text:
# Untitled Document

hep-th/0306226

Superstrings in Graviphoton Background  and $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}`$ Supersymmetry

Nathan Berkovits

Instituto de Física Teórica, Universidade Estadual Paulista

R. Pamplona 145, São Paulo, SP 01405-900 BRASIL

Nathan Seiberg

School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study

Princeton NJ 08540 USA

Motivated by Ooguri and Vafa, we study superstrings in flat $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$ in a constant self-dual graviphoton background. The supergravity equations of motion are satisfied in this background which deforms the $`𝒩=2`$ $`d=4`$ flat space super-Poincaré algebra to another algebra with eight supercharges. A $`D`$-brane in this space preserves a quarter of the supercharges; i.e. $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}`$ supersymmetry is realized linearly, and the remaining $`𝒩=\frac{3}{2}`$ supersymmetry is realized nonlinearly. The theory on the brane can be described as a theory in noncommutative superspace in which the chiral fermionic coordinates $`\theta ^\alpha `$ of $`𝒩=1`$ $`d=4`$ superspace are not Grassman variables but satisfy a Clifford algebra.

June 2003

1. Introduction

Motivated by the work of Ooguri and Vafa  we continue the analysis of  of superstrings in flat $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$ with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry with constant self-dual graviphoton field strength.

Only in Euclidean space can we turn on the self-dual part of the two form field strength $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ while setting the anti-self-dual part $`F^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$ to zero. Therefore we limit the discussion to Euclidean space, but we will use Lorentzian signature notation1 We will use the conventions of Wess and Bagger ..

The special property of a purely self-dual field strength $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ is that it does not contribute to the energy momentum tensor, and therefore does not lead to a source in the gravity equations of motion. Also, since the kinetic term of the graviphoton does not depend on the dilaton, the background $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ does not lead to a source in the dilaton equation. Therefore, this background is a solution of the equations of motion.

Before turning on the graviphoton our system has $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry. What happens to it as a result of the nonzero $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$? The local $`𝒩=2`$ $`d=4`$ chiral gravitini $`\xi _\mu ^{\beta j}`$ transformation laws are

$$\delta \xi _\mu ^{\beta j}=\sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }j}\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }+_\mu \epsilon ^{\beta j}$$

where $`\epsilon ^{\beta j}`$ and $`\epsilon ^{\dot{\beta }j}`$ are the local supersymmetry parameters. The dilatini and antichiral gravitini do not transform into the self-dual graviphoton field strength. The variation (1.1) clearly vanishes for constant $`\epsilon ^{\beta j}`$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }j}=0`$. This shows that the background $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ does not affect the four supercharges with one chirality $`Q_{\alpha i}`$. The variation (1.1) is not zero for constant $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }j}`$ showing that the four other standard supercharges are broken by $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$. However, one can easily make the variation of the chiral gravitini (1.1) vanish if one chooses

$$\epsilon ^{\beta j}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }\sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }j}x^\mu $$

where $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }j}`$ is constant. So in the presence of this background, one has eight global fermionic symmetries which generate a deformed $`𝒩=2`$ $`d=4`$ supersymmetry.

One can easily read off the algebra of the deformed $`𝒩=2`$ $`d=4`$ supersymmetry from the above transformations

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \{Q_j^\alpha ,\overline{Q}_k^{\dot{\alpha }}\}=2ϵ_{jk}\sigma _\mu ^{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}P^\mu \hfill \\ & [P_\mu ,Q_{\alpha j}]=[P_\mu ,P_\nu ]=\{Q_{\alpha j},Q_{\beta k}\}=0\hfill \\ & [P_\mu ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }j}]=2\sigma _{\mu \beta \dot{\alpha }}\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }Q_{\alpha j}\hfill \\ & \{\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }j},\overline{Q}_{\dot{\beta }k}\}=4ϵ_{jk}ϵ_{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }M_{\alpha \beta }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`M_{\alpha \beta }`$ is the self-dual Lorentz generator which is normalized to transform

$$[M_{\alpha \beta },\theta ^\gamma ]=\theta _\alpha \delta _\beta ^\gamma +\theta _\beta \delta _\alpha ^\gamma .$$

Note that if one had turned on both a self-dual field strength $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$ and an anti-self-dual field strength $`F^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$, there would have been a backreaction which would warp the spacetime to (Euclidean) $`AdS_2\times S^2`$. The isometries of this space form a $`PSU(2|2)`$ algebra, and the algebra of (1.1) can be understood as a certain contraction of $`PSU(2|2)`$. In , the superstring was studied in this $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ background and the structure of the worldsheet action closely resembles the pure spinor version of the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ worldsheet action. Since the worldsheet action becomes quadratic in the limit where the anti-self-dual field strength $`F^{\dot{\alpha }\dot{\beta }}`$ goes to zero, this limit might be useful for studying $`AdS_d\times S^d`$ backgrounds in a manner analogous to the Penrose limit.

In the next section we will extend this supergravity discussion to superstring theory. Using the hybrid formalism for the superstring, the worldsheet action remains quadratic in this graviphoton background, so the theory is trivial to analyze. We will explicitly show that it preserves eight supercharges with the new algebra (1.1). In section 3 we will study $`D`$-branes in this background, and will examine the symmetries on the branes. In section 4 we will consider the low energy field theory on the $`D`$-brane and will examine its supersymmetries.

2. Superstrings in graviphoton background

In this section and the next one we review and extend the discussion in \[1,,2\] of type II superstrings in $`\mathrm{IR}^4`$ with $`𝒩=2`$ supersymmetry deformed by a self-dual graviphoton (see also ).

Since we are interested in superstrings in Ramond-Ramond background, the standard NSR formalism cannot be used. Instead, we will use the hybrid formalism (for a review see ). The relevant part of the worldsheet Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}x^\mu x_\mu +p_\alpha \stackrel{~}{}\theta ^\alpha +\overline{p}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\overline{p}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\right),$$

where $`\mu =0\mathrm{}3`$, $`(\alpha ,\dot{\alpha })=1,2`$, and we ignore the worldsheet fields $`\rho `$ and the Calabi-Yau sector. Since we use a bar to denote the space time chirality, we use a tilde to denote the worldsheet chirality. Therefore when the worldsheet has Euclidean signature it is parametrized by $`z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{z}`$ which are complex conjugate of each other. $`p`$, $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$, $`\overline{p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{p}}`$ are canonically conjugate to $`\theta `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\theta }`$ $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}`$; they are the worldsheet versions of $`\frac{}{\theta }|_x`$ etc.. The reason $`x`$ is held fixed in these derivatives is that $`x`$ appears as another independent field in (2.1).

It is convenient to change variables to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill y^\mu & =x^\mu +i\theta ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}+i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\hfill \\ \hfill \overline{d}_{\dot{\alpha }}& =\overline{p}_{\dot{\alpha }}i\theta ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu x_\mu \theta \theta \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}(\theta \theta )\hfill \\ \hfill q_\alpha & =p_\alpha i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta _\alpha \frac{3}{2}(\theta _\alpha \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}_{\dot{\alpha }}& =\stackrel{~}{\overline{p}}_{\dot{\alpha }}i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{}x_\mu \stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}+\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta })\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha & =\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\alpha \frac{3}{2}\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }})\hfill \end{array}$$

and to derive

$$=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}y^\mu y_\mu q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{}\theta ^\alpha +\overline{d}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{total}\mathrm{derivative}\right).$$

The new variables in (2.1) are the worldsheet versions of $`\overline{D}_{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{}{\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}}|_y`$, $`Q_\alpha =\frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }|_y`$, etc.. The reason $`y`$ is held fixed in these derivatives is that it appears as an independent field in (2.1). Our definitions of $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ differ from the integrand of the supercharges in  by total derivatives which do not affect the charges, but are important for our purpose. We will also need the worldsheet versions of $`D_\alpha `$, $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\alpha `$ and the other two supercharges

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill d_\alpha & =p_\alpha +i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}x_\mu \overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta _\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\theta _\alpha (\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta })=q_\alpha +2i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}y_\mu 4\overline{\theta }\overline{\theta }\theta _\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha & =\stackrel{~}{p}_\alpha +i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}x_\mu \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\alpha \stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }})=\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha +2i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}y_\mu 4\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\theta }_\alpha \hfill \\ \hfill \overline{q}_{\dot{\alpha }}& =\overline{p}_{\dot{\alpha }}+i\theta ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\theta \theta \overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{3}{2}(\overline{\theta }_{\dot{\alpha }}\theta \theta )\hfill \\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}& =\stackrel{~}{\overline{p}}_{\dot{\alpha }}+i\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \stackrel{~}{}x_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}\frac{3}{2}\stackrel{~}{}(\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\theta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }).\hfill \end{array}$$

Since the vertex operator for a constant self-dual graviphoton field strength is

$$d^2zq_\alpha \stackrel{~}{q}_\beta F^{\alpha \beta }$$

in the hybrid formalism, the action remains quadratic in this background and there is no backreaction. The Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{}y^\mu y_\mu q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{}\theta ^\alpha +\overline{d}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}+\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{q}_\beta \right).$$

The fields $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ can easily be integrated out using their equations of motion

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \stackrel{~}{}\theta ^\alpha =\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{q}_\beta \hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }q_\beta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Let us examine the supersymmetries of the Lagrangian (2.1). In addition to being invariant under the $`Q_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha `$ supersymmetries generated by

$$\delta \theta ^\alpha =\epsilon ^\alpha ,\delta \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^\alpha ,$$

where $`\epsilon ^\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^\alpha `$ are constants, the above Lagrangian is also invariant (up to total derivatives) under the $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ supersymmetries generated by

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta \overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}=\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\hfill \\ & \delta \stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}=\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\hfill \\ & \delta y^\mu =2i\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu (\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\theta ^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha )\hfill \\ & \delta q_\alpha =2i\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}y^\mu \hfill \\ & \delta \stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha =2i\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{}y^\mu \hfill \\ & \delta \theta ^\alpha =2i\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }}y^\mu \sigma _{\mu \beta \dot{\alpha }}\hfill \\ & \delta \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =2i\alpha ^{}F^{\alpha \beta }\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}y^\mu \sigma _{\mu \beta \dot{\alpha }}.\hfill \end{array}$$

These transformations are the stringy version of the supergravity variation (1.1). The last two transformations in (2.1) represent the deformation, and are needed because of the deformation term $`F^{\alpha \beta }q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{q}_\beta `$ in the Lagrangian. Unlike the other transformations in (2.1), the last two depend explicitly on $`y^\mu `$. This fact is similar to the explicit $`x`$ dependence in (1.1). Therefore, the corresponding currents $`\overline{q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ are not holomorphic and antiholomorphic respectively. They are similar to the currents of the Lorentz symmetries in the worldsheet theory.

In order to establish that (2.1) are not only symmetries of the worldsheet Lagrangian but are also symmetries of the string, we should check that they commute with the BRST operators. To do that, we use $`d_\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha `$ of (2.1) to show that under (2.1)

$$\delta d_\alpha =8(\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }})ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }\alpha ^{}F^{\gamma \beta }d_\beta ,\delta \stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha =8(\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }})ϵ_{\alpha \gamma }\alpha ^{}F^{\gamma \beta }\stackrel{~}{d}_\beta ,$$

where we have used the equations of motion (2.1). Using (2.1) it is clear that the BRST operators

$$\begin{array}{cc}& G=d_\alpha d^\alpha e^\rho ,\overline{G}=\overline{d}_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{d}^{\dot{\alpha }}e^\rho \hfill \\ & \stackrel{~}{G}=\stackrel{~}{d}_\alpha \stackrel{~}{d}^\alpha e^{\stackrel{~}{\rho }},\stackrel{~}{\overline{G}}=\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{d}}^{\dot{\alpha }}e^{\stackrel{~}{\rho }},\hfill \end{array}$$

are invariant. This establishes that (2.1) are symmetries of the theory.

One can easily read off the algebra of the deformed $`𝒩=2`$ $`d=4`$ supersymmetry from the above transformations. Identifying $`(Q_\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha )`$ with $`(Q_{\alpha 1},Q_{\alpha 2})`$ and $`(\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ with $`(\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }2},\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }1})`$, one obtains the algebra (1.1).

3. $`D`$-branes

Consider first the system without the background graviphoton. If the worldsheet ends on a $`D`$-brane, the boundary conditions are easily found by imposing that there is no surface term in the equations of motion. For a boundary at $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}`$, we can use the boundary conditions $`\theta (z=\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(z=\stackrel{~}{z})`$, $`q(z=\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{q}(z=\stackrel{~}{z})`$, etc. Then the solutions of the equations of motion are such that $`\theta (z)=\stackrel{~}{\theta }(\stackrel{~}{z})`$, $`q(z)=\stackrel{~}{q}(\stackrel{~}{z})`$, etc.; i.e. the fields extend to holomorphic fields beyond the boundary. The boundary breaks half the supersymmetries preserving only $`q𝑑z+\stackrel{~}{q}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}`$ and $`\overline{q}𝑑z+\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}`$. From a spacetime point of view, these unbroken supersymmetries are realized linearly on the brane, while the other supersymmetries, which are broken by the boundary conditions, are realized nonlinearly.

Now, let us consider the system with nonzero $`F^{\alpha \beta }`$. After integrating out $`q`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ the relevant part of the worldsheet Lagrangian is

$$_{eff}=\left(\frac{1}{\alpha ^2F}\right)_{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha \stackrel{~}{}\theta ^\beta .$$

The appropriate boundary conditions are

$$\theta ^a(z=\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{\theta }^a(z=\stackrel{~}{z}),\stackrel{~}{\theta }^a(z=\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{}\theta ^a(z=\stackrel{~}{z}).$$

The first condition states that the superspace has half the number of $`\theta `$s. The second condition guarantees, using (2.1) that $`q_\alpha (z=\stackrel{~}{z})=\stackrel{~}{q}_\alpha (z=\stackrel{~}{z})`$.

It is clear that the supercharges $`q𝑑z+\stackrel{~}{q}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}`$ are preserved by the boundary conditions and are still realized linearly on the brane. However, the supercharges $`\overline{q}𝑑z+\stackrel{~}{\overline{q}}𝑑\stackrel{~}{z}`$ are broken and are realized nonlinearly.

The propagator of $`\theta `$ is found to be

$$\theta ^\alpha (z,\stackrel{~}{z})\theta ^\beta (w,\stackrel{~}{w})=\frac{\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }}{2\pi i}\mathrm{log}\frac{\stackrel{~}{z}w}{z\stackrel{~}{w}}$$

with the branch cut of the logarithm outside the worldsheet. Therefore for two points on the boundary $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}=\tau `$ and $`w=\stackrel{~}{w}=\tau ^{}`$

$$\theta ^\alpha (\tau )\theta ^\beta (\tau ^{})=\frac{\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }}{2}\mathrm{sign}(\tau \tau ^{}).$$

Using standard arguments about open string coupling, this leads to

$$\{\theta ^\alpha ,\theta ^\beta \}=\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }=C^{\alpha \beta }0;$$

i.e. to a deformation of the anticommutator of the $`\theta `$s. It is important that since the coordinates $`\overline{\theta }`$ and $`y`$ were not affected by the background coupling (2.1), they remain commuting. In particular we derive that $`[y^\mu ,y^\nu ]=[y^\mu ,\theta ^\alpha ]=0`$, and therefore $`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]0`$ and $`[x^\mu ,\theta ^\alpha ]0`$ .

For a partial list of other references on noncommuting $`\theta `$s see \[7--19\].

4. The zero slope limit

The theory on the branes is simplified in the zero slope limit $`\alpha ^{}0`$. If we want to preserve the nontrivial anticommutator of the $`\theta `$s (3.1), we should scale

$$\alpha ^{}0,F^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{},\alpha ^2F^{\alpha \beta }=C^{\alpha \beta }=\mathrm{fixed}.$$

For $`C=0`$ the low energy field theory on the branes is super-Yang-Mills theory. For nonzero $`C`$ it is

$$S=S_0id^4xC^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}(v_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })+\frac{1}{4}d^4xC^{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}(\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })^2$$

where $`S_0=d^4xTr[\frac{1}{2}v^{\mu \nu }v_{\mu \nu }2i\lambda \sigma ^m\overline{\lambda }+D^2]`$ is the usual super-Yang-Mills action, $`v^{\mu \nu }`$ is the Yang-Mills field strength, $`\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ is the antichiral gaugino, and $`C^{\mu \nu }=(\sigma ^{\mu \nu })_{\alpha \beta }C^{\alpha \beta }`$.

We will now examine the supersymmetries of the action (4.1).

Under the $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}`$ supersymmetries generated by $`Q_\alpha +\stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha `$, the chiral superfield $`W^\alpha `$ transforms as

$$\delta W^\beta =\eta _+^\alpha \frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }W^\beta $$

where $`\eta _+^\alpha `$ is the constant supersymmetry parameter. In component fields, these transformations are

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta \lambda =i\eta _+D+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\eta _+(v_{\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{2}C_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })\hfill \\ & \delta v_{\mu \nu }=i\eta _+(\sigma _\nu _\mu \sigma _\mu _\nu )\overline{\lambda }\hfill \\ & \delta D=\eta _+\sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\lambda }\hfill \\ & \delta \overline{\lambda }=0.\hfill \end{array}$$

The action of (4.1) is invariant under these transformations after including the $`C_{\mu \nu }`$-dependent terms in the transformations and in the action.

However, under the $`𝒩=\frac{3}{2}`$ supersymmetries corresponding to $`(Q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }})`$, the component fields transform nonlinearly since these transformations do not preserve the $`D`$-brane boundary conditions $`\theta ^\alpha =\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}=\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$.2 Actually, since these supersymmetries are spontaneously broken on the $`D`$-brane, the corresponding supercharges $`(Q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ do not exist. We will denote by $`(Q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ the transformations of the supersymmetries. To determine the nonlinear transformation of these component fields, it is useful to recall that in a background with Abelian chiral and antichiral superfields $`W^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, the $`D`$-brane boundary conditions $`\theta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =0`$ and $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}=0`$ are modified to $`\theta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{}W^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ to leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ \[20,,21,,22\]. Just as the bosonic $`D`$-brane boundary conditions $`_\sigma x_\mu =0`$ is modified to $`_\sigma x_\mu =\alpha ^{}(_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu )_\tau x^\nu `$ in the presence of the Maxwell vertex operator $`𝑑\tau A_\mu (x)_\tau x^\mu `$ \[23,,24\], the superstring $`D`$-brane boundary conditions are modified to $`\theta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha =\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{}W^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{1}{4}\alpha ^{}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ in the presence of the super-Maxwell vertex operator which includes the term $`𝑑\tau (W^\alpha d_\alpha +\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{d}_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ . So by comparing with the supersymmetry transformations of $`(\theta ,\overline{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }})`$ in (2.1)(2.1), one learns the nonlinear transformations of the Abelian gauginos $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ to leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. Note that the nonlinear transformations of all other super-Yang-Mills fields are higher order in $`\alpha ^{}`$.

For example, under $`Q_\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}_\alpha `$, $`\delta (\theta \stackrel{~}{\theta })=\epsilon \stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ in (2.1) implies that the chiral Abelian gaugino transforms inhomogeneously as

$$\delta \lambda ^\alpha =\frac{4i}{\alpha ^{}}(\epsilon ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^\alpha )\eta _{}^\alpha .$$

This transformation clearly leaves invariant the action of (4.1). In the zero slope limit we should take $`\epsilon \stackrel{~}{\epsilon }0`$ with fixed $`\eta _{}`$ in order to have a finite answer.

Under $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, the antichiral Abelian gaugino transforms inhomogeneously as

$$\delta \overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}=\frac{4i}{\alpha ^{}}(\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }})\overline{\eta }_{}^{\dot{\alpha }},$$

and therefore in the zero slope limit we should take $`\overline{\epsilon }\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}0`$ with fixed $`\overline{\eta }_{}`$ in order to have a finite answer. In addition to (4.1), since $`\delta (\theta ^\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\theta }^\alpha )=\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}C^{\alpha \beta }y_\mu \sigma _{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^\mu `$ is finite in the zero slope limit, the chiral superfield $`W^\gamma `$ transforms as

$$\delta W^\gamma =\frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}C^{\alpha \beta }y_\mu \sigma _{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }W^\gamma .$$

Therefore, to leading order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, the component fields transform as

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \delta \lambda =i\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})D+\sigma ^{\mu \nu }\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})(v_{\mu \nu }+\frac{i}{2}C_{\mu \nu }\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })\hfill \\ & \delta v_{\mu \nu }=i\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})(\sigma _\nu _\mu \sigma _\mu _\nu )\overline{\lambda }\hfill \\ & \delta D=\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})\sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\lambda }\hfill \\ & \delta \overline{\lambda }=\overline{\eta }_{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})^\alpha \frac{1}{2}\overline{\eta }_{}^{\dot{\alpha }}C^{\alpha \beta }y_\mu \sigma _{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^\mu .`$

To explicitly check that (4.1) is invariant under the transformation of (4.1), first note that under the inhomogeneous transformation of $`\overline{\lambda }`$,

$$\delta _{inhomogeneous}S=2id^4xC^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}[v_{\mu \nu }\overline{\eta }_{}\overline{\lambda }]+d^4xC^{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{Tr}[(\overline{\eta }_{}\overline{\lambda })(\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })].$$

And under the $`y`$-dependent transformation parameterized by $`\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})`$ in (4.1),

$$\delta _{homogeneous}S=d^4xJ_\mu ^\alpha \frac{}{y_\mu }\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})_\alpha $$

where $`J_\mu ^\alpha `$ is the conserved supersymmetry current associated with the invariance of (4.1) under the global supersymmetry transformation of (4.1). One can easily compute that

$$J_{\mu \alpha }=\mathrm{Tr}[2iv^{\rho \tau }(\sigma _{\rho \tau })_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }\sigma _{\mu \beta \dot{\gamma }}^{}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\gamma }}+2C_{\mu \nu }\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\nu \overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}(\overline{\lambda }\overline{\lambda })]$$

and

$$\frac{}{y^\mu }\eta (y,\overline{\eta }_{})_\alpha =\frac{1}{2}(\overline{\eta }_{})_{\dot{\alpha }}C_{\alpha \beta }\sigma _\mu ^{\beta \dot{\alpha }}.$$

Using (4.1) and (4.1) in (4.1), one finds that (4.1) cancels (4.1) so the action is invariant.

Lastly, under $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{\overline{Q}}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$, the chiral Abelian gaugino transforms inhomogeneously as

$$\delta \lambda ^\alpha =8(\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }})(\alpha ^{})^2C^{\alpha \beta }y_\mu \sigma _{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^\mu 8\overline{\eta }_+^{\dot{\alpha }}C^{\alpha \beta }y_\mu \sigma _{\beta \dot{\alpha }}^\mu .$$

Note that in this case we need $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }}\alpha ^2`$ in order to have a finite transformation in the zero slope limit. Since $`\delta (\overline{\theta }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{\overline{\theta }}^{\dot{\alpha }})=(\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\stackrel{~}{\overline{\epsilon }}^{\dot{\alpha }})\alpha ^2`$, we should set it to zero in the zero slope limit. Therefore, under this transformation (4.1) is the only variation. To check invariance of (4.1) under (4.1), note that the inhomogeneous transformation of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ leaves the action invariant since $`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu \frac{}{y^\mu }\delta \lambda ^\alpha =0`$.

We conclude that the action (4.1) is invariant under the linear $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}`$ supersymmetry transformations (4.1)(4.1) with parameter $`\eta _+`$ and under the nonlinear $`𝒩=\frac{3}{2}`$ supersymmetry transformations (4.1)(4.1)(4.1) with parameters $`\eta _{}`$, $`\overline{\eta }_{}`$, $`\overline{\eta }_+`$.

It would be interesting to extend our analysis to higher-order terms in $`\alpha ^{}`$. This amounts to finding a noncommutative superspace generalization to the $`d=4`$ supersymmetric Born-Infeld action. Just as the standard supersymmetric Born-Infeld action realizes $`𝒩=1+1`$ supersymmetry (four supercharges are realized linearly and four supercharges are realized nonlinearly) \[21,,22\], the noncommutative superspace Born-Infeld theory should realize $`𝒩=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{3}{2}`$ supersymmetry.

Acknowledgements

It is a pleasure to thank H. Ooguri, C. Vafa and E. Witten for helpful discussions. The work of NS was supported in part by DOE grant #DE-FG02-90ER40542 and NSF grant PHY-0070928 to IAS. NB would like to thank the IAS for its hospitality where part of this work was done, and FAPESP grant 99/12763-0, CNPq grant 300256/94-9 and Pronex grant 66.2002/1998-9 for partial financial support.

References

relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “The C-deformation of gluino and non-planar diagrams,” arXiv:hep-th/0302109. relax N. Seiberg, “Noncommutative superspace, N = 1/2 supersymmetry, field theory and string theory,” JHEP 0306, 010 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0305248\]. relax J. Wess and J. Bagger, “Supersymmetry And Supergravity,” Princeton, USA: Univ. Pr. (1992). relax N. Berkovits, M. Bershadsky, T. Hauer, S. Zhukov and B. Zwiebach, “Superstring theory on $`AdS_2\times S^2`$ as a coset supermanifold,” Nucl. Phys. B567, 61 (2000).\[arXiv:hep-th/9907200\]. relax J. de Boer, P. A. Grassi and P. van Nieuwenhuizen, “Non-commutative superspace from string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0302078. relax N. Berkovits, “A new description of the superstring,” arXiv:hep-th/9604123. relax R. Casalbuoni, “Relativity And Supersymmetries,” Phys. Lett. B 62, 49 (1976). relax R. Casalbuoni, “On The Quantization Of Systems With Anticommutating Variables,” Nuovo Cim. A 33, 115 (1976). relax R. Casalbuoni, “The Classical Mechanics For Bose-Fermi Systems,” Nuovo Cim. A 33, 389 (1976). relax L. Brink and J. H. Schwarz, “Clifford Algebra Superspace,” CALT-68-813 SPIRES entry relax J. H. Schwarz and P. Van Nieuwenhuizen, “Speculations Concerning A Fermionic Substructure Of Space-Time,” Lett. Nuovo Cim. 34, 21 (1982). relax S. Ferrara and M. A. Lledo, “Some aspects of deformations of supersymmetric field theories,” JHEP 0005, 008 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-th/0002084\]. relax D. Klemm, S. Penati and L. Tamassia, “Non(anti)commutative superspace,” arXiv:hep-th/0104190. relax R. Abbaspur, “Generalized noncommutative supersymmetry from a new gauge symmetry,” arXiv:hep-th/0206170. relax H. Ooguri and C. Vafa, “Gravity induced C-deformation,” arXiv:hep-th/0303063. relax H. Kawai, T. Kuroki and T. Morita, “Dijkgraaf-Vafa theory as large-N reduction,” arXiv:hep-th/0303210. relax I. Chepelev and C. Ciocarlie, “A path integral approach to noncommutative superspace,” arXiv:hep-th/0304118. relax J. R. David, E. Gava and K. S. Narain, “Konishi anomaly approach to gravitational F-terms,” arXiv:hep-th/0304227. relax R. Britto, B. Feng and S. J. Rey, “Deformed Superspace, N=1/2 Supersymmetry and (Non)Renormalization Theorems,” arXiv:hep-th/0306215. relax N. Berkovits and V. Pershin, “Supersymmetric Born-Infeld from the pure spinor formalism of the open superstring,” JHEP 0301, 023 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0205154\]. relax J. Bagger and A. Galperin, “A new Goldstone multiplet for partially broken supersymmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 55, 1091 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9608177\]. relax J. Bagger and A. Galperin, “The tensor Goldstone multiplet for partially broken supersymmetry,” Phys. Lett. B 412, 296 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9707061\]. relax E. S. Fradkin and A. A. Tseytlin, “Non-linear electrodynamics from quantized strings”, Phys. Lett. B163, 123 (1985). relax A. Abouelsaood, C. Callan, C. Nappi and S. Yost, “Open strings in background gauge fields,” Nucl. Phys. B280, 599 (1987).


format: text

text:
# On the absence of uniform denominators in Hilbert’s 17th problem

## 1. Introduction

Let $`H_d(^n)`$ denote the set of real homogeneous forms of degree $`d`$ in $`n`$ variables (“$`n`$-ary $`d`$-ics”) . By identifying $`pH_d(^n)`$ with the $`N=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+d1}{n1}\right)`$-tuple of its coefficients, we see that $`H_d(^n)^N`$. Suppose $`m`$ is an even integer. A form $`pH_m(^n)`$ is called positive semidefinite or psd if $`p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)0`$ for all $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)^n`$. Following , we denote the set of psd forms in $`H_m(^n)`$ by $`P_{n,m}`$. Since $`P_{n,m}`$ is closed under addition and closed under multiplication by positive scalars, it is a convex cone. In fact, $`P_{n,m}`$ is a closed convex cone: if $`p_np`$ coefficient-wise, and each $`p_n`$ is psd, then so is $`p`$. A psd form is called positive definite or pd if $`p(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)=0`$ implies $`x_j=0`$ for $`1jn`$. The pd $`n`$-ary $`m`$-ics are the interior of the cone $`P_{n,m}`$.

A form $`pH_m(^n)`$ is called a sum of squares or sos if it can be written as a sum of squares of polynomials; that is, $`p=_kh_k^2`$. It is easy to show in this case that each $`h_kH_{m/2}(^n)`$. Again following , we denote the set of sos forms in $`H_m(^n)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$ is a convex cone; less obviously, it is a closed cone, a result due to R. M. Robinson .

In light of the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}P_{n,m}`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}=P_{n,m}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$. It was well-known by the late 19th century that $`P_{n,m}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$ when $`m=2`$ or $`n=2`$. In 1888, Hilbert proved  that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,4}=P_{3,4}`$; more specifically, every $`pP_{3,4}`$ can be written as the sum of three squares of quadratic forms. (An elementary proof, with “five” squares is in \[2, pp.16-17\]; for modern expositions of Hilbert’s proof, see  and .) Hilbert also proved in  that the preceding are the only cases for which $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}=\mathrm{}`$. That is, if $`n3`$ and $`m6`$ or $`n4`$ and $`m4`$, then there exist psd forms $`n`$-ary $`m`$-ics that are not sos.

In 1893, Hilbert  generalized his three-square result for $`P_{3,4}`$ to ternary forms of higher degree. Suppose $`pP_{3,m}`$ with $`m6`$. Then there exist $`p_1P_{3,m4}`$ and $`h_{1k}H_{m2}(^3)`$, $`1k3`$, so that

$$p_1p=h_{11}^2+h_{12}^2+h_{13}^2.$$

(Hilbert’s proof seems to be non-constructive, and lacks a modern exposition. In the very recent paper , de Klerk and Pasechnik discuss the implementation of an algorithm to find $`p_1`$ so that $`p_1p`$ is sos, though not necessarily as a sum of three squares. This paper uses Hilbert’s result without giving an independent proof.)

If $`m=6`$ or 8, then $`p_1`$ is a sum of three squares of forms, and hence (as Landau later noted ), the four-square identity implies that $`p_1^2p=p_1(p_1p)`$ is the sum of four squares of forms. If $`m10`$, then the argument can be applied to $`p_1`$: there exists $`p_2P_{3,m8}`$ with $`p_2p_1=h_{21}^2+h_{22}^2+h_{23}^2`$. Thus, if $`m=10`$ or 12 (so that $`P_{3,m8}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,m8}`$), then $`(p_1p_2)^2p=p_2(p_2p_1)(p_1p)`$ is the sum of four squares of forms, An easy induction shows that there exists $`qH_t(^3)`$ with $`t=\frac{(m2)^2}{8}`$ so that $`q^2p`$ is the sum of four squares of forms.

Hilbert’s 17th Problem asked whether this generalizes to $`n>3`$ variables; that is, if $`pP_{n,m}`$, must there exist some form $`q`$ so that $`q^2p`$ is sos? Artin proved that there must be, in a way that gives no information about $`q`$. Much more on the history of this subject can be found in the survey paper .

This discussion leads to two closely related questions. Suppose $`pP_{n,m}`$. Can we find a form $`h`$ such that $`hp`$ is sos? Can we find a form $`q`$ so that $`q^2p`$ is sos? If we’ve answered the second, we’ve answered the first. Conversely, if $`p0`$ is psd and $`hp`$ is sos, then $`h`$ is psd. But it needn’t be sos; indeed, a trivial answer to the first question is to take $`h=p`$. Stengle proved  that if $`p(x,y,z)=x^3z^3+(y^2zx^3z^2x)^2`$, then $`p^{2s+1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,6(2s+1)}`$ for every integer $`s`$. That is, $`p^{2s1}p`$ is sos, but $`p^{2s}p`$ is not. Choi and Lam showed  that for $`S\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,6}`$ (see (3) below), the product $`S(x,y,z)S(x,z,y)`$ is actually sos.

The author gratefully acknowledges correspondence with Chip Delzell, Pablo Parrilo, Vicki Powers, Marie-Françoise Roy and Claus Scheiderer. Their suggestions have made this a better paper.

## 2. What is known about the denominator

The first concrete result about a denominator in Hilbert’s 17th Problem was found by Pólya . He showed that if $`fH_d(^n)`$ is positive on the unit simplex $`\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)|x_j0,x_j=1\}`$, then for sufficiently large $`N`$, $`(_jx_j)^Nf`$ has positive coefficients. Replacing each $`x_j`$ by $`x_j^2`$, we see that if $`pH_{2d}(^n)`$ is an even positive definite form, then $`(_jx_j^2)^Np`$ is a sum of even monomials with positive coefficients, and so, as it stands, is a sum of squares of monomials. Taking even $`N`$, we see that $`q=(_jx_j^2)^{N/2}`$ is a denominator for $`p`$. Habicht  generalized Pólya’s proof to give an alternate solution to Hilbert’s 17th Problem for pd forms; however, $`h`$ is not readily constructible and in general is no longer a power of $`x_j^2`$. Except for one example, Pólya did not attempt to determine an explicit value of $`N`$. A good exposition of the theorems of Pólya and Habicht can be found in .

For positive definite $`pP_{n,m}`$, let

$$ϵ(p):=\frac{inf\{p(u):uS^{n1}\}}{sup\{p(u):uS^{n1}\}}$$

measure how “close” $`p`$ is to having a zero. The author  showed that if

$$N\frac{nm(m1)}{(4\mathrm{log}2)ϵ(p)}\frac{n+m}{2},$$

then $`(_jx_j^2)^Np`$ is a sum of $`(m+2N)`$-th powers of linear forms, and so is sos. A similar lower bound has been shown to apply in Pólya’s case, one which goes to infinity as $`p`$ approaches the boundary of $`P_{n,m}`$. (See papers by de Loera and Santos  and by Powers and the author .)

The restriction to positive definite forms is necessary. There exist psd forms $`p`$ in $`n4`$ variables so that, if $`h^2p`$ is sos, then $`h`$ must have a specified zero. The existence of these unavoidable singularities, or so-called “bad points”, insures that $`(x_j^2)^rp`$ can never be a sum of squares of forms for any $`r`$. Habicht’s Theorem implies that no positive definite form can have a bad point. Bad points were first noted by Straus and have been extensively studied by Delzell; see, e.g. .

## 3. Recent results and a new theorem

Scheiderer has shown in very recent work  that for $`pP_{3,m}`$, there exists $`N=N(p)`$ so that $`(x^2+y^2+z^2)^Np(x,y,z)`$ is sos; indeed, $`x^2+y^2+z^2`$ can be replaced by any positive definite form. This is a strong refutation to the existence of bad points for ternary forms.

Also very recently, Lombardi and Roy  have constructed a quantitative version of the Positivstellensatz. A special case is that for fixed $`(n,m)`$, there exists $`d=d(n,m)`$ so that if $`pP_{n,m}`$, there exists $`qH_d(^n)`$ so that $`q^2p`$ is sos.

Suppose $`(n,m)`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}\mathrm{}`$. Theorem 1 below states that there is no single form $`h`$ so that, if $`pP_{n,m}`$, then $`hp`$ is sos. Corollary 2 says that there is not even a finite set of forms $``$ so that, if $`pP_{n,m}`$, then there exists $`h`$ so that $`hp`$ in sos. In particular, there does not exist a finite set of denominators which apply to all of $`P_{n,m}`$. This result implies that $`N(p)`$ in Scheiderer’s theorem is not bounded as $`p`$ ranges over $`P_{3,m}`$. It also implies that the denominators in the Lombardi-Roy theorem cannot be chosen from a finite, predetermined set.

The proof of the Theorem is elementary and relies on a few simple observations. If $`p0`$ is psd and $`hp`$ is sos, then $`h`$ is psd. As previously noted, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$ is a closed cone for all $`(n,m)`$. This cone is invariant under the action of taking invertible linear changes of form. Thus, if $`h^{}`$ is derived from $`h`$ by such a linear change, and if $`hp`$ is sos for every $`pP_{n,m}`$, then so is $`h^{}p`$. Suppose $`\mathrm{}`$ is a linear form, $`p=_jg_k^2`$ is sos, and $`\mathrm{}|p`$. Then $`\mathrm{}^2|p`$ and $`\mathrm{}|g_k`$ for each $`k`$, and by induction, $`\mathrm{}^{2s}|p\mathrm{}^s|g_k`$. Thus, we can “peel off” squares of linear factors from any sos form; this is a common practice, dating back at least to \[20, p. 267\]. We use this observation in the contrapositive: if $`p\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}`$, then $`\mathrm{}^{2s}p\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m+2s}`$.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}\mathrm{}`$. Then there does not exist a non-zero form $`h`$ so that if $`pP_{n,m}`$, then $`hp`$ is sos.

###### Proof.

Suppose to the contrary that such a form $`h`$ exists. Since $`h0`$, there exists a point $`a^n`$ so that $`h(a)0`$. By making an invertible linear change of variables, we can take $`a=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$. Thus, we may assume without loss of generality that $`h(x_1,0,\mathrm{},0)=\alpha x_1^d`$, where $`\alpha >0`$ and $`d`$ is even. In the sequel, we distinguish $`x_1`$ from the other variables.

Choose $`pP_{n,m}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m}`$. Then

$$h(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)p(x_1,rx_2,\mathrm{},rx_n)$$

is sos for every $`r`$. By making the change of variables $`x_ix_i/r`$ for $`i2`$, we see that

$$h(x_1,r^1x_2,\mathrm{},r^1x_n)p(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)$$

is also sos. Since

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}h(x_1,r^1x_2,\mathrm{},r^1x_n)=h(x_1,0,\mathrm{},0)=\alpha x_1^d,$$

and since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{n,m+d}`$ is closed, it follows that

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}h(x_1,r^1x_2,\mathrm{},r^1x_n)p(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)=\alpha x_1^dp(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)$$

is sos. Thus $`p`$ is sos, a contradiction. ∎

The following elegant proof is due to Claus Scheiderer and is included with his permission; it supersedes the proof in an earlier version of this manuscript.

###### Corollary 2.

Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}\mathrm{}`$. Then there does not exist a finite set of non-zero forms $`=\{h_1,\mathrm{},h_N\}`$ with the property that, if $`pP_{n,m}`$, then $`h_kp`$ is sos for some $`h_k`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $``$ exists. For each $`k`$, there exists non-zero $`p\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}`$ so that $`h_kp`$ is sos. (Otherwise, we may delete $`h_k`$ harmlessly from $``$.) Thus, each $`h_k`$ is psd, and there exists a form $`q_k`$ so that $`q_k^2h_k`$ is sos. Define $`h=_kq_k^2h_k`$. We now show that for every $`pP_{n,m}`$, $`hp`$ is sos: this contradicts the Theorem and proves the Corollary. By hypothesis, there exists $`h_j`$ so that $`h_jp`$ is sos. Thus,

$$hp=\left(\underset{kj}{}q_k^2h_k\right)q_j^2h_jp$$

is a product of sos factors, and so is sos. ∎

Finally, we know by Hilbert’s theorem that for $`pP_{3,6}`$, there exists quadratic $`h`$ so that $`hp\mathrm{\Sigma }_{3,8}`$. The three simplest forms in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{3,6}`$ are

(1)
$$M(x,y,z)=x^4y^2+x^2y^4+z^63x^2y^2z^2,\text{due to Motzkin }\text{[14]};$$

Robinson’s  simplification of Hilbert’s construction

(2)
$$R(x,y,z)=x^6+y^6+z^6(x^4y^2+x^2y^4+x^4z^2+x^2z^4+y^4z^2+y^2z^4)+3x^2y^2z^2;$$

and

(3)
$$S(x,y,z)=x^4y^2+y^4z^2+z^4x^23x^2y^2z^2,\text{due to Choi and Lam }\text{[1, 2]}.$$

It is not too difficult to consider $`qM,qR,qS`$ for $`q(x,y,z)=a^2x^2+b^2y^2+c^2z^2`$, and determine whether these are sos using the algorithm of  directly or its implementation in, e.g., .

Interestingly enough, these conditions are the same in each case: the forms are sos if and only if

$$2(a^2b^2+a^2c^2+b^2c^2)a^4+b^4+c^4.$$

This expression factors rather neatly into:

$$(a+b+c)(a+bc)(b+ca)(c+ab)0,$$

so if $`abc0`$ without loss of generality, the only non-trivial condition is that $`b+ca`$; that is, there is a (possibly degenerate) triangle with sides $`a,b,c`$. (Robinson \[20, p. 273\] has a superficially similar condition, but note that his multiplier is $`ax^2+by^2+cz^2`$.)

By specializing this result and scaling variables as in the proof of the theorem, we note that

$$(x^2+y^2+z^2)M(x,\lambda y,\lambda z),(x^2+y^2+z^2)R(x,\lambda y,\lambda z),(x^2+y^2+z^2)S(x,\lambda y,\lambda z)$$

are sos if and only if $`0\lambda 2`$.


text:
# Multifractality of Hamiltonians with power-law transfer terms

## I Introduction

Quantum phase transitions in disordered electronic systems remain one of the central problems in condensed-matter physics. Considerable attention has recently focused on the critical eigenfunctions, which strongly fluctuate near the critical point and thus have multifractal scaling properties.HP83 ; Ja94 ; FE95 ; Mi00 ; CO02  Wave-function statistics can be characterized through the set of generalized fractal dimensions $`d_q`$ which are associated with the scaling of the $`q`$th moment of the wave-function intensity. A complete knowledge of $`d_q`$ is equivalent to a complete physical characterization of the fractal.HP83

Metal-insulator transitions (MIT’s) depend on the dimensionality and symmetries of the system and can occur in both the strong disorder and the weak disorder regime (strong-coupling or weak-coupling regime, respectively, of the corresponding field-theoretical description). Each regime is characterized by its respective coupling strength $`g`$, which depends on the ratio between diagonal disorder and the off-diagonal transition matrix elements of the Hamiltonian.Ef83

For a multifractal structure of wave functions, the $`q`$ dependence of the fractal dimensions $`d_q`$ is given by the linear relation

$$d_q=dc_gq,qb,$$
(1)
where $`c_g1`$ and $`b`$ are parameters related to the coupling constant of the corresponding model (see below). This equation has been obtained for different transitions in the weak-coupling limit using different approaches, which we summarize in the following paragraphs. Equation (1) describes weak multifractality in the sense that the fractal dimensions $`d_q`$ slightly deviate from the system dimensionality $`d`$ characteristic of the homogeneously spread metallic wave functions.

In the context of the theory of Anderson localization, Eq. (1) was obtained,FE95  in the leading order in $`1/2\pi \nu D1`$, for two-dimensional (2D) conductors on the basis of a reduced version of the supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model. In this case $`c_g=1/2\pi ^2\nu \beta D`$, where $`\nu `$ is the density of states, $`D`$ the diffusion constant, and $`\beta `$ the symmetry parameter.

Using a perturbative $`ϵ`$ expansion in one-loop order for a $`d=2+ϵ`$ dimensional system, Eq. (1) was found,We80  in the leading order in $`ϵ1`$, with $`c_g=ϵ`$. This derivation was made for the case of unbroken time-reversal symmetry (orthogonal universality class) in the weak-coupling limit.

Reference 8 derived Eq. (1) with $`c_g=g/8\pi `$, in the limit $`g1`$ for the power-law random banded matrix model (orthogonal universality class). This solution was found by mapping the problem onto a nonlinear $`\sigma `$ model with nonlocal interaction.

Equation (1) was also obtained, using the replica trick,LF94  for the critical wave function of a 2D Dirac fermion in a random vector potential (chiral universality class). The $`c_g=\mathrm{\Delta }_A/\pi `$ found depends on the variance $`\mathrm{\Delta }_A`$ of the Gaussian distributed vector potential. This result was confirmed recently MC96 ; CD01  by mapping the problem to a Gaussian field theory in an ultrametric space.

Field-theoretical approaches in the context of the integer quantum Hall transition (unitary universality class) have been addressed recently. Based on the application of conformal field theory to the critical point of a 2D Euclidean field theory, Bhaseen et al. BK00  derived Eq. (1) with $`c_g=2/k`$, where $`k`$ is the inverse coupling constant.

We wish to point out that the existing theories are inherently weak-coupling results. However, MIT’s generically take place at strong disorder, where the energy scales associated with both disorder and interactions are comparable to the Fermi energy, unlike to what happens in perturbative $`2+ϵ`$ expansion approaches or in effective-field theories. Thus, quantitative results for $`d_q`$ are lacking at strong coupling, and finding $`d_q`$ for this regime is essential in order to fully understand the MIT’s.

The aim of this work was twofold. First, a numerical verification of the weak-coupling phase result, Eq. (1). Second, and most importantly, we were interested in finding the $`q`$ dependence of $`d_q`$ in the strong-coupling regime, which has been left unexplored. Since this case is not accessible by the previous treatments, the problem can only be addressed by using numerical calculations.

The paper begins by first giving the model and the methods used for the calculations in Sec. II. The results for the fractal dimensions in the weak- and the strong-coupling regimes are presented in Sec. III A and III B, respectively. Finally, Sec. IV summarizes our findings.

## II Model and methods

The disorder-induced MIT is usually investigated for Hamiltonians with short-range, off-diagonal matrix elements (e.g., the canonical Anderson model). Other Hamiltonians exhibiting a MIT in arbitrary dimension $`d`$ are those that include long-range hopping terms.PS98 ; PS02  The effect of long-range hopping on localization was originally considered by Anderson An58  for randomly distributed impurities in $`d`$ dimensions with the $`V(𝒓𝒓^{\mathbf{}})|𝒓𝒓^{\mathbf{}}|^\alpha `$ hopping interaction. It is known An58 ; Le89  that all states are extended for $`\alpha <d`$, whereas for $`\alpha >d`$ the states are localized. Thus, the MIT can be studied by varying the exponent $`\alpha `$ at fixed disorder strength. At the transition line $`\alpha =d`$, a real-space renormalization group can be constructed for the distribution of couplings.Le89 ; Le99  These models are the most convenient for studying critical properties numerically since the exact quantum critical point is known ($`\alpha =d`$) and, in addition, they allow the 1D case to be treated, thus using larger system sizes and reducing the numerical effort. Many real systems of interest can be described by these Hamiltonians. Among such systems are optical phonons in disordered dielectric materials coupled by electric dipole forces,Yu89  excitations in two-level systems in glasses interacting via elastic strain,BL82  magnetic impurities in metals coupled by an $`r^3`$ Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yodida interaction,CB93  and impurity quasiparticle states in 2D disordered $`d`$-wave superconductors.BS96

We will consider here the intensively studied power-law random banded matrix model (PRBM) Mi00 ; ME00 ; MF96 ; CG01 ; CO02 ; Va02 ; Cu02 ; KM97 ; KT00 . The corresponding Hamiltonian, which describes a disordered 1D sample with random long-range hopping, is represented by real symmetric matrices, whose entries are randomly drawn from a normal distribution with zero mean, $`_{ij}=0`$, and a variance which depends on the distance between the lattice sites,

$$|_{ij}|^2=\frac{1}{1+(|ij|/b)^2}\times \{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2},\hfill & ij\hfill \\ 1,\hfill & i=j,\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
where the parameter $`b`$ plays the role of the inverse coupling constant $`b=4g^1`$ of the corresponding $`\sigma `$ model at the center of the spectral band. The model describes a whole family of critical theories parametrized by $`0<b<\mathrm{}`$, which determines the critical dimensionless conductance, in the same way as the dimensionality labels the different Anderson transitions. In the two limiting cases $`b1`$ and $`b1`$, which correspond to the weak and the strong disorder limits, respectively, some critical properties have been derived analytically. Mi00 ; ME00 ; KM97 ; MF96 ; KT00  More specifically, as already mentioned in the Introduction, in Ref. 8 the following equation in the limit $`b1`$ was derived,

$$d_q=1\frac{q}{2\pi b},q2\pi b.$$
(3)
The system size ranges between $`L=180`$ and $`L=5400`$, and $`0.01b12`$. We restrict ourselves to values of $`qb`$, and consider a small energy window, containing about 5% of the states around the center of the band. The number of random realizations is such that the number of critical states included for each $`L`$ is roughly $`4\times 10^5`$, while, in order to reduce edge effects, periodic boundary conditions are included. Using methods based on level statistics, we checked that the normalized nearest level variances Cu99  are indeed scale invariant at each critical point studied.

For the computation of $`d_q`$ we used the standard box-counting procedure, Ja94  first dividing the system of $`L`$ sites into $`N_l=L/l`$ boxes of linear size $`l`$ and determining the box probability of the wave function in the $`i`$ box by $`p_i(l)=_n|\psi _{kn}|^2`$, where the summation is restricted to sites within that box, and $`\psi _{kn}`$ denotes the amplitude of an eigenstate with energy $`E_k`$ at site $`n`$. The normalized $`q`$th moments of this probability constitute a measure. From this, the mass exponents $`\tau _q(L)`$, which encode generalized dimensions $`d_q(L)=\tau _q(L)/(q1)`$, can be obtained,CJ89

$$\tau _q(L)=\underset{\delta 0}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)}{\mathrm{ln}\delta },$$
(4)
where $`\delta =l/L`$ denotes the ratio of the box sizes and the system size. It should be made clear that the calculation of $`\tau _q(L)`$ is suitable only if the conditions Ja94

$$al<L\xi $$
(5)
are satisfied, where $`\xi `$ is the localization or correlation length and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing (or any microscopic length scale of the system). In practice, $`\tau _q(L)`$ is found by performing a linear regression of $`\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)`$ with $`\mathrm{ln}\delta `$ in a finite interval of $`\delta `$ (usually $`a/L\delta 1/2`$). In order to properly satisfy the previous conditions (5) and (4), in this work we will compute the derivative

$$\tau _q(L)=\frac{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)}{\text{d}\mathrm{ln}\delta }|_{\delta =0.1}.$$
(6)
First, $`\tau _q(L)`$ was calculated for different system sizes and then extrapolated to the macroscopic limit $`\tau _q=lim_L\mathrm{}\tau _q(L)`$.

## III Results

### III.1 Weak-coupling regime ($`b1`$)

Using the exact eigenstates of Hamiltonian (2) obtained from numerical diagonalizations, we evaluate, for each value of $`q`$, $`L`$, and $`b`$, the numerator on the right-hand side of Eq. (4) for decreasing box sizes, and then calculate $`\tau _q(L)`$ from the slope of the graph of the numerator vs $`\mathrm{ln}\delta `$ at $`\delta =0.1`$, Eq. (6). Fig. 1 provides an example of the $`\mathrm{ln}\delta `$ dependence of $`\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)`$ in the weak-coupling regime ($`b=10`$) for a system size $`L=5400`$ and different values of $`q`$: $`4`$ (circles), 5 (triangles), 6 (diamonds), and 7 (squares); the dotted vertical line corresponds to $`\delta =0.1`$. The inset shows the same dependence of the corresponding slopes, $`\text{d}\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)/\text{d}\mathrm{ln}\delta `$. Note that these derivatives are practically constant in the region shown. We have checked that the results were practically the same when $`\tau _q(L)`$ was obtained from the linear fit to $`\mathrm{ln}_{i=1}^{N_l}p_i^q(l)`$ vs $`\mathrm{ln}\delta `$ in the interval $`0.1\delta 0.4`$.

The size dependence of $`\tau _q(L)`$ at the critical point of the finite system for $`b=10`$ is shown in Fig. 2 for $`q=4`$. Clearly, significant finite-size effects are present, and for the larger values of $`L`$ the convergence is evident. In order to predict the asymptotic value of $`\tau _q`$ from such a plot, a curve of the form $`\tau _q(L)=\tau _q+F_{a_q,c_q}(L)`$ was fitted to the data points in this graph, where $`\tau _q`$, $`a_q`$, and $`c_q`$ are three fitting parameters and $`F_{a_q,c_q}(L)`$ is a function which tends to zero as $`L\mathrm{}`$. Various forms for $`F_{a_q,c_q}(L)`$ were chosen and tested on the data plots, including exponential ($`e^{c_qL}`$), inverse logarithmic ($`1/\mathrm{ln}c_qL`$), and power-law ($`L^{c_q}`$) decay with $`L`$. The testing involved performing a three-parameter fit on the $`\tau _q(L)`$ vs $`L`$ data plots using the standard Levenberg-Marquardt method for nonlinear fits. The form of $`F_{a_q,c_q}(L)`$ eventually chosen was the power law. The reason for choosing the above form with preference to the alternative forms was simply that the inverse logarithmic and the exponential laws did not fit our data properly. In addition, for all values of $`q`$ and $`b`$ we found that the exponent $`c_q`$ hardly differs from unity. Thus, we can write

$$\tau _q(L)=\tau _q+a_q/L,$$
(7)
and keep only two free parameters. The solid line in Fig. 2 is a fit to Eq. (7). Note that this equation gives a fairly good fit to the data. $`\tau _q(L)`$ is represented on a $`1/L`$ scale in the inset of Fig. 2 for different values of $`q`$: $`4`$ (circles), 5 (triangles), 6 (diamonds), and 7 (squares). Here, one can better appreciate the linear behavior, Eq. (7), of the finite-size corrections to $`\tau _q`$.

The $`q`$ dependence of the extrapolated results of $`d_q=\tau _q/(q1)`$ in the weak-coupling regime are depicted in the inset of Fig. 3 for several values of $`b`$: $`6`$ (squares), $`8`$ (triangles), $`10`$ (diamonds), and $`12`$ (circles). The solid lines are fits to the form $`d_q=1c_bq`$. The corresponding $`b`$-dependent slopes $`c_b`$ are summarized and compared with the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model estimates $`1/2\pi b`$ in Fig. 5. The main panel shows the same data $`d_q`$ as a function of the rescaled variable $`q/2\pi b`$, in which it is clearly seen that the data points collapse fairly well onto a single straight line according to Eq. (3) (solid line). To our knowledge, this result provides the first numerical test of the nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model prediction for the PRBM model. A similar linear behavior has been found numerically for the distribution of the local electric fields at a dielectric resonance in two dimensions.JL98

### III.2 Strong-coupling regime ($`b1`$)

We have also calculated $`d_q`$ for the critical wave functions of Hamiltonian (2) in the strong-coupling regime for which, as we already mentioned, there are no analytical predictions for values of $`qb1`$. The only analytical estimate in this regime was obtained for $`q>1/2`$, based on a resonance pairs approximation, in Ref. 22. $`\tau _q4b\mathrm{\Gamma }(q\frac{1}{2})/\sqrt{\pi }\mathrm{\Gamma }(q1)`$ found diverges at $`q=1/2`$ and for smaller values of $`q`$ this approximation completely breaks down.

Figure 4 shows the same extrapolated values of $`d_q`$ as in Fig. 3 in the strong-coupling regime ($`b1`$). The values of $`b`$ reported are $`0.05`$ (squares), $`0.1`$ (triangles), $`0.15`$ (diamonds), and $`0.2`$ (circles), and the corresponding slopes $`c_b`$ are summarized in Fig. 5 (solid circles). As in the weak disorder case, a linear dependence of $`d_q`$ on $`q`$ is found for $`qb`$. In order to collapse all data points onto a single straight line, as was done for the opposite limit $`b1`$, we propose the relation $`1/c_b=A+Cb`$ for the slopes, where $`A0`$ and $`C`$ are two fitting parameters (see inset of Fig. 5). The collapse of the data is evident from the main panel of Fig. 4, when these data are represented as a function of the rescaled variable $`q/(A+Cb)`$. Hence, the $`q`$ dependence of $`d_q`$ in the limit $`b1`$ can be described by the linear relation

$$d_q=1\frac{q}{A+Cb},qb.$$
(8)
This equation constitutes the main result of the present paper. Thus, our results suggest the intriguing possibility that the linear dependence of $`d_q`$ on $`q`$ seems to be a generic law valid in all regimes. Although this is a conjecture at the present state, we expect that it will stimulate further analytical work.

The inverse slope $`1/c_b`$ of $`d_q`$ is depicted on a log-log plot in Fig. 5 (solid circles) as a function of parameter $`b`$ of the PRBM model. The inset shows the small-$`b`$ dependence of $`1/c_b`$, from which the linear behavior on $`b`$ is evident; the straight line is a linear fit to the proposed form with parameters $`A=0.580\pm 0.009`$ and $`C=4.17\pm 0.08`$. The numerical calculations agree perfectly with the analytical asymptotic in the weak-coupling regime $`b1`$, $`1/c_b=2\pi b`$, and with the form proposed in this work for the strong-coupling regime $`b1`$, $`1/c_b=0.58+4.17b`$.

## IV Summary

In this paper we have calculated the fractal dimensions $`d_q`$ of the wave functions for 1D disordered systems with long-range transfer terms at criticality. The leading finite-size corrections to $`d_q`$ decay algebraically with exponents equal to $`1`$. At the infinite-size limit, we have confirmed that, according to theoretical predictions, $`d_q`$ is linearly dependent on $`q`$ in the weak-coupling regime. Our calculations strongly suggest that this behavior is also valid at strong coupling. So, the linear dependence of $`d_q`$ on $`q`$ seems to be a generic law valid in all disorder regimes.

The question arises as to whether these results are applicable to other quantum systems, particularly in the 3D Anderson transition that occurs in the strong disorder domain, and whose similarity with the PRBM model at $`b=0.3`$ has been demonstrated for several critical magnitudes.CO02

###### Acknowledgements.

The author acknowleges the Spanish DGESIC for financial support through Projects Nos. BFM2000-1059 and BFM2003-03800.


text:
# On the communication complexity of establishing a shared reference frame

## Abstract

We discuss the communication complexity of establishing a shared reference frame, in particular examining the case of aligning spatial axes via the exchange of spin-1/2 particles. Unlike previous work we allow for multiple rounds of communication, and we give several simple examples demonstrating that nontrivial tradeoffs between the number of rounds and the type of communication required exist. We then give an explicit protocol for aligning spatial axes via the exchange of spin-1/2 particles which makes no use of either exchanged entangled states or of joint measurements. Rather it works by performing a simple type of distributed quantum computation. To facilitate comparison with previous work, we show that this protocol achieves a worst case fidelity for the much studied problem of “direction finding” that is asymptotically equivalent (up to polylog factors) to the optimal average case fidelity achievable via a single forward communication of entangled states.

Quantum physics allows for powerful new communication tasks that are not possible classically, such as secure secret key distribution BB84  and entanglement-enhanced classical communication Mac02 . Such quantum communication tasks generically require one party to prepare systems in well defined quantum states, and to send these systems to another party. Since the states used are generally defined only with respect to some sort of reference frame, a perfect shared reference frame (SRF) between both parties is normally presumed. In general, however, establishing a perfect SRF requires infinite communication (i.e. transmitting a system with an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, or an infinite number of systems with finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces). In practice, perfect SRFs are an idealization, and any finite (i.e., approximate) SRF should be viewed as a quantitative physical resource, since, along with requiring communication to establish, quantum mechanics dictates that finite SRFs necessarily drift Wig57  and thus are intrinsically depleted over time. Moreover, any finite SRF that is treated quantum mechanically will inevitably suffer disturbances during measurements, again depleting the SRF. We also note that shared prior entanglement, a valuable resource in quantum information theory, can be consumed to establish SRFs tez1 .

In quantum communication theory, the specific physical systems being exchanged determine the type of reference frame that the communicating parties must share; conversely, the ability to exchange physical systems generally allows for certain reference frames to be established. For example, in order for two parties to agree on the superposition $`\alpha |+\beta |`$ of a single spin-1/2 system, they must share aligned spatial axes; conversely, by exchanging spin-1/2 systems they can establish aligned spatial axes.

The problem of using spin-1/2 systems to establish either a single direction in space or an orthogonal trihedron (xyz-axes), has received considerable attention Mas95 ; Lat98 ; Gis99 ; massar ; Per01b ; Bag00 . In particular, the following *standard scenario* has been studied in depth: Alice sends Bob $`N`$ spin-1/2 particles in a state which encodes some spatial direction $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$. Bob performs a measurement on the $`N`$ spins, which results, with probability $`P(\stackrel{}{n}_e|\stackrel{}{n}_A)`$, in an estimation $`\stackrel{}{n}_e`$ as to the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$. The fidelity of the estimation is defined as $`\frac{1}{2}(1+\stackrel{}{n}_e\stackrel{}{n}_A)`$, and the goal is to optimize the *average* fidelity. That is, for uniformly chosen $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$ one tries to maximize the expected fidelity, $`\overline{F}`$, with respect to initial states prepared by Alice and measurements performed by Bob. (Note that a random guess of direction has an expected fidelity of 1/2; a fidelity of 0 corresponds to an estimate antiparallel to $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$). In general it is found that if Alice sends Bob the systems in a tensor product of pure states, then $`\overline{F}^{\mathrm{max}}=1O(\frac{1}{N})`$, while if Alice prepares entangled states then $`\overline{F}^{\mathrm{max}}=1O(\frac{1}{N^2})`$. In both cases the measurements Bob must perform to achieve this are *joint* (i.e. entangled) measurements over the $`N`$ particles, and in general they are positive operator valued measurements (POVM’s) as opposed to standard von-Neumann projection valued measurements (PVM’s). It is sometimes claimed Bag00  that more general encoding of a spatial direction in entangled states can achieve $`\overline{F}^{\mathrm{max}}=1O(\frac{1}{2^N})`$, however such encodings can only be performed if Alice and Bob *already* share aligned spatial axes (as was noted in Bag00 ), and in this case Alice can do no better than to use the $`N`$ particles to send Bob *classical* bits of information specifying an approximation to $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$.111It appears that in quant-ph/0303019 this mistake has been made again. For the procedures outlined in that paper, it seems to us that Alice and Bob need to share aligned spatial axes - in which case they can do no better than to simply use standard dense coding of classical information. We will always assume here that Alice and Bob do not, a-priori, share any sort of spatial reference frame.

There are several ways in which this standard scenario (and the extension of it in which Alice and Bob align an orthogonal trihedron as opposed to a single direction) is somewhat unsatisfactory. For a start, the particular choice of cost function (e.g. the fidelity) has a strong bearing on what the optimal states and measurements turn out to be massar . Secondly, the optimizations are performed for the *average case* scenario, and not the *worst case* scenario, which is arguably more interesting (and which is the norm for communication complexity type problems). This yields the difficulty that if we wish to ask questions pertinent to future quantum communication using spatial axes aligned under such a procedure, it is somewhat problematic to translate these results into standard properties of the quantum channel. This in turn makes it difficult to determine the extent to which such communication overhead can be amortized. The standard scenario also ignores the question as to whether allowing backwards communication (from Bob to Alice) can improve their ability to align their reference frames. Finally, in quantum communication scenarios it is natural to presume that Alice and Bob have access to *both* classical and quantum channels, and to examine the extent to which classical and quantum communication can in some sense be traded off against each other.222We presume that classical bits are communicated in such a manner that they convey no information suitable for aligning spatial reference frames! Peres has raised some interesting questions about classical communication costs within the standard scenario peresprivate , although within this scenario, from a communication theory perspective, one may generally assume that such costs are amortized into the definition of the protocol. Below we will give some simple examples of protocols for which such amortization not possible.

In this paper our aim is expand the analysis of procedures for establishing SRFs, by demonstrating the wealth of nontrivial possibilities which remain to be explored. We also approach the problem with a view to rectifying some of the shortcomings of the standard scenario mentioned above. As such, we consider strategies for aligning a spatial reference frames that allow Bob, within a worst case scenario, to directly determine the Euler angles which relate his and Alice’s reference frames. More precisely, if $`\theta `$ is an Euler angle relating Alice and Bobs’ axes, and $`\theta ^{}`$ is the estimation of $`\theta `$ inferred by Bob, then we will be interested in the amount (and type) of communication required for protocols that achieve $`Pr[|\theta \theta ^{}|\delta ]ϵ`$, for some fixed $`ϵ,\delta >0`$. By setting $`\delta =1/2^{k+1}`$ we say that with probability $`(1ϵ)`$ Bob has a $`k`$ bit approximation to $`\theta `$. In order to connect with known results for the standard scenario, we will show that the particular procedure we propose for determining the Euler angles can be used to give a *worst case* fidelity of $`F=1O(\frac{\mathrm{log}^2N}{N^2})`$, which is within a logarithmic factor of the best average case fidelity obtainable in the standard scenario. However, in contrast to the standard scenario procedure which achieves this best average case fidelity, the protocol that we propose makes no use of entanglement - either in the states that must be prepared or in the measurements that must be performed. We feel this is of great pragmatic importance, since if Alice and Bob had the ability to create and exchange the arbitrarily large entangled states, and perform the arbitrarily large joint measurements, required within the standard scenario, then in most situations they would be far better off to use the ideas presented in BRS  \- wherein it is shown how they can perform quantum communication *perfectly* (i.e without having noise due to the finiteness of the SRF) and with asymptotically no loss of resources.

Before presenting our specific protocol, we discuss a few simple examples, designed to indicate the diversity of options that open up once we consider bi-directional communication of both classical and quantum bits, and to show that we should expect, in general, some highly non-trivial tradeoffs - as well as classical communication that cannot be amortized. For simplicity let us assume that Bob is trying to estimate the direction of Alice’s $`z`$ axis. With a single qubit of forward communication (the standard scenario), Alice sends Bob a single spin-1/2 in the state $`|z_A^+`$ (for almost all of this paper we assume the qubits are spin-1/2 particles). Although we always assume it is Bob who must estimate the direction, the same fidelity can be achieved by one qubit of *backward* communication from Bob to Alice, followed by one forward bit of *classical* information from Alice to Bob. This is done by Bob preparing two spins in a singlet state, and sending one of the spins to Alice. Alice performs a measurement on the spin, which steers erwin  its partner being held by Bob to either $`|z_A^+`$ or $`|z_A^{}`$ \- she then sends a classical bit to inform Bob of the outcome.

If we consider two qubits worth of communication, it is known that Alice would prefer Bob to be end up with an *antiparallel* pair of spins Gis99 . This can be achieved with one qubit of backward communication, followed by one qubit and one classical bit of forward communication. To do this we simply modify the procedure mentioned above, so that after Alice has made her measurement, in addition to the classical bit she also sends an extra qubit aligned anti-parallel to her measurement outcome. Note that with two qubits of backward communication, implementing a similar procedure would result in Bob’s 2 qubits being in one of the 4 pairs of states $`|z_A^+z_A^+,|z_A^{}z_A^{},|z_A^+z_A^{},|z_A^{}z_A^+,`$ with equal likelihood. Alice would need to send two classical bits to Bob, and moreover cannot ensure that the qubits are antiparallel.

With two qubits of communication there is yet another option available to Alice and Bob. Instead of measuring her half of the singlet, Alice can simply apply some unitary operation to it and return it to Bob. Because of the differences in their reference frames, the entangled state held by Bob will now encode some information about their relative axes alignment. A detailed analysis of such a procedure can be found in vidal . It is interesting to note that if Alice does a $`\sigma _A^z`$ rotation, and returns the entangled qubit along with another spin which is aligned with her $`z`$-axis, then this procedure (which has involved one backward and two forward qubits of communication) gives an average fidelity the same as if Alice had sent three parallel spins to Bob. As such it is not, a-priori, particularly interesting. However a significant difference arises in the measurement Bob must perform on the three spins he now holds. It is easy to show that he can achieve this fidelity by performing a Bell measurement on the two entangled spins (one of the Bell outcomes has probability 0 of occuring) and a standard PVM on the remaining spin - the specific nature of which is based on the outcome of the Bell measurement. Thus, the same average fidelity is achieved by a PVM with classical feedforward - a decidedly different and simpler measurement than the minimal and optimal POVM known for the standard scenario Lat98 .

We now turn to the simplest protocol we have been able to find for determining the Euler angles $`\{\varphi ,\theta ,\psi \}`$ in a worst-case scenario. Unless otherwise indicated by a subscript/superscript, all states and operators are written in Bob’s frame of reference. We define the Euler angles such that the rotation matrix describing the change from Alice to Bobs’ frame of reference is given by $`Re^{i\psi \sigma _z/2}e^{i\theta \sigma _y/2}e^{i\varphi \sigma _z/2}`$. Explicitly,

$$R=e^{i(\psi +\varphi )/2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2& e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta /2\\ e^{i\psi }\mathrm{sin}\theta /2& e^{i(\varphi +\psi )}\mathrm{cos}\theta /2\end{array}\right).$$

Let $`\theta =\pi T`$, where $`0T1`$ has a binary expansion $`T=0t_1t_2\mathrm{}`$. The protocol we propose involves Alice and Bob following an iterative procedure which determines the bits $`t_1`$, $`t_2`$ up to $`t_k`$ independently. We choose the probability of error for each bit of $`T`$ to be $`ϵ/k,`$ so that after finding the first $`k`$ bits of $`T`$ the total probability of error is $`1(1ϵ/k)^k`$ $`ϵ.`$

To find $`t_1`$, Alice sends a single spin polarized in her $`z`$ direction, and Bob measures it in his $`\pm z`$ basis. The measurement by Bob yields the outcome 1 (spin down say) with probability:

$$P_1=\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{\theta }{2}=\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}2\pi T]=\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0}t_1t_2\mathrm{})].$$

Repeating this $`n`$ times, Bob obtains an estimate $`P_1^{}`$ as to the true value of $`P_1`$, and thus an estimate $`T^{}`$ of the true value of $`T`$. If we choose $`n`$ (details below) such that $`|P_1P_1^{}|1/4`$ with probability $`(1ϵ/k)`$, then $`|TT^{}|1/4`$ with the same probability, and this implies that $`T^{}`$ agrees with $`T`$ to at least the first bit $`t_1`$.

We now show how the above process for estimating the first bit of $`T`$ can be generalized so as to estimate the $`(j+1)`$’th bit of $`T`$. Consider the situation where Bob sends a qubit in the state $`|z^+`$ to Alice, Alice performs a $`\sigma _z`$ rotation on it and returns it to Bob, who also performs a $`\sigma _z`$ on it. The total transformation $`U`$ on the qubit is

$$U=\sigma _z\sigma _z^A=\sigma _zR^{}\sigma _zR=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}\theta & e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta \\ e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\theta & \mathrm{cos}\theta \end{array}\right).$$
(1)
Note that $`U^m=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cos}m\theta & e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}m\theta \\ e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}m\theta & \mathrm{cos}m\theta \end{array}\right).`$ We imagine a procedure wherein a single spin is exchanged back and forth $`2^{j1}`$ times, with Alice and Bob each applying $`\sigma _z`$ rotations, such that $`U^{2^j}`$ is performed on it. A measurement now yields the outcome 1 with probability:

$`P_1`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}(2^j2\pi T)]=\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}(2^j2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t_1t_2t_3t_4\mathrm{})]`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}((2\pi t_1t_2\mathrm{}t_j)+(2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t_{j+1}t_{j+2}\mathrm{}))]`$
$`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}[1+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}t_{j+1}t_{j+2}\mathrm{})]`$
We are therefore back to the situation discussed above for estimating $`t_1`$ (although obviously with more exchanges of the qubit necessitated). As before, we imagine the process is repeated $`n`$ times, such that Bob obtains an estimate $`P_1^{}`$ of $`P_1`$. The Chernoff bound tells us that the probability the difference between $`P_1^{}`$ and the true value $`P_1`$ is greater than some precision $`\delta ,`$ decreases exponentially with $`n.`$ That is,

$$\mathrm{Pr}[\left|P_1^{}P_1\right|\delta ]2e^{n\delta ^2/2}.$$

By setting $`\delta =1/4,`$ we obtain a bound that corresponds to $`P_1^{}`$ agreeing with $`P_1`$ to the first bit - which in this generalized scenario means that Bob obtains the bit $`t_{j+1}`$. We can therefore bound $`n`$ as follows:

$$2e^{n/32}ϵ/kn32\mathrm{ln}(2k/ϵ).$$

The total amount of qubit communication required to obtain bits $`t_1`$ through $`t_k`$ by this procedure is

$$N=n\times \underset{j=1}{\overset{k}{}}2^{j1}=n(2^k1)=O(2^k\mathrm{ln}(2k/ϵ)).$$

Note that, since we determine the bits of $`T`$ independently with this protocol, the number of *rounds* of communication can be reduced by running the procedure in parallel. In order to obtain the other Euler angles accurate to $`k`$ bits, or, for that matter, to fix a direction in space with $`\theta ,\varphi `$ angles fixed to $`k`$ bits, we can extend this protocol by changing the transformations that Alice and Bob perform (and/or the initial state Bob prepares). However this clearly only increases the communication overhead by a constant factor.

To facilitate comparison with previous work which focussed on maximizing the average fidelity, we imagine that Alice and Bob use a variant of the above protocol to obtain, with probability $`(1ϵ)^2`$, angles $`\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ which are “$`k`$-bit” estimators of the angles $`\theta ,\varphi `$ specifying $`\stackrel{}{n}_A`$ (i.e. $`|\theta \theta ^{}|2\pi /2^{k+1},|\varphi \varphi ^{}|2\pi /2^{k+1}`$). We have then that $`\stackrel{}{n}_A\stackrel{}{n}_e\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha 1\left(\frac{2\pi }{2^k}\right)^2`$. (This follows because $`\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha |\theta \theta ^{}|+|\varphi \varphi ^{}|`$ and $`\mathrm{cos}x1x^2`$.) Thus, the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ leads to a worst case fidelity of

$$F=(1ϵ)^2\frac{1}{2}(1+\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha )(1ϵ)^2(12\pi ^2\frac{1}{2^{2k}})$$

(we underestimate the fidelity by assuming that when an error occurs, then the fidelity of the choice of $`\stackrel{~}{\theta },\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is 0 - i.e. worse than random guessing.) If we take $`ϵ=1/2^{2k},`$ then the total qubit communication is $`N=O(k2^k)`$ (ignoring terms logarithmic in $`k`$ ) while the worst case fidelity is $`F=1O(\frac{1}{2^{2k}})=1O(\frac{\mathrm{log}^2N}{N^2})`$.

It is useful to understand the above protocol in quantum computational terms. In effect, Alice and Bob are performing a combination of a distributed quantum search algorithm lov  and a phase estimation algorithm. In a quantum search algorithm, a generic transformation of the form $`(I_tR^{}I_{\overline{0}}R)`$, where $`R`$ is an arbitrary unitary transformation and $`I_t,I_{\overline{0}}`$ are phase inversions about source and target states, is repeated some large number of times in order to coherently drive the state of the computer. Here we are performing a similar procedure, where the computer is now only a single bit, the phase inversions are Alice and Bobs’ local $`\sigma _z`$ rotations, and the unitary transformation $`R`$ is passively provided by their lack of a SRF. We may also interpret this procedure as one in which the eigenvalues of $`U`$ are being ‘quantum computed’ - in fact there is much in common here with Kitaev’s version of the quantum phase estimation procedure kitaev .

We note that a more general distributed quantum computation would require Alice and Bob to create entangled states. Without a SRF however, this is at first glance problematic - since pure entangled states in Alice’s frame are generally mixed in Bob’s frame. A possible resolution is for Alice and Bob to use the encodings of spin states presented in BRS . Such encodings allow for three entangled spin-1/2 particles to form logical qubit states, $`\{|0_L,|1_L\}`$ which are *not* reference frame dependent. As such, Alice and Bob could, for instance, run the more standard phase estimation algorithm NC , which involves using the discrete fourier transform to obtain the best $`k`$ bit estimator of the eigenvalue(s) of a unitary transformation. Explicitly, the eigenvalues $`e^{\pm i\theta }`$ of $`U`$ (Eq. (1)), could be computed as follows: Bob prepares a set of qubits in the state

$$|\psi =\underset{j=0}{\overset{2^x1}{}}|j_L|z^+.$$

The subscript $`L`$ indicates the integers $`j`$ are encoded in spin-1/2 systems using the aforementioned binary “logical” states about which Alice and Bob both agree despite no SRF; the number $`x`$ is a function of $`k`$ \- the number of bits to which we wish to approximate $`\theta `$. In the phase estimation algorithm a series of controlled-$`U^{2^j}`$ operations are performed on the second register (the single qubit) controlled on the first register (the logical qubits). In this communication scenario, performing these transformations clearly requires the exchange of the subset of logical qubits being used for the control, as well as the single spin upon which Alice and Bob perform controlled-$`\sigma _z`$ operations. (The state $`|z^+`$ is not an eigenstate of $`U`$, as is generally used in the quantum phase estimation algorithm, however it is an equi-weighted superposition of the two eigenstates, and this is sufficient - see e.g. NC  for details). In the standard manner the phases $`e^{\pm i2^j\theta }`$ accumulated on the single spin-1/2 are “kicked back” in front of the logical qubit states, and consequently a discrete fourier transform by Bob on the logical qubit states will, with probability $`(1ϵ)`$, reveal the best $`k`$ bit approximation to $`\theta `$ providing we choose $`x=k+\mathrm{log}(2+1/2ϵ)`$ NC . In terms of the previous discussion regarding direction finding and the fidelity, this procedure can be shown to give a worst case fidelity that goes as $`F=1O(\frac{1}{N^2})`$, with $`N`$ the total qubit communication. Note, however, that this procedure *does* require the ability to create and exchange large entangled states.

We conclude with some more general observations regarding the communication complexity of establishing a SRF. We know of no examples where the ability to exchange classical information provably helps in reducing the amount of qubit communication required. It does, as remarked upon in the introduction, facilitate certain types of protocols in which entanglement might be “traded in” for a reference frame. We leave the reader with the following related and important question: To what extent does sharing of one type of reference frame (e.g. synchronised clocks) facilitate in establishing a different type of reference frame (e.g. aligned spatial axes). Surprisingly, it seems that in some cases such facilitation is possible. Consider, for example, the case when Alice and Bob have synchronised clocks and thus can quantum communicate perfectly using two (possibly degenerate) energy eigenstates $`\{|e_1,|e_2\}`$ of some system. They can use a register of these qubits to take the place of the “logical qubits” discussed above in the phase estimation procedure. This results in a constant factor improvement in the total amount of qubit communication required.

###### Acknowledgements.

TR would like to thank the Technion for their hospitality during a visit in which his interest in this problem was re-ignited. This work is supported by the NSA & ARO under contract No. DAAG55-98-C-0040.


text:
# 1 List of solutions of various pairings.

Relativistic Model for two-band Superconductivity

Tadafumi Ohsaku

Research Center for Nuclear Physics, Osaka University, Osaka, Japan

Recent investigation of the superconductivity in $`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$ gived a large influence upon condensed matter physics . One of the characteristic aspects of the superconductivity is rather high critical temperature $`T_c`$ (39K) in electron-phonon mechanism. Therefore, people speculate that, there is a mechanism which enhances the superconductivity and $`T_c`$. After the experimental discovery of the superconductivity in $`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$, various theoretical studies were performed. Several two-band theories were also dedicated to explain the superconductivity. The two-band models of superconductivity have the origin in the papers of Suhl, Matthias and Walker , and Kondo , and they were applied to various systems under various situations. Quite recently, theoretical studies of two-band superconductivity in $`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$ appeared , and the experimental evidence for two-band superconductivity in $`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$ was also obtained . However, there is no quantitative understanding to the effect of the lower band in two-band superconductivity. In this paper, by using the relativistic fermion model, we clearize the effect of the lower band in the superconductivity.

$`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$ has honeycomb lattice structure similar to graphite. As a consequence of its symmetry, the band structure of it has two degeneracy points per a first Brillouin zone ( two conical intersections between the upper band and lower band ). Then the relativistic dispersion arises in the vicinity of these degeneracy points . We employ the Dirac fermion model with a BCS-like interaction to study the superconductivity . We start from the following Lagrangian:

$`(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\psi }(x)i\gamma ^\mu _\mu \psi (x)+{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{2}}(\overline{\psi }(x)\psi (x))^2.`$ (1)
After usual Gor’kov factorization was performed to (1), we yield the (2+1)-dim. relativistic Gor’kov equation (in the finite-temperature Matsubara formalism):

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\gamma ^0(_\tau \mu )+i\gamma ^k_k& \mathrm{\Delta }(x)& & \\ \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)& (\gamma ^0)^T(_\tau +\mu )+i(\gamma ^k)^T_k& & \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cccc}𝒮(x,y)_{\alpha \beta }& (x,y)_{\alpha \beta }& & \\ \overline{}(x,y)_{\alpha \beta }& 𝒮(y,x)_{\beta \alpha }& & \end{array}\right)$$

$$=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\delta ^{(3)}(xy)& 0& & \\ 0& \delta ^{(3)}(xy)& & \end{array}\right).$$
(2)
The chemical potential $`\mu `$ determines the position of the Fermi level measured from the degeneracy point. We decompose the mean fields as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=(\mathrm{\Delta }^S+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^V\gamma ^\mu )C,\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}=C^1(\mathrm{\Delta }^S+\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu ^V\gamma ^\mu ),`$ (3)
where $`S`$ indicates scalar, while $`V`$ indicates vector. $`C`$ is the charge conjugation matrix. Hereafter, we concentrate on the case of the scalar pairing. From the solution of the Gor’kov equation, we obtain the gap equation in the following form:

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{G_0}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2𝒌}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{1}{2E_+}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta }{2}E_++\frac{1}{2E_{}}\mathrm{tanh}\frac{\beta }{2}E_{}\right)},`$ (4)
$`E_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{(|𝒌|\mu )^2+|\mathrm{\Delta }^S|^2}.`$ (5)
Here, the first term in the integrand is the contribution coming from the positive energy state (upper band), while the second term is the contribution coming from the negative energy state (lower band). To see the effect of the lower band, we also treat the gap equation in which the second term of integrand is dropped (single band case, the ”no sea” approximation) in Eq. (4).

The results of the solutions of our gap equations are summarized as follows: (1)The solutions obtained from both the two-band and single-band cases always show the BCS behaviour: The strength of the gap linearly depends on the cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and exponentially depends on the coupling $`G_0`$. The solutions always fulfill the BCS universal relation $`|\mathrm{\Delta }(T=0)|/T_c=1.76`$. (2)The ratio $`T_c^{twoband}/T^{singleband}`$ becomes 1.57. Therefore, the lower band effect gives the sizable enhancement in the supercoductivity. In fact, these results are expected from previous studies of relativistic superconductivity we have published . If we take $`\mu =1`$eV (which is determined by band width) , $`T_c^{twoband}`$ becomes 38K while $`T_c^{singleband}`$ becomes 24K. Upperbound of $`T_c`$ in electron-phonon mechanism is estimated by McMillan as 20K$``$30K . Our result gives a support to the two-band BCS mechanism in $`\mathrm{MgB}_2`$.

We also have studied the possibility arising from a repulsive interaction between particles ( the Kohn-Luttinger effect  ) in the same model, by employing the method of the Bethe-Salpeter theory. Summary of our results is given in table. Detailed discussion of this work will be published elsewhere .