text:
# Exceptional Groups and Physics

## 1 Introduction

With the advent of Quantum Mechanics, Lie algebras and the groups they generate have found widespread uses in the description of physical systems. The quantum-mechanical state of a particle is determined by labels. Some, like the particle’s momentum (or position) are continuous, others like its spin, and charges assume discrete values. All stem from irreducible unitary representations of Lie algebras. The continuous ones pertain to irreps of non-compact groups, and the discrete ones to compact groups. Mass and spin label the representations of the non-compact group of special relativity the Poincaré group, and the color of a quark roam inside a representation of the compact color group $`SU(3)`$. Moreover, their interactions are determined by dynamical structures based on these invariance groups.

Although Nature does not use all mathematical structures created by our mathematical friends, it seems to favor some particularly unique and beautiful ones for the description of its inner secrets. Alas, they often appear in disguised broken-down form, so it is up to us to divine their existence from incomplete evidence: awareness of these structures is an important research tool.

There are four infinite families of simple Lie algebras, the garden variety algebras: $`A_nSU(n+1)`$, $`B_nSO(2n+1)`$, $`C_nSp(2n)`$, and $`D_nSO(2n)`$, all with $`n`$ extending to $`\mathrm{}`$. They describe spacetime rotation, quark and lepton charges, and their associated Yang-Mills gauge structures. Today, $`SU(N)`$ gauge theories with $`N`$ large are intensely studied.

In the Lie garden, one also finds five rare flowers, the exceptional algebras: $`G_2`$, $`F_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$ and $`E_8`$, their rank indicated by the subscripts. In view of Nature’s fascination with unique structures, they merit further study.

## 2 A Short Course on Exceptional Algebras

The smallest exceptional algebra  is $`G_2`$. It has $`14`$ parameters and its smallest representation is seven-dimensional, the seven imaginary directions of octonions (Cayley numbers). It is in fact the automorphism group of the octonion algebra. An octonion $`\omega `$ is written as

$$\omega =a_0+a_\alpha e_\alpha ,\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},7,e_\alpha ^2=1,e_\alpha e_\beta =\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma }e_\gamma ,$$
(1)
for $`\alpha \beta `$, where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\alpha \beta \gamma }`$ are totally antisymmetric and equal to $`+1`$ for the combinations $`(\alpha \beta \gamma )=(123),(246),(435),(651),(572),(714),(367)`$, and zero otherwise. This algebra is non-associative as their associator does not vanish:

$$[e_\alpha ,e_\beta ,e_\gamma ](e_\alpha e_\beta )e_\gamma e_\alpha (e_\beta e_\gamma )=2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }e_\delta ,$$
(2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\alpha \beta \gamma \delta }`$ is the dual of the structure constants. $`G_2`$ acts on the seven imaginary units.

There are four Hurwirtz algebras, the real numbers $`R`$, the complex numbers $`C`$, the quaternions$`Q`$, and the octonions $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. The three quaternion imaginary units are the Pauli spin matrices (multiplied by $`i`$), and their automorphism group is $`SU(2)`$. All have the property that the norm of their product is the product of their norms.

All other exceptional algebra can be constructed terms of $`(3\times 3)`$ antihermitian traceless matrices with elements over products of two sets of Hurwitz algebras. This leads to the “magic square” of Tits and Freudenthal. Apply the construction to a matrix with elements over $`\mathrm{\Omega }\times \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$. An “octonionic octonion” has $`8\times 8=64`$ elements, while an imaginary one has $`7+7=14`$ elements. In an antihermitian traceless matrix, this accounts for $`3\times 64+2\times 14=220`$ parameters. Adding to them the two automorphism groups, we get the $`248`$ parameters of $`E_8`$, the largest exceptional Lie algebra . If Lie algebras can be associated with cars, surely $`E_8`$ is the Delahaye of Lie algebras!

## 3 Charge Spaces

The state of an elementary particle is labelled at a given time as

$$|m,s,x^i,x^{},\{s_a\};\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{}\xi _N>_t,$$
(3)
where the first set are the space-time labels given in light-cone coordinates: the continuous transverse positions $`x^i`$, where $`i`$ runs over the transverse dimensions of space, the spins $`s`$ (more than one in higher dimensions). The second labels are the internal charges $`\xi _\alpha `$ which are described by irreps of compact Lie algebras. The space-time is thus written in terms of orthogonal group of rotations in the transverse space, subgroup of the semi-simple non-compact Poincaré group. On the other hand, the discrete internal charges belong to representations of compact simple Lie groups.

Quarks and lepton charges span representations of the Standard Model group $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$. Remarkably they fit snuggly into two representations of the larger $`SU(5)`$ .

$$SU(5)SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1),$$
(4)
with three families transforming as $`\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$. With the discovery of neutrino masses it is almost certain that each neutrino has a Dirac partner, the right-handed neutrino. With it, each family fits in the fundamental spinor representation of $`SO(10)`$ :

$$SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1);\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}=\overline{\mathrm{𝟓}}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(5)
It is amazing that the natural algebra with one rank higher is that of the exceptional $`E_6`$ , with

$$E_6SO(10)\times U(1);\mathrm{𝟐𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏},$$
(6)
which is a complex representation. $`E_6`$ and the spin representations of orthogonal groups $`SO(4n+2)`$, $`n2`$ are the only fundamental complex representations with no anomalies. This of course open the road to $`E_8`$:

$$E_8E_7\times SU(2)E_6\times U(1).$$
(7)
This ladder to exceptional algebras is even more apparent through their Dynkin diagrams.

By chopping-off one dot at a time, one arrives at the Dynkin of the Standard Model

Exceptional groups make their appearance in superstring theory. The gauge group of the most promising heterotic string  in ten space-time dimensions is nothing but $`E_8\times E_8`$ with $`496`$ gauge parameters (496 is a perfect number: can anyone doubt string theory ?). There, one compactifies over a six-dimensional manifold to get to four space-time dimensions. To preserve supersymmetry, the manifold must have $`SU(3)`$ holonomy. A trip in the extra dimensions gets you back where you started modulo $`SU(3)`$ , and this is compensated by the $`SU(3)`$ obtained from $`E_8E_6\times SU(3)`$. Thus $`E_6`$ is naturally obtained! The number of families is the number of holes in the six-dimensional Calabi-Yau manifold .

## 4 Space Charges

Exceptional groups naturally contain orthogonal groups as subgroups

$`E_8`$ $``$ $`SO(16);E_7SO(12)\times SO(3);`$ (8)
$`E_6`$ $``$ $`SO(10)\times SO(2);F_4SO(9),G_2SO(3)\times SO(3).`$ (9)
They could therefore contain (in their non-compact form) the conformal group in $`D`$ spacetime dimensions$`SO(D,2)`$ and its Poincaré subgroup or else as contracted form of the above. However any role that exceptional groups may play in the description of space charges (position, mass,spin,…) has to be quite subtle.

The reason is that their representations contain both spinorial and tensorial representations of their orthogonal subgroups. For instance, the fundamental irrep of $`F_4`$

$$\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟗}\mathrm{𝟏},$$

contains both the $`SO(9)`$ spinor and the vector representations. Thus $`F_4`$ transformations naturally mix these, but in quantum theory this is like mixing apples and oranges: space spinors obey Fermi-Dirac statistics while the vectors are Bose-Einstein. This simple fact makes their relevence to space charges indirect to say the least. On the other hand, fermions and bosons do coexist in Nature and there must be some symmetry which links them. It is well at this point to examine the difference between bosons and fermions

### 4.1 Fermion-Boson Confusion

In four dimensions, fermions and bosons are naturally differentiated, as fermions have half-odd integer helicities while the boson helicities are integers. In $`d+1`$ spacetime dimensions, fermions transform as spin representations of the transverse little group $`SO(d1)`$, while bosons are transverse tensors. As a result in most dimensions, fermions and bosons have different dimensionalities, but there are exceptions: in $`1+1`$ dimensions, there is no transverse little group and both fermions and bosons are uni-dimensional. This makes it easier to confuse them and there is the well-know phenomenon of bosonisation or fermionisation.

In $`9+1`$ dimensions, the little group is $`SO(8)`$, with its unique triality property according to which bosons and fermions are group-theoretically equivalent, and this is the domain of superstring theories where this triality is put to excellent use. The Dynkin diagram of $`SO(8)`$ displays this triality

and it is the Mercedes of Lie groups. This triality is explicit in the $`F_4SO(8)`$ decomposition. One of the great surprises in string theories has been the emergence of a new theory which contains all string theories; it is called M-theory and it is not a string theory and lives in one more space dimension than the superstrings. The heterotic string theory can be obtained by compactifying M-theory over the line $`S^1/Z_2`$. The infrared limit of M-theory is $`N=1`$ supergravity in eleven dimensions . When compactified on a $`d`$-torus, one finds a non-compact exceptional group, $`E_{d(d)}`$, where the number in parenthesis is the number of non-compact generators minus the number of compact ones. In particular for $`d=8`$ one obtains a theory in $`2+1`$ dimensions with a non-compact version of $`E_8`$ .

It seems that there is also a special arrangement between fermions and bosons in eleven spacetime dimensions. Yet there is nothing remarkable about the transverse little group $`SO(9)`$. Its Dynkin diagram

does not display any symmetries; it is more like a Trabant than a Mercedes or a Delahaye! How can there be any confusion between bosons and fermions? Yet it describes the space in which M-theory roams! Finally we note two interesting anomalous Dynkin embeddings which might have hitherto unsuspected applications. The first is

$$SO(16)SO(9),$$

in which the sixteen-dimensional spinor representation of $`SO(9)`$ fits snuggly into the sixteen-dimensional vector representation of $`SO(16)`$. We will come back to it later. The second is

$$SO(26)F_4,$$

which equates the $`26`$-dimensional vector irrep of $`SO(26)`$ to that of $`F_4`$. Its real form

$$SO(25,1)F_{4(20)}SO(9),$$

may provide a heterotic path to eleven dimensions starting from the original bosonic theory.

## 5 $`N=1`$ Supergravity in $`11`$ Dimensions

Supergravity in eleven spacetime dimensions is the infrared limit of M-theory. It is a local field theory, believed to diverge at three loops. On the light-cone, the theory is described by a chiral superfield with $`256`$ components

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},\stackrel{}{x},\theta ^\alpha )=\varphi (y^{},\stackrel{}{x})+\theta ^\alpha \psi _\alpha (y^{},\stackrel{}{x})+\mathrm{}\theta ^1\theta ^2\mathrm{}\theta ^8\lambda (y^{},\stackrel{}{x}),$$

expanded in terms of eight complex anticommuting Grassman variables, and where $`y^{}`$ is the displaced chiral coordinate

$$y^{}=x^{}i\overline{\theta }\theta /\sqrt{2}.$$

Introduce the sixteen $`(256\times 256)`$ Dirac matrices

$$\{\mathrm{\Gamma }^a,\mathrm{\Gamma }^b\}=2\delta ^{ab},a,b=1,2\mathrm{}16,$$

with vector indices transforming as the $`SO(9)`$ spinor(recall the anomalous Dynkin embedding). These are not to be confused with the $`(16\times 16)`$ nine Dirac matrices which transform as $`SO(9)`$ vectors

$$\{\gamma ^i,\gamma ^j\}=2\delta ^{ij},i,j=1,2\mathrm{},9.$$

Together they allow for a neat way of writing the $`SO(9)`$ generators acting on this superfield

$$S^{ij}=\frac{i}{4}\left(\gamma ^{ij}\right)_{ab}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab},$$

where in the usual notation $`\gamma ^{ij}=\gamma ^i\gamma ^j`$, $`ij`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{ab}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }^b`$, $`ab`$. The $`52`$ $`F_4`$ parameters i split into the $`36`$ $`S^{ij}`$ which generate $`SO(9)`$, and sixteen $`SO(9)`$ spinors, $`T^a`$. Algebraic closure is given by

$$[T^a,T^b]=\frac{i}{2}\left(\gamma ^{ij}\right)^aS^{ij},$$

so there is a whiff of $`F_4`$ in the light-cone description of $`N=1`$ SUGRA in eleven dimensions. We shall see later this is the tip of a beautiful algebraic structure. Their action on the superfield show it to split in three $`SO(8)`$ representations, the $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}`$ of the symmetric second rank traceless tensor, the $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$ the antisymmetric third rank tensor, and $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$ the Rarita-Schwinger spinor-vector field. It is convenient to write the superfield in terms of the three highest weight components of each representation (in our basis)

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},\stackrel{}{x},\theta ^\alpha )=\theta ^1\theta ^8\left(h(y^{},\stackrel{}{x})+\theta ^4\psi (y^{},\stackrel{}{x})+\theta ^4\theta ^5A(y^{},\stackrel{}{x})\right),$$

where $`h,\psi ,A`$ are the highest weights of the $`\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}`$, $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$, and $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$, respectively. Define the Dynkin indices as

$$I^{(k)}=\underset{\mathrm{irrep}}{}w^k,$$

in terms of the length of each weight $`w`$. They satisfy the composition law

$$I_{𝐫\times 𝐬}^{(k)}=I_𝐫^{(0)}I_𝐬^{(k)}+I_𝐬^{(0)}I_𝐫^{(k)},$$

where $`𝐫`$ and $`𝐬`$ are any two irreps. $`I^{(0)}`$ is the dimension of the representation. Since $`SO(9)`$ has rank four it has four such independent indices. The three SUGRA irreps have much in common, as the following table shows

| $`\mathrm{irrep}`$ | $`(1001)`$ | $`(2000)`$ | $`(0010)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`D`$ | $`128`$ | $`44`$ | $`84`$ |
| $`I_2`$ | $`256`$ | $`88`$ | $`168`$ |
| $`I_4`$ | $`640`$ | $`232`$ | $`408`$ |
| $`I_6`$ | $`1792`$ | $`712`$ | $`1080`$ |
| $`I_8`$ | $`5248`$ | $`2440`$ | $`3000`$ |

It shows that

$$I_{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}}^{(k)}=I_{\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}}^{(k)}+I_{\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}}^{(k)},k=0,2,4,6,$$

but the sum rule fails for the higher invariant $`k=8`$. It has been conjectured  that it is this failure that is responsible for the non-renormalizability of $`N=1`$ SUGRA.

Amazingly, this pattern of equalities is repeated for an infinite number of sets of three $`SO(9)`$ representations, which describe higher spin massless particles . It has to do with the fact that there are three equivalent ways to embed $`SO(9)`$ inside $`F_4`$ . This is the octonionic equivalent I-spin, U-spin and V-spin which label three equivalent ways to embed $`SU(2)`$ inside $`SU(3)`$. The $`F_4`$ Weyl chamber is 1/3 that of $`SO(9)`$. Take a highest weight in the $`F_4`$ Weyl chamber, $`\lambda `$. Let $`\rho `$ be the sum of the fundamental weights. There exist two Weyl reflections $`C`$, which map $`\lambda `$ outside the $`F_4`$ Weyl chamber, but stay inside that of $`SO(9)`$. Hence there is a unique way to associate one $`F_4`$ representation to three $`SO(9)`$ irreps. The mapping is

$$C\lambda =C(\lambda +\rho _{F_4})\rho _{SO(9)}.$$

This mapping associates with each $`F_4`$ irrep, a set of three $`SO(9)`$ representations called Euler triplets. Equality betwen its Dynkin indices is guaranteed by the character formula

$$V_\lambda S^+V_\lambda S^{}=\underset{C}{}sgn(C)𝒰_{C\lambda },$$

where $`V_\lambda `$ is any $`F_4`$ representation written in terms of its $`SO(9)`$ content, $`S^\pm `$ are the two spinor irreps of $`SO(16)`$ also written in terms of $`SO(9)`$ through the anomalous Dynkin embedding

$$\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟒𝟒}\mathrm{𝟖𝟒};\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}.$$

The failure of the equality for the eigth order invariant is linked to the fact that $`S^+`$ and $`S^{}`$ have different Pfaffian invariants . One recognizes the “trivial” Euler triplet as the three fields of $`N=1`$ SUGRA in eleven dimensions associated with $`\lambda =0`$. This character formula is akin to an index formula for Kostant’s operator associated with the coset $`F_4/SO(9)`$, the sixteen-dimensional projective Cayley-Moufang plane. Euler triplets are solutions of Kostant’s equation

$$𝒦/\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Gamma }^aT^a\mathrm{\Psi }=0,$$

where the $`T^a`$ generate the $`F_4/SO(9)`$ tranformations.

$$[T^a,T^b]=if^{[ij]ab}T^{ij}.$$

Kostant’s operator commutes with the generalized $`SO(9)`$ generator made up of an “orbital” and the previously defined “spin” part

$$L^{ij}T^{ij}+S^{ij}.$$

The solutions to Kostant’s equation are the Euler triplets, and the trivial solution is the SUGRA triplet. The number of representations in each Euler set is the ratio of the order of the $`F_4`$ and $`SO(9)`$ Weyl groups. It is also the Euler number of the coset manifold, hence the name.

It is convenient  to express the $`F_4`$ in terms of three sets of $`26`$ real coordinates: $`u_i`$ which transform as transverse space vectors, $`u_0`$ as scalars, and $`\zeta _a`$ as space spinors. This enables us to write the Euler triplets as chiral superfields of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(y^{},\stackrel{}{x},\theta ^\alpha )=\theta ^1\theta ^8\left(h(y^{},\stackrel{}{x},u_i,\zeta _a)+\theta ^4\psi (y^{},\stackrel{}{x})+\theta ^4\theta ^5A(y^{},\stackrel{}{x})\right),$$

where now the components $`h`$, $`\psi `$ and $`A`$ are the highest weight components of the three irreps with definite polynomial dependence on the new coordinates. For the proper spin-statistics interpretation, the twistor-like variables $`\zeta _a`$ must appear quadratically. It turns out that the $`\zeta `$’s appear in even powers only for those Euler triplets that have the same number of bosons and fermions!

The physical interpretation of these triplets is still unclear. Their quantum numbers suggest that they can be related by the emission of fields with specified quantum number, in analogy with the transition within a gauge multiplet by emission of a $`W`$-boson. In particular one recognizes the two-form field, so it is possible that emission of a two-form potential from the superparticle in eleven dimension might generate the other triplets, but supersymmetry is broken in the process.

Poincaré invariance requires the Euler triplets to be massless as there are not enough fields among them to complete into massive $`SO(10)`$ little group multiplets. Furthermore there is no supersymmetry relating members of an Euler triplet except, of course, the first one. There are grave difficulties  when coupling to gravity a massless particle with spin greater than two in flat space-time : either one gets a relativistic theory ghosts or else a theory that does not satisfy Lorentz invariance. There are no such objections with an infinite number of such particles, which would correspond to a highly non-local theory.

There are indications that one may need in fact an infinite number of Euler triplets. If the divergences of supergravity are linked to the lack of cancellation in $`I^{(8)}`$, the same would be true for any Euler triplet contribution to a loop amplitude, but the sign of the deficit is the same for all triplets as it is proportional to the dimension of the $`F_4`$ representation from which it originates. To get a cancellation with manifestly positive quantities, an infinite number are required, in the sense of $`\zeta `$-function regulari$`\zeta `$ation. The dimension of any $`F_4`$ representation is a $`24`$th order polynomial in the Dynkin integer indices, and the $`\zeta `$-function of even order vanish, so there might be hope. However it is clear that this is not the language to address this issue as there are formidable technical difficulties to overcome before being able to carry out this program.

## 6 Exceptional Jordan Algebra

This tour ofExceptional groups in Physics would not be complete without a mention of the Exceptional Jordan Algebra . Jordan algebras provide an alternate way of describing Quantum Mechanics in terms of its observables. Let $`J_a`$ be any observable, we introduce the commutative product

$$J_aJ_b=J_bJ_a,$$
(10)
which maps observables into observables. Since matrices do not commute, the Jordan associator

$$(J_a,J_b,J_c)J_a(J_bJ_c)(J_aJ_b)J_c.$$
(11)
is not zero, but satisfies the Jordan identity

$$(J_a,J_b,J_a^2)=0.$$
(12)
These equations serve as the postulates of the commutative but non-associative Jordan Algebras.By writing the Hamiltonian in terms of two hermitian matrices

$$H=\frac{i}{4}[A,B],$$
(13)
we can express time evolution in terms of the Jordan associator

$$i\mathrm{}\frac{J}{t}=(A,J,B).$$
(14)
There would be nothing new in this rewriting of Quantum Mechanics, if it were not for Jordan, von Neumann and Wigner  who noticed that the Jordan axioms were satisfied by $`(3\times 3)`$ hermitian matrices over octonions. The non-associativity of the octonion forbids a Hilbert space interpretation, and this is what makes it special. It is known as the exceptional Jordan algebra (EJA). Its group of derivations of the EJA is nothing but the exceptional $`F_4`$! Gürsey suggested the EJA as label for internal charges, especially since $`F_4SU(3)\times SU(3)`$. Our analysis with Euler triplets suggest rather that the $`SO(9)`$ subgroup be interpreted as the light-cone little group in eleven dimensions . If $`SO(9)`$ is the light-cone little group in eleven dimensions, we want time evolution to preserve it. To that effect, we need to couple the EJA to an external field that transforms non-trivially under $`SO(9)`$. Otherwise, time evolution with a fixed external potential preserves at most $`SO(7)`$. If the $`SO(9)`$ subgroup of EJA automorphism group $`F_4`$ can indeed be identified with the light-cone little group in eleven space-time dimensions, it will suggest the EJA as the charge space of a very special system.

## References


format: text

text:
# Anomalous statistical properties of the critical current distribution in superconductor containing fractal clusters of a normal phase

## I INTRODUCTION

Considerable recent attention is being drawn to the fractal behavior of magnetic flux in type-II superconductors -. High temperature superconductors (HTS) containing clusters of correlated defects  are of special interest in this field. The case of clusters with fractal boundaries provides new possibilities for increasing the critical current value . By virtue of the capability to trap a magnetic flux, such clusters can appreciably modify magnetic and transport properties of superconductors . The distribution of the critical currents in superconductor containing the normal phase clusters with fractal boundaries has unusual statistical properties, and it is these features that will interest us.

Let us consider a superconductor containing columnar inclusions of a normal phase, which are out of contact with one another. These inclusions may be formed by the fragments of different chemical compositions, as well as by the domains of the reduced superconducting order parameter. The similar columnar defects can readily be created during the film growth process . In the course of the cooling below the critical temperature in the magnetic field (“field-cooling“ regime) the magnetic flux will be trapped in the isolated clusters of a normal phase so the two–dimensional distribution of the flux will be created in such a superconducting structure. When the transport current is passed transversely to the magnetic field, this one is added to all the persistent currents, which circulate around the normal phase clusters and keep the trapped magnetic flux to be unchanged. By the cluster we mean a set of the columnar defects, which are united by the common trapped flux and are surrounded by the superconducting phase. Inasmuch as the distribution of the trapped magnetic flux is two–dimensional, instead of dealing with an extended object, which indeed the normal phase cluster is, we will consider its cross-section by the plane carrying a transport current. As was first found in Ref. , clusters of a normal phase can have fractal boundaries, and this feature has a significant effect on the dynamics of the trapped magnetic flux . In the subsequent consideration we will suppose that the characteristic sizes of the normal phase clusters far exceed both the coherence length and the penetration depth. This assumption agrees well with the data on the cluster structure in YBCO films , as well as will allow us to highlight the role played by the cluster boundary in the magnetic flux trapping.

## II GIANT DISPERSION OF CRITICAL CURRENTS

Suppose that there is a superconducting percolation cluster in the plane of the film where a transport current flows. Such a structure provides for an effective pinning, because the magnetic flux is locked in finite clusters of a normal phase. When the transport current is increased, the trapped magnetic flux remains unchanged until the vortices start to break away from the clusters of pinning force weaker than the Lorentz force created by the current. As this takes place, the vortices must cross the surrounding superconducting space, and they will first do that through the weak links, which connect the normal phase clusters between themselves. Such weak links form easily in HTS characterized by an extremely short coherence length. Diverse structural defects, which would simply cause an additional scattering at long coherence length, give rise to the weak links in HTS. Weak links arise readily on twin boundaries, and magnetic flux can easily move along them . Whatever the microscopic nature of weak links could be, they form the channels for vortex transport. Accordingly to weak link configuration each normal phase cluster has its own value of the critical current, which contributes to the total distribution. By the critical current of the cluster we mean the current of depinning, that is to say, such a current at which the magnetic flux ceases to be held inside the cluster of a normal phase. The critical current distribution is related to the cluster area distribution, because the cluster of a larger size has more weak links over its boundary with the surrounding superconducting space, and thus the smaller current of depinning .

In the practically important case of YBCO films with columnar defects the exponential distribution of the cluster areas can be realized , which is the special case of gamma distribution. The exponential distribution has only one characteristic parameter (mean cluster size), so there are not many possibilities to modify the geometric morphological properties of the clusters in this simplest case. By contrast, in the case of gamma distribution there is an additional way for optimizing the cluster structure of the composite superconductor by the control of two independent parameters in the course of the film growth. One of the aims of the present work is to find how the cluster area distribution should be optimized in order to get the highest current-carrying capability of a superconductor. In Ref.  the critical current distribution was derived in the case of gamma distribution of fractal clusters areas, which has the following probability density

$$w\left(A\right)=\frac{A^g\mathrm{exp}\left(A/A_0\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)A_0^{g+1}}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )`$ is Euler gamma function, $`A`$ is the cluster area, $`A_0>0`$ and $`g>1`$ are the parameters of gamma distribution that control the mean area of the cluster $`\overline{A}=(g+1)A_0`$ and its variance $`\sigma _A^2=\left(g+1\right)A_0^2`$. For further consideration it is convenient to introduce the dimensionless area of the cluster $`aA/\overline{A}`$, for which the distribution function of Eq. (1) can be rewritten as:

$$w\left(a\right)=\frac{\left(g+1\right)^{g+1}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}a^g\mathrm{exp}\left(\left(g+1\right)a\right)$$
(2)
The mean dimensionless area of the cluster is equal to unity, whereas the variance is determined by one parameter only: $`\sigma _a^2=1/\left(g+1\right)`$. The probability density of Eq. (2) is presented in Fig. 1 for the characteristic values of $`g`$-parameter. The critical current distribution has the following form

$$f(i)=\frac{2G^{g+1}}{D\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1)}i^{\left(2/D\right)(g+1)1}\mathrm{exp}\left(Gi^{2/D}\right)$$
(3)
where

$`G\left({\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^\theta }{\theta ^{g+1}\left(D/2\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta \right)\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\theta )}}\right)^{\frac{2}{D}}`$

$`\theta g+1+{\displaystyle \frac{D}{2}}`$

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu ,z)`$ is the complementary incomplete gamma function, $`iI/I_c`$ is the dimensionless electric current, $`I_c=\alpha \left(A_0G\right)^{D/2}`$ is this the critical current of the resistive transition, $`\alpha `$ is the form factor, and $`D`$ is the fractal dimension of the cluster perimeter. The value of $`D`$ specifies the scaling relation $`P^{1/D}A^{1/2}`$ between perimeter $`P`$ and area $`A`$ of the cluster .

The probability density curve for critical current distribution of Eq. (3) has the skew bell-shaped form with inherent broad “tail“ extended over the region of high currents (see Fig. 2). As may be seen from this graph, the critical current distribution spreads out with some shift to the right as $`g`$-parameter decreases. This broadening can be characterized by the standard deviation of critical currents

$$\sigma _i=G^{\frac{D}{2}}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1D\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1D/2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}\right)^2}$$
(4)
The standard deviation grows nonlinearly with increase in the fractal dimension, as is illustrated in Fig. 3. The peculiarity of the distribution of Eq. (3) is that its variance becomes infinite in the range of fractal dimensions $`Dg+1`$. The distributions with divergent variance are known in probability theory - the classic example of that kind is Cauchy distribution . However, such an anomalous feature of exponential-hyperbolic distribution of Eq. (3) is of special interest, inasmuch as the current-carrying capability of a superconductor would be expected to increase in the region of giant variance. Then the statistical distribution of critical currents has a very elongated “tail“ containing the contributions from the clusters of the highest depinning currents.

The distribution of Eq. (3) has one even more striking feature: its mathematical expectation, which represents the mean critical current

$$\overline{i}=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1D/2\right)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}G^{\frac{D}{2}}$$
(5)
is also divergent in the range of fractal dimensions $`D2\left(g+1\right)`$. At the same time, the mode of the distribution mode$`f(i)=\left(G/\theta \right)^{D/2}`$ remains finite for all possible values of the fractal dimension $`1D2`$.

The reason for divergence of the mean critical current consists in the behavior of the cluster area distribution of Eq. (2). As may be seen from Fig. 1, the graph of the distribution function of Eq. (2) takes essentially different shapes depending on the sign of $`g`$-parameter - from the skew unimodal curve (1) (at $`g>0`$) to the monotonic curve (3) with hyperbolic singularity at zero point (at $`g<0`$). In the borderline case of $`g=0`$, which separates these different kinds of the functions, the distribution obeys an exponential law (curve (2)). It is just for negative values of $`g`$-parameter that the mean critical current diverges. The contribution from the clusters of small area to the overall distribution grows at $`g<0`$. Since the clusters of small size have the least number of weak links over a perimeter, they can best trap the magnetic flux. Therefore, an increase of the part of small clusters in the area distribution of Eq. (2) leads to a growth of the contribution with high depinning currents made by these clusters in the critical current distribution of Eq. (3). Just as a result of this feature the mean critical current diverges at $`g<0`$. Nevertheless, the total area between the curve of the probability density (like curve (3) in Fig. 2) and the abscissa remains finite by virtue of the normalization requirement.

## III TRUNCATED DISTRIBUTION OF CRITICAL CURRENTS

Obviously, the proper critical current cannot be infinitely high as well as the clusters of infinitesimal area do not really exist. There is the minimum value of the normal phase cluster area $`A_m`$ , which is limited by the processes of the film growth. So in YBCO based composites, which were prepared by magnetron sputtering on sapphire substrates with a cerium oxide buffer sublayer , the sample value of minimum area of the normal phase cluster has been equal to $`A_m=2070`$nm2 at mean cluster area $`\overline{A}=76500`$nm$`^2,`$ that corresponds to the lower bound of the dimensionless area of the cluster $`a_mA_m/\overline{A}=0.027`$. In view of this limitation, we will describe the distribution of the normal phase cluster areas by the truncated version of the probability density of Eq. (2):

$$w\left(a|aa_m\right)=\frac{h\left(aa_m\right)}{1W\left(a_m\right)}w\left(a\right)$$
(6)
where $`\gamma (\nu ,z)`$ is the complementary gamma function, $`h\left(x\right)\{\begin{array}{cc}1& forx0\\ 0& forx<0\end{array}`$ is the Heaviside step function,

$$W\left(a_m\right)\underset{0}{\overset{a_m}{}}w\left(a\right)𝑑a=\frac{\gamma (g+1,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(g+1\right)}$$
(7)
is the truncation degree, which is equal to the probability $`\mathrm{Pr}\left\{a<a_m\right\}`$ to find the cluster of area smaller than the least possible value $`a_m`$ in the initial population.

The expression of Eq. (6) gives the conditional distribution of probability, for which all the events of finding a cluster of area less than $`a_m`$ are excluded. Thus the truncation provides a natural way to fulfil our initial assumption that the cluster size has to be greater than the coherence and penetration lengths. New distribution of cluster areas gives rise to the truncated distribution of the critical currents:

$$f\left(i|ii_m\right)=\frac{h\left(i_mi\right)}{1W\left(a_m\right)}f\left(i\right)$$
(8)
where $`i_m\left(G/\left(g+1\right)a_m\right)^{D/2}`$ is the upper bound of the depinning current, which corresponds to the cluster of the least possible area $`a_m`$.

Then, instead of Eqs. (4) and (5), the standard deviation and mean critical current are

$`\sigma _i^{}=G^{\frac{D}{2}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1D,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1D/2,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}}\right)^2}`$

$`\overline{i}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1D/2,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(g+1,\left(g+1\right)a_m)}}G^{\frac{D}{2}}`$

For the truncated distribution of Eq. (8) the possible values of depinning currents are bounded from above by the quantity $`i_m`$, therefore the mean critical current as well as the variance do not diverge any more. Both of these characteristics are finite for any fractal dimensions, including the case of maximum fractality ($`D=2`$). The corresponding graphs for standard deviation are presented in Fig. 4. All the curves are calculated at $`g=0.2`$ (as for the main curve (2) of the mean critical current in Fig. 5). In this case the variance for initial distribution of the critical currents is infinite, so no graph for $`W\left(a_m\right)=0`$ is shown in Fig. 4 at all. The dependence of the mean critical current on the fractal dimension in the case of truncated distribution is demonstrated in Fig. 6. The corresponding graphs in Figs. 4 and 6 are drawn for the same values of truncation degree. The truncation degree is related to the least possible area of the cluster by the equation (7). The values of $`W\left(a_m\right)`$ and $`a_m`$ involved in Figs. 4 and 6 are presented in the Table I.

The degree of truncation gives the probability measure of the number of normal phase clusters that have the area smaller than the lower bound $`a_m`$ in the initial distribution. If the magnitude of $`W\left(a_m\right)`$ is sufficiently small (no more than several percent), then the procedure of truncation scarcely affects the initial shape of the distribution and still enables the contribution from the clusters of zero area (therefore, of infinitely high depinning current) to be eliminated. It is interesting to note that the very similar situation occurs in analyzing the statistics of the areas of fractal islands in the ocean . The island areas obey the Pareto distribution, which also has the hyperbolic singularity at zero point that causes certain of its moments to diverge. For exponential distribution of the cluster areas, which is valid in the above-mentioned case of YBCO films , the probability to find the cluster of area smaller than $`a_m`$ in the sampling is equal to $`\mathrm{Pr}\left\{a<a_m\right\}=2.7\%`$ only. In principle, the truncation procedure could be made here, too, but there is no need for that, because the contribution of infinitesimally small clusters is finite at $`g=0`$ (and equal to zero at $`g>0`$).

Referring to Figs. 4 and 6 it can be seen that the dependencies of the standard deviation and the mean critical current on the fractal dimension become smoother and smoother with increase in the degree of truncation. At the same time, the inherent tendency of initial distribution is still retained: as the fractal dimension increases, the critical current distribution broadens out (the variance grows, see Fig. 4), moving towards higher currents (the mean critical current grows, see Fig. 6). As may be seen from Fig. 2, this trend is further enhanced with decreasing $`g`$-parameter. The most current-carrying capability of a superconductor should be achieved when the clusters of small size, which have the highest currents of depinning, contribute maximally to the overall distribution of the critical currents. Such a situation takes place just in the region of giant variance of critical currents. So far, the least magnitude of $`g`$-parameter (equal to zero) has been realized in YBCO composites containing normal phase clusters of fractal dimension $`D=1.44`$ . The critical currents of superconducting films with such clusters are higher than usual . It would thus be expected to further improve the current-carrying capability in superconductors containing normal phase clusters, which will be characterized by area distribution with negative magnitudes of $`g`$-parameter, especially at the most values of fractal dimensions.

Thus, it has been revealed that the distribution of the critical currents in superconductor with fractal clusters of a normal phase has the anomalous statistical properties, implying that its variance and expectation diverges in the certain range of fractal dimensions. It may be expected that the most current-carrying capability of a superconductor can be achieved by optimization of the cluster area distribution that involves reducing g-parameter with concurrent increasing the fractal dimension.

## IV Acknowledgements

This work is supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Researches (Grant No 02-02-17667).


text:
# Lattice Supersymmetry and Topological Field Theory

## 1 Introduction

Supersymmetric field theories are interesting both from phenomenological and theoretical points of view - their improved U.V behavior offers the hope of resolving the gauge hierarchy problem and they arise naturally as low energy limits of string and M-theory. Most of the interesting physics of such theories lies in non-perturbative regimes. Discretization on a space-time lattice appears to provide a natural way to study such theories and considerable effort has gone into formulating such lattice supersymmetric theories . Unfortunately supersymmetry is typically broken at the classical level in such models. At the quantum level the absence of such a symmetry leads to an effective action containing relevant SUSY-violating interactions. To achieve a supersymmetric continuum limit then necessitates fine tuning the couplings to each of these operators. In most situations this is prohibitively difficult.

In an previous paper  we advocated a different approach – try to preserve a subset of the full supersymmetry in the lattice model. A similar approach has also been adopted in . Numerical simulations of two models where this idea can be implemented explicitly lend strong support to the idea that preserving some subset of the continuum supersymmetry transformations can indeed protect the lattice model from the dangerous radiative corrections that generically plague discretizations of supersymmetric field theories . In this paper we offer a proof of this statement for the case of supersymmetric quantum mechanics and the two-dimensional complex Wess-Zumino model. Indeed, our result is much stronger - by careful choice of the lattice action we can show that there are no cut-off effects in the lattice supersymmetric Ward identities even for supersymmetries which are broken at the classical level.

We will argue that the reason that these lattice models are well behaved is that they are related to Witten-type continuum topological field theories . Such theories are constructed using a nilpotent symmetry formed from elements of the original supersymmetry. A key feature of such theories is that they contain observables whose expectation values are independent of the metric. After the partition function itself, the simplest examples of such observables are the Ward identities corresponding to the nilpotent symmetry. This metric independence plays a crucial role in allowing us to establish a direct link between the continuum and lattice theories and allows the latter to possess rather remarkable properties.

In the next section we introduce a simple lattice model which exhibits an exact fermionic symmetry and show that this symmetry is actually a BRST symmetry following from fixing a local topological symmetry. We then show how this topological model can be used to describe a lattice regularized theory of supersymmetric quantum mechanics . In this latter case we show that the model is naturally associated with two independent BRST symmetries. In the continuum these two symmetries exhaust the original supersymmetries and show that that supersymmetric quantum mechanics can indeed be viewed as a topological field theory.

For convenience we include a brief summary of the main features of such topological field theories. We then show how this continuum topological structure allows us to derive the lattice theory by integrating out the continuum fields in a carefully chosen background geometry. More precisely, we consider metrics which are continuous functions of a parameter $`\beta `$ such that in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ a “lattice” structure is induced in the model. For any finite value of $`\beta `$ we can perform an associated $`\beta `$-dependent change of variables in the continuum model which preserves the topological symmetries. Hence such a procedure ensures that any topological observable is independent of $`\beta `$. We show that indeed, a local, lattice theory is approached in the limit of large $`\beta `$. Furthermore, our construction then guarantees that the resulting lattice theory retains an element of supersymmetry at the quantum level.

The same analysis applied to the complex Wess Zumino model in two dimensions allows us to write down lattice actions with respect to which all supersymmetric Ward identities are satisfied exactly. Numerical results confirming these conclusions are presented. Finally we discuss the prospects for extending these ideas to more realistic models.

## 2 Simple Example

Consider the simple model discussed in

$$S=\frac{1}{2\alpha }N_i^2(x)+\overline{\psi }_i\frac{N_i}{x_j}\psi _j$$
(1)
which admits a fermionic symmetry

$`\delta x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _i\xi `$
$`\delta \overline{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`N_i\xi `$
$`\delta \psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
Here, $`N_i(x)`$ is an arbitrary function of the scalar field $`x_i`$ and $`\psi _i`$, $`\overline{\psi }_i`$ are real, independent grassmann variables. Notice that this transformation is nilpotent on-shell. Indeed, if we introduce an auxiliary (commuting) field $`B_i`$ we can define a new action

$$S^{}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha B_i^2+N_iB_i+\overline{\psi }_i\frac{N_i}{x_j}\psi _j$$
(2)
If we integrate over $`B_i`$ (along the imaginary axis) we just recover the original action $`S`$. This new action also has an invariance

$`\delta _{(1)}x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _i\xi `$
$`\delta _{(1)}\overline{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`B_i\xi `$
$`\delta _{(1)}\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\delta _{(1)}B_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
The significance of the subscript labeling the action and symmetry variation will be become apparent later. It is easy to see that this new transformation is nilpotent off-shell $`\delta _{(1)}^2\mathrm{\Phi }=0`$ for any of the fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{\psi ,\overline{\psi },x,B\}`$. More importantly it is clear that the new action $`S^{}`$ is nothing but the variation of another function

$$S^{}\xi =\delta _{(1)}\left(\overline{\psi }_i\left(N_i\frac{1}{2}\alpha B_i\right)\right)$$

Thus we recognize our original invariance as a BRST invariance and our original action as nothing but a gauge fixing term! The topological origins of the lattice theory are made more manifest when it is realized that the local gauge symmetry which is being fixed to generate the BRST invariance is nothing but an arbitrary shift in the scalar field $`x_i`$. Imagine a classical theory depending on a scalar field $`x_i`$ with trivial classical action $`S(x)=0`$. Clearly this theory is invariant under a huge local symmetry - namely arbitrary shifts in the scalar field

$$x_ix_i+ϵ_i$$

To quantize we need to pick a gauge. One simple way to do is is to impose $`N_i(x)=0`$ where $`N_i(x)`$ is some arbitrary function of the field $`x_i`$. Then the partition function will be

$$Z=𝑑x_i\delta (N_i)\mathrm{det}\left(\frac{N_i}{x_j}\right)$$

If we represent the determinant using anticommuting ghosts and introduce a multiplier field $`B_i`$ for the delta function we recover our simple model eqn. 1 in $`\alpha =0`$ gauge. The usual theorem associated with quantization of gauge theories allows us to relax this Landau-like gauge to a Feynman-like gauge with $`\alpha `$ non-zero without changing the expectation values of gauge invariant quantities. Notice that the physical ‘fermions’ of the SUSY theory are to be identified with the ghosts of the gauge fixed scalar field theory.

There is another simple way to see the the model written down in eqn. 1 exhibits an unusual symmetry. If we imagine performing a change of variables in the path integral defining this theory according to $`\eta _i=N_i(x)`$ the Jacobian of this transformation cancels the fermionic determinant and the partition function factorizes into a product of gaussians

$$Z=\underset{i}{}d\eta _ie^{\frac{\eta ^2}{2\alpha }}$$

This resultant partition function is trivially invariant under the same local shift symmetry discussed earlier. A transformation of this type which cancels off the fermion determinant is called a Nicolai map and it should now be clear that the existence of a local Nicolai map can be attributed to the presence of a topological symmetry .

We now turn to the simplest application of these ideas - supersymmetric quantum mechanics

## 3 Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics

Imagine now choosing the function $`N_i(x)=N_i^{(1)}(x)`$ corresponding to an action $`S^{}=S_{(1)}`$ where

$$N_i^{(1)}(x)=D_{ij}^Sx_j+P_i^{}(x)$$

In this expression $`D^S`$ represents the symmetric difference operator and $`P_i^{}(x)`$ is some arbitrary polynomial in the lattice field $`x_i`$. To be concrete we can imagine a model with a single interaction coupling $`g`$ of the form

$$P^{}=mx_i+m_{ij}^Wx_j+gx_i^3$$
(3)
Notice that we are also free to add a Wilson mass term $`m^W`$ to the potential to eliminate lattice doubles associated with the choice of lattice derivative operator $`D^S`$.

In this case we recognize our simple model as a lattice regularized version of supersymmetric quantum mechanics - a model well known to possess a topological field theory interpretation . We discuss some of the generic features of such theories in the next section but suffice it to say here that such theories possess observables whose expectation values are metric independent. Clearly, on the lattice, there is no notion of continuum metric and so in a strict sense the lattice model cannot be said to be topological. However, the fact that the action is a BRST variation of a local function of the lattice fields clearly imposes strong restrictions on the quantum theory. Indeed we shall see that in this model certain symmetries which are broken at the level of the classical lattice action are restored in the full quantum theory.

Notice also that the partition function of this model (in $`\alpha =0`$ gauge) just reduces to an integral over the set of field configurations satisfying the gauge condition. In the case of supersymmetric quantum mechanics this is just the moduli space of classical solutions to the equation of motion. On a circle these classical solutions are just a finite set of points $`x_i=x_c`$ where $`P^{}(x_c)=0`$. Thus the partition function just reduces to a sum over the critical points of the potential $`P(x)`$. Notice that this solution is independent of the lattice cut-off – indeed it is the same result one would have gotten for the analogous continuum model.

Furthermore we can consider another gauge condition which corresponds to the same classical moduli space $`N_i(x)=N_i^{(2)}(x)`$ with

$$N_i^{(2)}(x)=D_{ij}^Sx_jP^{}(x)$$

We can construct the action $`S_{(2)}`$ following from this gauge condition by the same procedure and furthermore after exchanging the roles of ghost $`\psi `$ and antighost $`\overline{\psi }`$ we can easily see it only differs from $`S_{(1)}`$ by the addition of a simple operator $`C(g)`$

$$S_{(2)}=S_{(1)}2C$$

The operator $`C=D_{ij}^Sx_jP_i^{}(x)`$ and corresponds to the integral of a total derivative term in the continuum. On the lattice it will be non-zero if $`P^{}(x)`$ contains nonlinear powers of the field $`x`$ which is the case for an interacting model with $`g0`$.

The variation of the fields under this second (nilpotent) BRST symmetry is

$`\delta _{(2)}x_i`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \overline{\psi }_i`$
$`\delta _{(2)}\psi _i`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \left(B_i2P_i^{}(x)\right)`$
$`\delta _{(2)}\overline{\psi }_i`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\delta _{(2)}B_i`$ $`=`$ $`2\xi P_i^{\prime \prime }\overline{\psi }`$
In the continuum where $`S_{(1)}=S_{(2)}`$ the action of supersymmetric quantum mechanics would then possess two BRST invariances. On the lattice if we choose $`S_{(1)}`$ as action we no longer have $`\delta _{(2)}`$ as a symmetry (except for a free theory) and vice versa. Thus at the classical level discretization on a lattice necessarily breaks one of the continuum symmetries. However, we will see that this symmetry is restored at the quantum level with lattice Ward identities corresponding to both $`\delta _{(1)}`$ and $`\delta _{(2)}`$ being satisfied exactly for arbitrary lattice spacing. Indeed we will prove that there exists a one parameter family of lattice actions in which all of the BRST Ward identities are satisfied with no cut-off effects. This feature is crucially dependent on the existence of this topological symmetry.

## 4 Continuum Topological Field Theories

In this section we give a brief review of some of the general features of continuum topological field theories . Such theories are formulated on a n-dimensional manifold equipped with a metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$. On this space there exists a set of fields $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and an action $`S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$. Typically these theories contain operators or topological observables $`O_\beta \left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ with the property that their expectation values are metric independent

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}O_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}O_{\beta _2}=0$$

One way to guarantee this corresponds to the case in which there exists a nilpotent symmetry $`\delta `$ such that

$$\delta O_\beta =0,T_{\mu \nu }=\delta G_{\mu \nu }$$

The energy-momentum tensor $`T_{\mu \nu }=\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}S(\mathrm{\Phi })`$. These conditions lead to the following expressions for the expectation values of topological variables.

$$\frac{\delta }{\delta g^{\mu \nu }}O_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}O_{\beta _2}=D\mathrm{\Phi }\delta \left(O_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}O_{\beta _2}G_{\mu \nu }e^{S(\mathrm{\Phi })}\right)=0$$

Here we have also assumed that the measure is invariant under the nilpotent symmetry and that the observables themselves do not contain the metric explicitly. Theories constructed in this way are called Witten type or cohomological topological quantum field theories. Typically the nilpotent symmetry $`\delta `$ is realized as a BRST symmetry arising from gauge fixing some underlying local shift symmetry. In such theories

$$S\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)=\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })$$

This latter result is very important as it guarantees that topological observables and the partition function itself can be computed exactly in the semi-classical limit. To see this introduce a parameter $`ϵ`$ playing the role of Planck’s constant in the definition of a topological expectation value and examine the variation of that expectation value under variation of $`ϵ`$

$$\frac{}{ϵ}O_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}O_{\beta _2}=\frac{1}{ϵ^2}D\mathrm{\Phi }\delta \left(O_{\beta _1}\mathrm{}O_{\beta _2}\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Phi })\right)e^{\frac{1}{ϵ}S}=0$$

Thus topological observables may be computed exactly in the semi-classical approximation $`ϵ0`$. This semi-classical exactness may be translated into an independence of topological observables on coupling. To see this consider an action of the form

$$S=S_0\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+g\mathrm{\Phi }^n$$

where the quadratic terms are contained in $`S_0\left(\mathrm{\Phi }\right)`$ and we allow for a generic interaction term. If we rescale the fields using $`\mathrm{\Phi }\sqrt{ϵ}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ it is easy to see that topological observables computed in an ensemble with Planck constant $`ϵ`$ and coupling $`g`$ is equivalent to the same observable computed in the ensemble $`ϵ=1`$ and $`g^{}=gϵ^{n/21}`$ The limit $`ϵ0`$ now corresponds to $`g^{}0`$ in the latter ensemble and hence the expectation value can be computed in the free field limit. For the case $`O=1`$ this implies that the partition function itself is independent of $`g`$. This, of course, is also the property enjoyed by models with a local Nicolai map and makes plausible the conjecture that models possessing a local Nicolai map contain within them a topological symmetry.

A trivial set of topological observables correspond to operators of the form

$$O=\delta O^{}$$

While trivial in a true topological sense (their expectation value vanishes trivially on account of the nilpotent nature of $`\delta `$) they will be of crucial importance in the parent supersymmetric theory since they yield the supersymmetric Ward identities.

## 5 Relation Between Lattice and Continuum Theories

In section 3 we discussed a lattice theory of supersymmetric quantum mechanics and showed that it was possible to choose an action which reproduced the continuum partition function exactly (up to a parameter independent multiplicative constant). The simplest way to see this utilizes the gauge $`\alpha =0`$ in which the partition function reduces to a sum over the critical points of the potential $`P^{}(x)=0`$. The solution of this equation is identical in both lattice and continuum theories. Actually, the gauge $`\alpha =0`$ can be used for an arbitrary topological observable and implies that the expectation values for all such observables only depend on the properties of the classical solution to the field equations. This prompts us to guess that it should be possible to forge an explicit connection between the lattice and continuum theories useful for the computation of such observables. We will now show that indeed this is the case.

One standard way to relate a lattice theory to an underlying continuum theory derives from the renormalization group. The lattice field at some point is constructed by averaging the continuum field over a neighborhood of that point. This averaging or blocking procedure may be accomplished by convolving the continuum field with a blocking function. Typically, the precise shape of the blocking function is not important for long distance physics. The lattice or block field which results from this operation is usually a non-local function of the continuum fields. However, this need not be the case for a topological field theory. If we are only concerned with the computation of topological observables we are at liberty to block the continuum fields in an arbitrary background metric. If this metric is then chosen carefully we can arrange for the block fields to be related to the continuum fields in a completely local manner.

Let us examine this in the case of supersymmetric quantum mechanics. The bosonic part of the continuum action for an arbitrary one-dimensional metric written in terms of the einbein $`e(t)`$ takes the form (we have integrated out the auxiliary field $`B(t)`$)

$$S=𝑑te(t)\left[\frac{1}{e(t)}\frac{dx}{dt}+P^{}(x)\right]^2$$

Define now a scalar block field $`x^B(t)`$ in the continuum as a convolution over the original field $`x(t)`$ using a blocking function $`B_\beta ^{}(t)`$

$$x^B(t)=𝑑t^{}e(t^{})B_\beta ^{}\left(tt^{}\right)x(t^{})$$
(4)
We will choose the blocking function $`B_\beta ^{}(t)`$ to be

$$B_\beta ^{}(t)=\frac{1}{2a}\left[L_\beta \left(t+\delta \right)L_\beta \left(ta+\delta \right)\right]$$

We require that the function $`L_\beta (t)`$ tend to the step function for large $`\beta `$

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}L_\beta (t)=\theta (t)$$

This choice of $`B_\beta ^{}(t)`$ ensures that for large $`\beta `$ the blocked field at point $`t`$ contains contributions from all points within a cell defined by $`\delta t(a\delta )`$. Furthermore, we will require the parameter $`\delta 0^+`$ at the end of the calculation. A concrete example of such a function is given by $`L_\beta (t)=\mathrm{tanh}\beta t`$. To capture the structure of the lattice theory we will choose an associated “lattice” metric given by $`e(t)=e_\beta (t)`$ where

$$e_\beta (t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{a}{A(\beta )}L_\beta ^{}(tna)$$

where the sum runs over a finite set of $`N`$ points with “lattice spacing” $`a`$. The constant $`A(\beta )`$ is chosen so that

$$𝑑te_\beta (t)=Na$$

and we assume the continuum theory is defined over a circle with circumference $`Na`$. Notice that

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}L_\beta ^{}=\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{dL_\beta }{dt}=A_L\delta (t)$$

where $`A_L=A(\mathrm{})`$ is just some numerical coefficient. Returning to eqn. 4 we can now compute the block field explicitly

$$x^B(t)\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{a}{A(\beta )}x(na)B_\beta ^{}(tna)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{large}\beta $$

In the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ this relation yields the result

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}x^B(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}x(na)\frac{1}{2A_L}\left[\theta (tna+\delta )\theta (t(n+1)a+\delta )\right]$$

That is, the continuum block field $`x^B(t)`$ is constant within each unit cell of the lattice changing its value only on passing from one cell to the next. To proceed further it is necessary to compute its derivative.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dx^B(t)}{dt}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{a}{A(\beta )}}x(na){\displaystyle \frac{dB_\beta ^{}}{dt}}(tna)`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2A(\beta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}}x(na)\left[L_\beta ^{}(tna+\delta )L_\beta ^{}(t(n+1)a+\delta )\right]`$
Notice that this derivative does indeed vanish in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ for any point within a cell. To compute the action evaluated on a block configuration in this background we need to compute $`\frac{1}{e_\beta }\frac{dx^B}{dt}`$. For any point within the cell $`\delta +nat(n+1)a\delta `$ the leading contribution at large $`\beta `$ is seen to be

$$\frac{1}{e_\beta }\frac{dx^B}{dt}\frac{1}{2aA(\beta )}\left(f_\beta (z)\left[2x(na)x((n+1)a)x((n1)a)\right]+\left[x((n+1)a)x((n1)a)\right]\right)$$

where

$$f_\beta (z)=\left(\frac{L_\beta ^{}(az)L_\beta ^{}(z)}{L_\beta ^{}(z)+L_\beta ^{}(az)}\right)$$

with $`z=tna`$ and we have set $`\delta `$ to zero for simplicity. This in turn reduces to

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{e_\beta (t)}\frac{dx^B}{dt}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{1}{2aA_L}\left[x(na)x((n1)a)\right]\left[\theta (t(n1/2)a)\theta (t(n+1/2)a)\right]$$

Thus the derivative of a block function in such a background geometry at large $`\beta `$ is constant now within a unit cell of the dual lattice. These properties allow us to compute the integral of an arbitrary function of the block field $`x^B(t)`$ and its first derivatives. An example is the bosonic part of the continuum action $`S_B`$. This becomes

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}S_B=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}a\left[\frac{1}{2A_La}D_{nm}^{}x_m^B+P_n^{}(x^B)\right]^2$$
(5)
where the bosonic action now only depends on the blocked fields at the lattice points and we use the obvious notation $`x^B(na)x_n^B`$. The most striking thing about this block action $`S_B`$ is that it coincides with the bosonic part of the lattice action $`S_{(1)}`$ discussed earlier if we identify the lattice field as the blocked continuum field evaluated on a lattice point<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1a finite rescaling of the field is also needed to make the correspondence exact - but this in turn is equivalent to a rescaling of the coupling which will not affect topological observables. Notice also that the lattice theory we arrive at in this manner automatically incorporates an $`r=1`$ Wilson mass term to remove potential lattice doublers (since $`D^Sm_W=D^{}`$).

Notice that the backward difference operator $`D^{}`$ arises directly from our choice of blocking function $`B_\beta ^{}`$. If we had made the equally valid choice

$$B_\beta ^+=\frac{1}{2a}\left[L_\beta \left(x+a\delta \right)L_\beta \left(x\delta \right)\right]$$

we would have arrived at a block action of the same form as in eqn. 5 but with $`D^{}`$ replaced by the forward derivative $`D^+`$.

Generalization to include the fermionic sector is straightforward and leads to the conclusion that the total action when evaluated on block configurations as defined by eqn. 4 goes over into the full lattice action $`S_{(1)}`$ described in section 3.

This similarity between the blocked continuum theory at large $`\beta `$ and the lattice model described in section 3 is intriguing but by itself does not yet guarantee the exact equivalence of continuum and lattice theories. To complete the correspondence between continuum and lattice theories, and to show that for topological observables the continuum expectation values are just equal to their lattice counterparts, we still need to argue that only block fields need to be taken into account inside continuum path integrals as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. We offer two arguments for this.

First consider the continuum boson kinetic term in terms of the original fields

$$S_\mathrm{K}=𝑑t\frac{1}{e_\beta }\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2$$

As $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ it is clear that away from the lattice points $`t=na`$ the action starts to diverge due to the presence of $`e_\beta (t)`$ in the denominator. Furthermore, it is clear that this effect yields an exponential suppression of any field configuration $`x(t)`$ in which the field changes rapidly within a cell. Indeed, we can argue that that the only configurations that survive in the path integral are those in which $`\frac{dx}{dt}e^{\beta \delta t/2}`$ for $`\delta t`$ away from a lattice point. Thus, in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ only the block boson fields survive in the path integral. The relations $`\delta _{(1)}x=\psi `$ and $`\delta _{(2)}x=\overline{\psi }`$ then ensure that, in the absence of topological symmetry breaking, only block fermion fields need to be considered for large $`\beta `$.

Our second argument is formal but more general. We are at liberty to consider the blocking transformation given in eqn. 4 for any finite $`\beta `$ as corresponding to a simple change of variables in the continuum partition function. Let us write this transformation for a generic field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\{x,B,\psi ,\overline{\psi }\}`$ using a compact notation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^B=K_\beta \mathrm{\Phi }$$

where the kernel $`K_\beta `$ is shorthand for

$$K_\beta (t,t^{})=e_\beta (t)B_\beta ^{}\left(tt^{}\right)$$

and we leave implicit the integrals defining the convolution of $`K_\beta `$ with any field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In terms of these new variables the partition function becomes

$$Z=D\mathrm{\Phi }^BJ(\beta )e^{S\left(K_\beta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }^B\right)}$$

where the Jacobian $`J(\beta )`$ is independent of the fields since the transformation is linear. Indeed, the linearity of this mapping implies that each of the BRST transformations for the original continuum fields yields identical transformations of the block fields. For example,

$`\delta _{(1)}x^B`$ $`=`$ $`\psi ^B\xi `$
$`\delta _{(1)}\overline{\psi }^B`$ $`=`$ $`B^B\xi `$
$`\delta _{(1)}\psi ^B`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`\delta _{(1)}B^B`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
Thus the BRST operators remain nilpotent on the block fields. We assume that the inverse operator $`K_\beta ^1`$ exists. For generic values of $`\beta `$ the resulting action $`S\left(K_\beta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }^B\right)`$ will be a complicated and non-local function of the block fields. However, it has one crucial property – it will still be invariant under a BRST variation of the block fields. Indeed, we can construct topological observables from the block fields just as before

$$O_{\mathrm{top}.\mathrm{obs}.}^B=\delta _{(i)}T^B(\mathrm{\Phi }^B)$$
(6)
for any function $`T(\mathrm{\Phi }^B)`$ and either of the symmetries $`i=1,2`$. Now imagine taking the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$. By examining the form of the kernel it is easy to see that in this limit the block field becomes an eigenvector of the kernel

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}K\mathrm{\Phi }^B=\frac{1}{2A_L}\mathrm{\Phi }^B$$

Actually we must be careful here – as $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ it is clear that the operator $`K`$ develops a set of zero modes $`f_l`$ where $`Kf_l=0`$ corresponding to functions which are zero at the lattice points but are otherwise unrestricted. These can be safely ignored only by considering the form of the boson kinetic term which ensures that they are wholly suppressed in the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ as we argued above. Ignoring these modes (which are not present at finite $`\beta `$) leads us to conclude that $`K_\beta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }^B2A_L\mathrm{\Phi }_B`$ and thus the action need only be evaluated for the block fields

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}S\left(K_\beta ^1\mathrm{\Phi }^B\right)=S\left(2A_L\mathrm{\Phi }^B\right)$$

Thus in this limit the partition function factorizes into a piece determined by the block fields at a finite set of “lattice” points labeled by an integer $`n`$ together with an integral over all points lying in cells of the “lattice”

$$\underset{\beta \mathrm{}}{lim}Z=J(\mathrm{})D\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mathrm{cells}}^BD\mathrm{\Phi }_n^Be^{S(2A_L\mathrm{\Phi }_n^B)}$$

Throwing away this irrelevant (infinite) multiplicative constant we see that we have arrived at our original lattice action determined by a finite set of variables! It is not hard to show that in the large $`\beta `$ limit the observables given in eqn. 6 go over into the lattice Ward identities. Since our lattice theory has been obtained by a process of continuous deformation of the continuum theory we expect the resultant lattice theory to preserve the values of all continuum topological observables. Notice though that at $`\beta =\mathrm{}`$ the continuum block fields are discontinuous functions. Thus we should not be surprised if the Leibniz rule fails when applied to functions of such fields and seeming total derivative terms do not vanish in the block action.

In the language of the renormalization group we have found that the lattice action of section 3 is a perfect lattice action for the computation of topological observables – it yields cut-off independent predictions for the corresponding expectation values. Thus the lattice theory should contain a set of exact Ward identities corresponding to any combination of supersymmetries which yields a continuum topological symmetry. The arguments presented above, while not rigorous, are well supported by the numerical results, as we will show in the next section.

## 6 Ward Identities in Supersymmetric Quantum Mechanics

We have tested these ideas by simulating the model given by the action $`S_{(1)}`$ using a potential of the form given in eqn. 3 which contains a mass term $`m`$ plus single coupling $`g`$. Details of our accelerated HMC algorithm are given in . The results were obtained for lattice parameters $`m=0.25`$, $`g=0.0625`$ on an $`L=4`$ site lattice and utilized $`10^8`$ HMC trajectories. Since the dimensionless interaction strength is given by the parameter $`g/m^2=1`$ this choice of parameters corresponds to a strongly coupled theory on a coarse lattice. As such it should easily reveal any symmetry breaking in the lattice theory. We examined the first non-trivial Ward identities corresponding to the expectation values $`<\delta _{(1)}O_1>`$ and $`<\delta _{(2)}O_2>`$ for $`O_1=x_i\overline{\psi }_j`$ and $`O_2=x_i\psi _j`$. These take the form

$`x_iN_j^{(1)}+\psi _i\overline{\psi }_j`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`x_iN_j^{(2)}+\overline{\psi }_i\psi _j`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
The results are shown in tables 1 and 2. For an exact Ward identity the sum of the bosonic and fermionic contributions across any row should cancel.

Since the action $`S^{(1)}`$ is invariant under the $`\delta _{(1)}`$-symmetry it should be no surprise that the corresponding Ward identity is satisfied. What is, on the surface, much more surprising is that the Ward identity corresponding to the $`\delta _{(2)}`$-symmetry is also satisfied to within the (small) statistical errors. This despite the fact that the lattice action is not invariant under this symmetry. Of course this is just the result one would expect on the basis of the arguments of the last section since $`\delta _{(2)}`$ generates an independent topological symmetry of the continuum theory.

Since the lattice actions $`S_{(1)}`$ and $`S_{(2)}`$ differ only by the cross term $`C(g)`$ and both correspond to theories which retain all the continuum topological symmetry for any coupling $`g`$ we are led to conclude that perturbations about either lattice theory via such a term will not affect topological observables. The simplest such observable is the partition function itself. To check this we simulated the same model as before except we added the cross term $`C(g)`$ to the action with arbitrary coupling $`\gamma `$.

$$S=S_{(1)}\gamma C(g)$$

Table 3. shows the mean value of the action $`<S>`$ on an $`L=4`$ site lattice using now $`g=6.25`$, $`m=2.5`$ for three values of the coupling $`\gamma `$. Notice the data we show here corresponds to even coarser lattices than before with the same value for the interaction parameter $`g/m^2`$. Here, the measured action includes contributions from the scalars and pseudofermions and, as detailed in , can be shown to take the value

$$S=L+g\frac{}{g}Z\left(g\right)$$

Thus, a partition function constructed from a BRST invariant theory which is independent of the coupling $`g`$ should yield $`<S>=L`$. At $`\gamma =0`$ and $`\gamma =2`$ (corresponding to lattice action $`S^{(2)}`$) this is indeed the case. What is more surprising is that it appears to be also true at $`\gamma =1`$ where the classical lattice action is not invariant under either the $`\delta _{(1)}`$ or $`\delta _{(2)}`$ symmetries. We have checked this result for other values of $`\gamma `$ and for different masses and couplings with identical results. To reinforce this point we show in tables 4 and 5 the same two Ward identities as before computed in the $`\gamma =1`$ ensemble.

Again both Ward identities are satisfied within statistical errors. Thus our numerical results lend strong support to the results of section 5

## 7 Complex Wess-Zumino Model in Two Dimensions

These arguments can be extended to the complex Wess Zumino model with $`N=2`$ supersymmetry in two dimensions. A lattice formulation of this model based on a discretization of the Nicolai map was studied in  and . More recently the Nicolai map was extended to Ginsparg-Wilson fermions in . In  a Hamiltonian approach was used to investigate the same model.

In  we showed that this model can be derived from the simple model eqn. 1 if one allows the original index to represent both a lattice coordinate in two dimensional Euclidean space and a two-component internal degree of freedom. The resulting theory contains Dirac fermions coupled to a complex scalar field $`\varphi `$ and in the continuum possesses $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. This formulation of the model has the merit of exhibiting clearly its topological character (the topological nature of this model in the continuum is discussed in  and references therein)

In  we showed that there were four possible choices for the scalar lattice action

$$S\left(\varphi \right)=\frac{1}{2}\eta ^{(a)}\overline{\eta ^{(a)}}$$

each of which exhibited an exact fermionic symmetry and corresponded to four inequivalent local Nicolai maps $`\eta ^{(a)}\left(\varphi \right)`$ with $`a=1\mathrm{}4`$. Each of these fermionic symmetries is now seen to be a BRST symmetry corresponding to four different quantizations of an underlying complex scalar field theory possessing a local shift symmetry. The distinct Nicolai maps simply correspond to different gauge choices for the scalars possessing the same Fadeev-Popov determinant. The explicit forms of these maps are (see )

$`\eta ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^S\overline{\varphi }+W^{}(\varphi )`$
$`\eta ^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^S\overline{\varphi }W^{}(\varphi )`$
$`\eta ^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^S\varphi W^{}(\overline{\varphi })`$
$`\eta ^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`D_z^S\varphi +W^{}(\overline{\varphi })`$
They come in two groups of two corresponding to complex conjugation of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. Notice that here we are again using the notation of section 3 in which kinetic terms are written in terms of symmetric difference operators and wilson masses are added into the potential terms. Since $`r=1`$ this is entirely equivalent to the block language of forward and backward derivatives and local potential terms. The actions corresponding to the first two of these maps differ only by a cross term of the form

$$C_1=2Re\left(D_z^S\overline{\varphi }W^{}(\overline{\varphi })\right)$$

Similarly the actions corresponding to the third and fourth Nicolai maps would differ only by another cross term of the same form but with $`\varphi \overline{\varphi }`$

$$C_2=2Re\left(D_z^S\varphi W^{}(\varphi )\right)$$

As before we can attempt to derive these lattice models by blocking the continuum field theory. To do this we need generalizations to two dimensions of the lattice metric and blocking functions. The following choices appear to suffice (for simplicity we parametrize the bosons in terms of two real fields here)

$$g(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=diag(e_\beta ^2(\sigma _1),e_\beta ^2(\sigma _2))$$

The components of this diagonal matrix are just the squares of the functions $`e_\beta (t)`$ introduced in section 5, each now being a function of the corresponding coordinate $`\sigma _i`$. Similarly the two-dimensional blocking function $`B_\beta ^{2\mathrm{d}}(x)`$ can be taken to be just the product of one-dimensional blocking functions, for example,

$$B_\beta ^{2\mathrm{d}}(\sigma _1,\sigma _2)=B_\beta ^{}(\sigma _1)B_\beta ^{}(\sigma _2)$$

By following the same procedure as for supersymmetric quantum mechanics we can derive a lattice action by blocking out of the continuum a topological theory built from any of the Nicolai maps detailed above. Furthermore, topological observables such as the Ward identities associated with any of these continuum BRST symmetries should not depend on the couplings to any cross terms of the form of $`C_1`$ or $`C_2`$ since such operators interpolate between equivalent topological field theories. Thus we predict that the following simple lattice action will yield exact Ward identities for all four symmetries at the quantum level even though it possesses none of these symmetries at the classical level

$$S=\underset{z}{}\frac{1}{2}\left(D_z^S\overline{\varphi }D_{\overline{z}}^S\varphi +W^{}(\varphi )W^{}(\overline{\varphi })\right)+\mathrm{ln}detM$$
(7)
where $`M`$ is the fermion operator corresponding to, for example, the choice $`\eta ^{(1)}`$ (the determinant of $`M`$ is independent of which map is used). Notice

We have checked these conclusions by measuring the four simplest non-trivial Ward identities corresponding to these BRST symmetries for the action given by eqn. 7 on an $`8\times 8`$ site lattice with $`g/m=1`$ and lattice mass $`m=0.625`$. The detailed form of these was derived in . For completeness we list them again here

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\psi _i^\alpha \overline{\psi }_j^\beta +N_j^\beta x_i^\alpha `$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _3^{\alpha \gamma }\psi _i^\gamma \overline{\psi }_j^\beta +i\gamma _3^{\beta \gamma }\overline{N}_j^\gamma x_i^\alpha `$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _1^{\alpha \gamma }\overline{\psi }_i^\gamma \psi _j^\beta +Q_j^\beta x_i^\alpha `$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _2^{\alpha \gamma }\overline{\psi }_i^\gamma \psi _j^\beta +i\gamma _3^{\beta \gamma }\overline{Q}_j^\gamma x_i^\alpha `$
Notice that these expressions involve not the original complex boson fields $`\varphi ,\eta ^{(i)}`$ but their real counterparts eg. $`\varphi =x_1+ix_2`$ and $`\eta ^{(1)}=N_1+iN_2`$ with similar expressions for $`\eta ^{(2)}`$, $`\eta ^{(3)}`$ and $`\eta ^{(4)}`$ in terms of $`\overline{N}_\alpha `$, $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{Q}_\alpha `$ respectively where $`\alpha =1,2`$. Fig. 1 shows a plot of the $`(11)`$-component of the first Ward identity corresponding to the $`\delta _{(1)}`$-symmetry. For simplicity all the correlators we exhibit correspond to timeslice averaged fields. Both bosonic and fermionic contributions are shown together with the combination yielding the Ward identity. It is clear that the latter is satisfied within statistical errors even though the starting lattice action given by eqn. 7 does not possess this symmetry exactly. We find this situation to be true for all the Ward identities – as a further example, fig. 2 shows the $`(12)`$-component of the 2nd Ward identity. Again, we have checked these conclusions for a variety of lattice parameters and sizes with the same result.

In  it was argued that the presence of a local Nicolai map in the lattice model played no essential role in determining the renormalization properties of the theory. However, the existence of a local Nicolai map can now be viewed as a consequence of the topological character of the continuum theory. Thus we would claim that the benign U.V behavior of the lattice model in eqn. 7 is intimately connected to the existence of an exact Nicolai map in the associated continuum model.

## 8 Discussion

It is well known that certain low dimensional non-gauge models can be discretized in such a way as to preserve a single parameter fermionic symmetry. In two cases - supersymmetric quantum mechanics and the complex Wess-Zumino model in two dimensions we show that this lattice invariance (and the associated existence of a local Nicolai map) follow from an underlying topological structure in the continuum field theories. Indeed certain Ward identities of the supersymmetric model just correspond to trivial topological observables in the topological field theory. Furthermore, we argue that these lattice models can be arrived at by blocking out of the continuum in a carefully chosen background geometry. Such a procedure will generate a perfect lattice action for the computation of topological observables and hence guarantees an absence of cut-off effects in the lattice Ward identities. For the models considered here which contain two and four topological symmetries respectively this connection of the lattice model to the continuum guarantees that all the supersymmetric Ward identities are satisfied exactly on the lattice. This may even be true for lattice actions which are not classically invariant under the some of the supersymmetries.

The crucial ingredient in topological field theories of this type is that they contain a scalar nilpotent charge arising from BRST quantizing an underlying bosonic theory. In terms of the original supersymmetry this charge is obtained by taking particular linear combinations of the supercharges. This latter procedure requires that the original theory possess extended supersymmetry. The question that remains is how much of this structure survives in higher dimensions and in the presence of gauge symmetry. The procedure to obtain a nilpotent charge from a set of supercharges is termed twisting and is a well known method to obtain topological field theories from theories with extended supersymmetry in higher dimensions . Indeed, Donaldson-Witten theory was the first topological field theory to be constructed and corresponds to twisting $`N=2`$ super Yang Mills theory. In general, in higher dimensions, only a fraction of the original supersymmetries can be reinterpreted as yielding BRST charges and it is only this fraction that we can hope to preserve on the lattice. Nevertheless, it is tempting to try and use this topological field theory interpretation to construct lattice models containing a residual element of supersymmetry. The procedure of blocking out of the continuum in the presence of a carefully chosen “lattice” metric may prove very fruitful in this regard.

While we think that this approach deserves further study it will clearly be problematic - the lattice theory, to duplicate the structure of the continuum theories, must contain non-compact fields, and so such theories will necessarily break gauge invariance at the classical level. To utilize this formalism it will then be necessary to show that the existence of this residual supersymmetry can constrain the radiative corrections sufficiently to eliminate dangerous gauge-violating counterterms. Notice additionally, that the presence of more than one topological symmetry may be necessary in order to establish an explicit connection between the lattice and continuum theories.

Additionally, local Nicolai maps are known to exist for a number of other models  not all of which have $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. This is intriguing as it points to a possible hidden topological structure in those models which, if elucidated, may itself help with the problem of studying such models on lattices.

###### Acknowledgments.

The author would like to thank the Niels Bohr Institute for hospitality during the initial stages of this work and Poul Damgaard, in particular, for numerous discussions on topological field theory. The numerical data on the Wess Zumino model was provided by Sergey Karamov. The author would also like to thank Joel Rozowsky for a careful reading of the manuscript. This work was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-85ER40237.