text:
# A self-avoiding walk with attractive interactions

## 1. Introduction

A powerful tool for the study of self-avoiding walks is the lace expansion of Brydges and Spencer \[BS\]. It is applicable above four dimensions and shows the mean-field behavior of self-avoiding walks, that is, critical exponents are those of the simple random walk. An extensive survey of random walks can be found in \[MS\].

The lace expansion was originally introduced for weakly self-avoiding walks, and extended to the fully self-avoiding case by Slade and Hara \[Sla, HS\]. Several improvements, simplifications and alternate approaches have since been proposed, see \[GI, KLMS, vHHS, vHS\]. A recent work by Bolthausen and Ritzmann \[BR\] uses a fixed point argument and avoids the difficulties that are present when working in the Fourier space. Its actual range of applicability is limited to the case of small repulsions, but an extension to the self-avoiding case may be possible.

The purpose of this article is to show that the lace expansion can also be used when the walk experiences small nearest-neighbor attractions. We consider a model of random walks $`w=(w_0,\mathrm{},w_n)`$ with $`w_t^d`$, where the connectivity $`C_n(x)`$ between 0 and $`x`$ is defined by

$$C_n(x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}D(w_tw_{t1})\underset{0s<tn}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right);$$
(1.1)
the sum is over all $`n`$ steps random walks $`w(^d)^{n+1}`$ with $`w_0=0`$ and $`w_n=x`$. The jumps of the walk are given a positive weight $`D`$, that has the symmetries of the lattice (precisely: invariance under permutations and inversions of coordinates), and that satisfies the following assumptions:

$$D(0)=0,\underset{y}{}D(y)=1,\underset{|xy|=1,y0}{inf}\frac{D(y)}{D(x)}=\mathrm{\Delta }>0.$$
(1.2)
Here and in the sequel $`|x|`$ denotes the $`\mathrm{}_2`$ norm of $`x^d`$. The last “smoothness” condition is not very desirable, but it plays an important technical role; notice that it allows a weight with exponential decay. The potential $`U`$ is

$$U(x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }x=0\hfill \\ \kappa \hfill & \text{if }|x|=1\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$
(1.3)
Here we shall take $`\kappa `$ small and positive. Let

$$c_n=\underset{x}{}C_n(x);$$
(1.4)
one easily gets $`c_1=1+2d\kappa D(1)`$, where $`D(1)=D(x)`$ with $`|x|=1`$. We first establish the existence of the connective constant $`\mu =lim_nc_n^{1/n}`$. Theorem 1 is valid for all dimensions and small attractions.

###### Theorem 1.

Assume that $`\kappa `$ is small enough, so as to satisfy

$$(1+\kappa )^{2d}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2d(1+\kappa )^{2d1}}.$$

Then the sequence $`(c_n^{1/n})`$ converges to a number $`\mu `$ with $`2^d\mu c_1`$.

The proof of this theorem is given in Section 2.

Next we state a result that will be proved using the lace expansion method. The expansion is rather easy to perform; the difficult task is to prove the convergence. This will be done in two steps. First, we shall obtain bounds on lace expansion terms involving the supremum norm of $`C_n(x)`$. Second, we shall check the hypothesis of van der Hofstad and Slade \[vHS\]; their results imply Theorem 2 below.

We consider a positive differentiable even function $`h(\xi )`$ on $``$, that is decreasing for $`\xi >0`$, and that satisfies

$`{\displaystyle |\xi |^{d+1+3\epsilon }h(\xi )d\xi }<\mathrm{}\text{for some }\epsilon (0,1\frac{d4}{4}),`$ (1.5a)
$`\underset{\xi }{sup}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{h^{}(\xi )}{h(\xi )}}\right|<\mathrm{}.`$ (1.5b)
For $`x^d\{0\}`$, we define

$$D(x)=\frac{h(|x|/L)}{_{y^d\{0\}}h(|y|/L)},$$
(1.6)
and $`D(0)=0`$. The condition (1.5a) is a technical one that appears in \[vHS\]; (1.5b) ensures the existence of a non-zero constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, see (1.2), at least when $`L`$ is large.

###### Theorem 2.

Suppose $`d\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}`$ and define $`D`$ by (1.6) with $`h`$ satisfying (1.5a) and (1.5b). There exists $`L_0<\mathrm{}`$ such that if $`LL_0`$, and if $`\kappa `$ is small enough so that the condition of Theorem 1 holds true, the mean-square displacement satisfies

$$\frac{1}{c_n}\underset{x}{}|x|^2C_n(x)=n\delta \left[1+O(n^\epsilon )\right].$$

The diffusion constant $`\delta `$ can be given an explicit expression, see (4.10).

A self-avoiding random walk with strong attractions ($`\kappa `$ large) displays a very different behavior. A typical walk is expected to maximize nearest-neighbor contacts and to occupy as little a space as possible. We can actually compute a lower bound for the connective constant by considering only such walks. Let $`𝒞(n^{1/d})`$ denote the cube of size $`n^{1/d}`$ centered at the origin, and define

$$\gamma =\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; inf}\left[\underset{\begin{array}{c}w𝒞(n^{1/d})\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}D(w_tw_{t1})\right]^{1/d}.$$
(1.7)
The sum is over all self-avoiding walks starting at the origin and with support $`𝒞(n^{1/d})`$. We easily obtain

$$\mu \gamma (1+\kappa )^d.$$
(1.8)
Since $`\gamma >D(1)`$, we see that the bound $`\mu c_1`$ given in Theorem 1 cannot be true for $`\kappa `$ large. One should also expect that the mean-square displacement has leading term $`n^{2/d}`$, that is, the critical exponent is smaller than in the case of small $`\kappa `$.

A random walk with both on-site repulsion and nearest-neighbor attraction is studied in \[vHK\].

The lace expansion is explained in Section 3, and suitable bounds of lace expansion terms are obtained. The special difficulties associated with attractive interactions are treated with the help of Section 2. Section 4 contains the proof of Theorem 2, based on Section 3 and \[vHS\]. Notice that the assumptions of \[vHS\] are less restrictive and the claims are stronger. More general walks can be considered and a local central limit theorem holds true. See \[vHS\] for more informations.

## 2. The connective constant

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1. A lower bound for $`c_n^{1/n}`$ can be found by restricting the sum in (1.1) to random walks which jump only in positive directions, and by neglecting the nearest-neighbor attractions. We get

$$c_n\left(\underset{x:x_i\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}}{}D(x)\right)^n\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{dn};$$
(2.1)
we used the fact that $`D(x)`$ is normalized, and its sum in the first octant is at least $`2^d`$.

We prove below that

$$c_{m+n}c_mc_n.$$
(2.2)
Then $`c_nc_1^n`$, and we obtain the upper bound. From (2.2) and a standard subadditivity argument, we get the convergence of the sequence $`(c_n^{1/n})`$.

The difficulty is to prove (2.2). It clearly holds in the case of repulsive interactions, and fails when only attractions are present. Here, one has to play the attractions against the self-avoidance, to see that the effective behavior is indeed repulsive.

Let us introduce

$$W(w)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{|w|}{}}D(w_tw_{t1})\underset{0s<t|w|}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right);$$
(2.3)
then

$$c_{m+n}=\underset{x,y}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=m\end{array}}{}W(w)\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{}:xy\\ |w^{}|=n\end{array}}{}W(w^{})\underset{\begin{array}{c}0s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right).$$
(2.4)
Let us fix $`w`$; we show that the following holds true for all $`0j<m`$:

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{}:xy\\ |w^{}|=n\end{array}}{}W(w^{})\underset{\begin{array}{c}js<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{}:xy\\ |w^{}|=n\end{array}}{}W(w^{})\underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right).$$
(2.5)
Notice that $`(w_0,\mathrm{},w_{j1})`$ does not play any role in the expression above. Inequality (2.5) allows to remove the product term in (2.4), and one obtains (2.2).

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}^n`$ be the set of $`n`$-steps walks from $`x`$ to $`y`$; furthermore, for given $`w_j`$ we set

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ $`=\{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}^n:\mathrm{dist}(w^{},w_j)=0\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ $`=\{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}^n:\mathrm{dist}(w^{},w_j)=1\},`$
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_2`$ $`=\{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_{xy}^n:\mathrm{dist}(w^{},w_j)>1\},`$
where the distance between a walk $`w^{}`$ and a point $`z`$ is $`\mathrm{dist}(w^{},z)=\mathrm{min}_{1t|w^{}|}|w_t^{}z|`$. Clearly,

$$\underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{}W(w^{})\underset{\begin{array}{c}js<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right)=\underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_2}{}W(w^{})\underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right).$$
(2.6)
We turn now to the walks of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. For $`w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, we define

$$u=\mathrm{min}\{t\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}:\mathrm{dist}(w_t^{},w_j)=1\}.$$
(2.7)
Then we consider a walk $`\stackrel{ˇ}{w}\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ that is a little deformation of $`w^{}`$, namely

$$\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_t=\{\begin{array}{cc}w_t^{}\hfill & \text{if }tu,\hfill \\ w_j\hfill & \text{if }t=u;\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.8)
this is illustrated in Fig. 1. Notice that

$$\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}D(\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_t\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_{t1})\mathrm{\Delta }^2\underset{t=1}{\overset{n}{}}D(w_t^{}w_{t1}^{}).$$
(2.9)
The walk $`\stackrel{ˇ}{w}`$ may involve less nearest neighbor contacts with itself or $`w`$, than the walk $`w^{}`$. The difference is no more than $`2d1`$ (a consequence of self-avoidance), so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{0s<tn}{}\left(1U(\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_s\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_t)\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_s\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_t)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill (1+\kappa )^{(2d1)}\underset{0s<tn}{}\left(1U(w_s^{}w_t^{})\right)\underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right).\end{array}$$
(2.10)
The right side of (2.5) involves walks both of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$, while the left side involves only walks of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$. To each walk $`w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ corresponds a walk $`\stackrel{ˇ}{w}\mathrm{\Omega }_0`$, and the weight of $`\stackrel{ˇ}{w}`$ is bounded below by the weight of $`w^{}`$, up to a factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2/(1+\kappa )^{2d1}`$. No more than $`2d`$ walks $`w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1`$ are mapped on a same $`\stackrel{ˇ}{w}`$. Starting with the right side of (2.5), we can write

$`{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{}}`$ $`W(w^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{ˇ}{w}\mathrm{\Omega }_0}{}}W(\stackrel{ˇ}{w}){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_s\stackrel{ˇ}{w}_t)\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{}}W(w^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2d(1+\kappa )^{2d1}}}{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{}}W(w^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j+1s<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1+\kappa )^{2d}}}\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }^2}{2d(1+\kappa )^{2d1}}}\right]{\displaystyle \underset{w^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_1}{}}W(w^{}){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}js<m\\ 0<tn\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_sw_t^{})\right).`$
The assumption of the theorem implies that the factor in front of the last sum is larger than 1.

The importance of the “smoothness” condition for $`D`$ is clear from the occurrence of the constant $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the equation above. Self-avoidance allowed to write the inequality (2.10). In the case of weakly self-avoiding walks some sites receive many visits, and the method described here does not work — Eq. (2.5) actually ceases to be true. While weakly self-avoiding walks should also display effective repulsion, to prove it looks difficult.

## 3. The lace expansion

The goal now is to write down a lace expansion for our self-avoiding walk with attractive nearest-neighbor interactions, and then to prove a key estimate; see Proposition 3 below. It will be used in showing the convergence of the lace expansion, hence in establishing the diffusive behavior of the walk.

The first step consists in obtaining an expansion for the connectivity $`C_n(x)`$. A natural idea is to proceed as in a cluster expansion and, in (1.1), to expand the product over $`(s,t)`$ so as to get a sum over graphs of $`n+1`$ vertices, and then to attempt to control the resulting terms. Dealing with these terms is no easy task, but Brydges and Spencer have shown that suitable bounds can indeed be proven \[BS\]. The idea is to take advantage of the one-dimensional nature of a walk. We consider graphs whose sets of vertices are intervals $`[a,b]`$ in $``$; we write $`𝒢[a,b]`$ for the set of all graphs on $`[a,b]`$, and $`𝒞[a,b]`$ for the set of connected graphs: a graph $`G`$ is connected iff

* both $`a`$ and $`b`$ are endpoints of edges of $`G`$;
* $`c(a,b)`$: $`stG`$ such that $`s<c<t`$.

A lace is a minimally connected graph, i.e. a connected graph such that the removal of any edge results in a disconnected graph. We denote by $`[a,b]`$ the set of laces on $`[a,b]`$. If $`G𝒞[a,b]`$, one can obtain a lace $`L(G)G`$ by keeping edges $`s_1t_1,\mathrm{},s_mt_m`$ of $`G`$, according to the following rule:

* $`s_1=a`$, $`t_1=\mathrm{max}\{t:(a,t)G\}`$
* $`t_2=\mathrm{max}\{t:s<t_1\text{ such that }stG\}`$, $`s_2=\mathrm{min}\{s:st_2G\}`$
* $`\mathrm{}`$
* $`t_m=b`$, $`s_m=\mathrm{min}\{s:sbG\}`$.

Let $`L`$ be a lace. An edge $`stL`$ such that the lace corresponding to $`L\{st\}`$ is $`L`$, is said to be compatible with $`L`$, and we write $`stL`$. Any graph $`G`$ such that $`L(G)=L`$ contains all edges of $`L`$, and edges that are compatible with $`L`$ (and reciprocally).

We are looking for an induction relation for $`C_n(x)`$. We start by rewriting (1.1) as

$$C_n(x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}D(w)\underset{G𝒢[0,n]}{}\underset{stG}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right),$$
(3.1)
with

$$D(w)=\underset{t=1}{\overset{|w|}{}}D(w_tw_{t1}).$$
(3.2)
Some graphs have edges attached to 0, and some graphs do not have such edges. Graphs of the former class can be split into a connected graph containing 0, and another graph whose support consists of the remaining sites. This leads to the decomposition

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{G𝒢[0,n]}{}\underset{stG}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)=\underset{G𝒢[1,n]}{}\underset{stG}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{G𝒞[0,m]}{}\underset{stG}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)\underset{G^{}𝒢[m+1,n]}{}\underset{stG^{}}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right).\end{array}$$
(3.3)
Then

$$\begin{array}{c}C_n(x)=DC_{n1}(x)+\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}D(w)\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{L[0,m]}{}\underset{stL}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{stL}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right)\underset{m<s<tn}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right).\end{array}$$
(3.4)
The star symbol denotes the convolution of $`D`$ and $`C_{n1}`$, namely $`_yD(y)C_{n1}(xy)`$. We define

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_m(x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=m\end{array}}{}D(w)\underset{L[0,m]}{}\underset{stL}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)\underset{stL}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right),$$
(3.5)
and $`\pi _m=_x\mathrm{\Pi }_m(x)`$. Notice that $`\pi _1=2d\kappa D(1)`$. Setting $`C_0(x)=\delta _{0x}`$, we get the desired formula:

$$C_n(x)=DC_{n1}(x)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mathrm{\Pi }_mC_{nm}(x).$$
(3.6)
Such a relation is true for simple random walks, setting $`\mathrm{\Pi }_m(y)0`$. The second term is therefore the correction due to the self-interactions, and the purpose of the lace expansion is to show that it is small.

Let $`^{(N)}[a,b]`$ denote the set of laces on $`[a,b]`$ with exactly $`N`$ edges. We write

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)=\underset{N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}{}\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}(x),$$
(3.7)
with

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}(x)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}D(w)\underset{L^{(N)}[0,n]}{}\underset{stL}{}\left(U(w_sw_t)\right)\underset{stL}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right).$$
(3.8)
In order to prove the convergence of the lace expansion, one needs bounds on $`\mathrm{\Pi }_m(x)`$. We propose here estimates that involve norms of $`C_n`$, and norms of moments of $`C_n`$. They are both standard and useful. The following proposition holds true in all dimensions, and with all $`D`$ satisfying (1.2). It will only be used in the restricted situation of Theorem 2, however.

###### Proposition 3.

If $`\kappa `$ is small enough so as to satisfy the condition in Theorem 1, we have the following bounds:

* For $`N=1`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(1)}_1(1+2d\kappa )C_{n1}_{\mathrm{}}.$$
* For $`N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}_1(2N1)2^{N1}(1+2d\kappa )^N\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=1\\ \mathrm{odd}\end{array}}{\overset{2N1}{}}C_{m_j}_{\mathrm{}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=2\\ \mathrm{even}\end{array}}{\overset{2N2}{}}C_{m_j}_1.$$
* For $`N=1`$ and all $`\gamma >0`$,

$$|x|^\gamma \mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(1)}_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}d\kappa C_{n1}_{\mathrm{}}.$$
* For $`N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$ and all $`1\gamma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$,

$`|x|^{2\gamma }\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}_1`$ $`(N1)^{2\gamma 2}(2N1)2^{2\gamma 2+N}(1+2d\kappa )^N`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}i=3\\ \mathrm{odd}\end{array}}{\overset{2N1}{}}[|x|^\gamma +1]C_{m_i}_{\mathrm{}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}i^{}=1,i^{}i\\ \mathrm{odd}\end{array}}{\overset{2N1}{}}C_{m_i^{}}_{\mathrm{}}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j=2\\ \mathrm{even}\end{array}}{\overset{2N2}{}}}[|x|^\gamma +1]C_{m_j}_1{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j^{}=2,j^{}j\\ \mathrm{even}\end{array}}{\overset{2N2}{}}}C_{m_j^{}}_1.`$

Unlabeled sums in (ii) and (iv) are over $`m_1,\mathrm{},m_{2N1}`$ whose sum is $`n`$, and such that $`m_1`$ is the larger number, and $`m_{2j}m_{2j+1}`$ for all $`1jN1`$.

###### Proof.

The proof is standard, except for the difficulties associated with the attractive interactions. For part (i),

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(1)}_1`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}w:0x\\ |w|=n\end{array}}{}}|U(x)|D(w){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}0s<tn\\ (s,t)(0,n)\end{array}}{}}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}|U(x)|{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}D(y){\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}w:yx\\ |w|=n1\end{array}}{}}W(w){\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left(1U(w_t)\right).`$ (3.9)
This is is a special case of (2.5): in (2.5), take $`m=1`$, $`j=0`$, and $`w_j=0`$. As a result, we get an upper bound by removing the product in (3.9), and we easily obtain Proposition 3 (i).

Figure 3 depicts a diagram that represents the sum over laces in (3.8). A lace is completely determined by $`𝒎=(m_1,\mathrm{},m_{2N1})`$ such that $`m_1+\mathrm{}+m_{2N1}=n`$. These intervals satisfy moreover $`m_1\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$, $`m_{2N1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$, and for $`1jN1`$: $`m_{2j}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$, $`m_{2j+1}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}`$. Then (with $`x_0=0`$)

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}_1\underset{𝒎}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}\\ x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}\end{array}}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|U(x_jx_j^{})|\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(1)}:0x_1\\ |w^{(1)}|=m_1\end{array}}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(2)}:x_1x_0^{}\\ |w^{(2)}|=m_2\end{array}}{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(2N2)}:x_{N1}x_{N2}^{}\\ |w^{(2N2)}|=m_{2N2}\end{array}}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(2N1)}:x_{N2}^{}x_{N1}^{}\\ |w^{(2N1)}|=m_{2N1}\end{array}}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{2N1}{}}D(w^{(j)})\underset{stL}{}\left(1U(w_sw_t)\right)\hfill \end{array}$$
(3.10)
where the last product is over all edges compatible with the lace $`L`$, that is defined by $`𝒎`$. The walk $`w`$ that appears in the last product is the union (‘concatenation’) of the walks $`w^{(1)},\mathrm{},w^{(2N1)}`$. All edges between vertices of a same leg are compatible with $`L`$, and therefore appear in the product.

We need to get rid of the interactions between different legs. When the random walk is only repulsive this is easy: neglecting these interactions yields an upper bound. Here we proceed as in the proof of the existence of the connective constant, using the fact that the legs are effectively repulsive.

We start with the first leg. It interacts with the legs 2,3,4 only. Notice that all edges with one endpoint on the leg 1, and the other endpoint on leg 2, 3, or 4, are compatible with $`L`$. Let $`w`$ be a walk on the time interval $`[m_1,n]`$. Setting $`m^{}=m_1+m_2+m_3+m_4`$, we have that for all $`j\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(1)}:0x_1\\ |w^{(1)}|=m_1\end{array}}{}W(w^{(1)})\underset{\begin{array}{c}stL:0s<m_1\\ m_1+jt<m^{}\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_s^{(1)}w_t)\right)\hfill \\ \hfill \underset{\begin{array}{c}w^{(1)}:0x_1\\ |w^{(1)}|=m_1\end{array}}{}W(w^{(1)})\underset{\begin{array}{c}stL:0s<m_1\\ m_1+j+1t<m^{}\end{array}}{}\left(1U(w_s^{(1)}w_t)\right).\end{array}$$
(3.11)
Indeed, the restriction of $`w`$ to the time interval $`[m_1,m^{}]`$ is a self-avoiding walk, and we are therefore in the same situation as (2.5).

Inequality (3.11) implies that we get an upper bound by neglecting the interactions between the first leg and the others in (3.10). The second leg interacts only with legs 3 and 4, and a similar inequality can be written. We proceed further by considering the interactions between the third leg and the subsequent ones (precisely: the legs 4,5,6), and so on. At the end we have an upper bound by removing all interactions between different legs. Hence,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}_1\underset{𝒎}{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}\\ x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}\end{array}}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|U(x_jx_j^{})|C_{m_1}(x_1)C_{m_2}(x_1x_0^{})\hfill \\ \hfill \left(\underset{j=2}{\overset{N1}{}}C_{m_{2j1}}(x_jx_{j2}^{})C_{m_{2j}}(x_jx_{j1}^{})\right)C_{m_{2N1}}(x_{N1}^{}x_{N2}^{}).\end{array}$$
(3.12)
The rest of the proof is standard. We first sum over the edge with the larger $`m`$. Let us denote the corresponding index by $`\mathrm{}`$. Then we group remaining edges into pairs, see Figure 4 for examples. We define $`J=J(𝒎)`$ to be the set of indices such that $`\mathrm{}J`$, and if $`(i,j)`$ denotes paired edges, then $`iJ`$ if $`m_im_j`$, and $`jJ`$ otherwise. We obtain

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}_1\underset{𝒎}{}\underset{jJ}{}C_{m_j}_{\mathrm{}}\underset{\begin{array}{c}x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}\\ x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}\end{array}}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|U(x_jx_j^{})|\underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}C_{m_j}(y_jy_j^{}).$$
(3.13)
Here, $`y_j`$ and $`y_j^{}`$ are the endpoints of the leg $`j`$; they are determined unambiguously by $`𝒎`$ and by $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}`$.

The pairing of edges was made in such a way that the graph with $`N`$ vertices, and edges given by $`J^\text{c}`$, is always connected (it is actually a tree). Therefore

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}\\ x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}\end{array}}{}\underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}|U(x_jx_j^{})|\underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}C_{m_j}(y_jy_j^{})(1+2d\kappa )^N\underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}C_{m_j}_1.$$
(3.14)
Since there are $`(2N1)`$ possibilities for $`\mathrm{}`$, and $`2^{N1}`$ for $`J\{\mathrm{}\}`$, we obtain the bound of Proposition 3 (ii); indeed, the latter corresponds to the case $`\mathrm{}=1`$ and $`J=\{2j1:1jN\}`$.

The bound (iii) is similar to (i), since $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}(x)=0`$ if $`|x|>1`$.

The proof of (iv) can be done by first modifying equations (3.10), (3.12), and (3.13), turning the left side into $`_x|x|^{2\gamma }|\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}(x)|`$, and inserting an extra factor $`|x_{N1}^{}|^{2\gamma }`$ next to the sum over sites $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}`$. The self-interaction has range 1, so that $`|x_jx_j^{}|\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$; introducing appropriate vectors $`e_j`$ with $`|e_j|=0`$ or 1, we have

$$|x_{N1}^{}|^\gamma =\left|\underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}(y_jy_j^{}e_j)\right|^\gamma .$$
(3.15)
By Hölder and since $`|J^\text{c}|=N1`$, we get

$`|x_{N1}^{}|^\gamma `$ $`(N1)^{\gamma 1}{\displaystyle \underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}}|y_jy_j^{}e_j|^\gamma `$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{\gamma 1}(N1)^{\gamma 1}{\displaystyle \underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}}\left[|y_jy_j^{}|^\gamma +1\right].`$ (3.16)
This inequality also holds when $`J^\text{c}`$ is replaced by $`J\{\mathrm{}\}`$. It turns out that a suitable bound for $`|x_{N1}^{}|^{2\gamma }`$ is the product of bounds with $`J^\text{c}`$ and $`J\{\mathrm{}\}`$. We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \underset{x}{}}|x|^{2\gamma }|\mathrm{\Pi }_n^{(N)}(x)|`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^{2\gamma 2}(N1)^{2\gamma 2}{\displaystyle \underset{𝒎}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}x_1,\mathrm{},x_{N1}\\ x_0^{},\mathrm{},x_{N1}^{}\end{array}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}|U(x_jx_j^{})|`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{iJ\{\mathrm{}\}}{}}\left[|y_iy_i^{}|^\gamma +1\right]{\displaystyle \underset{jJ^\text{c}}{}}\left[|y_jy_j^{}|^\gamma +1\right]C_{m_1}(x_1)C_{m_2}(x_1x_0^{})`$ (3.17)
$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{j^{}=2}{\overset{N1}{}}}C_{m_{2j^{}1}}(x_j^{}x_{j^{}2}^{})C_{m_{2j^{}}}(x_j^{}x_{j^{}1}^{})\right)C_{m_{2N1}}(x_{N1}^{}x_{N2}^{}).`$
The rest of the proof of item (iv) is similar to (ii). ∎

## 4. The diffusive behavior

Convergence of the lace expansion follows from Proposition 3, but it is still a difficult and intricate task. A rather general context was considered in \[vHS\] that applies here. The starting point is the following equation,

$$f_n(k;z)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}g_m(k;z)f_{nm}(k;z).$$
(4.1)
Here, $`f_0(k;z)=1`$ and $`k[\pi ,\pi ]^d`$; $`z`$ is a positive parameter. An extra term is allowed in \[vHS\], but it is not needed here. One comes close to this equation by taking the Fourier transform of (3.6), namely,

$$\widehat{C}_n(k)=\widehat{D}(k)\widehat{C}_{n1}(k)+\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m(k)\widehat{C}_{nm}(k).$$
(4.2)
Comparing with (4.1), we see that the $`m=1`$ term does not perfectly match. Notice that $`\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)=\kappa D(1)\delta _{|x|,1}`$ and $`C_1(x)=D(x)+\mathrm{\Pi }_1(x)`$, where $`D(1)=D(x)`$ with $`|x|=1`$. One obtains (4.1) with the following definitions:

$`\widehat{E}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{D}(k)+2\kappa D(1)_{i=1}^d\mathrm{cos}k_i}{1+2d\kappa D(1)}},`$ (4.3a)
$`f_0(k;z)=1,f_1(k;z)=g_1(k;z)=z\widehat{E}(k),`$ (4.3b)
$`f_n(k;z)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+2d\kappa D(1)}}\right)^n\widehat{C}_n(k)\text{if }n\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2},`$ (4.3c)
$`g_n(k;z)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{1+2d\kappa D(1)}}\right)^n\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(k)\text{if }n\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}.`$ (4.3d)
Assumptions S and D of \[vHS\] clearly hold, because of our assumptions (1.5a) and (1.5b), and of the appendix of \[vHS\]. There remains to check Assumption G by using Proposition 3. In words, the task is to prove suitable bounds for $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n_1`$, assuming bounds for $`C_n_{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`\delta _0=^2\widehat{D}(0)`$. The constant $`\mu `$ in the following lemma is any real number, not necessarily the connective constant.

###### Lemma 4.

$`d\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}5}`$, and $`\kappa `$ satisfies the condition of Theorem 1.

* Assume that $`C_m_{\mathrm{}}K\beta \mu ^mm^{d/2}`$ and $`C_m_1K\mu ^m`$ for all $`m<n`$. Then if $`\beta `$ is small enough, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n_1K^{}\beta \mu ^nn^{d/2}`$.
* Assume in addition that $`_x|x|^2C_m(x)K\delta _0m\mu ^m`$ for all $`m<n`$. Then if $`1\gamma \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$ and $`\beta `$ is small enough, $`_x|x|^{2\gamma }|\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)|K^{}\delta _0\beta \mu ^nn^{d/2+\gamma }`$.

The constant $`K^{}`$ depends only on $`d,\kappa `$, and $`K`$.

###### Proof.

For item (i) we use Proposition 3 (i) and (ii).

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_n_1`$ $`(1+2d\kappa )K\beta \mu ^{n1}(n1)^{d/2}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{N\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}{}}(2N1)2^{N1}(1+2d\kappa )^N{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}j=1\\ \text{odd}\end{array}}{\overset{2N1}{}}K\beta \mu ^{m_j}m_j^{d/2}\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=2\\ \text{even}\end{array}}{\overset{2N2}{}}K\mu ^{m_j}}.`$ (4.4)
The unlabeled sum is as in Proposition 3. Since $`m_1`$ is the largest term, we have $`m_1\frac{n}{2N1}`$. The unlabeled sum is bounded by $`K^{2N1}(2N1)^{d/2}\beta ^N\mu ^nn^{d/2}`$ multiplying

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=3\\ \text{odd}\end{array}}{\overset{2N1}{}}\left\{\underset{m_j\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}{}m_j^{d/2}\underset{m_{j1}=1}{\overset{m_j}{}}1\right\}\left(\underset{m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}{}m^{d/2+1}\right)^{N1}.$$
(4.5)
Lemma 4 (i) is then clear, since the sum over $`N`$ converges for $`\beta `$ small enough, and contributes less than $`\text{const}\beta \mu ^nn^{d/2}`$.

For item (ii) we use Proposition 3 (iii) and (iv). We first observe that under the assumptions of Lemma 4 we have, for $`m<n`$,

$$|x|^2C_m_{\mathrm{}}K^{\prime \prime }\delta _0\beta \mu ^mm^{d/2+1}.$$
(4.6)
Indeed, because of (2.2) we can write \[vHS2\]

$`|x|^2C_m(x)`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}(|y|^2+|xy|^2)C_{m/2}(y)C_{m/2}(xy)`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}4}C_{m/2}_{\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}|y|^2C_{m/2}(y).`$ (4.7)
(This was assuming $`m`$ to be even; the case $`m`$ odd is very similar.) Inserting (4.6) in Proposition 3 (iv), one gets Lemma 4 (ii) with $`\gamma =2`$. Then one can use Hölder’s inequality to get \[vHS2\]

$$\underset{x}{}|x|^{2\gamma }|\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)|\left(\underset{x}{}|\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)|\right)^{1\gamma /2}\left(\underset{x}{}|x|^4|\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)|\right)^{\gamma /2}.$$
(4.8)
Item (ii) for general $`\gamma `$ follows from (i), and (ii) with $`\gamma =2`$. ∎

Assumption G of \[vHS\] can be proved with the help of Lemma 4.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The assumption of \[vHS\] involves a bound for $`\widehat{D}^2f_m_1`$ instead of $`f_m_1`$. The former easily implies a suitable bound for $`f_{m+2}_1`$. The first two inequalities are straighforward, as is the third one since $`_zg_n(k;z)=\frac{1+2d\kappa D(1)}{z}ng_n(k;z)`$. The last inequality is more involved and deals with the error of the Taylor expansion of $`g_n`$ to second order. First we write

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(k)\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(0)\frac{|k|^2}{2d}^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_n(0)=\underset{x}{}\left[\mathrm{cos}(kx)1+\frac{1}{2}(kx)^2\right]\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x).$$
(4.9)
We used the symmetries of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_n(x)`$ to replace a term $`\frac{1}{2d}|k|^2|x|^2`$ by $`\frac{1}{2}(kx)^2`$. Now $`|\mathrm{cos}\xi 1+\frac{1}{2}\xi ^2|\text{const}\xi ^{2+\epsilon }`$ for any $`0\epsilon \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}`$. This, and Lemma 4, clearly implies the validity of Assumption G for $`|k|`$ small; when $`|k|`$ is large the situation is clear.

Theorem 2 is now an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.1 (b) of \[vHS\].

Finally, the diffusion constant $`\delta `$ can be given an explicit expression, once the convergence of the lace expansion is established. See Eq. (3.5) of \[BR\], or Theorem 1.1 (d) of \[vHS\]. The expression is

$$\delta =\frac{\mu ^1\delta _0+\tau }{1+\sigma },$$
(4.10)
where $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ are given by

$`\tau `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2\widehat{\mathrm{\Pi }}_m(0)}{\mu ^m}},`$
$`\sigma `$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{m\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}{}}(m1){\displaystyle \frac{\pi _m}{\mu ^m}}.`$
Acknowledgments: It is a pleasure to thank Michael Aizenman, David Brydges, and Yvan Velenik for discussions and encouragements. I am also indebted to Remco van der Hofstad and Gordon Slade for pointing out, and clarifying it to me, that the diffusive behavior of the walk follows from their results and Proposition 3 here.


format: text

text:
# The Asymptotic Dynamics of two-dimensional (anti-)de Sitter Gravity

## 1 Introduction

There is by now a great deal of evidence that the correspondence between type IIB string theory on AdS5 $`\times `$ S5 and $`𝒩=4`$ super-Yang-Mills theory in four dimensions  extends to a more general duality between any gravitational theory on anti-de Sitter spaces and conformal field theories residing on the boundary of AdS . Such a duality represents an explicit realization of the holographic principle . In three dimensions, pure Einstein-AdS gravity was known to be related to a two-dimensional conformal field theory  even before the advent of the AdS/CFT correspondence. This is based on the fact that pure Einstein gravity in three dimensions can be written as a Chern-Simons theory , which is known to reduce to a WZNW model in presence of a boundary . The boundary conditions for asymptotically AdS spaces  provide then the constraints for a Hamiltonian reduction from the WZNW model to Liouville field theory . Recently the equivalence of pure gravity in three dimensions and two-dimensional Liouville theory has been extended in  to the case of positive cosmological constant, providing thus an explicit example of the proposed correspondence between de Sitter gravity and Euclidean conformal field theories .

Much less is known for two-dimensional anti-de Sitter gravity , which, in the spirit of AdS/CFT, should have a dual description in terms of a conformal quantum mechanical system 111Cf. also  and references therein.. Progress in this direction has been made in , where it was shown that two-dimensional Jackiw-Teitelboim-AdS gravity  induces on the spacetime boundary a conformally invariant dynamics that can be described in terms of a de Alfaro-Fubini-Furlan model  coupled to an external source.

In the present paper we will derive a correspondence between two-dimensional AdS or dS gravity and a quantum mechanical system in an alternative way, using the fact that the Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) model can be formulated as a topological gauge theory . It will turn out that, in the same way in which a Chern-Simons theory in three dimensions reduces to a WZNW model in presence of a boundary, this 2d topological gauge theory reduces to a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model on a one-dimensional boundary.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: In section 2, the formulation of the JT model of 2d dilaton gravity as a topological gauge theory is briefly reviewed. In section 3, we translate the boundary conditions for asymptotically AdS2 spaces  into conditions for the fields appearing in the gauge theory. In the following section, it is shown that one must add boundary terms to the bulk action in order to have a well-defined variational principle. Since the bulk action is topological, the dynamics of the system is entirely encoded in these boundary terms, which give rise to a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model in $`0+1`$ dimensions. In section 5 we perform a further reduction of the $`\sigma `$ model to a generalized two-particle Calogero-Sutherland model. This is similar to the familiar Hamiltonian reduction from the WZNW model to Liouville theory. Finally, in section 6, we generalize the considerations of sections 3-5, which refer to AdS gravity, to the case of positive cosmological constant.

## 2 Two-dimensional (anti-)de Sitter gravity as a topological gauge theory

It is well-known that the Jackiw-Teitelboim (JT) model  of dilaton gravity in two dimensions, with action given by

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^2x\sqrt{g}\eta (R2\mathrm{\Lambda }),$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ denotes the dilaton and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the cosmological constant, can be formulated as an SU(1,1) topological gauge theory . This is similar to the three-dimensional case, where pure Einstein gravity can be written as a Chern-Simons theory . Apart from the gauge field, the gauge theory contains also a scalar field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the adjoint of SU(1,1). The action reads222Note that (2) can also be obtained by dimensional reduction of the 3d Chern-Simons action.

$$S=\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }F),$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^A\tau _A`$ and $`F=\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^A\tau _Adx^\mu dx^\nu `$ take values in the Lie algebra su(1,1). (The generators $`\tau _A`$ are given in the appendix). The field strength is given by

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu +[A_\mu ,A_\nu ].$$
(3)
The action (2) is invariant under the gauge transformations

$$A_\mu g^1A_\mu g+g^1_\mu g,\mathrm{\Phi }g^1\mathrm{\Phi }g.$$
(4)
The equations of motion following from (2) read

$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (5)
$`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ $``$ $`_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+[A_\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }]=0,`$ (6)
so that the solutions are those of flat SU(1,1) connections in two dimensions, i. e. , locally one can write $`A_\mu =g^1_\mu g`$, with $`g`$ SU(1,1).
To make contact with gravity, one decomposes the su(1,1) valued scalar and gauge fields according to

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^A=(\varphi ^a,\eta ),A_\mu ^A=(\lambda e_\mu ^a,\omega _\mu ),$$
(7)
where $`e_\mu ^a`$ $`(a=0,1)`$ and $`\omega _\mu =\omega _{01\mu }`$ denote the zweibein and spin connection respectively. $`\lambda `$ is related to the cosmological constant by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda ^2`$, with the minus sign leading to AdS and the plus sign to dS gravity. The field strength $`F_{\mu \nu }^A`$ is written accordingly as

$$F_{\mu \nu }^A=(\lambda T_{\mu \nu }^a,_{\mu \nu }),$$
(8)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^a`$ will correspond to the torsion tensor, and $`_{\mu \nu }`$ to the curvature tensor . Vanishing torsion is enforced by the Lagrange multipliers $`\varphi ^a`$. The equivalence (at the classical level333For a discussion of the quantum equivalence cf. , where it was shown that the theories are indeed equivalent in the light-cone gauge. A further analysis can be found in .) of (1) and (2) has been shown in , so we refer to these papers for the details.

## 3 Asymptotic behaviour of the fields

We will now focus on the case of negative cosmological constant. Due to Birkhoff’s theorem of two-dimensional dilaton gravity, the general solution to the equations of motion following from (1) can be written in the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda ^2r^2a^2)dt^2+(\lambda ^2r^2a^2)^1dr^2,`$ (9)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\eta _0\lambda r,`$
where $`a`$ and $`\eta _0`$ denote integration constants. Note that due to the presence of the dilaton, which represents a position-dependent coupling constant, the solutions with different sign of $`a^2`$ are physically inequivalent . In particular, the solution with positive $`a^2`$ represents a black hole with event horizon at $`r=a/\lambda `$.

An asymptotically AdS2 geometry  is one for which the metric behaves for $`r\mathrm{}`$ as

$$g_{tt}=\lambda ^2r^2+𝒪(1),g_{tr}=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\right),g_{rr}=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2r^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right).$$
(10)
The boundary conditions (10) must be completed by giving the asymptotic behaviour of the dilaton. As discussed in detail in , the appropriate boundary condition is

$$\eta =𝒪(r),$$
(11)
with a subleading term of $`𝒪(r^1)`$ . When translated in terms of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi },A`$, the boundary conditions (10), (11) read

$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\eta _0\lambda r(1+\alpha (t))+{\displaystyle \frac{2a(t)}{r}}\right]\tau _0+\left[\eta _0\lambda r(1+\beta (t))+{\displaystyle \frac{2b(t)}{r}}\right]\tau _2+2\gamma (t)\tau _1,`$ (12)
$`A_t`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\lambda ^2r+{\displaystyle \frac{c(t)}{r}}\right]\tau _0\left[\lambda ^2r+{\displaystyle \frac{d(t)}{r}}\right]\tau _2+𝒪(r^2)\tau _1,`$ (13)
$`A_r`$ $`=`$ $`\left[r^1+𝒪(r^3)\right]\tau _1+𝒪(r^4)\tau _0+𝒪(r^4)\tau _2,`$ (14)
where the functions $`\alpha (t),\beta (t),\gamma (t),a(t),b(t),c(t),d(t)`$, that depend only on the boundary coordinate $`t`$, parametrize the subleading behaviour444The next to leading terms of $`A_r`$ were not parametrized, as they will not be used explicitely in what follows..

Now some comments are in order. First of all, the asymptotics of the fields $`\varphi ^0,\varphi ^1`$ do not follow from (10) and (11), but rather can be inferred from the scalar equations of motion (6). Second, although one could consider general boundary conditions allowing for $`\alpha (t)\beta (t)`$, we will define a configuration to be asymptotically AdS2 if $`\alpha (t)=\beta (t)`$. This definition is entirely consistent.

A well-defined asymptotics for the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`A`$ can be obtained after performing a gauge transformation (4), with group element $`g`$ given by

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\theta & \mathrm{sinh}\theta \\ \mathrm{sinh}\theta & \mathrm{cosh}\theta \end{array}\right),\mathrm{cosh}\theta =\frac{1}{2}\left(\sqrt{\frac{f}{r}}+\sqrt{\frac{r}{f}}\right),$$
(15)
where $`f=f(t)`$ denotes a function of $`t`$ to be specified later. The transformed fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}=g^1\mathrm{\Phi }g`$ and $`A^{}=g^1Ag+g^1dg`$ obey, to leading order, the boundary conditions

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\eta _0\lambda (1+\alpha )f+{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{f}}\right]\tau _0+\left[\eta _0\lambda (1+\alpha )f{\displaystyle \frac{ab}{f}}\right]\tau _2+2\gamma \tau _1,`$
$`A_t^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\lambda ^2f+{\displaystyle \frac{cd}{2f}}\right]\tau _0\left[\lambda ^2f{\displaystyle \frac{cd}{2f}}\right]\tau _2+{\displaystyle \frac{\dot{f}}{f}}\tau _1,`$ (16)
$`A_r^{}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$
For reasons that will become clear in the next section, we would like to have the boundary condition

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa (t)A_t,$$
(17)
with $`\kappa (t)`$ some function. (17) can be obtained from (16) by a second gauge transformation, with group element

$$h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{exp}(i\phi (t))& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{exp}(i\phi (t))\end{array}\right).$$
(18)
The transformed fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }=h^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}h`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }=h^1A^{}h+h^1dh`$ will then obey the boundary condition (17) if we choose the functions $`f(t)`$ and $`\phi (t)`$ appearing in the transformation matrices $`g`$ and $`h`$ as solutions of the differential equations

$`\dot{f}`$ $`=`$ $`2\gamma f{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^2f^2(cd)}{f^2\eta _0\lambda (1+\alpha )(ab)}},`$
$`\dot{\phi }`$ $`=`$ $`f{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda ^2(ab)\eta _0\lambda (1+\alpha )(cd)}{f^2\eta _0\lambda (1+\alpha )(ab)}}.`$
The function $`\kappa (t)`$ appearing in (17) is then given by

$$\kappa (t)=\frac{4f\gamma }{\dot{f}}.$$
(19)
Note that the functions $`f(t)`$ and $`\phi (t)`$ as well as the proportionality ”constant” $`\kappa (t)`$ depend on the boundary fields $`\alpha (t),\gamma (t),a(t),b(t),c(t)`$ and $`d(t)`$. In what follows, we will drop the primes on $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$.

## 4 Boundary terms in the action

In the variation of the action (2) one encounters a term

$$d^2x\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_r\delta A_t)=d^2x\mathrm{Tr}(_r\mathrm{\Phi }\delta A_t)+𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }\delta A_t).$$
(20)
This means that the action is not an extremum on-shell, instead $`\delta S`$ equals the surface term555Here we used the boundary condition (17). $`𝑑t\mathrm{Tr}(\kappa (t)A_t\delta A_t)`$. In order to cancel this, we must add a boundary term to the action (2), leading to the improved action

$$S=d^2x\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }F_{rt})\frac{1}{2}𝑑t\kappa (t)\mathrm{Tr}\left[(A_t)^2\right].$$
(21)
The function $`\kappa (t)/2`$ can be absorbed into the time coordinate by defining $`d\tau =2dt/\kappa (t)`$.

We recognize the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^A`$ as Lagrange multipliers implementing the Gauss law constraint $`F_{r\tau }^A=0`$. In the functional integral one can integrate over $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to obtain $`\delta (F_{r\tau })`$,

$$DAD\mathrm{\Phi }e^{iS}\mathrm{}=DA\delta (F_{r\tau })e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{Tr}[(A_\tau )^2]}}\mathrm{}.$$
(22)
The constraint $`F_{r\tau }=0`$ is easily solved by $`A=g^1dg`$666As we consider the universal covering space of AdS2, holonomies can be dropped.. Like in , we now change variables from $`A`$ to $`g`$ in the path integral,

$$DA\delta (F_{r\tau })e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{Tr}[(A_\tau )^2]}}\mathrm{}=Dge^{i{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{Tr}[(g^1_\tau g)^2]}}\mathrm{}.$$
(23)
We have thus derived an effective action

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=𝑑\tau \mathrm{Tr}\left[(g^1_\tau g)^2\right]$$
(24)
for the problem under consideration. (24) describes a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model in 0+1 dimensions.

If we write $`g`$ SU(1,1) in the Iwasawa decomposition

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{iu/2}& 0\\ 0& e^{iu/2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\vartheta }{2}& \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\\ & \\ \mathrm{sinh}\frac{\vartheta }{2}& \mathrm{cosh}\frac{\vartheta }{2}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{iv/2}& 0\\ 0& e^{iv/2}\end{array}\right),$$
(25)
the action (24) reads

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau (\dot{\vartheta }^2\dot{u}^2\dot{v}^22\dot{u}\dot{v}\mathrm{cosh}\vartheta ),$$
(26)
where a dot denotes differentiation with respect to $`\tau `$. Defining $`x^1=u`$, $`x^2=v`$, $`x^3=\vartheta `$, one can write

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j𝑑\tau ,$$
(27)
where $`i,j=1,2,3`$ and

$$(g_{ij})=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& \mathrm{cosh}\vartheta & 0\\ \mathrm{cosh}\vartheta & 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(28)
is a constant curvature metric on the group manifold SU(1,1). (28) admits the six Killing vectors

$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`i_v,L_\pm =e^{iv}[i_\theta \pm \mathrm{coth}\vartheta _v\mathrm{cosech}\vartheta _u],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{L}_0`$ $`=`$ $`i_u,\stackrel{~}{L}_\pm =e^{iu}[i_\theta \pm \mathrm{coth}\vartheta _u\mathrm{cosech}\vartheta _v],`$ (29)
which satisfy the commutation relations

$`[L_\pm ,L_0]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm L_\pm ,[L_+,L_{}]=2L_0,`$
$`[\stackrel{~}{L}_\pm ,\stackrel{~}{L}_0]`$ $`=`$ $`\pm \stackrel{~}{L}_\pm ,[\stackrel{~}{L}_+,\stackrel{~}{L}_{}]=2\stackrel{~}{L}_0,`$ (30)
and $`[L,\stackrel{~}{L}]=0`$. The Killing vectors generate thus the algebra su(1,1) $`\times `$ su(1,1), corresponding to the invariance of the action (24) under $`ghg\stackrel{~}{h}`$, with $`h,\stackrel{~}{h}`$ SU(1,1) independent of $`\tau `$.

## 5 Further reduction

In this section we will show that, due to the presence of cyclic coordinates, the $`\sigma `$ model (24) can be further reduced to a simple quantum mechanical system.

As the Lagrangian in (26) does not depend on $`u,v`$, the conjugate momenta

$$\pi _u=\dot{u}\dot{v}\mathrm{cosh}\vartheta ,\pi _v=\dot{v}\dot{u}\mathrm{cosh}\vartheta $$
(31)
are constants of motion. In order to implement the constraints $`\pi _{u,v}=\mathrm{const}`$, one has to go from (26) to the reduced action (Routhian function)

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}S_{\mathrm{eff}}𝑑\tau [\dot{u}\pi _u+\dot{v}\pi _v],$$
(32)
i. e. , one has to perform a partial Legendre transformation with respect to $`\dot{u}`$, $`\dot{v}`$. In this way, one finally obtains

$$S_{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau \left[\dot{\vartheta }^2\frac{(\pi _u\pi _v)^2}{4\mathrm{sinh}^2\frac{\vartheta }{2}}+\frac{(\pi _u+\pi _v)^2}{4\mathrm{cosh}^2\frac{\vartheta }{2}}\right],$$
(33)
which is a generalization of the two-particle Calogero-Sutherland model . The relationship between AdS2 gravity and the Calogero model was first pointed out in .

Note that the only generators of the conformal algebra (29) that commute with $`\pi _v=L_0`$ and $`\pi _u=\stackrel{~}{L}_0`$ are $`L_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}_0`$, which means that the conformal symmetry is broken by the reduction to (33). Conformal transformations actually relate different $`\pi _{u,v}`$, and therefore fixing these momenta breaks the invariance under su(1,1) $`\times `$ su(1,1).

## 6 Positive cosmological constant

In the case of positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda ^2`$, the general solution to the equations of motion following from (1) can be written as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`(a^2\lambda ^2r^2)dt^2+(a^2\lambda ^2r^2)^1dr^2,`$ (34)
$`\eta `$ $`=`$ $`\eta _0\lambda r.`$
For a more detailed discussion of the geometry of two-dimensional de Sitter space we refer to the appendix. Note in particular that for $`r>a/\lambda `$, $`r`$ becomes a timelike coordinate777Of course $`_r`$ is always timelike for $`a^20`$., so that the dilaton is now time-dependent outside the static patch.

In what follows, we will be particularly interested in the behaviour of the gravitational fields near the past boundary $`^{}`$ at $`r\mathrm{}`$. The boundary conditions for an asymptotically dS2 geometry can be found by analytically continuing (10) and (11). This yields

$$g_{tt}=\lambda ^2r^2+𝒪(1),g_{tr}=𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^3}\right),g_{rr}=\frac{1}{\lambda ^2r^2}+𝒪\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right),$$
(35)
and $`\eta =𝒪(r)`$. Alternatively, one can obtain these boundary conditions by requiring the subleading terms to fall off fast enough to ensure that conserved charges are well-defined, but slow enough to make the theory non-trivial. This singles out the behaviour (35).

At this point, one can proceed analogously to the AdS case, and translate (35) into boundary conditions for the gauge field $`A`$ and the scalar $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Again, these conditions turn out to be gauge equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\kappa (t)A_t`$, $`A_r=0`$, with some function $`\kappa (t)`$, as in section 3. Taking into account the boundary terms888Note that dS2 has two boundaries, the past boundary $`^{}`$ and the future boundary $`^+`$, so in principle one has to consider two boundary terms, which should lead to a quantum mechanical system living on a disconnected manifold. However, since we are only interested in the asymptotic dynamics of the gravitational fields near $`^{}`$, we ignore surface terms arising at $`^+`$. Of course the same problem appears in the AdS2 case, since two-dimensional anti-de Sitter space, unlike its higher-dimensional cousins, has two boundaries. A possible way to eliminate the second boundary is to cut the spacetime at $`r=0`$, in order that the position-dependent coupling constant represented by the dilaton is positive . necessary to have a well-defined variational principle, integrating over the Lagrange multiplier $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the path integral, and changing variables from $`A=g^1dg`$ to $`g`$, one derives also in the dS case an effective $`\sigma `$ model action (24), which allows a further reduction to the quantum mechanics (33)999A similar reduction to a quantum mechanical system was performed in . There the boundary was the horizon, whereas we consider the boundaries at infinity.. Note that these one-dimensional models live now in Euclidean space, since the boundaries of dS2 are spacelike.

## 7 Conclusions

To sum up, we showed that the asymptotic dynamics of two-dimensional de Sitter or anti-de Sitter Jackiw-Teitelboim gravity is encoded in a generalized two-particle Calogero-Sutherland quantum mechanical model. We started by formulating the JT model of (A)dS gravity in two dimensions as a topological gauge theory, which, by virtue of the (A)dS boundary conditions, reduces to a nonlinear sigma model on the one-dimensional boundary of (A)dS space. The appearance of cyclic coordinates allows then a further reduction to the quantum mechanical system (33). We have thus generalized the known results in three dimensions, where the asymptotic dynamics of pure Einstein gravity with negative  or positive  cosmological constant is described by Liouville field theory, obtained as the Hamiltonian reduction of a WZNW model.

Note that the JT model receives no local quantum corrections at all orders of perturbation theory . Probably, this means that our results can be extended far beyond the approximation they were actually derived.

It would also be interesting to consider the supersymmetric generalization of the topological gauge theory (2) , which is (at least classically) equivalent to an (A)dS supergravity model in two dimensions. These two-dimensional supergravity theories should then have an equivalent description in terms of a superextension of the quantum mechanical system (33).

As also the CGHS model  of two-dimensional dilaton gravity can be formulated as a topological gauge theory based on the centrally extended Poincaré group , an analogous reduction to a one-dimensional quantum mechanics should be possible. The field equations following from the CGHS model in the form

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^2x\sqrt{g}(\eta R\mathrm{\Lambda })$$
(36)
imply $`R=0`$, so the boundary conditions are now those of asymptotically flat metrics. One thus expects the quantum mechanical model to be defined on a lightlike line. It would be tempting to see explicitely what this model is.

These issues are currently under investigation.

###### Acknowledgments.

This work was partially supported by INFN, MURST and by the European Commission RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which S. C. , D. K. and D. Z. are associated to the University of Torino. The authors would like to thank R. Jackiw, T. Strobl and D. Vassilevich for useful comments.

## Appendix A Conventions

### A.1 Anti-de Sitter

An element $`M`$ of the Lie algebra su(1,1) satisfies

$$M_b^a=\eta _{bc}\overline{M}_d^c\eta ^{da},\mathrm{Tr}M=0,$$
(37)
where a bar denotes complex conjugation, and $`(\eta _{ab})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. We choose as su(1,1) generators

$$\tau _0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),\tau _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(38)
They are normalized according to

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\tau _A\tau _B)=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{AB},$$
(39)
where $`(\eta _{AB})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$ is the inner product on the Lie algebra. The generators (38) satisfy the relation (37), and $`[\tau _A,\tau _B]=ϵ_{ABC}\tau ^C`$, with $`ϵ_{012}=1`$.

Finally, $`dtdr`$ is chosen to have positive orientation.

### A.2 De Sitter

In order to get a positive cosmological constant we interchange $`\tau _0`$ and $`\tau _1`$ in (38), i. e. , we take

$$\tau _0=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\tau _1=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}i& 0\\ 0& i\end{array}\right),\tau _2=\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(40)
with the normalization

$$\mathrm{Tr}(\tau _A\tau _B)=\frac{1}{2}\eta _{AB},$$
(41)
where now $`(\eta _{AB})=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,1)`$. All the other conventions are as in subsection A.1.

## Appendix B dS2 Geometry

Consider $`\text{}_1^2`$ with coordinates $`X^0,X^1,X^2`$ and metric $`(1,1,1)`$. Two-dimensional de Sitter space can then be defined as the hypersurface

$$(X^0)^2+(X^1)^2+(X^2)^2=\lambda ^2.$$
(42)
Fix now

$$(X^0)^2(X^1)^2=\frac{r^2}{a^2}\lambda ^2,$$
(43)
so that $`(X^2)^2=r^2/a^2`$, and parametrize the hyperbolae of fixed $`r`$ by

$$X^0=\frac{1}{\lambda a}\sqrt{\lambda ^2r^2a^2}\mathrm{cosh}a\lambda t,X^1=\frac{1}{\lambda a}\sqrt{\lambda ^2r^2a^2}\mathrm{sinh}a\lambda t.$$
(44)
This leads to the induced metric

$$ds^2=(a^2\lambda ^2r^2)dt^2+(a^2\lambda ^2r^2)^1dr^2.$$
(45)
Note that the coordinate $`t`$ is noncompact.

Alternatively, we can fix

$$(X^1)^2+(X^2)^2=\frac{r^2}{a^2}+\lambda ^2,$$
(46)
so that $`(X^0)^2=r^2/a^2`$, and parametrize the circles of fixed $`r`$ by

$$X^1=\frac{1}{\lambda a}\sqrt{\lambda ^2r^2+a^2}\mathrm{cos}a\lambda t,X^2=\frac{1}{\lambda a}\sqrt{\lambda ^2r^2+a^2}\mathrm{sin}a\lambda t.$$
(47)
The induced metric on the hypersurface (42) is now

$$ds^2=(a^2+\lambda ^2r^2)dt^2+(a^2+\lambda ^2r^2)^1dr^2.$$
(48)
The coordinate $`t`$ is now compact, $`tt+2\pi /\lambda a`$. The boundaries at $`r\pm \mathrm{}`$ are thus circles. $`t,r`$ in (48) are global coordinates. Defining

$$r=\frac{a}{\lambda }\mathrm{sinh}\tau ,t=\frac{1}{\lambda a}\varphi ,$$
(49)
where $`\varphi `$ is identified modulo $`2\pi `$, (48) can be rewritten as

$$\lambda ^2ds^2=d\tau ^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2\tau d\varphi ^2,$$
(50)
which describes dS2 as a contracting/expanding one-sphere. $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the past boundary $`^{}`$, whereas $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ corresponds to the future boundary $`^+`$.


text:
# Wormholes supported by pure ghost radiation

## Abstract

Traversible wormhole space-times are found as static, spherically symmetric solutions to the Einstein equations with ingoing and outgoing pure ghost radiation, i.e. pure radiation with negative energy density. Switching off the radiation causes the wormhole to collapse to a Schwarzschild black hole.

04.20.Jb, 04.70.Bw

The idea of space-time wormholes originated with Wheeler, with traversible wormholes becoming popular after the article of Morris & Thorne. More recently, renewed interest has focussed on outstanding questions such as how to construct wormholes, their dynamical behaviour, their stability and the nature of the negative-energy matter needed to support them. This letter proposes a very simple model of negative-energy radiation and exhibits resulting wormhole solutions, which can be used to study the other questions.

The simplest radiation model is pure radiation, also known as null dust, for which the energy tensor is $`\rho uu`$, where $`u`$ is a null vector and $`\rho `$ is the energy density (which, if positive, can be absorbed in the normalization of $`u`$). This represents incoherent radiation and occurs in the geometric-optics limit of massless particles such as photons. The matter model proposed here is simply pure radiation with negative energy density. In quantum field theory, this is associated with ghost fields, so it may be called pure ghost radiation. One might expect it to be a similarly valid model of negative-energy radiation. More realistic models, like semi-classical quantum fields such as those produced by Hawking radiation, are often not analytically tractable, so a simple model has theoretical merit.

With pure radiation of the usual positive energy density, the static, spherically symmetric Einstein system has been studied by Date, with solutions found by Kramer and, more generally, by Gergely. Reversing appropriate signs leads to the wormhole solutions derived below. However, the geometry is quite different, in particular being non-singular. It is curious that benign wormhole solutions naturally appear under such situations.

Liberally adopting the method and notation of Gergely, the line element of a static, spherically symmetric space-time may be written as

$$ds^2=r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+f(r)^1dr^2h(r)dt^2$$
(1)
where $`r`$ is the areal radius, $`t`$ is the time, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ refers to the unit sphere and the metric functions $`f`$ and $`h`$ are positive. The active gravitational mass-energy of such a space-time is

$$m(r)=(1f(r))r/2.$$
(2)
The energy tensor of pure ghost radiation is $`\tau uu`$, where $`u`$ is a null vector and $`\tau 0`$ is the negative energy density. With both ingoing and outgoing radiation, the energy tensor is

$$T=\tau _+u_+u_+\tau _{}u_{}u_{}$$
(3)
where $`u_\pm `$ are null vectors. For the above metric, one may take

$$\sqrt{2}u_\pm =\frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}\frac{}{t}\pm \sqrt{f}\frac{}{r}$$
(4)
so that the null vectors are relatively normalized. Static solutions require the same negative energy density $`\tau =\tau _\pm `$ for both ingoing and outgoing radiation. This specialized matter model can also be regarded as an anisotropic fluid with density $`\tau `$, radial pressure $`\tau `$ and vanishing tangential pressure. Here and throughout, units are such that the speed of light and Newton’s constant are unity.

The energy-momentum conservation equations $`T=0`$ reduce to

$$(hr^2\tau )^{}=0$$
(5)
where the prime denotes $`d/dr`$. Thus the (gravitationally red-shifted) radial tension or negative linear mass density

$$\lambda =4\pi r^2h\tau $$
(6)
is a positive constant. It is possible to absorb the magnitude of $`\lambda `$ in the static Killing vector, but it will be retained here. In terms of the function

$$\beta =2\lambda /h$$
(7)
the Einstein equations $`G=8\pi T`$ reduce to

$`rf^{}`$ $`=`$ $`1\beta f`$ (8)
$`rfh^{}`$ $`=`$ $`h(1+\beta f)`$ (9)
$`rf\beta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (1+\beta f)`$ (10)
where one equation is redundant, having already solved the conservation equation. Transforming to $`\rho =\mathrm{ln}r`$ and using a dot to denote $`d/d\rho `$, the reduced system is

$`\dot{f}`$ $`=`$ $`1\beta f`$ (11)
$`f\dot{\beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\beta (1+\beta f).`$ (12)
The second equation yields

$$f=\frac{1+\beta }{\beta \dot{\beta }}\beta $$
(13)
which can be eliminated from the first equation to yield

$$(1+\beta )\beta \ddot{\beta }(\beta +2)\dot{\beta }^2+\beta (12\beta )\dot{\beta }+2\beta ^3=0.$$
(14)
Dividing by $`\beta ^3`$, this becomes an exact differential, integrating to

$$\frac{1+\beta }{\beta ^2}\dot{\beta }\frac{1}{\beta }2\mathrm{ln}\frac{\beta }{r}=D$$
(15)
where $`D`$ is the integration constant. This leads to the algebraic relation

$$\frac{(1+\beta )^2}{2f\beta }=\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{r}{a\beta }\right)$$
(16)
where $`a=\mathrm{exp}((1+D)/2)`$ is a positive constant. The branch of the logarithm corresponds to negative $`\beta `$, reflecting the negative energy density. Returning to the reduced system, one may eliminate $`\rho `$ or $`r`$ to give

$$\frac{df}{d\beta }=\frac{f(\beta +f1)}{\beta (\beta f+1)}.$$
(17)
Since solutions with negative $`\beta `$ are being sought, the method of Gergely is now modified by defining

$$p=\sqrt{2f\beta }l=\frac{1+\beta }{\sqrt{2f\beta }}.$$
(18)
Then the above equation becomes

$$\frac{dp}{dl}=2(pl1).$$
(19)
Integrating the corresponding homogeneous equation yields

$$p=2e^{l^2}\varphi $$
(20)
and the solution is completed by

$$\varphi (l)=_0^le^\mathrm{}^2𝑑\mathrm{}+b=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{2}\text{erf}(l)+b$$
(21)
where $`b`$ is constant and erf denotes the error function, the symmetric integral of the standard normal distribution. The solution is mathematically familiar compared with the case of positive energy density. Then

$$\beta =pl1=12le^{l^2}\varphi .$$
(22)
Collecting results, the class of solutions depends on the parameters $`(a,b)`$ and the normalizable $`\lambda `$, and may be summarized by

$`r`$ $`=`$ $`a\beta e^{l^2}=a\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi \right)`$ (23)
$`h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda }{1+2le^{l^2}\varphi }}`$ (24)
$`f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{2\beta }}={\displaystyle \frac{2e^{2l^2}\varphi ^2}{1+2le^{l^2}\varphi }}`$ (25)
as substituted into the line element (1). By construction, this is the unique class of static, spherically symmetric solutions to the Einstein equations with pure ghost radiation.

It is straightforward to calculate

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dr}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`2a\varphi `$ (26)
$`m`$ $`=`$ $`\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi 2e^{l^2}\varphi ^2\right)a/2`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dm}{dl}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1+2le^{l^2}\varphi \right)a\varphi .`$ (28)
The line element may then be written explicitly in $`(t,l)`$ coordinates as

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`a^2\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi \right)^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2+2a^2e^{l^2}\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi \right)dl^2`$ (30)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2\lambda dt^2}{1+2le^{l^2}\varphi }}.`$
In the case $`b=0`$, $`\varphi (l)`$ is an odd function and the metric is even in the spatial coordinate $`l`$. This describes a symmetric wormhole with spatial topology $`R\times S^2`$ and minimal surfaces at the wormhole throat $`l=0`$, with radius $`r=a`$. The space-time is not asymptotically flat, but otherwise constitutes a Morris-Thorne wormhole. There are no singularities, unlike in the corresponding positive-energy solutions. The $`b0`$ cases include asymmetric wormholes which are analogous to the asymmetric Ellis wormholes for a ghost Klein-Gordon field.

The solutions may be written in dual-null form

$$ds^2=r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2hdx^+dx^{}$$
(31)
in terms of null coordinates $`x^\pm `$ defined by

$$dx^\pm =dt\pm \frac{a}{\sqrt{\lambda }}\left(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi \right)dl.$$
(32)
Integration by parts yields an analytic solution:

$$x^\pm =t\pm \frac{a}{2\sqrt{\lambda }}\left(le^{l^2}+(1+2l^2)\varphi \right).$$
(33)
Thus the metric functions are implicitly known as functions of $`x^+x^{}`$. Using the relations

$$_\pm l=\pm \frac{\sqrt{\lambda }}{2a(e^{l^2}+2l\varphi )}$$
(34)
the solutions have been checked by substitution in the dual-null form of the Einstein equations for the general spherically symmetric line element (31) with non-zero energy components $`T_{\pm \pm }=h\tau /2`$.

Returning to more general issues, the simplicity of pure ghost radiation means that it is easier to study how the wormholes react to changes in the radiation level. This has not been analytically tractable previously except in a two-dimensional model. In particular, the ingoing and outgoing radiation simply pass through one another without interaction, following null geodesics with propagation equations $`_\pm (hr^2\tau _\pm )=0`$. For instance, it is not difficult to see what happens if the radiation supporting the wormhole is turned off, as follows.

Consider a static wormhole for $`\{x^+<0,x^{}<0\}`$, with the ghost radiation then switched off from both sides of the wormhole, so that $`\tau _{}=0`$ for $`x^\pm >0`$, respectively. The solutions in the regions $`\{x^\pm >0,x^{}<0\}`$ will be similar to Vaidya solutions, while the solution in the future region $`\{x^+>0,x^{}>0\}`$ will be vacuum and therefore, by a version of Birkhoff’s theorem valid through the horizons of a black hole, Schwarzschild. Further, this region can be seen to be be the interior of a Schwarzschild black hole with mass $`a/2`$, by differentiability of the metric at $`x^+=x^{}=0`$. Specifically, continuity of the trapping horizons $`_\pm r=0`$, which initially form the throat $`\{x^+=x^{},x^\pm <0\}`$ of the wormhole, means that they can be joined to the event horizons $`\{x^\pm =0,x^{}>0\}`$ of a black hole. This generally unexpected behaviour was predicted by a general theory of wormholes and black holes and recently confirmed in the two-dimensional model. In summary, if the supporting ghost radiation is switched off, the wormhole collapses to a Schwarzschild black hole. Details of such collapses and other dynamical processes involving the wormholes are to be presented in forthcoming work.

Research supported by Korea Research Foundation grant KRF-2001-015-DP0095. Thanks to Sung-Won Kim for support and Hisa-aki Shinkai for discussions.