text:
# Direct Laplacian Center Gauge

## 1 Introduction

Center projection in direct maximal center gauge is a procedure used to locate center vortices in lattice gauge field configurations. Results obtained from this procedure, which tend to support the center vortex theory of confinement, have been reported in many articles over the past several years. Last year, however, an alarming negative result was reported by Bornyakov, Komarov, and Polikarpov (BKP) in ref. . Recall that direct maximal center gauge fixing is defined by the gauge transformation $`g`$ which maximizes the sum

$$R=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}_A[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]$$
(1)
where $`\text{Tr}_A`$ indicates the trace in the adjoint representation, and $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ is the gauge-transformed lattice configuration. This prescription is simply Landau gauge fixing in the adjoint representation. There is no known method for finding the global maximum of $`R`$, but most previous work has used the over-relaxation scheme of ref.  to find local maxima (Gribov copies). The string tension that can be attributed to vortices, which are located using this scheme, agrees quite well with the asymptotic string tension of the full lattice configuration. This agreement is known as “center dominance,” and is crucial to the argument that center vortices account for the entire asymptotic string tension. In their work last year, BKP used an improved center gauge-fixing scheme based on simulated annealing, and obtained Gribov copies with consistently larger values of $`R`$ than those obtained by over-relaxation method. The discouraging outcome of this improved gauge-fixing procedure is that center dominance is much less evident: the center projected SU(2) string tension at $`\beta =2.5`$ is some $`30\%`$ lower than than the full asymptotic string tension.

In this article we explain the origin of the difficulty found by BKP, and then propose and test a method which overcomes that difficulty. The realization that direct maximal center gauge must fail in the continuum limit is actually due to Engelhardt and Reinhardt in ref. , whose work predates the numerical results of BKP in ref. . We have previously elaborated on the Engelhardt-Reinhardt reasoning in ref. ; the salient points will be reviewed in section 2 below. In brief, these authors pointed out that direct maximal center gauge can be understood as a best fit to a given lattice gauge field by a thin vortex configuration. Since the field strength of a thin vortex is highly singular, the fit must fail badly near the middle of the vortex. In the continuum limit, the bad fit to the gauge field in the vortex interior would overwhelm the good fit in the exterior region. As a result, in the continuum limit, the center projection obtained from a global maximum of $`R`$ may reveal no vortices at all.

Having diagnosed the illness, a cure is proposed in section 3. We work throughout with the SU(2) gauge group, although the analysis generalizes readily to SU(N). The new method calls for maximizing

$$R_M=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}[M^T(x)U_{A\mu }(x)M(x+\widehat{\mu })]$$
(2)
where $`U_{A\mu }(x)`$ denotes the link variable in the adjoint representation, and where, for SU(2) gauge theory, $`M(x)`$ is a real-valued $`3\times 3`$ matrix which satisfies the unitarity constraint only as an average; i.e.

$$\frac{1}{𝒱}\underset{x}{}\underset{j}{}M_{ij}^T(x)M_{jk}(x)=\delta _{ik}$$
(3)
with $`𝒱`$ the lattice volume. The motivation for relaxing the local unitarity constraint is explained below. The real-valued matrix field $`M(x)`$ which arrives at a global maximum of $`R_M`$ can be determined uniquely, in terms of the three lowest eigenfunctions of a lattice Laplacian operator. To determine the corresponding gauge transformation, we relax $`M(x)`$ to the closest SO(3) matrix-valued field $`g_A(x)`$ satisfying a related Laplacian condition. The SO(3) field is mapped to an SU(2) matrix-valued field $`g(x)`$, which is used to gauge-transform the original lattice configuration. Center projection then determines the vortex locations.

In the end, direct Laplacian center gauge is simply lattice Landau gauge, in the adjoint representation, with a particular choice of Gribov copy (different from the global maximum of $`R`$). We will motivate this choice in sections 2 and 3. Numerical results obtained from the new procedure, regarding center dominance, vortex density scaling, precocious linearity, and the correlation of vortex locations with the values of Wilson loops, are reported in section 4.

Direct Laplacian center gauge is closely related to the original Laplacian Landau gauge of Vink and Wiese , appropriately generalized to the adjoint representation. The main difference is in the mapping from $`M(x)`$ to $`g(x)`$. Direct Laplacian gauge also has much in common with the Laplacian center gauge, introduced by Alexandrou et al.  and de Forcrand and Pepe , in that both gauges require solving the lattice Laplacian eigenvalue problem in the adjoint representation. But the gauges themselves are rather different; they are motivated by different considerations (best fit in one case, gauge-fixing ambiguity in the other), and the numerical results are not the same. These points are further discussed in section 5. Section 6 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Maximal Center Gauge and its Discontents

We begin from the insight that lattice Landau gauge fixing is precisely equivalent to finding the best fit, to a given lattice gauge field $`U_\mu (x)`$, by a classical vacuum configuration $`g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$. The best fit vacuum configuration minimizes the mean square distance on the group manifold between vacuum and gauge field link variables

$`d_F^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\text{Tr}\left[\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)^{}\right]`$ (4)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}2\text{Tr}\left[Ig^{}(x)U_\mu (x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })\right]`$
Writing

$${}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)=g^{}(x)U_\mu (x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })$$
(5)
it is is clear that minimizing (4) is equivalent to maximizing

$$\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]$$
(6)
in the fundamental representation, which is just the lattice Landau gauge.

Generalizing the above idea slightly, suppose we are interested in finding the best fit of $`U_\mu (x)`$ by a thin center vortex configuration, which has the form

$$V_\mu (x)=g(x)Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })$$
(7)
where the $`Z_\mu (x)=\pm 1`$ are $`Z_2`$ link variables. Since the adjoint representation is blind to center elements, we may proceed in the following way: First find the vacuum configuration $`g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$ which is a best fit to $`U_\mu (x)`$ in the adjoint representation, i.e. which minimizes

$`d_A^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\text{Tr}_A\left[\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)^{}\right]`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}2\text{Tr}_A\left[Ig^{}(x)U_\mu (x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })\right]`$
It is clear that the minimum of $`d_A^2`$ is obtained at the maximum of

$$R=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}_A[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]$$
(9)
which is, by definition, direct maximal center gauge. Having determined $`g(x)`$ in this way (up to a residual $`Z_2`$ symmetry), we then want to find the $`Z_\mu (x)`$ such that the thin vortex configuration $`V_\mu (x)`$ is a best fit to $`U_\mu (x)`$. This means minimizing, in the fundamental representation

$`d^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}\text{Tr}\left[\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)\left(U_\mu (x)g(x)Z_\mu (x)g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })\right)^{}\right]`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4𝒱}}{\displaystyle \underset{x,\mu }{}}2\text{Tr}\left[IZ_\mu (x)g^{}(x)U_\mu (x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })\right]`$
For fixed $`g(x)`$, minimization is achieved by setting

$$Z_\mu (x)=\text{signTr}[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]$$
(11)
which is the center projection prescription. In this way we see that maximal center gauge, plus center projection, is equivalent to finding a “best fit” of the given lattice gauge field $`U_\mu (x)`$ by a thin vortex configuration $`V_\mu (x)`$. This point was first made by Engelhardt and Reinhardt  in the context of continuum Yang-Mills theory; here we have transcribed their argument to the lattice.

Unfortunately, it is clear that $`V_\mu (x)`$ must be a very bad fit to $`U_\mu (x)`$ at links belonging to thin vortices (i.e. to the P-plaquettes formed from $`Z_\mu (x)`$). Again, this point was made in ref.  in the context of the continuum theory, on the grounds that the field strength of a thin vortex is divergent at the vortex core. We recall that a plaquette $`p`$ is a P-plaquette iff $`Z(p)=1`$ (where $`Z(C)`$ denotes the product of $`Z_\mu (x)`$ around the contour $`C`$) and that P-plaquettes belong to P-vortices. This means also that

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}[V(p)]=Z(p)=1$$
(12)
On the other hand, at large $`\beta `$ we generally have

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}[U(p)]=1O\left(\frac{1}{\beta }\right)$$
(13)
even at P-plaquettes. Writing link variables $`U_\mu (x)`$ in the form

$`U_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`g(x)Z_\mu (x)e^{iA_\mu (x)}g^{}(x+\widehat{\mu })`$
$`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_\mu (x)e^{iA_\mu (x)}`$ (14)
we have

$$\text{Tr}[U(p)]=Z(p)\text{Tr}[\underset{linksp}{}e^{iA_\mu (x)}]$$
(15)
or, in view of (12),(13),

$$\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}[\underset{linksp}{}e^{iA_\mu (x)}]1$$
(16)
But, from eq. (11),

$$\text{Tr}\left[e^{iA_\mu (x)}\right]0$$
(17)
on every link. Taken together, the last two equations imply that for some links (at least one) on a P-plaquette, $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ deviates strongly away from the center elements $`\pm I`$, and, as a result,

$$\text{Tr}_A\left[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)\right]\text{Tr}_A\left[I\right]$$
(18)
It follows that the trace of links in the adjoint representation, which is the quantity being maximized in direct maximal center gauge, will be much smaller, on average, in the vicinity of a P-plaquette than on the rest of the lattice.

If we compare the fits to a thermalized lattice that can be obtained from a vacuum configuration (no P-vortices), and from a configuration containing some arrangement of thin vortices on vacuum background, the latter is likely to be a better fit in the lattice region exterior to P-plaquettes, but a much worse fit at the P-plaquettes themselves. In the $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit, the bad fit near the P-plaquettes may overwhelm the good fit in the exterior region, particularly if the thermalized lattice contains thick ($``$ 1 fm) center vortices which overlap substantially. In that case, the best fit is just a pure-gauge, and the global maximum of $`R`$ would reveal no vortices at all.

In our opinion, this is the explanation for the discouraging result found by BKP in ref. . Using the simulated annealing method described in that reference, we have found that center projection in direct maximal center gauge has good center dominance properties at strong couplings, but that center dominance degrades as we enter the scaling regime. We have also found that Gribov copies obtained by our original method of over-relaxation arrive at a better fit to the thermalized lattice, as compared to copies generated by simulated annealing, if the computation of $`R`$ is restricted to plaquettes in the region exterior to P-plaquettes. This is consistent with the idea that the bad fit in the neighborhood of P-plaquettes is the source of the trouble. For details and numerical results regarding this point, we refer the reader to ref. .

Having arrived at a diagnosis of the problem, the question is what to do about it. One possibility is simply to continue using the original over-relaxation technique, on the grounds that it provides a better fit to the lattice in the region exterior to P-plaquettes. Unfortunately, if one follows this idea further, gauge-fixing a large number of random copies on the gauge orbit and selecting the copy with the best fit in the exterior region, the string tension comes out too high . Therefore, we cannot recommend the “business-as-usual” approach with much enthusiasm.

Another possibility, suggested by Engelhardt and Reinhardt , is to modify $`R`$ in eq. (1) by introducing a form factor $`F`$ into the expression, i.e.

$$R^F=\underset{x,\mu }{}F\left[\text{Tr}_A[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]\right]$$
(19)
In particular, one could try the “lower bound” function

$$F[x]=\{\begin{array}{cc}x& x>\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }& x\mathrm{\Lambda }\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
in an effort to soften the bad fit at P-plaquettes. We have experimented with this form of $`F`$, but the whole approach is obviously plagued by arbitrariness. With an extra free parameter such as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (that can be reset at each $`\beta `$), it is not surprising that one can adjust the projected string tension to the desired result.

Finally, there is the Laplacian center gauge  developed by de Forcrand and Pepe , which is free of Gribov ambiguities altogether. Our present article is inspired in large part by the de Forcrand-Pepe approach (as well as by the earlier work of Vink and Wiese ), but we do have some reservations about the version of Laplacian center gauge discussed in refs. . These reservations concern the lack of scaling of the vortex density, the lack of precocious linearity in the vortex potential, and the prescription for locating vortices from the co-linearity of two Laplacian eigenvectors, which appears to lack the important “vortex-finding property” for thin vortices . This last point, which is relevant to the program of looking for gauge-fixing ambiguities in Laplacian gauges, will be discussed in section 5. In the meantime, we will proceed to the proposal which is main point of this article.

## 3 Direct Laplacian Center Gauge

To motivate our proposal, we return temporarily to the idea that, since the fit is worst at P-plaquettes, it might be sensible to exclude those contributions from the quality-of-fit function $`R`$. Specifically, consider introducing a configuration-dependent weighting factor

$$\rho (x;{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}0& x\text{P-vortex}\hfill \\ c& \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
where center projection of $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}`$ is used to decide whether or not the site $`x`$ belongs to a P-plaquette, and $`c`$ is a constant determined by the constraint

$$\frac{1}{𝒱}\underset{x}{}\rho ^2(x;{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{})=1$$
(22)
which means that $`c^2`$ is inversely proportional to the lattice volume exterior to P-plaquettes. One then considers

$$R^{}=\underset{x,\mu }{}\rho (x;{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{})\rho (x+\widehat{\mu };{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{})\text{Tr}_A[g^{}(x)U_\mu (x)g(x+\widehat{\mu })]$$
(23)
which is proportional to the average trace of adjoint links $`\text{Tr}_A[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]`$ in the exterior volume, choosing $`g(x)`$ to maximize this quantity.

However, even the exclusion of all links joined to P-plaquettes is still not good enough in the continuum $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ limit, since there one expects a bad fit also in a finite volume surrounding the P-plaquettes. At low or intermediate values of $`\beta `$, on the other hand, excluding 100% of the P-plaquette contributions goes too far, because the excluded links are a very substantial fraction of the total lattice volume. The next step, then, is to allow greater flexibility in the weighting factor. This is done by allowing $`\rho (x)`$ to be a degree of freedom in its own right. Introduce a $`3\times 3`$ matrix-valued field

$$G_{ij}(x)=\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}(x)\rho (x)$$
(24)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an SO(3) matrix, and consider choosing $`\rho ,\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to maximize the quantity

$$R^{\prime \prime }=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}[G^T(x)U_{A\mu }(x)G(x+\widehat{\mu })]$$
(25)
where $`U_{A\mu }(x)`$ denotes the link variable in the adjoint representation, and where $`\rho (x)`$ is a real positive scalar, subject to the constraint

$$\frac{1}{𝒱}\underset{x}{}\rho ^2(x)=1$$
(26)
This constraint is now simply the requirement that $`G(x)`$ is orthogonal “on average.” Mapping the SO(3) matrix field $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ onto an $`SU(2)`$ matrix field $`g(x)`$ with, e.g., Tr$`[g]>0`$, and again defining the lattice field in this new gauge by $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$, one can determine the P-vortex locations from the center projected configuration (11).

Generalizing this stategy one step further, we can replace the positive scalar field $`\rho (x)`$ by a real, symmetric matrix $`P_{ij}(x)`$ with positive semidefinite eigenvalues, and write

$$M_{ij}(x)=\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{ik}(x)P_{kj}(x)$$
(27)
(summation is over repeated indices). This is known as the polar decomposition of the matrix $`M`$. A corollary of the Singular Value Decomposition Theorem  is that any real $`3\times 3`$ matrix $`M`$ can be decomposed in this way. The idea is then to find the $`3\times 3`$ matrix-valued field $`M(x)`$ which maximizes

$$R_M=\underset{x,\mu }{}\text{Tr}[M^T(x)U_{A\mu }(x)M(x+\widehat{\mu })]$$
(28)
subject to the constraint (which generalizes (26))

$$\frac{1}{𝒱}\underset{x}{}M^T(x)M(x)=I$$
(29)
so that $`M(x)`$ is also orthogonal “on average.”

It is fortunate that the problem we have just posed has both a unique solution, and a standard computational algorithm for arriving at that solution. It is convenient to view the columns of $`M(x)`$ at any site $`x`$ as a set of three 3-vectors

$$f_a^b(x)=M_{ab}(x),\stackrel{}{f^b}(x)\left[\begin{array}{c}f_1^b(x)\\ f_2^b(x)\\ f_3^b(x)\end{array}\right]$$
(30)
Then in this notation, maximizing $`R_M`$ is equivalent to maximizing

$$S=\underset{x,\mu }{}f_j^c(x)[U_{A\mu }(x)]_{jk}f_k^c(x+\widehat{\mu })+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cd}\underset{x}{}\left[f_j^c(x)f_j^d(x)\delta _{cd}\right]$$
(31)
where the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a real symmetric matrix of Lagrange multipliers, introduced to enforce the constraint (29). In view of the constraint, the configuration maximizing $`S`$ also maximizes the expression

$$S^{}=\underset{x,\mu }{}\left[f_j^c(x)[U_{A\mu }(x)]_{jk}f_k^c(x+\widehat{\mu })f_j^c(x)f_j^c(x)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cd}\underset{x}{}\left[f_j^c(x)f_j^d(x)\delta _{cd}\right]$$
(32)
Variation of $`S^{}`$ wrt $`f_i^a`$ then leads to a lattice Laplacian equation

$$\underset{y}{}𝒟_{ij}(x,y)f_j^a(y)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ac}f_i^c(x)$$
(33)
where

$$𝒟_{ij}(x,y)=\underset{\mu }{}\left([U_{A\mu }(x)]_{ij}\delta _{y,x+\widehat{\mu }}+[U_{A\mu }(x\widehat{\mu })]_{ji}\delta _{y,x\widehat{\mu }}2\delta _{ij}\delta _{xy}\right).$$
(34)
Because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is real and symmetric, it can be diagonalized by an orthogonal matrix $`O`$, i.e.

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`O^T\mathrm{\Lambda }_DO,\mathrm{\Lambda }_D=\text{diag}[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]`$
$`f_i^a(x)`$ $`=`$ $`O_{ab}f_a^b(x)`$ (35)
and then the equation satisfied by each $`\stackrel{}{f^a}(x)`$ is the Laplacian eigenvalue equation

$$\underset{y}{}𝒟_{ij}(x,y)f_j^a(y)=\lambda _af_i^a(x)\text{(no sum over }a\text{)}$$
(36)
Since $`𝒟_{ij}(x,y)`$ is hermitian, the orthogonality constraint (29) is satisfied by choosing the $`\lambda _a`$ to be three different eigenvalues. Substituting the solutions of (36) back into (32), its not hard to see that $`S^{}`$ is maximized by choosing eigenvectors corresponding to the three *lowest* eigenvalues. An efficient numerical algorithm for obtaining the low-lying eigenvectors of a large, sparse matrix (such as our lattice Laplacian) is the Arnoldi method . Conveniently, Fortran routines implementing this method, and easily adaptable to the problem at hand, are freely available .

Since $`S^{}`$ is invariant under the global transformation $`f_i^a(x)f_i^a(x)=O_{ab}f_a^b(x)`$, we may as well use the solution for the maximum for which $`M_{ab}(x)=f_a^b(x)`$. At this point, we have to map the matrix field $`M(x)`$ onto an SO(3)-valued field $`g_A(x)`$, and this in turn to a corresponding SU(2) gauge transformation $`g(x)`$. We consider two possibilities:

1. Naive Map:  Choose $`g_A(x)`$ to be the SO(3)-valued field which is closest to $`M(x)`$, in the sense that

$$\left|\text{Tr}[g_A(x)M^T(x)]\right|$$
(37)
is maximized at each site $`x`$.
2. Laplacian Map:  Choose $`[g_A(x)]_{ij}=\stackrel{~}{f}_i^j(x)`$ to be the SO(3)-valued field closest to $`M(x)`$ subject to the constraint that $`g_A(x)`$, like $`M(x)`$, satisfies a Laplacian equation of the form

$$\underset{y}{}𝒟_{ij}(x,y)\stackrel{~}{f}_j^a(y)=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{ac}(x)\stackrel{~}{f}_i^c(x)$$
(38)

The “naive” choice is equivalent to the Laplacian Landau gauge of Vink and Wiese , generalized to the adjoint representation. It is obtained by first making a singular value decomposition

$$M(x)=U(x)M_D(x)V^T(x)$$
(39)
with $`U,V`$ orthogonal matrices and $`M_D`$ a diagonal positive semi-definite matrix.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1Again, there are standard numerical packages which implement singular value decomposition. We have used the routine svdcmp from Numerical Recipes . Then make the polar decomposition at each site

$$M(x)=[U(x)V^T(x)][V(x)M_D(x)V^T(x)]\pm g_A(x)P(x)$$
(40)
with $`g_A(x)`$ the SO(3) matrix-valued field

$$g_A(x)=det[U(x)V^T(x)]U(x)V^T(x)$$
(41)
and $`P`$ is symmetric and positive semi-definite. Matrix $`g_A(x)`$ is guaranteed to be the SO(3) matrix closest to $`M(x)`$, in the sense of maximizing the expression (37) . Finally, we map $`g_A(x)`$ at each site onto one of its two possible representatives in the SU(2) group

$$g(x)=\pm \frac{I+\sigma ^a\sigma ^b[g_A(x)]_{ab}}{2[1+\text{Tr}(g_A(x))]}$$
(42)
The choice of sign in (42) is irrelevant, all choices being related by the residual $`Z_2`$ invariance. One can then transform the lattice configuration by $`g(x)`$ to obtain $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$, and carry out center projection.

The drawback of the “naive” choice is that, while $`M(x)`$ is a covariantly smooth matrix, whose columns are the low-lying eigenvectors of the lattice Laplacian, this covariant smoothness property is less pronounced in the $`g_A(x)`$ obtained from singular value decomposition. This results in high-frequency “noise” (small scale fluctuations) in the P-vortex surfaces of the projected configuration. We have found the Laplacian mapping to be preferable.

To carry out the Laplacian mapping, we begin with the “naive” mapping, to find the SO(3) matrix field $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ closest to the real-valued matrix field $`M(x)`$ obtained from solving the Laplacian eigenvalue equation (36). Then we relax $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)`$ to the closest solution $`g_A(x)`$ satisfying the generalized Laplacian equation (38). The relaxation is carried out in the following way: We note that the equation (38) is simply the stationarity condition of the action

$$S^{\prime \prime }=\underset{x,\mu }{}\left[f_j^c(x)[U_{A\mu }(x)]_{jk}f_k^c(x+\widehat{\mu })f_j^c(x)f_j^c(x)\right]+\frac{1}{2}\underset{x}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{cd}(x)\left\{f_j^c(x)f_j^d(x)\delta _{cd}\right\}$$
(43)
with $`[g_A(x)]_{ij}=f_i^j(x)`$ an SO(3) field. With the local Lagrange multiplier field enforcing the SO(3) constraint, a stationary solution of $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ is easily seen to be a Gribov copy of direct maximal center gauge; local maxima of $`S^{\prime \prime }`$ are also local maxima of $`R`$ in eq. (1).

If $`𝒮[g]R`$ is regarded as the action of a spin system, with $`g_A(x)`$ the SO(3)-valued field variables, then each Gribov copy can be regarded as a metastable state of system, each with its own “basin of attraction.” The basin of attraction of a metastable state is the volume of all configurations which, when the system is suddenly cooled (or “quenched”), will fall into that metastable state. Over-relaxation is essentially a sudden cooling technique , and is therefore perfectly suited to sliding the system “down the hill” of action $`𝒮`$, from the configuration $`{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{\Omega }}U_{A\mu }^{}(x)`$ to the nearest (or, at least, a nearby) local minimum of $`𝒮`$ (see Fig. 1).<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2There is no guarantee that the local minimum obtained in this way is truly the nearest of the local minima to $`M(x)`$, as this depends on the topography of $`𝒮[g]`$ in the neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The gauge transformation $`g(x)`$ obtained at this minimum is the Laplacian map of $`M(x)`$, and the corresponding $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ is the lattice configuration in direct Laplacian center gauge.

It is interesting that a drawback of the over-relaxation technique, in fixing to maximal center gauge, becomes a virtue in direct Laplacian center gauge. The drawback is that over-relaxation is not good at finding the global minimum of $`𝒮`$, but only takes a given initial state to a nearby local minimum (Gribov copy). In fixing to direct Laplacian gauge, on the other hand, we have taken advantage of the fact that over-relaxation goes to a nearby minimum in order to carry out the Laplacian mapping $`M(x)g(x)`$.

It may be useful at this stage to summarize the steps of direct Laplacian center gauge fixing:

1. From a thermalized SU(2) lattice, construct the lattice configuration in the adjoint representation

$$[U_{A\mu }(x)]_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\text{Tr}[\sigma _iU_\mu (x)\sigma _jU_\mu ^{}(x)]$$
(44)
2. Solve the eigenvalue problem (36) for the eigenvectors corresponding to the three smallest eigenvalues of the lattice Laplacian operator in the adjoint representation. We have used the ARPACK routines  for this purpose. From the eigenvectors $`\stackrel{}{f^a}(x),a=1,2,3`$, construct the matrix field $`M_{ij}(x)=f_i^j(x)`$.
3. Perform, at each site, the singular value decomposition $`M(x)=U(x)M_D(x)V^T(x)`$, and extract the SO(3) matrix-valued field

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=det[U(x)V^T(x)]U(x)V^T(x)$$
(45)
4. Map $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ to an SU(2) matrix-valued field

$$\omega (x)=\pm \frac{I+\sigma ^a\sigma ^b[\mathrm{\Omega }(x)]_{ab}}{2[1+\text{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }(x))]}$$
(46)
and perform the gauge transformation

$${}_{}{}^{\omega }U_{\mu }^{}(x)=\omega ^{}(x)U_\mu (x)\omega (x+\widehat{\mu })$$
(47)
The result is to transform the configuration into Laplacian Landau gauge in the adjoint representation.
5. With $`{}_{}{}^{\omega }U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ as the starting point, relax the lattice field to the nearest (or, at least, a nearby) Gribov copy of direct maximal center gauge, using the over-relaxation method described in ref. . The result is the configuration fixed to direct Laplacian center gauge.

To make a long story short, direct Laplacian center gauge in practice is nothing but gauge fixing to adjoint Laplacian Landau gauge, followed by over-relaxation to the nearest Gribov copy of direct maximal center gauge. Both the direct Laplacian and the direct maximal center gauges aim at generating a configuration satisfying locally the adjoint lattice Landau gauge condition. The difference is that the optimal configuration, in maximal center gauge, is generated by a gauge transformation maximizing the $`R`$ functional, whereas in direct Laplacian center gauge the optimal configuration is generated by a gauge transformation lying closest to a matrix maximizing the $`R_M`$ functional. We hope to have explained, in the previous section, why the global maximum of $`R`$ is not necessarily the best choice for vortex finding, and to have motivated the alternative choice of Gribov copy corresponding to direct Laplacian center gauge. In the next section, we present results that are obtained from center projection in this gauge.

## 4 Numerical Results

To test the reasoning of the last section, we have recalculated the vortex observables introduced in our previous work (cf. ref. ), with P-vortices located via center projection after fixing the lattice to the new direct Laplacian center gauge.

### 4.1 Center Dominance and Precocious Linearity

In view of the $`30\%`$ breakdown of center dominance in maximal center gauge found by BKP , the quantities of most immediate interest are the center-projected Creutz ratios, extracted from $`I\times J`$ Wilson loops on the center-projected lattice. These are displayed, for $`\beta `$ in the range $`[0.4,2.5]`$, in Fig. 2.

At strong couplings, it is clear from Fig. 2 that $`\chi _{cp}(1,1)`$ matches up with the analytic prediction, in the full theory, of $`\sigma =\mathrm{ln}(\beta /4)`$. At weaker couplings, we display our data for $`\beta =2.4`$ and $`\beta =2.5`$ in Figs. 3 and 4. Once again we see the feature of precocious linearity; i.e. the fact that Creutz ratios $`\chi _{cp}(R,R)`$ at a given $`\beta `$ vary only slightly with $`R`$, which means that the center-projected potential is approximately linear starting at $`R=2`$ lattice spacings. The significance of precocious linearity is that it implies that the center-projected degrees of freedom have isolated the long-range physics, and are not mixed up with ultraviolet fluctuations.

It is also apparent that the center-projected Creutz ratios are quite close to the asymptotic string tension of the unprojected theory, reported in refs. . This is evidence, at least at these two couplings, of the center dominance property. Our combined data for the range of couplings $`\beta =2.22.5`$ is displayed on a logarithmic plot in Fig. 5. In general $`\chi _{cp}(R,R)`$ deviates from the full asymptotic string tension by less than 10%.

As another way of displaying both center dominance and precocious linearity, we adopt the usual procedure of assigning a lattice spacing $`a(\beta )`$ based on the asymptotic string tension in lattice units $`\sigma _{Lat}(\beta )`$, and the string tension in physical units $`\sigma _{phys}=(440\text{MeV})^2`$, i.e.

$$a^2(\beta )=\frac{\sigma _{Lat}(\beta )}{\sigma _{phys}}$$
(48)
We then display, in Fig. 6, the ratio

$$\frac{\chi _{phys}(R,R)}{\sigma _{phys}}=\frac{\chi _{cp}(R,R)}{\sigma _{Lat}(\beta )}$$
(49)
as a function of the distance in physical units

$$R_{phys}=Ra(\beta )$$
(50)
for all $`\chi _{cp}(R,R)`$ data points taken in the range of couplings $`\beta =2.32.5`$. Again we see that the center-projected Creutz ratios and asymptotic string tension are in good agreement (deviation $`<10\%`$), and there is very little variation in the Creutz ratios with distance.

Precocious linearity can be understood in the following way: Asymptotically, outside the vortex core, a center vortex is a $`Z_N`$ dislocation, which affects the value of large Wilson loops, topologically linked to the vortex, by a center element factor. Assume that P-vortices correctly identify the middle of thick center vortices in lattice configurations. Then center projection in effect collapses the thick ($``$ one fermi) core of a vortex to a width of one lattice spacing. This means that the asymptotic effect of thick vortices is obtained, on the projected lattice, at any distance greater than one lattice spacing. If P-plaquettes in a plane are uncorrelated, this leads to a linear potential at short distances on the projected lattice. On the other hand, if precocious linearity is not found on the projected lattice, it means that either the P-vortex surface is very rough, fluctuating on all distance scales, or else that some large fraction of P-plaquettes on the projected lattice belong to P-vortices which are small in extent, and do not percolate. Either case results in some short-range correlations among P-plaquettes in a plane, corresponding to high-frequency phenomena not directly associated with the long-range physics.

### 4.2 Scaling of the Vortex Density

Denote the total number of plaquettes on the lattice by $`N_T`$, the number of P-plaquettes by $`N_{vor}`$, and the density $`N_{vor}/N_T`$ of P-plaquettes on the lattice by $`p`$. We have

$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_{vor}}{N_T}}={\displaystyle \frac{N_{vor}a^2}{N_Ta^4}}a^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{Total Vortex Area}}{6\times \text{Total Volume}}}a^2`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\rho a^2`$
where $`\rho `$ is the center vortex density in physical units. Then, according to asymptotic freedom

$$p=\frac{\rho }{6\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}\left(\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\beta \right)^{102/121}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{6\pi ^2}{11}\beta \right]$$
(51)
The average vortex density $`p`$ can be extracted from the expectation value of center projected plaquettes

$`W_{cp}(1,1)`$ $`=`$ $`(1p)\times (+1)+p\times (1)=12p`$
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1W_{cp}(1,1))`$ (52)
Figure 7 is a logarithmic plot of P-vortex density $`p`$ vs. $`\beta `$. Errorbars are less than the size of data points. The solid line is the asymptotic freedom prediction (51), with $`\sqrt{\rho /6\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}=50`$. We emphasize that the slope of this line represents the proper asymptotic scaling for surface densitites. The slope that would be associated with the scaling of pointlike objects such as instantons, or linelike objects such as monopoles, would be quite different. Note that the apparent scaling of $`\chi _{cp}(1,1)=\mathrm{ln}W_{cp}(1,1)2p`$ in Fig. 2 is just a consequence of the scaling of $`p`$.

### 4.3 Vortex-Limited Wilson Loops

A “vortex-limited” Wilson loop $`W_n(C)`$ is defined as the expectation value of an unprojected Wilson loop around some contour $`C`$, evaluated in the sub-ensemble of configurations in which, on the corresponding center-projected lattice, precisely $`n`$ P-vortices pierce the minimal area of the loop. If P-vortices on the projected lattice roughly locate the middle of thick center vortices on the unprojected lattice, then in the limit of large loop areas, for the SU(2) gauge group, we expect

$$\frac{W_n(C)}{W_0(C)}(1)^n$$
(53)
The numerical evidence definitely shows a trend in this direction, as can be seen from our data for $`W_1/W_0`$ and $`W_2/W_0`$ vs. minimal loop area at $`\beta =2.3`$, shown in Figs. 8 and 9.

If P-vortices in the projected configuration locate thick center vortices in the unprojected configurations, and if center vortices are responsible for confinement, then $`W_0(C)`$ should not have an area-law falloff. In Fig. 10 we compare Creutz ratios $`\chi _0[I,J]`$ extracted from rectangular $`W_0(I,J)`$ loops, with the standard Creutz ratios $`\chi (I,J)`$ from loops evaluated in the full ensemble. As expected, the Creutz ratios of the zero-vortex loops tend to zero with loop area.

### 4.4 Center Vortex Removal

It was suggested by de Forcrand and D’Elia  that one could remove center vortices from a given lattice configuration by simply multiplying that configuration by the corresponding center-projected configuration derived in maximal center gauge, i.e.

$$U_\mu ^{}(x)Z_\mu (x)U_\mu (x)$$
(54)
where $`Z_\mu (x)`$ is given by (11). Since the adjoint representation is blind to center elements, it is easy to see that if $`g(x)`$ is a transformation such that $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ is in maximal center gauge, then $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)`$ is also in maximal center gauge. However, there are no P-vortices obtained from center projection of $`{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}`$, since

$$Z_\mu ^{}(x)=\text{signTr}[{}_{}{}^{g}U_{\mu }^{}(x)]=Z_\mu ^2(x)=1$$
(55)
One can therefore say that center vortices, as identified in maximal center gauge, have been removed from the lattice configuration. More precisely, what the modification (54) does is to place a thin vortex (one plaquette thickness) in the middle of each thick center vortex core, whose locations are identified by center projection. At large scales, the effects of the thin and thick vortices on Wilson loops will cancel out. Thus there should be no area law due to vortices in the modified configuration $`U_\mu ^{}`$, and the asymptotic string tension should vanish.

The vanishing of string tension in the modified configurations was, in fact, observed in ref. , using maximal center gauge fixing by the over-relaxation technique of ref. . Figure 11 is a repeat of the de Forcrand-D’Elia calculation at $`\beta =2.3`$, using direct Laplacian center gauge rather than direct maximal center gauge, and we find essentially the same result.

## 5 Remarks on Gauge-Fixing Ambiguities

The original suggestion of ’t Hooft, in his 1981 article on monopole confinement , was to introduce a composite operator in the pure gauge theory transforming like a field in the adjoint representation of the gauge group; for SU(2) gauge theory this operator defines a unitary gauge leaving a residual U(1) symmetry. Monopole worldlines would then be associated with lines along which the gauge transformation is ambiguous. This was the idea which motivated the numerical study of maximal abelian  and Laplacian abelian  gauges. The idea can be generalized by introducing not one but two composite operators transforming in the adjoint representation. Let us denote these operators, in SU(2) gauge theory, by $`\varphi _a(x)`$ and $`\eta _a(x)`$, with color index $`a=1,2,3`$. One then performs a gauge transformation which takes, e.g., $`\varphi _a`$ into the positive color 3 direction at every point, and $`\eta _a`$ to lie in the color 1-3 plane, with $`\varphi _3,\eta _1>0`$. This gauge leaves a remnant $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Gauge-fixing ambiguities occur on surfaces where $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are co-linear, and these surfaces are then to be identified with center vortices.

The suggestion of refs.  is to choose, for $`\varphi _a(x)`$ and $`\eta _a(x)`$, the two lowest lying eigenstates of the covariant lattice Laplacian operator (34) in the adjoint representation; i.e.

$$\varphi _a(x)f_a^1(x),\eta _a(x)f_a^2(x)$$
(56)
with $`\lambda _1<\lambda _2`$ being the two lowest eigenvalues of the Laplacian operator. This is the original version of Laplacian center gauge, which we will refer to as LCG1. Because the procedure involves first fixing to Laplacian abelian gauge, followed by a further gauge fixing which reduces the residual gauge symmetry from U(1) to $`Z_2`$, LCG1 is reminiscent of the indirect maximal center gauge of ref. . As we have pointed out in refs. , abelian monopole worldlines in the indirect maximal center gauge lie on center vortex surfaces, and a vortex at fixed time can be viewed as a monopole-antimonopole chain. The same relationship between abelian monopoles and center vortices holds true in LCG1.

Gauge-fixing ambiguities in LCG1 occur when $`\varphi `$ and $`\eta `$ are co-linear in color space, and it is suggested that these ambiguities can be used to locate vortex surfaces. This approach to vortex finding is certainly quite different from the reasoning outlined in section 3, which is is motivated by a “best fit” procedure. In special cases, notably for a classical vortex solution on an asymmetric lattice with twisted boundary conditions, the co-linearity approach seems to work well . We take note, however, of a simple counter-example: Suppose we insert two vortex sheets “by hand” into a configuration $`U_\mu (x)`$ by the transformation

$$U_0(x)U_0^{}(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}U_0(x)& x_0=0\text{and}0<x_1<L\hfill \\ U_0(x)& \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(57)
All other components are unchanged, i.e. $`U_k^{}(x)=U_k(x)`$ for $`k>0`$. This transformation inserts two thin vortex sheets into the lattice, parallel to the $`x_2x_3`$ plane, at $`x_0=0`$. We then ask whether these two vortex sheets will be located by the gauge-fixing ambiguity approach. The answer is clearly no, since the composite Higgs fields $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\eta (x)`$ are identical in the original $`U_\mu (x)`$, and in the modified $`U_\mu ^{}(x)`$ configurations. This example illustrates the fact that the gauge-ambiguity approach lacks the “vortex-finding property” discussed in ref. , which is the ability of a procedure to locate thin vortices inserted at known locations into the lattice. We have argued in ref.  that this property should be a necessary (although not sufficient) condition for locating vortices on thermalized lattices.

In practice, on thermalized lattices, vortices are located in LCG1 via center projection, rather than by eigenvector co-linearity . Using center projection to locate vortices, LCG1 recovers the vortex-finding property, for reasons explained in ref. .<sup>3</sup><sup>3</sup>3As discussed in that reference, the vortex-finding property is obtained from center projection in any gauge which completely fixes link variables in the adjoint representation, leaving a residual $`Z_N`$ invariance. It also exhibits center dominance of the projected asymptotic string tension. On the other hand, the projected Creutz ratios in LCG1 do not display precocious linearity , nor does the vortex surface density scale according to the asymptotic freedom formula . A possible remedy is to first fix the lattice to LCG1, and from there to fix to (direct or indirect) maximal center gauge by an over-relaxation procedure. This latter procedure has, in fact, been tried by Langfeld et al. in ref. , with good results for the vortex density. Other vortex observables, discussed in the previous section, have not yet been studied systematically in this approach, which seems to have a great deal in common with the direct Laplacian center gauge we have advocated here.

## 6 Conclusions

We have tested a procedure for locating center vortices on thermalized lattices, based on the idea of finding the best fit to the thermalized lattice by thin vortex configurations. Our new procedure, which is essentially just a variation of direct maximal center gauge, is designed to soften the inevitable bad fit at vortex cores, due to the singular field strength of thin vortices. The numerical results we have found are promising: Deviations from center dominance are generally less than 10%, P-vortex density scales correctly, and there are the usual strong correlations between P-vortex locations and gauge-invariant observables. Our new method is motivated by an improved understanding of how maximal center gauge works, and it addresses some objections to center gauge fixing that have been raised in the recent literature. We hope it will provide a more solid foundation for further numerical studies.

###### Acknowledgments.

Our research is supported in part by Fonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung P13997-PHY (M.F.), the U.S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-92ER40711 (J.G.), and the Slovak Grant Agency for Science, Grant No. 2/7119/2000 (Š.O.). Our collaborative effort is also supported by NATO Collaborative Linkage Grant No. PST.CLG.976987.


format: text

text:
# On the Wilson–Bappu relationship in the Mg ii k line

## 1 Introduction

Several papers have been devoted to the study of the correlation between the visual absolute magnitude $`M_V`$ of intermediate and late–type stars, and the width of the Mg ii k 2796.34 Å emission line (cf. Garcia–Alegre et al. (1981); Vladilo et al. (1987); Elgarøy (1988); Elgarøy et al. (1988); Scoville & Mena–Werth (1998), hereafter SMW; Elgaroy et al. (1999), hereafter EEL).

The width–luminosity relationship for the Mg ii k line is qualitatively similar to the one found by Wilson & Bappu (1957) for the Ca ii k optical line (see also recent work by Wallerstein et al. (1999)), currently known as the Wilson–Bappu effect (hereafter WB). Given the similar excitation conditions of these lines, the dependence of their line widths on stellar luminosity or on other fundamental stellar parameters rests on the same physical processes. For a short review on models see Montes et al. (1994), references therein, and the recent work by Özeren et al. (1999).

In this paper we study the WB correlation for the Mg ii k line using the widest possible sample of stars observed at high resolution with IUE, and having a reliable parallax determination from the HIPPARCOS experiment. More precisely, the purposes of the present paper are:

a) to refine the previous luminosity calibrations of the Mg ii k line width by using an homogeneous set of measurements of a statistically significant number of stars covering also spectral types and luminosity classes poorly represented in previous investigations. A particular care has been taken to properly consider the measurement errors.

b) to clarify the problem of the possible dependence of the Mg ii k line width on stellar effective temperature and metallicity discussed in previous papers.

Details about the definition of the present data sample, the observations, and the method used to measure the line widths are given in Sections 2 and 3. The results and the conclusions are presented in Sections 4 and 5, respectively.

## 2 The present sample of stars

A search for all stars with spectral types F, G, K and M with a known parallax from the HIPPARCOS experiment and observed at high resolution in the long wavelength camera by IUE provides 835 IUE spectra of 376 stars in a wide range of luminosity from main sequence to supergiants. From this initial sample we have purposely excluded some special classes of stars. Chromospherically active binary stars such as RS CVn and BY Dra stars were excluded since their Mg ii profiles may be systematically broader than in non–active stars (Montes et al. (1994); Özeren et al. (1999)). Mira variables and Cepheids were excluded because their V magnitudes and Mg ii line profiles are variable and phase–dependent, and also because of the importance of shock waves associated to pulsation as a source of line excitation in these objects (see Gillet et al. (1985); Kraft (1960)). Also excluded were binary stars having the Mg ii lines broadened by peculiar processes (see for example the case of the M–type giant Mira Ceti, in which the emission lines arise from an optically thin disk around the white dwarf companion, as reported by Cassatella et al. (1985) and Reimers and Cassatella (1985)). Finally, we have excluded rapid rotators and very active stars.

After a further selection based on data quality (see next Section), we obtained a final sample of 303 spectra of 230 stars. The sample includes 11 F–type stars, 56 G–type stars, 133 K–type stars and 30 M–type stars. The range in absolute magnitude covered is about -5.4 $``$ $`M_V`$ $``$ 9.0. The most abundant are giant stars (about 50%) and main sequence stars (25%). The rest of the sample is represented by Class I, II and IV stars, about equally distributed.

## 3 Observations and data reduction

### 3.1 The IUE spectra

The IUE high resolution long wavelength spectra have been retrieved from the INES (IUE Newly Extracted Spectra) system through its Principal Centre at http://ines.vilspa.esa.es. A full description of the INES system for high resolution data is given in Cassatella et al. (2000) and González-Riestra et al. (2000). The spectra were inspected individually in the Mg ii k region to identify and reject noisy and overexposed or underexposed data.

Representative examples which show the different typologies of the Mg ii k profiles are given in Fig. 1. One can easily realise that the profiles differ significantly from case to case. The combined effects of the width of the emission component, and of the strength and wavelength position of the absorption cause, quite frequently, the widths of the emission not to be measurable directly on the line profile itself.

We have then adopted a procedure which allows line widths to be evaluated in the large majority of cases. It is based on the reconstruction of the emission profile by fitting the observed portions of the emission line wings with a gaussian function. Let the wavelength boundaries of the violet and red wings to be fitted be $`\lambda _1`$ to $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ to $`\lambda _4`$, respectively. These wavelengths were determined manually from individual spectra and are indicated, in the order, with vertical bars in the examples of Fig. 1. The spectra were re–binned to increase the number of data points by a factor of 5, and slightly smoothed. After subtraction of the local continuum and normalization to the line peak emission, all spectra, irrespective of the typology of the profile were fitted with a gaussian function. Line widths were defined as the full width of the fitted profile measured at half maximum of the observed line peak. This procedure is strictly needed for a correct evaluation of the line widths in presence of strongly mutilated profiles, and is anyhow useful to improve the accuracy of the line width measurements when dealing with noisy spectra. In the normal case of ’well behaved’ profiles such as c), d) and e) in Fig. 1, in which a direct measurement of the line width can be obtained from the spectra, the procedure provides values wich are fully consistent, within the errors, with the ones obtained through the traditional methods.

Examples of extreme, although quite frequent cases in which a direct measurement using traditional methods cannot be done, are the profiles a) and b) of Fig. 1, in which the central absorption divides the profile in two unequal parts, being the flux peak of one of them less than 50% of the other, or in profiles of the type shown in panel f), in which one of the wings is mutilated by superimposed absorption (on the red wing in this case).

It should be stressed that, according to the numerical simulations by Cheng et al. (1997), the fluxes and profiles of chromospheric resonance lines depend on the temperature structure and dynamics of the atmosphere, which may inevitably lead to line profiles that are rather different from gaussian. Our choice to use a gaussian profile is just an empirical approach, having the only purpose to improve the accuracy of the line width measurements through a reliable reconstruction of the emission line wings. This procedure is particularly useful in presence of severe intrinsic or interstellar line absorption.

As a general rule, the results of the fit were rejected whenever the peak intensity of the fitted profile exceeded the peak of the Mg ii k observed profile by more than a given amount, somewhat arbitrarily fixed to 180%. Also rejected were poor quality results where the relative error of the fit was larger than 10% (r.m.s.) and the results from strongly mutilated and asymmetric line profiles with a deep “central” absorption dividing the profile in two halves, with one having a peak intensity less than 10% of the other (i.e. similar to the limiting case a) of Fig. 1).

As for the errors on measured line widths, we have estimated it to be approximatively equal to half of the sampling interval of the spectra, corresponding to 3.64 km s-1, for line profiles as in Fig. 1 c), d) and e), and twice this value for the other typologies.

The measured line widths $`W`$ need to be corrected for instrumental broadening. Assuming the IUE Point Spread Function for high resolution spectra to be a gaussian with a full width at half maximum b=18 km s-1 at 2800 Å (Evans & Imhoff (1985)), the true width $`W_0`$ can be written as:

$$\mathrm{W}_0^2=\mathrm{W}^2\mathrm{b}^2$$
(1)
This correction, which is especially important for narrow lines, has apparently not been taken into account in some previous works on the subject (see Section 4.4). Whenever multiple spectra were available for the same star, the line width was computed as the weighted mean of the individual measurements.

### 3.2 The Hipparcos data

For each of the 230 stars, the following information has been extracted from the Hipparcos Catalogue (ESA (1997)): the Johnson V magnitude, the $`BV`$ colour and the corresponding error, the parallax with its error, the spectral type and luminosity class, and information on variability or duplicity. In a few cases (suitably labeled in Table A, described below) the $`BV`$ colour index, its error, and the spectral type were taken from the Strasbourgh Data Center because the values contained in the HIPPARCOS catalogue were not considered reliable enough.

Table A111Table A is only available in electronic form at CDS via anonymous ftp to cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr (130.79.128.5) or via http://cdsweb.u-strasbg.fr/Abstract.html contains, for each object of the final sample, the HIP and HD numbers, the spectral type and luminosity class, the absolute magnitude $`M_V`$ and its error $`\sigma (M_V)`$, the $`BV`$ colour index with the corresponding error $`\sigma (BV)`$, the IUE images used, the logarithm of the Mg ii k line width $`logW_0`$ with its error $`\sigma (logW_0)`$. The absolute magnitudes were computed without any allowance for interstellar reddening. The errors in $`M_V`$ have been derived from the errors in trigonometric parallaxes assuming a typical error of $`\pm `$ 0.01 mag in the observed visual magnitudes.

The $`M_V`$ vs $`BV`$ diagram of our sample of stars is shown in Fig. 2. One can easily recognize that main sequence stars with $`BV`$ $``$ 0.5, as well as giant and supergiant stars are well represented in our sample.

## 4 Results

### 4.1 The present Mg ii k width-luminosity relationship

To determine the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ of the Mg ii k Wilson–Bappu relationship

$$M_V=a+b\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊}_\mathit{0}$$
(2)
we applied linear regression algorithms to the $`M_V`$ and $`logW_0`$ data of the 230 stars in Table A. The numerical codes available from Press et al. (1992) were used.

We considered regression solutions which take into account the measurement errors in only one of the variables, as often done in the literature, or in both variables. Unweighted regression lines were also computed, although only for comparison purposes. In any case, the correlation coefficient between the $`M_V`$ and $`logW_0`$ data is $`r`$=-0.94.

The results obtained in the different cases are reported in Table 1. Column 1 contains the label assigned to the fit. In Column 2 we specify the variable taken as independent. The variables for which the errors were taken into account are indicated in Column 3. In particular, fits $`A`$ and $`B`$ were done without taking into account the measurement errors; in fits $`C`$ and $`D`$ only the errors on $`M_V`$ or $`logW_0`$ were considered, respectively; in the fits $`E`$ and $`F`$ the errors on both variables were taken into account. The regression coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ together with the corresponding errors are given in Column 4 and 5. They are consistently given in the format appearing in Eq. 2, also in the case a switch of variables has been performed. In that case the uncertainties on the coefficients have been accordingly propagated.

As shown in Table 1, the $`a`$ and $`b`$ coefficients derived by switching the independent variable ($`logW_0`$ or $`M_V`$), vary significantly if allowance is made for the measurement errors in one variable only. This is the case of fit $`C`$, in which the independent variable is $`logW_0`$ and only the errors on $`M_V`$ are taken into account, and fit $`D`$, in which the independent variable is $`M_V`$ and only the errors in $`logW_0`$ are taken into account. On the contrary, fits $`E`$ and $`F`$, in which the errors on both variables are considered, provide fully consistent coefficients, irrespective of the variable considered as independent, as expected (Akritas & Bershady (1996)).

The results in Table 1 show the important role played by the method used to analyse the data. This point is further discussed in Section 4.4.

We consider fit $`E`$ or, equivalently, fit $`F`$ in Table 1 as the most representative of the WB relationship, since the measurement errors on both variables were taken into account. In conclusion, the proposed WB relationship for the Mg ii k line is:

$$M_V=(\mathit{34.56}\pm \mathit{0.29})(\mathit{16.75}\pm \mathit{0.14})\mathrm{𝑙𝑜𝑔𝑊}_\mathit{0}$$
(3)
The observed data, together with the corresponding error bars and the adopted WB relationship (labeled $`E`$) are shown in Fig. 3. For comparison, also fit $`C`$ is shown (labeled $`C`$).

### 4.2 Dependence on Effective Temperature

We investigated the possible dependence of $`logW_0`$ on stellar effective temperature, an item which has been addressed in previous recent analyses and is still under discussion.

Fig. 4 shows our measurements of $`logW_0`$ plotted as a function of the $`BV`$ colour index, taken to be a temperature indicator. This representation is obviously equivalent to the colour–magnitude diagram in Fig. 2 by virtue of the Wilson–Bappu linear relationship. The figure shows, in particular, that $`logW_0`$ is a decreasing function of $`BV`$ for main sequence stars (indicated as black points), while it is an increasing function of $`BV`$ for giants and supergiants (gray points on the upper part of the diagram). Therefore, the weak inverse relationship between line widths and stellar temperature found by SMW (see their Fig. 5) simply reflects the distribution of their sample of stars in the HR diagram, which are mostly giants and supergiants.

An effective way to face the problem is to concentrate on stars in restricted ranges of $`M_V`$ (so that any dependence on luminosity is taken out), and to compare their distribution in $`BV`$ and in $`logW_0`$. To start, we selected the stars having -1.2 $`<`$ $`M_V`$ $``$ -0.2 (31 stars). The results, reported in Fig. 5, show clearly that $`BV`$ is distributed over a wide range of values (0.7 $``$ $`BV`$ $``$ 1.7), while the distribution in $`logW_0`$ has a very prominent peak around $`logW_0`$=2.05. Line widths appear then to be substantially insensitive to the colour index, i.e. to the stellar effective temperature, at least in the above range of $`M_V`$. Tests made with stars lying in different ranges of $`M_V`$ show a pattern which is similar to the one in Fig. 5, but the results cannot be considered as equally conclusive due to the paucity of stars available, and/or to the narrow $`BV`$ range covered.

Using a different approach, previously followed by EEL, we investigated on whether a different width-luminosity relationship applies to different spectral types. In Fig. 6, we compare our results of the width–magnitude relationships for G, K and M stars (solid lines) with the regression line corresponding to the full set of stars in our sample (Eq. 3; dashed line). The corresponding coefficients together with the number of stars used are given in Table 2. The fits were done by taking into account the errors on both variables. No attempt has been made to fit F–type star’s data, which are too few for a statistical approach. In any case, not even a better statistics could possibly help in view of the intrinsically small range of $`M_V`$ covered by F–type stars.

As it appears from Table 2, the coefficients for K–type stars (133 objects), are very similar to the ones in Eq. 3, as expected, given that these stars represent more than 50% of the entire sample.

The poorest statistics is that of M–type stars (30 objects), which are also unevenly distributed in $`M_V`$ (see the gap 1 $``$ $`M_V`$ $``$ 8). Given these limitations, the WB coefficients are strongly dependent on the stars considered in input, so that the differences appearing from the Table are not significant enough.

As for G–type stars (56 objects), we find a significantly flatter slope than for K-type stars (133 objects). In particular, the line widths of the G-type stars in Fig. 6 with $`M_V`$ $``$ -1 are broader than one would expect from the WB relation in Eq. 3. A similar trend has been reported by EEL for a sample of 22 G–type stars. In this regard, it is interesting to mention that also Wallerstein et al. (1999), in their study of the WB effect in the Ca ii k line, found a group of luminous G–type stars having substantially broader Ca ii lines than predicted by the WB relation. Whether the apparently different WB relation for G–type stars should be regarded as a true temperature effect as claimed by EEL, or is due to other causes (including selection effects), it cannot be clarified at this stage.

### 4.3 Dependence on Metallicity

We investigated on possible departures from the Wilson–Bappu relationship in Eq. 3 due to a dependence of the Mg ii k line width on metallicity. To this purpose, we looked for $`[Fe/H]`$ literature data and found information for 156 stars of our sample. For 12 stars, the $`[Fe/H]`$ values are from Carney et al. (1994), and for the remaining stars from Cayrel de Strobel et al. (1997). Being this latter a compilation from several sources, more then one determination was in general available for a given star. In these cases, the most recent one has been adopted, assumed to be the most reliable. In Fig. 7 we plot as a function of $`[Fe/H]`$ the difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`logW_0`$ between the measured line width $`logW_0`$ and the value expected from Wilson–Bappu relationship in Eq. 3. It clearly appears from the figure that, in spite of the quite large range in metallicity, there is no trend for the line widths to show any systematic deviation. The correlation coefficient between $`[Fe/H]`$ and the deviations $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$$`logW_0`$ from Eq. 3 is indeed very poor: $`r`$=0.16.

As a further confirmation of this point, we divided the 156 stars in four groups according to their metallicity. For each group we made a linear fit of $`M_V`$ as a function of $`logW_0`$ (allowing for the errors on both variables). The metallicity groups were defined as follows: $`log[Fe/H]`$ $``$ -0.3 (23 stars), -0.3 $`<`$ $`log[Fe/H]`$ $``$ -0.1 (56 stars), -0.1 $`<`$ $`log[Fe/H]`$ $``$ +0.1 (54 stars), and $`log[Fe/H]`$ $`>`$ +0.1 (23 stars). Slightly different slopes and intercepts of the WB relationship were found, but no dependence on metallicity was found.

### 4.4 Comparison with previous determinations

The results of the present study are compared with the literature values of EEL and SMW in Table 3 which gives, for each author, the number of stars used, the coefficients $`a`$ and $`b`$ (with their errors, if available), and the range of $`M_V`$ values from which the WB relationship has been derived. Reference is made only to papers making use of the same definition of line width (FWHM in this case), and based on precise HIPPARCOS parallaxes.

Since our sample contains 84 stars in common with SMW and 34 in common with EEL, it is useful to make a direct comparison between the line width measurements.

As it appears from the top panel of Fig. 8 our measurements of $`W_0`$ are in a good agreement with SMW’s values for the broadest lines, but there is an increasing discrepancy for narrower and narrower lines, whose widths are systematically overestimated by SMW, as it would happen if their measurements were not corrected for the instrumental width (Eq. 1), an item which is not specified in their paper. Compared with ours, the SMW’s measurements of $`W`$ are about 8% higher, on average. In spite of this discrepancy, one can see from Table 3 that SMW’s fit is very close to our fit $`C`$, but differs strongly from the others. This might suggest that it has been obtained by weighting only on $`M_V`$, as fit $`C`$.

The agreement with EEL’s measurements of $`W`$ (Fig. 8, bottom panel) is substantially better, amounting to 2%, if 4 discrepant data points are excluded (note that for such a comparison, we have averaged the two determinations of $`W`$ obtained by EEL with different methods – see their Table 1). As one can easily appreciate from Table 3, our best estimate of the WB effect in Eq. 3 is compatible with EEL’s fit, at least within their large error bars. Unfortunately, no information about the treatment of measurement errors is given by EEL. The only authors who declared to have taken the measurement errors on both variables into account are Vladilo et al. (1987), but their results cannot be compared with ours due to their much more limited range in $`M_V`$ (-1 to 7). We should note also that the values of $`M_V`$ here adopted, coincide with those of SMW, while there is, on average, a systematic difference of 0.12 mag, of unknown origin, between EEL’s values of $`M_V`$ and ours.

In conclusion, given the substantially larger amount of observations analysed in this work, and the proper way to take the measurement errors into account, we consider Eq. 3 to adequately represents the WB effect for the Mg ii k line, at least within the observational limits set by the IUE and HIPPARCOS experiments.

## 5 Conclusions

In this paper we provide an accurate Wilson–Bappu relationship for the Mg ii k line (see Eq. 3) based on IUE and HIPPARCOS observations, which can be used to estimate stellar distances in a wide range of absolute magnitudes: -5.4 $``$ $`M_V`$ $``$ 9.0. The sample of stars (230 objects) is considerably larger than the ones used in previous works.

It has been shown that the coefficients of the WB relationship critically depend upon the choice of the method of analysis. In our case, different fitting algorithms have been tested and the one taking into account the measurement errors on both variables has been adopted as the most suitable.

In spite of the more accurate method and of the wider sample of stars used, we have not found any observational confirmation to the claimed dependence of the WB effect on effective temperature. On the contrary, we have found arguments against such an effect, as the one provided in the histograms in Fig. 5, which show that the Mg ii line width is substantially the same for stars in a narrow range of $`M_V`$ (-1.2 $`<`$ $`M_V`$ $``$ -0.2), in spite of the wide range of $`BV`$ values. In any case, on the basis of theoretical considerations, the temperature effect is expected to be small (Reimers (1973), Özeren et al. (1999)).

We also investigated on possible systematic deviations caused by differences in metallicity. Using metallicity data for 156 stars in our sample, we came to the conclusion that such an effect is not present, at least within the accuracy of the measurements.

Given the difficulty to disetangle the metallicty and temperature effects using the present sample of field stars, it would be important to extend the analysis to homogeneous populations of stars such as galactic clusters. More in general, observations by newly proposed space missions (e.g. GAIA) will hopefully enrich our knowledge on parallaxes of very large numbers of stars and clarify the problems left open.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank Prof. M.J. Fernández–Figueroa and Drs. Anna Marenzi, Vittoria Caloi, and R. González–Riestra for useful comments and advice.


text:
# Approximate solutions for the Skyrmion

## I Introduction

The Skyrme model Skyrme  provides a picture of baryons interacting via meson exchanges Witten , 't Hooft . The model is based on the pre-QCD nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model, with the same group of chiral symmetry $`G=SU(N_f)\times SU(N_f)`$ Adkins . Classical stability arguments require the presence of an additional term in the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model Lagrangian Derrick ; this term was introduced initially by Skyrme. In this scenario, baryons emerge as solitonic solutions of the Euler-Lagrange equations Rajaraman , which are highly nonlinear second order equations and cannot be solved in exact closed form. Solutions are obtained by numerical integration. This is an awkward situation for the evaluation of physical quantitie s. In practice it is more convenient to have explicit approximate representations for the solitonic solutions.

In the present work we obtain reliable approximate representations for the solution of the Skyrme model in the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ sector by means of the Padé Approximant (PA) Baker  procedure whereby the series expansion solution of the differential equations is continued analytically.

The successful implementation of PA summation relies on the simple structure of the series solution near the origin which is almost an alternate geometric series. In order to reproduce the essential features of the exact solution at large distances, we use the 2-point PA method and construct modified representations that share the exact properties of the skyrmion configuration near both boundaries. Futhermore our approximate solutions are reliable in the whole interval of the independent variable $`r`$, namely $`r=0`$ to infinity.

This paper is organized as follows. In section II we introduce the Skyrme model in the $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ sector and restrict the problem using the hedgehog ansatz. In section III we present properties of the hedgehog solution showing power series r epresentations for the Chiral Angle. In section IV we introduce and use our approach based on the PA method. Finally, in section V we draw the conclusions of our work.

## II The Skyrme model

Following Skyrme’s proposal, baryons are soliton in the $`\sigma `$nonlinear model with an additional stabilizing term. We will restrict ourselves to the sector $`SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R`$ where the Lagrangian density of the model reads

$$L=\frac{f_\pi ^\mathit{2}}{\mathit{4}}\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}(_\mu U^\mu U)+\frac{\mathit{1}}{\mathit{32}g^\mathit{2}}\mathrm{𝑇𝑟}[U^+_\mu U,U^+_\nu U]^\mathit{2},$$
(1)
being $`U`$ a unitary operator. The parameter $`f_\pi `$ is the usual pion decay constant whose experimental value is $`93`$ MeV and $`g`$ is the dimensionless Skyrme parameter. Equivalently, $`U`$ can be expressed in terms of a scalar and a pseudoscalar field, $`\sigma `$ and $`𝝅`$ respectively, in the following form

$$U=(\sigma +i𝝉\mathbf{}𝝅)/f_\pi $$
(2)
It should be stressed that $`\sigma `$ and $`𝝅`$ are not independent fields, and are related through $`\sigma ^2+𝝅^2=f_\pi ^2`$. This restriction is the source of nonlinearities in the theory.

Rewriting $`𝝅`$ and $`\sigma `$ in terms of a new field $`𝑭=f_\pi F\widehat{𝝋}`$

$$\sigma =f_\pi \mathrm{cos}F,𝝅=f_\pi \widehat{𝝋}\mathrm{sin}F,$$
(3)
and going back to $`U`$, we obtain the representation

$$U=\mathrm{exp}(i𝝉\mathbf{}𝑭)$$
(4)
Previous analysis Mattis  have shown that a reasonable agreement with experimental values of physical quantities is obtained when the hedgehog configuration of $`U`$ is adopted, this is a particlular static ansatz where $`𝑭`$ takes a spherically symmetric form, namely

$$U_s(\stackrel{~}{r})=\mathrm{exp}(i𝝉\mathbf{}\widehat{𝒏}\text{ }F(\stackrel{~}{r}))$$
(5)
where $`\widehat{𝒏}`$ denotes a unit radial vector.

In this representation, the energy reduces to a functional of the Chiral Angle, $`F(\stackrel{~}{r})`$, alone

$$E[F]=2\pi _0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{r}\left[f_\pi ^2\stackrel{~}{r}^2\left(\frac{dF}{d\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^2+2f_\pi ^2\mathrm{sin}^2F+\frac{1}{g^2}\mathrm{sin}^2F\left(2\left(\frac{dF}{d\stackrel{~}{r}}\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}\right)\right].$$
(6)
The variation $`\delta E/\delta F=0`$ generates a nonlinear differential equation for $`F(\stackrel{~}{r})`$, whose solution corresponds to the static configuration of minimal energy. Written in terms of the dimensionless variable $`r=gf_\pi \stackrel{~}{r}`$, the differential equation for $`F(r)`$ reads

$`[r^2+8\mathrm{sin}^2F(r)]{\displaystyle \frac{d^2F(r)}{dr^2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{r^2}}\mathrm{sin}^2F(r)\mathrm{sin}[2F(r)]+\mathrm{sin}[2F(r)]2r{\displaystyle \frac{dF(r)}{dr}}`$ (7)
$`4\mathrm{sin}[2F(r)]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dF(r)}{dr}}\right]^2.`$
As finite energy solutions are required, $`U(r)`$ must tend to an arbitrary constant element of $`SU(2)`$ at spatial infinity. Choosing $`U(r)1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$ , implies the boundary condition

$$F(\mathrm{})=0$$
(8)
This condition defines a mapping $`S^3S^3`$, from the compactified configuration space to the identity in the target space in $`SU(2)`$ which is isomorfic to $`S^3`$, falling into distinct equivalence classes labeled each by the winding number Z

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_3(SU(2))=\mathrm{\Pi }_3(S^3)=Z,$$
(9)
The integer number Z, that counts the coverings of the target space, is defined as the topological charge $`q=𝑑x^3B_0`$ related to the baryonic current

$$B_\mu =\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr[(U^+^\nu U)(U^+^\rho U)(U^+^\sigma U)]$$
(10)
For the hedgehog ansatz, the baryon number charge density is

$$B_0=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}\frac{dF}{dr}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{r^2}$$
(11)
and corresponds to a baryon number

$$B=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[2F(0)2F(\mathrm{})\mathrm{sin}2F(0)+\mathrm{sin}2F(\mathrm{})\right]$$
(12)
From the foregoing, it follows that the solution belonging to the sector with baryon number $`B=1`$, satisfies the condition

$$F(0)=\pi .$$
(13)
The numerical solution labeled with $`B=1`$ is shown in Fig.1 . Inserting this solution into Eq. (6) yields $`E=23.2\pi f_\pi /g`$.

## III Properties of the hedgehog solution

Before applying the PA procedure to the Skyrme model, we shall consider the solution of the Euler-Lagrange equation at both ends of the definition domain. Near the origin, a power series solution can be obtained Mignaco ,

$$S_H(r)=\pi +F_1\stackrel{~}{r}+\frac{1}{3!}F_3\stackrel{~}{r}^3+\frac{1}{5!}F_5\stackrel{~}{r}^5+\mathrm{},$$
(14)
where $`F_1`$ turns out to be undetermined. All even powers have vanishing coefficients. Odd power coefficients are written in terms of $`F_1`$ and the dimensionless parameter $`\varphi `$, defined as $`\varphi =F_1/gf_\pi `$; for example,

$$F_3=\frac{4}{5}F_1^3\frac{1+2\varphi ^2}{1+8\varphi ^2}$$
(15)
$$F_5=\frac{24}{7}F_1^5\frac{1+(32/5)\varphi ^2+(88/5)\varphi ^4+(488/5)\varphi ^6}{1+24\varphi ^2+192\varphi ^4+512\varphi ^6},$$
(16)
while the results for higher terms may be found elsewhere Mignaco . In terms of the dimensionless variable $`r=gf_\pi \stackrel{~}{r}`$, expansion (14) becomes

$$S_H(r)=\pi +\varphi r+\frac{1}{3!}\varphi _3r^3+\frac{1}{5!}\varphi _5r^5+\mathrm{},$$
(17)
where $`\varphi _3`$ and $`\varphi _5`$ are given by the same expressions as $`F_3`$ and $`F_5`$ but with $`\varphi `$ instead of $`F_1`$. From now on, we shall be concerned only with the dimensionless variables.

For large values of $`r`$ , there is a solution of the form $`C/r^2`$, as it can be readily seen from trying this form in equation (7) and keeping only linear terms in $`F(r)`$.

In order to find contributions of higher order in $`1/r`$, it is appropriate to perform the change of variable $`\rho =1/r`$ in equation (7). In this new variable it reads:

$`[\rho ^2+8\rho ^4\mathrm{sin}F(\rho )]{\displaystyle \frac{d^2F(\rho )}{d\rho ^2}}`$ $`+`$ $`8\rho ^3\mathrm{sin}^2F(\rho ){\displaystyle \frac{F(\rho )}{d\rho }}+4\rho ^4\mathrm{sin}^2[2F(\rho )]\left[{\displaystyle \frac{dF(\rho )}{d\rho }}\right]^2`$ (18)
$`4\rho ^2\mathrm{sin}^2F(\rho )\mathrm{sin}[2F(\rho )]\mathrm{sin}[2F\rho ]=0`$
Trying a power series expansion as before,

$$F(\rho )=K_0+K_1\rho +\frac{1}{2!}K_2\rho ^2+\frac{1}{3!}K_3\rho ^3+\mathrm{}$$
(19)
we find that the series solution contains just even powers. The first few coefficients written in terms of $`K_2`$ are Mignaco

$`K_4`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
$`K_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{30}{7}}K_2^3`$ (21)
$`K_8`$ $`=`$ $`6720K_2^3`$ (22)
Just as the initial slope $`\varphi `$, the parameter $`K_2`$ cannot be determined from the differential equation. Approximate values for $`\varphi `$ and $`K_2`$ are given in Ref.Mignaco . These values were determined through the use of integration routines based on shooting methods Adkins . This is some sort of eigenvalue problem for $`\varphi `$ and $`K_2`$. The solution is obtained by numerical integration of the differential equation, starting from the origin where the value of $`\varphi `$ must be such as to satisfy the correct boundary condition corresponding to the relevant solitonic solution. Once $`\varphi `$ is found, the value of $`K_2`$ is obtained in similar way using equation (18). The reported values are Ebrahim .

$$\varphi =1.0037K_2=17.2772$$
(23)
These values, as well as the vality of the numerical solution can be checked in a consistent manner. We will not go on through this and just refer the reader to the Ref. Ananias

Let us make a slight modification in our analysis by rewritting the power expansion (17) in the following form

$$S_H(r)=\pi +\varphi r+a_1r^3\left(1+\frac{a_2}{a_1}r^2+\frac{a_2}{a_1}\frac{a_3}{a_2}r^4+\mathrm{}\right),$$
(24)
where the coefficients $`a_1`$, $`a_2`$, $`a_3`$, …are defined through

$$a_1=\frac{\varphi _3}{3!},a_2=\frac{\varphi _5}{5!}a_3=\frac{\varphi _7}{7!},$$
(25)
and so on. As shown in table I, the numerical values of the ratios $`a_{n+1}/a_n`$ vary very slowly with $`n`$. Thus, one can introduce the nearly constant $`Ra_{n+1}/a_n`$ (for any value of $`n`$). Consequently, the portion within the brackets in (24) can be replaced, to a good degree of approximation, by the alternate geometric series

$$1Rr^2+(Rr^2)^2(Rr^2)^3+(Rr^2)^4\mathrm{},$$
(26)
which has a radius of convergence $`r_0`$ defined by the relation $`r_0^2=|1/R|`$.

Within the radius of convergence, $`rr_0`$, expansion (24) may be replaced by

$$S_H\pi +\varphi r+a_1r^3(1Rr^2+(Rr^2)^2(Rr^2)^3+(Rr^2)^4\mathrm{}).$$
(27)
An alternate series like $`1x+x^2x^3+\mathrm{}`$ can be continued beyond its radius of convergence by the function $`(1+x)^1`$, so that $`S_H`$ can also be analytically continued for all positives values in the real $`r`$ axis using the representation

$$F(r)=\pi +\varphi r+\frac{a_1r^3}{1+Rr^2}$$
(28)
Taking $`R=a_2/a_1`$, Eq. (28) is exactly the $`[3,2]`$ order Padé Approximant representation of the series (24). The obvious task is to test whether higher order of approximation can provide a better representation of the soliton. There is a great amount of examples pade  where Padé Approximant procedure provides reliable analytic continuation of power series expansions and that PA representations converge rapidly to the relevant function of the problem. In the next section we will build different representations of PA to the hedgehog solution showing that the features of reliability and fast convergence also hold in this problem.

## IV Padé approximants to the hedgehog solution

Our approach is based on Padé approximants, which are rational functions used to provide an analytic continuation of a power series representation of a given function, and are typically known to accelerate the convergence of the series. The Padé approximant $`P_{[M,N]}(x)`$ of order $`[M,N]`$ to the series $`S(x)=_na_nx^n`$ is defined as the ratio of two polynomials

$$P_{[M,N]}(x)=\frac{\underset{k=0}{\overset{M}{}}A_kx^k}{\underset{k=0}{\overset{N}{}}B_kx^k}$$
(29)
where we set $`B_0=1`$ without loss of generality. The remaining $`M+N+1`$ coefficients are chosen so that the first $`M+N+1`$ coefficients in the Taylor expansion of $`P_{[M,N]}`$ coincide with the series $`S(x)`$ through order $`M+N`$. Conversely, if only the first $`M+N+1`$ coefficients of the series $`S(x)`$ are known, such a Padé approximant can be used to predict the next coefficient in the series Ellis .

The PA of order $`[M,N]`$ to the hedgehog solution is found by comparing its Taylor expansion at the origin with series (14). From all the possible combinations $`(M,N)`$ allowed by the input series expansion (14), we are interested in tho se that may provide a suitable representation to the hedgehog solution. In order to enforce the conditions that fix the soliton solution to be of winding number one, we will require that the behaviour at infinity of the PA representations is given by the leading term of expansion (19). To this end we impose the contraint $`NM=2`$. We have computed the values of coefficients $`a_k`$ and $`b_k`$ corresponding to the sequence fo PA’s $`[0,2]`$, $`[1,3]`$ and $`[2,4]`$ using the value $`\varphi _1=1.003`$ found by numerical methods. The results are displayed in figure 1. The explicit dependence of the PAs in terms of the coefficients of series (17) is

$`F_{[0,2]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{1\frac{\varphi r}{\pi }+\left(\frac{\varphi r}{\pi }\right)^2}},`$
$`F_{[1,3]}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi +\left(\varphi +\frac{\varphi \varphi _3\pi ^2}{6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2}\right)r}{1+\frac{\varphi \varphi _3\pi }{6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2}r\frac{\varphi ^2\varphi _3}{6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2}r^2\frac{\varphi _3^2\pi }{6(6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2)}r^3}},`$ (30)
for $`[0,2]`$ and $`[1,3]`$ respectively.

The PA representations built from the exact series solution near the origin do not guarantee the exact behaviour at intermediate and large values of $`r`$. However, one could use the asymptotic solution at infinity given in (19) in order to find better representations of the hedgehog Linde . Yet, the right behaviour at infinity may be incorporated using the 2-point Padé Approximant procedure. This is a natural extension of the usual PA method which consists in fixing almost one coefficient of the approximant using the asymptotic series solution at infinity Baker . We have computed the sequence of 2-point PA of order $`[1,3]`$, $`[2,4]`$, $`[3,5]`$ (see figure 2). Certainly, the 2-point PA representations are more reliable than the ordinary ones. The explicit form of PA $`[1,3]`$ is

$$F_{[1,3]}=\frac{\pi +\frac{K_2(6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2)}{6(K_2\varphi ^22\pi ^3)}}{1\frac{\pi (K_2\varphi _3+12\varphi \pi )}{6(2\pi ^3K_2\varphi ^2)}\frac{\varphi (K_2\varphi _3+12\varphi \pi )}{6(K_2\varphi ^22\pi ^3)}+\frac{6\varphi ^3+\varphi _3\pi ^2}{3(K_2\varphi ^22\pi ^3)}}$$
(31)
The next step is to include the subleading behaviour of the exact solution at infinity within the PA representations. We have done this up to order $`O(1/r^3)`$ as shown in figure 3. As we go on with the procedure, the degree of approximation is improved both near the origin and for large values of $`r`$. However, for intermediate values of $`r`$, the PA representations are slowly convergent. Nevertheless we will show that there is a suitable functional form that provides very good representations to the hedgehog solution.

To this end, let us prescribe a modified PA of order $`[0,4]`$ through

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{[0,4]}(r)=\frac{a}{(1+b_1r+b_2r^2+b_3r^3+b_4r^4)^{1/2}},$$
(32)
such that the coefficients $`a_0`$, $`b_1`$, $`b_2`$ and $`b_3`$ are determined by expanding $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{[0,4]}(r)`$ in a power series near the origin and matching the terms, order by order, with those of the exact solution (17) up to $`O(r^3)`$, and the remaining coefficient $`b_4`$ is fixed by using the leading term at infinity given by (19). We found explicitly,

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{[0,4]}(r)=\frac{\pi }{(1\frac{2\varphi }{\pi }r+\frac{3\varphi ^2}{\pi ^2}r^2+\frac{12\varphi ^3\varphi _3\pi ^2}{3\pi ^3}r^3+\frac{4\pi ^2}{K_2^2}r^4)^{1/2}}.$$
(33)
The form (32) can be generalized to higher orders $`[0,k]`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{[0,k]}(r)=\frac{a}{(1+b_1r+b_2r^2+\mathrm{}+b_kr^k)^{2/k}}$$
(34)
where the unknown coefficients may be found following the prescription described for the particular case $`k=4`$. We have built the representations corresponding to $`k=6`$, $`k=8`$, and $`k=10`$ (see Fig. 4). By construction, such representations have the exact Taylor expansion near the origin up to order $`O(r^5)`$, $`O(r^6)`$ and $`O(r^7)`$ respectively, as well as the exact leading behaviour at infinity. The new PA representations improve in a remarkable way the representations obtained so far.

Following the program, an even better agreement for the large $`r`$ behaviour may be obtained by including in the modified representations (34) the subleading behaviour of the hedgehog solution. In figure 5 we have depicted the approximants so constr ucted. The figure shows an exceptional good agreement betwen the numerical solution and the modified PA given by (34). In order to show the utility of PA procedure as a method of analytic continuation, we have included in the same figure the power series representation near the origin up to and including order $`O(r^9)`$.

The utility of PA method in this problem is outstanding, particularly for its simple and reliable application to the highly nonlinear Euler-Lagrange equation of Skyrme. Moreover, the PA representations reproduce exactly the main properties of the hedgehog solution at both small and large values of $`r`$.

In order to further check the reliability of the PA representations, we have calculated its corresponding baryon number given by

$$B=\frac{1}{2\pi ^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dF}{dr}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{r^2}4\pi r^2𝑑r,$$
(35)
and the minimal energy (6) whose numerical value is $`E=72.88f_\pi /g`$. We obtain $`B=1`$ for the 2-point PAs which is exactly the topological number of the skyrmion. As for the energy, the results for the last sequence of approximants in units of $`f_\pi /g`$ are $`E_{[0,4]}=73.60`$, $`E_{[0,6]}=73.02`$, $`E_{[0,8]}=72.96`$, and $`E_{[0,10]}=72.94`$, which converge to the numerical value reported in previous work s Adkins .

## V Final remarks

We have shown that the suggested PA representations for the Skyrme solutions can incorporate in a simple way the properties of the exact solution near both physical boundaries of the problem. This solves the difficulty acquainted in Ref.Ananias , wh ere the authors assert the impossibility to obtain a PA to the series solution about the origin which, in addition, reproduces the exact behaviour of the chiral angle at infinity. Moreover, our representations avoid the use of two separate analytical repr esentations for the skyrmion, one for each of the two regions, which was the common approach to this problem Iwasaki , clearly unsuitable for phenomenological calculations.

Certainly, the results presented here highlight the utility of rational functions, PA in particular, for analytic continuation of asymptotic series. In this problem, the knowledge of the asymptotic behaviour at two points favors a better convergence to the relevant function. The approximate analytical solutions can be used with reliability in the evaluation of physical quantities. The calculations are further easier and more manageable than numerical computations.