text:
# The thermodynamic spin magnetization of strongly correlated 2D electrons in a silicon inversion layer

## I Introduction

The nature of the ground state of degenerate two dimensional (2D) fermions at zero magnetic field is an outstanding open problem, which has not been deciphered despite decades of research. In the absence of disorder the ground state is believed to be determined by an interplay between the kinetic energy, $`E_F`$, and the inter-particle interaction energy, $`E_c=e^2/\kappa a`$, where $`a=(\pi n)^{1/2}`$ is the inter particle distance, $`n`$ is the areal particle density, and $`\kappa `$ is the host dielectric constant. The relative importance of the two energy scales is characterized by $`r_s=a/a_0`$, with $`a_0`$ being the Bohr radius. For electrons in a single band $`r_s=E_c/E_F`$, while for the (100) surface of silicon $`r_s=E_c/2E_F`$ due to the two-fold valley degeneracy. At very high densities ($`r_s1`$) a 2D system approaches the non-interacting degenerate gas paramagnetic limit, characterized by the Pauli susceptibility $`\chi _0`$. As the density is reduced, the growing ferromagnetic correlations lead to substantial enhancement of the spin susceptibility $`\chi `$. The system is predicted to remain paramagnetic up to $`r_s20÷25`$, where numerical calculations Senatore ; attaccalite  find a quantum phase transition to a ferromagnetic liquid phase Don . At lower density, $`r_s37`$ T&C , the Coulomb correlations are predicted to lead via another phase transition to a quantum Wigner crystal with frustrated antiferromagnetic spin arrangement Ceperley\_2001  followed by transition to a ferromagnetic arrangement at an even lower density Voelker01 . The energy balance between the ferro and paramagnetic states is very subtle and the density window where ferromagnetism may take place is small Senatore ; attaccalite . Such a ferromagnetic phase has never been observed experimentally. The situation is fundamentally complicated by the unavoidable disorder present in any realistic system. In the absence of Coulomb interactions all wave functions of a 2D system are believed to be exponentially localized gang4 . Localization modifies the Coulomb interaction dramatically in the low density limit. The interplay between kinetic energy, interaction, and disorder was worked out theoretically for the case of relatively weak disorder aa ; Fin ; Zala . It was found that the interaction suppresses the localizing effect of disorder, especially in the presence of valley degeneracy Punnoose . Yet, at low enough densities disorder prevails and localization always commences.

Notwithstanding the substantial research done thus far, there is presently no agreed picture of the phase diagram corresponding to a realistic 2D fermion system. It is clear that the spin degree of freedom plays a crucial role in the low density regime, $`n2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, but the minute total magnetic moment pertaining to such a small number of spins has hindered, thus far, any direct measurement of the thermodynamic spin magnetization. Present estimates of the 2DEG magnetization in silicon rely on susceptibility data obtained from transport measurements, either Shubnikov-de Haas (Sh-dH) oscillations in a tilted magnetic field FS68 ; OH99 ; VZ1 ; gm  or saturation of the magnetoresistance in an in-plane field SKDK ; VZ2 . The two approaches led to contradicting conclusions. While the magnetoresistance data were interpreted as indicating the long awaited Bloch-Stoner Don  instability at the critical density for the metal-insulator transition, analysis of Sh-dH oscillations points against such instability Pudalov:02 .

At the heart of the present manuscript is a novel method invented to measure the thermodynamic magnetization directly. We apply the method to a high mobility 2D electron layer in silicon. In particular, we find that, as the density is reduced, the weak field spin susceptibility is progressively enhanced up to 7.5 $`\chi _0`$, but the ferromagnetic instability is never realized. The system turns insulating before it polarizes and electron localization then leads to a reduction in the Coulomb interaction. The localization transition is thus characterized by a sharp cusp in magnetization. Interestingly, we find indications for localized magnetic moments in coexistence with the itinerant electrons, even at high carrier densities.

## II Method, samples, and experimental setup

The experimental setup is presented in Fig. 1. An external bias, $`V_G`$, sets a constant electrochemical potential difference between the gate and the 2D channel equal to the sum of the electrostatic potential difference, $`\varphi `$, and the difference between the aluminum gate and the 2DEG work-functions, $`W_{Al}`$ and $`W_{2D}`$, respectively

$$eV_G=e\varphi (n)+W_{Al}W_{2D}(n,B).$$
(1)
Modulation of the in-plane magnetic field by an auxiliary coil at a frequency $`\omega `$ modulates the chemical potential of the 2DEG and, hence, $`W_{2D}`$ ($`W_{Al}`$ modulation is negligible). Since $`V_G`$ is kept constant, the differential of Eq. 1 vanishes. The 2DEG chemical potential, $`\mu `$, equals the $`\mathrm{Si}\mathrm{SiO}_2`$ band discontinuity minus $`W_{2D}`$ (Fig. 1). Consequently, one obtains

$$e\frac{\varphi }{n}dn+\frac{\mu }{n}dn+\frac{\mu }{B}dB=0,$$
(2)
or

$$\frac{\mu }{B}=\left(e\frac{\varphi }{n}+\frac{\mu }{n}\right)\frac{dn}{dB},$$
(3)
where $`(e\varphi /n+\mu /n)/e^2=C^1`$ is the independently measured inverse capacitance per unit area, comprising the geometrical and chemical potential contributions. The latter contribution includes well width and interaction effects.

In terms of the induced current, $`\delta I`$, and the magnetic field modulation, $`\delta B`$, one obtains

$$\frac{\mu }{B}=\frac{ie\delta I}{C\omega \delta B}.$$
(4)
Since the 2D layer thickness and the screening length are minuscule compared with the oxide thickness, the capacitance is close to the geometrical one, and hence, constant to within 1% in the whole density range. Using one of Maxwell’s relations, $`M/n=\mu /B`$, we obtain $`M/n`$ and integrate it numerically with respect to $`n`$ to derive the magnetization $`M(B,n)`$. The magnetic susceptibility $`\chi `$ is calculated from the slope of $`M(B,n)`$ versus $`B`$ at small fields. An additional constant field, induced by the main coil, facilitates magnetization measurements at finite magnetic field.

While the method is conceptually straightforward, its realization is demanding since the current induced by the field modulation is typically on the order of $`10^{15}`$ A, while the spurious current induced in all wire loops by the ac magnetic field, and even more so by mechanical vibrations of the sample in the dc magnetic field, are potentially larger by several orders of magnitude. The induced currents were minimized in the experiment by careful compensation of all loops. Mechanical vibrations were minimized by rebuilding the relevant parts of the refrigerator to achieve high enough mechanical rigidity. After building several prototypes we were able to drive all mechanical resonances to frequencies considerably higher than the field modulation frequency, and hence, eliminate the mechanical vibrations at the measurement frequency.

The same setup can be used to measure the much larger orbital magnetization in a perpendicular magnetic field. The method’s sensitivity scales with sample’s area and magnetic field modulation amplitude. For the $`4\mathrm{mm}^2`$ sample and 0.03 T rms field modulation used here, it was about 10<sup>-14</sup> J/T, comparable to the best sensitivity achieved with SQUID-based magnetometers Meinel:APL97  (a review of the current state of the art in magnetization measurements can be found in Awshalom00, ). The advantage of our (and Meinel:APL97, ) method is in its applicability to arbitrary magnetic fields and temperatures, as well as to a wide range of conductivities. The extraction of the magnetization from Sh-dH oscillations, on the other hand, requires perpendicular magnetic fields, low temperatures and high enough mobilities. The most interesting regime, the transition to strong localization is, hence, at the limit of its reach.

The samples used in the experiment were similar to those used in Refs. rhoT1, ; rhoT2, . They consisted of 5 mm long 0.8 mm wide Hall bars with 2.5 mm separation between the potential probes. The oxide was 200 nm thick, leading to $`C=678`$ pF device capacitance. We applied $`15`$ V bias to the substrate in order to minimize the contacts resistance Prus02 . The maximal mobility under this bias reached $`17,000\mathrm{cm}^2/\mathrm{Vs}`$ . An alternating magnetic field of typically 100-300 G (rms) and $`f=\omega /2\pi =5÷20`$ Hz was applied parallel to the layer along with a desired constant field. A preamplifier with $`2fA/\sqrt{Hz}`$ current noise was used to measure the current and bias the gate (Fig. 1).

Unlike Sh-dH based measurements, our method is sensitive to the total thermodynamic magnetization comprising the spin part as well as the diamagnetic orbital contribution due to the finite ($`50`$ Å) thickness of the 2D layer (Fig. 1). Localized states also contribute to the measured magnetization, as long as they exchange particles with the 2DEG at a rate faster than $`\omega `$.

## III Experimental results and discussion

The measured $`M/n`$ at 9 T magnetic field and $`T=100`$ mK is depicted by dots in Fig. 2a. The smooth solid line depicts the same quantity as extracted from Sh-dH data gm . The difference between the two curves is attributed to the diamagnetic shift due to the sub-band energy level ($`\epsilon _0`$ in Fig. 1) dependence upon the magnetic field and to the presence of localized spins. Both effects do not appear in Sh-dH oscillations. While the localized spins are certainly relevant to the study of spin magnetization in real samples, the diamagnetic part reflects an orbital effect, which is outside the scope of our interest. To estimate the latter contribution we assume that the Sh-dH measurements at high densities (say $`n5\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), where the number of localized spins is small, give the spin magnetization correctly. The diamagnetic contribution is then given by the difference between our measured thermodynamic magnetization and the one extracted from the Sh-dH data. At zero density, on the other hand, one can calculate the diamagnetic shift in a single-particle picture. To complete the estimate at intermediate densities we interpolate between the two limits to obtain the dashed line in Fig. 2a. The spin magnetization in the whole density range is obtained by subtraction of the diamagnetic contribution (dashed line) from the measured data (dots). The effect of the magnetic field, even at 9 T, on the subband energy $`\epsilon _0`$ is much smaller than the inter-subband spacing. Therefore, the diamagnetic contribution to the magnetization should depend linearly upon magnetic field, in accordance with our high density data. The overall diamagnetic contribution in the low-density range is small compared with the spin contribution. Moreover, it varies slowly with density. The extracted spin magnetization is therefore only slightly affected by the details of the interpolation procedure. Yet, for $`n2\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ we find that the saturation value of the extracted spin magnetization $`M/n`$ (solid line in Fig. 2a) is lower by $`10`$ % than the one Bohr magneton per electron, expected for full polarization. Since all spins are likely to be polarized at low density and 9 T, we attribute the discrepancy to an underestimate of the diamagnetic contribution at low densities. The error in our measured data is much smaller than 10 %. The magnetization values presented below may, hence, underestimate the actual magnetization at low densities by up to $`2\times 10^9\mu _B\mathrm{cm}^2`$ per Tesla. This uncertainty is immaterial for our conclusions. The rest of the paper focuses on the spin contribution obtained by the above procedure.

The spin magnetization (Fig. 2b) at a given field is obtained by numerical integration of the extracted $`M/n`$ values with respect to $`n`$. Since the magnetization can be measured only above a certain density, for which the sample resistance is lower than $`1\mathrm{M}\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the integration cannot start from zero density, where $`M=0`$. Consequently, our integration yields the magnetization up to a constant, which is chosen so that the magnetization at high densities equals the values extracted from the Sh-dH oscillations. We neglect the small number of localized spins, which are present even at high densities. The fact that the resulting curves at all temperatures extrapolate to practically zero magnetization at $`n=0`$ (dashed lines in Fig. 2b) confirms that the integration constants are chosen properly.

The spin magnetization at various magnetic fields and four temperatures is depicted in Fig. 3a. For each magnetic field the curves with higher magnetization values correspond to lower temperatures. The thick blue line corresponds to full polarization of all carriers at a given density and the thick red line to the zero temperature magnetization of a non-interacting degenerate electron gas at $`B=6`$ T. The empty circles denote for each magnetic field the critical density $`n_c(B)`$, which separates the metallic regime from the insulating one AbrKravSar . At higher densities the resistance decreases as the temperature is reduced (metallic behavior) while at lower densities it increases (insulator). Whether the metallic behavior indicates a true 2D metal or merely finite temperature transport through localized states with long enough localization length is presently an open question. It is clear, though, that the insulating regime corresponds to localized states (either in the sense of percolation or in the sense of exponentially decaying wave functions) with progressively smaller localization lengths at lower densities. At high magnetic fields, full spin alignment persists up to densities considerably higher than those predicted for non-interacting electrons (compare the non-interacting and the experimental curves for $`B=6`$ T). Curiously, for all magnetic fields the magnetization reaches its maximal value at densities only slightly lower than the critical density $`n_c`$. As more carriers are added to the layer, the total magnetization is monotonically reduced. The large negative slope of the curves in the vicinity of $`n_c`$ indicates that the added delocalized electrons prefer to occupy the upper spin subband. At still higher densities the magnetization is further reduced towards the respective non-interacting values.

Fig. 3b depicts the maximal magnetization as well as the magnetization at the critical densities versus magnetic field. The data set an upper limit on the zero field polarization at the critical density, $`n_c1.25\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, to less than $`2\times 10^{10}\mu _\mathrm{b}\mathrm{cm}^2`$. Our data, hence, point against Stoner instability in our samples.

Within effective medium theory the inverse susceptibility per particle assumes Curie-Weiss form, $`\chi =\mu _B^2/k_B(TT_c)`$. The value of $`T_c`$ in this approximation provides an intuitive measure for the combined effects of the kinetic energy and interaction. In particular, a ferromagnetic instability requires positive $`T_c`$. The paramagnetic nature of the 2D layer should, hence, be reflected in the temperature dependence of the susceptibility $`\chi `$. The inverse susceptibility, determined from $`B=0.7`$ T spin magnetization, normalized by the electron density and expressed in Kelvins is depicted as a function of temperature in Fig. 4. For all densities the inverse susceptibility per spin is larger (negative $`T_c`$) than the Curie value, $`\chi ^1=k_BT/\mu _B^2`$, indicating that in the balance between the Coulomb energy gain and the kinetic energy toll associated with spin polarization in the system, the latter wins. Yet, at the lowest densities the victory is marginal, $`T_c0.2K`$. To appreciate the almost perfect balancing of the kinetic energy by the interaction, we compare the data for $`n=8\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ (thick line connecting the data points in Fig. 4) to the theoretical inverse susceptibility of a non-interacting 2D Fermi gas of the same density. The difference between the two curves reflects the effects of the ferromagnetic interaction and disorder, which are absent in an ideal non-interacting gas. Remarkably, the susceptibility measured at densities just below $`n_c`$, approaches the free spin one (Curie law) very closely, implying that the kinetic energy is almost perfectly compensated by the interaction. Yet, the former wins and paramagnetism prevails. Since we believe that the free spin-like susceptibility near the critical density is generic, rather than fortuitous, we propose that the localization transition is driven, in addition to disorder, by the strong exchange interaction, which promotes localization through the Pauli principle. Localization, in turn, reduces the overlap between the electron wave functions and, hence, the exchange interaction (a strongly localized system is believed to have a nearest neighbor antiferromagnetic order Bhatt&Lee ). This scenario also explains the large positive magnetoresistance observed in the vicinity of the $`n_c`$ Pud parallel ; Krav parallel . Magnetic field aligns the spins, and again by the Pauli principle, drives the system towards the insulating phase. The localization transition at higher fields is, hence, shifted to higher densities. The proposed scenario also highlights the similarity between the localization transition in high mobility 2DEG and the Mott transition Mott .

Note, that in contrast to all expectations, $`\chi `$ in the metallic phase depends on temperature down to 0.1 K. This dependence indicates the existence of a relevant energy scale considerably smaller than the Zeeman one (dashed vertical line in Fig. 4). Such an energy scale may originate from localized spins which interact very weakly with each other. Quantification of the number of localized spins and their contribution to $`M`$ GD02  requires further study.

Fig. 5 depicts the magnetization vs. magnetic field for various densities. The magnetization at densities close to $`n_c`$ increases strongly with decreasing temperature. The magnetization is nonlinear, implying that sufficiently low magnetic fields are required (less than 0.7 T in our case) to determine the “zero” field susceptibility. At $`T=100`$ mK and $`n=1.25\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ the strong Coulomb interaction is manifested in a 7.5 folds enhancement of the susceptibility compared with non-interacting electrons. This susceptibility is twice as large as the value extracted from the Sh-dH data gm  for the same density. We attribute the difference to the localized states which persist into the metallic phase, $`n>n_c`$, and are not sensed by the Sh-dH analysis. The weak interaction between such spins should result in a very large susceptibility at low temperatures. Indeed, as evident from Figs. 4 and 5, the weak field susceptibility is sensitive to temperature down to 100 mK. For stronger fields, for which the Zeeman energy exceeds the temperature, almost all spins are polarized and susceptibility depends very weakly on temperature.

## IV Comparison with recent searches for the Stoner instability

To the best of our knowledge, with the exception of Refs. SKDK, ; VZ2, , there is no reported experimental observation of Stoner instability in 2D systems. In particular, recent susceptibility measurements based on Sh-dH data gm ; Pudalov:02 , carried out down to the critical density of a superb sample ($`n_c=8\times 10^{10}\mathrm{cm}^2`$), find a finite susceptibility in the whole density range, in agreement with our result. We therefore turn to careful examination of the arguments used in SKDK, ; VZ2,  to claim the observation of such an instability. Both references rely on the magnetoresistance measured as a function of in-plane magnetic field. At high densities the resistance grows approximately quadratically with the field up to some density dependent field. Then it saturates or at least becomes weakly field dependent. It is believed, that at these densities the saturation field corresponds to full spin polarization. This large positive magnetoresistance is generic to all samples that show the so-called metallic phase in 2D and is, hence, very likely to provide an important clue for the understanding of the latter phenomenon. The authors of SKDK, ; VZ2,  have noticed that normalized magnetoresistance curves, $`\rho (n,B)/\rho (n,0)`$ (magnetoconductance in the case of VZ2, ), measured at different densities, can be collapsed onto a single curve if the field is scaled by a density dependent field $`B_c(n)`$ (we use the notation of SKDK, . Ref. VZ2,  utilizes somewhat different analysis in the same spirit). Moreover, for high densities, where magnetoresistance saturation is observed, $`B_c(n)`$ can be set to the saturation field. At lower densities (still above $`n_c`$) the saturation can no longer be observed but a scaling field, $`B_c(n)`$, can still be found, so that the curves collapse one on top of another. The authors of these references noticed that $`B_c`$ vanishes approximately linearly when the density approaches $`n_c`$, namely, $`B_c(n)nn_c`$. They then argued that, since $`B_c(n)`$ corresponds to full spin polarization at high densities, it should also correspond to full polarization at lower densities, where magnetoresistance saturation is no longer observable. Following that logic all the way to the critical density, they concluded that the vanishing of $`B_c(n)`$ at some finite density must indicate spontaneous polarization at zero field, i.e. the long awaited Stoner instability. We can not exclude Stoner instability in the superb samples used in SKDK, ; VZ2, , but we can prove that the procedure used to conclude the instability is wrong. To that end we show in Fig. 6 that our data obey the same scaling as in SKDK, . In anticipation of the same dependence of $`B_c(n)`$ upon density as in SKDK,  we surmise $`B_c(n)nn_0`$ (inset to Fig. 6) and find that for $`n_0=1.15\times 10^{11}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ all our scaled magnetoresistance curves collapse onto a single curve (Fig. 6). Following the arguments in SKDK, ; VZ2,  we could have concluded Stoner instability at $`n_0`$, but our direct magnetization measurements at that density show finite susceptibility. The same fact is also reflected in Fig. 3b. If the high field magnetization is extrapolated to zero field (dashed line) one may have erroneously predicted instability. Carrying the measurements to smaller fields exclude that possibility. The wrong assumption of Refs. SKDK, ; VZ2,  is the identification of $`B_c(n)`$ with a full polarization at all densities. Some of the authors of VZ2,  later restricted their conclusion to the non-existing case of perfectly clean samples Vitkalov:prb02 .

In summary. Using a novel technique we were able to measure the thermodynamic spin magnetization of strongly correlated 2D electrons in a single 2D layer. Albeit the substantial enhancement of the low temperature susceptibility, no ferromagnetic instability was observed. Yet, at densities in the vicinity of the critical one we observe almost free-spin like susceptibility, indicating nearly perfect compensation of the kinetic energy by the ferromagnetic interaction. The possible relation between the large spin susceptibility at the critical density and the transition to strong localization calls for further theoretical and experimental studies. Understanding the role and nature of the localized spins might also turn to be important.

## V acknowledgements

We have benefited greatly from valuable discussions with A. Finkelstein, A. Stern, A. Kamenev and V. Dolgopolov. This work was supported by the Israeli National Science Foundation, the DIP foundation and INTAS. V.P. was supported by NATO, NSF, INTAS, and Russian programs RFBR, “Physics of nanostructures”, “Integration of education and academic research”, “The State support of leading scientific schools”.


format: text

text:
# Ginsparg-Wilson Relation, Topological Invariants and Finite Noncommutative Geometry

## Introduction

Quantization of space-time is one of the unsolved issues and lots of attempts have been made. Superstring theory has succeeded in quantizing small fluctuations of the metric, but only little knowledge has been obtained for the space-time itself. Discovery of D-branes has shown us a possibility that space-time coordinates can be noncommutativeWitten . Based on this, various matrix models have been proposed as nonperturbative formulations of superstringsBFSS ; IKKT ; DVV . Furthermore, noncommutative geometries appear naturally in superstring theories with $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ backgroundSeibergWitten  or in the matrix modelsCDS ; AIIKKT . These studies have linked the string theory to the old ideas that the concept of the space-time must be modified at the Planck lengthConnes ; tam . In order to understand the origin of our four dimensional space-timespacetime , we need to analyze superstring numerically, and consider noncommutative geometries with finite degrees of freedom.

Another issue is the unification of space-time and the matter. In particular, chiral structures of the fermions may be related to the quantization of space-time as we see in Penrose’s twister theory or Connes’ noncommutative geometry. If we believe such connection, it is important to construct chiral structures in systems with finite degrees of freedom. This problem is also relevant to a construction of four-dimensional chiral fermions in matrix models. OrbifoldingAIS  or compactifications in matrix models with a nontrivial index can be candidates to define chiral structures in finite noncommutative geometries. Instantons have been constructed on noncommutative $`R^4`$ by using the shift operatorinstanton ; harvey , whose construction essentially makes use of the infinite dimensionality of the Hilbert space. In finite noncommutative theories, topologically nontrivial configurations have been constructed based on algebraic K-theory and projective modulesConnes ; balatop . It seems difficult, however, to apply these ideas to finite square matrix models such as IKKT .

In this letter, we define a chirality and a Dirac operator satisfying the Ginsparg-Wilson (GW) relation, which has been studied in the lattice gauge theory. By using these operators, we can define topological invariants and prove an index theorem for general gauge field configurations, which are constructed from finite square matrices. We first develop a general formalism and then give an explicit example in the case of noncommutative (fuzzy) 2-sphere.

## General Formalism

In Connes’ formulation of noncommutative geometry, a chirality operator and a Dirac operator which anti-commute are introduced. In this letter, we propose to generalize this algebraic relation to the GW relation so that we can define chiral structures in a finite system representing a compact noncommutative manifold.

GW relation has been studied to understand the chiral structure in the lattice gauge theory with a finite number of degrees of freedom. It is expressed as

$$D\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}D=aD\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}D,$$
(1)
where $`D`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{n+1}`$ and $`a`$ are an $`n`$ dimensional lattice Dirac operator, a chirality operator and a lattice spacing respectively. This relation expresses the remnant chiral symmetry on the lattice, which was derived by the block-spin transformation from a continuum theoryGinspargWilson . This algebraic relation makes it possible to define an extended chiral symmetry on the latticeLuscher ; Nieder . The index theorem is also realized on the latticeHasenfratzindex ; Luscher . Based on the idea of the domain wall fermion, a practical solution to the GW relation was obtainedNeuberger . Chiral gauge theory can be constructed only for an abelian caseabeliangauge . Higher dimensional generalization of the domain wall fermion was proposed toward constructing nonabelian chiral gauge theoriesKN .

Now we apply the algebraic structure of the GW relation to finite noncommutative geometries. In this context, the GW relation was first pointed out in refs.balaGW  in connection to the fermion doubling problems. The authors discussed the GW relation for free fermions on the fuzzy 2-sphere. In this letter, by generalizing this result to fermions in general background gauge fields, we can obtain topological invariants in finite noncommutative geometries. GW relation is the most useful when it is applied to fermions coupled to general gauge field configurations. We also note that on the noncommutative torus Dirac operator satisfying GW relation in a background gauge field is constructed in the paper Nishi  to formulate chiral gauge theories.

Our proposal here is that the GW relation can be substituted for the simple anticommutation relation, to define chiral structures for general gauge fields in general finite noncommutative geometries.

In order to develop a general formalism, we consider a system that are composed of $`N\times N`$ matrices. $`1/N`$ plays a role of the lattice spacing $`a`$ in the lattice gauge theory. We assume an existence of a chirality operator $`\gamma `$ and a Dirac operator in the commutative limit, where $`N`$ goes to infinity (or $`a`$ goes to zero). We then introduce two chirality operators $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and a Dirac operator $`D`$ in our finite system. They are operators acting on $`N\times N`$ matrices. The Dirac operator $`D`$ generally depends on background gauge field configurations. Both chirality operators are required to become the chirality operator $`\gamma `$ in the commutative limit and satisfy the relations:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^2=1,\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma },\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}.$$
(2)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is assumed to be independent of the gauge field configurations. If the system has chiral anomaly in the commutative limit, we cannot expect that the Dirac operator $`D`$ anti-commutes with the chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, since, if so, it will contradict with the result in the commutative limit. Hence, in the finite noncommutative geometry, a simple algebraic structure is destroyed and we cannot prove an index theorem only with the simple chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

The other chirality operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ can be constructed in terms of a hermitian operator $`H`$ as

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{H}{\sqrt{H^2}},H^{}=H.$$
(3)
$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ depends on the gauge field configuration through $`H`$.

If we take an appropriate choice of $`H`$, we can define a new Dirac operator (GW Dirac operator) $`D_{GW}`$ by

$$1\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=f(a,\mathrm{\Gamma })D_{GW}.$$
(4)
The prefactor $`f`$ is assumed to be a function of the small parameter $`a`$ and the chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. These $`f`$ and $`H`$ are determined so that the Dirac operator $`D_{GW}`$ becomes the commutative Dirac operator in the limit $`a0`$. From (2) and (4), we have the relation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }D_{GW}+D_{GW}\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=0,$$
(5)
and then we can prove the following index theorem:

$$2\text{index}D_{GW}2(n_+n_{})=𝒯r(\mathrm{\Gamma }+\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}),$$
(6)
where $`𝒯r`$ is a trace of operators acting on matrices, and $`n_\pm `$ are numbers of zero eigenstates of $`D_{GW}`$ with a positive (or negative) chirality (for either $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ or $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$).

It is easy to prove that this index is invariant under a small deformation of any parameter or any configuration (such as gauge field) in the operator $`H`$. A necessary check is that this index can take a nontrivial value depending on the background configuration. For some choices of $`H`$, this index may become a constant and trivial. For other choices, it gives a nontrivial index as we will see in an example on fuzzy 2-sphere. This is surprising since it seems impossible to define such a nontrivial index out of finite matrices. The resolution lies in the definition of the operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ in (3). It becomes singular when the operator $`H`$ has a zero-mode. It is a sign function of the operator $`H`$, and when an eigenvalue of $`H`$ crosses zero the index changes by two. Therefore, if there is no symmetry among eigenvalues, the index can take nontrivial values. The configuration space of gauge fields are divided into islands, in each of which the index takes a different value. In the lattice gauge theory, we can exclude a region where $`H`$ has zero eigenvalues by imposing an admissibility condition for the gauge fieldlocality  . We expect a similar condition for our case. It is also interesting to investigate these conditions and the topological properties for the GW Dirac operator on noncommutative torus constructed in the paper Nishi  since it has closer relationship to the ordinary lattice gauge theory.

Another necessary check is to reproduce the well-known index theorem in the commutative limit. Namely, the topological invariant considered here should give an instanton number for nontrivial gauge field configurations. In the case of fuzzy 2-sphere, we will show that the index reproduces the monopole number.

Regarding this commutative limit, it is amusing to point out that we will be able to arrive at different commutative limits with different types of topological invariants though we start from the same size of matrices. Namely, topological invariants in different space-time dimensions can be obtained from the same matrices. Different classical interpretations come from different choices of chirality operators and Dirac operators, which lead to different embeddings of the commutative configurations in the matrices. In refs.Kiskis ; KikukawaSuzuki  they gave simple examples of the embeddings of classical configurations in matrices and obtained classical indices on the lattice. Since an important property of the noncommutative theories is that it contains much more degrees of freedom than ordinary field theories, it is interesting to investigate if we can classify the universality classes of more general embeddings in the matrices. We want to discuss the problem in the futureAINfuture .

## Chiral Transformation

We can construct a chiral invariant model by using the Dirac operator $`D_{GW}`$ as

$$S=\text{t}r(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}D_{GW}\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(7)
Each component of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an $`N\times N`$ matrix and $`\text{t}r`$ means a trace over matrices. This action is invariant under the global chiral transformation: $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=i\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Psi },\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$ To make it local, we need to specify the ordering of the chiral transformation parameter $`\lambda `$ and the fermion field. The fermion transforms as the fundamental representation under gauge transformations:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }U\mathrm{\Psi },\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}U^{}.$$
(8)
$`D_{GW}`$ must be constructed to maintain the gauge invariance. Namely we require the transformation, $`D_{GW}\mathrm{\Psi }UD_{GW}\mathrm{\Psi }`$ under gauge transformations. Then, if we put $`\lambda `$ in the left of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, $`\lambda `$ should transform covariantly as $`\lambda U\lambda U^{}`$ and so does the chiral current. On the contrary, if we put $`\lambda `$ in the right, $`\lambda `$ and the associated chiral current is invariant under gauge transformations. This ambiguity is specific to the noncommutative field theories and makes the analysis of the Ward-Takahashi(WT) identity complicated. This issue was discussed in refs.anomaly ; AIN . In this letter, we don’t go further into this problem and restrict our discussion to the covariant case.

In obtaining the WT identity for the covariant chiral current, the integral measure of the fermion fields is not invariant under the local chiral transformations,

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=i\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\mathrm{\Psi },\delta \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}=i\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma },$$
(9)
and produces a nontrivial Jacobian. This term gives an integral of the topological charge density (an anomaly term) with the local weight $`\lambda `$ in the WT identity:

$$q(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}𝒯r(\lambda ^L\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\lambda ^R\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=\frac{1}{2}𝒯r(\lambda ^L\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}+\lambda ^L\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(10)
Here the superscript $`L`$ ($`R`$) in $`\lambda `$ means that this operator acts from the left (right) on matrices. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ is obtained from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by exchanging $`L`$ and $`R`$ superscript. For a global chiral transformation, we set $`\lambda =1`$ and $`q(\lambda )`$ becomes the index defined in (6).

## Examples on Fuzzy 2-Sphere

We now consider a simple example on fuzzy 2-sphere. Noncommutative coordinates of the fuzzy 2-sphere is given by $`x_i=\alpha L_i`$, where $`L_i`$’s are $`2L+1`$-dimensional irreducible representation matrices of $`SU(2)`$ algebra. The radius of the sphere is given by $`\rho =\alpha \sqrt{L(L+1)}`$. Wave functions on fuzzy 2-sphere can be expanded in terms of noncommutative analogs of the spherical harmonics $`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$. They are traceless symmetric products of the noncommutative coordinates. There is an upper bound for the angular momentum $`l`$ for $`\widehat{Y}_{l,m}`$; $`l2L`$. Any hermitian matrix $`M`$ can be expanded in terms of these spherical harmonics $`\widehat{Y}_{l,m}`$.

Killing vectors on the fuzzy 2-sphere are expressed by taking a commutator with the $`SU(2)`$ generator; $`_iM=[L_i,M]=(L_i^LL_i^R)M.`$ An integral over 2-sphere is replaced by taking a trace over matrices $`\frac{1}{2L+1}\text{t}r\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }.`$ More detailed correspondence are found in refs.IKTW ; AIN .

Now we introduce a Dirac operator $`D`$ and a chirality operator $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R`$ as follows:

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`\sigma _i(_i+\rho a_i^L)+1,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2L+1}}(2\sigma _iL_i^R1).`$ (12)
The free part of $`D`$ contains no fermion doublersbalagovi . This $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R`$ satisfies the conditions (2). In the commutative limit, it reduces to an ordinary chiral operator on the sphere $`\gamma =\sigma _ix_i/\rho `$. An anticommutator with the Dirac operator (11) becomes

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^R,D\}=\frac{1}{L+1/2}\left(2(_i+\rho a_i^L)L_i^RD\right).$$
(13)
Here $`_iL_i^R`$ and $`D/(L+1/2)`$ vanish in the commutative limit since they are of order $`1/L`$. Hence the anti-commutator becomes proportional to the scalar field:

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^R,D\}2a_ix_i=2\rho \varphi .$$
(14)
Note that since we embed the 2-sphere in three dimensional flat space, the normal component of the gauge field $`a_i`$ is interpreted as a scalar field on 2-sphere.

We then introduce the other chirality operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ as in (3). We construct $`H`$ out of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_R`$ and $`D`$ because these operators commute with the gauge transformations (8). This condition is required from the compatibility condition for chiral transformations generated by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ and gauge transformations. If we restrict $`H`$ to contain $`D`$ less than 2, it becomes

$$H=\mathrm{\Gamma }^R+c_1D+ic_2[D,\mathrm{\Gamma }^R]+c_3\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^R,D\}+c_4\mathrm{\Gamma }^RD\mathrm{\Gamma }^R+c_5.$$
(15)
The coefficients $`c_i`$ are real and of order $`1/L`$ so that $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ becomes $`\gamma `$ in the commutative limit. The next requirement is that, if we define $`f`$ in (4) appropriately, $`D_{GW}`$ must become an ordinary Dirac operator in the commutative limit. Indeed, if we choose $`f=(c_4c_1)\mathrm{\Gamma }^R+2ic_2`$, the GW Dirac operator becomes $`D_{GW}=(D\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^R,D\}\mathrm{\Gamma }^R/2)+𝒪(1/L)`$. It is nothing but the Dirac operator whose coupling to the scalar is projected out. The Dirac operator $`D`$ is coupled to three dimensional gauge fields $`a_i`$ and on the sphere they are docomposed into two dimensional gauge field and a scalar field. Since the GW Dirac operator satisfies the GW relation (5) and anticommutes with the chirality operator in the commutative limit, it is natural that the coupling to the scalar field is projected out from $`D_{GW}`$.

In the following, for calculational simplicity, we take $`H`$ as,

$$H=\mathrm{\Gamma }^R+aD=\mathrm{\Gamma }^L+a\rho \sigma _ia_i^L,$$
(16)
where $`a=1/(L+1/2)`$ and we defined $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^L`$ as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^L=(2\sigma _iL_i^L+1)/(2L+1)`$. This operator also satisfies $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^L)^2=1`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^L)^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^L`$. Since both of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^L`$ and $`a_i^L`$ are operators acting on matrices from the left, this $`H`$ also acts only from the left. Then the topological charge density (10) becomes

$$q(\lambda )=\frac{1}{2}\text{t}r(1)\text{T}r(\lambda \widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }})+\frac{1}{2}\text{t}r(\lambda )\text{T}r(\mathrm{\Gamma }^R).$$
(17)
$`\text{T}r`$ is a trace over matrices and spinors, and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^R`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ are considered here as mere matrices instead of operators acting on matrices from the right and from the left respectively. If there is no background gauge field, $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^L`$ and the topological charge density vanishes. If we assume that the gauge field configuration is weak, we can expand the chirality operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ with respect to the gauge field $`a_i`$. Up to the first order in $`a_i`$, after taking a trace over $`\sigma `$ matrices, we obtain

$$q(\lambda )=\frac{a^3\rho (2L+1)}{2\alpha }\text{t}r\lambda \left(iϵ_{ijk}[L_i,a_j]x_k+2\rho \varphi \frac{\alpha }{2}[L_i,a_i]\right).$$
(18)
In the commutative limit, this becomes

$$q(\lambda )=2\rho \frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\lambda ϵ_{ijk}x_i_ja_k^{}$$
(19)
where $`a_i^{}`$ is a tangential component of $`a_i`$; $`a_i^{}=ϵ_{ijk}x_ja_k/\rho `$. This topological charge density is nothing but the monopole charge density on the 2-sphere. For $`\lambda =1`$, this index is quantized to be integers. If we embed classical gauge field configurations with nontrivial monopole charge, our index gives a nontrivial value.

## Discussions

In this letter we have proposed to use Ginsparg-Wilson relation to formulate the chiral and topological structures in the finite noncommutative geometry, that is, in matrix models. As an example, we constructed a GW Dirac operator and a GW chirality operator for fermions in background gauge field configurations on fuzzy 2-shpere. We then obtained a topological invariant for the gauge field configurations. This invariant is shown to become the first Chern number in the commutative limit if we assume that the gauge field is weak enough.

As we will report soon in a separate paper, the invariant can take a nonzero integer and hence this invariant is nontrivial. This looks puzzling at first sight because the gauge field $`a_i`$ is defined globally in the matrix models even though the configuration can have a nontrivial topology on two-sphere. This problem will be solved if we consider patches on the sphere and note that the gauge field configuration can be taken small only in a single patch. Hence our assumption in obtaining (19) is only valid locally. It will be interesting if we can construct a concept of patches in noncommutative geometries.

If we take a different $`H`$, we expect that the topological charge has the same commutative limit (i.e. Chern number) but there will be a slight difference before taking the commutative limit. This problem is related to the issue of the universality in the lattice gauge theories. It is an important problem to clarify the ’universality’ in the noncommutative gauge theories.

There are several other problems listed below.

First the fermion takes a matrix form and it contains $`N^2`$ degrees of freedom. Since the number of lattice points is considered to be of order $`N`$, the fermion contains much larger degrees of freedom than the ordinary field theories. This is also true for the gauge field configuration. These larger degrees of freedom have been interpreted as an indicator that the noncommutative field theory is related to string theoryNCYM . Furthermore, it has been expected that space-time is also dynamical in the noncommutative Yang-Mills theories. In the commutative limit, we restrict wave functions to those with momentum smaller than the noncommutativity scale and then the degrees of freedom become of order $`N`$. Classical interpretations will be available only for this limiting cases. Different embeddings of classical configurations lead to different classical theories. From this argument, our index is expected to classify even the global topology of space-time. For this purpose, it is important to investigate more examples on higher dimensional noncommutative geometries.

Another problem is the relation to other arguments on the topological properties of the noncommutative field theoriesConnes ; harvey ; balatop . Topologically nontrivial configurations are constructed by projection operators. It will be interesting to investigate relations to them.

Finally we want to comment on the admissibility condition for the gauge field configurations. The GW Dirac operator, or the chirality operator $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ become ill-defined when the operator $`H^2`$ has a zero eigenvalue. In the lattice gauge theory, we can exclude such configurations by imposing a condition that the field strength on each plaquette is smaller than a critical valuelocality . This condition is called an admissibility condition and the gauge field configurations satisfying it are classified for an abelian gauge fieldabelian . In our case, we can also expect a similar condition. It will be reported in near future.

We would like to thank T. Onogi, M. Peskin and H. Suzuki for discussions, and A. P. Balachandran for informing us of some references on topological properties based on the algebraic K-theory.


text:
# 1 Brief Historical Perspective

## 1 Brief Historical Perspective

The title of my talk, “Thirty Years of Precision Electroweak Theory”, refers to the fact that the Standard Model of Particle Physics (SM), proposed originally by Weinberg, Salam, and Glashow , emerged, with very important contribution by other physicists, in the period 1967-1974.

This theory has a basic property, shown by ’t-Hooft, Veltman, B.W. Lee, Zinn-Justin, Becchi, Rouet and Stora, and others, namely it is a renormalizable theory . This implies that it can be studied at the level of its quantum corrections by perturbative field theoretic methods, since the ultraviolet infinities encountered in the calculations can be absorbed as unobservable contributions to the masses and couplings of the theory.

At roughly the same time, a very ingenious and useful method to regulate ultraviolet divergences, namely dimensional regularization, was proposed almost simultaneously in three different parts of the world, by ’t-Hooft and Veltman in the Netherlands, by Bollini and Giambiagi in Argentina, and by Ashmore in Italy . I first learned of dimensional regularization in a memorable conversation with Bollini and Giambiagi that took place in Buenos Aires in January 1972. Soon afterward, we found out that ’t-Hooft and Veltman implemented this method in the very important context of gauge theories. The application of dimensional regularization to infrared divergences was proposed soon afterward, by Gastmans and Meuldermans, and by William (Bill) Marciano and me, while Bill was my research student at NYU . A bit later, Bill wrote a paper on his own extending the analysis to the regularization of mass singularities . Dimensional regularization of infrared and mass singularities is widely employed at present, particularly in QCD calculations.

Once the renormalizability of the SM was recognized, it became natural to explore this theory at the level of its quantum corrections. Already in the seventies there were a number of interesting developments:

* the one-loop electroweak corrections (EWC) to $`g2`$ date from that period.
* Weinberg showed that there are no violations of $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ to parity and strangeness conservation in strong interaction amplitudes .
* Gaillard and Lee studied processes which are forbidden at the tree level, but occur via loop effects, and showed that the GIM mechanism generally suppresses neutral current amplitudes of $`𝒪(G_F\alpha )`$ .
* Veltman, and Chanowitz, Furman, and Hinchliffe discovered that heavy particles do not generally decouple in the EWC of the SM, and that a heavy top quark gives contributions of $`𝒪(G_FM_t^2)`$ to the $`\rho `$ parameter .
* Bollini, Giambiagi, and I studied the cancellation of ultraviolet divergences in several fundamental natural relations of the SM .

My own main objective since the 70’s has been the study of the EWC to allowed processes, with the aim of bringing the theory into close contact with precise experiments. The desiderata of these studies are:

* To verify the SM at the level of its quantum corrections.
* To search for discrepancies or inferences that may signal the presence of new physics beyond the SM.

These are essentially the objectives of what is now called Precision Electroweak Physics.

At the time I felt that there was a problem that required urgent attention in order to test the tenability of the SM, namely the issue of Cabibbo universality or, in modern language, the test of the unitarity of the CKM matrix. From studies in the framework of the Fermi theory that preceded the SM, it was known that, in order to test Cabibbo universality, it is necessary to evaluate the radiative corrections to muon decay and the Superallowed Fermi transitions in $`\beta `$-decay. Nearly forty years ago it was shown that, to first order in $`G_F`$, but all orders in $`\alpha `$, the photonic corrections to $`\mu `$-decay are convergent in the Fermi V-A theory, after mass and charge renormalization . However, there was a big practical and conceptual problem: in the Fermi V-A theory the corrections to $`\beta `$-decay were known to be logarithmically divergent!

Once the renormalizability of the SM was recognized, it was apparent that the old conundrum could be solved in the new framework. I argued with myself: if the theory is renormalizable and I compute something physical, I should get a finite result! Around 1974 I found the answer in a simplified version of the SM, neglecting the strong interactions . However, a realistic evaluation of the EWC to $`\beta `$-decay is particularly challenging, since one is dealing with a very low-energy-transfer process affected by the strong interactions. Fortunately, and almost miraculously, their effect can be controlled to a large extent using current algebra techniques and associated Ward identities. The final result  was simple and encouraging: i) aside from some small, short-distance QCD corrections, the result coincided with the regularized answer in the Fermi V-A theory, with the cutoff replaced by $`M_Z`$! ii) The corrections turned out to be sizable. They are dominated by a large logarithmic term

$$3(\alpha /\pi )\mathrm{ln}(M_Z/2E_m)3.4\%,$$

where $`E_m=𝒪(MeV)`$ is the end-point of the positron spectrum in $`\beta `$-decay. Furthermore, such large corrections are phenomenologically necessary to ensure, to good approximation, the tenability of the SM in the analysis of universality . For me, this was the smoking gun of the SM at the level of its quantum corrections!

Towards the end of the 70’s Bill and I thought that experimentalists would probably search for the $`W`$ and $`Z`$ bosons and hopefully measure their masses. It seemed a good idea to study at the loop level the relationship between $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$ and $`G_F`$, $`\alpha `$, as well as the other parameters of the SM, such as $`M_H`$, $`M_f`$.

How to do it?

At the time we had precise knowledge of $`G_F`$ (which in my papers I had defined via the muon lifetime evaluated in the Fermi V-A theory) and $`\alpha `$, and a less accurate knowledge of the electroweak mixing parameter $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$ from $`\nu N`$ deep inelastic scattering via the neutral and charged currents. So it became clear that it was necessary to evaluate the EWC to the last two processes to establish the connection with $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W`$, and to muon decay to obtain the relation with $`G_F`$ and $`\alpha `$.

Since this required dealing with a number of processes involving neutral and charged currents, I strongly felt that the first step in the strategy should be to develop a simple method to renormalize the Electroweak Sector of the SM. I proposed this in a paper with a related title: “Radiative Corrections in the $`SU(2)_L\times U(1)_Y`$ theory: a Simple Renormalization Framework” . This approach, with important subsequent contributions by other physicists, is currently known as the on-shell scheme (OS). In the same paper, I applied the OS scheme to $`\mu `$ decay in the SM and introduced the EWC $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, whose significance I will briefly discuss later. In two subsequent papers with Bill, the OS scheme was applied to study the EWC to $`\nu N`$ deep inelastic scattering via the neutral and charged currents . This trilogy of papers achieved our aim to establish contact with the expected measurements of $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$ (which were carried out later). In fact, the papers led to more accurate predictions of $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$ using the OS relations

$$s^2c^2=\frac{A^2}{M_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r)},$$
(1)
$$A^2=\frac{\pi \alpha }{\sqrt{2}G_F},$$
(2)
$$s^2=\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W=1M_W^2/M_Z^2,$$
(3)
and the information from $`\nu N`$ scattering.

During the 80’s Bill and I also employed a hybrid $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme where couplings are defined by $`\overline{MS}`$ subtractions but masses are still the physical ones. It plays an important rôle in GUT predictions, which we also studied . The two schemes, OS and $`\overline{MS}`$, were applied systematically to additional important processes, such as $`\nu `$-lepton scattering  and atomic parity violation .

As experiments improved, the rôle of the EWC became more important and Bill and I became part of a large collaboration, led by Paul Langacker, whose aim was to elucidate the comparison between theory and experiment. This culminated in a detailed review paper . Some of the estimates of this analysis were $`M_W=80.2\pm 1.1\text{GeV}`$, $`M_Z=91.6\pm 0.9\text{GeV}`$, with central values within $`0.2\text{GeV}`$ and $`0.4\text{GeV}`$ from the current ones, respectively. We also obtained $`M_t<180\text{GeV}\mathrm{@}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}90}\%\text{CL}`$ for $`M_H<100\text{GeV}`$. Over the years, Paul remained an invaluable and very close collaborator.

Meanwhile, in the mid-eighties, a serious problem arose in the analysis of the Superallowed Fermi transitions. Experiments on eight transitions reached great accuracy and showed a significant departure from the expectations of the conserved-vector-current hypothesis (CVC), which is an integral part of the SM. Simple theoretical arguments convinced me that the problem was related to the evaluation of the two-loop corrections of $`𝒪(Z\alpha ^2)`$, which had been carried out numerically many years before. My student Roberto Zucchini and I studied this correction analytically, reviewed the analysis of the eight transitions in the light of our calculation, and found very good agreement with CVC , a result that was confirmed by new numerical evaluations by Jaus and Rasche.

In the seventies and eighties I developed a fruitful collaboration with M. A. B. Bég. Together, and often with other physicists, we wrote several papers and two extensive and, to some extent, pedagogical reviews on Gauge Theories of Weak Interactions .

In the seventies I participated in an ambitious project, led by T. D. Lee, to study non-topological solitons in quantum field theories . Since my post-doctoral years at Columbia, T. D. Lee, one of the great masters of our discipline, has been for me a constant source of motivation and learning.

During the seventies, eighties, and nineties, I continued my close collaboration with Bill, with B. A. Kniehl, and several of my students, former students, and post-doctoral associates: S. Sarantakos, S. Bertolini, R. Zucchini, G. Degrassi, S. Fanchiotti, P. Gambino, J. Papavassiliou, K. Philippides, M. Passera, P. A. Grassi, A. Ferroglia, and G. Ossola.

Around 1989, LEP and SLC started operations, and FNL began the accurate measurement of $`M_W`$. LEP soon determined $`M_Z`$ with great precision. This prompted a change in strategy: $`\alpha `$, $`G_F`$, and $`M_Z`$ were adopted as the basic input parameters, a great effort was made to study the observables at the $`Z`$ peak, namely the line shape and the various asymmetries and widths measured at LEP and SLC, and there was a major improvement in the comparison between theory and experiment.

## 2 Input Parameters

As I mentioned before, there are three very accurately determined quantities that play a special role as input parameters:

* $`\alpha =1/137.03599959(38)(13)`$, $`\delta \alpha =\pm 0.0037ppm`$, derived most precisely from $`g_{(e)}2`$.
* $`G_FG_\mu =(1.16637\pm 0.00001)\times 10^5GeV^2`$, $`\delta G_F=\pm 9ppm`$, where I defined $`G_\mu `$ from the muon lifetime using the finite photonic corrections of the V-A Fermi theory:

$`\delta `$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{25}{4}}\pi ^2\right)\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{3\pi }}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\mu }{m_e}}\right)\right]`$ (4)
$`+6.701\left({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{\pi }}\right)^2+\mathrm{}`$
The $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ term has been known for a long time , the logarithmic term of $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ was derived several years later , while the last term was evaluated very recently . It very nearly cancels the logarithmic term of $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$. Including very small $`𝒪(\alpha m_e^2/m_\mu ^2)`$ contributions one has:

$$\delta =14.1995\times 10^3+1.5\times 10^6+\mathrm{},$$
(5)
where the second and third terms stand for the one and two-loop contributions. This reveals two interesting points: i) when the corrections are expressed in terms of $`\alpha `$, as in Eq.(4), by a fortuitous cancellation the $`𝒪(\alpha ^2)`$ effects are very small, and the original $`𝒪(\alpha )`$ calculation turns out to be very accurate. ii) It took about four decades to evolve from the one-loop to the complete two-loop calculation! This is a sobering indication of how difficult it may be to achieve the new frontier of complete two-loop calculations in the SM!
* $`M_Z=91.1875\pm 0.0021\text{GeV}`$, $`\delta M_Z=\pm 23ppm`$

## 3 Basic Electroweak Corrections

There are a number of basic electroweak corrections that play an important role in the analysis of the SM.

The EWC $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ that appears in Eq.(1) depends on the various physical parameters of the SM such as $`\alpha `$, $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$, $`M_H`$, $`M_f`$, etc…, where $`M_f`$ stands for a generic fermion mass. From a theoretical point of view, the significance of Eqs.(1-3) is that they provide the relation between the physical parameters of the Fermi theory (low-energy effective theory), namely $`G_F`$ and $`\alpha `$, with those of the SM (underlying theory), namely $`\alpha `$, $`M_W`$, $`M_Z`$, $`M_H`$, $`M_f`$…, at the level of the quantum corrections. Eqs.(1-3) are currently used to calculate $`M_W=M_W(M_H)`$ leading to very sharp constraints on $`M_H`$. As is clear from Eqs.(1-3), $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ is a physical observable.

Two other important relations are

$$\widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2=\frac{A^2}{M_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r})},$$
(6)
$$\widehat{s}^2=\frac{A^2}{M_W^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W)},$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{s}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\widehat{\theta }_W(M_Z)`$ is the electroweak mixing parameter defined by modified minimal subtraction, and evaluated at the scale $`\mu =M_Z`$. It is employed in the $`\overline{MS}`$ scheme and plays a crucial rôle in GUT studies. $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W`$ are the relevant EWC. I introduced Eq.(6) and evaluated $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ while visiting CERN in August of 1989, at the time LEP was starting operations. By the end of Aug., LEP had measured $`M_Z`$ within $`160\text{MeV}`$. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ and the new $`M_Z`$ measurement, $`\widehat{s}^2`$ could be determined with significantly greater precision. Further, the improved determination of $`\widehat{s}^2`$ was consistent with supersymmetric Grand Unification !

The $`\overline{MS}`$ and OS versions of the electroweak mixing parameter, namely $`\widehat{s}^2`$ and $`s^2`$, are related by

$`\widehat{s}^2`$ $`=`$ $`s^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{c^2}{s^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho }\right),`$ (8)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`Re\left[{\displaystyle \frac{A_{WW}(M_W^2)}{M_W^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{A_{ZZ}(M_Z^2)}{M_Z^2\widehat{\rho }}}\right]_{\overline{MS}},`$ (9)
where $`A_{WW}(q^2)`$ and $`A_{ZZ}(q^2)`$ are the $`WW`$ and $`ZZ`$ transverse self-energies, $`\widehat{\rho }=(1\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho })^1`$, and $`\overline{MS}`$ denotes the $`\overline{MS}`$ renormalization and the choice $`\mu =M_Z`$.

Another important version of the electroweak mixing parameter is $`s_{eff}^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{eff}^{lept}`$, used by the Electroweak Working Group (EWWG) to analyze the data at the $`Z`$ resonance.

The relations between $`s_{eff}^2`$ and $`\widehat{s}^2`$ and $`s^2`$ are given by

$$s_{eff}^2=Re\widehat{k}_l(M_Z^2)\widehat{s}^2=Rek_l(M_Z^2)s^2,$$
(10)
where $`\widehat{k}_l(q^2)`$ and $`k_l(q^2)`$ are electroweak form factors. In particular, because of a fortuitous cancellation of effects, $`\text{Re}\widehat{k}_l(M_Z^2)`$ is very close to unity and $`s_{eff}^2\widehat{s}^210^4`$.

It is also very convenient to employ the expression

$`s_{eff}^2c_{eff}^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A^2}{M_Z^2(1\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff})}},`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{s_{eff}^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{k}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{s_{eff}^2}{c_{eff}^2}}\right)(1+x_t)+\mathrm{},`$ (12)
where $`x_t=3G_\mu M_t^2/8\sqrt{2}\pi ^2`$ is the leading contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho }`$.

The neutral current vertex of the $`Z`$ boson into an $`f\overline{f}`$ pair has the form

$$<f\overline{f}|J_\mu ^Z|0>=V_f(q^2)\overline{u}_f\gamma _\mu \left[\frac{I_{3f}(1\gamma _5)}{2}\widehat{k}_f(q^2)\widehat{s}^2Q_f\right]v_f,$$
(13)
where $`V_f(q^2)`$, $`\widehat{k}_f(q^2)`$, and its OS counterpart $`k_f(q^2)`$ are electroweak form factors, and $`I_{3f}`$ and $`Q_f`$ denote the third component of weak isospin and the charge of fermion $`f`$.

The incorporation of QCD effects of $`𝒪(\alpha \widehat{\alpha }_s,\alpha \widehat{\alpha }_s^2)`$ in the basic EWC was studied with B.A. Kniehl and my student Sergio Fanchiotti .

## 4 Asymptotic Behaviors

The basic corrections $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}_W`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho }`$, $`\widehat{k}_f`$, …have been studied in great detail by several groups. Here I can only point out the asymptotic behaviors for large $`M_t`$, $`M_H`$ at the one loop level:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{16\pi s^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{11\alpha }{24\pi s^2}}\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H}{M_Z}}\right)+\mathrm{},`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff}\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{r}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{16\pi \widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M_t^2}{M_Z^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi \widehat{s}^2\widehat{c}^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{4}}\widehat{c}^2\right)\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_H}{M_Z}}\right)+\mathrm{}.`$ (15)
Eqs.(14, 15) reveal a quadratic dependence on $`M_t`$, a logarithmic dependence on $`M_H`$. Also, the asymptotic behaviors in $`M_t`$ and $`M_H`$ have opposite signs, which explains the well-known $`M_tM_H`$ correlation.

The asymptotic behavior of the neutral current amplitude is

$$\text{NC ampl.}G_F/(1x_t),$$
(16)
where $`x_t`$ is defined after Eq. (12).

Additional contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff}`$ lead to variations

$`\delta M_W/M_W`$ $``$ $`0.205\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }r),`$ (17)
$`\delta s_{eff}^2/s_{eff}^2`$ $``$ $`1.52\delta (\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff}).`$ (18)
## 5 The $`M_t`$ Prediction

A very good example of the successful interplay between theory and experiment was provided by the $`M_t`$ prediction and its subsequent measurement. Before 1995, the top quark could not be produced directly, but it was possible to estimate its mass because of its virtual contributions to the EWC. In Nov. 94, a global analysis by the EWWG led to the indirect determination

$$M_t=178\pm 11_{19}^{+18}\text{GeV},$$
(19)
where the central value corresponds to $`M_H=300\text{GeV}`$, the first error is experimental, and the second reflects the shift in the central value to $`M_H=65\text{GeV}(19\text{GeV})`$ or $`M_H=1\text{TeV}(+18\text{GeV})`$. This may be compared with the current measurement $`(M_t)_{exp}=(174.3\pm 5.1)\text{GeV}`$.

This quite successful prediction was due to the quadratic $`M_t`$-dependence of the basic corrections, as illustrated in Eqs.(14, 15, 16).

## 6 Renormalization Schemes

As discussed in Section 1, the EWC have been carried out in a number of renormalization frameworks. Two of the most frequently employed are:
On-Shell (OS) Scheme. It is “very physical”, since it identifies renormalized couplings and masses with physical, scale-independent observables, such as $`G_F`$, $`\alpha `$, $`M_Z`$, $`M_W`$, $`M_H`$, $`M_f`$, …
$`\overline{MS}`$ Scheme. It has very good convergence properties. This is related to the fact that in this scheme one essentially subtracts the pole terms and, therefore, the calculations follow closely the structure of the unrenormalized theory. As a consequence, it avoids large finite corrections frequently induced by renormalization. It employs inherently scale-dependent couplings such as $`\alpha (\mu )`$, $`\widehat{s}^2(\mu )`$, which play a crucial rôle in the analysis of Grand Unification. On the other hand, this leads to a residual scale dependence in the calculation of observables in finite orders of perturbation theory. The choice $`\mu =M_Z`$ is frequently made.

Very recently, a novel approach was proposed with my students Ferroglia and Ossola :
Effective Scheme. It shares the good convergence properties of the $`\overline{MS}`$ approach, but the calculation of observables in this scheme is strictly scale independent in finite orders. It employs scale-independent quantities such as $`s_{eff}^2`$, $`G_F`$, $`M_Z^2`$ as basic parameters. The reason that the Effective Scheme shares the good convergence properties of the $`\overline{MS}`$ approach is related to the fact that, as mentioned before, $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{eff}^{lept}`$ and $`\widehat{s}^2(M_Z)`$ are numerically very close (Cf. discussion after Eq.(10)).

## 7 The running of $`\alpha `$

A very important contribution to the EWC is due to the running of $`\alpha `$ to the $`M_Z`$ scale (vacuum polarization contributions):

$$\alpha (M_Z)/\alpha =1/(1\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha ).$$
(20)
The light quarks’ contribution ($`u`$-$`b`$) is evaluated using dispersion relations and the experimental cross section for $`e^++e^{}\text{hadrons}`$ at low $`\sqrt{s}`$, and perturbative QCD (PQCD) at large $`\sqrt{s}`$. Recently, “theory driven” calculations claim to reduce the error by using PQCD down to low $`\sqrt{s}`$ values.

In the Winter 2002 analysis , the EWWG employs two determinations:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}=0.02761\pm 0.00036,$$
(21)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}=0.02747\pm 0.00012.$$
(22)
The leptonic contribution is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _l=0.03150.$$
(23)
## 8 Evidence for Electroweak Corrections

* Evidence for EWC beyond the running of $`\alpha `$ . It can be obtained by measuring $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$. Using $`(M_W)_{exp}=80.451\pm 0.033\text{GeV}`$ , and Eqs.(1-3) one finds $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)_{exp}=0.03107\pm 0.00200`$. The contribution to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ from the running of $`\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.05911\pm 0.00036`$, where I used Eqs.(21,23). The EWC not associated with $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$ is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)_{exp}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha =0.02804\pm 0.00203`$, which differs from $`0`$ by $`13.8\sigma `$! A similar result is obtained by comparing $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}=0.23149\pm 0.00017`$  and $`(s^2)_{exp}=0.22162\pm 0.00064`$. The difference is $`0.00987\pm 0.00066`$ or $`14.9\sigma `$! And it is due to EWC not involving $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha `$. In fact, this difference is dominated by the correction $`c^2\mathrm{\Delta }\widehat{\rho }`$ in Eq.(8).
* Evidence for Electroweak Bosonic Correction (EWBC) . They include loops involving the bosonic sector, $`W`$’s, $`Z`$, H. They are subleading numerically, but very important conceptually. Evidence for these correction can be found by measuring $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r)_{eff}`$. Using $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}=0.23149\pm 0.00017`$ and Eq.(11), we find $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff})_{exp}=0.06047\pm 0.00048`$. Subtracting the contribution of the EWBC, but retaining the fermionic corrections, the theoretical value is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff})_{theor}^{subtr}=0.05106\pm 0.00083`$. The difference is $`(\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff})_{exp}(\mathrm{\Delta }r_{eff})_{theor}^{subtr}=0.00941\pm 0.00096`$, a $`9.8\sigma `$ effect!

## 9 Theoretical Pursuit of the Higgs Boson

The Higgs boson is the fundamental missing piece of the SM! With $`M_t`$ measured, to what extent can $`M_H`$ be constrained? For large $`M_H`$, the EWC contain contributions proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}M_H/M_Z`$. We need precise calculations! Theorists distinguish two classes of errors:

* parametric, such as $`\delta M_t`$, $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}`$, $`\delta s_{eff}^2`$, …
* uncertainties due to the truncation of the perturbative series (i.e. uncalculated higher order effects). What is the status of the higher order corrections? Contributions of $`𝒪(\alpha )`$, $`𝒪\left(\alpha \mathrm{log}M_Z/M_f\right)^n`$, and $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2\mathrm{log}M_Z/M_f\right)`$ were analyzed during the period 1979-84. Those of $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2(M_t/M_W)^4\right)`$, $`𝒪(\alpha \alpha _s)`$, and $`𝒪\left(\alpha \alpha _s^2(M_t/M_W)^2\right)`$ were studied from the late 80’s to the middle 90’s.

Of more recent vintage are the corrections of $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2(M_t/M_W)^2\right)`$. Large $`M_t`$ expansions were employed to evaluate the irreducible contributions of this order to the basic corrections, which were then incorporated in the calculation of $`s_{eff}^2`$ and $`M_W`$, as functions of $`M_H`$, in three schemes: $`\overline{MS}`$, and two versions, OSI and OSII, of the OS scheme, with two different implementations of the QCD corrections . A large reduction was found in the scheme and residual scale dependences. Maximal variations, among the schemes, for given $`M_H`$, amounted to $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_{eff}^23\times 10^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_W2\text{MeV}`$. Including additional QCD uncertainties: $`\mathrm{\Delta }s_{eff}^26\times 10^5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_W7\text{MeV}`$. In the case of $`M_W`$, the results can be compared with important new calculations that include all two-loop contributions to $`\mathrm{\Delta }r`$ that contain a fermion loop . Again one finds $`\mathrm{\Delta }M_W7\text{MeV}`$. The study of the $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2M_t^2/M_W^2\right)`$ contributions has been extended to the partial widths $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_f(fb)`$ of the $`Z`$  and to the Effective Scheme . The incorporation of the $`𝒪\left(\alpha ^2M_t^2/M_W^2\right)`$ had also a felicitous consequence: the $`95\%`$ CL upper bound $`M_H^{(95)}`$ was reduced by $`30\%`$ .

## 10 Simple Formulae for $`s_{eff}^2`$, $`M_W`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$

Very simple formulae, that reproduce accurately the numerical results of the detailed codes in the range $`20\text{GeV}M_H300\text{GeV}`$, have been recently presented . They are of the form

$`s_{eff}^2=`$ $`(s_{eff}^2)_0+c_1A_1+c_5A_1^2+c_2A_2c_3A_3+c_4A_4,`$ (24)
$`M_W=`$ $`M_W^0d_1A_1d_5A_1^2d_2A_2+d_3A_3d_4A_4,`$ (25)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l=`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l^0g_1A_1g_5A_1^2g_2A_2+g_3A_3g_4A_4,`$ (26)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ is the leptonic partial width of the $`Z`$, $`c_i`$, $`d_i`$, $`g_i`$ $`(i=15)`$ are constants given in Ref. , and

$`A_1\mathrm{ln}\left(M_H/100\text{GeV}\right),`$ $`A_2\left[\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}/0.02761\right]1,`$
$`A_3\left(M_t/174.3\text{GeV}\right)^21,`$ $`A_4\left[\alpha _s(M_Z)/0.118\right]1.`$ (27)
In constructing these expressions, the input values $`M_t=174.3\pm 5.1\text{GeV}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}=0.02761\pm 0.00036`$, $`\alpha _s\left(M_Z\right)=0.118\pm 0.002`$, were employed . A very useful feature is that Eqs.(24-27) retain their accuracy over the rather large range $`0.0272\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha _h^{(5)}0.0283`$ that encompasses the recent calculations.

We now discuss some instructive physical applications of Eqs.(24-27).

* Using only Eq.(24) with $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}=0.23149\pm 0.00017`$ , one finds

$$M_H=124_{52}^{+82}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=280\text{GeV},$$

where $`M_H^{95}`$ stands for the $`95\%\text{CL}`$ upper bound.
* Using only Eq. (25) with $`(M_W)_{exp}=80.451\pm 0.033\text{GeV}`$ , one obtains

$$M_H=23_{23}^{+49}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=122\text{GeV}.$$

Thus, at present, $`(M_W)_{exp}`$ constrains $`M_H`$ much more sharply than $`s_{eff}^2`$! In fact, the above $`M_H`$ value is well below the direct exclusion bound $`M_H>114\text{GeV}`$ ($`95\%`$ CL).
* Use $`A_1`$, derived from $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}`$ and Eq. (24), to predict $`M_W`$ via Eq.(25). This leads to:

$$\left(M_W\right)_{indir.}=\left(80.374\pm 0.025\right)\text{GeV},$$

which differs from $`(M_W)_{exp}`$ by $`1.86\sigma `$. The above value is close to $`(M_W)_{indir.}=80.379\pm 0.023\text{GeV}`$, obtained in the global analysis .
* Using simultaneously Eqs.(24-26) with $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}`$, $`(M_W)_{exp}`$, $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }_l)_{exp}`$, one obtains

$$M_H=97_{41}^{+66}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=223\text{GeV},$$

that may be compared with

$$M_H=85_{34}^{+54}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=196\text{GeV}$$

in the recent EWWG fit .

The current $`(s_{eff}^2)_{exp}`$ determination by the EWWG has $`\chi ^2/\text{d.o.f.}=10.6/5`$, which corresponds to a CL of only $`6\%`$. There is an intriguing dichotomy: from the leptonic observables ($`A_l(SLD)`$, $`A_l(P_\tau )`$, $`A_{fb}^{(0,l)}`$) one finds $`(s_{eff}^2)_l=0.23113\pm 0.00021`$, while the hadronic measurements ($`A_{fb}^{(0,b)}`$, $`A_{fb}^{(0,c)}`$, $`<Q_{fb}>`$) lead to $`(s_{eff}^2)_h=0.23220\pm 0.00029`$. Thus, there is a $`3\sigma `$ difference between the determinations of $`s_{eff}^2`$ from the leptonic and hadronic sectors! It is also interesting to note that $`(s_{eff}^2)_l`$ leads to

$$M_H=59_{29}^{+50}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=158\text{GeV},$$

which are closer to the $`M_H`$ values derived from $`(M_W)_{exp}`$.

If $`(s_{eff}^2)_h(s_{eff}^2)_l`$ is due to a statistical fluctuation, one possibility is to increase the error by $`[\chi ^2/\text{d.o.f.}]^{1/2}`$, according to the PDG prescription. This results in $`s_{eff}^2=0.23149\pm 0.00025`$. Interestingly, increasing the error in $`s_{eff}^2`$ leads to a smaller $`M_H^{(95)}`$ in the combined $`s_{eff}^2`$-$`M_W`$-$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_l`$ analysis: ($`223\text{GeV}201\text{GeV}`$)! The reason is that increasing the $`s_{eff}^2`$ error gives enhanced weight to the $`M_W`$ input, which prefers a smaller $`M_H`$ value.

If $`(s_{eff}^2)_h(s_{eff}^2)_l`$ is due to new physics involving the ($`t`$,$`b`$) generation, a substantial, tree-level change in the $`Zb_R\overline{b}_R`$ coupling would be required . Very recently, it has been pointed out that if the $`(s_{eff}^2)_h`$ and $`(s_{eff}^2)_l`$ discrepancy were to settle on the leptonic value, a scenario with light $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ would improve the agreement with the electroweak data and the direct lower bound on $`M_H`$ .

## 11 Global Fit

The SM describes rather well a large number of observables. Recent fits lead to:

$$M_H=85_{34}^{+54}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=196\text{GeV}\text{[36]},$$

$$M_H=90_{33}^{+50}\text{GeV};M_H^{95}=197\text{GeV}\text{[47]}.$$

There are no major deviations from the SM fit. For instance, in the EWWG group analysis, the largest differences are $`3\sigma `$ for $`\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _W(\nu N)`$, $`2.64\sigma `$ for $`A_{fb}^{(0,b)}`$, $`1.73\sigma `$ for $`M_W`$, $`1.63\sigma `$ for $`\sigma _{had}^0`$, and $`1.50\sigma `$ for $`A_l(SLD)`$.

Thus, there are no major disagreements or compelling signals for new physics.

Nonetheless, it is very important to explore for new physics. For example, if the central values of $`M_t`$ and $`M_W`$ remain as they are now, but the errors shrink sharply as expected at Tevatron/LHC or even much better at LC+GigaZ, a discrepancy would be established with the SM, that can be accommodated in the MSSM. It is also very important to remember that $`M_H<135\text{GeV}`$ in the MSSM. As emphasized by Bill in his talk, the measurement and analysis of the muon anomaly $`g_\mu 2`$ is of particular interest at present. If a conclusive deviation from the SM prediction were established, an intriguing possibility would be the presence of supersymmetric contributions!

## 12 Precision Studies, Quantum Field Theory and Fundamental Physical Concepts

The foundations of the SM are firmly rooted in major developments in Quantum Field Theory: Yang-Mills Theories, their quantization and renormalizability; BRS symmetry; spontaneous symmetry breaking; renormalization schemes and their implementation; new techniques of computation, etc…

Precision studies have also led to unexpected byproducts. I mention two in which I was involved:

* The discovery of the cancellation of mass-singularities in integrated transition probabilities (first paper in Ref. ). This was an important motivation for the Kinoshita-Lee-Nauenberg (KNL) Theorem.
* The elucidation of the concepts of mass and width of unstable particles  and Partial Widths . In 1991 I realized that, in the context of gauge theories, the conventional on-shell definitions of mass and width are gauge dependent in next-to-next-to-leading order, and proposed to solve this severe conceptual and practical problem in terms of definitions based on the complex-valued position of the propagator’s pole.

## Concluding Remarks

With improving experimental precision, the study of electroweak and QCD corrections plays an increasingly important role.

The modern era of these studies, in the framework of the Fermi theory, started in the mid-fifties, in collaboration with R. E. Behrends and R. J. Finkelstein, who was our mentor . Since that time until the emergence of the SM, the significance of the problem of universality attracted the attention of several first rate theorists.

However, at any given moment, the number of physicists engaged in these studies was very limited: you could count us with the fingers of one hand!

The emergence of the SM created a new theoretical framework where these studies can be carried out in a theoretically consistent manner. At the same time we got lucky: experimental physics moved in the direction of precision electroweak physics and a rich phenomenology emerged! In fact, it is very likely that precision electroweak physics will continue to be an important component in the future development of our science.

For me, a particularly rewarding experience is to walk into a room at a Conference or a Workshop and see dozens of talented young theorists (some of them my own students and collaborators) working in this frontier area of Physics!

## Acknowledgments

The author is indebted to J. Erler for illuminating communications. This work was supported in part by NSF Grant No. PHY-0070787.