format: text

text:
# When translocation dynamics becomes anomalous

(March 15, 2024)

## Abstract

Recent single molecule experiments probing the passage process of a short single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) through a membrane channel (translocation) allow to measure the passage time distribution. Building on a recent modelling approach (D. K. Lubensky and D. R. Nelson, Biophys. J. 77, 1824 (1999)), which has been demonstrated to be valid for chains of up to $`300`$ nucleotides and therefore well applies to the system we have in mind, we discuss the consequences if the associated dynamics is not of Markov origin, but if strong memory effects prevail during the translocation. Motivation is drawn from recent results indicating that the distribution of translocation times is broader than predicted by simple Markovian models based on Brownian motion.
Key words: Translocation, single molecule kinetics, membrane channels, anomalous dynamics, Mittag-Leffler relaxation, macromolecules, DNA, RNA.
Running title: Anomalous translocation dynamics

The translocation of biomolecules through membrane pores (channels) is one of the most vital processes within or across biological cells, serving both delivery and signalling purposes Alberts et al. (1994). In (bio)chemistry, forced translocation is used in selection/purification of larger molecules, and in medicine, it plays an important role in drug delivery. Whereas the translocation of short, inflexible molecules is primarily determined by the properties of the pore (energy-driven transport, sticking events within the pore, etc.) and the difference of the chemical potential between the cis and trans sides of the pore, semiflexible and flexible molecules, in addition, have to cross an entropy barrier while being (partially) confined within the channel Lubensky and Nelson (1999); Muthukumar (2001, 1999); Slonkina and Kolomeiski (2003); Sung and Park (1996). In the presence of a high external bias and for the rather short chains used in typical experiments, the entropic slowdown as well as the other interactions between chain and channel wall become negligible, the passage being dominated by the applied drift Lubensky and Nelson (1999). In what follows, we develop a scenario according to which the translocation dynamics is governed by slowly decaying memory effects, leading to a different behaviour in the distribution of passage times which we believe can be measured experimentally.

Experimentally, the translocation of ssDNA can be observed on a single molecular level, both voltage-driven Akeson et al. (1999); Kasianowicz et al. (1996); Meller et al. (2001) and in the absence of an external electric field Bates et al. (2003). In such single-molecule translocation assays, fairly short chains are used, with some 60 bases corresponding to approximately 12 persistence lengths, or 6 Kuhn lengths Frank-Kamenetskii (1997). The width ($`50`$Å) of the membrane amounts to about one persistence length ($`40`$Å) of the ssDNA. A good measure for the translocation process is the distribution of passage times, i.e., the statistics of time spans the chain needs to cross from the entry (cis) side to the exit (trans) side of the pore. In the results, one observes two (or three) different time scales: the shortest corresponds to chains which retract from the pore back to the cis side, before completing the passage through the pore; the other (one or two) correspond(s) to real passage times (if there are two peaks, this can be explained by different orientations of the chain in respect to the passage direction Lubensky and Nelson (1999)).

In a recent experiment Bates et al. (2003), it was noted that the first passage time distribution contains non-negligible contributions over a large time-range even in the presence of a low driving voltage, a case in which a Markovian model would predict exponentially fast decay. This may well indicate that additional mechanisms so far neglected play a role in the translocation dynamics, which might effect long-tailed first passage time distributions, and therefore imply a possible modelling by assuming a non-Markovian behaviour of the system. In this note, we construct a framework in the limit of strong non-Markovian effects, taking into account anomalous translocation dynamics through long-tailed memory effects. Given the accuracy of the newly reported experiments in Bates et al. (2003), it might well be possible to resolve such effects in log-log analyses of the presently available, or future data. We collect a number of possible sources for such anomalous dynamics.

In the presence of a bias field and for chains with $`300`$ nucleotides, the translocation dynamics in the Markov limit has been shown to follow the Smoluchowski-type equation Lubensky and Nelson (1999)

$$\frac{P}{t}=\left(v\frac{}{x}+K\frac{^2}{x^2}\right)P(x,t),$$
(1)
where $`P(x,t)`$ is the probability density function (pdf) to find the chain at position $`x`$ at time $`t`$, and $`v`$ and $`K`$ are the associated drift and diffusion constants, which may be determined from more microscopic models Lubensky and Nelson (1999). The translocation process without retraction from the pore can thus be described by the first passage time distribution $`F(t)`$ from the point $`x=L`$ to $`x=0`$. In the presence of the external drift, this leads to the result \[see, for instance, Redner (2001)\]

$$F_1(t)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi Kt^3}}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{(Lvt)^2}{4Kt}\right).$$
(2)
Note the sharp exponential decay for longer passage times. In this picture of Markov advection-diffusion, the mean first passage time from the origin to an absorbing boundary a distance $`L`$ away is given by $`T_1_0^{\mathrm{}}tF_1(t)𝑑t=L/v`$, i.e., the statistical mean corresponds exactly to a classical linear motion with the drift velocity $`v`$. Thus, the influence of the diffusivity in this average becomes negligible and the motion can be characterised by the mean $`x=vt`$.

This picture dramatically changes in the presence of long-tailed memory, effected by a waiting time distribution

$$\psi (t)\frac{\tau ^\alpha }{t^{1+\alpha }},(0<\alpha <1),$$
(3)
according to which interruption times of the transport process in a multiple trapping model are distributed Metzler and Klafter (2000, 2000a), i.e., the transport process is being stalled successively, and the sticking intervals follow (3). In this situation, the relation for the mean gets modified to $`x=v_\alpha t^\alpha `$, where $`v_\alpha `$ is an appropriately generalised velocity, and the corresponding generalisation of equation (1) is the fractional Fokker-Planck-Smoluchowski equation Metzler and Klafter (2000, 2000a)

$$\frac{P}{t}=_0D_t^{1\alpha }\left(v_\alpha \frac{}{x}+K_\alpha \frac{^2}{x^2}\right)P(x,t),$$
(4)
with $`K_\alpha =Kv_\alpha /v`$, and the fractional Riemann-Liouville operator $`{}_{0}{}^{}D_{t}^{1\alpha }P(x,t)=\frac{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )t}_0^t\frac{P(x,t^{})}{(tt^{})^{1\alpha }}𝑑t^{}`$. The waiting time in expression (3) is scaled to the internal time scale $`\tau `$ Metzler and Klafter (2000). A typical feauture in this anomalous case is that the maximum of the pdf due to the strong persistence of the initial condition (i.e., the probability $`_0^t\psi (t)𝑑t`$ of not moving), remains at the initial location $`x=0`$, and the mean first passage time diverges: $`T_\alpha =_0^{\mathrm{}}F_\alpha (t)t𝑑t\mathrm{}`$. The associated first passage time distribution in the presence of (3) can be determined from the classical result (2). Recalling the scaling relation for the pdf $`P(x,u)`$ in Laplace space ($`P(x,u)_0^{\mathrm{}}P(x,t)\mathrm{exp}(ut)𝑑t`$) between the solutions of (1) and (4) Metzler and Klafter (2000), the following scaling holds between the Markov survival probability $`S_1(t)_0^tF(t)𝑑t`$ and its non-Markov analogue,

$$S_\alpha (u)=u^{\alpha 1}S_1\left(u^\alpha \right),$$
(5)
in rescaled variables. This scaling relation can be rewritten in terms of the generalised Laplace transformation

$$S_\alpha (t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}E^S(s,t)S_1(s)𝑑s,$$
(6)
where the Laplace transform of the kernel $`E^S(s,u)`$ is given by the one-sided Lévy distribution $`E^S(s,u)=u^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{exp}\left(su^\alpha \right)`$, and therefore Metzler and Klafter (2000)

$$E^S(s,t)=\frac{1}{s}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\alpha \alpha n)\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+n)}\left(\frac{s}{t^\alpha }\right)^{1+n}.$$
(7)
In particular, for $`\alpha =1/2`$, one obtains $`E^S(s,t)=(\pi t)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(s^2/(4t)\right)`$. The pronounced difference between the Markov result and its non-Markov analogue in the presence of the long-tailed distribution (3) for the experimentally measured quantity $`1S(t)`$, i.e., the translocation probability, is displayed in figure 1.

It is straightforward to show that there exists a similar scaling relation for the first passage time density:

$$F_\alpha (u)=F_1(u^\alpha ).$$
(8)
From this relation, and the small–$`u`$ expansion $`F_1(u)\mathrm{exp}\left(Lu/[2v]\right)`$, one can by Tauberian theorems Feller (1968) deduce the long-time behaviour of the first passage time density,

$$F_\alpha (t)t^{1\alpha }.$$
(9)
Thus, in contrast to the Markov case, in the presence of long-tailed waiting times, the density $`F_\alpha `$ itself exhibits a long-tail, and the mean first passage time diverges. In this case, in analogy to equations (5) and (6), the transformation from $`F_1`$ to $`F_\alpha `$, $`F_\alpha (u)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(u^\alpha t)F_1(t)𝑑t`$, can be rewritten as $`F_\alpha (t)=_0^{\mathrm{}}E^F(s,t)F_1(s)`$, with

$$E^F(s,t)=\frac{1}{t}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^n}{n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha n)}\left(\frac{s}{t^\alpha }\right)^n.$$
(10)
For $`\alpha =1/2`$, one infers $`E^F(s,t)=s\left(4\pi t^3\right)^{1/2}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(s^2/(4t)\right)`$.111Note that in the case discussed here no turnover between two power-laws, from $`t^{\alpha 1}`$ to $`t^{\alpha 1}`$ results, in contrast to the properties of the cases discussed in H. Scher and E. W. Montroll, Phys. Rev. B 12, 2455 (1975); H. Scher, G. Margolin, R. Metzler, J. Klafter, and B. Berkowitz, Geophys. Res. Lett. 29, 10.1029/2001GL014123 (2002). In figure 2, we depict the functional behaviour of the first passage time distribution for an external bias, in comparison to the Markov case, revealing the distinct inverse power-law tails in the presence of (3).

Conversely, in the absence of a drift, the reflecting boundary at $`x=0`$ cannot be a priori neglected (the retraction of the chain towards the cis side is no longer suppressed by the bias, compare Lubensky and Nelson (1999)), and the corresponding first passage time distribution follows from the eigenvalue problem, such that the survival probability in the anomalous case is given by a sum over Mittag-Leffler decays:222The Mittag-Leffler function $`E_\alpha (z)=_0^{\mathrm{}}z^n/\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\alpha n)`$ is the ‘natural generalisation’ of the exponential function $`e^zE_1(z)`$. $`E_\alpha (ct^\alpha )`$ interpolates between an initial stretched exponential and a final inverse power-law $`t^\alpha `$ Metzler and Klafter (2000). $`S(t)=\frac{2}{\pi }_{m=\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{(1)^m}{2m+1}E_\alpha \left(\frac{(2m+1)^2\pi ^2}{4L^2}t^\alpha \right)`$, which in the Markov limit $`\alpha =1`$ reduce to the exponential function, and therefore a considerably faster decay Metzler and Klafter (2000b). In particular, the long-time behaviour of the first passage distribution $`F(t)t^{1\alpha }`$ ensues, i.e., the asymptotic behaviour is analogous to the one derived from the case with drift (in contrast to the drift-free case without the reflecting barrier, in which $`F(t)t^{\alpha /21}`$).

In both cases with and without drift, the first passage time distributions in the generalised case with long-tailed memory based on the waiting time form (3), the corresponding $`F(t)`$ exhibits a distinct maximum, its functional form being rather similar to the corresponding Markov limit, when viewed on a linear scale. On a double-logarithmic scale, the power-law $`F(t)t^{1\alpha }`$ differs from the much faster, exponential decay in the Markov limit. In particular, for both cases drift-free and with drift, the same power-law behaviour is expected, an additional consistency check in experiments. The latter statement, however, only holds if the mechanism effecting the broad form (3), and the value of $`\alpha `$ in particular, is not affected by the magnitude of the external field. There are indications from the recent studies Bates et al. (2003) that this may actually be the case: if the external drift is increased, the stalling events become less pronounced. This can influence $`\alpha `$, but it could also introduce a cutoff at some time $`t_c`$ in the waiting time distribution $`\psi (t)`$, and therefore cause a system response which is closer to the Markov case than in the absence of the drift. We stress that in the presence of long-tailed first passage time distributions, the most probable passage time corresponding to the value at which $`F(t)`$ peaks, becomes a rather meaningless quantity, as the mean first passage time diverges. We also note that the fit in reference Bates et al. (2003) of the passage time distribution by two exponentials with significantly different time scales in our approach becomes replaced by a continuum distribution of relaxation times.

Let us now list a number of potential sources for the waiting time distribution $`\psi (t)`$:

(i) During the passage, sticking events caused by pore-chain interactions may occur. As these events would be expected to be correlated with the co-operative motion of the pore molecules, and possibly the translocating chain itself, a good guess would be that this causes power-laws of the form (3), e.g. as observed in ligand rebinding in proteins Glöckle and Nonnenmacher (1995).

(ii) It is known from patch clamp measurements on single fast chloride channels Blatz and Magleby (1986), that ion channels open and close repeatedly. For the distribution $`g(t)`$ of duration times of such channel gating events, it was typically found that it follows a modulated power-law trend, $`g(t)=A(t)t^\beta ,\beta >0,`$ where the modulation factor $`A`$ can follow logarithmic oscillations before eventually being cutoff by an exponential Nonnenmacher and Nonnenmacher (1989), or be constant Millhauser et al. (1988). Within a finite time window, both are indistinguishable. It is therefore fair to say that gating events in a given time window in single ion channels follow power-law statistics, and typical values for $`\beta `$ are around 1.6. The distribution $`g`$ translates into our waiting time distribution $`\psi (t)`$ from equation (3) with $`\alpha =\beta 1`$.

(iii) For longer chains, Chuang et al. argued Chuang et al. (2001), that the diffusion of the chain becomes anomalous. Naively viewing the translocation as a waiting time process during which the monomers in the pore channel have to wait until they are given way by the vicinal monomers, and so on, creating a non-Markov process which, on some coarse-grained level, may well be described by equation (3), compare also Douglas (2000).

This list of scenarios is not meant to be complete. However, one might suspect that the sticking scenario (i) is most liable to be affected by the strength of the external bias, producing an effect similar to the recent experiments reported by Bates et al. (2003), in which the dynamics exhibits the abovementioned turnover from broad to Brownian motion-type statistics on increase of the external bias field.

In some translocation experiments, apart from the sharp initial peak in the first passage time density stemming from immediately retracting chains back to the cis side there occurs another hump similar to the one of the translocated chains discussed above. It has been argued that this is due to the existence of second characteristic passage time, depending on the orientation of the chain to the membrane channel in respect to the cis-trans direction (‘head or tail first’) Lubensky and Nelson (1999). The same effect is expected in the case with long-tailed statistics following equation (3). However, it might well be that the associated power-law exponent $`\alpha `$ is different for the two orientations, as the nature of the effective interactions giving rise to the long-tailed waiting times depend on this head-tail difference.

One might speculate about the biological relevance of anomalous translocation dynamics. On the one hand, it might be the outcome of a tradeoff between lack of specificity, if the passage is too free and a large variety of molecules could pass the membrane, and too high suppression, which would require active transport through the pore, implying a fairly large energy cost for long molecules. On the other hand, it might be advantegeous to have a large variation in the arrival times of translocated molecules on the trans side (and thereby very efficient retention of un-translocated molecules on the cis side).

We have discussed possible changes arising in the distribution of first passage times in biopolymer translocation through a membrane channel, and listed a number of reasons which might give rise to such anomalous behaviour. It should be possible to determine the quantity $`F(t)`$ from experiments to sufficient accuracy, in order to be able to distinguish the normal (Brownian) dynamics result from its anomalous counterpart in both the presence and absence of an external drift. The large qualitative difference between exponential and power-law forms should be easily discernible on a double-logarithmic scale. It should, however, be stressed that the onset of the power-law trend depends on the strength of the drift, and might occur for fairly large times if the drift is weak. We finally mention that the proposed long-tailed effects may also pertain in other systems, like during the ejection of the DNA of bacteriophages from the capsid through a long pipe-like channel into the host cell Alberts et al. (1994); Muthukumar (2001).

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Amit Meller and Ophir Flomenbom for helpful discussions. JK acknowledges the support of the US-Israel BSF and the Tel Aviv University Nanotechnology Center.


text:
# FAYE: A Java Implement of the Frame/Stream/Stop Analysis Model.

## I Introduction

The Frame/Stream/Stop model developed for CLEO III analysis was originally developed in C++ chep97-paper . Since then is has been successfully deployed in a number of rolls at CLEO. Meanwhile the IceCube experiment, which has adopted Java as its main language for DAQ and Data Handling, wanted to use the Frame/Stream/Stop model in its code. This meant that a Java version of the model needed to be developed.

## II The Frame/Stream/Stop Model

Before examining the Java implementation of the Frame/Stream/Stop model it is worthwhile reviewing the model itself. The core idea of the model is that any analysis of data taken from a H.E.P. experiment is essentially based upon an “electronic picture” of the experiment at certain moments in time. This “picture” is made up of various different elements which change over time and, most importantly, change at different rates, e.g. a detector’s geometry should change much less frequently than its high voltage (HV) status. Given these ideas the following components are defined in the Frame/Stream/Stop model.

This is a set of related data, all of which all will conceptually change at the same time.

The “electronic picture” of the experiment that is composed of different types of Records, all of whom are related to the same time.

A set of Record, all of the same type, from different times.

The occurrence of a new Record in a Stream “of interest”. When this occurs during execution the Frame corresponding to the Stop is passed to analysis routines for processing.

A Stop which occurs on a sequential Stream (the Stream does not have to be ordered).

A Stop which occurs in response to, and precedes, an Active Stop. i.e. if the Record in some Stream of interest changes when an Active Stop occurs, the The Frame corresponding to this Stream of interest is passed for processing before the Frame corresponding to the Active Stop is supplied.

Figure 1 shows off the ideas of a Record, a Stream and a set of Frames. In this Figure the three horizontal bands, from top to bottom, in each diagram represent the Geometry, HV and Event Streams. The solid blocks of color in these Stream represent an appropriate Record in that Stream, with the label indicating the time associated with that Record. The tall black open rectangle represents a Frame which contained either the Records corresponding to the time of the Frame, the most recent Record in a Stream which has no Record matching the time of the Frame (as seen for the Geometry Stream in Figure 1(b)), or no Record for a Stream that has no record prior to the time of the Frame (as seen for the Event Stream in Figure 1(b)).

Figure 2 helps demonstrate the difference between Active and Passive Stops using the example of an Event Display. In this case the Event and Geometry Streams are the Streams of interest for this executable. The executable is driven by a sequence of Event Records each of which generate an Active Stop. The Geometry Stream Records, on the other hand, are not provided sequentially but rather are read from a database to fill in the Frames needed for the Active Stops. As can be seen in the Figure, before the first Active Stop can be supplied, a Passive Stop cause by the reading of the initial Geometry Record should be supplied to the analyses so that they can process this initial geometry before processing the first Event.

## III Implemention of the Frame/Stream/Stop model

The Java implementation of the Frame/Stream/Stop model is broken down into three separate layers. The first and most general layer is a generic record processing loop. This part of the implementation is based on the classic source/listener pattern that is used throughout the standard Java libraries. In fact, this layer is so general that it is scheduled to become part of the freehep Java library freehep-site

The next layer implements the major ideas of the Frame/Stream/Stop model and, as such, contains the logic needed to supply Frames to analyses. However as the exact definitions of Records and Streams are experiment dependent these detail are included in the third layer, rather than the second.

The third layer is the only layer that an experiment needs to provide to tailor FAYE to work with their experiment. This layer includes the definition of Records and Streams and also includes the mechanism to dispatch Frames to the correct analysis routines.

### III.1 The freehep Layer

The generic record loop code is contained in the org.freehep.record packages. The core interface in these part of the code is the RecordListener interface.

#### III.1.1 The RecordListener interface

The RecordListener interface defines the methods that any analysis class must implement in order to be executed as part of a record loop. Figure 3 shows the life-cycle that all implementations of the RecordListener interface are expected to follow.

When a RecordListener instance is created it starts off in a dormant state. When a record loop is about to begin, the instance will receive a configure message and transition into the configured state. This transition gives the instance an opportunity to read and respond to any input parameters that may have been set, and thus prepare itself for recordSupplied messages.

In the course or normal processing a RecordListener interface can expect to receive one or more recordSupplied messages after it has been configured. The first of these messages will cause the instance to transition into the processing state, where it will remain while it receives more recordSupplied events.

Eventually there will be no more records to supply, either because a user defined limit has been reached or no more Records are available. When this happens the instance will receive a suspend message which will cause it to transition into the suspended state. This transition allows the instance to release and time-critical resources, e.g. database locks, so that other jobs can continue while this job is not processing records.

There are three possible transitions out of the suspended state, two of these transitions return the instance to a configured state, while one returns it to the dormant state. The difference between the reconfigured and resume messages, both of which cause a transition into the configured state, is that the first of these implies that the input parameters to the instance of RecordListener may have changed and that the instance should be read and respond to these new values, while the other message guarantees that none of these parameters have changed and so the instance can resume where it left off.

The other transition out of the suspended state is caused by a finish message being received. This signals that the instance is not longer in the set of classes that will be executed if or when another record loop is executed. This transition allows the instance to clean up any intermediate data it contains and, if necessary, output a summary of the processing it has done.

The instance of a RecordListener can expect to only be destroyed from the dormant state. This gives the instance one last change to cleanly shut down. However, as this transition is cause by the finalize Java method it should normally not be used as there is no determinist way of knowing when or if this method will be called.

The state machine shown in Figure 3 leads to the RecordListener interface as declared in Figure 4.

#### III.1.2 The other classes and interfaces

The other classes and interfaces in the org.freehep.record packages provide tools that can be used in conjunction with RecordListener interface. The following list details some of the issues these tools tackle:

This allows a set of RecordListeners to be executed sequentially.

This enables two sequences of RecordListeners to be executed independently of each other.

This allows for preemptive termination of a sequence of RecordListeners when it has been decided that continued execution would be a waste of time.

This defined the interfaces which should be implemented for sequential and interactive processing of the record loop.

### III.2 The FAYE Layer

The FAYE layer implements the mechanics needed to run the Frame/Stream/Stop model on to of the generic record loop. Its responsibilities lie mainly in the area of the creation of Frames, which serve as the records in this set-up. This should not be confused with the idea of Records that are elements of the Frame itself.

This layer provides a FayeSource class which is an implementation of the record source interface that is declared in the freehep layer. This implementation contains a set of FayeStopSource objects, each of which is able to read Record data from a single source, e.g. a file, database, etc., and provide it to the FayeSource instance so that it can work out which is the next Stop that should be used to create the next Frame supplied to the analysis. The Frame itself is created using the FrameFactory interface of declared in this layer. By using a factory interface and leaving the exact implementation to be contained in the Experiment’s layer, an experiment is free to choose how it wants to access data in the Frame. The created Frame is returned for use in the generic loop.

The FayeStopSource objects contained in the FayeSource are not only responsible for reading Record data from their own sources, but they are also required to supply to the FayeSource object the next Active Stop they can read and, given an Active Stop, the “earliest” Passive Stop they can read. The FayeStopSource can also act as a RecordListener so that it can can be managed by the RecordListener’s life-cycle and, more importantly, its recordSupplied implementation can be used to load the Frame with the appropriate data from its source.

The single RecordListener implementation provided by this layer is the FayeListener class. This acts as a two phase listener. During the first phase, remembering that the new Frame has already been created, all the FayeStopSource objects get an opportunity to add their data to the Frame. The second phase then supplies this filled Frame to the analysis RecordListener implementations.

### III.3 The Experiment (IceCube) Layer

The Experiment’s layer allows an experiment to specialize this framework to it own situation. In this paper we will use the IceCube experiment as the example experiment. The main aim of the specialization is to enable the inclusion of the experiments own Streams into the frameworks and handle the dispatch of the Frames to the correct methods. Figure 5 shows the standard way of implementing this. The IceCubeListener class defines methods for each of the standard Streams in the experiment. The IceCubePlugin class bring together the generic RecordListener interface and experiment specific one and handles the dispatch of the Frames to the right method by using an instance of the IceCubeSupport class. This class, in turn, implements its recordSupplied method as a large switch statement that matches the Stream which caused the Frame to be supplied to the matching method in the IceCubeListener interface.

## IV Summary

The Frame/Stream/Stop model provides a flexible framework in which to develop H.E.P. analyses. This has been demonstrated by its C++ implementation at CLEO.

The Java implementation of this model is based on a freehep foundation, which means that it can easily be used elsewhere, for example as part of JAS3 jas-site .

An experiment only needs to specialize around half a dozen classes to tailor this framework to it own situation.


text:
# A finite loop space not rationally equivalent to a compact Lie group

## 1. Introduction

Since the discovery of the Hilton-Roitberg ‘criminal’  in $`1968`$ it has been clear that not every finite loop space is homotopy equivalent to a compact Lie group. The conjecture emerged however, that this should hold rationally, i.e., that any finite loop space should be rationally equivalent to some compact Lie group (see , \[24, p. 67\]), and evidence for this has been accumulated over the years. In this paper we resolve this conjecture in the negative by exhibiting a concrete finite loop space of rank $`66`$ whose rational cohomology does not agree with that of any compact Lie group. To do this, we first use Sullivan’s arithmetic square \[6, VI.8.1\] and the theory of $`p`$-compact groups  to translate the conjecture into a purely combinatorial statement. We then proceed to show that this statement is ‘generically’ false, with a counterexample appearing in rank $`66`$. On the other hand we verify using a computer that our counterexample is in fact of minimal rank, i.e., that the conjecture is true for any finite loop space of rank less than $`66`$. This extends earlier work of many authors which show the statement to be true when the rank is at most $`5`$ (see  and also ).

We now explain this in more detail. Recall that a finite connected loop space is a triple $`(Y,BY,e)`$ where $`Y`$ is a finite connected CW-complex, $`BY`$ is a based CW-complex, and $`e:Y\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ is a homotopy equivalence, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ denotes the space of based loops in $`BY`$. (We usually refer to a loop space just as $`Y`$ suppressing the rest of the structure.) It is an old theorem of Hopf \[21, Satz I\] that the rational cohomology of any connected finite loop space is a graded exterior algebra $`H^{}(Y;𝐐)_𝐐(x_1,\mathrm{},x_r)`$, where the generator $`x_i`$ is in odd dimension $`2d_i1`$. The number $`r`$ is called the rank of $`Y`$ and the collection of $`d_i`$’s are called the degrees (or if doubled the ‘type’) of $`Y`$. It is a classical result of Serre  that the collection $`\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$ in fact uniquely determines the rational homotopy type of $`(Y,BY,e)`$. The $`p`$-completion $`(Y\widehat{_p},BY\widehat{_p},e\widehat{_p})`$ is a connected $`p`$-compact group, i.e., $`H^{}(Y\widehat{_p};𝐅_p)`$ is finite dimensional and connected and $`BY\widehat{_p}`$ is $`p`$-complete (in the sense of Sullivan  or Bousfield-Kan ; see e.g., , , or  for much more on $`p`$-compact groups.)

An amazing result of Dwyer-Wilkerson , extending work of Dwyer-Miller-Wilkerson  and Adams-Wilkerson , says that any $`p`$-compact group $`X`$ has a maximal torus, that is a loop map $`T(S^1\widehat{_p})^rX`$ which is suitably maximal and an associated Weyl group $`W_X`$. If $`X`$ is connected, then $`W_X`$ acts faithfully on $`L_X=\pi _1(T)`$, in such a way that $`(W_X,L_X)`$ becomes a finite $`𝐙_p`$-reflection group and

$$H^{}(BX;𝐙_p)𝐐\stackrel{}{}(H^{}(BT;𝐙_p)𝐐)^{W_X}.$$

The invariant ring $`(H^{}(BT;𝐙_p)𝐐)^{W_X}`$ is a polynomial algebra with generators in dimensions $`2e_1,\mathrm{},2e_r`$, and the integers $`e_1,\mathrm{},e_r`$ are just the well known degrees of the $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group $`(W_X,L_X𝐐)`$ \[5, Ch. 7\],. (In fact the harder classification states that $`(W_X,L_X)`$ completely classifies $`X`$ when $`p`$ is odd .) If $`Y`$ is a finite loop space then, for all primes $`p`$,

$$H^{}(BY;𝐐)𝐐_pH^{}(BY;𝐙)𝐐_pH^{}(BY\widehat{_p};𝐙_p)𝐐.$$

Furthermore by the Eilenberg-Moore spectral sequence $`H^{}(BY;𝐐)`$ is a polynomial algebra with generators in dimensions $`2d_1,\mathrm{},2d_r`$, where the $`d_i`$’s are the degrees of $`Y`$ introduced earlier. Hence by the above we conclude that, for each prime $`p`$, $`Y\widehat{_p}`$ has to be some $`p`$-compact group such that the degrees of $`Y`$ match up with the degrees of the $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group $`(W_{Y\widehat{_p}},L_{Y\widehat{_p}}𝐐)`$. This puts severe restrictions on the possible degrees. Finite $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups have been classified by Clark-Ewing  building on the classification over $`𝐂`$ by Shephard-Todd . The classification divides into three infinite families along with $`34`$ sporadic cases (the non-Lie ones only being realizable for certain primes). We denote by $`W_D`$ the Weyl group coming from the Dynkin diagram $`D`$ whereas the notation $`G(,,)`$ means a given group from the infinite family $`2`$, and $`G_n`$ refers to one of the other exotic cases, in the standard notation listed e.g., in  or . Historically, pioneering work of Clark  had already shown that if the maximal degree of $`Y`$ is $`h`$ then $`Y`$ also has to have the degree $`mh`$ if $`m1`$ and $`h`$ are relatively prime, using arguments only involving large primes (compare also \[23, 3.20\]). This, as input to small rank calculations, served as original motivation for the conjecture. Adams-Wilkerson  much later found the restrictions imposed by reflection groups described above, but worked only at large primes since the technology of  was not available. They furthermore gave an example \[1, Ex. 1.4\] showing that the large prime information is algebraically not enough to settle the conjecture. What we show here is that, contrary to general expectation, the restrictions at all primes are not even sufficient.

###### Theorem 1.1.

There exists a connected finite loop space $`Y`$ of rank $`66`$ such that $`Y\widehat{_p}`$ has Weyl group as a $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group given by

$`W_{A_4B_4B_5B_8B_8E_8A_{12}B_{14}}`$ $`\times G_{24}`$ $`\text{ for }p=2,`$
$`W_{A_4D_4B_5B_8B_8E_8A_{13}B_{14}}`$ $`\times G_{12}`$ $`\text{ for }p1,3(mod8),`$
$`W_{G_2A_4B_4B_4B_7D_{10}A_{13}B_{15}}`$ $`\times G(4,2,7)`$ $`\text{ for }p5(mod8),`$
$`W_{A_4B_4B_5B_8B_8E_8A_{13}B_{14}}`$ $`\times G(6,3,2)`$ $`\text{ for }p7(mod24),`$
$`W_{D_4A_5D_8D_8B_{10}A_{13}D_{16}}`$ $`\times G(24,24,2)`$ $`\text{ for }p23(mod24).`$
The space $`Y`$ has dimension $`1254`$ and the degrees of $`Y`$ are

$$\{2^8,3^2,4^8,5^2,6^7,7,8^7,9,10^5,11,12^5,13,14^5,16^3,18^2,20^2,22,24^2,26,28,30\}$$

using exponent notation to denote repeated degrees, and these do not agree with the degrees of any $`𝐐`$-reflection group, i.e., the graded vector space $`H^{}(X;𝐐)`$ does not agree with $`H^{}(G;𝐐)`$ for any compact Lie group $`G`$.

Furthermore this counterexample is minimal in the sense that any connected finite loop space of rank less than $`66`$ is rationally equivalent to some compact Lie group $`G`$.

A $`p`$-compact group realizing each of the above simple non-Lie rational Weyl groups was constructed by Clark-Ewing  in the cases where $`p`$ does not divide the Weyl group order. The remaining important small prime cases were constructed by Zabrodsky $`(G_{12},p=3)`$ , Dwyer-Wilkerson $`(G_{24},p=2)`$ , and Notbohm-Oliver $`(G(,,),p\text{ small})`$ . Since $`G_{24}`$ and $`G_{12}`$ are the only finite simple $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups which do not come from compact Lie groups, for $`p=2`$ and $`3`$ respectively, any counterexample will have to involve these groups.

We note that by work of Bauer-Kitchloo-Notbohm-Pedersen  the loop space $`Y`$ of Theorem 1.1 is in fact homotopy equivalent to a compact, smooth, parallelizable manifold.

Sullivan’s arithmetic square  reduces the study of finite loop spaces to the study $`p`$-compact groups for all primes $`p`$ with the same degrees together with the well understood concept of arithmetic square ‘mixing’. We restrict ourselves here to giving the following lemma which guarantees that an algebraic counterexample produces a topological counterexample.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$ be a collection of positive integers (with repetitions allowed). Suppose that for each prime $`p`$ we have a connected $`p`$-compact group $`X_p`$ whose Weyl group $`(W_{X_p},L_{X_p})`$ has degrees $`\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$. Then there exists a (non-unique) connected finite loop space $`Y`$ such that $`Y\widehat{_p}X_p`$ as $`p`$-compact groups.

The next theorem guarantees that ‘generically’ there will be sets of degrees which are the degrees of a $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group for all primes $`p`$ without being the degrees of any $`𝐐`$-reflection group. Together with Lemma 1.2 this shows why examples like the one in Theorem 1.1 exist. For the statement of the result we need to introduce some more notation. If $`\{d_1,d_2,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$ is a collection of degrees, then the associated degree vector equals $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{})𝐙^{(\mathrm{})}`$ where $`x_i`$ is the number of degrees equal to $`i`$. We let $`K_{\mathrm{Lie}}𝐐^{(\mathrm{})}`$ denote the positive rational cone spanned by the degree vectors of the simple $`𝐐`$-reflection groups, i.e. the set of finite nonnegative rational linear combinations of these vectors. Similarly we let $`K_p`$ denote the positive rational cone spanned by the degree vectors of the simple $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups. Finally we let $`K_{\mathrm{Lin}}`$ denote the positive rational cone spanned by the degree vectors of the simple $`𝐐`$-reflection groups and the degree vectors of the groups $`G(m,m,2)`$, $`m=8`$, $`12`$, $`24`$, cf. \[27, Thm. 1.1(b)\].

###### Theorem 1.3.

We have $`K_{\mathrm{Lie}}_pK_p`$, where the intersection is taken over all primes $`p`$. Moreover $`_pK_p=K_2K_3K_5K_7K_{\mathrm{Lin}}`$.

### Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Ib Madsen whose encouraging questions about integrality results in light of the $`p`$-complete theory led us to consider this conjecture. We thank Jørgen Tind for pointing us to Komei Fukuda’s program cdd+  for doing computations on polyhedral cones. The hospitality of University of Copenhagen, SFB 478 Münster, and Århus University helped make this collaboration possible.

## 2. Proofs

Recall the following essentially classical result.

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a simply connected $`p`$-compact group with degrees $`\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$. Then, as a space, $`X(S^{2d_11}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2d_r1})\widehat{_p}`$ if and only if $`p\mathrm{max}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$. If $`X`$ is just assumed connected then under the stronger assumption $`p>\mathrm{max}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$, $`X`$ still splits as a product of spheres.

###### Sketch of proof.

Set $`h=\mathrm{max}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$ and suppose first that $`X`$ is simply connected. If $`ph`$ then by a Bockstein spectral sequence argument of Browder \[7, Thm. 4.7\], $`H^{}(X;𝐙_p)`$ is torsion free and concentrated in odd degrees. Hence an easy argument of Serre \[34, Ch. V Prop. 6\] (see also ), using that $`\pi _n(S^{2d_i1})`$ has no $`p`$-torsion when $`n<2d_i1+2p3`$, yields that $`X(S^{2d_11}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2d_r1})\widehat{_p}`$. (In fact, this direction uses only that $`X`$ is an $`H`$-space with $`H^{}(X;𝐅_p)`$ finite dimensional.) The other direction, which is more subtle and not needed here, was first established for compact Lie groups by Serre  and Kumpel  by case-by-case arguments, and later a general argument was given by Wilkerson \[44, Thm. 4.1\] using operations in $`K`$-theory.

Assume now that $`X`$ is just connected and that $`p>h`$. If $`\pi _1(X)`$ is torsion free, then as a space $`X\stackrel{~}{X}\times (S^1\widehat{_p})^k`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is simply connected (cf. e.g. \[24, p. 24\]), which reduces us to the previous case. Hence we just have to justify that with $`p`$ as above $`\pi _1(X)`$ does not have torsion. By \[30, Thm. 1.4\] we have a fibration $`BKB\stackrel{~}{X}\times BT^{}BX`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a simply connected $`p`$-compact group, $`T^{}`$ is a torus, $`K`$ is a finite $`p`$-group, and the projection map $`K\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a central monomorphism. But then by \[14, Thm. 7.6\] $`K`$ is contained in $`\stackrel{˘}{T}^{W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}}`$, where $`\stackrel{˘}{T}`$ is a discrete approximation to maximal torus in $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. In particular if $`\stackrel{˘}{T}^{W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}}=0`$, $`\pi _1(X)`$ has to be torsion free. But if $`p>h`$ then in particular $`p|W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}|`$, so we have an exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}H^0(W_{\stackrel{~}{X}};L_{\stackrel{~}{X}}𝐐)H^0(W_{\stackrel{~}{X}};\stackrel{˘}{T})H^1(W_{\stackrel{~}{X}};L_{\stackrel{~}{X}})\mathrm{}$$

where the first and third terms are zero so $`\stackrel{˘}{T}^{W_{\stackrel{~}{X}}}=0`$ as wanted. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 1.2.

Set $`h=\mathrm{max}\{d_1,\mathrm{},d_r\}`$ and let $`BM=(_pBX_p)_𝐐`$. Since rationalization commutes with taking loop space and finite products we have that $`\mathrm{\Omega }BM(_{p<h}(X_p)_𝐐)\times (_{ph}X_p)_𝐐`$. By Theorem 2.1 $`X_p(S^{2d_11}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2d_r1})\widehat{_p}`$ when $`p>h`$ and by the same argument $`(X_p)_𝐐((S^{2d_11}\times \mathrm{}\times S^{2d_r1})\widehat{_p})_𝐐`$ for all primes $`p`$. Combined with the fact that $`(S^{2d_i1}\widehat{_p})_𝐐K(𝐐_p,2d_i1)`$ this implies that $`\pi _n(BM)=(_n\pi _n(BX_p))_𝐐_{i,2d_i=n}𝐀_f`$, where $`𝐀_f=(_p𝐙_p)𝐐`$ is the ring of finite adeles. In particular $`BM`$ only has homotopy groups in even dimensions. But now a rational space which only has homotopy groups in even dimensions is necessarily a product of Eilenberg-Mac Lane spaces, as is easily seen by going up the Postnikov tower (cf. e.g., \[43, Ch. IX\]). Set $`BK=K(𝐐,2d_1)\times \mathrm{}K(𝐐,2d_r)`$ and construct a map $`BKBM`$ by levelwise taking the unit ring map $`𝐐𝐀_f`$. Define $`BY`$ as the homotopy pullback of the diagram $`BKBM_pBX_p`$.

Since $`𝐐`$ and $`\widehat{𝐙}=_p𝐙_p`$ generate $`𝐀_f`$ the Mayer-Vietoris sequence in homotopy groups corresponding to a homotopy pull-back in fact splits, so $`\pi _n(BY)`$ is the pull-back in groups of of the diagram $`\pi _n(BK)\pi _n(BM)_p\pi _n(BX_p)`$. Concretely, the homotopy groups of $`BY`$ are given by

$$\pi _n(BY)=(\underset{i,2d_i=n}{}𝐙)(\underset{p}{}\mathrm{Tor}(𝐙,\pi _n(BX_p))).$$

In particular, this shows that $`\pi _n(\mathrm{\Omega }BY)`$ is finitely generated for all $`n`$. Hence also $`H^n(\mathrm{\Omega }BY;𝐙)`$ is finitely generated for all $`n`$ (see \[18, Thm. 2.16\]).

By construction $`H^{}(BY;𝐙_p)\stackrel{}{}H^{}(BX_p;𝐙_p)`$ so, since the spaces involved are simply connected, $`H^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }BY;𝐙_p)\stackrel{}{}H^{}(X_p;𝐙_p)`$ for all $`p`$. But since we have seen that each $`H^n(\mathrm{\Omega }BY;𝐙_p)`$ is finitely generated and we know that $`X_p`$ is homotopy equivalent to a product of spheres for all $`p>h`$, we conclude that in fact $`_nH^n(\mathrm{\Omega }BY;𝐙)`$ is finitely generated as an abelian group.

If $`\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ is simply connected then it follows from the classical results of Wall \[42, Thm. B+F\] that $`\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ is weakly homotopy equivalent to a finite CW-complex $`Y`$. If $`\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ is not simply connected then the conclusion still holds, now appealing to a more recent result of Notbohm  (see also ) which relies on $`\mathrm{\Omega }BY`$ being a loop space. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

It follows directly from Lemma 1.2 that we can construct a connected finite loop space $`Y`$ with the listed properties. One can check directly by a finite search that the degrees of $`Y`$ does not agree with those of a compact Lie group, but one can also argue more simply as follows. There are exactly $`61`$ simple $`𝐐`$-reflection groups whose degrees are all at most $`30`$. The inner product of the vector

(2.1)
$$(0,2,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,1,1,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,4,1,3,1,1,0,0,0,1)$$

and the degree vector of any of these is non-negative. Hence the same holds for any $`𝐐`$-reflection groups whose degrees are all at most $`30`$. However the inner product of the vector (2.1) with the degree vector of $`Y`$ equals $`1`$, so the degrees of $`Y`$ does not agree with those of a compact Lie group.

To check that our counterexample has minimal rank we proceed as follows. For any prime $`p`$, there are only finitely many $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups of a given rank, cf. . Hence one can go through the list of (say) $`𝐐_2`$-reflection groups and check which of these has degrees not matching those of any $`𝐐`$-reflection group, but matching those of a $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group for $`p=3,5,\mathrm{}`$. We have written a C++ program which implements this algorithm, and used it to check all $`𝐐_2`$-reflection groups of rank less than $`66`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.2.

Note that Theorem 1.1 in particular tells us that there exists a loop space whose $`p`$-completion is not homotopy equivalent to the $`p`$-completion of a compact Lie group for any prime $`p`$. If we only want this to hold for a single prime $`p`$ we can find much simpler examples. For instance using Lemma 1.2 one can construct a finite loop space which $`2`$-completed is homotopy equivalent to $`X_2=DI(4)\times \mathrm{Sp}(1)\widehat{_2}\times \mathrm{Sp}(6)\widehat{_2}`$ and which $`p`$-completed for $`p2`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`X_p=\mathrm{Sp}(3)\widehat{_p}\times \mathrm{Sp}(7)\widehat{_p}`$. However, $`X_2`$ is not homotopy equivalent to the $`2`$-completion of a compact Lie group, since the only Lie groups with the right rational degrees are quotients of $`\mathrm{Sp}(3)\times \mathrm{Sp}(7)`$, but these do not have the same mod $`2`$ Poincaré series as $`X_2`$, as can be obtained from . (Compare \[45, Conj. 2\], \[38, Prob. 9\], \[24, Conj. B+C\].)

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

The first claim follows from the proof of Theorem 1.1, see also Remark 2.3 below. To show the second claim note that the proof of \[27, Thm. 1.1(b)\] shows that $`_pK_pK_{\mathrm{Lin}}`$ and hence

$$\underset{p}{}K_pK_2K_3K_5K_7K_{\mathrm{Lin}}.$$

To prove the reverse inclusion, note that the only simple $`𝐐_3`$-reflection group which is not a $`𝐐`$-reflection group is the group $`G_{12}`$. Since this is a $`𝐐_p`$-reflection group for all primes $`p`$ satisfying $`p1,3(mod8)`$ we get $`K_3K_p`$ for these primes. Similarly the simple $`𝐐_5`$-reflection groups which are not $`𝐐`$-reflection groups are precisely the groups $`G(4,1,n),G(4,2,n)`$ for $`n2`$, $`G(4,4,n)`$ for $`n3`$, $`𝐙/4`$ from family $`3`$, $`G_8`$, $`G_{29}`$ and $`G_{31}`$. This shows that $`K_5K_p`$ when $`p1(mod4)`$. In the same way we see that $`K_7K_p`$ when $`p`$ satisfies $`p1(mod6)`$ and $`p\pm 1(mod8)`$, i.e. when $`p1,7(mod24)`$. Finally the groups $`G(m,m,2)`$, $`m=8`$, $`12`$, $`24`$ are all $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups when $`p\pm 1(mod24)`$, so $`K_{\mathrm{Lin}}K_p`$ for these primes. This proves the result since any prime $`p`$ satisfies $`p=2`$, $`p1,3(mod8)`$, $`p1(mod4)`$, $`p1,7(mod24)`$ or $`p\pm 1(mod24)`$. ∎

###### Remark 2.3.

A few remarks about how we found the counterexample in Theorem 1.1 might be in order, since this is not really clear from the proof. First we used Fukuda’s cdd+ program  to establish Theorem 1.3 by showing that $`K_{\mathrm{Lie}}`$ truncated at degree say $`30`$ does not agree with the intersections of the similarly truncated versions of $`K_2`$, $`K_3`$, $`K_5`$, $`K_7`$, and $`K_{\mathrm{Lin}}`$. From this it is a linear programming problem to obtain a concrete point in the difference, and by solving the associated integer programming problem one gets a point in the difference which is minimal with respect to rank (or dimension). Note however that being minimal in this sense is slightly weaker than being a minimal counterexample, which is why we had to finish off our proof of minimality in Theorem 1.1 with a brute force check, which required rather massive computer calculations. Using the geometric picture we have found a counterexample of smaller dimension but larger rank. Namely, there exists a connected finite loop space with rank $`74`$ and dimension $`1250`$ and degrees

$$\{2^9,3^2,4^7,5^3,6^8,7^3,8^8,9^3,10^6,11^2,12^6,13^2,14^5,15,16^3,18^2,20^2,22,24\},$$

which is not rationally equivalent to a compact Lie group. This is seen by considering the $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups

$`W_{A_1A_1E_6D_7D_8A_9D_{11}D_{13}A_{15}}`$ $`\times G_{24}`$ $`\text{ for }p=2,`$
$`W_{A_1A_1D_5D_7D_9B_{10}B_{12}A_{13}A_{14}}`$ $`\times G_{12}`$ $`\text{ for }p1,3(mod8),`$
$`W_{A_1A_1D_5D_6E_7D_9B_{11}A_{13}A_{14}}`$ $`\times G(4,4,7)`$ $`\text{ for }p5(mod8),`$
$`W_{G_2D_5D_7D_9B_{10}B_{12}A_{13}A_{14}}`$ $`\times G(8,8,2)`$ $`\text{ for }p7(mod8).`$
It is also possible to construct a counterexample where all degrees are even, cf. . For instance there is an example of rank $`68`$, dimension $`1468`$ and degrees

$$\{2^8,4^8,6^8,8^8,10^6,12^5,14^6,16^4,18^3,20^3,22^2,24^3,26^2,28,30\}.$$

Here one can use the $`𝐐_p`$-reflection groups

$`W_{B_4B_5B_5B_8B_8E_8B_{13}B_{14}}`$ $`\times G_{24}`$ $`\text{ for }p=2,`$
$`W_{D_4B_5B_5B_8B_8E_8B_{14}D_{14}}`$ $`\times G_{12}`$ $`\text{ for }p1,3(mod8),`$
$`W_{G_2B_4B_5B_5B_7B_9D_{14}B_{15}}`$ $`\times G(4,2,7)`$ $`\text{ for }p5(mod8),`$
$`W_{B_4B_5B_5B_8B_8E_8B_{14}D_{14}}`$ $`\times G(6,3,2)`$ $`\text{ for }p7(mod24),`$
$`W_{D_4D_6D_8D_8B_{10}D_{14}D_{16}}`$ $`\times G(24,24,2)`$ $`\text{ for }p23(mod24).`$


text:
# The best bounds of harmonic sequence

## 1. Introduction

Let $`n`$ be a natural number, then we have

$$\frac{1}{2n}\frac{1}{8n^2}<\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{ln}n\gamma <\frac{1}{2n},$$
(2)
where $`\gamma =0.57721566\mathrm{}`$ is Euler’s constant.

The inequality (2) is called in literature Franel’s inequality \[5, Ex. 18\]. Because of the well known importance of the harmonic sequence $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{i}`$, there exists a very rich literature on inequalities of the harmonic sequence $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{i}`$. For example, , \[4, pp. 68–78\] and references therein.

L. Tóth and S. Mare in \[6, p. 264\] proposed the following problems:

1. Prove that for every positive integer $`n`$ we have

$$\frac{1}{2n+\frac{2}{5}}<1+\frac{1}{2}+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{ln}n\gamma <\frac{1}{2n+\frac{1}{3}},$$
(3)
where $`\gamma `$ is Euler’s constant.
2. Show that $`\frac{2}{5}`$ can be replaced by a slightly smaller number, but that $`\frac{1}{3}`$ cannot be replaced by a slightly larger number.

In , basing on improving of Euler-Maclaurin summation formula, some general inequalities of the harmonic sequence $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{i}`$ are established, including recovery of inequality (3). In 1999, Sh.-R. Wei and B.-Ch. Yang in  verified inequality (3) again by calculus.

In 1997, K. Wu and B.-Ch. Yang in  proved the second problem due to Tóth and Mare by using the following

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{i}=\gamma +\mathrm{ln}n+\frac{1}{2n}\underset{i=1}{\overset{q1}{}}\frac{B_{2i}}{2in^{2i}}_n^{\mathrm{}}\frac{B_{2q}(x)}{x^{2q}}\mathrm{d}x$$
(4)
and

$$_n^{\mathrm{}}\frac{B_{2q1}(x)}{x^{2q}}\mathrm{d}x<\frac{(1)^qB_{2q}}{2qn^{2q}},$$
(5)
where $`B_i(x)`$ is Bernoulli’s polynomial, $`B_{2i}=B_{2i}(n)`$ is Bernoulli’s number for $`i`$, and $`n`$ and $`q`$ are positive integers,.

In this short note, through establishing, by exploiting the well known first Binet’s formula, two double inequalities of the digamma and trigamma functions and by utilizing the approximating expansion of digamma function $`\psi `$, the best lower and upper bounds of the sequence $`_{i=1}^n\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{ln}n\gamma `$ are given. Thses results refine inequality (3) and solve affirmatively the second problem mentioned above.

###### Theorem 1.

For any natural number $`n`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{2n+\frac{1}{1\gamma }2}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{i}\mathrm{ln}n\gamma <\frac{1}{2n+\frac{1}{3}},$$
(6)
where $`\gamma =0.57721566490153286\mathrm{}`$ denotes Euler’s constant. The constants $`\frac{1}{1\gamma }2`$ and $`\frac{1}{3}`$ are the best possible.

## 2. Lemma

In order to prove inequality (3), the following lemma is necessary.

###### Lemma 1.

For $`x>0`$, we have

$$\frac{1}{2x}\frac{1}{12x^2}<\psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x<\frac{1}{2x}$$
(7)
and
$$\frac{1}{2x^2}\frac{1}{6x^3}<\frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)<\frac{1}{2x^2}\frac{1}{6x^3}+\frac{1}{30x^5},$$
(8)
where $`\psi =\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ is the logarithmic derivative of the gamma function

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=_0^{\mathrm{}}t^{x1}e^t\mathrm{d}t.$$
(9)
###### Proof.

It is a well known fact ( and \[7, p. 103\]) that for $`x>0`$ and a nonnegative integer $`m`$,

$$\psi (x+1)=\psi (x)+\frac{1}{x}$$
(10)
and

$$\frac{m!}{x^{m+1}}=_0^{\mathrm{}}t^me^{xt}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(11)
The first Binet’s formula ( and \[7, p. 106\]) states that for $`x>0`$

$$\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)=\left(x\frac{1}{2}\right)\mathrm{ln}xx+\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{t}\frac{1}{1e^t}\right)\frac{e^{xt}}{t}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(12)
Differentiating (12), integrating by part and using formulas (11) and (10), it is deduced that

$$\psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{t}\frac{1}{e^t1}\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(13)
Using formulas (11) and (13) and the series expansion of $`e^x`$ at $`x=0`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x\frac{1}{2x}+\frac{1}{12x^2}\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{t}\frac{1}{e^t1}\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{12}t\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{12(e^t1)12t6t(e^t1)+t^2(e^t1)}{12t(e^t1)}e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{12t(e^t1)}\underset{n=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n3)(n4)}{n!}t^n\right]e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & >0\hfill \end{array}$$
(14)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x\frac{1}{2x}& =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(\frac{1}{t}\frac{1}{e^t1}\frac{1}{2}\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{2t(e^t1)}\underset{n=3}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{n2}{n!}t^n\right]e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & <0.\hfill \end{array}$$
(15)
Hence, inequality (7) follows.

Differentiation of (13) immediately produces

$$\frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)=_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{t}{e^t1}\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t.$$
(16)
Exploiting formulas (11) and (16) and the series expansion of $`e^x`$ at $`x=0`$ yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)\frac{1}{2x^2}+\frac{1}{6x^3}\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{t}{e^t1}\frac{1}{2}t+\frac{1}{12}t^2\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{12(e^t1)}\underset{n=5}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(n3)(n4)}{n!}t^n\right]e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & >0\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)\frac{1}{2x^2}+\frac{1}{6x^3}\frac{1}{30x^5}\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left(1\frac{t}{e^t1}\frac{1}{2}t+\frac{1}{12}t^2\frac{1}{720}t^4\right)e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t\hfill \\ & =_0^{\mathrm{}}\left[\frac{1}{720(e^t1)}\underset{n=7}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left(\frac{720}{n!}\frac{360}{(n1)!}+\frac{60}{(n2)!}\frac{1}{(n4)!}\right)t^n\right]e^{xt}\mathrm{d}t.\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Noticing that for $`n7`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \frac{720}{n!}\frac{360}{(n1)!}+\frac{60}{(n2)!}\frac{1}{(n4)!}\hfill \\ & =\frac{120+218(n7)+119(n7)^2+22(n7)^3+(n7)^4}{n!}<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(19)
we obtain

$$\frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)\frac{1}{2x^2}+\frac{1}{6x^3}\frac{1}{30x^5}<0.$$
(20)
Therefore, inequality (8) holds. The proof is complete. ∎

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

In , \[2, p. 593\] and \[7, p. 104\] it is given that $`\psi (n)=_{k=1}^{n1}\frac{1}{k}\gamma `$. Thus, inequality (6) can be rearranged as

$$\frac{1}{3}<\frac{1}{\psi (n+1)\mathrm{ln}n}2n\frac{1}{1\gamma }2.$$
(21)
Define for $`x>0`$

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{1}{\psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x}2x.$$
(22)
Differentiating $`\varphi `$ and utilizing (7) and (8) reveals that for $`x>\frac{12}{5}`$,

$$\begin{array}{cc}& (\psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x)^2\varphi ^{}(x)\hfill \\ & =\frac{1}{x}\psi ^{}(x+1)2(\psi (x+1)\mathrm{ln}x)^2\hfill \\ & <\frac{1}{2x^2}\frac{1}{6x^3}+\frac{1}{30x^5}2\left(\frac{1}{2x}\frac{1}{12x^2}\right)^2\hfill \\ & =\frac{125x}{360x^5}<0,\hfill \end{array}$$
(23)
and $`\varphi (x)`$ decreases with $`x>\frac{12}{5}`$.

Straightforward calculation produces

$`\varphi (1)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\gamma }}2=0.36527211862544155\mathrm{},`$ (24)
$`\varphi (2)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{3}{2}\gamma \mathrm{ln}2}}4=0.35469600731465752\mathrm{},`$ (25)
$`\varphi (3)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{11}{6}\gamma \mathrm{ln}3}}6=0.34898948531361115\mathrm{}.`$ (26)
Therefore, the sequence

$$\varphi (n)=\frac{1}{\psi (n+1)\mathrm{ln}n}2n,n$$
(27)
is decreasing strictly, and for $`n`$

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (n)<\varphi (n)\varphi (1)=\frac{1}{1\gamma }2.$$
(28)
Making use of approximating expansion of $`\psi `$ in , \[2, p. 594\], or \[7, p. 108\] gives

$$\psi (x)=\mathrm{ln}x\frac{1}{2x}\frac{1}{12x^2}+O(x^4)(x\mathrm{}),$$
(29)
and then

$$\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (n)=\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\varphi (x)=\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\frac{1}{3}+O(x^2)}{1+O(x^1)}=\frac{1}{3}.$$
(30)
The proof is complete.


text:
# Introduction

## Introduction

The recent renewed interest in the calculation of the glueball superpotential via matrix models  has led to an understanding of how to extract the non-logarithmic part of these superpotentials by ordinary diagrammatic methods . Just as the matrix models in the applications to non-critical strings and 2d quantum gravity were convenient tools for solving specific combinatorial problems: the summation over all “triangulated” worldsheets with given weights, we understand now that the matrix model in the Dijkgraaf-Vafa (DV) context is an effective way of summing a set of ordinary Feynman graphs which by the magic of supersymmetry can be combined in such a way that they have no space-time dependence.

However, we are still left without a simple diagrammatic derivation of the logarithmic part of the glueball superpotential, the so called Veneziano-Yankielowicz-Taylor superpotential. This effective Lagrangian was originally derived for a pure $`𝒩=1`$ $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory by Veneziano and Yankielowicz  by anomaly matching and, by the same method, generalized to a $`U(N_c)`$ theory with $`N_f`$ flavors in the fundamental representation by Taylor, Veneziano and Yankielowicz . It is given by

$$W_{eff}^{VYT}(S,X)=W_{eff}^{VY}(S)+W_{eff}^{matter}(S,X)$$
(1)
where $`W_{eff}^{VY}(S)`$ is the pure gauge part

$$W_{eff}^{VY}(S)=N_cS\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}$$
(2)
while $`W_{eff}^{matter}(S,X)`$ denotes the part coming from $`N_f`$ flavors in the fundamental representation:

$$W_{eff}^{matter}(S,X)=N_fS\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}S\mathrm{log}\frac{detX}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(3)
In the above formulas $`S`$ denotes the composite chiral superfield $`𝒲_\alpha ^2/32\pi ^2`$ and $`X=\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ is the ($`N_f\times N_f`$) mesonic superfield, $`Q`$ being the chiral matter field. In (2) and (3) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is an UV cut off. Usually this UV cut off is replaced by a renormalization group invariant scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_M`$ by use of the one-loop renormalization group:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_M=\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{e}^{\frac{8\pi ^2}{(3N_cN_f)g^2}}.$$
(4)
The beautiful derivation of (1)-(3) by anomaly matching has always been somewhat antagonizing since a clear diagrammatic understanding is missing. It is summarized in the following citation from : “Its \[i.e. (1)-(4)\] only raison d’etre is the explicit realization of the anomalous and non-anomalous symmetries of SUSY gluodynamics ….”.

In this letter we point out that there exists a simple diagrammatic derivation of (3). The derivation is inspired by diagrammatic techniques used in  and the observation that the DV-matrix models techniques could be extended to cover the case of superpotentials depending on mesonic superfields by considering the constrained (Wishart) matrix integrals

$$DQD\stackrel{~}{Q}\delta (\stackrel{~}{Q}QX)=\frac{(2\pi )^{\frac{N(N+1)}{2}}}{_{j=NN_f+1}^N(j1)!}\left(detX\right)^{NN_f}$$
(5)
and taking the large $`N`$ limit.

## Perturbative considerations

The matter contribution to the effective superpotential was shown in  to arise from the path integral

$$DQD\stackrel{~}{Q}\text{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xd^2\theta \left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mathrm{}i𝒲^\alpha _\alpha )Q+W_{tree}(\stackrel{~}{Q},Q)\right)}}$$
(6)
where $`𝒲^\alpha `$ is an external field and $`_\alpha \frac{}{\theta ^\alpha }`$. If the quarks are massive ($`W_{tree}=m\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$) then the above path integral reduces to a functional determinant which can be easily evaluated using the Schwinger representation:

$$\frac{1}{2}_{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{\text{d}s}{s}\frac{\text{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\text{d}^2\pi _\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left(s(p^2+𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha +m)\right)$$
(7)
where we introduced an UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Due to fermionic integrations the result is

$$\frac{𝒲^2}{32\pi ^2}_{\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}^{\mathrm{}}\frac{ds}{s}e^{ms}$$
(8)
which reduces for large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to

$$S\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{m}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(9)
At this stage one could integrate-in $`X`$ to obtain (3). However, as “integrating-in” is in fact an assumption and we would like to obtain the desired result perturbatively, or more precisely: diagrammatically. To this end we impose the superspace constraint

$$X=\stackrel{~}{Q}Q$$
(10)
at the level of the path integral (6). This is done by introducing a Lagrange multiplier chiral superfield $`\alpha `$. Since the antichiral sector does not influence the chiral superpotentials, we will perform a trick analogous to  and introduce an antichiral partner $`\overline{\alpha }`$ with a tree level potential $`M\overline{\alpha }^2`$. Thus we have

$$\text{d}^4x\text{d}^4\theta \overline{\alpha }\alpha +\text{d}^4x\text{d}^2\theta M\overline{\alpha }^2.$$
(11)
The path integral w.r.t. $`\overline{\alpha }`$ is Gaussian and yields (c.f. )

$$\frac{1}{2M}\text{d}^4x\text{d}^2\theta \alpha \mathrm{}\alpha .$$
(12)
The final path integral is

$$D\alpha D\stackrel{~}{Q}DQ\text{e}^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xd^2\theta \left({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{Q}(\mathrm{}i𝒲^\alpha _\alpha )Q{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha \mathrm{}\alpha \alpha X+\alpha \stackrel{~}{Q}Q\right)}},$$
(13)
where we also took $`W_{tree}=0`$ and fixed the auxiliary mass $`M=1`$ (it will be clear from the arguments below that the result is independent of $`M`$).

This is no longer a free field theory, but nevertheless there are significant simplifications if we only want to extract the $`\text{tr}𝒲^2`$ dependence. This implies that we must have two $`𝒲`$ insertions per $`\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ loop. The integrals over the fermionic momenta thus force all graphs which contain an $`\alpha `$-line in a loop to vanish. Thus we are left with graphs coming from (13) which have the structure of $`\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ loops connected by at most one $`\alpha `$ propagator, and $`\alpha `$ propagators connected to the external field $`X`$ as shown in fig. 1.

Moreover, if the field $`X`$ contains a zero momentum component, which will generically be the case, the integrals will be dominated by this constant mode which forces the $`\alpha `$ propagators to be evaluated at zero momentum. Consequently we have to introduce an IR cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$. Each 0-momentum $`\alpha `$ propagator will then just contribute a factor of $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}`$.

Thanks to the above property we may find the full $`\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ propagator in terms of the $`\alpha `$ 1-point function which we will denote by $`F`$:

$$\frac{1}{p^2+𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha +F},$$
(14)
and the effective action will be given by the formula (7) with $`m`$ substituted by $`F`$:

$$S\mathrm{log}det\frac{F}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(15)
It remains to determine $`F`$. The Schwinger-Dyson equation for $`F`$ is (see fig. 2)

$$F=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}}X+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}}\frac{S}{F}$$
(16)
where we used

$$_0^{\mathrm{}}\text{d}s\frac{\text{d}^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\text{d}^2\pi _\alpha \text{e}^{s(p^2+𝒲^\alpha \pi _\alpha +F)}=\frac{S}{F}$$
(17)
Eq. (16) is quadratic and has 2 solutions. Since the final result has to be IR finite, we will take the solution which has a finite limit as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}0`$. Therefore

$$F=\frac{S}{X}$$
(18)
and by substituting this back in (15) one obtains the desired result:

$$S\mathrm{log}det\frac{SX^1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(19)
or, in the case of $`N_f`$ flavors:

$$N_fS\mathrm{log}\frac{S}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}S\mathrm{log}det\frac{X}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}.$$
(20)
## Further examples

Exactly the same technique can be adapted to the theories studied in  where the matter effective superpotentials in terms of only mesonic fields are quite complex (see eqn. (1.1) in ) and follow from quite intricate physical analysis. However, as noted in  the superpotentials with both glueball fields and matter fields are simpler. The pure matter superpotentials can then be obtained by integrating out the glueball fields $`S_i`$.

The simplest case considered in  is a gauge theory with gauge group $`SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2`$, with a bifundamental matter field $`Q`$ in the (2,2) representation. The natural gauge invariant matter superfield is

$$X=Q^2\frac{1}{2}Q_{ab}Q_{cd}\epsilon ^{ac}\epsilon ^{bd},$$
(21)
and the matter part of the superpotential $`W_{eff}(S,X)`$ is (eq. (4.19) in ):

$$(S_1+S_2)\mathrm{log}\frac{S_1+S_2}{X\mathrm{\Lambda }}$$
(22)
We will now show that the expression (22) also follows from a diagrammatic reasoning.

Since for $`SU(2)`$ the fundamental and antifundamental representations are equivalent through $`\stackrel{~}{Q}_aQ_a^{}\epsilon ^{a^{}a}`$ the Lagrangian for the bifundamental fields takes the form:

$$Q_{a^{}b^{}}\epsilon ^{a^{}a}\epsilon ^{b^{}b}(\mathrm{}i𝒲_{ac}^{(1)\alpha }_\alpha i𝒲_{bd}^{(2)\alpha }_\alpha )Q_{cd}$$
(23)
Again we introduce a Lagrange multiplier superfield $`\alpha `$ enforcing the above constraint. We thus have

$$Q(𝐂𝐂)(\mathrm{}𝒲^{(1)\alpha }\mathrm{𝟏}\pi _\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}𝒲^{(2)\alpha }\pi _\alpha +\frac{1}{2}\alpha )Q\alpha X$$
(24)
where $`𝐂^{ab}\epsilon ^{ab}`$.

The analogue of formula (15) will then be

$$\frac{1}{2}2(S_1+S_2)\mathrm{log}\left(\frac{F}{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(25)
where the $`1/2`$ comes from the fact that we are dealing with a real representation, while the 2 comes from performing the trace over the trivial factor in $`(𝒲^{(1)}\mathrm{𝟏})^2`$. The Schwinger-Dyson equation for $`F`$ will then have the form

$$F=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}}X+\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_{IR}}\frac{1}{2}\frac{2(S_1+S_2)}{F/2}$$
(26)
hence

$$F=\frac{2(S_1+S_2)}{X}$$
(27)
Inserting $`F`$ into (25) reproduces precisely the nontrivial result (22).

Another example studied in  for the gauge group $`SU(2)_1\times SU(2)_2`$ is matter $`L\pm `$ in the (1,2) representation. The classical D-flat direction is labeled by $`Y=L_{\alpha +}L_\beta \epsilon ^{\alpha \beta }`$ and the matter contribution to $`W_{eff}^{VYT}`$ was found in  to be:

$$S_2\mathrm{log}\frac{S_2}{Y\mathrm{\Lambda }}.$$
(28)
We can also reproduce this expression111Up to a trivial rescaling of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Note that in our approach the definition of the UV cut-off $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (see e.g. (8)) is a matter of convention and may be modified. by computing diagrammatically the contribution from the $`L_\pm `$ fields, starting with the Lagrangian

$$L(𝐂\mathrm{𝟏})(\mathrm{}𝒲^{(2)\alpha }\mathrm{𝟏}\pi _\alpha +\alpha \mathrm{𝟏}𝐂)L\alpha Y,$$
(29)
where the second component in the tensor product is the flavor space.

## Discussion

We have shown that it is possible to obtain the matter part of some generalized $`W_{eff}^{VYT}(X,S)`$ potentials by simple diagrammatic reasoning. It would be interesting to generalize the diagrammatic derivation to the gauge part of the Taylor-Veneziano-Yankielowicz superpotential. That would complete the diagrammatic derivation of the glueball superpotential.

Acknowledgments JA and RJ acknowledge support by the EU network on “Discrete Random Geometry”, grant HPRN-CT-1999-00161, RJ was partially supported by KBN grant 2P03B09622 (2002-2004) and J.A. partially supported by “MaPhySto”, the Center of Mathematical Physics and Stochastics, financed by the National Danish Research Foundation.