text:
# Quantum repeated games

## 1 Introduction

The well known simultaneous-move bimatrix game of prisoners’ dilemma (PD) has attracted early attention  in the recent studies in quantum game theory. In classical game theory  a two-stage repeated version of this game consists of the two players playing the game twice, observing the outcome of the first play before the second play begins. The payoffs for the entire game are simply taken as the sum of the payoffs from the two stages. Generally a two-stage repeated game has more complex strategic structure than its one-stage counterpart and players’ strategic choices in the second stage are affected by the outcome of their moves in the first stage. For the classical one-stage PD game the strategy of ‘defection’ by both the players is well known as a unique Nash Equilibrium (NE). In its two-stage version the same NE appears again at the second stage because the first stage payoffs are added as constants to the second stage. In fact in all of the finitely repeated versions of the PD game the strategy of ‘defection’ by both the players appears as unique NE at every stage .

Recent interesting and important study of the one-stage quantum PD game by Eisert, Wilkens, and Lewenstein  makes one to ask a question: what can be a possible role for quantum mechanics when the game is played twice? It appears that this role should be relevant to the new feature showing itself in the game i.e. the two-stages. A role for quantum mechanics exists if it inter-links the two stages of the game in some way of interest. Classically both the players ‘defect’ at each stage and the strategic choices remain the same because of the uniqueness of the NE at each stage. In our search for the quantum role we found useful to study the idea of subgame-perfect outcome (SGPO)  in a two-stage repeated bimatrix game in its quantum form. For a two-stage repeated game the idea of a SGPO is the natural analog of the backwards-induction outcome (BIO)  studied in games of complete and perfect information. In a recent paper  we considered the BIO idea in a quantum form of duopoly game and showed how entanglement can give an outcome corresponding to static form of the duopoly even when the game is played dynamically. In the present paper we study the natural analogue of BIO for a two-stage repeated PD quantum game, i.e., the idea of SGPO in a situation that can be said to lie in quantum domain. We solve the two-stage PD quantum game in the spirit of backwards induction studied in ref. , but now the first step in working backwards from the end of the game involves solving a real game rather than solving a single-person optimization problem as done in ref. . Classically the idea of SGPO comes out as a stronger solution concept especially when multiple NE appear in a stage. Our motivation is the observation that a quantization scheme for the PD game is known where the NE in a stage does not remain unique, thus making relevant a consideration of the concept of SGPO in the two-stage game played in a quantum setting. For the purpose of completeness, we will first describe how SGPO works for the classical two-stage PD game. Afterwards, we quantize the game using a known scheme, and then, show how a SGPO can exist that is counter-intuitive compared to the classical SGPO for the two-stage repeated PD game.

## 2 Two-stage games of complete but imperfect information

Like the dynamic game of complete and perfect information —for example the Stackelberg duopoly analyzed in ref. — the play in a two-stage game of complete but imperfect information proceeds in a sequence of two stages, with the moves in the first-stage observed before the next stage begins. The new feature is that within each stage there are now simultaneous moves. The simultaneity of moves within each stage means that information is imperfect in the game. A two-stage game of complete but imperfect information consists of the following steps :

1. Players $`A`$ and $`B`$ simultaneously choose actions $`p`$ and $`q`$ from feasible sets $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐐`$, respectively.
2. Players $`A`$ and $`B`$ observe the outcome of the first stage, $`(p,q)`$, and then simultaneously choose actions $`p_1`$ and $`q_1`$ from feasible sets $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐐`$, respectively.
3. Payoffs are $`P_i(p,q,p_1,q_1)`$ for $`i=A,`$ $`B`$.

A usual approach to solve a game from this class uses the method of backwards induction. In ref.  the first step in working backwards involves solving a single-person optimization problem. Now the first step involves solving the real simultaneous-move game between players $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the second stage, given the outcome from stage one. If the players $`A`$ and $`B`$ anticipate that their second-stage behavior will be given by $`(p_1^{}(p,q),q_1^{}(p,q))`$, then the first-stage interaction between players $`A`$ and $`B`$ amounts to the following simultaneous-move game:

1. Players $`A`$ and $`B`$ simultaneously choose actions $`p`$ and $`q`$ from feasible sets $`𝐏`$ and $`𝐐`$, respectively.
2. Payoffs are $`P_i(p,q,p_1^{}(p,q),q_1^{}(p,q))`$ for $`i=A,B`$.

When $`(p^{},q^{})`$ is the unique NE of this simultaneous-move game, the

$`(p^{},q^{},p_1^{}(p,q),q_1^{}(p,q))`$ is known as the SGPO  of this two-stage game. This outcome is the natural analog of the BIO in games of complete and perfect information.

## 3 Two-stage prisoner’s dilemma

### 3.1 Classical form

We use a normal form of the PD game given by the following matrix

$$\text{Alice}^{}\text{s strategy }\stackrel{\text{Bob’s strategy}}{\begin{array}{c}C\\ D\end{array}\stackrel{\begin{array}{ccc}C& & D\end{array}}{\left(\begin{array}{cc}(3,3)& (0,5)\\ (5,0)& (1,1)\end{array}\right)}}$$
(1)
where $`C`$ and $`D`$ are for the strategies of ‘cooperation’ and ‘defection’ respectively. The players play this simultaneous-move game twice. The outcome of the first play is observed before the second stage begins. The payoff for the entire game is simply the sum of the payoffs from the two stages. It is a two-stage game of complete but imperfect information . Suppose $`p`$ and $`q`$ are the probabilities with which the pure strategy $`C`$ is played by the players $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively, in the stage $`1`$. Similarly, $`p_1`$ and $`q_1`$ are the probabilities with which the pure strategy $`C`$ is played by the players $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively, in the stage $`2`$. We write $`\left[P_{A1}\right]_{cl}`$ and $`\left[P_{B1}\right]_{cl}`$ as the payoffs to players $`A`$ and $`B`$, respectively, in the stage $`1`$; where the symbol $`cl`$ is for “classical”. These payoffs can be found from the matrix (1) as

$$\left[P_{A1}\right]_{cl}=pq+4qp+1\text{}\left[P_{B1}\right]_{cl}=pq+4pq+1$$
(2)
The NE conditions for this stage are

$$\left[P_{A1}(p^{},q^{})P_{A1}(p,q^{})\right]_{cl}0\text{}\left[P_{B1}(p^{},q^{})P_{B1}(p^{},q)\right]_{cl}0$$
(3)
giving $`p^{}=q^{}=0`$ (i.e. defection for both the players) as the unique NE in this stage. Likewise, in the second stage the payoffs to players $`A`$ and $`B`$ are written as $`\left[P_{A2}\right]_{cl}`$ and $`\left[P_{B2}\right]_{cl}`$ respectively, where

$$\left[P_{A2}\right]_{cl}=p_1q_1+4q_1p_1+1\text{}\left[P_{B2}\right]_{cl}=p_1q_1+4p_1q_1+1$$
(4)
and once again the strategy of defection, i.e. $`p_1^{}=q_1^{}=0`$, comes out as a unique NE in the second stage. To compute the SGPO of this two-stage game, we analyze the first stage of this two-stage PD game by taking into account the fact that the outcome of the game remaining in the second stage will be the NE of that remaining game —namely, $`p_1^{}=q_1^{}=0`$. At this NE the payoffs for the second stage are

$$\left[P_{A2}(0,0)\right]_{cl}=1,\text{ }\left[P_{B2}(0,0)\right]_{cl}=1$$
(5)
Thus, the players’ first-stage interaction in the two-stage PD amounts to a one-shot game in which the payoff pair $`(0,0)`$ for the second stage is added to each first-stage payoff pair. Writing this observation as

$`\left[P_{A(1+2)}\right]_{cl}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[P_{A1}+P_{A2}(0,0)\right]_{cl}=pq+4qp+2`$
$`\left[P_{B(1+2)}\right]_{cl}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[P_{B1}+P_{B2}(0,0)\right]_{cl}=pq+4pq+2`$ (6)
It has again $`(0,0)`$ as the unique NE. Therefore, the unique SGPO of the two-stage PD game is $`(0,0)`$ in the first stage, followed by $`(0,0)`$ in the second stage. The strategy of defection in both stages appears as the SGPO for two-stage classical PD game.

We now see how it becomes possible —in a quantum form of this two-stage PD game— to achieve a SGPO in which the players decide to cooperate in the first stage while knowing that they will both defect in the second. The quantum form of the two-stage PD game is played using a system of four qubits. Players’ moves are given by manipulation of these qubits by two unitary and Hermitian operators (identity and inversion operator) in Marinatto and Weber’s scheme  to play a quantum form of a matrix game.

### 3.2 Quantum form

A quantum version of a two-stage game must have the corresponding classical two-stage game as a subset . A scheme where this requirement is satisfied via a control of the initial state is the Marinatto and Weber’s idea of playing a quantum version of a matrix game . The scheme was proposed originally to play a quantum form of a one-stage bimatrix game of the battle of sexes. The fundamental idea can be extended to play a two-stage version of a bimatrix game. For example, the two-stage quantum version of the PD game starts by making available a 4-qubit pure quantum state to the players. This state can be written as

$$|\psi _{ini}=\underset{i,j,k,l=1,2}{}c_{ijkl}|ijkl\text{ where }\underset{i,j,k,l=1,2}{}\left|c_{ijkl}\right|^2=1$$
(7)
where $`i,j,k,`$ and $`l`$ are identifying symbols for four qubits. The upper and lower states of a qubit are $`1`$ and $`2`$ respectively and $`c_{ijkl}`$ are complex numbers. It is a quantum state in $`2222`$ dimensional Hilbert space. We suppose the qubits $`i`$ and $`j`$ are manipulated by the players in the first stage of the game and, similarly, the qubits $`k`$ and $`l`$ are manipulated in the second stage. Let $`\rho _{ini}`$ denote the density matrix for the initial state (7). Suppose during their moves in the first stage of the game, the players $`A`$ and $`B`$ apply the identity operator $`I`$ on $`|\psi _{ini}`$ with probabilities $`p`$ and $`q`$ respectively. The inversion operator $`C`$ is, then, applied  with probabilities $`(1p)`$ and $`(1q)`$ respectively. The players’ action in the first stage changes $`\rho _{ini}`$ to

$`\rho _{fin}`$ $`=`$ $`pqI_AI_B\rho _{ini}I_A^{}I_B^{}+p(1q)I_AC_B\rho _{ini}I_A^{}C_B^{}+`$
$`q(1p)C_AI_B\rho _{ini}C_A^{}I_B^{}+(1p)(1q)C_AC_B\rho _{ini}C_A^{}C_B^{}`$
We suppose that the actions of the players in this stage are simultaneous and they remember their moves (i.e. the numbers $`p`$ and $`q`$) in the next stage also. In the second stage the players $`A`$ and $`B`$ apply the identity operator with the probabilities $`p_1`$ and $`q_1`$, respectively, on $`\rho _{fin}`$. The inversion operator $`C`$ is, then, applied with probabilities $`(1p_1)`$ and $`(1q_1)`$ on $`\rho _{fin}`$, respectively. Fig. $`1`$ shows the overall idea of playing the two-stage game. One notices that the moves or actions of the players in the two stages of the game are done on two different pairs of qubits.

After the moves of the second stage the quantum state changes to

$`\rho _{ffin}`$ $`=`$ $`p_1q_1I_AI_B\rho _{fin}I_A^{}I_B^{}+p_1(1q_1)I_AC_B\rho _{fin}I_A^{}C_B^{}+`$ (9)
$`q_1(1p_1)C_AI_B\rho _{fin}C_A^{}I_B^{}+`$
$`(1p_1)(1q_1)C_AC_B\rho _{fin}C_A^{}C_B^{}`$
The state $`\rho _{ffin}`$ is now ready for a measurement, giving payoffs for the two stages of the game. If classically the bimatrix game (1) is played at each stage, the possession of the following four payoff operators by the ‘measuring agent’ corresponds to a quantum version of the two-stage game:

$`\left[\left(P_A\right)_{oper}\right]_1`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k,l=1,2}{{\displaystyle }}\left\{3|11kl11kl\left|+5\right|21kl21kl|+|22kl22kl|\right\}`$
$`\left[\left(P_A\right)_{oper}\right]_2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{i,j=1,2}{{\displaystyle }}\left\{3|ij11ij11\left|+5\right|ij21ij21|+|ij22ij22|\right\}`$
$`\left[\left(P_B\right)_{oper}\right]_1`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{k,l=1,2}{{\displaystyle }}\left\{3|11kl11kl\left|+5\right|12kl12kl|+|22kl22kl|\right\}`$
$`\left[\left(P_B\right)_{oper}\right]_2`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{i,j=1,2}{{\displaystyle }}\left\{3|ij11ij11\left|+5\right|ij12ij12|+|ij22ij22|\right\}`$
The corresponding payoffs are, then, obtained as mean values of these operators . For example, Alice’s payoff in stage $`1`$ is

$$\left[P_{A1}\right]_{qu}=Trace\left\{\left[\left(P_A\right)_{oper}\right]_1\rho _{ffin}\right\}$$
(11)
We consider a two-stage quantum PD game played with an initial state in the form $`|\psi _{ini}=c_1|1111+c_2|1122+c_3|2211+c_4|2222`$ with $`\underset{t=1}{\overset{4}{}}\left|c_t\right|^2=1`$. For this state the payoffs to the players $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the two stages are found as

$`\left[P_{A1}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_2\right|^2)(pqp+4q+1)+`$
$`(\left|c_3\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(pq+2p3q+3)`$
$`\left[P_{A2}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)(p_1q_1p_1+4q_1+1)+`$
$`(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(p_1q_1+2p_13q_1+3)`$
$`\left[P_{B1}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_2\right|^2)(pqq+4p+1)+`$
$`(\left|c_3\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(pq+2q3p+3)`$
$`\left[P_{B2}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)(p_1q_1q_1+4p_1+1)+`$ (12)
$`(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(p_1q_1+2q_13p_1+3)`$
The players’ payoffs in the classical two-stage PD game of eqs. (2,4) can now be recovered from the eq. (12) by making the initial state unentangled and fixing $`\left|c_1\right|^2=1`$. The classical game is, therefore, a subset of its quantum version.

One now proceeds —in the spirit of backwards-induction— to find a NE in the second stage of the quantum game. Suppose $`(p_1^{},q_1^{})`$ is a NE in the second stage, then

$$\left[P_{A2}(p_1^{},q_1^{})P_{A2}(p_1,q_1^{})\right]_{qu}0,\text{ }\left[P_{B2}(p_1^{},q_1^{})P_{B2}(p_1^{},q_1)\right]_{qu}0$$
(13)
With the players’ payoffs of the two stages given by eq. (12), the Nash inequalities 13 can be written as

$`(p_1^{}p_1)\left\{q_1^{}+2(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)\right\}`$ $``$ $`0`$
$`(q_1^{}q_1)\left\{p_1^{}+2(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)\right\}`$ $``$ $`0`$ (14)
and the strategy of defection by both the players, i.e. $`p_1^{}=q_1^{}=0,`$ becomes a NE in the second stage of the quantum game, if

$$\left\{2(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)\right\}0$$
(15)
Similar to the classical analysis, one then finds the players’ payoffs when both decide to defect in the second stage:

$$\left[P_{A2}(0,0)\right]_{qu}=\left[P_{B2}(0,0)\right]_{qu}=3(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)+(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)$$
(16)
The classical payoffs -when both players defect- of the eq. (5) can be recovered from eq. (16) when $`\left|c_1\right|^2=1`$, i.e. the initial state becomes unentangled.

Like the classical case, the players’ first-stage interaction in the two-stage quantum PD amounts to a one-shot game in which the payoff pair $`3(\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)+(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_3\right|^2)`$ for the second stage is added to each first-stage payoff pair i.e.

$`\left[P_{A(1+2)}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[P_{A1}+P_{A2}(0,0)\right]_{qu}=\left|c_1\right|^2(pq+4qp+2)+`$
$`\left|c_2\right|^2(pq+4qp+4)+\left|c_3\right|^2(pq3q+2p+4)+`$
$`\left|c_4\right|^2(pq3q+2p+6)`$
$`\left[P_{B(1+2)}\right]_{qu}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[P_{B1}+P_{B2}(0,0)\right]_{qu}=\left|c_1\right|^2(pq+4pq+2)+`$ (17)
$`\left|c_2\right|^2(pq+4pq+4)+\left|c_3\right|^2(pq3p+2q+4)+`$
$`\left|c_4\right|^2(pq3p+2q+6)`$
Now the strategy of cooperation ($`p_1^{}=q_1^{}=1`$) becomes a NE for the first-stage interaction in this quantum game, if

$$\left\{2(\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_2\right|^2)(\left|c_3\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2)\right\}0$$
(18)
The inequalities (15) and (18) define the conditions to be satisfied when players will decide to cooperate in their first-stage interaction and both will defect in the next stage. These conditions can be rewritten as

$$\left|c_1\right|^2+\left|c_2\right|^2\frac{1}{3}\text{}\left|c_2\right|^2+\left|c_4\right|^2\frac{1}{3}$$
(19)
For example, at $`\left|c_1\right|^2=\left|c_2\right|^2=\left|c_4\right|^2=\frac{1}{6}`$ and $`\left|c_3\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}`$ these conditions hold. Because for the classical game the inequalities (19) cannot hold together, it shows why classically it is not possible that players cooperate in the first stage knowing that they will both defect in the second.

## 4 Discussion and conclusion

Classical analysis tells that the repeated games differ from one-shot games because players’ current actions can depend on the past behavior of the other players. In a repeated bimatrix game the same matrix game is played repeatedly, over a number of stages that represent the passing of time. The payoffs are accumulated over time. The accumulation of information about the “history” of the game changes the structure of the game with time. With each new stage the information at the disposal of the players changes and, since strategies transform this information into actions, the players’ strategic choices are affected. If a game is repeated twice, the players’ moves at the second stage depend on the outcome of the first stage. This situation becomes more and more complex as the number of stages increases, since the players can base their decisions on histories represented by sequences of actions and outcomes observed over increasing number of stages.

Recent interesting findings in quantum game theory motivate a study of repeated games in the new quantum settings, because an extensive as well as useful analysis of repeated games already exists in the literature of classical game theory. In present paper —to look for a quantum role in repeated games— we consider a quantum form of a well known bimatrix game called prisoners’ dilemma (PD). The classical analysis of the PD game has been developed in many different formats, including its finitely and infinitely repeated versions. In the history of quantum games the PD game became a focus of an early and important study  telling how to play a quantum form of a bimatrix game. We selected a quantum scheme to play this bimatrix game where the players actions or moves consist of selecting positive numbers in the range $`[0,1]`$, giving the probabilities with which they apply two quantum mechanical (unitary and Hermitian) operators on an initial $`4`$-qubit pure quantum state . The players’ actions in each stage are done on two different pairs of qubits. The classical two-stage PD game corresponds to an unentangled initial state and the classical SGPO consists of players defecting in both the stages. Our results show that a SGPO where the players go for cooperation in a stage is a non-classical feature that can be made to appear in quantum settings. The argument presented here is based on the assumption that all games, resulting from a play starting with a $`4`$-qubit quantum state of the form of the eq. (7), are ‘quantum forms’ of the classical two-stage game. This assumption originates from the fact that the classical game corresponds to a particular $`4`$-qubit quantum state which is also unentangled. The assumption makes possible to translate the desired appearance of cooperation in a stage to certain conditions on the parameters of the initial state; giving a SGPO where players decide to cooperate in their first-stage interaction while knowing that they both will defect in the next stage.

We are thankful to the anonymous referee who asked about the compelling reason to choose a $`2222`$ dimensional Hilbert space instead of a $`22`$ dimensional one. A $`22`$ dimensional treatment of this problem, in the same quantization scheme, involves denominator terms in the expressions for payoff operators when these are obtained under the condition that classical game corresponds to an unentangled initial state. It then leads to many ‘if-then’ conditions before one gets finally the payoffs. On the contrary, a treatment in $`2222`$ dimensions becomes much smoother. Also a study of the concept of SGPO in a two-stage repeated quantum game, then, becomes a logical extension of the backwards-induction procedure proposed in the ref. .

In conclusion, we found how cooperation in two-stage PD game can be achieved by quantum means. In infinitely repeated versions of the classical PD game it is established that cooperation can occur in every stage of a SGPO, even though the only NE in the stage game is defection . In two-stage PD game to get a SGPO where players cooperate in the first stage is a result with no classical analogue. We have also indicated a possible way to study the concept of SGPO in repeated quantum games.


format: text

text:
# Introductory Review to the Historical Development of Modern Cosmology

## 1. Prelude

This school on the Historical Development of Modern Cosmology is taking place when the University of Valencia celebrated 500 years of uninterrupted academic and scientific activity. Let me start the introductory talk with a prelude regarding some astronomical events that happened at the very beginning of the University’s existence. A few years after the foundation of the University, Jeroni Munyós, Professor of Astronomy, Mathematics and Hebrew at this University, studied the famous Type I Supernova within the constellation of Cassiopeia, which appeared in 1572 (Tycho’s Supernova) and wrote a small book commissioned by the king Felipe II. The book (see Fig. 1) was entitled

> Libro del nuevo Cometa, y del lugar donde se hazen; y como se verá por las Parallaxes, quán lexos están de tierra…
> (Book on the new Comet, and the place where it can be found, and as it can be seen from its parallax how far away it is from Earth…)

Munyós knew that the new star could be used as an observational evidence against the Aristotelian concept of the immutability of the Cosmos, and of course, this work brought him some problems with the political and ecclesiastic authorities of the time. Nevertheless, Tycho Brahe knew Munyós’s work well and, in a book (see Fig. 1) in which Tycho discusses the work by other astronomers on the new star, he includes a chapter devoted to Munyós’s book (Navarro Brotóns and Rodríguez Galdeano 1998).

## 2.  What was the aim of the school?

In the book by H. Kragh (1996), we can read:

> “In spite of cosmology’s amazing development in this century and the strong scientific and public interest in the new science of the universe, only very little is known of how this development took place.”

Also in his book, Kragh quotes Y. Zel’dovich and I. Novikov (1983) from their book Structure and Evolution of the Universe:

> “The history of the universe is infinitely more interesting than the history of the study of the universe.”

Undoubtedly, this view is still shared by many professional astronomers. Nevertheless, it is our responsibility to provide future generations of scholars in this field with a truthful account of how the present cosmological paradigm has been constructed from the contributions of many people. This school points in this direction and these proceedings will probably help to increase the general knowledge of how our concept of the universe has been changing during the last 80 years, a period in which cosmology has experienced a dramatic development. Sometimes controversy between alternative theories was present in this history. The Steady State model and the Big Bang model, with once-strong arguments supported by prestigious defenders on both sides, is a good example of controversial science. These arguments are nicely explained in the chapters by Kragh (p. 157), Gold (p. 171), and Narlikar (p. 175).

The new cosmological ideas soon permeated society. It is well known that the term “Big Bang” was coined ironically by one of the founders of the Steady State theory, Sir Fred Hoyle, during a BBC radio interview. Two talks of this school will be devoted to the popularization of Cosmology: Ten (p. 309) focuses on the ideas at the beginning of the twentieth century and Hawkins (p. 325) discusses the modern methods of disseminating discoveries about the universe.

## 3. The beginning of the story

How did this history begin? We could start from many different significant moments and discoveries. I like to remember the comet hunters during the eighteenth and the nineteenth century. The catalog of extended objects, compiled by Charles Messier (1730-1817) to avoid their being confused with new comets, is the first listing of nebulae widely referenced by later astronomers. Lord Rosse discovered the spiral structure of some of these nebulae using his 1.8-meter reflecting telescope at Birr Castle (Ireland). His drawing of M51 (see Fig. 2) has a remarkable resemblance with modern images of this spiral galaxy.

The nature of the nebulae and their possible extragalactic character was one of the items discussed in the debate on the distance scale of the universe, held in Washington on 26 April 1920 between Harlow Shapley of Mt. Wilson (soon after director of Harvard College Observatory) and Heber D. Curtis of Lick (later director of Allegheny Observatory). Shapley placed the sun far from the center of a galaxy 300 000 light years in diameter and the spiral nebulae inside it. Curtis instead put the sun at the center of a 30 000 light year galaxy and the nebulae outside it as concentrations of stars similar to the Milky Way. It is clear that Shapley was entirely right about the location of the sun, and more nearly right about the distance scales, but Curtis was right about the nebulae.

The definitive clarification of the controversy came with Edwin Hubble in 1925 (but see also the contributions by Ernst Öpik and Knut Lundmark explained by Einasto on p. 85 and by Trimble on p. 375). Hubble discovered Cepheid variable stars in NGC 6822 and in Andromeda (1925a,b). He estimated the distance to Andromeda using the period–luminosity relationship introduced by Henrietta Leavitt in 1908. Although still underestimated, the distance obtained by Hubble, 900 000 light years, was the end of Shapley’s universe. This measurement, together with the morphological classification of galaxies and the discovery of the universal cosmic expansion, were the major contributions of Hubble to the field. Moreover, Hubble’s law —the redshift–velocity relation— is one of the most important breakthroughs in science that have happened during the twentieth century (see the contribution by Christianson on p. 145.)

During the eighteenth century Immanuel Kant and Johann Lambert conceived the idea of a hierarchical universe of stars clustered into large systems (galaxies), which in turn are clustered into larger systems, and so on. Hierarchical clustering as a solution of Olber’s paradox was proposed by John Herschel and Richard Proctor in the nineteenth century. The same idea was taken up in the twentieth century by Carl Charlier. The first talk after this introduction deals precisely with Olber’s paradox (Hoskin p. 11).

## 4. Modern cosmology is born

Despite the beauty of the hierarchical universe, this idea was not widely accepted. In fact, one of the tenets of modern cosmology was the Cosmological Principle. The principle was first formulated by E. Milne in 1933 as the assumption that the large-scale unverse is spatially homogeneous and isotropic. Many authors in this volume regard the publication of the theory of General Relativity by Albert Einstein in 1915 (Einstein 1915a,b) as the birth of modern cosmology. As soon as 1919, the first experimental test of the theory of General Relativity was performed in the expeditions led by Sir Arthur Eddington and Andrew Crommelin to measure, during a total solar eclipse, the bending of light rays from background stars by the sun (see Coles on p. 21)

In 1917 Einstein applied his equations of General Relativity to the description of the universe, assuming the Cosmological Principle. This assumption was adopted mainly for simplicity, and needed to be confirmed by observations. When the first maps of the distribution of galaxies, both in projection and later in redshift space, became available, a clumpy distribution was revealed. In the 1970s, Peebles and co-workers used statistical descriptors such as the two-point correlation function to conclude that the small-scale clustering of galaxies was compatible with a fractal distribution, and therefore a transition to homogeneity had to happen if the Cosmological Principle was to be preserved. Observations of redshifts of galaxies out to 15 000 km/sec and beyond, the isotropy of the X-ray background, and especially of the microwave background eventually confirmed the principle. But data sets from the 1960s to the 1980s showed structure nearly as large as the survey volumes and left the issue open in the minds of some astronomers. The arrangement of matter in the universe, how galactic structures have been formed and how they can be statistically described are the main topics of the contributions by Peebles (p. 201), Jones (245), and Icke (p. 337). In addition, numerical simulations have played an important role in recent years in exploring the consequences of different scenarios for the formation and evolution of large scale structure in the universe (see Yepes on p. 355).

### 4.1. The cosmological constant

Einstein introduced the cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, in his field equations to guarantee a static universe. Some years later, and after the discovery by Hubble of the expansion of the universe, he considered this introduction as his biggest blunder (see Heller on p. 121). Nevertheless, recent observations (Riess et al. 1998, Perlmutter et al. 1999) of very distant Type Ia Supernovae have resurrected the cosmological constant, interpreting it as the imprint of an exotic kind of energy that could be a possible explanation for a universe with accelerated expansion (Silk p. 109). The solutions of the Einstein equations obtained by the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedmann (1922) and the Belgian mathematician (and priest) George Lemaître (1927) (see Blanchard on p. 237) were the basis for the standard cosmological model of a dense, hot, and expanding universe. Some of the more influential contributions in the 1930s were the Einstein-de Sitter flat model (1931), and the papers by Robertson (1933) and Tolman (1934). The problem of the singularity at the beginning of the history of the universe is discussed at length by Heller (p. 121).

### 4.2. Primordiual nucleosyntesis

During the first few minutes after the Big Bang the formation of light elements took place. One of the first works on this “primordial nucleosynthesis” is the famous $`\alpha \beta \gamma `$ paper published in 1948 (Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow 1948). During the fifties and sixties, different calculations of the relative proportions of hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium within the framework of the Big Bang model showed an excellent agreement with the present-day observed abundances. This was the first theoretical prediction of the new cosmological model confirmed by the observations.

### 4.3. Cosmic microwave background radiation

In 1965, the American radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson detected the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. The existence of this diffuse radiation is naturally explained in the Big Bang model. When the age of the universe was about 300 000 years, the universe had cooled enough to make possible the formation of stable hydrogen atoms for the first time (epoch of recombination). At this stage, the universe becomes transparent, because the electromagnetic radiation and matter decouple. Indeed Alpher and Herman (1950) had predicted that such radiation should exist at a temperature of about 5K.

The reported detection by Penzias and Wilson was published in The Astrophysical Journal. In a paper published in the same issue of the journal, Robert Dicke, James Peebles, Peter Roll, and David Wilkinson explained the cosmological origin of this radiation. Without any doubt, this discovery was the strongest observational evidence supporting the Big Bang model. The news appeared on the first page of The New York Times on 21 May 1965. Since then, the cosmic microwave radiation, as an observed fossil of the early universe, has been one of the main targets of observational cosmology, carried out wiht the COBE (COsmic Background Explorer) satellite, the BOOMERANG balloon experiment, and from the ground. After 1965, the Big-Bang model becomes the generally accepted cosmological model, overshadowing the Steady State theory. The contributions by Novikov (p. 43) and by Silk (p. 109) deal with the CMB observations, their discovery, their analysis and their cosmological implications, for example the flatness of the universe.

## 5. The model

Summarizing, the hot Big Bang model accounts for three observational facts:

* The current expansion of the universe.
* The cosmic microwave background radiation.
* The relative abundance of light chemical elements.

These successes are important, but the model needs several more ingredients to provide a complete picture of the origin and evolution of the universe:

1. Cosmological parameters.

Alan Sandage (1970) once described cosmology as the search for two numbers, the Hubble constant and the deceleration parameter (the latter is, for a model with zero cosmological constant, half the density parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.) A few more numbers are considered today as fundamental parameters in modern versions of cosmological models (Silk p. 109; Trimble p. 375; see also Rees 2001).
2. Inflation. The successful description of the universe, provided by the Big Bang model, leaves many questions open such as why is the universe so homogeneous, so isotropic, and so flat?. A 1990s answer is the idea that the very early universe passed through a period of exponential expansion, called inflation (Kolb p. 295; Bonometto p. 219).
3. Dark matter. One of the first mentions of missing mass or dark matter came from Zwicky (1933), who had measured the velocity dispersion in the Coma cluster and applied the virial theorem. The acceptance of the dark matter was a very slow process (see the contribution by van den Bergh on p. 75.) In any case, it took longer than the more recent general acceptance of the existence of dark energy (see Kolb on p. 295 and Bonometto on p. 219.) The contribution of the Tartu astronomers to the dark matter problem was remarkable (Einasto p. 85.) The evidence provided by the rotation curves in spiral galaxies was overwhelming (Rubin et al. 1978). These curves indicated that spiral galaxies contain at least 10 times more dark matter than luminous matter (see Fig. 4). Different kinds of dark matter enter as contributors for the total density of the universe (Trimble 1987). The role of neutrinos is explained in this volume by Valle (p 275.)

## 6. Looking forward

Cosmology is a science driven by observations and observations are driven today by technological developments (Longair p. 55.) The technologies to be developed in the 21st century will provide deeper insights into the universe. Many problems are still open. Some of them are part of what Bonometto (p. 219) calls post-modern cosmology, which addresses questions such as what happened before the big bang? or are we living in one universe amongst many others? Moreover, the present model seems too elaborate, requiring fine-tuned values for the parameters and many different contributions to the total density (Kolb p. 295.) In any case the nature of dark matter and dark energy is still unknown. In my opinion, although we can be proud of the knowledge of the universe acquired during the last years, honestly (and modestly) we have to admit that it is only the tip of the iceberg.

#### Acknowledgments.

I would like to thank Bernard Jones, Víctor Navarro Brotóns, María Jesús Pons-Bordería, and Virginia Trimble for valuable comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the Spanish MCyT project AYA2000-2045.

## References

Alpher, R. A., Bethe, H., and Gamow, G. 1948, Phys.Rev. 73, 803

Alpher, R. A., and Herman, R. C. 1950, Rev.Mod.Phys. 22, 153

Dicke, R. H., Peebles, P.J.E., Roll, P. G., and Wilkinson, D. T. 1965, ApJ 142, 414

Einstein, A. 1915a Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitzber., 778

Einstein, A. 1915b Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitzber., 844

Einstein, A. 1917 Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin, Sitzber., 142

Einstein, A., and de Sitter, W. 1931, Proc.Nac.Acad.Sci 18, 213

Friedmann, A. A. 1922, Zeitschr. für Phys. 10, 377

Hubble, E. P. 1925a, ApJ 62, 409

Hubble, E. P. 1925b, Observatory 48, 139

Hubble, E. P. 1929, Proc.Nac.Acad.Sci 15, 168

Kragh, H. 1996, Cosmology and Controversy. The Historical Development of Two Theories of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton University Press)

Lemaître, G. 1927, Ann. Soc. Scient. Brux., 47A, 49

Milne, E. A. 1933, Zeitschr. für Astrophys. 6, 1

Navarro Brotóns, V. and Rodríguez Galdeano, E. 1998, Matemáticas, cosmología y humanismo en la España del siglo XVI. Los “Comentarios al segundo libro de la Historia Natural de Plinio” de Jerónimo Muñoz (Valencia: Instituto de Estudios Documentales e Históricos sobre la Ciencia).

Penzias, A. A. and Wilson, R. W. 1965, ApJ 142, 419

Perlmutter, S. et al. 1999, ApJ 517, 565

Rees, M. J. 2001, Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces that Shape the Universe (New York: Basic Books)

Riess, A. G., Press, W. H., and Kirshner, R. P. 1996, ApJ 473, 88

Riess, A. G. et al. 1998, AJ 116, 1009

Robertson, H. P. 1933, Rev.Mod.Phys. 5, 62.

Rubin, V. C., Ford, W. K., and Thonnard, N. 1978, ApJ 225, L107

Sandage, A. 1970, Physics Today 23, 31

Tolman, R.C. 1934, Relativity, Thermodynamics, and Cosmology (Oxford: Oxford University Press)

Trimble, V. 1987, ARA&A 25, 425

Zel’ldovich, Ya. B., and Novikov, I. D. 1983, Relativistic Astrophysics. II: The Structure and Evolution of the Universe (Chicago: Chicago University Press)

Zwicky, F. 1933, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110


text:
# References

UCRHEP-T332

March 2002

Uniqueness of a recently proposed
U(1) gauge extension
Ernest Ma
Physics Department, University of California, Riverside, California 92521, USA

## Abstract

Consider the addition of a right-handed $`SU(2)`$ fermion multiplet (with neither color nor hypercharge) to each family of quarks and leptons. The resultant theory admits a new U(1) gauge symmetry only if the additional multiplet is a singlet $`N_R`$, which corresponds to the well-known case of $`U(1)_{BL}`$, or a triplet $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$, which corresponds to the proposal of hep-ph/0112232. This disproves the assertion that the latter is somehow a “trivial” or “expected” discovery.

Consider $`SU(3)_C\times SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y\times U(1)_X`$ as a possible extension of the standard model, under which each family of quarks and leptons transforms as follows:

$`(u,d)_L(3,2,1/6;n_1),u_R(3,1,2/3;n_2),d_R(3,1,1/3;n_3),`$
$`(\nu ,e)_L(1,2,1/2;n_4),e_R(1,1,1;n_5).`$ (1)
Add to these a right-handed fermion multiplet $`(1,2p+1,0;n_6)`$, where $`p=0`$ would correspond to a singlet, say $`N_R`$, as in the usual extension to include a right-handed neutrino singlet, and $`p=1`$ would correspond to a triplet $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+,\mathrm{\Sigma }^0,\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})_R`$, as proposed recently .

As shown in Ref. , there are 6 conditions to be satisfied for the gauging of $`U(1)_X`$. Three of them do not involve $`n_6`$ and have 2 solutions:

$`(\mathrm{I}):`$ $`n_3=2n_1n_2,n_4=3n_1,n_5=2n_1n_2;`$ (2)
$`(\mathrm{II}):`$ $`n_2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(7n_13n_4),n_3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n_1+3n_4),n_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(9n_1+5n_4).`$ (3)
The other 3 involve $`n_6`$, and they are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(3n_1+n_4)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}p(p+1)(2p+1)n_6,`$ (4)
$`6n_13n_23n_3+2n_4n_5`$ $`=`$ $`(2p+1)n_6,`$ (5)
$`6n_1^33n_2^33n_3^3+2n_4^3n_5^3`$ $`=`$ $`(2p+1)n_6^3.`$ (6)
To find solutions to the above 3 equations, consider first $`p=0`$, then Eq. (4) forces one to choose solution (I), and all other equations are satisfied with $`n_1=n_2=n_3`$ and $`n_4=n_5=n_6`$, i.e. $`U(1)_{BL}`$ has been obtained. Consider now $`p0`$, then if solution (I) is again chosen, $`n_6=0`$ is required, which leads to $`U(1)_Y`$, so there is nothing new.

Now consider $`p0`$ and solution (II). From Eqs. (4), (5), and (6), it is easily shown that

$$\frac{4n_6}{3n_1+n_4}=\frac{6}{p(p+1)(2p+1)}=\frac{3}{2p+1}=\left(\frac{3}{2p+1}\right)^{\frac{1}{3}},$$
(7)
which clearly gives the unique solution of $`p=1`$, i.e. a triplet. The fact that such a solution even exists (and for an integer value of $`p`$) for the above overconstrained set of conditions is certainly not a “trivial” or even “expected” result.

This work was supported in part by the U. S. Department of Energy under Grant No. DE-FG03-94ER40837.


text:
# Holography and the Polyakov action

## I Introduction

The interplay between two-dimensional conformal field theories and classical three-dimensional gravity with a negative cosmological constant can be traced back to the identification, by Brown and Henneaux , of an infinite-dimensional symmetry acting on the space of gravitational solutions asymptotic to anti-de Sitter space (AdS$`_3`$). On the two-dimensional conformal boundary at infinity this symmetry reduces to two copies of the Virasoro algebra with central charge,

$$c=\frac{3l}{2G_3},$$
(1)
where $`l`$ is the AdS3 scale (set to unity from hereon), and $`G_3`$ is the three-dimensional Newton constant. This structure, now embedded within the general AdS/CFT correspondence , has come under considerable recent scrutiny. In particular, Strominger’s observation  that a unitary CFT on the boundary, with central charge (1), would have a density of states sufficiently large to account for the entropy of 3D BTZ black holes , has stimulated further work on particular realizations of this system in string theory, such as configurations of fundamental strings and NS5-branes wrapped on either $`T^4`$ or $`K3`$, in the hope of understanding the dual CFT  and consequently the microscopic origin of the black hole entropy. However, string theory on noncompact target spaces such as AdS$`_3`$is still rather mysterious  (see e.g.  for earlier work), and recent studies  (see also ) are only now leading in particular cases to a consistent picture of the perturbative spectrum.

In this context, it is interesting to explore how information about the dual CFT is encoded at the purely gravitational level, namely in the space of solutions to asymptotically AdS 3D gravity. All such solutions are locally anti-de Sitter, and starting from pure AdS$`_3`$, the classical phase space may be constructed in terms of orbits of the Brown-Henneaux mapping. Recall, for example, that a solution of the form,

$$ds_{3D}^2=dr^2+e^{2r}dzd\overline{z}+\frac{12\pi }{c}T(z)dz^2+\mathrm{},$$
(2)
asymptotic to AdS$`_3`$for large $`r`$, where $`r`$ is the radial coordinate, admits infinitesimal Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms  (with parameter $`ϵ(z)`$) as an asymptotic symmetry under which the metric remains form-invariant, up to the shift

$$\delta T=ϵT+2Tϵ\frac{c}{24\pi }^3ϵ,$$
(3)
where $`=/z`$. These mappings reduce on the boundary to infinitesimal local conformal transformations, and we see from (3) that in accord with the AdS/CFT correspondence we can identify the subleading components $`T(z)`$ (and $`\overline{T}(\overline{z})`$) of the metric (2) with the expectation value of chiral (and anti-chiral) components the boundary stress-energy tensor . Extending consideration to finite Brown-Henneaux mappings, relates solutions with different topology, given suitable coordinate identifications. However, in practice it is convenient to consider orbits of fixed topology generated by (3) which are characterized by a given background topology (say pure AdS$`_3`$), perturbed by Brown-Henneaux ‘gravitational waves’ (described by $`T`$) in (2).

This picture of the classical phase space generalizes to solutions with a specified conformal structure $`[g]`$ at infinity, which then depend on a general representative metric $`g_{ij}`$ in this conformal equivalence class (in (2) $`g_{ij}`$ is simply the flat metric). These bulk geometries may be obtained via the construction of Fefferman and Graham  (see also ), and take the asymptotic form ,

$$ds_{3D}^2=dr^2+e^{2r}g_{ij}dx^idx^j+\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{ij}+\frac{24\pi }{c}T_{ij}\right)dx^idx^j+\mathrm{},$$
(4)
where $`T_{ij}`$, which is traceless, is unconstrained by the bulk Einstein equations . This is consistent with its anomalous transformation under Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms (as in (3)), and $`T_{ij}`$ can again be identified with the expectation value of the boundary stress-energy tensor . Thus, in general, 3D bulk Einstein solutions can be reconstructed given two pieces of boundary data, $`\{g,T\}`$. In addition, one has holonomy data which describe the global properties§§§Such global data needs to be specified in prescribing $`T`$ since the stress-energy tensor undergoes Casimir-type shifts on changing the topology. of the 3D geometry.

The possibility of turning on sources $`g_{ij}`$ for the stress-energy tensor $`T_{ij}`$ in the boundary CFT allows consideration of how the bulk dynamics reproduces the current sector of the CFT associated with correlators of the stress-energy tensor. This is the topic we will now focus on, and we aim in the present paper to tackle the local part of this problem, which may also be inverted as the question of how the bulk theory encodes (holographically) the local geometric moduli of the boundary CFT. In this context the basic quantity in the CFT is the generating functional $`W[g]`$ for correlators of the stress-energy tensor,

$$e^{iW[g_{ij}]}\mathrm{exp}\left[i_\mathrm{\Sigma }g^{ij}T_{ij}\right]_{CFT}$$
(5)
where $`\{\mathrm{\Sigma },g_{ij}\}`$ is the conformal boundary of the asymptotically AdS bulk geometry. This boundary coupling leads to a Weyl anomaly given by

$$T_i^i_{CFT}=\frac{c}{24\pi },$$
(6)
where $``$ is the scalar curvature associated with the metric $`g_{ij}`$, and $`c`$ is the corresponding central charge. Using this, the anomalous Ward identity for Weyl transformations can be integrated  leading to the Polyakov action as the expression for the generating functional $`W[g]`$ in covariant form,

$$W_P[g]=\frac{c}{96\pi }\left[\frac{1}{^2}+\lambda ^2\right],$$
(7)
where $`\lambda ^2`$ is a cosmological constant.

From the bulk point of view, the AdS/CFT correspondence implies a relation between the generating functional $`W[g]`$ and the string partition function evaluated with conformal boundary data $`g_{ij}`$. In the classical gravitational regime, this relation takes the form In general, it may be necessary to specify topological data, $`\gamma `$, and to sum over inequivalent bulk topologies having the same boundary , although we will not need to consider the latter cases here.

$$W[g]I_{\mathrm{reg}}[G]=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}(I_{\mathrm{EH}}[G_ϵ]I_{\mathrm{ct}}[g_ϵ]),$$
(8)
where $`I_{\mathrm{EH}}[G_ϵ]`$ is the bulk Einstein-Hilbert action (plus the appropriate boundary terms) evaluated on a solution $`G_{ij}[g]`$ of the form (4) with boundary conformal structure $`[g]`$, and an infrared regulator $`r<1/ϵ`$ is used to subtract the bulk divergences with covariant counterterms $`I_{\mathrm{ct}}`$  (for further work on holographic renormalization see ).

The duality in (8) has already been sucessfully tested in the computation of Weyl anomalies of the boundary CFT via regularization of the bulk action. The calculation outlined in , and carried out explicitly by Henningson and Skenderis  makes use of diffeomorphism invariance in the bulk. Specifically, by looking at the logarithmically divergent terms in the Einstein-Hilbert action evaluated on a general asymptotically AdS solution , the variation of the action under Weyl transformations can be computed and the expected expressions for Weyl anomalies in various dimensions were obtained . In particular, for $`d=2`$, the result (6) was reproduced with a central charge given by (1), consistent with the expected Weyl anomaly for a CFT realizing the Brown-Henneaux  asymptotic conformal symmetry.

The correspondence (8) is, however, considerably stronger than just a relation between the Weyl anomalies as it implies a direct equivalence between the generating functionals. In this paper, we will focus on the induced boundary effective action and its relation to the generating functionalSee  for other work on the induced effective action via AdS/CFT in various dimensions. $`W[g]`$ given in (7). An advantage of working within the AdS$`_3`$/CFT2 framework is that the dependence of $`W_P[g]`$ (7) on the underlying moduli of the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is well-understood, and this can be contrasted with the corresponding dependence of the bulk action $`I_{\mathrm{reg}}[g]`$. Working within the Chern-Simons formalism, we will show that this moduli dependence is precisely that of the Polyakov action (7), a relation that has also been argued to hold by Skenderis and Solodukhin  using a different approach.

The appearance of the Polyakov functional through the relation (8) may be anticipated by observing that, from the point of view of the boundary CFT, the right hand side of (8) represents a particular covariant 3D ‘localization’ of the generically non-local generating functional $`W[g]`$. To interpret this it is helpful to recall that the standard means of localizing the Polyakov action involves the introduction of a Liouville field $`\varphi `$. If the background metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`g_{ij}`$, then we consider a new background $`e^\varphi g_{ij}`$ with constant curvature. The Liouville action (dropping the potential) for $`\varphi `$ is then given by,

$$W_L[g,\varphi ]=\frac{c}{48\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\sqrt{|g|}\left[\frac{1}{2}g^{ij}_i\varphi _j\varphi +\varphi [g]\right],$$
(9)
which, on integrating out $`\varphi `$, reduces to the non-local Polyakov action (7) for $`g_{ij}`$. This procedure can be realized within the AdS/CFT correspondence if we consider the dynamics on a regulated boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r_0}`$ at fixed radial coordinate $`r=r_0`$ in the asymptotic regime. We can regard the radial dependence as described by a field $`r_0=r_0(\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r_0})`$. It follows from the form of the asymptotically AdS bulk metric (4) that under local conformal transformations on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{r_0}`$, $`r_0`$ transforms as a Liouville field. This identification of the bulk radial coordinate with a Liouville field  is simply the standard UV/IR correspondence  with radial shifts translated to scale transformations on the boundary. The corresponding behaviour of regulating surfaces was discussed in some detail in  (see also ). This picture provides qualitative evidence for the appearance of the Polyakov action as the boundary generating functional. The main aim of this paper will be to verify this relation in detail.

Following the same theme, there is in the present context another aspect of the bulk ‘localization’ which will be of interest. Recall that the Polyakov action evaluated in a light-cone gauge background was originally constructed  as a gravitational WZW model, and thus has a natural local representation in 3D. This is the appropriate background geometry on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in which to make explicit the dependence on ‘complex’ structure moduli and we will find that there is a nice mapping between these chiral and anti-chiral moduli and the degrees of freedom entering via the two Chern-Simons fields which arise in the first-order formulation of the bulk dynamics. This in part motivates our approach to the calculation of the bulk action in (8) which makes use of the Chern-Simons formalism. The relevance of this formalism for realizing the holomorphic factorization associated with the generating functional of a CFT was also discussed recently in .

An important issue which arises in interpreting (8) is that fixing the boundary conformal structure $`[g_{ij}]`$ does not in general specify a unique bulk continuation , due to the anomalous transformation properties of $`T`$, as discussed above. This concerns the first variation of (8),

$$T_{\mathrm{CFT}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{|g|}}\frac{\delta I_{\mathrm{reg}}[g]}{\delta g},$$
(10)
and we will show that bulk Brown-Henneaux transformations which shift $`T`$ correctly maintain the correspondence in (10). Specifically, the ambiguities associated with bulk Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms enter, as expected, via local conformal transformations on the boundary. i.e. the moduli only determine the conformal class of the boundary metric and Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms amount to free-field shifts in the corresponding conformal mode.

In concluding this section, it is worth noting that when using a conformal gauge for the boundary metric, the Polyakov generating functional we obtain reduces to that of Liouville theory, where the presence or otherwise of the potential term depends on the renormalization condition for the two-dimensional cosmological constant. However, it is important to realize that the Liouville theory found here should not be identified with that obtained by Coussaert, Henneaux and van Driel (CHvD)  describing the asymptotic dynamics of gravity in AdS$`_3`$. More precisely, in  the Liouville dynamics describes gravitational perturbations propagating on a fixed 2D background metric $`g_{ij}`$ (see  for a generalization of  to arbitrary backgrounds). Due to the lack of local degrees of freedom in 3D gravity, these perturbations actually encode the entire bulk dynamics (up to holonomies), for a given set of boundary conditions. In  only the constraint equations were solved leading to dynamical fluctuations on the boundary. In contrast, in our analysis, the entire set of 3D equations are solved, for a given 2D background metric $`g_{ij}`$, thus obtaining the generating functional $`W[g_{ij}]`$ for stress tensor correlators. For a proper comparison the CHvD action should be put on-shell, and the on-shell correspondence between bulk geometries and Liouville solutions has been discussed in .

The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we turn to the general parametrization of bulk metrics, introducing a first-order form for the expansion of Fefferman and Graham . We then review in Section 3 how the generating functional $`W_P[g]`$ encodes the local moduli of the boundary metric in explicit form. In the present context we will restrict attention to simple boundary topologies, and the moduli are conveniently encoded in a chiral parametrization of the metric, the analogue of a Beltrami parametrization for Riemann surfaces. In Section 4 we derive the dependence of $`I_{\mathrm{reg}}[g]`$ on the boundary moduli using a covariant Chern-Simons construction; the result is consistent with (7). We also discuss the action of Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms on the space of solutions, and the relation to the expectation value of the boundary stress tensor. Section 6 contains some concluding remarks concerning global data.

## II Chern-Simons formulation and a first-order expansion

To implement the AdS/CFT prescription one needs to reconstruct a bulk Einstein metric with negative cosmological constant, given a representative $`g_{ij}^{(0)}`$ of the conformal structure at infinity. In the Chern-Simons formulation, this problem can be rephrased in first-order form, where the gauge freedom can be used to generate a solution in a straightforward manner. Before describing this, we recall some details of the conventional metric formalism.

Finding a bulk solution given a fixed boundary conformal structure $`[g^{(0)}]`$ is a nontrivial problem in general, although a particular existence theorem was obtained by Graham and Lee  for the special case of boundary metrics sufficiently close to the standard one on the sphere. However, it was shown by Fefferman and Graham  (see also ) that an asymptotic expansion near infinity can be constructed starting from an arbitrary boundary metric. This expansion has the special form,

$$ds^2=dr^2+e^{2r}g_{ij}(r,x)dx^idx^j,$$
(11)
with

$$g_{ij}(r,x)=g_{ij}^{(0)}+e^{2r}g_{ij}^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(12)
where $`r`$ is a radial coordinate, related to that used in  by $`e^{2r}1/\rho `$. The Einstein equations in general determine almost all of the coefficients $`g_{ij}^{(n)}`$ as covariant functions of $`g_{ij}^{(0)}`$ and its derivatives. The coefficient $`g_{ij}^{(0)}`$, which is defined up to a Weyl rescaling, determines the boundary conformal structure and is identified with the boundary metric.

For the 2+1D case of particular interest here, this structure is known to simplify with the expansion truncating at $`O(e^{4r})`$ (for pure Einstein metrics which are all locally AdS). We can write ,

$$ds^2=dr^2+\left(e^{2r}g_{ij}^{(0)}+g_{ij}^{(2)}+e^{2r}g_{ik}^{(2)}g_j^{(2)k}\right)dx^idx^j.$$
(13)
Given the boundary metric $`g_{ij}^{(0)}`$, the Einstein equations determine the trace of $`g_{ij}^{(2)}`$ automatically (which is enough to determine the boundary Weyl anomaly ), but do not specify the trace-free part of $`g_{ij}^{(2)}`$ . This ‘ambiguity’ is equivalent to the choice of a quadratic form\**\**\**It has recently been emphasized that this ambiguity is equivalently understood in Euclidean signature as a choice of projective structure on the boundary . on the boundary , which as noted in the introduction transforms anomalously under Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms. This is consistent with the corresponding transformation of the boundary stress-tensor under local conformal mappings, and these quantities are identified via the AdS/CFT correspondence . We will return to this issue in Section IV.

A Fefferman-Graham-type expansion can also be formulated in first-order form in terms of connections. Recall that a 3D Lorentzian geometry can be written in terms of two flat $`SL(2,\mathrm{})`$ gauge fields $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$. i.e. the dreibein and spin-connection are given by,

$$e_\mu =(A_\mu \overline{A}_\mu )/2w_\mu =(A_\mu +\overline{A}_\mu )/2$$
(14)
where $`A=A^aJ_a`$, $`\overline{A}=\overline{A}^aJ_a`$. We use the $`SL(2,\mathrm{})`$ basis $`\{J_+,J_{},J_3\}`$ with $`[J_+,J_{}]=2J_3`$, $`[J_3,J_\pm ]=\pm J_\pm `$ and Tr$`(J_+J_{})=1`$, Tr$`(J_3J_3)=1/2`$ .

The Einstein-Hilbert action is then equal to the difference of two Chern-Simons actions, supplemented by boundary terms which depend on the boundary conditions. Specifically, if we normalize the Einstein action as

$$I_{EH}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}\sqrt{|g|}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })+\text{boundary terms},$$
(15)
with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1`$ (in units where $`l=1`$), then

$$\frac{4\pi }{k}I_{EH}=I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]+\text{boundary terms},$$
(16)
where $`k=1/4G`$ is the level, and $`I_{CS}[A]`$ is the Chern-Simons functional,

$$I_{CS}[A]=_MA𝑑A+\frac{2}{3}A^3,$$
(17)
with $`M`$ the bulk 3D manifold. We will fix the required boundary terms once we have considered the asymptotic form of the on-shell connection in comparison with the Fefferman-Graham expansion in (13).

Recall that the space of solutions of three-dimensional Chern-Simons theory is the set of flat SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$) connections $`A=g^1dg`$ plus holonomies. We shall consider the pure AdS case with no holonomies, although we will comment on their inclusion in Section V. Note that the breakdown of gauge invariance at the boundary nonetheless prevents us from setting $`g=1`$.

The radial dependence of $`g`$ is itself given by a gauge transformation, and an appropriate asymptotic radial coordinate can be introduced as follows ,

$`A=e^{rJ_3}\alpha e^{rJ_3}+drJ_3`$ (18)
$`\overline{A}=e^{rJ_3}\overline{\alpha }e^{rJ_3}drJ_3`$ (19)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ are both $`SL(2,\mathrm{})`$valued flat connections defined on the surface at fixed††††††In general, to avoid singularities at $`r=0`$, and hence the introduction of other degrees of freedom, one must allow $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ to depend on $`r`$ near the horizon. We ignore this subtlety here as we are concerned with the asymptotics near $`r\mathrm{}`$. $`r`$.

Expanding $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ in the basis $`J_+,J_{},J_3`$, we obtain the series expansion for the 3D forms $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$,

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`(dr+\alpha ^3)J_3+e^r\alpha ^+J_++e^r\alpha ^{}J_{},`$ (20)
$`\overline{A}`$ $`=`$ $`(dr+\overline{\alpha }^3)J_3+e^r\overline{\alpha }^+J_++e^r\overline{\alpha }^{}J_{},`$ (21)
where we have used $`e^{rJ_3}J_\pm e^{rJ_3}=e^rJ_\pm `$. This series is consistent with the structure of the Fefferman-Graham expansion (13), and the corresponding dreibein $`e=(A\overline{A})/2`$ becomes,

$`e`$ $`=`$ $`\left(dr+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3)\right)J_3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^r(\alpha ^{}J_{}\overline{\alpha }^+J_+)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^r(\alpha ^+J_+\overline{\alpha }^{}J_{}).`$ (22)
In analogy with the metric treatment, we define the conformally induced boundary 2D zweibein as the leading term in the $`r\mathrm{}`$ limit,

$$e^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha ^{}J_{}\overline{\alpha }^+J_+\right),$$
(23)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=M`$ is identified as the conformal boundary of the Poincaré patch, and not the global boundary of AdS$`_3`$. Note that this procedure yields a completely general zweibein on the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is determined by two independent 1-forms from $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$. Note, however, that of the four components entering the zweibein, only three are (locally) independent as one may be decoupled in the line element by 2D Lorentz transformations.

At this point, it is clear that since we wish to fix the conformal structure at the boundary, it is necessary to impose suitable (conformal) Dirichlet conditions on $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }^+`$. Actually, since we want to fix the conformal structure, but not a particular representative, we write the corresponding condition in terms of $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$,

$$\delta (A\overline{A})^+=0,\delta (A\overline{A})^{}=0$$
(24)
The remaining boundary condition on $`A^3`$ and $`\overline{A}^3`$ follows by comparing the metric determined by (22) with the block-diagonal metric of the Fefferman-Graham expansion (13). We see that the off-diagonal term $`dr(\alpha _i^3\overline{\alpha }_i^3)dx^i`$ arising from (22) is canceled in the asymptotic regime on imposing the ‘Neumann’ boundary condition,

$$\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3=0.$$
(25)
We will see later that this condition is also sufficient to ensure that the boundary metric is torsion-free. These boundary conditions lead to a 3D geometry parametrised by the metric (following from (22)),

$$ds^2=dr^2e^{2r}\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^++(\alpha ^{}\alpha ^++\overline{\alpha }^+\overline{\alpha }^{})e^{2r}\alpha ^+\overline{\alpha }^{},$$
(26)
which we see is consistent with the truncated expansion in (13).

The appropriate action for imposing Dirichlet conditions on $`(A\overline{A})^\pm `$ and a Neumann condition on $`(A\overline{A})^3`$ is‡‡‡‡‡‡A comparison with the dreibein formulation may be useful here. The 3D Einstein-Hilbert action written in frame variables is $`R_ae^a`$ where $`R^a=dw^a+(1/2)ϵ_{bc}^aw^bw^c`$. Varying this action one picks up the boundary term $`\delta w_ae^a`$ and thus either a Dirichlet condition on $`w^a`$ or a Neumann condition on $`e^a`$ is required. Conversely, one can write an action appropriate for Dirichlet conditions on $`e^a`$ or Neumann conditions on $`w^a`$ by adding the boundary term $`w_ae^a`$. In the Chern-Simons formulation we consider the action $`I_\pm =I_{CS}[A]I_{CS}[\overline{A}]\pm A\overline{A}`$ whose variation yields the boundary term $`(A\pm \overline{A})\delta (A\overline{A})`$. The sign has to be chosen according to whether we want to fix the connection, $`A+\overline{A}`$, or the dreibein, $`A\overline{A}`$, and to whether these conditions are Dirichlet or Neumann. In our situation, we have a mixed case with Dirichlet conditions on $`(A\overline{A})^\pm `$ and Neumann conditions on $`(A\overline{A})^3`$. This leads directly to the action (27).

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k}}I`$ $`=`$ $`I[A]I[\overline{A}]+{\displaystyle _M}(A^+\overline{A}^{}+A^{}\overline{A}^+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}A^3\overline{A}^3).`$ (27)
The negative sign in front of the term $`A^3\overline{A}^3`$ is required to impose the Neumann condition on $`A^3\overline{A}^3`$. In other words, the variation of the action (27) will have a term $`_M(A^3\overline{A}^3)\delta (A^3+\overline{A}^3)`$. We demand the action to be stationary with respect to arbitrary variations of $`A^3+\overline{A}^3`$ at the boundary. The condition $`\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3=0`$ then follows as an equation of motion in the boundary theory.

It is important to note that this treatment has been manifestly covariant on the 2D surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular, we have not needed any coordinate choice to fix the boundary terms.

## III Boundary Moduli and the Polyakov Action

Before turning to the analysis of the bulk action (27), we consider the expected form of the boundary generating functional (i.e. the Polyakov action) in suitable test geometries on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The boundary metric (23) determined in the previous section is sufficiently general to allow an arbitrary dependence on local moduli.

To make this dependence manifest, we first recall that in 2D any metric is locally conformally flat, and thus can be represented in suitable coordinates as

$$ds^2=e^\phi ^{}dxd\overline{x},$$
(28)
where $`\phi ^{}(x,\overline{x})`$ is the conformal mode. We are considering boundary geometries with Lorentzian signature, and so $`\{x,\overline{x}\}`$ are independent real light-cone coordinates, although the transition to Euclidean signature (for low genus) will be clear from the notation.

The parametrization (28), while simple, hides the dependence on the ‘complex’ structure of the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. To make this manifest, we consider a quasi-conformal mapping $`\{x,\overline{x}\}\{z(x,\overline{x}),\overline{z}(x,\overline{x})\}`$, where $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ satisfy the equations,

$$\overline{}_{\overline{z}}x=\mu _zx,_z\overline{x}=\overline{\mu }\overline{}_{\overline{z}}\overline{x}.$$
(29)
where $`\mu `$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ are independent, real and bounded ($`|\mu |`$ and $`|\overline{\mu }|<1`$) functions, and are the (Lorentzian) analogue of Beltrami parameters. The metric (28) then takes the form

$$ds^2=e^\phi (dz+\mu d\overline{z})(d\overline{z}+\overline{\mu }dz).$$
(30)
We will restrict our attention to boundaries of cylindrical topology, and thus this parametrization is sufficient to describe an arbitrary metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ given a fixed coordinate system $`\{z,\overline{z}\}`$. The metric (30) also makes explicit the dependence on a representative of the conformal class ($`\phi `$), and on the deformations of the ‘complex’ structure $`(\mu ,\overline{\mu })`$ specifying the conformal class. These three moduli map to the three (independent) components of the boundary zweibein (23).

We will find it useful to consider particular examples of the general boundary geometry (30). Recalling that conformal symmetry in 2D is generated by chiral and anti-chiral stress tensors $`T(z)`$ and $`\overline{T}(\overline{z})`$, it will be sufficient to consider the dependence on the conformal mode $`\phi `$ and one chiral parameter $`\mu `$. These components of the metric are sources for the stress-energy tensors $`T^\phi (z,\overline{z})`$ and $`T(z)`$ respectively. Note that the distinction here is tied up with the question of whether (29) has a global solution, or in other words whether or not $`ds^2`$ and the metric $`d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\mathrm{exp}(\phi )dzd\overline{z}`$ are in the same conformal class (see e.g. ).

With this information in hand, we can determine the form of the Polyakov generating functional $`W_P[\phi ,\mu ,\overline{\mu }]`$ which exhibits the explicit dependence on the moduli. The general decomposition of $`W_P`$ for the metric (30) was obtained by Verlinde , but for simplicity we will restrict our attention to boundary geometries depending either on $`\phi `$ or $`\mu `$.

### A Conformal Gauge

Consider first the conformal gauge where, with a signature convention chosen for later convenience, the metric takes the form,

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=\mathrm{exp}(\phi )dzd\overline{z}.$$
(31)
The corresponding zweibein (23) is given by,

$$e^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha ^{}J_{}\overline{\alpha }^+J_+\right)=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^\varphi dzJ_{}e^{\overline{\varphi }}d\overline{z}J_+\right),$$
(32)
where $`\phi =\varphi +\overline{\varphi }`$, and we see that in general the conformal mode will receive contributions from both gauge fields $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ entering the bulk action. In this background the Polyakov action reduces to that of Liouville theory,

$$W_P[\phi ]=\frac{c}{96\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\left[\phi \overline{}\phi +\lambda ^2e^\phi \right].$$
(33)
where $`=/z`$, and $`\overline{}=/\overline{z}`$. There is clearly no curvature coupling as the reference background in this case (31) is flat.

### B Light-cone gauge

If instead we consider Polyakov’s light-cone gauge, with

$$d\stackrel{~}{s}^2=dzd\overline{z}\mu d\overline{z}^2,$$
(34)
the corresponding zweibein (23) is given by,

$$e^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\alpha ^{}J_{}\overline{\alpha }^+J_+\right)=\frac{1}{2}(dz+\mu d\overline{z})J_{}\frac{1}{2}d\overline{z}J_+,$$
(35)
which makes the chiral structure quite manifest. We see that the nontrivial dependence on the ‘Beltrami’ parameter $`\mu `$ enters only via $`A`$ and not $`\overline{A}`$. In contrast, it is clear that in an anti-chiral gauge, the dependence on $`\overline{\mu }`$ would enter via $`\overline{A}`$. Recalling that $`\mu `$ and $`\overline{\mu }`$ act as sources for the chiral and anti-chiral stress tensors $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$, which generate the two copies of the Virasoro algebra comprising the conformal group, this correspondence provides a simple map from ‘holomorphic’ factorization on the boundary to the obvious factorization of the two Chern-Simons systems in the bulk .

This conclusion is perhaps not as obvious as it might seem due to the collapse of the bulk dynamics to the boundary, where the boundary terms couple $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$. What we observe from (32) and (35) is that as expected the conformal mode reflects a violation of this factorization, while the light-cone gauge is special in that it is preserved. We might anticipate that the simple factorization observed in the light-cone gauge is related to Polyakov’s observation (see also ) of an SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$) structure in 2D gravity. However, the fact that (35) still involves both gauge fields $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ makes the relation obscure\**\**\**Note that the geometric data for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be combined to form a single flat SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$) connection ($`A=i\omega J_3+e^+J_++e^{}J_{}`$), where the constraint $`dA+AA=0`$ arises directly in Hamiltonian Chern-Simons theory., and we will not explore this issue further here.

Returning to the generating functional, when evaluated in the background (35), one obtains the light-cone gauge Polyakov action  (see also )

$$W_P[\mu ]=\frac{c}{48\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\frac{^2x}{x}\mu ,$$
(36)
where we have ignored the (constant) potential term and $`x=x(z,\overline{z})`$ satisfies the equation (29).

## IV The holographic generating functional

We now return to the bulk action (27), and determine its dependence on the boundary moduli for comparison with (33) and (36). The bulk equations of motion are simply $`d\alpha +\alpha \alpha =0`$ and similarly for $`\overline{\alpha }`$, and it is useful to write these equations explicitly in the SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$) basis,

$`d\alpha ^3+2\alpha ^+\alpha ^{}=0,`$ $`d\overline{\alpha }^3+2\overline{\alpha }^+\overline{\alpha }^{}=0`$ (37)
$`d\alpha ^{}\alpha ^3\alpha ^{}=0,`$ $`d\overline{\alpha }^++\overline{\alpha }^3\overline{\alpha }^+=0`$ (38)
$`d\alpha ^++\alpha ^3\alpha ^+=0,`$ $`d\overline{\alpha }^{}\overline{\alpha }^3\overline{\alpha }^{}=0`$ (39)
The components of the zweibein $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }^+`$ appear in (38). In view of (25), the pull-back of Eq. (38) to the boundary can be regarded as the torsion-free condition for the spin connection coefficient $`w\alpha ^3`$, with associated 2-form curvature $`=dw`$, and this observation will be useful in what follows.

The on-shell value of the Einstein-Hilbert action can be obtained straightforwardly by substituting (20) and (21) in (27). We obtain (suppressing the $``$-product),

$`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{k}}I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle _M}\mathrm{tr}\left[(\alpha )^3(\overline{\alpha })^3+3((\alpha )^2+(\overline{\alpha })^2)J_3dr\right]`$ (41)
$`+{\displaystyle _M}e^{2r}\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^++e^{2r}\alpha ^+\overline{\alpha }^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3.`$
As expected, this expression contains finite terms along with a quadratic (in $`e^r`$) and logarithmic divergence. Note that $`\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\alpha }`$ are still restricted by the flatness conditions (37,38,39).

### A Weyl anomaly

From the on-shell action (41), it is straightforward to recover the expression for the boundary Weyl anomaly which, following the discussion of , is given by the coefficient of the logarithmically divergent term, as all the other terms are Weyl invariant. The relevant term is $`\text{Tr}(\alpha ^2+\overline{\alpha }^2)J_3dr=(1/2)𝑑r_M(\alpha ^+\alpha ^{}+\overline{\alpha }^+\overline{\alpha }^{})`$. Using the equations of motion (37) and the Neumann boundary condition (25) the coefficient reduces to $`_M𝑑w=𝑑r_M`$, yielding the Weyl anomaly,

$$T_i^i=\frac{c}{24\pi }^{(0)},$$
(42)
in agreement with the calculation in , where $`^{(0)}`$ is the boundary Ricci scalar, and we have used $`c=6k`$.

### B Boundary generating functional

The other divergent term (which is Weyl invariant) is $`e^{2r}\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^+`$. This contribution is precisely the cosmological constant term in two dimensions because $`\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^+`$ is equal to the determinant of the zweibein (23). The appearance of this divergence is consistent with the analysis of , and it can be associated with a divergent bare cosmological constant in the CFT. Therefore, we shall renormalize this term, canceling the divergence but retaining a finite cosmological constant $`\lambda ^2`$. As in 2D quantum gravity, we find that the Liouville potential comes from this term.

The finite part of the action is therefore,

$$\frac{4\pi }{k}I_{reg}=_M(\alpha ^3\alpha ^+\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^3\overline{\alpha }^+\overline{\alpha }^{})\frac{1}{2}_M(\alpha ^3\overline{\alpha }^3+2\lambda ^2\alpha ^{}\overline{\alpha }^+).$$
(43)
and, since $`\alpha =g^1dg`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }=\overline{g}^1d\overline{g}`$, it only depends on the boundary values of the fields. Note that in general the group elements $`g`$ and $`\overline{g}`$ are not single-valued.

Localizing the action (43) in general requires a parametrization of the holonomies of the gauge fields, thus specifying the topology in terms of the conjugacy classes of SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$). We will return to this issue in Section V, but as mentioned earlier it will not be necessary to explicitly specify a particular class as we are interested in the dependence of $`I_{reg}`$ on local quantities. It will be sufficient here to choose a suitable local patch of AdS$`_3`$, which is consistent with a choice of boundary coordinates.

#### 1 Boundary conformal gauge

The simplest choice is one in which the metric may be written in conformally flat form. The appropriate boundary zweibein (32) is given by

$$e^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}\left(e^\varphi dxJ_{}e^{\overline{\varphi }}d\overline{x}J_+\right),$$
(44)
where the conformal mode of the metric is then $`\phi =\varphi +\overline{\varphi }`$. Recalling the discussion of Section III, this coordinate choice hides the moduli in the conformal mode $`\phi `$, as in (28). This coordinate system is convenient for deriving the effective action, and the dependence on moduli can then be made explicit by performing a quasi-conformal transformation.

This choice of the boundary metric may be achieved by making use of the following Gauss decomposition of the SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$) group elements,

$$g=e^{xJ_{}}e^{\varphi J_3}e^{y^{}J_+},\overline{g}=e^{\overline{x}J_+}e^{\overline{\varphi }J_3}e^{\overline{y}^{}J_{}},$$
(45)
which yields the following expressions for the Chern-Simons currents,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^+=e^\varphi (y^2dx+dy)\hfill & \overline{\alpha }^+=e^{\overline{\varphi }}d\overline{x}\hfill \\ \alpha ^{}=e^\varphi dx\hfill & \overline{\alpha }^{}=e^{\overline{\varphi }}(\overline{y}^2d\overline{x}+d\overline{y})\hfill \\ \alpha ^3=2ydx+d\varphi \hfill & \overline{\alpha }^3=2\overline{y}d\overline{x}d\overline{\varphi }.\hfill \end{array}$$
(46)
Here we have made the convenient replacements $`y^{}=e^\varphi y`$ and $`\overline{y}^{}=e^{\overline{\varphi }}\overline{y}`$.

The action written in terms of these fields now takes a local form on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ given by,

$$\frac{4\pi }{k}I_{reg}[\phi ,x,\overline{x};y,\overline{y}]=\frac{1}{2}2\phi (dxdyd\overline{x}d\overline{y})+(4y\overline{y}+\lambda ^2e^\phi )dxd\overline{x}$$
(47)
with $`\phi =\varphi +\overline{\varphi }`$ the conformal mode in the metric. Note that the mode $`\varphi \overline{\varphi }`$ has decoupled, which is a consequence of the Neumann boundary condition (25) on the spin connection, and our neglect of holonomies (see e.g. ).

The variables $`y`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ are auxiliary fields which can be eliminated by their own equations of motion. Using the diffeomorphism invariance of (47) to choose $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$ as coordinates, the action reads,

$$I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\phi ,y,\overline{y}]=\frac{k}{8\pi }d^2x\left[2\phi (\overline{}y+\overline{y})+4y\overline{y}+\lambda ^2e^\phi \right],$$
(48)
where the derivatives are with respect to $`x`$ and $`\overline{x}`$. The fields $`y`$ and $`\overline{y}`$ can be integrated out and (ignoring boundary terms) we obtain the Liouville action for the conformal mode $`\phi `$,

$$I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\phi ]=\frac{c}{96\pi }d^2x\left[\phi \overline{}\phi +\lambda ^2e^\phi \right].$$
(49)
where we have used $`k=1/(4G)`$ and the value of $`c`$ given in (1). We see that this agrees with the evaluation of the Polyakov action in the background (44), as given in Section III. It is also straightforward to check that the constraint equations for $`y=\phi /2`$ and $`\overline{y}=\overline{}\phi /2`$, do imply $`\alpha ^{(3)}=\overline{\alpha }^{(3)}`$, as required by the 3D variational principle. This result, combined with the fact that the remaining boundary conditions specify a fixed boundary zweibein, imply that the action (49) is indeed to be interpreted as a functional $`I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\phi ]`$ which generates correlation functions of the boundary stress tensor.

We can now verify the result for the Weyl anomaly (42), by considering the variation of the generating functional $`I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\phi ]`$ directly. We obtain,

$$T_i^i=2e^\phi \frac{\delta I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\phi ]}{\delta \phi }=\frac{c}{24\pi }e^\phi \overline{}\phi ,$$
(50)
which is equivalent to (42) in the background (44), where $`^{(0)}=e^\phi \overline{}\phi `$, and we have dropped the dependence on the cosmological constant.

#### 2 Boundary light-cone gauge

To exhibit the dependence on the chiral moduli $`\mu `$, we consider the alternate boundary zweibein (35)

$$e^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2}(dz+\mu d\overline{z})J_{}\frac{1}{2}d\overline{z}J_+,$$
(51)
which leads to the light-cone gauge metric (34). The decomposition of the group element for this case is conveniently achieved by noting that (51) may be obtained from the zweibein (44) in conformal gauge by the quasi-conformal mapping,

$$\varphi \mathrm{ln}x,\overline{\varphi }0,$$
(52)
where $`x`$ satisfies the Beltrami-type equation (29), while $`\overline{x}=\overline{z}`$, and $``$ now denotes $`/z`$.

The potential term is unchanged under this mapping, so we concentrate on the kinetic part. Evaluating (47) in this background, we find,

$$I_{reg}[x;y,\overline{y}]=\frac{k}{8\pi }d^2z\left[2\mathrm{ln}x(x\overline{}y\overline{}xy+\overline{y})+4y\overline{y}x\right],$$
(53)
and, again ignoring boundary terms, we can integrate out $`y`$ and $`\overline{y}`$. Making use of (29) we find, $`2y=^2x/(x)^2`$ and $`2\overline{y}=\mu `$, leading to

$$I_{\mathrm{reg}}[\mu ]=\frac{c}{48\pi }_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\frac{^2x}{x}\mu .$$
(54)
which we recognize as the light-cone gauge Polyakov action $`W_P[\mu ]`$ given in (36).

One can generalize this approach to a more general background, but these examples are sufficient for us to conclude that the dependence on the boundary moduli is correctly encoded in the bulk action, consistent with the AdS/CFT correspondence. However, as mentioned in Section 3, specifying the boundary metric does not uniquely determine the bulk geometry due to the possibility for Brown-Henneaux transformations. We will now explore the consequences of this for the boundary generating functional.

### C Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms and stress tensor expectation values

The consistency of the results of the preceding section hides the ambiguity of the Fefferman-Graham expansion regarding the trace-free part of the first subleading term in the bulk metric. This ambiguity, equivalent to specifying the expectation value of the boundary stress-tensor, is associated with the asymptotic symmetry of the space of bulk solutions under Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms , and the ambiguity can be rephrased as specifying the position of a particular solution along a Brown-Henneaux orbit.

The finite generalization of the mapping (3) corresponds to

$$T(z)(f)^2T(f)\frac{c}{24\pi }\{f,z\},$$
(55)
where $`f(z)`$ represents a local diffeomorphism of the circle in the case that we start with a boundary of cylindrical topology, and $`\{f,z\}`$ is the Schwarzian derivative,

$$\{f,z\}\frac{^3f}{f}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{^2f}{f}\right)^2.$$
(56)
It is the Schwarzian term in the anomalous mapping (55) which leads to a finite charge  characterizing the position of a given solution on a Brown-Henneaux orbit. We will now explore the consequences of this mapping for the results of the previous section.

#### 1 Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms acting on the currents

The Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms have a simple and direct action on the Chern-Simons currents. Let us go back to the expression for the currents (46) and impose the conditions $`\alpha ^3=\overline{\alpha }^3`$ (which are equivalent to the equations of motion for $`y`$ and $`\overline{y}`$). In conformal coordinates $`x=z`$ and $`\overline{x}=\overline{z}`$, these conditions read $`y=(1/2)\phi `$ and $`\overline{y}=(1/2)\overline{}\phi `$ and the currents take the form,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\alpha ^+=\frac{1}{2}e^\varphi \left[T^\phi dz+d\overline{z}\right]\hfill & \\ \alpha ^{}=e^\varphi dz\hfill & \\ \alpha ^3=\overline{\varphi }dz+\overline{}\varphi d\overline{z}.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(57)
where $`=\overline{}\phi `$ is the scalar coefficient of the 2-form curvature of the background (44), and

$$T^\phi =\frac{24\pi }{c}T=^2\phi \frac{1}{2}(\phi )^2$$
(58)
can be identified with the Liouville stress-energy tensor of the conformal mode $`\phi `$. Note that similar formulae arise in the ‘anti-holomorphic’ sector.

Now consider the following local conformal transformations,

$`zf(z),`$ $`e^\varphi e^\varphi (f)^1`$ (59)
$`\overline{z}\overline{f}(\overline{z}),`$ $`e^{\overline{\varphi }}e^{\overline{\varphi }}(\overline{}\overline{f})^1.`$ (60)
We observe that the conformal factor $`\phi `$ then transforms appropriately as a Liouville field $`e^\phi e^\phi (f)^1(\overline{}\overline{f})^1`$.

Both $`\alpha ^{}`$ and $`\alpha ^3`$ are trivially invariant under these transformations. In order to analyze the transformation of $`\alpha ^+`$ we note that the combination $`e^\varphi dz`$ has conformal dimension $`(2,0)`$ while $`e^\varphi d\overline{z}`$ has conformal dimension $`(1,1)`$. Since $`T^\phi `$ has conformal dimension $`(2,0)`$ and $`\overline{}\varphi `$ has conformal dimension $`(1,1)`$, the component $`\alpha ^+`$ transforms anomalously via the Schwarzian derivative. This is consistent with the discussion in Section I on recognizing that $`\alpha ^+`$ enters the subleading term in the metric and encodes the boundary stress-energy tensor via $`T^\phi `$. This can be made more explicit by considering the form of the bulk metric.

#### 2 The general bulk metric and stress tensor expectation values

We can insert the expressions for the currents into (26) to obtain the corresponding form of the bulk metric. We find,

$`ds_{3D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dr^2e^{2r+\phi }dxd\overline{x}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}T^\phi dx^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{T}^\phi d\overline{x}^2+dxd\overline{x}`$ (62)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2r\phi }(T^\phi dx+d\overline{x})(\overline{T}^\phi d\overline{x}+dx),`$
where, from the subleading terms, we identify the general form of the expansion given in (4). Indeed, the metric (62) is the general solution associated with a conformally flat boundary geometry, as determined recently in . However, the mapping (60) implies that the metric (62), in which there is a direct correspondence between the subleading terms and the Liouville stress-energy tensor for the representative boundary metric, is not completely general. The fact that $`T^\phi `$ transforms anomalously is conveniently encoded in (62) by writing it in a new coordinate system $`\{x,\overline{x}\}\{z=f(x),\overline{z}=\overline{f}(\overline{x})\}`$,

$`ds_{3D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dr^2e^{2r+\phi }dzd\overline{z}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(T^\phi +\stackrel{~}{T})dz^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\overline{T}^\phi +\stackrel{~}{\overline{T}})d\overline{z}^2+dzd\overline{z}`$ (64)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}e^{2r\phi }((T^\phi +\stackrel{~}{T})dz+d\overline{z})((\overline{T}^\phi +\stackrel{~}{\overline{T}})d\overline{z}+dz),`$
where $`=/z`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{T}=\stackrel{~}{T}(z)`$ is an arbitrary chiral function given by $`\stackrel{~}{T}(z)=c\{x,z\}/24\pi `$. This representation makes explicit the anomalous shift (55) of the subleading terms under Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms, in accordance with the mapping $`T(z)=T_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$ to the dual CFT .

In order to understand how the generating functional is consistent with this shift (via (10)), it is convenient to consider a particular example. Specifically, setting $`\phi `$ to zero in (64), the metric reduces to (dropping the tildes)

$`ds_{3D}^2`$ $`=`$ $`dr^2\left(e^{2r}+e^{2r}T\overline{T}\right)dzd\overline{z}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Tdz^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\overline{T}d\overline{z}^2,`$ (65)
which is equivalent to the general solution with a flat boundary geometry obtained in . In interpreting (10) for such a background it is important to recall that the boundary metric is only specified up to a Weyl rescaling. Thus, the actual boundary metric in (65) is any geometry in the same conformal class as the flat one. From (64), we see that the ambiguity reflects additive ‘free field’ shifts in the conformal mode $`\phi `$. This explains why the generating functional is actually nonvanishing for (65) and leads on variation, via (10), to nonzero expectation values for $`T_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$ and $`\overline{T}_{\mathrm{CFT}}`$. Following , this interpretation of the allowed free-field shifts in $`\phi `$ may also be understood in terms of the connection between the oscillator modes in an expansion of the Liouville field $`\phi `$, and the bulk ‘gravitational wave’ perturbations specified by $`T`$ and $`\overline{T}`$.

In the discussion above, we concentrated for simplicity on the boundary conformal gauge. If we instead consider boundary geometries in the conformal class of the light-cone metric (34), then the situation is similar with the complication that local conformal transformations on the boundary amount to ‘chiral’ free-field shifts in the conformal mode. The stress-energy tensor, $`T(x)=c\{x,z\}/24\pi `$ given by the variation of (54), then shifts according to (55) via the Schwarzian which is now chiral with respect to the light-cone structure determined by $`\mu `$ (see e.g. ).

## V Global issues and concluding remarks

Making use of the Chern-Simons formalism, we have shown that the dependence of the regularized bulk gravitational action on local moduli of the boundary metric is precisely as one would expect for the Polyakov action, consistent with the AdS/CFT correspondence. In this final section we comment on some of the important features that were ignored in the analysis of Section IV, specifically global data associated with the holonomy of the gauge fields.

One of the main motivations for this work was to understand the manifestation of the data specifying the bulk solutions in the boundary effective action. In 3D, we can roughly characterize this bulk data in terms of Brown-Henneaux ‘gravitational waves’ at the boundary, and global data conveniently described by holonomies of the Chern-Simons gauge field. The latter can alternatively be thought of as the modes associated with ‘large’ Brown-Henneaux diffeomorphisms which change the topology. The construction of the boundary effective action in Section IV, in contrast to earlier analyses  which made use of the WZW model at intermediate stages\*†\*†\*†As noted earlier, the work of Coussaert et al.  proceeded along different lines. Nonetheless, we can consider using our formulation to obtain the analogue of the CHvD action  by solving the constraints, with appropriate fall-off conditions for the fields at infinity. In doing this, an important distinction is that we need to identify their Liouville field $`\varphi `$ with the Bäcklund transform of the field $`\phi `$ appearing here (provided we choose $`\lambda ^2=0`$ as the renormalization condition). i.e. $`\phi =\varphi +e^{(\varphi \phi )/2}`$, $`\overline{}\phi =\overline{}\varphi e^{(\varphi +\phi )/2}`$ . This is due to the use of the Polyakov-Wiegmann identity in  which performs the appropriate canonical transformation, and this mapping then explains the form of the bulk metric which can be determined in the approach of ., should allow a more direct analysis of the dependence of the effective action on the global bulk data (see also ). We plan to report on this elsewhere. However, some comments are in order regarding the need for this extension of the effective action in the analysis of Section IV.

Recall that, in general, the action (43) can only be localized once a suitable choice of the holonomies tr$`(\mathrm{exp}A)`$ and tr$`(\mathrm{exp}\overline{A})`$ is made, thus specifying the topology. Within SL(2,$`\mathrm{}`$), these fall into three conjugacy classes: elliptic holonomies, conjugate to rotations, correspond to conical singularities; hyperbolic holonomies, conjugate to dilations, correspond to non-extreme back holes; while extreme black holes are associated with parabolic holonomies conjugate to translations . Including this global data will be important in extending the considerations both of this paper, and of , to bulk and boundary geometries of more complicated topology.

As emphasized in , the classification of bulk conjugacy classes is mirrored in the classical solutions of Liouville theory, or in other words the uniformization of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Thus one suspects that the holonomies map to zero modes of the Liouville field, and it would be interesting to understand how this applies in the context of the generating functional studied here, where the Liouville field in question can be associated with the bulk radial scale rather than a dynamical field as in . In practice, this picture is complicated because in generic cases there is no global Liouville field corresponding to the bulk solution . A straightforward example is given by a spinning black hole. For nonzero angular momentum, the corresponding Liouville solution can only be specified locally. It is interesting to note in this regard that the existence of global solutions for the Liouville field is closely connected with the existence of Killing spinors . The absence of a global Liouville solution for the spinning black hole then correlates with the absence of Killing spinors for the generic BTZ solution . This suggests that the holonomies of bulk solutions will be an important ingredient in mapping out the zero-mode structure of the Liouville field, and consequently the global structure of the geometry seen by the dual CFT.

Acknowledgements

MB thanks M. Henneaux for a useful conversation, and AR thanks the Departamento de Física, P. Universidad Católica de Chile, where part of this work was completed, for warm hospitality. This work was supported in part by FONDECYT (Chile) Grants # 1000744, 7000744, and 3000026.