text:
# Kashaev’s conjecture and the Chern–Simons invariants of knots and links

## 1. introduction

In , R.M. Kashaev defined a link invariant associated with the quantum dilogarithm, depending on a positive integer $`N`$, which is denoted by $`L_N`$ for a link $`L`$. Moreover, in , he conjectured that for any hyperbolic link $`L`$, the asymptotics at $`N\mathrm{}`$ of $`\left|L_N\right|`$ gives its volume, that is

$$\mathrm{vol}(L)=2\pi \underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}\left|L_N\right|}{N}$$

with $`\mathrm{vol}(L)`$ the hyperbolic volume of the complement of $`L`$. He showed that this conjecture is true for three doubled knots $`4_1`$, $`5_2`$, and $`6_1`$. Unfortunately his proof is not mathematically rigorous.

Afterwards, in , the first two authors proved that for any link $`L`$, Kashaev’s invariant $`L_N`$ is equal to the colored Jones polynomial evaluated at $`\mathrm{exp}\left(2\pi \sqrt{1}/N\right)`$, which is written by $`J_N(L)`$, and extended Kashaev’s conjecture as follows.

###### Conjecture 1.1 (Volume Conjecture).

$$L=\frac{2\pi }{v_3}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}|J_N(L)|}{N},$$

where $`L`$ is the simplicial volume of the complement of $`L`$ and $`v_3`$ is the volume of the ideal regular tetrahedron.

Note that the hyperbolic volume $`\mathrm{vol}(L)`$ of a hyperbolic link $`L`$ is equal to $`L`$ multiplied by $`v_3`$. This conjecture is not true for links in general, as $`J_N(L)`$ vanishes for a split link $`L`$. Note also that it is shown by Kashaev and O. Tirkkonen in  that the volume conjecture holds for torus knots. See  and  for discussions about Kashaev’s conjecture for hyperbolic knots from the viewpoint of tetrahedron decomposition.

In this paper, following Kashaev’s way to analyze the asymptotic behavior of the invariant, we observe numerically, by using MAPLE V (a product of Waterloo Maple Inc.) and SnapPea , that for the hyperbolic knots $`6_3`$, $`8_9`$, $`8_{20}`$, and for the Whitehead link, the colored Jones polynomials are related to the hyperbolic volumes and the Chern–Simons invariants. Note that the knots $`6_3`$ and $`8_9`$ are not doubles of the unknot.

We also discuss a relation between the asymptotic behavior of $`J_N(L)`$ and the Chern–Simons invariant of the complement of the above-mentioned links $`L`$, and propose the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture 1.2 (Complexification of Kashaev’s conjecture).

Let $`L`$ be a hyperbolic link. Then the following formula holds.

$$J_N(L)\mathrm{exp}\frac{N}{2\pi }(\mathrm{vol}(L)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(L))(N\mathrm{})$$

where $`\mathrm{CS}(L)`$ is the Chern–Simons invariant of $`L`$ . Note that the complement of $`L`$ is a hyperbolic manifold with cusps.

The statement of this conjecture will be given more properly in the last section.

###### Acknowledgments.

We thank the participants in the meeting “Volume conjecture”, October 1999 and those in the workshop “Recent Progress toward the Volume Conjecture”, March 2000, both of which were held at the International Institute for Advanced Study. The latter was financially supported by the Research Institute for Mathematical Sciences, Kyoto University. We are grateful to both of the institutes.

H.M., J.M. and M.O. express their gratitude to Graduate School of Mathematics, Kyushu University, where the essential part of this work was carried out in December 1999.

Thanks are also due to S. Kojima for his suggestion of the Chern–Simons invariant, to K. Mimachi for valuable discussions, and to K. Hikami for informing Pari-Gp  and fitting.

## 2. Preliminaries

First we will briefly review the colored Jones polynomials of links following . It is obtained from the quantum group $`U_q(sl(2,))`$ and its $`N`$-dimensional irreducible representation.

Let $`L`$ be an oriented link. We consider a $`(1,1)`$-tangle presentation of $`L`$, obtained by cutting a component of the link. We assume that all crossing and local extreme points are as in Figure 1. We can calculate the $`N`$-colored Jones polynomial $`J_L(N)`$ evaluated at the $`N`$-th root of unity for $`L`$ in the following way. We start with a labeling of the edges of the $`(1,1)`$-tangle presentation with labels $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},N1\}`$. Here we label the two edges containing the end points of the tangle by $`0`$. Following the labeling, we associate a positive (respectively negative) crossing with the element $`R_{kl}^{ij}`$ (respectively $`\overline{R}_{kl}^{ij}`$), a maximal point $``$ labeled by $`i`$ with the element $`s^{2i1}`$, and a minimal point $``$ labeled by $`i`$ with the element $`s^{2i+1}`$ with $`s=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\pi \sqrt{1}}{N}\right)`$ as in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Here $`R_{kl}^{ij}`$ and $`\overline{R}_{kl}^{ij}`$ are given by

$`R_{kl}^{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(N1i,j)}{}}}\delta _{l,i+n}\delta _{k,jn}{\displaystyle \frac{(i+n)!(N1+nj)!}{(i)!(N1j)!(n)!}}s^{2(i\frac{N1}{2})(j\frac{N1}{2})n(ij)\frac{n(n+1)}{2}},`$
$`\overline{R}_{kl}^{ij}`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{min}(N1j,i)}{}}}\delta _{l,in}\delta _{k,j+n}{\displaystyle \frac{(j+n)!(N1+ni)!}{(j)!(N1i)!(n)!}}(1)^n`$
$`\times s^{2(i\frac{N1}{2})(j\frac{N1}{2})n(ij)+\frac{n(n+1)}{2}}`$
with $`(n)!=(ss^1)(s^2s^2)\mathrm{}(s^ns^n)`$.

After multiplying all elements associated to the critical points, we sum up over all labelings. Here we ignore framings of links.

Let us calculate the colored Jones polynomial of the Whitehead link as an example. We can label each edge in the following way, noting Kronecker’s deltas in $`R_{kl}^{ij}`$ and $`\overline{R}_{kl}^{ij}`$.

Figure 2

We have to rotate a crossing where edges go up. In that case we use $``$ and/or $``$ to calculate the invariant.

Then we calculate the formula

(1)
$$J_N(L)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}0i,j,kN1\\ i,jk\end{array}}{}\frac{(q)_i(q)_j\{(q)_{N1k}\}^2}{\{(q)_k\}^2(q)_{N1i}(q)_{N1j}(q)_{ik}(q)_{jk}}q^{k(i+j+1)},$$

where $`q=s^2=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{2\pi \sqrt{1}}{N}\right)`$. Here $`(x)_k=(1x)(1x^2)\mathrm{}(1x^k)`$.

Next the Chern–Simons invariant of a link is defined as follows. Let $`𝒜`$ be the set of all $`SO(3)`$-connections of the trivial $`SO(3)`$-bundle of a closed three-manifold $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{cs}:𝒜`$ the Chern–Simons functional defined by

$$\mathrm{cs}(A)=\frac{1}{8\pi ^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA\right).$$

The Chern–Simons invariant of the connection $`A`$ is then defined to be the integral

$$\mathrm{cs}_M(A)=_{s(M)}\mathrm{cs}(A)/,$$

where the integral is over a section $`s`$ of the $`SO(3)`$-bundle (i.e., an orthonormal frame field on $`M`$) . If $`M`$ is hyperbolic we define $`\mathrm{cs}(M)`$ to be the Chern–Simons invariant of the connection defined by the hyperbolic metric.

The definition of the Chern–Simons invariant for hyperbolic three-manifolds with cusps is due to R. Meyerhoff . It is defined modulo $`1/2`$ by using a special singular frame field which is linear near the cusps. See  for details. See also  how it is computed by SnapPea . Throughout this paper we use another normalization $`\mathrm{CS}(M)=2\pi ^2\mathrm{cs}(M)`$ so that $`\mathrm{vol}(M)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(M)`$ is a natural complexification of the hyperbolic volume $`\mathrm{vol}(M)`$ (see ).

## 3. knot $`6_3`$

Let us calculate the colored Jones polynomial of the knot $`6_3`$ using the labeling as in Figure 3.

Figure 3

Putting $`k=n_1+n_2`$ and using the formula in

(2)
$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{N1}{}}(1)^is^{\beta i}\left[\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ i\end{array}\right]=\underset{j=1}{\overset{\alpha }{}}(1s^{\beta +\alpha +12j})$$

with $`\alpha =k`$, $`i=n_1`$, and $`\beta =k12N`$, we calculate

$`J_N(6_3)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{0k,l,m}{k+l+mN1}}{}}(1)^{k+l}s^{\frac{(l+k)(l+k+1)}{2}\frac{(m+k)(m+k+1)}{2}+\frac{k(k+1)}{2}+2(ml)(k+1)+N(ml+k)}`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(N1l)!(N1m)!(l+m+k)!(N1)!(1s^{2N2})\mathrm{}(1s^{2N2k})}{(N1lmk)!(N1lk)!(N1mk)!(l)!(m)!(k)!}}.`$
The colored Jones polynomial of the knot $`6_3`$ is given by

(3)
$$J_N(6_3)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}k,l,m0\\ k+l+mN1\end{array}}{}\left|\frac{(q)_{k+l+m}}{(q)_l(q)_m}\right|^2(q)_{k+l}(\overline{q})_{m+k}q^{(ml)(k+1)}.$$

We review of the technique in . For a complex number $`p`$ and a positive real number $`\gamma `$ with $`|\mathrm{Re}p|<\pi +\gamma `$, we define

$$S_\gamma (p)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{1}{4}_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{e^{px}}{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi x)\mathrm{sinh}(\gamma x)}\frac{dx}{x}.$$

Here $`\mathrm{Re}`$ denotes the real part. This function has two properties:

(a) $`\left(1+\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{1}p)\right)S_\gamma (p+\gamma )=S_\gamma (p\gamma );`$

(b) $`S_\gamma (p)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma \sqrt{1}}}\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\mathrm{exp}(\sqrt{1}p)\right)\right)(\gamma 0),`$

where

$$\mathrm{Li}_2(z)=_0^z\frac{\mathrm{log}(1u)}{u}𝑑u.$$

We put

$$f_\gamma (p)=\frac{S_\gamma (\gamma \pi )}{S_\gamma (p)},\overline{f}_\gamma (p)=\frac{S_\gamma (p)}{S_\gamma (\pi \gamma )},$$

so that

$$(q)_k=f_\gamma (\pi +(2k+1)\gamma ),(\overline{q})_k=\overline{f}_\gamma (\pi +(2k+1)\gamma ).$$

Following Kashaev’s way, we rewrite the formula (3) as a multiple integral with appropriately chosen contours. (Note that there is considerable doubt as to the contours.) By using the property (b), it can be asymptotically approximated by

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{6_3}(z,u,v)𝑑z𝑑u𝑑v$$

with $`\gamma =\pi /N`$. Here $`z`$, $`u`$, and $`v`$ correspond to $`q^k`$, $`q^m`$, and $`q^l`$ respectively, and

$`V_{6_3}(z,u,v)`$ $`=\mathrm{Li}_2(zuv)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{zuv}}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_2(zv)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{zu}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(u)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(v)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\right)\mathrm{log}z\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}.`$
Then there exists a stationary point

$$(z_0,u_0,v_0)=(0.2043230.978904\sqrt{1},1.60838+0.558752\sqrt{1},0.554788+0.192734\sqrt{1})$$

of $`V_{6_3}`$ with

$$\mathrm{Im}V_{6_3}(z_0,u_0,v_0)<0,\mathrm{arg}z_0+\mathrm{arg}u_0+\mathrm{arg}v_02\pi ,$$

and we have

$`\mathrm{Im}V_{6_3}(z_0,u_0,v_0)=5.693021\mathrm{},`$
$`\mathrm{Re}V_{6_3}(z_0,u_0,v_0)=0.`$
From values of $`\mathrm{vol}(6_3)`$ and $`\mathrm{CS}(6_3)`$ given by SnapPea, we see that the equation

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{6_3}(z_0,u_0,v_0)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(6_3)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(6_3)}{2\gamma }$$

holds up to digits shown above.

## 4. Knot $`8_9`$

We label the edges of the $`(1,1)`$-tangle presentation of the knot $`8_9`$ as in Figure 4.

Figure 4

We obtain the following formula of the colored Jones polynomial of the knot $`8_9`$, where we put $`l=m_1+m_2+k_1+k_2`$ and use the formula (2):

$`J_N(8_9)=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\begin{array}{c}0l,m_1,m_2,n_1,n_2N1\\ m_1+n_1,m_2+n_2l\\ m_1+m_2l\end{array}}{}}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(q)_{lm_1}(q)_l(q)_{lm_2}}{(q)_{m_1}(q)_{m_2}(q)_{n_1}(q)_{n_2}}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{q})_{ln_1}(q)_{ln_2}}{(q)_{lm_1n_1}(\overline{q})_{lm_2n_2}}}`$
$`\times q^{(m_2m_1)(lm_1m_2)+(n_2n_1)(ln_1n_2)+m_2m_1+n_2n_1},`$
which can be asymptotically approximated by

$$\int \cdots \int \mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{8_9}(x,y,z,u,v)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑u𝑑v,$$

where $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, $`u`$, and $`v`$ correspond to $`q^l`$, $`q^{m_1}`$, $`q^{m_2}`$, $`q^{n_1}`$, and $`q^{n_2}`$ respectively, and

$`V_{8_9}(x,y,z,u,v)`$
$`=\mathrm{Li}_2(xy)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xy}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(xz)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xz}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(xu)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xv}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(y)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2(u)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(v)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{v}}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_2(xzv)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xyu}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{y}{z}}\mathrm{log}(xzv)\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{u}{v}}\mathrm{log}(xyu).`$
Consequently we have

$`\mathrm{Im}V_{8_9}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)=7.5881802\mathrm{},`$
$`\mathrm{Re}V_{8_9}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)=0`$
for

$`x_0`$ $`=0.73660116090.6763273835\sqrt{1},`$
$`y_0`$ $`=0.44721760750.1647027124\sqrt{1},`$
$`z_0`$ $`=1.9689890440.7251455025\sqrt{1},`$
$`u_0`$ $`=0.38591125820.0202712198\sqrt{1},`$
$`v_0`$ $`=2.5841391260.1357401508\sqrt{1}`$
satisfying

$$\mathrm{Im}V_{8_9}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)<0,\mathrm{arg}x_0+\mathrm{arg}y_0+\mathrm{arg}u_02\pi ,$$

$$\mathrm{arg}x_0+\mathrm{arg}z_0+\mathrm{arg}v_02\pi ,\mathrm{arg}x_0+\mathrm{arg}u_0+\mathrm{arg}v_02\pi .$$

It follows from the calculation by SnapPea that

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{8_9}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(8_9)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(8_9)}{2\gamma },$$

up to digits shown above.

## 5. Knot $`8_{20}`$

In this section, we discuss a relation between the asymptotic behavior of the colored Jones polynomial and the Chern–Simons invariant for the knot $`8_{20}`$. We label each edge in the diagram of the knot in Figure 5.

Figure 5

The $`N`$-colored Jones polynomial of the knot $`8_{20}`$ is given by

(4)
$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}j,lki+lj+m\\ ji\\ 0i,j,k,l,mN1\end{array}}{}\frac{\{(\overline{q})_i(q)_k(\overline{q})_m\}^2}{\{(\overline{q})_j(q)_l\}^2(q)_{kl}(\overline{q})_{ik+l}(\overline{q})_{j+mil}(q)_{ij}(q)_{kj}}q^{k+m+im+kmil},$$

which can be rewritten in the integral

$$\int \cdots \int \mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{8_{20}}(x,y,z,u,v)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z𝑑u𝑑v$$

with

$`V_{8_{20}}(x,y,z,u,v)`$ $`=2\mathrm{Li}_2(x)+2\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{y}}\right)+2\mathrm{Li}_2(z)2\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}\right)2\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xy}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{y}}\right)\mathrm{Li}_2(zu)+\mathrm{Li}_2(xzu)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{xyuv}}\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{log}x\mathrm{log}u+\mathrm{log}x\mathrm{log}v\mathrm{log}z\mathrm{log}v+{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{2}}.`$
Here $`x`$, $`y`$, $`z`$, $`u`$, and $`v`$ correspond to $`q^i`$, $`q^j`$, $`q^k`$, $`q^l`$, and $`q^m`$ respectively.

Stationary points are solutions to partial differential equations

$$\frac{V_{8_{20}}}{x}=\frac{V_{8_{20}}}{y}=\frac{V_{8_{20}}}{z}=\frac{V_{8_{20}}}{u}=\frac{V_{8_{20}}}{v}=0.$$

From these equations, we have the following system of algebraic equations

$$\left(1x\right)^2\left(1\frac{1}{xyuv}\right)uv=\left(1\frac{1}{xy}\right)(1xzu),$$

$$\left(1\frac{1}{xy}\right)\left(1\frac{z}{y}\right)=\left(1\frac{1}{y}\right)^2\left(1\frac{1}{xyuv}\right),$$

$$\left(1z\right)^2\left(1xzu\right)v=\left(1zu\right)\left(1\frac{z}{y}\right),$$

$$\left(1zu\right)\left(1\frac{1}{xyuv}\right)x=\left(1\frac{1}{u}\right)^2\left(1xzu\right),$$

$$\left(1\frac{1}{v}\right)^2z=\left(1\frac{1}{xyuv}\right)x.$$

Using MAPLE V, we get a stationary point $`(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)`$ which satisfies the conditions

$$\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u_0}\mathrm{arg}z_0,\mathrm{arg}z_0\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{x_0}+\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u_0}$$

from the range in the summation in (4), and

$$\mathrm{Im}V_{8_{20}}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)<0,$$

where $`\mathrm{Im}`$ denotes the imaginary part. Note that the range of (4) can be read as

$$\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u}\mathrm{arg}z\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{x}+\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u},\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{x}+\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{y}+\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u}\mathrm{arg}v,$$

$$0\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{x}+\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{y},0\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{x},\mathrm{arg}z,\mathrm{arg}\frac{1}{u},\mathrm{arg}v2\pi .$$

To put it concretely,

$`x_0`$ $`=2.878599677+2.657408013\sqrt{1},`$
$`y_0`$ $`=\mathrm{},`$
$`z_0`$ $`=0.44253774560.4544788919\sqrt{1},`$
$`u_0`$ $`=0.35421983530.02180673815\sqrt{1},`$
$`v_0`$ $`=0.14588329370.3399257634\sqrt{1}.`$
Then we obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}V_{8_{20}}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)=4.1249032\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}V_{8_{20}}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)+\pi ^2}{2\pi ^2}}=0.1033634\mathrm{}.`$
Applying values of $`\mathrm{vol}(8_{20})`$ and $`\mathrm{CS}(8_{20})`$ given by SnapPea , we see that the following equation holds up to digits shown above.

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_{8_{20}}(x_0,y_0,z_0,u_0,v_0)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(8_{20})+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(8_{20})}{2\gamma }.$$

Note that $`\mathrm{CS}(8_{20})`$ is defined modulo $`\pi ^2`$.

## 6. Whitehead link

For the final example, we calculate the limit of the colored Jones polynomial of the Whitehead link given by (1), which can be changed to the formula

$$J_N(L)=\underset{\begin{array}{c}0i,j,kN1\\ ki,j\end{array}}{}\frac{\{(\overline{q})_i(\overline{q})_j\}^2}{(q)_k^4(\overline{q})_{ik}(\overline{q})_{jk}}q^{(N1)N/2}.$$

This can be asymptotically approximated by

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_L(x,y,z)𝑑x𝑑y𝑑z,$$

where

$$V_L(x,y,z)=2\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)2\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{1}{y}\right)4\mathrm{Li}_2(z)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{z}{x}\right)+\mathrm{Li}_2\left(\frac{z}{y}\right)+\pi ^2,$$

and $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$ correspond to $`q^i`$, $`q^j`$, and $`q^k`$ respectively. For a stationary point $`(x_0,y_0,z_0)=(\mathrm{},\mathrm{},1+\sqrt{1})`$, we obtain

$`\mathrm{Im}V_L(x_0,y_0,z_0)=3.663862\mathrm{},`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}V_L(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{2\pi ^2}}=0.1250000\mathrm{}.`$
Since these values agree with SnapPea, the equation

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{\sqrt{1}}{2\gamma }V_L(x_0,y_0,z_0)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{\mathrm{vol}(L)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(L)}{2\gamma }$$

holds up to digits shown above.

## 7. Topological Chern–Simons invariant and some examples

We propose a topological definition of the Chern–Simons invariant for links.

For a link $`L`$, if there exists the limit

$$2\pi \mathrm{Im}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}\frac{J_{N+1}(L)}{J_N(L)}mod\pi ^2,$$

then we denote it by $`\mathrm{CS}_{\text{TOP}}(L)`$ and call it the topological Chern–Simons invariant of $`L`$.

Let us give some numerical exapmles.

For the knot $`5_2`$, we list some values of $`(N,2\pi \mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(5_2)/J_N(5_2)))`$ by Pari-Gp in the following.

$`(40,3.0582237212618427226138859563.022924613281720287391974968\sqrt{1})`$
$`(50,3.0130815085301883535738548223.023340368517507069134855780\sqrt{1})`$
$`(60,2.9827443187535806968217722993.023574042878935429645720640\sqrt{1})`$
$`(70,2.9609554049617391707491141513.023717381786374852930574631\sqrt{1})`$
$`(80,2.9445482691704501124469663013.023811574968472287718611711\sqrt{1})`$
$`(100,2.9214839061082289930184692123.023923719027833555669502480\sqrt{1})`$
$`(120,2.9060464213886660002825423983.023985374930307234443986632\sqrt{1})`$
$`(150,2.8905598819075371283720015113.024036295143969179028770901\sqrt{1})`$
$`(200,2.8750242342269416203271563503.024076266558545340852410631\sqrt{1})`$
$`(250,2.8656792509695385315620990563.024094905811349375139149331\sqrt{1})`$
By fitting the above data to quadratic functions on $`1/N`$, we can obtain the limit value

$$2.828133.02414\sqrt{1}$$

of $`2\pi \mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(5_2)/J_N(5_2))`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$ numerically, which agrees with the value

$$2.82812203.02412837\sqrt{1}$$

by SnapPea. We display our data graphically in Figure 6 and Figure 7, wihich help us to see the limit.

Figure 6. Dots indicate $`(1/N,2\pi \mathrm{Re}\mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(5_2)/J_N(5_2)))`$ for $`N=40,50,60,70,80,100,120,150,200,250`$. The origin corresponds to $`(0,2.82)`$.

Figure 7. Dots indicate $`(1/N,2\pi \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(5_2)/J_N(5_2)))`$ for $`N=40,50,60,70,80,100,120,150,200,250`$. The origin corresponds to $`(0,3.0242)`$.

Similarly, for the Whitehead link $`L`$, we illustrate our numerical check in Table 1, Figure 8, and Figure 9.

Table 1. $`(N,2\pi \mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(L)/J_N(L)))`$ for the Whitehead link $`L`$

$`(40,3.892920359101811097809525583+2.457483997330866045812504703\sqrt{1})`$
$`(50,3.848161466402914225154530180+2.461039474018016569869745301\sqrt{1})`$
$`(60,3.818029013349499312708236153+2.462976748675980254703390855\sqrt{1})`$
$`(70,3.796362501209537691078944556+2.464147191795881614582476451\sqrt{1})`$
$`(80,3.780034327560022195082015385+2.464907923404764622274395868\sqrt{1})`$
$`(100,3.757062258985477857247991239+2.465803785962819679236327339\sqrt{1})`$
$`(120,3.741674608179023673159144258+2.466291085896660260688606142\sqrt{1})`$
$`(150,3.726228649726558590507828429+2.466690204011030007962113880\sqrt{1})`$
Figure 8. Dots indicate $`(1/N,2\pi \mathrm{Re}\mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(L)/J_N(L)))`$ for $`N=40,50,60,70,80,100,120,150`$. The origin corresponds to $`(0,3.66)`$.

Figure 9. Dots indicate $`(1/N,2\pi \mathrm{Im}\mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(L)/J_N(L)))`$ for $`N=40,50,60,70,80,100,120,150`$. The origin corresponds to $`(0,2.4674)`$.

Fitting, we get the numerical limit value $`3.66386+2.46742\sqrt{1}`$ of $`2\pi \mathrm{log}(J_{N+1}(L)/J_N(L))`$ as $`N\mathrm{}`$, which agrees with our result in the section 6.

## 8. Conclusion

We have shown the following by concrete calculations.

###### Observation 8.1.

Let $`L`$ be one of the hyperbolic knots $`6_3`$, $`8_9`$, and $`8_{20}`$, or the Whitehead link. Following Kashaev’s way, we approximate the colored Jones polynomial $`J_N(L)`$ of $`L`$ asymptotically by

$$\mathrm{}\mathrm{exp}\frac{N\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }V_L(𝐱)𝑑𝐱.$$

Then there exists a stationary point $`𝐱_0`$ of $`V_L`$ such that the formula

$$\mathrm{exp}\frac{N\sqrt{1}}{2\pi }V_L(𝐱_0)=\mathrm{exp}\frac{N}{2\pi }(\mathrm{vol}(L)+\sqrt{1}\mathrm{CS}(L))$$

holds up to $`6`$ digits.

###### Conjecture 8.2 (Complexification of Kashaev’s conjecture).

Let $`L`$ be a hyperbolic link. Then, it holds that

$$\mathrm{vol}(L)=2\pi \underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{log}\left|L_N\right|}{N}$$

with $`\mathrm{vol}(L)`$ the hyperbolic volume of the complement of $`L`$. Moreover, there exists the topological Chern–Simons invariant $`\mathrm{CS}_{\text{TOP}}(L)`$ of $`L`$

$$\mathrm{CS}_{\text{TOP}}(L)=2\pi \mathrm{Im}\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{log}\frac{J_{N+1}(L)}{J_N(L)}mod\pi ^2,$$

and $`\mathrm{CS}_{\text{TOP}}(L)`$ equals to $`CS(L)`$ modulo $`\pi ^2`$. Here $`\mathrm{CS}(L)`$ is the Chern–Simons invariant of $`L`$ . Note that the complement of $`L`$ is a hyperbolic manifold with cusps.

We note that Observation 8.1 also holds for the knots $`4_1`$, $`5_2`$ and $`6_1`$ by calculating Kashaev’s examples in  using MAPLE V and SnapPea.

Therefore we conclude that the complexified Kashaev’s conjecture is true, up to several digits, up to choices of contours when we change summations into integrals, and up to choices of saddle (stationary) points when we approximate integrals by the saddle point method, for the six hyperbolic knots above and for the Whitehead link.

Note that if the complexified Kashaev’s conjecture is true then the topological Chern–Simons invariant of a hyperbolic link coincides with its Chern–Simons invariant associated with the hyperbolic metric. Moreover if the volume conjecture is true then the colored Jones polynomial would give both the simplicial volume and the topological Chern–Simons invariant for any knot.


format: text

text:
# Elliptic Fibrations and Elliptic Models

## 1. Introduction

In the Seiberg-Witten approach to $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theory , one identifies a family of algebraic curves associated to each choice of a gauge group and matter content. One approach to this is via M-theory . One identifies a configuration of branes in type IIA string theory such that the induced theory on the world volume of the D4 branes is the desired gauge theory. The D4 branes and NS5 branes in the IIA theory then lift to an M-theory five brane, whose world volume is $`^4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the desired algebraic curve. This curve is embedded in an algebraic surface $`Q`$, where $`^7\times Q`$ is the eleven-dimensional M-theory background. (For brevity, we will refer to $`Q`$ as the M-theory background.)

In some cases, the type IIA configuration contains D6 branes and orientifold six planes as well as the NS5 and D4 branes. These affect the geometry of $`Q`$. In cases with D6 branes and no orientifold planes, $`Q`$ is a multi-Taub-NUT space . In cases with one (negatively-charged) orientifold plane, $`Q`$ is the Atiyah-Hitchin monopole moduli space . In cases with two orientifold planes, $`Q`$ is an elliptic surface, and the M-theory model is an elliptic model. This is the case that we study in this paper.

For elliptic models without orientifold planes, the M-theory background $`Q`$ is of the form $`^2\times T^2`$, which can be given the complex structure $`\times E`$, where $`E`$ is an elliptic curve. More generally, the background can be an affine $``$ bundle over $`E`$. The Seiberg-Witten curve is then written as a cover over $`E`$. For elliptic models with orientifold planes, in cases where the orientifold plane charge is cancelled locally by D6 branes , the M-theory background can be viewed as the quotient of an affine $``$ bundle over $`E`$ by a $`_2`$ action. It is not clear, however, how to extend this to more general orientifold backgrounds.

In this paper, we adopt a different approach, viewing the M-theory background $`Q`$ as an elliptic fibration over $``$, and the Seiberg-Witten curve as a cover of $``$. This approach is partially motivated by the results of ref. , in which the Seiberg-Witten curves were written in terms of theta functions with a varying modular parameter. In section 2, we give the explicit form of the elliptic surface $`Q`$ for the background corresponding to two negatively-charged orientifold six-planes with coincident D6 branes. We briefly discuss the singularities of this surface in the context of M-theory and F-theory. In section 3, we derive the explicit form of the Seiberg-Witten curves for three $`𝒩=2`$ gauge theories with this background: $`\mathrm{Sp}(2k)`$ \+ 1 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets, $`\mathrm{Sp}(2k)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2k)`$ \+ 1 bifundamental + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets, and $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ \+ 2 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets. We show that our results are in agreement with the curves for these theories derived using different approaches .

We expect that the description of the M-theory background $`Q`$ as an elliptic fibration will generalize to the situation where the D6 branes are displaced from the orientifold sixplanes, by a deformation of the elliptic fibration, as occurs in F-theory . Knowing the precise form of the M-theory background for these more general brane configurations is crucial to determining the Seiberg-Witten curve for theories in which the fundamental hypermultiplets have nonzero masses, particularly the terms of the curve equation subleading in the QCD scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, which are currently unknown .

## 2. The surface

We consider the M-theory background corresponding to type IIA models with two orientifold six planes. An orientifold six plane can have charge $`+4`$ or $`4`$ relative to the D6-brane charge; we consider models with two negatively-charged O$`6^{}`$ planes, and add four pairs of D6 branes to the theory to cancel the charge. Each orientifold six plane and D6 brane is extended in the 0123789 directions. We combine the $`x_4`$ and $`x_5`$ coordinates into the complex coordinate $`v=x_4+ix_5`$, and place one of the orientifold planes at $`(v,x_6)=(0,0)`$ and the other at $`(v,x_6)=(m,\pi L)`$, where $`m`$ is the global mass . Each orientifold plane is the fixed point set of a reflection, and the two reflections generate a translation symmetry $`(v,x_6)(v+2m,x_6+2\pi L)`$ of the IIA model.

The corresponding M-theory background, which is invariant under $`x_{10}x_{10}+2\pi R`$, is thus doubly periodic, and gives rise to elliptic models. The metric in the $`x_6`$ and $`x_{10}`$ directions is not generally a simple product $`S^1\times S^1`$, but is such that travelling around the $`x_6`$ direction results in a shift in the $`x_{10}`$ direction by $`\theta R`$. The orientifold reflections lift to

$`(v,x_6,x_{10})`$ $``$ $`(v,x_6,x_{10})`$
(2.1) $`(v,x_6,x_{10})`$ $``$ $`(2mv,2\pi Lx_6,\theta Rx_{10}),`$
which have four fixed points

(2.2)
$$(v,x_6,x_{10})=(0,0,0),(0,0,\pi R),(m,\pi L,\frac{1}{2}\theta R),(m,\pi L,(\pi \frac{1}{2}\theta )R).$$

The fundamental parallelogram, with the four fixed points, is shown in fig. 1.

Now we consider the case where the global mass $`m`$ vanishes. Defining

(2.3)
$$\nu =\frac{x_6+ix_{10}}{2\pi iR},$$

the background is therefore invariant under $`\nu \nu +1`$ and $`\nu \nu +\tau `$, where $`\tau =\frac{\theta }{2\pi }+i\frac{L}{R}`$. This gives $`^2\times T^2`$ the complex structure of $`\times E`$, where $``$ is the $`v`$-plane and $`E`$ is the quotient of the $`\nu `$-plane by the lattice $`\tau `$. We can now embed the elliptic curve $`E`$ as a cubic in $`P^2`$ with local equation

(2.4)
$$y^2=(x^24)(x\lambda ).$$

If in addition the D6 branes are coincident with the O$`6^{}`$ planes, the M-theory background $`Q`$ is precisely the $`_2`$ quotient of the product $`\times E`$, where the $`_2`$-involution sends $`(v,x,y)(v,x,y)`$ in the cubic equation (2.4). We now express this quotient as an elliptic fibration. Define invariant variables $`u=v^2`$ and $`\eta =yv`$. Then $`Q`$ is characterized locally in $`^3`$ by the equation

(2.5)
$$\eta ^2=u(x^24)(x\lambda ),$$

an elliptic fibration over the complex $`u`$-plane. For nonzero values of $`u`$, the fiber is isomorphic (via rescaling) to the original cubic curve $`E`$, so the parameter $`\tau `$ is constant for $`u0`$. At $`u=0`$, the fiber is singular and consists of the line $`u=\eta =0`$, with three singular points at $`x=2,2,\lambda `$, plus a line at infinity. The local equation for each singular point is $`\eta ^2u(xe_i)`$, where $`e_i=2,2,\lambda `$, so these are $`A_1`$ type singularities. If we blow down the line at infinity, we get one more $`A_1`$ singularity on this fiber at $`x=\mathrm{}`$.

The elliptic fibration (2.5) is somewhat analogous to the one that arises in the F-theory background corresponding to an O7 plane and coincident D7 branes in type IIB string theory . However, there is an important difference. The F-theory fibration contains a $`D_4`$ type singularity, whereas the M-theory fibration above contains four distinct $`A_1`$ type singularities on the singular fiber at $`u=0`$. This difference reflects the fact that, in F-theory, the value of $`\tau `$ at each fiber is the dilaton-axion modulus, but coordinates along the fiber have no physical meaning whereas, in M-theory, the coordinates along the fiber correspond to the $`x_6`$ and $`x_{10}`$ coordinates (as discussed in sec. 4.3 of ref. ). If the $`D_4`$ singularity of the F-theory model is resolved, the fiber is a chain of five genus zero curves arranged so that their dual graph is the affine $`\stackrel{~}{D_4}`$ Dynkin diagram. If the four curves on the ends are contracted, the result is a genus zero curve with four $`A_1`$ singularities, which is the fiber of the M-theory model. This is very similar to the phenomenon discussed in refs. .

We can perform a check on the fibration (2.5) by considering the limit $`\tau i\mathrm{}`$, causing $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$. This limit corresponds to sending one of the orientifold planes, and its two accompanying pairs of D6 branes, to infinity. The resulting M-theory background, which corresponds to one orientifold plane and two pairs of coincident D6 branes, was shown in ref.  to be the “$`D_2`$” surface $`a^2+b^2z=4z`$ (which has a pair of $`A_1`$ singularities). By rescaling the surface (2.5) to

(2.6)
$$\eta ^2=u(x^24)(\frac{x}{\lambda }+1)$$

and taking the limit $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$, we obtain $`\eta ^2=u(x^24)`$, which is identical to the surface above, with $`a=\eta `$, $`b=x`$, and $`z=u`$.

## 3. The curves

We will consider three $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetric gauge theories arising from type IIA brane configurations with two O$`6^{}`$ planes, with global mass $`m=0`$ and coincident D6 branes. In each case, the IIA configuration contains parallel NS5 branes, extended in the 012345 directions and separated in the $`x_6`$ direction, and D4 branes extended in the 01236 directions, ending on the NS5 branes in the $`x_6`$ direction. Brane configurations for the three theories under consideration are shown in fig. 2.

For each theory, the IIA brane configuration lifts to an M5-brane, whose embedding in $`^7\times Q`$ is given by $`^4\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the Seiberg-Witten curve. In the cases with two NS5 branes, we will express $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a double cover of the $`u`$-plane. The NS5 branes correspond to the sheets of the cover, and each D4 brane becomes a “tube” connecting the two sheets of the cover. More precisely, each D4 brane (and its orientifold mirror) corresponds to a branch cut in the $`u`$ plane.

This agrees with what we know from nonelliptic models, where a pair of NS5 branes connected by a pair of D4-branes (at $`v=\pm a`$) is represented by

$$t^2+(ua^2)t+1=0,$$

where $`t=\mathrm{exp}[(x_6+ix_{10})/R]`$. The branch points occur at $`u=a^2\pm 2`$, $`t=\pm 1`$, i.e., $`(x_6,x_{10})=(0,0)`$ and $`(0,\pi R)`$. The branch cut in the $`u`$ plane, parallel to the real axis from $`a^22`$ to $`a^2+2`$, corresponds to $`|t|=1`$, i.e., the $`x_{10}`$ circle at the fixed value $`x_6=0`$ where the NS5 branes join. The “position” of the D4-brane in the IIA picture, viz. $`u=a^2`$, corresponds to $`t=\pm i`$, i.e. points on the $`x_{10}`$ circle midway between the pre-images of the branch points.

For each of the gauge theories in this section, we will give an equation $`F(u,x,\eta )=0`$ for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a curve in the surface $`Q`$ (2.5).

### 3.1. $`\mathrm{Sp}(2k)`$ \+ 1 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets

The IIA configuration giving rise to the $`𝒩=2`$ Sp($`2k`$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in the $`\text{        }+4\text{    }`$ representations  contains only one NS5 brane, intersecting the O$`6^{}`$ plane at $`u=\eta =0,x=2`$. Each physical D4 brane, located at $`u=a_i^2`$ (corresponding to a mirror pair at $`v=\pm a_i`$), wraps around the $`x_6`$ direction and comes back to the same point on the NS5 brane. In the M-theory lift, the brane wraps the $`x_{10}`$ direction as well, so it is represented by the entire fiber torus at $`u=a_i^2`$. The NS5 brane is represented by $`x=2`$. Thus the equation for the Seiberg-Witten curve is given by

(3.1)
$$(x2)\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(ua_i^2)=0$$

within the surface $`Q`$ given by equation (2.5). It is a reducible curve made up of the $`x=2`$ line along with the fiber tori at each $`u=a_i^2`$. This agrees with the results obtained in refs.  and .

### 3.2. $`\mathrm{Sp}(2k)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2k)`$ \+ 1 bifundamental + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets

The IIA configuration corresponding to the $`𝒩=2`$ Sp($`2k`$) $`\times `$ Sp($`2k`$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in the $`(\text{    },\text{    })+2(\text{    },1)+2(1,\text{    })`$ representations consists of two NS5 branes between the orientifold planes, and a total of $`2k`$ physical D4 branes stretched between them . Half of the D4 branes go around the $`x_6`$ circle in one direction and the other half go in the other direction. The two NS5 branes are symmetric with respect to the orientifold $`_2`$ action. Furthermore, we can choose them to be symmetric under the reflection $`(u,x,\eta )(u,x,\eta )`$. The Seiberg-Witten curve can then be written as a double cover of the $`u`$-plane by giving an equation

(3.2)
$$x=f(u),$$

with $`f(u)`$ to be determined. To simplify calculations, we shift $`x`$ by a fractional linear transformation so that the fibration locally has the form

(3.3)
$$\eta ^2=u(x^24)(x^2\mu ^2).$$

The two sheets of the cover correspond to $`(u,x,\eta )`$ and $`(u,x,\eta )`$ satisfying (3.2) and (3.3). The branch points of the cover therefore occur at points $`u`$ where $`f(u)=2`$, $`2`$, $`\mu `$, or $`\mu `$.

To determine the form of $`f(u)`$, consider the picture on the universal cover, $`_v\times _\nu `$ of the surface $`Q`$, where $`\nu =(x_{10}ix_6)/2\pi R`$. Choose $`x`$ so that $`x=2`$, $`2`$, $`\mu `$, and $`\mu `$ correspond to $`\nu =0,`$ $`\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{\tau }{2}`$, and $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\tau }{2}`$ respectively (see fig. 3). For each value of $`v`$, the two NS5 brane positions are at $`\nu `$ and $`\nu `$.

Consider D4 branes at positions $`u=a_i^2`$ going around the $`x_6`$ circle in one direction. These pull the NS5 branes together to meet at $`x_6=0`$. The branch cut centered on $`a_i^2`$ in the $`u`$ plane (i.e. going around the “tube”) is the image under the covering map of the $`x_{10}`$ circle at $`x_6=0`$. The branch points are the images of $`x_{10}=0`$ and $`\pi R`$, corresponding to $`x=2`$ and $`2`$ respectively. The D4-brane position $`u=a_i^2`$ is the image of points on the $`x_{10}`$ circle midway between the branch point pre-images, viz. $`x_{10}=\frac{1}{2}\pi R`$ (or $`\frac{3}{2}\pi R`$), corresponding to $`x=0`$. Therefore $`f(u)=0`$ at $`u=a_i^2`$.

The D4 branes at positions $`u=b_i^2`$ going around the $`x_6`$ circle in the other direction pull the NS5 branes together to meet at $`x_6=\pi L`$. The branch cut centered on $`b_i^2`$ in the $`u`$ plane is the image of the $`x_{10}`$ circle at $`x_6=\pi L`$, with the branch point pre-images at $`x_{10}=\frac{1}{2}\theta R`$ and $`(\pi \frac{1}{2}\theta )R`$ corresponding to $`x=\mu `$ and $`\mu `$ respectively. The D4-brane position $`u=b_i^2`$ is the image of $`x_{10}=(\frac{1}{2}\pi \frac{1}{2}\theta )R`$ (or $`(\frac{3}{2}\pi \frac{1}{2}\theta )R`$), corresponding to $`x=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore $`f(u)=\mathrm{}`$ at $`u=b_i^2`$.

With the poles and zeros of $`f(u)`$ determined, we may write the Seiberg-Witten curve as the double cover

(3.4)
$$x=x_0\frac{_{i=1}^k(ua_i^2)}{_{i=1}^k(ub_i^2)}$$

for some $`x_0`$. Written as a polynomial in $`u`$, this becomes

(3.5)
$$u^k+\left(A_1+\frac{B_1}{xx_0}\right)u^{k1}+\mathrm{}+\left(A_k+\frac{B_k}{xx_0}\right)=0$$

with $`A_i`$ and $`B_i`$ constants. The points $`(x_0,\eta _0)`$ and $`(x_0,\eta _0)`$, where $`\eta _0^2=u(x_0^24)(x_0^2\mu ^2)`$ correspond to the asymptotic positions of the NS5 branes as $`u\mathrm{}`$. When rewritten in terms of $`v`$, this curve agrees exactly with the results in ref. .

### 3.3. $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$ \+ 2 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets

The $`𝒩=2`$ SU($`N`$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in representations $`2\text{        }+4\text{    }`$ corresponds to a IIA brane configuration with two NS5 branes, each of them intersecting one of the O$`6^{}`$ planes . There are a total of $`2N`$ D4 branes stretched between the two NS5 branes: $`N`$ going around the $`x_6`$ circle one way, at positions $`v=a_i`$, and $`N`$ going around the $`x_6`$ circle the other way, at positions $`v=a_i`$. In invariant coordinates, there are $`N`$ mirror pairs of branes at positions $`u=a_i^2`$. As in sec. 3.2, the curve we seek is a degree two cover of the $`u`$-plane, with a branch cut for each pair of D4 branes.

We can describe a double cover of the $`u`$ plane with an equation

(3.6)
$$\frac{\eta }{x+2}f(u)=0,$$

where $`f(u)`$ is to be determined, and $`Q`$ is described by the elliptic fibration $`\eta ^2=u(x^24)(x\lambda )`$. For each value of $`u`$, the left hand side of (3.6) is a rational function with poles at $`x=2`$ and $`x=\mathrm{}`$, and two zeroes, which correspond to the sheets of the cover.

Again, consider the universal cover $`_v\times _\nu `$ of $`Q`$, choosing $`x`$ such that $`x=2`$, $`2`$, $`\lambda `$, $`\mathrm{}`$ correspond to $`\nu =0`$, $`\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{\tau }{2}`$, and $`\frac{1+\tau }{2}`$ respectively (see fig. 4). Then the two sheets of the cover will be at points $`\nu _1`$ and $`\nu _2`$ in each fiber, where $`\nu _1+\nu _2+\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\tau +1}{2}+\tau `$ (since these are the zeroes and poles of a rational function on $`E`$). The sheets coincide when $`2\nu +\frac{\tau }{2}+\tau `$, or $`\nu =\frac{1}{4}\tau `$, $`\frac{1}{4}\tau +\frac{1}{2}`$, $`\frac{3}{4}\tau `$, and $`\frac{3}{4}\tau +\frac{1}{2}`$; these correspond to the branch points of the cover.

We wish to choose $`f(u)`$ such that the locations of the D4 branes, $`u=a_i^2`$, are the images of points $`\nu `$ midway (along the $`x_{10}`$ circles) between the branch point pre-images, namely, $`\nu =\frac{1}{4}\tau +\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{1}{4}\tau +\frac{3}{4}`$ (corresponding to $`x_6=\frac{1}{2}\pi L`$), and $`\frac{3}{4}\tau +\frac{1}{4}`$ and $`\frac{3}{4}\tau +\frac{3}{4}`$ (corresponding to $`x_6=\frac{3}{2}\pi L`$). These points satisfy $`2\nu +\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\tau }{2}+\tau `$; in terms of the cubic curve, each of them is a point of tangency between the curve and a line through the point corresponding to $`\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\tau }{2}`$. It is easy to check that these points correspond to points with coordinates $`(x,\eta )`$ in the quotient surface $`Q`$ with $`x=2\pm 2\sqrt{2\lambda }`$, and therefore satisfying

(3.7)
$$\frac{\eta }{x+2}=\pm \sqrt{u}\sqrt{2\lambda }.$$

The choice of sign in (3.7) corresponds to the choice $`x_6=\frac{1}{2}\pi L`$ or $`\frac{3}{2}\pi L`$ at which the NS5-branes meet. This in turn corresponds to choosing the direction in which the D4 branes wrap the $`x_6`$ circle at $`v=a_i`$. (If the D4 branes wrap one direction at $`v=a_i`$, then due to the orientifold, they wrap the other direction at $`v=a_i`$, so a different choice changes the sign of $`v=\sqrt{u}`$.)

Thus, comparing (3.6) and (3.7), we require $`f(u)`$ to satisfy

(3.8)
$$\frac{f(u)^2}{u}=2\lambda \text{ when }u=a_i^2.$$

This can be attained by choosing

(3.9)
$$f(u)=\frac{\sqrt{2\lambda }F_1(u)}{F_2(u)}$$

where $`F_1(u)`$ and $`F_2(u)`$ satisfy either

(3.10)
$$F_1(u)^2uF_2(u)^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(ua_i^2),$$

or, if $`F_1(u)`$ has a factor of $`u`$,

(3.11)
$$\frac{F_1(u)^2}{u}F_2(u)^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(ua_i^2).$$

Let us compare this to the results in sec. 5.1 of ref. . In the notation of that paper,

$`H_0(v)={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(va_i)={\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{N}{}}}u_jv^{Nj},`$ $`H_1(v)=H_0(v)=(1)^N{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(v+a_i)`$
(3.12) $`H_0(v)=H_{\mathrm{even}}(v)+H_{\mathrm{odd}}(v),`$ $`H_1(v)=(1)^N(H_{\mathrm{even}}(v)H_{\mathrm{odd}}(v)),`$
$`H_{\mathrm{even}}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{even}}{}}u_jv^{Nj},`$ $`H_{\mathrm{odd}}(v)={\displaystyle \underset{j\mathrm{odd}}{}}u_jv^{Nj},`$
so that $`H_{\mathrm{even}}(v)`$ is the even degree part of $`H_0(v)`$ if $`N`$ is even, and the odd degree part if $`N`$ is odd.

If $`N`$ is even, then $`H_{\mathrm{even}}(v)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{odd}}(v)/v`$ have only even powers of $`v`$, so can be written as polynomials $`G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$, where $`u=v^2`$. Then

(3.13)
$$G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)^2uG_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)^2=H_{\mathrm{even}}^2(v)H_{\mathrm{odd}}^2(v)=H_0(v)H_1(v)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(ua_i^2).$$

Since $`F_1(u)=G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)`$ and $`F_2(u)=G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$ obey condition (3.10), we may choose $`f(u)=\sqrt{2\lambda }G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)/G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$.

Similarly, if $`N`$ is odd, then $`vH_{\mathrm{even}}(v)`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{odd}}(v)`$ have only even powers of $`v`$, so we write them also as $`G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)`$ and $`G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$. Then $`G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)`$ has a factor of $`u`$, and we have

(3.14)
$$\frac{G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)^2}{u}G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)^2=H_{\mathrm{even}}^2(v)H_{\mathrm{odd}}^2(v)=H_0(v)H_1(v)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}(ua_i^2).$$

Since $`F_1(u)=G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)`$ and $`F_2(u)=G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$ obey condition (3.11), we may again choose $`f(u)=\sqrt{2\lambda }G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)/G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)`$.

The Seiberg-Witten curve for this theory is therefore

(3.15)
$$\frac{\eta }{x+2}=\sqrt{2\lambda }\frac{G_{\mathrm{even}}(u)}{G_{\mathrm{odd}}(u)}.$$

Observe that, since $`G_{\mathrm{even}}`$ has higher degree than $`G_{\mathrm{odd}}`$, the right hand side goes to $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`u\mathrm{}`$, thus the asymptotic positions of the NS5-branes are $`x=2`$ and $`x=\mathrm{}`$, corresponding to $`(x_6,x_{10})=(0,\pi R)`$ and $`(\pi L,(\pi \frac{1}{2}\theta )R)`$.

In terms of the double cover $`_v\times E`$, the curve (3.15) becomes

(3.16)
$$\frac{y}{x+2}=\sqrt{2\lambda }\frac{_{i=1}^N(va_i)+_{i=1}^N(v+a_i)}{_{i=1}^N(va_i)_{i=1}^N(v+a_i)}.$$

This agrees with the result (5.1.7) of ref.  and therefore with ref. , upon rescaling $`u_i`$, which amounts to a redefinition of the $`a_i`$.

Finally, we observe that, when $`v=0`$, the right hand side of eq. (3.16) goes to infinity (and thus $`x=2`$ or $`\mathrm{}`$) for even $`N`$, whereas it goes to zero (and thus $`x=2`$ or $`\lambda `$) for odd $`N`$. That is, when $`N`$ is even, the $`(x_6,x_{10})`$ position of the NS5 branes (in the $`v\mathrm{}`$ limit) coincides with the $`(x_6,x_{10})`$ position of those fixed points of the orientifold (2.2) through which the curve (3.16) passes, whereas when $`N`$ is odd, the $`(x_6,x_{10})`$ position of the NS5 branes (in the $`v\mathrm{}`$ limit) coincides with the $`(x_6,x_{10})`$ position of those fixed points through which the curve does not pass. This is precisely in accordance with the discussion in section 4.4 of ref. .


text:
# Relativity Restored: Dirac Anisotropy in QED3

## Abstract

We show that at long lengthscales and low energies and to leading order in $`1/N`$ expansion, the anisotropic QED in 2+1 dimensions renormalizes to an isotropic limit. Consequently, the (Euclidean) relativistic invariance of the theory is spontaneously restored at the isotropic critical point, characterized by the anomalous dimension exponent of the Dirac fermion propagator $`\eta `$. We find $`\eta =16/3\pi ^2N`$.

Quantum electrodynamics in (2+1) dimensions (QED3) has recently emerged as a low-energy effective theory of a number of condensed matter systems leewen ; rantner ; khvesh ; ftqed ; tvfqed ; herbut ; reenders . Examples range from fluctuating d-wave superconductors in uderdoped cuprates ftqed ; tvfqed ; herbut  to pyrolitic graphite khvesh  to Heisenberg antiferromagnets and spin liquids leewen ; rantner ; reenders . While these multiple reincarnations of QED3 differ mightily in their physical content, they all share certain important formal similarities. The low energy behavior is controlled by an infra-red fixed point where the gauge field acquires a universal dimensionless coupling constant $`g1/N`$, $`N`$ being the number of Dirac fermion flavors appelquist ; gusynin . At values of $`g`$ larger than some critical value $`g_c`$ ($`N<N_c`$) it is believed that the theory has an instability into a state with broken chiral symmetry, with fermions spontaneously acquiring a finite dynamical mass appelquist . Among the formal aspects shared by the above theories surely one of the most ubiquitous is the spacetime anisotropy – such low-energy effective theories are obviously only pretending to be “relativistic”. They hail from non-relativistic quantum Hamiltonians and are not obliged to be invariant under Lorentz transformations. Consequently, they often contain more than one “speed of light” resulting in the above anisotropy. An important question is to what extent are the properties of these effective theories similar to the genuine, isotropic QED3 and, in particular, what is the nature of the critical behavior and chiral symmetry breaking when such anisotropy is present.

In this Letter we address the problem of Dirac anisotropy in QED3. Our point of departure is the assumption that the symmetric (massless or critical) phase of isotropic QED3, obtained when the number of fermion flavors is larger than a critical value, $`N>N_c`$, is controlled by a stable non-trivial infrared critical point appelquist ; gusynin  characterized by the anomalous dimension exponent $`\eta >0`$ of the gauge-invariant Dirac fermion propagator. Based on this assumption, which is almost certainly correct for $`NN_c`$, we derive the following results within a $`1/N`$ expansion: i) When anisotropy is turned on at this interacting critical point we find it to be marginally irrelevant in a perturbative sense. This implies that the symmetric, critical phase of QED3 remains unaffected by small Dirac anisotropy. In particular, the value of $`\eta `$ remains unchanged. ii) Going beyond the perturbative regime, and by exploring the structure of renormalization group (RG) flows, we argue that any finite anisotropy is also irrelevant. Finally, iii) we compute the explicit value of $`\eta `$ and find $`\eta =16/3\pi ^2N`$. Our results imply that the relativistic invariance of a QED3-like effective theory is itself an emergent property: it is spontaneously dynamically restored at the critical point.

The anisotropic QED3 can be defined as follows:

$$=\overline{\psi }^{(n)}[\gamma _\nu \sqrt{g^{(n)}}_{\mu \nu }(_\nu +ia_\nu )]\psi ^{(n)}+\frac{1}{2e^2}(\times a)^2$$
(1)
where $`\psi ^{(n)}`$ is a Fermi field associated with a node $`n`$, $`\gamma _\mu `$ is a Dirac matrix, and $`a_\mu `$ is a massless $`U(1)`$ gauge field related to fluctuations of unbound $`2+1`$ vortex loopsftqed ; tvfqed . We also introduced the diagonal “nodal” metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}`$: $`g_{00}^{(1)}=g_{00}^{(2)}=1`$, $`g_{11}^{(1)}=g_{22}^{(2)}=v_F^2`$, $`g_{22}^{(1)}=g_{11}^{(2)}=v_\mathrm{\Delta }^2`$. Other forms can be reduced to this one by suitable rescalings of spacetime coordinates and fermion and gauge fields.

The Dirac anisotropy of $``$ (1) is more sinister that its bosonic kin herbutzbt . In the Higgs-Abelian gauge theory the anisotropy can be fully rescaled out of the matter part of the action leading to the new effective action with the anisotropy stored only in the gauge field Maxwellian action. Since matter cannot generate any anisotropic contribution to the gauge field and by the virtue of the isotropic charge being a relevant operator, it is easy to show that anisotropy of the bosonic theory is maginally irrelevant.

In the fermionic QED3 (1) the above simple procedure does not work because one cannot simultaneously rescale the kinetic energy for all fermion species. We therefore keep the anisotropy confined to the matter part of (1) and proceed from there. The two-point vertex function of the non-interacting theory for, say, $`(1,\overline{1})`$ Dirac fermions is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{1\overline{1}}^{(2)free}=\gamma _0k_0+v_F\gamma _1k_1+v_\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma _2k_2$$
(2)
and the corresponding Green function equals

$$G_0^n(k)=\frac{\sqrt{g^n}_{\mu \nu }\gamma _\mu k_\nu }{k_\mu g_{\mu \nu }k_\nu }\frac{\gamma _\mu ^nk_\mu }{k_\mu g_{\mu \nu }k_\nu }.$$
(3)
In what follows we assume that both $`v_F`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are dimensionless and that eventually one of them can be chosen to be unity by the appropriate choice for the ”speed of light”. The anisotropy parameter $`\alpha _D=v_F/v_\mathrm{\Delta }1`$ breaks the Lorentz invariance of the theory (1). However, the theory still respects time-reversal and parity and for $`N>N_c`$ the system is in its chirally symmetric phase leeherbut . These symmetries force the fermion self-energy of the interacting theory to assume the following form:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1\overline{1}}=A(k)\left(\gamma _0k_0+v_F\zeta _1\gamma _1k_1+v_\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta _2\gamma _2k_2\right),$$
(4)
The coefficients $`\zeta _i`$ are in general different from unity. Furthermore, there is a discrete spatial symmetry which relates flavors $`(1,\overline{1})`$ and $`(2,\overline{2})`$ to the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions in such a way that

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{2\overline{2}}=A^{}(k)\left(\gamma _0k_0+v_\mathrm{\Delta }\zeta _2\gamma _1k_1+v_F\zeta _1\gamma _2k_2\right).$$
(5)
In the computation of the fermion self-energy, this discrete symmetry allows us to concentrate on a particular pair of nodes without any loss of generality.

Next, we turn to the gauge field propagator. We first work in the Lorentz gauge ($`k_\mu a_\mu =0`$) and then extend our results to a general covariant gauge. To one-loop order the fermionic “screening” of the gauge field is given by the polarization function

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{N}{2}\underset{n=1,2}{}\frac{d^3q}{(2\pi )^3}Tr[G_0^n(q)\gamma _\mu ^nG_0^n(q+k)\gamma _\nu ^n].$$
(6)
The above expression can be evaluated by observing that it reduces to the isotropic $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)`$ once the integrals are properly rescaled ftqed . The result is:

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)=\underset{n}{}\frac{N}{16v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}\sqrt{k_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }^nk_\beta }\left(g_{\mu \nu }^n\frac{g_{\mu \rho }^nk_\rho g_{\nu \lambda }^nk_\lambda }{k_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }^nk_\beta }\right),$$
(7)
where we have taken the advantage of the “nodal” metric $`g_{\mu \nu }^n`$ (1). This expression is explicitly transverse, i.e. $`k_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(k)k_\nu =0`$ and symmetric in its spacetime indices. It also properly reduces to the isotropic expression when $`v_F=v_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$.

As opposed to the isotropic case, it is not quite as straightforward to determine the gauge field propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }`$. To proceed we first integrate out the fermions and expand the effective action to one-loop order

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}[a_\mu ]=(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu })a_\mu (k)a_\nu (k),$$
(8)
where the bare gauge field stiffness is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}=\frac{1}{2e^2}k^2\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\right).$$
(9)
Now we introduce the dual field $`b_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }q_\nu a_\lambda `$, which is related to the physical fluctuating vorticity in the theory of Ref. ftqed . We are free to integrate over $`b_\mu `$ with the restriction that it is transverse ($`k_\mu b_\mu =0`$). Note that

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}[b_\mu ]=\chi _0b_0^2+\chi _1b_1^2+\chi _2b_2^2,$$
(10)
where $`\{\chi _\mu \}`$ are functions of $`k_\mu `$:

$$\chi _\mu =\frac{1}{2e^2}+\frac{N}{16v_Fv_\mathrm{\Delta }}\underset{n=1,2}{}\frac{g_{\nu \nu }^ng_{\lambda \lambda }^n}{\sqrt{k_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }^nk_\beta }};\mu \nu \lambda \{0,1,2\}.$$
(11)
At low energies we can neglect the non-divergent bare stiffness and thus we set $`1/e^2=0`$ in the above expression.

The expression (10) is manifestly gauge invariant and has the merit of not only being quadratic but also diagonal in the individual components of $`b_\mu `$ which greatly simplifies the computation of the $`b_\mu `$ correlation function:

$$b_\mu b_\nu =\frac{\delta _{\mu \nu }}{\chi _\mu }\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{\chi _\mu \chi _\nu }\left(\underset{i}{}\frac{k_i^2}{\chi _i}\right)^1.$$
(12)
The repeated indices are not summed over in the above expression.

After this little trick with the integration over $`b_\mu `$, it is now quite simple to compute the propagator for the original gauge field $`a_\mu `$ and in the Lorentz gauge we obtain:

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=a_\mu a_\nu =ϵ_{\mu \alpha \beta }ϵ_{\nu \lambda \rho }\frac{q_\alpha q_\lambda }{q^4}b_\beta b_\rho .$$
(13)
By employing the transverse character of $`b_\mu b_\nu `$ (which is independent of the gauge) the above expression can be further reduced to

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=\frac{1}{q^2}\left(\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)b^2b_\mu b_\nu \right).$$
(14)
We use the above result to define a general “covariant” gauge for the anisotropic theory as

$$D_{\mu \nu }(q)=\frac{1}{q^2}\left(\left(\delta _{\mu \nu }(1\frac{\xi }{2})\frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}\right)b^2b_\mu b_\nu \right).$$
(15)
where $`\xi `$ is a continuous gauge fixing parameter. This expression is justified by the Fadeev-Popov procedure applied to the Lagrangian

$$_{\mathrm{eff}}[a_\mu ]=\left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{\xi }\frac{2k^2}{b^2}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{k^2}\right)a_\mu (k)a_\nu (k).$$
(16)
Note that $`b^2`$ can be determined without ever considering the gauge fixing terms. The expression (15) is our final result for the gauge field propagator in an anisotropic “covariant” gauge.

Having determined the free fermion and screened gauge field propagators of the anisotropic theory, we can now compute the Dirac fermion self-energy generated by the photon exchange to leading order in $`1/N`$:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(q)=\frac{d^3k}{(2\pi )^3}\gamma _\mu ^nG_0^n(qk)\gamma _\nu ^nD_{\mu \nu }(k),$$
(17)
where $`n`$ is the node index. After some tedious algebra this can be manipulated into:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(q)=\underset{\mu }{}\eta _\mu ^n(\gamma _\mu ^nq_\mu )\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\sqrt{q_\alpha g_{\alpha \beta }^nq_\beta }}\right).$$
(18)
Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff and the coefficients $`\eta _\mu `$ are functions of the bare anisotropy which can be reduced to quadratures. In case of weak anisotropy ($`v_F=1+\delta ,v_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$) to second order in $`\delta `$:

$$\eta _0^{1\overline{1}}=\frac{8}{3\pi ^2N}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\xi \frac{1}{35}\left(407\xi \right)\delta ^2\right)$$
(19)
$$\eta _1^{1\overline{1}}=\frac{8}{3\pi ^2N}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\xi +\frac{6}{5}\delta \frac{1}{35}\left(437\xi \right)\delta ^2\right)$$
(20)
$$\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}=\frac{8}{3\pi ^2N}\left(1\frac{3}{2}\xi \frac{6}{5}\delta \frac{1}{35}\left(17\xi \right)\delta ^2\right).$$
(21)
In the isotropic limit ($`v_F=v_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$) we regain $`\eta _\mu ^n=8(1\frac{3}{2}\xi )/3\pi ^2N`$ as previously found by others appelquist ; gusynin .

We are now in position to turn to our main concern: the effect of anisotropy at the above critical point of isotropic QED3. Before plunging into formal analysis, we first make some general physical observations regarding the RG flow of the anisotropy. First, by examining the Eq. (18) it is clear that if $`\eta _1^n=\eta _2^n`$ then the anisotropy does not flow and remains equal to its bare value. This would imply that anisotropy is marginal and the theory is described by some anisotropic fixed point. For this to happen, however, there would have to be a symmetry that preserves the equality $`\eta _1^n=\eta _2^n`$. In the isotropic QED3 the symmetry that protects the equality of $`\eta _\mu `$’s is the (Euclidean) Lorentz invariance. In our anisotropic case this symmetry is broken and thus we generically have $`\eta _1^n\eta _2^n`$. Therefore, the anisotropy runs in the RG sense and flows away from its bare value. If we start with $`\alpha _D>1`$ and find that $`\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}>\eta _1^{1\overline{1}}`$ at some scale $`p<\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the anisotropy is marginally irrelevant and decreases towards unity as we move toward infrared. On the other hand, if $`\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}<\eta _1^{1\overline{1}}`$, then the anisotropy becomes marginally relevant, continues increasing beyond its bare value and the theory ultimately flows into some new, anisotropic critical point.

The above arguments concerning $`\eta _2^n\eta _1^n`$ and RG flows are on solid ground physically only if they can be made in a gauge-independent way. This condition appears compromised by the fact that $`\eta _\mu ^n`$’s are gauge dependent quantities and explicitly include the gauge fixing parameter $`\xi `$. However, the difference $`\eta _2^n\eta _1^n`$ is itself gauge-invariant. This is seen directly from Eqs. (19-21) where the $`\xi `$ dependence of all $`\eta `$’s is exactly the same. This cancellation of $`\xi `$ dependent terms in $`\eta _2^n\eta _1^n`$ occurs not only for $`\delta 1`$ but is the general feature of $`\eta _\mu ^n`$’s to all orders in anisotropy and for any choice of “covariant” gauge fixing. Therefore, the RG analysis that follows is fully gauge invariant as it should be.

The renormalized two-point vertex function is related to the “bare” vertex via a fermion field rescaling factor $`Z_\psi `$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}=Z_\psi \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}.`$ It is natural to demand that at some renormalization scale $`p`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p)`$ have the form (at nodes $`1`$ and $`\overline{1}`$): $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p)=\gamma _0p_0+v_F^R\gamma _1p_1+v_\mathrm{\Delta }^R\gamma _2p_2`$, where $`v_F^R`$ and $`v_\mathrm{\Delta }^R`$ are the renormalized velocities. The above equation corresponds to our renormalization condition through which we can eliminate the cutoff dependence and compute the RG flows.

To order $`1/N`$ we can write

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_R^{(2)}(p)=Z_\psi \gamma _\mu ^np_\mu \left(1+\eta _\mu ^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}\right),$$
(22)
where we have used the self-energy (18). Multiplying both sides by $`\gamma _0`$ and taking the trace determines the field strength renormalization:

$$Z_\psi =\frac{1}{1+\eta _0^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}}1\eta _0^n\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}.$$
(23)
We can now determine the renormalized Fermi and gap velocities:

$$\frac{v_F^R}{v_F}(1\eta _0^{1\overline{1}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p})(1+\eta _1^{1\overline{1}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p})1(\eta _0^{1\overline{1}}\eta _1^{1\overline{1}})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}$$
(24)
and

$$\frac{v_\mathrm{\Delta }^R}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }}(1\eta _0^{1\overline{1}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p})(1+\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p})1(\eta _0^{1\overline{1}}\eta _2^{1\overline{1}})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}.$$
(25)
The corresponding renormalized Dirac anisotropy is therefore

$$\alpha _D^R\frac{v_F^R}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }^R}\alpha _D\left[1(\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}\eta _1^{1\overline{1}})\mathrm{ln}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p}\right].$$
(26)
The RG beta function for the anisotropy is given by:

$$\beta _{\alpha _D}=\frac{d\alpha _D^R}{d\mathrm{ln}p}=\alpha _D(\eta _2^{1\overline{1}}\eta _1^{1\overline{1}}).$$
(27)
In the case of weak anisotropy ($`v_F=1+\delta ,v_\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$) the above expression can be determined analytically as an expansion in $`\delta .`$ Using Eqs.(20-21) we obtain

$$\beta _{\alpha _D}=\frac{8}{3\pi ^2N}\left(\frac{6}{5}\delta (1+\delta )(2\delta )+𝒪(\delta ^3)\right).$$
(28)
Note that this expression is independent of the gauge parameter $`\xi `$. For $`0<\delta 1`$ the $`\beta `$ function is positive which means that anisotropy decreases in the IR and thus the anisotropic QED3 scales to an isotropic QED3. For $`1\delta <0`$ the $`\beta `$ function is negative and in this case $`\alpha _D`$ increases towards the fixed point $`\alpha _D=1`$, i.e. again towards the isotropic QED3. Note that for $`\delta >2`$, $`\beta <0`$ which may naively indicate that there is a fixed point at $`\delta =2`$; this however cannot be trusted as it is outside of the range of validity of the power expansion of $`\eta _\mu `$. The numerical evaluation of the quadrature for $`\eta _\mu `$ shows that, apart from the isotropic fixed point and the unstable fixed point at $`\alpha _D=0`$, $`\beta _{\alpha _D}`$ does not vanish (see Fig. 1). This indicates that to the leading order in $`1/N`$ expansion, the theory flows into the isotropic fixed point and relativistic invariance is dynamically restored in the IR limit.

Although $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_n(q)`$ is a gauge dependent quantity we now show that it can still be put to good use in helping us extract the physical, gauge-invariant information about fermion propagation. To this end, we employ an important result derived by Brown brown  in the context of QED4 which relates $`G(xx^{})=\psi (x)\overline{\psi }(x^{})`$ to the gauge-invariant propagator $`\stackrel{~}{G}(xx^{})`$:

$$G(xx^{})=e^{F(xx^{})}\stackrel{~}{G}(xx^{})$$
(29)
where

$$F=\frac{1}{2}𝑑z𝑑z^{}J_\mu (z)D_{\mu \nu }(zz^{})J_\nu (z^{})$$
(30)
and

$$J_\mu (z)=(xx^{})_\mu _0^1𝑑\alpha \delta ^d(zx^{}\alpha (xx^{})).$$
(31)
The exponential factor in (29) is just the expectation value of the straight line integral of the gauge field $`\mathrm{exp}(i_x^x^{}𝑑s_\mu a_\mu )`$ averaged over (16).

The expressions (29-31) hold in an arbitrary covariant gauge and reflect the fact that the part of $`_{\mathrm{eff}}[a_\mu ]`$ obtained after integrating out the fermions must be purely transverse and thus the longitudinal, gauge dependent part (16), enters only at the quadratic order. The leading long wavelength dependence is then given by Eqs. (29-31). Using the long distance scaling of the gauge field propagator $`D_{\mu \nu }(s(xx^{}))=s^{1d}D_{\mu \nu }(xx^{})`$ and dimensional regularization brown  it is straightforward to show that $`F(r)=\frac{1}{(d2)(d3)}r_\mu D_{\mu \nu }(r)r_\nu ,`$ where $`D_{\mu \nu }(r)`$ is the Fourier transform of (15) to the real spacetime. Computing this expression at the isotropic fixed point in the limit $`d3`$ we find

$$F(r)=\frac{4(\xi 2)}{N\pi ^2}\left(\frac{r^{3d}}{3d}\right)\frac{4(\xi 2)}{N\pi ^2}\left(\mathrm{log}(\mathrm{\Lambda }r)+\frac{1}{3d}\right)$$
(32)
If $`\xi =2`$ (Yennie gauge) $`F`$ vanishes and the physical gauge-invariant propagator $`\stackrel{~}{G}(xx^{})`$ coincides with the gauge-variant one $`G(xx^{})`$. An important observation follows from the above results: by inserting $`\xi =2`$ into our expression for the gauge-variant self-energy (18-21) we obtain the anomalous dimension exponent of the physical gauge-invariant Dirac fermion propagator in isotropic QED3, $`\eta =16/3\pi ^2N`$ ($`\eta 0.27`$ for $`N=2`$) ftqed ; gusynin2 . This exponent serves as the signature of the interacting infrared critical point which regulates the low-energy physics in the chiral symmetric phase (AFL of Ref. ftqed ) of both isotropic and anisotropic QED3.

We thank V. Gusynin for sharing his valuable insights on QED3 and Profs. I. F. Herbut and D. V. Khveshchenko for useful comments. This work was supported in part by NSF grant DMR00-94981 (OV and ZT) and NSERC (MF).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In its weak–field and slow–motion approximation General Relativity predicts that, among other things, the orbit of a test particle freely falling in the gravitational field of a central rotating body is affected by the so called gravitomagnetic dragging of the inertial frames or Lense–Thirring effect. More precisely, the longitude of the ascending node $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the argument of the perigee $`\omega `$ of the orbit \[Sterne, 1960\] undergo tiny precessions according to \[Lense and Thirring, 1918\]

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2GJ}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}},`$ ($`1`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{6GJ\mathrm{cos}i}{c^2a^3(1e^2)^{\frac{3}{2}}}},`$ ($`2`$)
in which $`G`$ is the Newtonian gravitational constant, $`J`$ is the proper angular momentum of the central body, $`c`$ is the speed of light $`invacuum`$, $`a,e`$ and $`i`$ are the semimajor axis, the eccentricity and the inclination, respectively, of the orbit of the test particle.

The first measurement of this effect in the gravitational field of the Earth has been obtained by analyzing a suitable combination of the laser-ranged data to the existing passive geodetic satellites LAGEOS and LAGEOS II \[Ciufolini et al., 1998\]. The observable \[Ciufolini, 1996\] is a linear trend with a slope of 60.2 milliarcseconds per year (mas/y in the following) and includes the residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS and LAGEOS II and the perigee of LAGEOS II111The perigee of LAGEOS was not used because it introduces large observational errors due to the smallness of the LAGEOS eccentricity \[Ciufolini, 1996\] which amounts to 0.0045.. The Lense–Thirring precessions for the LAGEOS satellites amount to

$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}`$ $`=`$ $`31\text{mas/y},`$ ($`3`$)
$`\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`31.5\text{mas/y},`$ ($`4`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}`$ $`=`$ $`31.6\text{mas/y},`$ ($`5`$)
$`\dot{\omega }_{\mathrm{LT}}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}`$ $`=`$ $`57\text{mas/y}.`$ ($`6`$)
The total relative accuracy of the measurement of the solve-for parameter $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$, introduced in order to account for this general relativistic effect, is about $`23\times 10^1`$ \[Ciufolini et al., 1998\].

In this kind of experiments using Earth satellites the major source of systematic errors is represented by the aliasing trends due to the classical secular precessions \[Kaula, 1966\] of the node and the perigee induced by the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential $`J_2,J_4,J_6,\mathrm{}`$ Indeed, according to the present knowledge of the Earth’s gravity field based on the EGM96 model \[Lemoine et al., 1998\], the $`J_{2n}`$ errors are comparable in size with the gravitomagnetic precessions of interest, especially for the first two even zonal harmonics. In the performed LAGEOS experiment the adopted observable allowed for the cancellation of the static and dynamical effects of $`J_2`$ and $`J_4`$. The remaining higher degree even zonal harmonics affected the measurement at a $`13\%`$ level.

In order to achieve a few percent accuracy, in \[Ciufolini, 1986\] it was proposed to launch a passive geodetic laser-ranged satellite- the former LAGEOS III - with the same orbital parameters of LAGEOS apart from its inclination which should be supplementary to that of LAGEOS.

This orbital configuration would be able to cancel out exactly the classical nodal precessions, which are proportional to $`\mathrm{cos}i`$, provided that the observable to be adopted is the sum of the residuals of the nodal precessions of LAGEOS III and LAGEOS

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{III}}+\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^\mathrm{I}=62\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}.$$
($`7`$)
Later on the concept of the mission slightly changed. The area-to-mass ratio of LAGEOS III was reduced in order to make less relevant the impact of the non-gravitational perturbations, the total weight of the satellite was reduced to about 100 kg, i.e. to about 25$`\%`$ of the weight of LAGEOS, and the eccentricity was enhanced in order to be able to perform other general relativistic tests: the LARES was born \[Ciufolini, 1998\]. The orbital parameters of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES are in Tab. 1.

At present the LARES experiment is just at a Phase–A stage and has not yet been approved by any space agency. Although much cheaper than other proposed and approved complex space–based missions, funding is the major obstacle in implementing the LARES project.

In this paper we investigate the possibility of modifying the original LARES mission in order to achieve significant improvements in the reduction of some relevant systematic errors. The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we analyze in detail the impact of the unavoidable orbital injection errors in the orbital parameters of LARES on the systematic error induced by the mismodelling in even zonal harmonics of the geopotential according to the most recently released Earth gravity model EGM96. Moreover, in Section 3 we propose an alternative configuration which should be able to reduce this error by one order of magnitude. It adopts as observable a suitable combination of the orbital residuals of the nodes of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES, and the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES. It presents also the important advantage that it is almost insensitive to the errors in the inclination of LARES, contrary to the original LAGEOS/LARES only configuration. A further observable, based only on the nodes of the three LAGEOS satellites and of Ajisai, is also presented. Some possible less convincing implications of placing the LARES in a low-altitude polar orbit are examined in Section 4. Section 5 is devoted to the conclusions.

## 2 The impact of the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential on the original LARES mission

Let us calculate the systematic error induced by the mismodelling in the even degree zonal coefficients $`J_2`$, $`J_4`$,… of the geopotential on the sum of the classical precessions of the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES. It is important to stress that it is the major source of systematic error and cannot be eliminated in any way. We will use the covariance matrix of the Earth gravity field model EGM96 \[Lemoine et al., 1998\] by summing up in a root sum square fashion the correlated contributes up to degree $`l=20`$. The relative error obtained by using the nominal values of Tab. 1 amounts to

$$\frac{\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}_{\mathrm{zonals}}=3\times 10^3.$$
($`8`$)
It is not equal to zero because we have assumed $`e_{\mathrm{LR}}=0.04`$ while $`e_{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}=0.0045`$. If it was $`e_{\mathrm{LR}}=e_{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}`$, then the classical nodal precessions would be exactly equal in value and opposite in sign and would cancel out. Note that the coefficients with which $`\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{III}}`$ and $`\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^\mathrm{I}`$ enter the combination of eq. ($`7`$) do not depend on any orbital parameters: they are constant numbers equal to 1; this combination allows to cancel out all the classical nodal precessions due to the $`J_{2n}`$ coefficients, including those induced by $`J_2`$ and $`J_4`$ which are cancelled out $`apriori`$ in the combination used in the LAGEOS experiment \[Ciufolini, 1996\]. They are the most effective in aliasing the Lense–Thirring precessional rates.

Now we will focus on the sensitivity of $`\frac{\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}_{\mathrm{zonals}}`$ to the possible orbital injection errors in the orbital parameters of LARES. For a former analysis see \[Casotto et al., 1990\]. It is particularly interesting to consider the impact of the errors in the inclination and the semimajor axis. The ranges of variation for them have been chosen in a very conservative way in order to take into account low-precision and low-costs injection scenarios.

From Fig.1 it is interesting to note that the minimum value of the systematic zonal error, which amounts to $`2.1\times 10^3`$, does not correspond to $`i_{\mathrm{LR}}=70\text{deg}`$ but it is obtained for a slightly smaller value. It is possible to show that for $`e_{\mathrm{LR}}=e_{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}`$ the minimum is 0 and that it is attained at $`i_{\mathrm{LR}}=70\mathrm{deg}`$. The maximum error in Fig. 1 amounts to $`1.6\times 10^2`$. This suggests that the original LARES project is relatively sensitive to small departures of $`i_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ from its nominal value. Fig. 2 shows that even more relevant is the sensitivity to the LARES semimajor axis. Also in this case the minimum is attained at a value of $`a_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ smaller than the nominal $`a_{\mathrm{LR}}=12,270`$ km. Notice that the variation of the error is more than one order of magnitude and may also reach values of some percent. For $`e_{\mathrm{LR}}=e_{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}`$ the minimum error amounts to 0 and it is obtained for $`a_{\mathrm{LR}}=12,270`$ km, as expected. In obtaining Fig. 2 we have accounted for the dependence of the nodal Lense–Thirring precession on $`a`$ by varying, accordingly, the slope of the general relativistic trend. The sensitivity to eccentricity variations is less relevant: e.g., by varying it from 0.03 to 0.05 the relative systematic zonal error increases from $`1.6\times 10^3`$ to just $`4.6\times 10^3`$.

## 3 An alternative LARES scenario

Here we will look for an alternative observable involving the orbital elements of LARES satisfying the following requirements

* It should yield a value for the systematic error due to the mismodelled even zonal harmonics of the geopotential smaller than that of the simple sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES. Moreover, such error should be less sensitive to the departures of the possible real orbital elements of LARES from the nominal values of Tab. 1
* It should contain and, if possible, reduce, the time–varying gravitational and non–gravitational part of the error budget

These requirements could be implemented by setting up a suitable orbital combination which cancels out the contributions of as many mismodelled even zonal harmonics as possible, following the strategy of the LAGEOS experiment outlined in \[Ciufolini, 1996\]. To this aim we will consider only the satellites of the LAGEOS family, both because they are the best laser-ranged targets and because the gravitational and non-gravitational perturbations affecting their orbits have been, and will be, extensively and thoroughly analyzed. Moreover, since they are almost insensitive to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of degree higher than $`l=20`$, the use of the covariance matrix of EGM96 up to222For higher degrees the reliability of the EGM96 model is questionable. $`l=20`$ should allow for realistic estimates of the systematic error due to the static part of the terrestrial gravitational field.

Our result is

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+c_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LARES}}+c_3\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}+c_4\delta \dot{\omega }^{\mathrm{LARES}}=61.8\mu _{\mathrm{LT}},$$
($`9`$)
with

$`c_1`$ $`=`$ $`6\times 10^3,`$ ($`10`$)
$`c_2`$ $`=`$ $`9.83\times 10^1,`$ ($`11`$)
$`c_3`$ $`=`$ $`1\times 10^3,`$ ($`12`$)
$`c_4`$ $`=`$ $`2\times 10^3.`$ ($`13`$)
The coefficients $`c_i`$ given by eqs. ($`10`$)-($`13`$) have been obtained by solving for the five unknowns $`\delta J_2`$, $`\delta J_4`$ $`\delta J_6`$, $`\delta J_8`$ and $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$ a nonhomogeneous algebraic linear system of five equations expressing the observed mismodelled classical precessions of the nodes of LAGEOS, LARES and LAGEOS II and the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES. They depend on the orbital parameters of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES (nominal values of Tab. 1) and are built up so to cancel out all the static and dynamical contributions of degree $`l=2,4,6,8`$ and order $`m=0`$ of the Earth’ s gravitational field.

The relative systematic error due to the $`J_{2n},n5`$, according to EGM96 up to degree $`l=20`$, amounts to

$$\frac{\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}_{\mathrm{zonals}}=2\times 10^4,$$
($`14`$)
which is one order of magnitude better than the result of eq. ($`8`$).

Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show the achievements realized in reducing the sensitivity of the proposed combined residuals to the orbital injection errors in the LARES orbital elements. In obtaining Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 we have accounted for the dependence on $`a_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ and $`i_{\mathrm{LR}}`$ of both the coefficients and the Lense–Thirring precessions: it turns out that the variations in the slope of the general relativistic trend are very smooth with respect to the nominal value of 61.8 mas/y amounting to few mas/y and the values of the zonal error are much closer to the nominal one given by eq. ($`14`$). Also in this case, the minima are attained at slightly different values of the LARES orbital elements with respect to the nominal ones. It is also interesting to note in Fig. 3 that over a 3$`\%`$ variation of $`i_{\mathrm{LARES}}`$ the error due to the mismodelled zonal harmonics remain almost constant, while over a 5$`\%`$ variation of $`a_{\mathrm{LARES}}`$ it changes by 1 order of magnitude, as it turns out from Fig. 4. However, the result is quite satisfactory, especially if compared to Fig. 2.

### 3.1 Preliminary error budget estimate

It is worthwhile noticing that the time-varying gravitational and non–gravitational orbital perturbations which would affect the proposed combined residuals would be depressed by the small values of the coefficients with which some orbital elements enter the combination.

* For example, in regard to the Earth solid and ocean tides \[Iorio, 2001\], it is important that the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES, which are affected by very long–period uncancelled tidal perturbations, enter the combination weighted by small coefficients of order of $`10^3`$. On the contrary, the tidal perturbations which would affect the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES, which enter the combination with coefficients of the order of the unity, would have periods of short or medium length, so that they could be averaged out or, at least, could be viewed as empirically fitted quantities over an observational time span $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ of few a years only \[Iorio and Pavlis, 2001\].
* More subtle and complex to model is the action of the non–gravitational (NG) perturbations. These perturbative effects depend on the physical and geometrical features of the satellites, on the geometry of their orbit in space – orientation and size – and on the complex interaction of the electromagnetic radiation of solar and terrestrial origin with the satellites’ surfaces.

In particular thermal thrust effects – due to the uncertainties of some of their characteristic parameters – play a crucial role in the Lense-Thirring effect determination on both the node and the perigee of LAGEOS–type satellites \[$`\mathrm{𝐿𝑢𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖}`$, 2001; 2002\]. These perturbations, such as the solar Yarkovsky-Schach effect, the Earth Yarkovsky-Rubincam effect and the asymmetric reflectivity effect, are related to the satellite spin axis orientation and rate. This opens the problem of the satellites spin axis vector determination from ground observations in such a way to establish if the models developed for the spin axis evolution \[Bertotti and Iess, 1991; Habib et al., 1994; Farinella et al., 1996; Currie et al., 1997; Bianco et al., 2001\] are reliable or not. For example, the previously cited models seem no more able to explain the LAGEOS spin axis evolution starting from 1997 \[$`M\stackrel{´}{e}tris`$ et al., 1999\]. Moreover, it should also be stressed that such subtle disturbing accelerations are included in a rather incomplete manner in the force models of orbit determination softwares like GEODYN II. It should be underlined that, if and when the LARES mission will be implemented, the effects of the thermal forces will be different for the three satellites also because the dynamical states of their spins will radically differ from each other. Temporal variations in the reflectivity coefficients $`C_\mathrm{R}`$ of the LAGEOS satellites have also to be accurately determined and modelled using the orbital observations. Indeed, the reflectivity coefficient of the LAGEOS II satellite has been observed to be changing in time. However, this change can be accurately modelled from the experimental data, independently of the Lense–Thirring effect, because of the precise knowledge of the frequencies and relative amplitudes of the orbital perturbations due to the direct solar radiation pressure. In our error budget we have also included this source of error due to the mismodelling of time variations in the satellites reflectivity coefficients.

In the following we give the results – on the LT effect measurement – of a numerical simulation and analysis of the satellites orbit over a 7–year observational time span. We considered the previously quoted thermal thrust effects, the direct solar radiation pressure and Earth albedo on the satellites node and perigee rates. For the definition and characteristics of these perturbations we refer to literature, while for the most recent and significative results we refer to $`M\stackrel{´}{e}tris`$ et al.,  and to $`\mathrm{𝐿𝑢𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠𝑖}`$ . In Tab. 2, 3 and 4 the nominal results, from the numerical simulation and analysis, respectively in the case of LAGEOS, LAGEOS II and LARES are shown. The rates obtained are expressed in mas/y.

In the simulation performed we neglected the possibility of an asymmetric reflectivity effect in the case of LARES. This is due to the particular care with which its structure will be build–up (see LARES proposal, \[Ciufolini, 1998\]) to avoid some of the problems related with the thermal thrust effects, and also for the absence of the four Germanium cube–corner retroreflectors, which could be good candidates to explain at least a part of this anisotropy in the satellite hemispheres reflectivity. We also neglected the time variations of the reflectivity coefficients of the satellites. In the simulation we applied to LARES the spin model developed for LAGEOS in the Farinella et al.  version (rapid–spin approximation)333This model \[Lucchesi, 2002\] still gives very good results in the case of LAGEOS II, in agreement with the results of Bianco et al.  for the satellite rotational rate.. For LAGEOS we applied the model starting from 1993, when the gravitational torque gives the major contribution to the evolution. Of course, as previously stated, starting from 1997 the model does not give, for the spin components of LAGEOS, values in good agreement with the observations.

The larger effects in the analysed orbital elements are, of course, those due to the direct solar radiation pressure. This is a rather accurate modelled perturbative effect on passive satellites and we have assumed a value of about $`0.5\%`$ for its uncertainty in the case of LAGEOS–type satellites, limited by the measurement errors in the determination of the solar constant $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ and especially in the knowledge of the satellite reflectivity coefficient $`C_\mathrm{R}`$ and in its temporal variation. Following a conservative approach we can assume an uncertainty of about $`20\%`$ for the other perturbations. This is probably a pessimistic assumption, particularly for the perturbative effects of the Earth Yarkovsky–Rubincam effect, but is also a way to get an upper–bound order–of–magnitude estimate of the non–gravitational perturbations error budget. We can then combine linearly – following Eq. (9) – the rates obtained in such a way to estimate the impact of the uncertainty of each perturbation in the Lense–Thirring effect determination. The results obtained are reported in Tab. 5.

As we can see, the largest effect is that of the Earth Yarkovsky–Rubincam perturbation. This is due to the fact that all the perigee rate effects are depressed by the very small values of the coefficients $`c_3`$ and $`c_4`$, then the major contributions in the combination are due to the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES. It is also important to stress that, while the asymmetric reflectivity and solar Yarkovsky perturbations gives only long–term periodic effects in the analysed elements, those due to the Earth Rubincam perturbation are both secular and periodic in the nodal and perigee rates. Of course, when the resulting time–varying perturbations exhibit harmonic behavior with known relatively short periods, over an observational time span $`T_{\mathrm{obs}}`$ of some years, they could be fitted and removed from the signal – as for the tidal perturbations – with an improvement in the root–mean–square of the residuals. But this technique cannot be applied in the case of the secular non–gravitational perturbations in the satellites node and perigee.

To determine the error budget estimate of the Lense–Thirring effect measurement due to the analysed non–gravitational perturbations we have conservatively added their contributions. We finally obtain

$$\frac{\delta \mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}{\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}}_{\mathrm{NG}}5\times 10^3.$$
($`15`$)
As we can see, the impact of the mismodelled non–gravitational perturbations uncertainties is below $`1\%`$ of the relativistic parameter $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$, even with our conservative approach. Notice also that it is larger than the error by the static part of the geopotential.

We finally conclude this section underlining a few points
* It should be noticed that, according to certain pessimistic evaluations, the true, realistic errors in the perigees rates of LAGEOS–like satellites induced by various sources of systematic biases might even amount to 100$`\%`$ of their Lense–Thirring shifts. However, even in this case, the impact on our proposed configuration would amount to 2$`\times 10^3`$ thanks to the small coefficients with which the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES enter the proposed combination.
* Moreover, the observational error in the LAGEOS II and LARES perigees, which are undoubtedly difficult to measure for low eccentric satellites as LAGEOS due to the small value of their eccentricity, would have an impact of the order of $`1\times 10^4`$ by assuming an uncertainty of the order of 1 cm over 1 year in the satellite’s position.
* Finally, preliminary estimates of the standard statistical error in the solve-for least square parameter $`\mu _{\mathrm{LT}}`$, based on simulations encompassing the present models of the time-dependent LAGEOS perturbations \[Iorio, 2001; Lucchesi, 2001; 2002\] and the noise level reported in the Lense-Thirring LAGEOS experiment, yield a value of the order of $`10^3`$.

So, it should not be unrealistic to predict a total uncertainty below $`1\%`$, according to the present–day force models.

### 3.2 A nodes-only combination

In order to avoid the use of the perigees, which, independently of the coefficients with which they would enter the observable, are more sensitive than the nodes to a large set of classical gravitational and non–gravitational perturbations, the following alternative combination may be proposed as well

$$\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LARES}}+k_1\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}}+k_2\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{Ajisai}}+k_3\delta \dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{\mathrm{LAGEOS}\mathrm{II}}=62.7\mu _{\mathrm{LT}},$$
($`16`$)
with

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`1.01,`$ ($`17`$)
$`k_2`$ $`=`$ $`4\times 10^5,`$ ($`18`$)
$`k_3`$ $`=`$ $`3\times 10^3.`$ ($`19`$)
Also in this case, the coefficients $`k_1,k_2`$ and $`k_3`$ have been calculated for the nominal values of the orbital parameters of LARES. Eq. ($`16`$) uses only the nodes of the three LAGEOS satellites and of Ajisai \[Iorio, 2002\] and cancels out the mismodelled contributions of $`J_2,J_4`$ and $`J_6`$. The relative error due to the remaining zonal harmonics of the geopotential would amount to $`3\times 10^4`$, as in the case of the previously proposed combination including the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES. Moreover, the time–dependent part of the error budget would be mainly dominated by the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES. We notice that the Ajisai satellite is much more sensitive than the LAGEOS satellites to the non–gravitational perturbations. Indeed, its area–to–mass ratio is larger than that of the LAGEOS satellites. Nevertheless, the coefficient $`k_2`$ weighting the Ajisai contribution in the combination eq. ($`16`$) is just $`4\times 10^5`$, i.e. much smaller than the other weighting coefficients in eq. ($`16`$).

As shown in Fig. 5, the main drawback of eq. ($`16`$) would be its sensitivity to the orbital injection errors in the LARES inclination, contrary to eq. ($`9`$) and Fig. 3. Instead, regarding the semimajor axis of LARES, eq. ($`16`$) would be rather insensitive to its injection error.

## 4 The POLARES

In order to cope with practical launching costs it is currently under consideration the possibility of inserting the new LAGEOS-like satellite in a low altitude polar orbit with $`i=90`$ deg and $`a=8,378`$ km obtaining the so called POLARES \[Lucchesi and Paolozzi, 2001\]. The Lense–Thirring shift of its node would amount to 96.9 mas/y.

If we could obtain and keep exactly an inclination of $`90`$ deg we would be able to use the POLARES node only because the classical mismodelled nodal precessions, which depend on $`\mathrm{cos}i`$, would vanish. However, the unavoidable injection errors in the POLARES inclination, in this case, would be greatly enhanced by the too low altitude in the sense that the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics would blow up even for relatively small departures from the nominal values.

This is clearly shown by Fig. 6. Also in this case, this result has been obtained by adding in a root–sum–square fashion the correlated mismodelled classical nodal precessions with the EGM96 model up to degree $`l=20`$. Moreover, it should be considered that, in this case, also the even zonal harmonics of degree higher than 20 would affect the systematic geopotential error.

As expected, for $`i_{\mathrm{PL}}=90`$ deg the systematic zonal error vanishes.

It turns out that even by including the POLARES in some combinations, this configuration would remain unfavorable.

However, the forthcoming new gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE will improve the error budget.

## 5 Conclusions

If analyzed from the point of view of the impact of the systematic error induced by the mismodelling in the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential, which is the most important source of systematic error, the originally proposed LARES observable, consisting of the sum of the nodes of LAGEOS and LARES, is somehow sensitive to the possible departures of the original LARES orbital parameters from their nominal values due to orbital injection errors. The related systematic error could even raise to few percent, especially as far as the semimajor axis is concerned. It should be also considered that LARES could be put into an orbit with a low-cost launcher which, inevitably, would induce relatively large injection errors. Indeed, the most expensive part of the implementation of the LARES mission would just be the launch and in such experiment, which would get a measurement of the Lense–Thirring effect with accuracy comparable to the Stanford GP-B mission \[Everitt et al., 2001\], this could be a serious drawback.

The adoption of the alternative combined residuals proposed here, including also the node of LAGEOS II and the perigees of LAGEOS II and LARES, would reduce by about one order of magnitude the systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential decreasing from $`0.3\%`$ to $`0.02\%`$, according to the present–day EGM96 gravity model, and would greatly reduce the sensitivity of such result to errors in the LARES orbital parameters. This would yield to less stringent requirements on the quality and the costs of the launcher to be adopted.

Preliminary estimates of the error budget, based on the present–day force models such as the EGM96 Earth gravity model, show that it would be possible to obtain a total error $`1\%`$. It is very important to notice that when the new data on the terrestrial gravitational field from the CHAMP and GRACE missions will be available, the systematic error due to the even zonal spherical harmonic coefficients of the geopotential will greatly reduce. The impact of the errors related to the quality of laser data will further reduce in the near future as well. However, a careful analysis of the error induced by the spin–dependent, non–gravitational thermal forces will be required together with an accurate modelling of the temporal variations of the satellites reflectivity coefficients. In particular, with the despinning of the satellites rotational period, more refined thermal models are needed in such a way to consider the equatorial component of the perturbing acceleration jointly with the component along the spin–axis direction, the only one necessary in the rapid–spin approximation \[Vokrouhlichk$`\stackrel{´}{y}`$ and Farinella, 1997\]. This perturbative acceleration arises when the longitudinal gradient of temperature, induced by the slowed down rotation of the LAGEOS satellites, become significative. It is worth noticing that, with the proposed observable, the impact of the non–gravitational orbital perturbations is more relevant than that of the gravitational perturbations; this fact will be further enforced when the gravity models from CHAMP and GRACE will be available.

It should also be possible to adopt a combination involving only the nodes of LARES, LAGEOS, Ajisai and LAGEOS II. The systematic error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential would be equal to the previous case in which the node of Ajisai would be substituted by the perigees of LARES and LAGEOS II, but this combination turns out to be more sensitive to the orbital injection errors in the inclination of LARES.

The possibility of injecting LARES in a low polar orbit at 2,000 km of altitude in order to consider only its nodal rate would be, at the present level of knowledge of the Earth’s gravity field, a not entirely satisfactory solution because, according to our evaluations based on EGM96, even small deviations from the projected inclination would lead to an error due to the even zonal harmonics of the geopotential of several percents. Anyway, this solution may be considered as a lower–cost approach to the Lense–Thirring effect determination in such a way to reduce the error budget below the $`20\%`$ uncertainty of the actual measurement obtained with LAGEOS and LAGEOS II \[Lucchesi, 2002\]. However, the systematic gravitational errors using a polar satellites will be reduced with the new gravity models from the CHAMP and GRACE missions.

The approach outlined here could also be useful for other precise general relativistic tests, as sketched in \[Iorio, 2002\] for the measurement of the gravitoelectric perigee advance. Moreover, in view of an ”opportunistic” approach to general relativistic measurements, this strategy could easily be exploited in encompassing other satellites, proposed or planned to be launched in the near future for other scopes, if they will be useful for testing General Relativity as well.

## Acknowledgements

L.I. is grateful to L. Guerriero for his support while at Bari.