsky, A. Schwarz, On integrality of instanton numbers, in preparation.
[6] B. Mazur, Frobenius and the Hodge filtration (estimates), Ann. Math. 98 (1973) 5895.
[7] A. Schwarz, On the definition of superspace, Theor. Math. Phys. 60 (1984) 657660.
[8] A. Schwarz, I. Shapiro, p-adic superspaces and Frobenius map, math.NT/0605310.
[9] A. Schwarz, V. Vologodsky, Frobenius transformation, mirror map and instanton numbers, hep-th/0606151.
[10] R. Schimmrigk, Arithmetic spacetime geometry from string theory, hep-th/0510091.
[11] A. Voronov, Maps of supermanifolds, Theor. Math. Phys. 60 (1984) 660664.

14 This is due to the fact that this filtration is preserved by the homotopy that establishes the isomorphism of cohomologies.

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 219221

CUMULATIVE AUTHOR INDEX B751B756

Abdalla, E.
Alls, B.
lvarez, E.
lvarez-Gaum, L.
Ananth, S.
Andrews, R.P.
Aoyama, T.

B752 (2006) 40
B752 (2006) 124
B756 (2006) 148
B753 (2006) 92
B753 (2006) 195
B751 (2006) 304
B754 (2006) 48

Bailin, D.
Baseilhac, P.
Baulieu, L.
Baulieu, L.
Becker, K.
Becker, M.
Beneke, M.
Berenstein, D.
Bhattacharjee, P.
Bietenholz, W.
Blas, D.
Blumenhagen, R.
Blmlein, J.
Blmlein, J.
Bolognesi, S.
Bolognesi, S.
Bornyakov, V.G.
Bossard, G.
Bossard, G.
Boughezal, R.
Boyko, P.Yu.
Brandenburg, A.
Brandt, F.T.
Brink, L.
Brmmer, F.
Burgess, C.P.

B755 (2006) 79
B754 (2006) 309
B753 (2006) 252
B753 (2006) 273
B751 (2006) 108
B751 (2006) 108
B751 (2006) 160
B753 (2006) 69
B752 (2006) 280
B754 (2006) 17
B756 (2006) 148
B751 (2006) 186
B755 (2006) 112
B755 (2006) 272
B752 (2006) 93
B754 (2006) 293
B756 (2006) 71
B753 (2006) 252
B753 (2006) 273
B755 (2006) 221
B756 (2006) 71
B754 (2006) 107
B754 (2006) 146
B753 (2006) 195
B755 (2006) 186
B752 (2006) 60

Calcagni, G.
Callin, P.
Chen, C.-M.
Cieza Montalvo, J.E.

B752 (2006) 404


B752 (2006) 60
B751 (2006) 260
B756 (2006) 1

0550-3213/2006 Published by Elsevier B.V.


doi:10.1016/S0550-3213(06)00792-9

Cirelli, M.
Cirigliano, V.
Cirigliano, V.
Clark, S.S.
Cornou, J.L.
Cortez Jr., N.V.
Cuadros-Melgar, B.
Czakon, M.
Czakon, M.

B753 (2006) 178


B752 (2006) 18
B753 (2006) 139
B756 (2006) 38
B756 (2006) 16
B756 (2006) 1
B752 (2006) 40
B751 (2006) 1
B755 (2006) 221

Danilov, G.S.
Dasgupta, K.
de Carlos, B.
De Felice, A.
De Freitas, A.
Delduc, F.
DElia, M.
Deppisch, F.
DHoker, E.
Diaconescu, D.-E.
Dijkgraaf, R.
Dobashi, S.
Dolgov, A.D.
Donagi, R.
Dorey, N.

B754 (2006) 187


B755 (2006) 21
B752 (2006) 404
B752 (2006) 404
B755 (2006) 272
B753 (2006) 211
B752 (2006) 124
B752 (2006) 80
B753 (2006) 16
B752 (2006) 329
B752 (2006) 329
B756 (2006) 171
B752 (2006) 297
B752 (2006) 329
B751 (2006) 304

Ecker, G.
Eguchi, H.
Eidemller, M.
Enciso, A.
Engquist, J.
Estes, J.
Eto, M.

B753 (2006) 139


B752 (2006) 1
B753 (2006) 139
B751 (2006) 376
B752 (2006) 206
B753 (2006) 16
B752 (2006) 140

Fehr, L.
Feng, B.
Forgcs, P.
Fornengo, N.
Fr, P.

B751 (2006) 436


B754 (2006) 351
B751 (2006) 390
B753 (2006) 178
B751 (2006) 343

220

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 219221

Frenkel, J.
Fu, J.-X.

B754 (2006) 146


B751 (2006) 108

Gaillard, M.K.
Garavuso, R.S.
Garriga, J.
Geyer, B.
Giusto, S.
Glck, M.
Gluza, J.
Gran, U.
Grassi, P.A.
Grimus, W.
Grinstein, B.
Grinstein, B.
Grisaru, M.
Gudnason, S.B.
Gutowski, J.
Gutperle, M.
Gwyn, R.

B751 (2006) 75
B755 (2006) 329
B756 (2006) 148
B755 (2006) 112
B754 (2006) 233
B754 (2006) 178
B751 (2006) 1
B753 (2006) 118
B751 (2006) 53
B754 (2006) 1
B752 (2006) 18
B755 (2006) 199
B755 (2006) 21
B754 (2006) 293
B753 (2006) 118
B753 (2006) 16
B755 (2006) 21

He, X.
Hebecker, A.
Heise, R.
Hofman, C.
Hosteins, P.
Hou, D.-f.
Huang, Q.-G.

B755 (2006) 313


B755 (2006) 186
B753 (2006) 195
B752 (2006) 329
B755 (2006) 137
B754 (2006) 351
B755 (2006) 286

Idilbi, A.
Ilgenfritz, E.-M.
Inami, T.
Isozumi, Y.
Ivanov, E.

B753 (2006) 42
B756 (2006) 71
B752 (2006) 391
B752 (2006) 140
B753 (2006) 211

Jger, S.
Jantzen, B.
Ji, X.
Jing, J.

B751 (2006) 160


B752 (2006) 327
B753 (2006) 42
B755 (2006) 313

Kaiser, R.
Katz, S.
Kitazawa, N.
Klein, S.
Knauf, A.
Koike, Y.
Kosmas, T.S.
Kovalenko, A.V.
Kozlovskii, M.P.
Khbck, H.
Khn, J.H.

B753 (2006) 139


B755 (2006) 21
B755 (2006) 254
B755 (2006) 272
B755 (2006) 21
B752 (2006) 1
B752 (2006) 80
B756 (2006) 71
B753 (2006) 242
B754 (2006) 1
B752 (2006) 327

Lavignac, S.
Lavoura, L.
Li, J.-r.
Li, M.
Li, T.

B755 (2006) 137


B754 (2006) 1
B754 (2006) 351
B755 (2006) 286
B751 (2006) 260

Lipatov, L.N.
Loll, R.
Lombardo, M.P.
Love, A.

B754 (2006) 187


B751 (2006) 419
B752 (2006) 124
B755 (2006) 79

Macdo, A.M.S.
Macedo-Junior, A.F.
Mangano, G.
Manvelyan, R.
Martemyanov, B.V.
Maru, N.
Masina, I.
Mathews, P.
Mathur, S.D.
McInnes, B.
Meyer, F.
Miele, G.
Minakami, S.
Mitov, A.
Moch, S.
Molina, C.
Morales Morera, J.F.
Moster, S.
Mller-Preussker, M.
Muramoto, C.

B752 (2006) 439


B752 (2006) 439
B756 (2006) 100
B751 (2006) 285
B756 (2006) 71
B754 (2006) 127
B755 (2006) 1
B753 (2006) 1
B754 (2006) 233
B754 (2006) 91
B753 (2006) 92
B756 (2006) 100
B752 (2006) 391
B751 (2006) 18
B751 (2006) 18
B752 (2006) 40
B751 (2006) 53
B751 (2006) 186
B756 (2006) 71
B754 (2006) 146

Naculich, S.G.
Nakayama, Y.
Nanopoulos, D.V.
Nelson, B.D.
Nitta, M.
Nitta, M.

B755 (2006) 164


B755 (2006) 295
B751 (2006) 260
B751 (2006) 75
B752 (2006) 140
B752 (2006) 391

Ohashi, K.
Olesen, P.
Ooguri, H.
Ookouchi, Y.

B752 (2006) 140


B752 (2006) 197
B755 (2006) 239
B755 (2006) 239

Paccetti Correia, F.
Pajer, E.
Pallis, C.
Pantev, T.
Papadopoulos, G.
Pastor, S.
Pavan, A.B.
Penin, A.A.
Pich, A.
Pinansky, S.
Pinto, T.
Pisanti, O.
Polikarpov, M.I.
Polychronakos, A.P.
Portols, J.
Prytula, O.O.
Pusztai, B.G.
Pylyuk, I.V.

B751 (2006) 222


B756 (2006) 16
B751 (2006) 129
B752 (2006) 329
B753 (2006) 118
B756 (2006) 100
B752 (2006) 40
B752 (2006) 327
B753 (2006) 139
B753 (2006) 69
B756 (2006) 100
B756 (2006) 100
B756 (2006) 71
B751 (2006) 376
B753 (2006) 139
B753 (2006) 242
B751 (2006) 436
B753 (2006) 242

Nuclear Physics B 756 (2006) 219221

Rajabpour, M.A.
Ravindran, V.
Ravindran, V.
Ren, H.-c.
Reuillon, S.
Reya, E.
Riemann, T.
Ringwald, A.
Robaschik, D.
Rodrguez-Gmez, D.
Roest, D.
Rossi, G.C.
Rouhani, S.
Rhl, W.

B754 (2006) 283


B752 (2006) 173
B753 (2006) 1
B754 (2006) 351
B751 (2006) 390
B754 (2006) 178
B751 (2006) 1
B754 (2006) 107
B755 (2006) 112
B752 (2006) 316
B753 (2006) 118
B754 (2006) 329
B754 (2006) 283
B751 (2006) 285

S Borges, J.
Sahu, N.
Savoy, C.A.
Savoy, C.A.
Schmidt, M.G.
Schnitzer, H.J.
Schuck, C.
Schwarz, A.
Seki, S.
Serpico, P.D.
Shapiro, I.
Shcheredin, S.
Shibusa, Y.
Skvortsov, E.D.
Smirnov, V.A.
Sokatchev, E.
Sorella, S.P.
Sorella, S.P.
Srivastava, Y.K.
Stanev, Ya.S.
Strumia, A.

B756 (2006) 1
B752 (2006) 280
B755 (2006) 1
B755 (2006) 137
B751 (2006) 222
B755 (2006) 164
B754 (2006) 178
B756 (2006) 207
B753 (2006) 295
B756 (2006) 100
B756 (2006) 207
B754 (2006) 17
B754 (2006) 48
B756 (2006) 117
B752 (2006) 327
B754 (2006) 329
B753 (2006) 252
B753 (2006) 273
B754 (2006) 233
B754 (2006) 329
B753 (2006) 178

221

Sturani, R.
Sugiyama, K.
Sundell, P.
Svendsen, H.G.

B756 (2006) 16
B753 (2006) 295
B752 (2006) 206
B753 (2006) 195

Tanaka, K.
Tatar, R.
Tavartkiladze, Z.
Tokunaga, T.
Tonasse, M.D.
Trapletti, M.
Trigiante, M.
Tseng, L.-S.

B752 (2006) 1
B755 (2006) 21
B751 (2006) 222
B753 (2006) 295
B756 (2006) 1
B755 (2006) 186
B751 (2006) 343
B751 (2006) 108

Urban, F.R.
Utermann, A.

B752 (2006) 297


B754 (2006) 107

Valle, J.W.F.
van Neerven, W.L.
Vasiliev, M.A.
Vzquez-Mozo, M.A.
Verdaguer, E.
Veselov, A.I.
Volkov, M.S.

B752 (2006) 80
B755 (2006) 272
B756 (2006) 117
B753 (2006) 92
B756 (2006) 148
B756 (2006) 71
B751 (2006) 390

Wang, T.
Weigand, T.
Westra, W.

B756 (2006) 86
B751 (2006) 186
B751 (2006) 419

Yajnik, U.A.
Yamashita, T.
Yau, S.-T.
Yuan, F.

B752 (2006) 280


B754 (2006) 127
B751 (2006) 108
B753 (2006) 42

Zohren, S.

B751 (2006) 419