text:
# 1 Introduction and motivation

## 1 Introduction and motivation

Boundary conformal field theories (BCFT) find applications in vastly different branches of physics ranging from condensed matter systems to string theory.

BCFTs can be perturbed by an operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which couples only to the boundary. Such a perturbation leads to new boundary conditions which may even break conformal invariance. If the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ has conformal dimension $`h=1`$, it is possible to stay at the conformal point to all orders in the coupling constant. However if $`h1`$, the boundary perturbation introduces a length scale into the theory and there is hence a RG-flow. When $`h>1`$ the perturbation is irrelevant and the flow keeps us within the same BCFT; for $`h<1`$ the perturbation is relevant and the BCFT we flow to in the IR is different to the one we started out with. In general it is a difficult problem to find the IR BCFT corresponding to a given relevant perturbation, nevertheless, several non-trivial examples have been worked out using the thermodynamic Bethe ansatz  and perturbative techniques . The study of relevant boundary perturbations of BCFTs is mainly motivated by quantum impurity problems in condensed matter theory  and by tachyonic condensation in string theory .

In the present note we would like to study relevant boundary perturbations of a few simple BCFTs. In contrast to previous works, which were based on integrable model or perturbative techniques, we use the canonical quantization aproach and concentrate on possible algebraic structures that may arise. We consider several free theories which are solvable and can be regarded as a reasonable first approximation to interacting theories. We argue that some results obtained for free theories can be extended to general interacting theories as well.

Our main motivation for this work comes from string theory applications (i.e., the RNS string model in a tachyonic background field , ). However we hope that some of our results might also applied to other branches of physics such as impurity problems. Therefore, throughout the paper we try to avoid any direct references to string theory, reserving such comments/discussions for the end.

We define our theory, which is conformally invariant in the bulk, on a strip $`R\times [0,L]`$ with two spatial boundaries. In general, both boundaries can have different boundary interactions. Though we work with Minkowski signature, there are no problems in principle, in going to the Euclidean version and considering the same kinds of theories on a disk, an annulus and etc. In all cases, this generalization is straightforward and throughout the paper, we comment on the Euclidean versions of the models we consider.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2 we consider a theory with a massless free boson living in the bulk and a potential coupled to the boundary. We argue that for a general potential, the chiral and anti-chiral algebras survive, and infact become non-trivially related to each other through the boundary perturbation. We work out these algebras in detail, assuming a quadratic form for the boundary perturbation. In section 3 we consider the fermionic couterpart of the previous model. It turns out that the construction of relevant boundary perturbations for these models involves some subtleties due to appearance of extra zero modes. Some general statements about such ’extra zero modes’ have previously been made in the string theory literature,  and . We try, in the framework of our model, to present a detailed discussion of the mechanism whereby these zero modes arise.

Using the above results, we construct a supersymetric model in section 4. We are able to do this only for a quadratic boundary potential and we offer some reasons as why it might be difficult to do so in general. In section 5 we go back to the bosonic and fermionic models but this time, with different perturbations on each of the two boundaries; we discuss the realization of bulk symmetries in this case. In section 6 we speculate on the string theory applications of our results. The construction of the RNS string model in a tachyonic background field seems to be quite restrictive and we have been able handle only a quadratic tachyonic field. This could be a sign that possible tachyonic backgrounds are limited by self-consistency of the theory, but ofcourse, more work needs to be done before one can reach any final conclusions. We also propose directions for further study.

## 2 Free boson theory

In this section we study a simple BCFT perturbed by a relevant boundary operator. We consider the theory on a strip with the following Lagrangian

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}𝑑\sigma _\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi +\lambda V(\varphi (0))\lambda V(\varphi (L)),$$
(2.1)
and Minkowski signature $`(1,1)`$. The Lagrangian (2.1) gives rise to the following equation of motion and boundary conditions

$$(_\tau ^2_\sigma ^2)\varphi =0,(\varphi ^{}+\lambda _\varphi V(\varphi ))|_{0,L}=0.$$
(2.2)
The boundary conditions have the same form on both boundaries, however the model is not parity invariant. A parity transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ ($`\sigma L\sigma `$) is in fact equivalent to changing the sign of the coupling constant $`\lambda `$. The equation of motion (2.2) is satisfied if $`\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )`$ is the sum of two arbitrary functions of $`(\tau +\sigma )`$ and $`(\tau \sigma )`$.

Introducing the notation $`z=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau +\sigma ))`$ and $`\overline{z}=\mathrm{exp}(i\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau \sigma ))`$ we can define the following currents

$$J(z)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}_+\varphi =\underset{n}{}J_nz^n,\overline{J}(\overline{z})=\sqrt{\frac{2}{L}}_{}\varphi =\underset{n}{}\overline{J}_n\overline{z}^n.$$
(2.3)
where $`_\pm =_\tau \pm _\sigma `$. The Wick rotation $`\tau it`$ makes $`J(z)`$ holomorphic and $`\overline{J}(\overline{z})`$ anti-holomorphic. Canonical commutation relations imply that these currents satisfy the following chiral and antichiral algebras

$$[J_n,J_m]=n\delta _{n+m},[\overline{J}_n,\overline{J}_m]=n\delta _{n+m}.$$
(2.4)
The boundary conditions in (2.2) lead to a nontrivial relation between $`J_n`$ and $`\overline{J}_n`$. However, this relation should be such that it respects the algebra (2.4). In other words, holomorphic and anti-holomorphic currents are linked by a unitary transformation in the corresponding Fock space.

Using the Sugawara construction we can write down generators

$$L_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}J_nJ_{kn},\overline{L}_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}\overline{J}_n\overline{J}_{kn}$$
(2.5)
which obey the standard Virasoro algebras. Note that $`L_k\overline{L}_k`$. This is as it should be, since the Lagrangian (2.1) is not invariant under conformal transformations.

We now want to work out a simple example, using a specific form for the boundary perturbation. Let us take $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$ which makes the boundary conditions linear

$$(\varphi ^{}+\lambda \varphi )|_{0,L}=0.$$
(2.6)
Equation (2.2) subject to boundary conditions (2.6) can be reduced to a Sturm-Liouville problem. The properly normalized solution is given by

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=\frac{\sqrt{2L}}{\pi }\underset{n0}{}\frac{e^{in\frac{\pi }{L}\tau }}{\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}a_n[\mathrm{cos}(n\frac{\pi }{L}\sigma )\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{n}\mathrm{sin}(n\frac{\pi }{L}\sigma )]$$
(2.7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\frac{L\lambda }{\pi }`$ is the dimensionless coupling constant. At $`\lambda =0`$, due to the zero modes that arise, the above solution contains an extra term, $`a_0\tau `$. Using completeness of eigenfunctions of the corresponding Sturm-Liouville problem, one can find the commutation relations $`[a_n,a_m]=n\delta _{n+m}`$. Reality of $`\varphi `$ implies that $`a_n^+=a_n`$.

The components of chiral and antichiral currents are now given by

$$J_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+in}{\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}a_n,\overline{J}_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }in}{\sqrt{n^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}a_n.$$
(2.8)
and are related by the following transformation

$$J_ne^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}\overline{J}_n=0,e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}=\frac{in+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{in\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}.$$
(2.9)
Altogether (2.4) and (2.9) imply the following algebra

$$[J_n,J_m]=n\delta _{n+m},[\overline{J}_n,\overline{J}_m]=n\delta _{n+m},[J_n,\overline{J}_m]=e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}n\delta _{n+m}.$$
(2.10)
The above algebra is all we need to calculate Green’s functions of chiral and antichiral currents (or other objects constructed from them). From the algebra we can see that the correlators

$$J(z_1)J(z_2)\mathrm{}J(z_k),\overline{J}(\overline{z}_1)\overline{J}(\overline{z}_2)\mathrm{}\overline{J}(\overline{z}_k)$$
(2.11)
are exactly the same as in the unperturbed conformal field theory. However the mixed correlators

$$J(z_1)J(z_2)\mathrm{}J(z_p)\overline{J}(\overline{z}_{p+1})\overline{J}(\overline{z}_{p+2})\mathrm{}\overline{J}(\overline{z}_k)$$
(2.12)
are different because of the last commutation relation in (2.10). It is easy to convince oneself that this statement is rather generic for relevant boundary perturbations, though the explicit form of the third commutation relation may vary. Certainly, the relation between $`J_n`$ and $`\overline{J}_n`$ will not always be linear. In general, a representation of the Virasoro algebra is labelled by the eigenvalue of the $`a_0`$ operator. However, along the flow, there is no $`J_0`$ (i.e no zero mode $`a_0`$), and hence there is one unique representation.

Using the definitions (2.5) one can obtain left and right Virasoro generators that obey the required Virasoro algebras independently. However $`L_k\overline{L}_k`$ except in the limiting values of the coupling constant, $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\mathrm{}`$. As can be seen from (2.9)

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }0}{lim}e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}=1J_n\overline{J}_n=0\mathrm{at}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0,$$

$$\underset{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\mathrm{}}{lim}e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}=1J_n+\overline{J}_n=0\mathrm{at}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\mathrm{}.$$
(2.13)
The above relations between $`J_n`$ and $`\overline{J}_n`$ imply that we start out with Neumann boundary conditions in the UV and flow to Dirichlet conditions in the IR.

## 3 Free fermion theory

We would now like to construct the fermionic counterpart of the previous example. Since we want to eventually combine bosonic and fermionic theories to form a single supersymmetric model, we simply obtain the fermionic theory by supersymmetrising the bosonic one.

Using the supersymmetric transformation

$$\delta \varphi =ϵ^+\psi _+ϵ^{}\psi _{},$$
(3.14)
on equation (2.2), we get the fermionic boundary conditions

$$[_\sigma (\eta \psi _++\psi _{})+\lambda _\varphi ^2V(\varphi )(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_{0,L}=0,$$
(3.15)
where $`ϵ^+=\eta ϵ^{}`$, for $`\eta =\pm 1`$, and $`\psi _\pm `$ are components of a Majorana spinor . The relative sign of $`\eta `$ determines whether we are in the Neveu-Schwarz ($`\eta _0=\eta _L`$) or Ramond ($`\eta _0=\eta _L`$) sector.

In analogy to the bosonic case, we would expect that the boundary condition (3.15) iterpolates between Neumann and Dirichlet conditions at $`\lambda =0`$ and $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ respectively. This is almost, but not quite, true. The complication arises due to having a dimensionful coupling constant $`\lambda `$ in the boundary condition (3.15); to make the dimensions come out right, we must also include a derivative on the fermions. Thus, in the UV limit ($`\lambda =0`$) we actually have $`_\sigma (\eta \psi _++\psi _{})=0`$ rather than the standard Neumann condition $`\eta \psi _+\psi _{}=0`$. For nonzero modes these conditions are completely equivalent. However subtleties arise when we consider the zero modes. Our ’modified’ Neumann condition contains a derivative and thus does not impose any constraints on the zero modes unlike the standard Neumann case which reduces the number of zero modes from two to one.

The boundary condition (3.15) then, can be seen to describe a flow along which the number of zero modes (or alternately, the degeneracy of the ground state) decreases. Also, the UV fixed point of this flow does not coincide with that of the standard fermionic model precisely because of this ’doubling’ of zero modes.

We now analyze the fermionic model in detail. Since we are perturbing only by a boundary operator, the bulk physics remains unchanged and we have the usual equations of motion

$$_+\psi _{}=0,_{}\psi _+=0.$$
(3.16)
Taking into account (3.16) the conditions (3.15) can be rewritten as follows

$$[_\tau (\eta \psi _+\psi _{})+\lambda _\varphi ^2V(\varphi )(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_{0,L}=0.$$
(3.17)
For the sake of simplicity we take $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$.

We now construct the action which gives rise to the above equations of motions and boundary conditions. Since in writing down the action we would like to avoid having extra derivatives on fermions, we introduce an auxiliary fermion $`d`$ on the boundary, as follows

$$[_\tau d+\sqrt{\lambda }(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_{0,L}=0,[\sqrt{\lambda }d(\eta \psi _+\psi _{})]|_{0,L}=0$$
(3.18)
where $`d`$ can, in general, be different on the two boundaries.

The action

$$S=id^2\sigma [\psi _+_{}\psi _++\psi _{}_+\psi _{}]+\frac{i}{2}𝑑\tau [d_\tau d+\sqrt{\lambda }d(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_0^L$$
(3.19)
reproduces the required equations of motion (3.16) and boundary conditions (3.18). This action is suitable for the $`\lambda =0`$ limit. An equivalent action can be obtained for the $`\lambda =\mathrm{}`$ limit by absorbing $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$ into the definition of $`d`$. As far as we know, an auxiliary boundary fermion has also been used in the study of the Kondo model with a bulk mass term .

It is evident from the action (3.19) (or, alternatively, from the boundary conditions (3.18)) that in the UV limit ($`\lambda =0`$), the boundary fermion $`d`$ is needed only for extra zero modes and does not play any other role. Such a boundary fermion was also introduced by Witten in , for slightly different reasons .

As we flow to the IR ($`\lambda \mathrm{}`$), $`d`$ decouples completely. We would like to emphasize that this boundary fermion $`d`$ is just a useful tool which facilitates analysis of the theory. All the results we obtain using $`d`$ could equally well have been obtained from a direct analysis of the condition (3.15).

The model given by the action (3.19) can be solved explicitly. We start by considering the Ramond sector, where the mode expansion is over integers. For $`\lambda 0`$, the properly normalized solutions of (3.16) and (3.18) are

$$\psi _+(\tau +\sigma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{rZ}{}\frac{ir+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\sqrt{r^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}\theta _re^{ir\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau +\sigma )},\psi _{}(\tau \sigma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{rZ}{}\eta \frac{ir\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\sqrt{r^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}\theta _re^{ir\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau \sigma )}$$
(3.20)
where the modes obey standard anticommutation relations $`\{\theta _r,\theta _s\}=\delta _{r+s}`$.

We can now introduce the fermionic currents

$$j(z)=\sqrt{L}\psi _+=\underset{rZ}{}j_rz^r,\overline{j}(\overline{z})=\sqrt{L}\psi _{}=\underset{rZ}{}\overline{j}_r\overline{z}^r$$
(3.21)
where $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ have been defined previously. Our boundary conditions result in the following relation between components of currents

$$j_r\eta e^{i\phi (r,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}\overline{j}_r=0,e^{i\phi (r,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}=\frac{ir+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{ir\stackrel{~}{\lambda }},$$
(3.22)
where the phase $`e^{i\phi (r,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}`$ has the same limits as in (2.13). This, together with the anticommutation relation $`\{j_r,j_s\}=\delta _{r+s}`$, leads to the following algebra

$$\{j_r,j_s\}=\delta _{r+s},\{\overline{j}_r,\overline{j}_s\}=\delta _{r+s},\{j_r,\overline{j}_s\}=\eta e^{i\phi (s,\stackrel{~}{\lambda })}\delta _{r+s}.$$
(3.23)
Using (3.23) one can construct generators which obey the left and right Virasoro algebras. These are given by:

$$L_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}(r+\frac{1}{2}k)j_rj_{k+r},\overline{L}_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}(r+\frac{1}{2}k)\overline{j}_r\overline{j}_{k+r}.$$
(3.24)
Note that $`L_k\overline{L}_k`$. For $`\lambda 0`$ there is just one zero mode $`\theta _0`$ (hence there is just one ground state)333This statement applies to Majorana spinors. For Dirac spinors, one zero mode gives rise to a twice degenerate vacuum , because of the algebra $`\{\theta _0,\theta _0^{}\}=1`$, where $``$ denotes Dirac conjugation..

At the UV fixed point however, there are two zero modes $`\theta _0^+`$ and $`\theta _0^{}`$. The canonical commutation relations between $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ imply that the zero modes obey $`\{\theta _0^\alpha ,\theta _0^\beta \}=\delta ^{\alpha \beta }`$. The ground state is labelled by a representation of the corresponding two-dimensional Clifford algebra. We can define $`(1)^F`$ in a natural way, as follows:

$$(1)^F=\theta _0^+\theta _0^{}(1)^N,N=\underset{r}{}\theta _r\theta _r.$$
(3.25)
The two vacuua then have opposite $`(1)^F`$ eigenvalues. World-sheet parity, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, plays a remarkably similar role. On the modes, it acts as follows:

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _0^+\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\theta _0^{}$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _0^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\theta _0^+$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _r\mathrm{\Omega }^1=e^{i\pi r}\theta _r$$
(3.26)
where we have used $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _+\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\psi _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\psi _+`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ interchanges $`\theta _0^+`$ and $`\theta _0^{}`$, the two vacuua have opposite eigenvalues under parity. There is ofcourse an overall ambiguity as to which of the two vacuums we choose to be odd and which to be even under parity. We can fix this freedom be requiring that each of the two vacua should have identical eigenvalues under both $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`(1)^F`$. By interchanging the two zero modes, parity also changes the value of $`(1)^F`$.

It is rather interesting to note that since $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`(1)^F`$ perform identical functions, we can also obtain the standard Ramond sector by moding out the Ramond sector in our theory, by worldsheet parity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus, at $`\lambda =0`$, making a GSO projection is ’equivalent’ to orientifolding the model by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$.

¿From (3.15), it is clear that for $`\lambda 0`$, a worldsheet parity transformation is not a symmetry and is infact equivalent to a change in the sign of $`\lambda `$. At the level of the action one can see this by rescaling $`d`$ by $`\sqrt{\lambda }`$

$$S=id^2\sigma [\psi _+_{}\psi _++\psi _{}_+\psi _{}]+\frac{i}{2}𝑑\tau [\frac{1}{\lambda }d_\tau d+d(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_0^L.$$
(3.27)
At the UV fixed point, $`\mathrm{\Omega }:\sigma L\sigma `$ takes $`\lambda `$ to $`\lambda `$ and $`d`$ to $`d`$. Due to the boundary fermions (or two fold degeneracy of the ground state), the standard Ramond sector (with only one vacuum) can be thought of as the GSO projected Ramond sector, as obtained at the UV fixed point, of our model. This picture is similar to what Witten has proposed in . When $`\lambda `$ becomes non zero the model picks up one of the two ground states and flows to the IR. In this sense one can say that the RG flow is ’GSO projected’ with respect to the UV fixed point. Which particular ground state is projected out depends on the sign of $`\lambda `$.

The NS sector can also be treated in a similar fashion. For $`\lambda 0`$, the equations (3.20)-(3.23) carry through to the NS sector, with the modification that $`r`$ now takes half integer values. However, things get a little more complicated at the UV point fixed point. Once again (as in the R sector), the vacuum has a two fold degeneracy. This degeneracy can be attributed to the two extra boundary fermions that exist at the two boundaries. Since these fermions do not enter into the Hamiltonian, they do not affect the energy of the system; all they do is provide a mechanism for making the vacuum degenerate. In this sector, we define the action of parity444 At the level of the action, we have the freedom of defining worldsheet partity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=1`$ or $`1`$. We decide which alternative is more suitable by appealing to the boundary conditions. In the R sector, we find that boundary conditions are preserved if we choose $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=1`$ while in the NS sector, boundary conditions are parity invariant when parity is defined such that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2=1`$ . as follows: $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _+\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\psi _{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\psi _{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\psi _+`$. This implies that

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _0^+\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\theta _0^{}$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _0^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\theta _0^+$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\theta _r\mathrm{\Omega }^1=e^{i\pi r}\theta _r$$
(3.28)
With $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ defined thus, and $`(1)^F`$ defined as in (3.25), we can now proceed just as we did in the Ramond sector.

So far our arguments were based on the canonical quantization approach. We were trying to quantize the theory using the bulk equations of motion (3.16) and the boundary conditions (3.15), so the action (3.19) was useful but was not necessary. However the action becomes a crucial tool when one makes a Wick rotation and goes to the Euclidean version; for (3.19), this has the following form

$$S=i\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}d^2z[\psi _{\overline{z}}\psi +\overline{\psi }_z\overline{\psi }]\frac{i}{2}\underset{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}[d_td+\sqrt{\lambda }d(\psi +\overline{\psi })]$$
(3.29)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is some domain in $`R^2`$ and $`t`$ parameterizes the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Starting from (3.19) we made the Wick rotation ($`\tau =it`$) and redefined the spinors $`\psi =z^{1/2}\psi _+`$ and $`\overline{\psi }=\overline{z}^{1/2}\psi _{}`$ (from now on $`\psi _+`$ and $`\psi _{}`$ should be thought of as Weyl spinors which are complex conjugates of each other). $`d`$ is a real boundary fermion (equivalently, it can be made purely imaginary). Fermions are periodic or antiperiodic depending on whether they belong to the R or NS sector. This model can now be treated using standard path integral techniques, where integration over $`d`$ is assumed.

## 4 Supersymmetric theory

Based on results from the two previous sections we can now construct the supersymmetric version of our theory. The supersymmetric action is simply the sum of (2.1) and (3.19)

$$S=\frac{1}{2}d^2\sigma [_{}\varphi _+\varphi +i\psi _+_{}\psi _++i\psi _{}_+\psi _{}]\frac{1}{2}𝑑\tau \lambda \varphi ^2|_0^L$$

$$+\frac{i}{4}𝑑\tau [d_\tau d+\sqrt{\lambda }d(\eta \psi _++\psi _{})]|_0^L.$$
(4.30)
This action gives rise to the boundary conditions (2.6) and (3.18). The presence of a boundary introduces subtleties with supersymmetry, hence, together with bulk supersymmetry transformations, we need to use the above boundary conditions as well, when checking for supersymmetry . Using the bulk transformations

$$\delta \varphi =ϵ^+\psi _+ϵ^{}\psi _{},\delta \psi _+=iϵ^+_+\varphi ,\delta \psi _{}=iϵ^{}_{}\varphi ,$$
(4.31)
together with the transformation of the boundary fermion

$$\delta d=2iϵ\sqrt{\lambda }\varphi ,$$
(4.32)
one can show that the supersymetric variation of the action (4.30) is zero, modulo boundary conditions (2.6) and (3.18). This action is similar to the component form action proposed in  for the case of a quadratic tachyonic potential. However it seems that in general, the proposed action does not have the right properties. The superfield formalism does not guarantee supersymmetry in the presence of a boundary, unless boundary conditions are suitably taken into account, in accordance with procedures outlines in .

So far we have been unable to construct the supersymmetric action for a general potential $`V(\varphi )`$. However, the general boundary conditions (2.2) and (3.17) are compatible with supersymmetry and ensure closure of the supersymetric algebra classically.

The supersymmetric model with a quadratic potential can be worked out explicitly. Starting from the Ramond sector, using the solutions (2.7) and (3.20) we can define the components of the currents $`J_n`$ and $`j_r`$ as in (2.8) and in (3.21) correspondingly. We can also construct generators

$$L_k=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n}{}J_nJ_{kn}+\frac{1}{2}\underset{r}{}(r+\frac{1}{2}k)j_rj_{k+r},G_k=\underset{n}{}J_nj_{k+n}$$
(4.33)
which obey the super Virasoro algebra. In the same way, generators $`\overline{L}_k`$ and $`\overline{G}_k`$ (which obey the same algebra) can be constructed using the antiholomorphic currents $`\overline{J}_n`$ and $`\overline{j}_n`$. For $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }0`$ one can see that $`L_k\overline{L}_k`$ and $`G_k\overline{G}_k`$. This is at it should be, as super conformal invarince is broken by boundary interations. At the IR fixed point ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\mathrm{}`$), the left and right super Virasoro algebras coincide. At the UV fixed point we have the extended super Virasoro algebra  (i.e., super Virasoro algebra together with $`(1)^F`$).

An identical analysis can be performed for the NS sector with the only difference that now we have half integer moding for fermionic currents $`j_r`$, $`\overline{j}_r`$ and generators $`G_k`$, $`\overline{G}_k`$. At the UV fixed point, due to the doubly degenerate vacuum, we would have two copies of the representation of NS super Virasoro algebra.

One may wonder about the need of introducing a degeneracy into the vacuum at the UV fixed point. There is a simple explanation. Suppose that in the action (4.30) we replace the bosonic boundary potential by the following expression

$$\frac{1}{2}\lambda 𝑑\tau (\varphi \varphi _1)^2|_L+\frac{1}{2}\lambda 𝑑\tau (\varphi \varphi _0)^2|_0.$$
(4.34)
The action thus modified will still be supersymmetric. Depending on the sign of $`\lambda `$, we will flow, in the IR to different theories. One of these will have $`\varphi |_0=\varphi _0,\varphi |_L=\varphi _1`$ and the other, $`\varphi |_0=\varphi _1,\varphi |_L=\varphi _0`$. These theories are related by a parity transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and they each have their own vacuum. Therefore, inorder to be able to get either of these theories in the IR, we need to have both the corresponding vacuua present in the theory at the UV fixed point.

## 5 Non-trivial realization of bulk symmetries

In this section we would like to investigate the possibility of having different perturbations on the two boundaries. We start by considering the bosonic model given by the following action

$$L=\frac{1}{2}\underset{0}{\overset{L}{}}𝑑\sigma _\alpha \varphi ^\alpha \varphi +\lambda V(\varphi (0))\gamma V(\varphi (L)).$$
(5.35)
This model has a rich phase structure with four fixed points NN, ND, DN and DD, where N and D stand for Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions respectively. Obviously, our previous bosonic model can be easily embedded into this new one. Also, when $`\gamma =\lambda `$, the model becomes parity invariant, unlike previous examples.

As before, we can work out the quadratic potential $`V(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}\varphi ^2`$ in detail. In this case we get the following boundary conditions

$$(\varphi ^{}+\lambda \varphi )|_0=0,(\varphi ^{}+\gamma \varphi )|_L=0.$$
(5.36)
The solution of the massless Klein-Gordon equation with boundary conditions (5.36) can also be reduced to a Sturm-Liouville problem, the normalized solution of which is given by the following expresion

$$\varphi (\tau ,\sigma )=\frac{\sqrt{2L}}{\pi }\underset{\stackrel{~}{n}0}{}\frac{e^{i\stackrel{~}{n}\frac{\pi }{L}\tau }}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{n}^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}a_{\stackrel{~}{n}}[\mathrm{cos}(\stackrel{~}{n}\frac{\pi }{L}\sigma )\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\stackrel{~}{n}}\mathrm{sin}(\stackrel{~}{n}\frac{\pi }{L}\sigma )],$$
(5.37)
where $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is subject to the transcendental equation

$$\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{n}\pi )=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\stackrel{~}{n}}{\stackrel{~}{n}^2+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}$$
(5.38)
with $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\frac{\lambda L}{\pi }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\frac{\gamma L}{\pi }`$. Equation (5.38) cannot be solved explicitly, but positive solutions $`\stackrel{~}{n}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$ can be ordered and presented in the following form

$$\stackrel{~}{n}(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })=n+g(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },n),nZ_+,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}\hspace{0.17em}0}g(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },n)<1$$
(5.39)
where $`g`$ is a function of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`n`$ which can be computed numerically. Negative solutions are obtained trivially by taking $`\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{n}`$. The asymptotic behaviour of $`g`$ is clear; it must be zero at the fixed points ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=0`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\mathrm{}`$) and $`1/2`$ at the fixed points ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\mathrm{},\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=0`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0,\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\mathrm{}`$).

We can now relabel $`a_{\stackrel{~}{n}}`$ as $`a_n`$ and define chiral and antichiral currents which have the following components

$$J_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }+i\stackrel{~}{n}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{n}^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau +\sigma )g(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },n)}a_n,\overline{J}_n=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }i\stackrel{~}{n}}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{n}^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}e^{i\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau \sigma )g(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },n)}a_n.$$
(5.40)
Thus the components of chiral and antichiral currents are related as follows:

$$J_ne^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}\overline{J}_n=0,e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}=\frac{i\stackrel{~}{n}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{i\stackrel{~}{n}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}e^{2i\frac{\pi }{L}\sigma g(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma },n)}.$$
(5.41)
Using canonical commutation relations, together with the fact that eigenfunctions of a Sturm-Liouville problem form a complete set, one can show that the currents (5.40) obey the same algebra as (2.10) but with a new spatial dependent phase $`e^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}`$.

As before, using the Sugawara construction (2.7) we construct left and right Virasoro generators $`L_n`$ and $`\overline{L}_n`$ such that $`L_n\overline{L}_n`$ at a generic point in the $`(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })`$-plane. At the fixed points ($`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=0,\mathrm{};\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=0,\mathrm{}`$) conformal symmetry is restored and we have $`L_n=\overline{L}_n`$. In the present model we see that bulk conformal symmetry is realised rather non-trivially. The representation of the left Virasoro algebra has a natural realization on the Fock space built up by $`J_n`$ whereas the representation of the right Virasoro algebra would be realized naturally on the Fock space built up by $`\overline{J}_n`$. These two Fock spaces are related through a spatially dependent unitary transformation (5.41). Hence, $`\sigma `$-independence for $`L_n`$ in a particular basis would necessarily imply $`\sigma `$ dependence for $`\overline{L}_n`$.

In general, the model (5.35) is not parity invariant. A parity transformation $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ amounts to changing the signs of the coupling constants: $`(\lambda ,\gamma )(\lambda ,\gamma )`$. However, there is a fixed line $`\gamma =\lambda `$ under this transformation where the model becomes parity invariant. For a model defined on this line, parity symmetry would be realized in a highly nontrivial fashion since its action on the Fock space would be $`\sigma `$-dependent. At the self-dual point $`\sigma =L/2`$, the left and right Virasoro generators coincide $`L_n=\overline{L}_n`$. It is not clear to us how to interpret this result.

The fermionic model can also be easily generalized in the same fashion. The most general scenario for fermions is given by the following boundary conditions

$$[_\tau (\eta _0\psi _+\psi _{})+\lambda (\eta _0\psi _++\psi _{})]|_0=0$$

$$[_\tau (\eta _L\psi _+\psi _{})+\gamma (\eta _L\psi _++\psi _{})]|_L=0$$
(5.42)
where $`(\eta _0,\eta _L)`$ corresponds to the choice of spin structure at the two boundaries. The general solutions to this problem are given below

$$\psi _+(\tau +\sigma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{r}}{}\frac{i\stackrel{~}{r}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{r}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau +\sigma )},\psi _{}(\tau \sigma )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{L}}\underset{\stackrel{~}{r}}{}\eta _0\frac{i\stackrel{~}{r}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^2}}\theta _{\stackrel{~}{r}}e^{i\stackrel{~}{r}\frac{\pi }{L}(\tau \sigma )}$$
(5.43)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is subject to the constraints

$$\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{r}\pi )=\frac{(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\stackrel{~}{r}}{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }},for\eta _0\eta _L=1,$$
(5.44)
$$\mathrm{tan}(\stackrel{~}{r}\pi )=\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}{(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }\stackrel{~}{\lambda })\stackrel{~}{r}},for\eta _0\eta _L=1.$$
(5.45)
Thus, depending on the sector, $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ obeys different transcendental equations. In the sector $`\eta _0\eta _L=1`$ the condition (5.44) for fermions coincides with the bosonic condition (5.38), so fermionic currents $`j_r`$ and $`\overline{j}_r`$ can be constructed just as in the bosonic case. These currents are related as follows:

$$j_re^{i\phi (n,\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{\gamma })}\overline{j}_r=0,$$
(5.46)
where the spatial dependent phase is given by second equation in (5.41). It is fairly straightforward to construct the left and right super Virasoro algebras. Their realizations on the Fock space are $`\sigma `$-dependent, exactly as for the bosonic model.

For the sector $`\eta _0\eta _L=1`$, fermionic and bosonic modings are different. This is not surprising since, even at the fixed points, the moding is different for bosons and NS fermions. We work around this problem by using the same tricks as in the bosonic case. It is natural now to write $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ as the sum of a function and a half integer; this makes the $`\sigma `$-dependent phase between $`j_r`$ and $`\overline{j}_r`$ different to what it was before (5.41). The left and right super Virasoro algebras can be constructed in the usual way.

So far we have considered the theory away from critical points. As before, the UV fixed point needs special consideration due to the extra zero modes which arise there. Once again, there is a natural $`(1)^F`$-operator which defines the GSO projection and the RG flow can be thought of as ’GSO projected’ from the UV point of view, since the degeneracy of the ground state is lifted. In the present model, parity does not in general play the role it played in section 3. Away from the line $`\lambda =\gamma `$ we can use parity the way we used it earlier and argue that the change $`(\lambda ,\gamma )(\lambda ,\gamma )`$ leads to a change in the value of $`(1)^F`$; at the line $`\lambda =\gamma `$ where parity is realized non trivially, we cannot use this argument.

## 6 String theory applications

The main string theory applications of our results come from the boundary renormalization group interpretation of open string tachyon condensation . Formally one can rewrite the action (4.30) for a number of bosons and fermions, labelled by an external space time index: $`X^\mu =\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\varphi ^\mu `$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm ^\mu =\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\psi _\pm ^\mu `$, where $`X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are canonically normalized. The boundary potential, called the tachyon profile henceforth, can now depend on more than one direction. Various string models arise, resulting from the freedom of assigning different boundary conditions. The analysis of such models should be similar to what we have outlined in this paper for a more simple case. Even without studying these models in detail however, we can find certain restrictions they need to obey.

Depending on the details of the string configuration we choose and the number of directions on which the tachyonic profile depends, we get an even or odd dimensional Clifford algebra for zero modes at the UV fixed point. It is obvious that the operator $`(1)^F`$ can be defined meaningfully only for an even dimensional Clifford algebra . Thus, it is only these cases to which we can hope our general arguments will apply. This may be interpreted as a restriction on the D-brane systems which can consistently couple to a particular tachyonic profile.

Another problem is how to properly interpret the UV fixed point of this model within the framework of string theory i.e, finding a string theory interpretation of the auxilary fermions living on the boundary. These boundary fermions increase the degeneracy of the ground state, having much the same effect as Chan-Paton factors. Keeping this analogy in mind, we suppose that the UV fixed point should correspond not to a single standard open string sector but instead to a few sectors, the particulars of which are determined by the algebra of the boundary fermions.

We would also like to point out the following fact: Inorder to couple an open string to a tachyonic background, we need to introduce boundary fermions and through them, a number of degenerate open string vacuua. Building on the analogy with Chan Paton factors, it would seem that these open string vaccua interpolate between different D-brane configurations; i.e, that it is not consistent to couple a background tachyon to an open string living on a single D-brane.

There are several obvious directions for further work. To begin with, it would be worthwhile to write down the supersymmetric action for a general tachyonic background; we have been able to do so only in the case when the tachyonic profile is quadractic. Also, while it is clear that our arguments can only be expected to work for even dimensional Clifford algebras, explicit examples of such cases have not yet been looked at. Concrete configurations of D-branes can be studied to work out the nature of the restrictions on the tachyonic profiles which may consistently couple to it, and indeed to verify that such restrictions even exist. Similarly, the correspondence between the degeneracy introduced by Chan-Paton factors and that introduced by boundary fermions should be explored in more detail and the relation made precise. This, again, should tell us exactly which configurations of D-branes need to be present inorder for us to couple the open strings to a tachyonic profile. Ofcourse we would expect the allowed D-brane configurations resulting from both the above analyses to be identical.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Hans Hansson for clarifying many points and to Ansar Fayyazuddin, Daniel Lilliehöök, Ulf Lindström and Subir Mukhopadhyay for useful discussions.


format: text

text:
# Effects of disorder and magnetic field in frustrated magnets

## I Introduction

Recently a lot of work has been done on frustrated systems with or without disorder in order to clarify the physical properties of systems exhibiting glassy behavior, i.e., systems typically with many metastable states. Among classical fully frustrated systems, one of the earliest to be studied was the nearest-neighbor Ising antiferromagnet on a face-centered cubic (FCC) lattice. The pure FCC Ising antiferromagnet with nearest neighbor interactions and in the presence of a uniform magnetic field H, exhibits a variety of stable phases induced by the external field. The field-temperature $`(H,T)`$ phase diagram, which follows from Monte Carlo simulationspresents three phases: antiferromagnetic (AF), superantiferromagnetic (SAF), and paramagnetic (PM). This picture is supported by several theoretical approaches and it is well known that the low temperature ordered phases are separated from the paramagnetic phase by two lines of first-order phase transitions. A mean field calculation on the random version of the FCC Ising antiferromagnet in a field shows an even richer scenario. Beside the phases present in the undiluted case, it was found that the addition of disorder may induce another ordered phase where two sublattices have equal magnetizations which is distinct from the others not equal two sublattice magnetizations. Furthermore, the disordered system presents glassy behavior at low temperatures. In this letter, we address the issue whether the mean field results are stable against fluctuations in finite dimensions by doing Monte Carlo simulations on the site diluted FCC Ising antiferromagnet and our results seems to vindicate the qualitative mean field results.

## II The model, simulation and discussion

We consider an Ising model with short-range interaction on a regular lattice (FCC) with Hamiltonian given by

$$=\underset{(ij)}{}J_{ij}ϵ_iϵ_j\sigma _i\sigma _jH\underset{i}{}\sigma _i,$$
(1)
where $`J_{ij}=J>0`$ denotes the antiferromagnetic interaction between nearest neighbors spins, $`ϵ_i=0`$ or $`1`$ denotes the site occupation variable (probability $`p`$ of being occupied), $`\sigma _i=\pm 1`$ denotes the spin on the sites of the FCC lattice and H is the external field. The simulations were performed on lattices of sizes $`4L^3(L=20,40)`$ with periodic boundary conditions, and for concentrations of magnetic ions between $`p=0.70`$ and $`p=1.00`$. We used both the heat-bath and the demon (microcanonical) algorithms. Most of our runs consisted of $`4\times 10^3`$ configurations, $`5`$ to $`10`$ MCS apart, and the quoted values for the physical observables came from an average over several independent runs on different disorder realizations. Typically, $`10^4`$ MCS were discarded before we start measurements. Several variants of walking through the lattice were considered and, particularly for low temperatures, the results were rather sensitive to this choice. We employed the single demon algorithm to accomplish the microcanonical simulation. It is worth noticing that in a microcanonical simulation the energy is the control parameter, whereas the temperature is measured during the simulation. Most important, within this framework it is possible to probe stable as well as both metastable and unstable states, and a first-order phase transition manifests itself through a S-shaped curve in the temperature-energy plane.

We have performed Monte Carlo simulations along of some lines of the $`(H,T)`$ phase diagram, and for several values of $`p`$. Here, we will present results for $`p=0.95`$ only. Figure 1 shows the field dependence of the sublattice magnetizations for $`k_BT/J=1.3`$ and magnetic concentration $`p=0.95`$. At this temperature and concentration one has the same behavior as in the pure case, namely, the AF and SAF phases are separated by a paramagnetic phase at intermediate fields. Our microcanonical simulation also indicates that both transitions are of first order as in references.

Lowering $`T`$, the sublattice magnetizations exhibit a quite different behavior, as shown in figure 2 for $`k_BT/J=1.0`$ and the same value of $`p`$. One can observe the suppression of the paramagnetic phase between the AF and SAF phases; in this region the sublattice magnetizations have a field dependence not observed in the pure system. At lower temperatures this behavior is enhanced as ones sees in figure 3 for $`k_BT/J=0.90`$. For some points in the $`(H,T)`$ space, where the sublattice magnetizations show a very slow relaxations towards their equilibrium values (within the time scale of our simulations), we needed to make runs as long as $`10^5`$ to $`10^6`$ MCS.

In figure 4 we plot the sublattice magnetizations as a function of the temperature for $`H/J=3.6`$ and $`p=0.95`$. For this value of $`H`$ and high enough T the ordering is paramagnetic. Lowering T the system passes through a SAF phase before exhibiting the unexpected behavior as predicted in mean field calculations. Again, we cannot discard that we are observing long-lived metastable states at low temperatures from the simulations alone but at least some (if not all) qualitative features of mean field calculations are present for finite dimensions.

In summary, the FCC Ising antiferromagnet in an external magnetic field seems to change drastically its low temperature behavior when a small amount of disorder is added. It is found that a typical order-by-disorder effect occurs upon dilution. The new sublattice magnetization ordering that follows from our simulation corroborates the suggestion of a mean field calculation carried out for frustrated random magnetic systems with many sublattices. The huge relaxation times which we have observed for some values of field and low temperatures indicate that the diluted system might exhibit a glassy phase even for low dilution as suggested by mean field and found experimentally in certain strongly frustrated pyrochlores systems (see the work of Bellier et al in and references therein ) which also have a four sublattice structure. A more detailed account of our results should be presented elsewhere.

Acknowledgments: the authors are grateful to CNPq and FINEP for financial support.

Figure Captions

Fig. 1 Sublattice magnetizations (indicated by squares, circles, up and down triangles) as function of the magnetic field for $`k_BT/J=1.3`$ and $`p=0.95`$. Notice the presence of the paramagnetic (PM) phase between the antiferromagnetic (AFM) and superantiferromagnetic (SAF) phases.

Fig. 2 Sublattice magnetizations as function of the magnetic field for $`k_BT/J=1.0`$ and $`p=0.95`$. The paramagnetic phase occurs only at high fields (not shown). The arrows are a guide to the eye showing the boundaries of the intermediate phase.

Fig. 3 Same as in figure 2, but for $`k_BT/J=0.90`$. Notice the increase of the new intermediate phase between the antiferromagnetic (AFM) and superantiferromagnetic (SAF) phases as T decreases.

Fig. 4 Sublattice magnetizations as function of temperature for $`H/J=3.6`$ and $`p=0.954`$. This graph displays clearly the branching of the sublattice magnetizations in distincts values as $`T`$ decreases (phases PM SAF INTERMEDIATE) .


text:
# Radion effects on the production of an intermediate-mass scalar and 𝑍 at LEP II

## I Introduction

The standard model (SM) has been very successful in describing the known electroweak interactions of gauge bosons and fermions. Nevertheless one of the most crucial ingredients of the SM, the Higgs boson, has not been experimentally discovered yet. The Higgs mechanism is responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking in the SM, of which the effects should appear by the scale below $`(8\pi \sqrt{2}/3G_F)^{1/2}1`$ TeV for the preservation of unitarity in the $`W_LW_LW_LW_L`$ process. Hence the primary efforts of the future collider experiments are to be directed toward the search for Higgs bosons.

The search techniques for Higgs bosons according to the Higgs mass range have been extensively studied in the literature . Light Higgs bosons with mass below 107.7 GeV are excluded by LEP-II experiments at the 95% confidence level. For $`heavy`$ Higgs bosons $`(m_h>2m_Z)`$, the experimental search is rather straightforward by observing the Higgs decay into a $`Z`$ boson pair, or by studying $`WW`$ scattering at $`e^+e^{}`$ or hadron colliders. For the $`intermediate`$-mass $`(m_Z<m_h<2m_Z)`$, one of the best reactions for their detection is known to be $`e^+e^{}Z^{}Zh`$ (see the corresponding Feynman diagram in Fig. 1). The Higgs boson in this mass range decays mainly into $`b\overline{b}`$. The direct physics background from the continuum production of $`e^+e^{}Zb\overline{b}`$ has been also discussed in the literature.

Theoretically, the Higgs boson holds a distinctive position in understanding the physics beyond the SM. The existence of the Higgs boson in the SM, as a fundamental scalar particle, causes the well-known gauge hierarchy problem: It is unnatural that the Higgs mass at the electroweak scale is protected from the presence of the enormous Planck scale. This gauge hierarchy problem is the main motivation for various models of new physics, such as supersymmetric models, technicolor models, and extra dimensional models. Among these, an extra-dimensional model recently proposed by Randall and Sundrum (RS) requires the existence of another scalar field, called the radion, of which the mass can be compatible with the Higgs mass.

In this report, we study the radion effects on the $`e^+e^{}Z\varphi _iZjj`$ process, where the $`\varphi _i`$ is a Higgs boson and/or radion, and $`j`$ denotes a hadronic jet. Recently, an exciting, even preliminary, news has come from the ALEPH group. From the analyses of the 237 pb-1 of data collected at $`\sqrt{s}`$ up to 209 GeV, the ALEPH has measured three standard deviation from the SM continuum background. This result is compatible with the SM Higgs of mass around 114 GeV. Another unusual result is that the cross section with the SM Higgs is still high; the standard deviation is between $`1\sigma `$ to $`2.5\sigma `$. If this result remains valid in the future, the radion, if degenerate in mass with the Higgs, can be one of the best candidates for the explanation of the excess. We caution the reader that due to the small number of events and the presence of background in the current ALEPH data, it is very impetuous to draw any physical conclusion at this moment.

In the RS model, the hierarchy problem is solved by a geometrical exponential factor, called a warp factor . The spacetime has a single $`S^1/Z_2`$ orbifold extra dimension with the metric

$$ds^2=e^{2kr_c|\phi |}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +r_c^2d\phi ^2,$$
(1)
where the $`\phi `$ is confined to $`0|\phi |\pi `$. Two orbifold fixed points accommodate two three-branes, the hidden brane at $`\phi =0`$ and our visible brane at $`|\phi |=\pi `$. The allocation of our brane at $`|\phi |=\pi `$ renders a fundamental scale $`m_0`$ to appear as the four-dimensional physical mass $`m=e^{kr_c\pi }m_0`$. The hierarchy problem can be answered if $`kr_c12`$. In this model, very critical is the stabilization of the compactification radius $`r_c`$: Without a stabilized radius, we should impose a fine-tuning constraint between the matter densities on the two branes, which causes non-conventional cosmologies. Several scenarios for the stabilization mechanism have been proposed, where the radion modulus $`\varphi `$ can be significantly lighter than the geometrically suppressed Planck scale on the visible brane, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }𝒪(\mathrm{TeV})`$ . Various phenomenological aspects of the radion at colliders have been studied in the literature: The decay modes of the radion according to its mass range are different from those of the Higgs (e.g., its dominant decay mode with mass below $`2m_Z`$ is into two gluons) ; without a curvature-scalar Higgs mixing, the radion effects on the oblique parameters of the electroweak precision observations are small; the electroweak mixing angle can undergo a substantial correction if the mass and vacuum expectation value (VEV) of the radion are below TeV; the radion effects on the phenomenology at low energy colliders and at high energy colliders have been also discussed (e.g., a lower bound of 35 GeV on the radion mass is obtained from the LEP-I bound on the 60 GeV Higgs mass).

The interactions of the radion $`\varphi `$ with the SM particles show similar behaviors to those of the Higgs boson. The interaction Lagrangian is

$$=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\varphi T_\mu ^\mu ,$$
(2)
where the $`T_\mu ^\mu `$ is the trace of the conserved and symmetrized energy-momentum tensor of the SM fields, and the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$ is the VEV of the radion. The coupling of the radion with a fermion or gauge boson pair is the same as that of the Higgs, except for a factor of $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )`$. The $`v`$ is the VEV of the Higgs. The massless gluons and photons also contribute to the $`T_\mu ^\mu `$, due to the trace anomaly. It is known that the trace anomaly appears since the scale invariance of massless fields is broken by the running of gauge couplings. Thus the interaction Lagrangian between two gluons and the Higgs or the radion is

$$_{h(\varphi )gg}=\left[\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)\left\{b_3+I_{1/2}(z_t)\right\}\varphi +I_{1/2}(z_t)h\right]\frac{\alpha _s}{8\pi v}\mathrm{Tr}(G_{\mu \nu }^CG^{C\mu \nu }),$$
(3)
where $`z_t=4m_t^2/m_h^2`$, and the QCD beta function coefficient is $`b_3=112n_f/3`$ with the number of dynamical quarks $`n_f`$. The loop function $`I_{1/2}(z)`$ is defined by

$$I_{1/2}(z)=z[1+(1z)f(z)],$$
(4)
where the $`f(z)`$ is

$`f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{arcsin}^2(1/\sqrt{z}),& z1,\hfill \\ \frac{1}{4}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{1z}}{1\sqrt{1z}}\right)i\pi \right]^2,& z1.\hfill \end{array}`$ (7)
It is to be noted that the phenomenology of radions can be determined by two parameters, $`m_\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi `$. For the intermediate-mass radion, the dominant decay rate into $`gg`$ is larger than that into $`b\overline{b}`$ by an order of magnitude.

Let us now review the ALEPH results. By using both a neural-network-based stream (NN) and a cut-based stream, the ALEPH group analyzed the final states most from the process $`e^+e^{}HZ`$: the four-jet final states ($`Hq\overline{q}`$ ), the missing energy final states ($`H\nu \overline{\nu }`$ ), the lepton pair final states ($`Hl^+l^{}`$ where $`l`$ denotes an electron or muon), and the tau lepton final states ($`H\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$ and $`H\tau ^+\tau ^{},Zq\overline{q}`$). Common discriminant for the event selection is the reconstructed Higgs boson mass. As a second discriminant, the neural network output is used for the four-jet NN analysis while the sum of the $`b`$ tagging neural network output values is used for the missing energy NN and lepton pair selections.

We are interested in the radion effects on the circumstance where the lighter scalar is produced on-shell. If the radion is much heavier than the Higgs boson, the ordinary analyses with the SM Higgs remain intact. The opposite possibility of the presence of lighter radions is disfavored, since the ALEPH analysis of the $`b`$-tagged data is compatible with the SM Higgs boson hypothesis, while a radion with mass around 114 GeV predominantly decays into two gluons.

If the radion is almost degenerate in mass compared with the Higgs, the cross section for the process $`e^+e^{}Z\varphi _iZjj`$ is to be modified. With the degenerate radion involved, two hadron jets can be either $`b\overline{b}`$ jets or $`gg`$ jets, while the SM Higgs boson at 114 GeV mass predominantly decay into $`b\overline{b}`$ jets. The radion effect is casted into the ratio between the total cross sections with and without the radion involved:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{h+\varphi }^{Zjj}}{\sigma _h^{Zjj}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{h+\varphi }^{Zb\overline{b}}+\sigma _\varphi ^{Zgg}}{\sigma _h^{Zb\overline{b}}}}`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\left|M_{e^+e^{}Zh}D_hM_{hb\overline{b}}+M_{e^+e^{}Z\varphi }D_\varphi M_{\varphi b\overline{b}}\right|^2}{\left|M_{e^+e^{}Zh}D_hM_{hb\overline{b}}\right|^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma (e^+e^{}Z\varphi )Br(\varphi gg)}{\sigma (e^+e^{}Zh)Br(hb\overline{b})}}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`1+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^2\mathrm{}e\left({\displaystyle \frac{D_\varphi }{D_h}}\right)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^4\left|{\displaystyle \frac{D_\varphi }{D_h}}\right|^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\varphi gg}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{hb\overline{b}}}},`$ (10)
where $`M`$ is the scattering amplitude, and $`D_i(q^2)`$ is the propagation factor for the $`i`$-th scalar particle. Since the narrow width approximation, $`|D_i|^2(\pi /\mathrm{\Gamma }_im_i)\delta (sm_i^2)`$, with the degenerate assumption $`(m_hm_\varphi )`$ implies

$$\mathrm{}e\left(\frac{D_\varphi }{D_h}\right)=\frac{(sm_h^2)(sm_\varphi ^2)+\mathrm{\Gamma }_h\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi m_hm_\varphi }{(sm_\varphi ^2)^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi ^2m_\varphi ^2}|_{(\sqrt{s}m_hm_\varphi )}\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }},$$
(11)
the ratio become

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{h+\varphi }^{Zjj}}{\sigma _h^{Zjj}}}`$ $`=`$ $`1+2\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)\sqrt{}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }}\right)^2\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s}{12\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_h^2}{m_b^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{|b_3+I_{1/2}(z_t)|^2}{(1z_b)^{3/2}}}\right].`$ (12)
From the fact that the decay-rate ratio $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h/\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi `$ is inversely proportional to $`(v/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi )^2`$, we have defined $``$ in Eq. (12) by

$$\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\varphi }\frac{1+C_{\tau b}+C_{\mathrm{QCD}}(M_{jj})|I_{1/2}(z_t)|^2}{1+C_{\tau b}+C_{\mathrm{QCD}}(M_{jj})|b_3+I_{1/2}(z_t)|^2},$$
(13)
where $`M_{jj}`$ is the reconstructed scalar mass, $`z_x=4m_x^2/M_{jj}^2`$, and the $`C_{\tau b}(M_{jj})`$ and $`C_{\mathrm{QCD}}(M_{jj})`$ are,

$`C_{\tau b}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_\tau }{m_b}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1z_\tau }{1z_b}}\right)^{3/2},`$ (14)
$`C_{\mathrm{QCD}}(M_{jj})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s^2}{12\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{jj}}{m_b}}\right)^2.`$ (15)
Here we have taken into account of $`b\overline{b}`$, $`\tau ^+\tau ^{}`$, and $`gg`$ as the decay modes of an intermediate-mass scalar particle. The difference between the Higgs and radion masses is assumed to be below the mass resolution at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders. Since the QCD beta function coefficient $`b_3`$ is 7 for $`n_f=6`$, the $``$ is less than one. Thus the ratio $`\sigma _{h+\varphi }^{Zjj}/\sigma _h^{Zjj}`$ is larger than one, implying that the presence of degenerate radions increases the cross section. And the enhancement can be substantial since $`(m_h=114\mathrm{GeV})=0.08`$.

Now we discuss the implications of the radion effects for the ALEPH results. In this degenerate case, it is possible to explain one of the preliminary ALEPH results; the cross section is measured still higher than the SM Higgs prediction. The $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ excesses in the cross section at $`\sqrt{s}=207`$ GeV and $`𝑑t=216.1`$ pb-1 can be explained by Higgs-radion degeneracy with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =2.2`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =1.4`$ TeV, respectively. The Higgs mass $`m_h`$ is set to be 114 GeV, used as the QCD scale in $`\alpha _s`$. When the $`b`$ tagging of the jets from the Higgs decay is highly performed as in the high purity data selection of the ALEPH, the relevant quantity to signal the radion effects is

$$\frac{\sigma _{h+\varphi }^{Zb\overline{b}}}{\sigma _h^{Zb\overline{b}}}=1+2\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)\sqrt{}+\left(\frac{v}{\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi }\right)^2.$$
(16)
For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =2.2`$ TeV which would yield 1$`\sigma `$ excess in the 216.1 pb-1 data, the radion effects would lead to 0.34 $`\sigma `$ excess in the cross section compared to that without the radion effects. When the luminosity increases into 700 pb-1, the $`1\sigma `$ and $`2\sigma `$ excesses in the cross section correspond to $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =3.1`$ TeV and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\varphi =2.0`$ TeV, respectively. It is concluded that highly degenerate radions with the SM Higgs can be a good explanation for the excess of the scalar production accompanying $`Z`$ at $`e^+e^{}`$ colliders.

In summary, we studied the $`e^+e^{}Z\varphi _iZjj`$ process, where $`\varphi _i`$ is the Higgs and/or radion particles. In the case of the lighter radion than the Higgs, the QCD trace anomaly renders the radion to decay dominantly into $`gg`$, which is not compatible with the ALEPH $`b`$-tagged results. If the radion is highly degenerate in mass with the Higgs, the cross section can be increased more than at one sigma level. This can be one of the most natural explanations for the preliminary ALEPH results of the excess in the cross section with the SM Higgs.

###### Acknowledgements.

The work was supported by the BK21 Program.


text:
# OB Associations, Open Clusters, and the Luminosity Calibration of the Nearer Stars

## 1. Introduction

Every method of distance determination that relies on knowing the brightness of some group of standard candles ultimately depends on establishing accurately the luminosity calibration of the stars in the Solar vicinity. Historically, this was accomplished as follows. Starting from the Hyades, for which an accurate geometrical distance was available, the main sequences of several well-studied clusters were patched together in order to obtain a luminosity calibration extending from late G to O5 stars. This calibration was then cross-checked for the early type stars with the distance of Sco OB2, which was also established geometrically albeit less accurately than for the Hyades. Subsequent calibrations of, e.g., O-stars and Cepheids were based on an extension of this main sequence fitting technique to more distant clusters containing these types of stars.

The major weakness in this method of constructing the distance ladder is the assumption that age differences for clusters with lifetimes up to that of the Hyades ($`600`$ Myr) do not matter and that reliable corrections for differences in the chemical compositions of clusters can be made. Hence, an important driver for the Hipparcos mission was to determine by geometrical means (trigonometric parallaxes and proper motions) accurate distances to the nearby OB associations and open clusters in order to establish a fundamental luminosity calibration.

However, apart from the distances to the Hyades and Sco OB2 the Hipparcos results have not remained unchallenged. They have been especially disputed in the case of the Pleiades and other open clusters beyond the Hyades, for which recent main sequence fitting distances apparently cannot be reconciled with those of Hipparcos. In the following I review the Hipparcos results for the nearby OB associations and open clusters beyond the Hyades. In each case the weaknesses and assumptions implicit in the analysis of the Hipparcos data are discussed and for the open clusters a discussion on the uncertainties in the main sequence fitting technique is included.

## 2. The Nearby OB Associations

Based on the Hipparcos Catalogue (ESA 1997) a comprehensive survey of the stellar content of nearby ($`<1`$ kpc) OB associations in 22 fields on the sky was undertaken by de Zeeuw et al. (1999). Using a combination of proper motions and parallaxes the members of OB associations were searched for on the assumption that those belonging to the same association share a common space motion apart from a small velocity dispersion. This led to the successful identification of physical groups in 12 out of the 22 fields for which subsequently distances were determined based on the mean Hipparcos parallax. These distance are all systematically smaller, by about $`0.2`$ magnitudes in the distance modulus, than the previously established photometric ones.

The sources of uncertainty are: (1) deviations from the kinematical model of uniform motion plus a small and isotropic dispersion, (2) biases occuring when converting the parallaxes of the association members into a mean distance (see e.g., Arenou & Luri 1999), (3) selection biases in the Hipparcos data, (4) erroneous sky-boundaries for the associations, and (5) the presence of interloper field stars masquerading as association members. All these points were addressed by de Zeeuw et al. (1999) through extensive Monte Carlo simulations and their results show that it is mainly the last item which is a cause for concern. The number of interlopers may be 10–35% of the number of association members and if they are primarily foreground stars one will underestimate the distances to the associations. Nevertheless, assuming that the distances are not biased, de Zeeuw et al. concluded that the calibration of the HR-diagram for early type stars may have to be revised. This was further studied by de Bruijne (1999) using the following analysis.

From basic astrometry it follows that if the tangential velocity of a cluster is known, the proper motions give information on the parallaxes. For Sco OB2 the relative precision of the measured proper motion ($`\mu /\sigma _\mu 25`$) is superior to the relative precision of the parallax ($`\pi /\sigma _\pi 7`$). Hence, parallaxes derived from velocities are more precise estimates of the true parallaxes than the observed ones. Collecting all the Hipparcos data for a particular cluster one can simultaneously determine the cluster centroid space motion, the internal velocity dispersion, and the individual ‘kinematically improved’ parallaxes for all member stars. This kinematical modeling technique is described in detail in Lindegren, Madsen, & Dravins (2000) and was applied through a slightly different implementation by de Bruijne (1999) to Sco OB2. From the results he derived a more accurate HR-diagram for this association which shows that indeed the previously widely used Schmidt-Kaler (1982) calibration of the main sequence for B-stars is too bright. The main sequence as derived by de Bruijne (1999) corresponds more closely to the calibration presented by Mermilliod (1981). The main uncertainties are: (1) the accuracy of the membership list and (2) the assumption of a uniform motion plus a small, unique and isotropic velocity dispersion. These error sources are extensively discussed in Lindegren et al. (2000) and de Bruijne (1999) who both show that their analyses are robust.

## 3. Open Clusters beyond the Hyades

Because of the closeness of the Hyades cluster, its extent on the sky, and the large number of members in the Hipparcos Catalogue, there is little doubt about the accuracy of the Hipparcos distance as derived by Perryman et al. (1998). Thus I will turn promptly to a discussion of the open clusters beyond the Hyades.

One of the surprising results to come out of the analysis of the Hipparcos data was the distance to the Pleiades cluster based on the parallaxes of its members. Analyses by van Leeuwen (1999) and Robichon et al. (1999a) lead to a distance modulus of $`5.37\pm 0.07`$, significantly different from the value of $`5.60\pm 0.04`$ derived from the most recent main sequence fitting analysis by Pinsonneault et al. (1998). A similar discrepancy was found for the Coma Ber cluster. However the most serious concern was that the differences between the various clusters studied with Hipparcos could not easily be reconciled with the standard picture of main sequence locus as a function of metallicity and helium content.

This prompted Pinsonneault et al. (1998) to undertake a detailed investigation of the main sequence fitting method from which they concluded that the discrepancy between the Hipparcos and main sequence fitting distances to the Pleiades is too large to be explained as due to errors in the main sequence fitting method. Instead they propose that at least in the area on the sky close to the cluster centre there are systematic errors in the Hipparcos parallaxes at the $`1`$ mas level. Pinsonneault et al. (1998) ascribe the cause of these systematic errors to the asymmetric distribution of the Hipparcos observations over the parallax ellipse of the Pleiades members. Narayanan & Gould (1998) suggested that a systematic error in the Pleiades distance may arise due to the correlated errors in the observations of different stars in small ($`1^{}`$) regions on the sky.

The explanation for the source of systematic errors suggested by Pinsonneault et al. (1998) was shown by Robichon et al. (1999a) to be incorrect. Furthermore, the presence of correlations in the observations between different stars was anticipated before the launch of the Hipparcos mission and they can be taken into account. This was done by both van Leeuwen (1999) and Robichon et al. (1999a) and in principle there should be no systematic errors left. However, the assumptions are that the correlations are well understood and calibrated, that the cluster membership list is clean, that the cluster kinematics correspond to a single velocity vector and a small isotropic dispersion, and that the correlations are the sole cause of the errors. In this context it is worth noting that Lindegren et al. (2000) find evidence for a log-normal distribution of the velocity dispersion in the Hyades and that the Pleiades are known to have an elliptical halo. Hence, the cluster kinematics might be more complicated.

On the other hand one can investigate the error sources for main sequence fitting and there the situation is rather murkier than in the conclusions reached by Pinsonneault et al. (1998). There are five important sources of external error for this technique: (1) the choice of stellar models, (2) the choice of atmosphere models, (3) the calibration from $`(L,T_{\mathrm{eff}})`$ to, e.g., $`(M_V,(BV))`$, (4) the cluster metallicity and helium abundance, and (5) the quality and homogeneity of photometric data. Notwithstanding their extensive analysis, what Pinsonneault et al. (1998) have mainly shown is that when one settles on a particular choice for each of these five ingredients small internal errors on the main sequence fitting distances can be achieved.

Robichon et al. (1999b) point out that the choice of calibrations from the theoretical to the observational HR-diagram alone can lead to up to $`0.2`$ magnitude effects on the main sequence. In addition, as described in both Pinsonneault et al. (1998) and Robichon et al. (1999a), the metallicities of open clusters in the Solar neighbourhood are still not accurately known. The measurements differ from author to author and between the photometric and spectroscopic determinations. The best precision one can obtain within a single homogeneous study is $`0.1`$ dex, which already translates to a $`0.1`$ magnitude effect on the main sequence locus when using Johnson $`B,V`$ photometry. Finally, studies by Dravins et al. (1997) and de Bruijne (2000), employing the kinematic modeling technique, have succeeded in deriving a very high precision main sequence locus for the Hyades in the $`M_V`$$`(BV)`$ plane. The latter has been compared to stellar models by Castellani, Degl’Innocenti, & Prada Moroni (2000) and they show that even in the ‘safe’ colour range of $`0.5`$$`1.0`$ in $`(BV)`$ the fitting of theoretical isochrones to the main sequence is affected by significant uncertainties.

In the light of all these uncertainties one must conclude that from main sequence fitting there certainly is no evidence that the Hipparcos distances to open clusters should not be trusted.

## References

Arenou, F., Luri, X., 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 167, Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-Hipparcos Era, eds D. Egret & A. Heck (San Francisco: ASP), 13

de Bruijne, J.H.J., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 585

de Bruijne, J.H.J., 2000, PhD Thesis, Leiden University

Castellani, V., Degl’Innocenti, S., Prada Moroni, P.G., 2000, MNRAS, in press

Dravins, D., Lindegren, L., Madsen, S., Holmberg, J., 1997, ESA SP–402, 733

ESA, 1997, The Hipparcos and Tycho Catalogues, ESA SP–1200

van Leeuwen, F., 1999, A&A, 341, L71

Lindegren, L., Madsen, S., Dravins, D., 2000, A&A, 356, 1119

Mermilliod, J.C., 1981, A&A, 97, 235

Narayanan, V.K., Gould, A., 1999, ApJ, 532, 328

Perryman, M.A.C., Brown, A.G.A., Lebreton, Y., et al., 1998, A&A, 331, 81

Pinsonneault, M.H., Stauffer, J., Soderblom, D.R., King, J.R., Hanson, R.B., 1998, ApJ, 504, 170

Robichon, N., Arenou, F., Mermilliod, J.-C., Turon, C., 1999a, A&A, 345, 471

Robichon, N., Arenou, F., Lebreton, Y., Turon, C., Mermilliod, J.-C., 1999b, in ASP Conf. Ser. Vol. 167, Harmonizing Cosmic Distance Scales in a Post-Hipparcos Era, eds. D. Egret & A. Heck (San Francisco: ASP), 72

Schmidt–Kaler, Th., 1982, in Landolt–Börnstein New Series, Group VI, Vol. 2b, 1, eds. K. Schaifers & H.H. Voigt (Springer–Verlag)

de Zeeuw, P.T., Hoogerwerf, R., de Bruijne, J.H.J., Brown, A.G.A., Blaauw, A., 1999, AJ, 117, 354


text:
# Conductance Fluctuations of Generic Billiards: Fractal or Isolated?

\[

## Abstract

We study the signatures of a classical mixed phase space for open quantum systems. We find the scaling of the break time up to which quantum mechanics mimics the classical staying probability and derive the distribution of resonance widths. Based on these results we explain why for mixed systems two types of conductance fluctuations were found: quantum mechanics divides the hierarchically structured chaotic component of phase space into two parts - one yields fractal conductance fluctuations while the other causes isolated resonances. In general, both types appear together, but on different energy scales.

\]

Generic Hamiltonian systems are nonintegrable and have a mixed phase space, where regions of regular and chaotic motion coexist. The chaotic dynamics in mixed systems is clearly distinct from the fully chaotic case. For an open system this is manifested in a power-law decay of the staying probability

$$P(t)t^\gamma ,\gamma >1,$$
(1)
in contrast to the typically exponential decay in fully chaotic systems. The power law originates from partial transport barriers, e.g., Cantori, dividing the chaotic part of phase space into an infinite hierarchy of partially connected chaotic regions (for a sketch see Fig. 1a). These regions of ever decreasing size are connected by fluxes, i.e., exchanged phase space volumes on the energy surface per time.

It is a central question of quantum chaos, how the hierarchical structure and the dynamics of a generic classical phase space show up in quantum properties. An important fact is that quantum dynamics drastically differs from classical dynamics once the classical flux between connected regions becomes smaller than the Planck constant. For the hierarchy of chaotic regions connected by decreasing fluxes this introduces a quantum flux barrier. It divides the chaotic part of phase space into two parts with different quantum properties. For closed quantum systems this leads to chaotic states before and hierarchical states behind the flux barrier.

For open quantum systems, the search for signatures of the hierarchical phase space has concentrated on conductance fluctuations, a central phenomenon of mesoscopic physics. They occur as a function of an external parameter, e.g., magnetic field or energy, when the phase coherence length exceeds the sample size. A semiclassical analysis led from Eq. (1) to the prediction of fractal conductance fluctuations (FCF). For the typical $`\gamma <2`$, they are characterized by a fractal dimension $`D=2\gamma /2`$ of the conductance curve $`g(E)`$ and by a scaling of the variance of conductance increments

$$\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)(g(E+\mathrm{\Delta }E)g(E))^2_E|\mathrm{\Delta }E|^\gamma ,$$
(2)
on energy scales $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$, which must be larger than the mean level spacing. In fact, FCF have been found in experiments on gold wires, semiconductor nanostructures and numerically.

Surprisingly, a new type of conductance fluctuations has been found numerically for the cosine billiard with a mixed phase space. In contrast to the expected FCF, the conductance $`g(E)`$ shows a smoothly varying background with many isolated resonances. These narrow resonances do not lead to fractal properties. They are reflected, however, in the variance of conductance increments where a power law $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)(\mathrm{\Delta }E)^\delta `$ below the mean level spacing was observed. The exponent $`\delta `$ appearing in this quantum regime seemed to coincide with the classical exponent $`\gamma `$ from Eq. (1), contradicting semiclassical intuition. Neither the origin of these isolated resonances nor the observed power law have found an explanation so far. Even the fundamental riddle is unresolved: Why are there two types of conductance fluctuations in mixed systems?

In this paper, we derive and numerically verify the scaling of the break time $`t^{}`$ until which the quantum staying probability mimics the classical power-law decay of Eq. (1). We derive the resonance width distribution $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, the main characteristic of an open quantum system, for the states behind the flux barrier. We then apply these results to conductance fluctuations and show that the phase space regions before the flux barrier give rise to FCF, while the regions behind are the origin of isolated resonances. Thus FCF and isolated resonances will in general appear together (Fig. 1b,c). The smallest energy scale of FCF is shown to be $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}=h/t^{}`$, below which isolated resonances appear. They are characterized by an asymptotic power law for the variance of conductance increments $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for $`\mathrm{\Delta }E0`$. Furthermore, these results allow to predict which type of conductance fluctuations will dominate in a given numerical or experimental setup. We thus unify the contradicting findings of FCF  and isolated resonances.

We will use the simplest model describing the infinite hierarchy of partially connected chaotic regions. It is a chain of regions $`n=0,1,\mathrm{}`$ with downscaling volumes $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n=\mathrm{\Omega }_0\omega ^n`$ ($`\omega <1`$) on the energy surface. Neighboring regions are connected by decreasing fluxes $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,n+1}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,1}\phi ^n`$ ($`\phi <\omega `$), as sketched in Fig. 1a. In the presence of a flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }>\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,1}`$ for leaving the chain from region $`n=0`$ the staying probability in the chain, when started in region $`n=0`$, decays according to Eq. (1) with $`\gamma =1/(1\mathrm{ln}\omega /\mathrm{ln}\phi )`$.

Quantum dynamics in a $`d`$-dimensional system can mimic the classical flux between two regions if it is larger than $`\mathrm{}^{d1}`$ while in the opposite case the regions are coupled perturbatively. Applying this idea to the chain model yields the position $`n^{}`$ of the flux barrier

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{n^{},n^{}+1}\mathrm{}^{d1},$$
(3)
which divids the chain into two parts: the part before the flux barrier $`(n<n^{})`$ where quantum mechanics mimics classical dynamics and the regions with $`n>n^{}`$ which are coupled perturbatively to each other. The position of the flux barrier is $`n^{}=\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}/\mathrm{ln}\phi `$ with $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}\mathrm{}^{d1}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,1}`$ being the effective Planck constant of the chain model.

The flux barrier introduces an important new time scale $`t^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{n^{}+1}/\mathrm{\Phi }_{n^{},n^{}+1}`$. Beyond this time, regions with $`n>n^{}`$ are explored and quantum dynamics has to differ from classical dynamics. Therefore, at most up to this break time the quantum mechanical staying probability $`P_{\mathrm{qm}}(t)`$ can follow the classical power-law decay. The time $`t^{}`$ scales as

$$t^{}\tau _\text{H}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}^{11/\gamma },$$
(4)
where $`\tau _\text{H}=h/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Heisenberg time and $`\mathrm{\Delta }=h^d/_n\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$ is the mean level spacing. This result is in contrast to previous predictions for the break time, but agrees with the numerical findings for the kicked rotor at kicking strength $`K=2.5`$, where $`\gamma 2`$. The scaling of the break time according to Eq. (4) is confirmed over three orders of magnitude in $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}`$ for the separatrix map with $`\gamma =1.33`$ (Fig. 2).

A major characteristic of open quantum systems is the distribution $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of resonance widths. Since the states behind the flux barrier couple only weakly to the part before the flux barrier their distribution of resonance widths can be calculated perturbatively. The typical resonance width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_n`$ of the states localized in region $`n>n^{}+1`$ is proportional to the product of all the individual couplings connecting the regions from $`n^{}+1`$ to $`n`$. This yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n}{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}=\underset{j=n^{}+1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_{j,j+1}}{\mathrm{}^{d1}}=\underset{j=n^{}+1}{\overset{n1}{}}\phi ^{jn^{}}\phi ^{(nn^{})^2/2},$$
(5)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=h/t^{}`$ and we assumed $`nn^{}1`$ for the final step. Using the cumulative distribution of resonance widths $`P_{int}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})=_0^{\mathrm{\Gamma }_n/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}p(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝑑\mathrm{\Gamma }_{j=n}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_j\omega ^n`$ one finds

$$p(\mathrm{\Gamma })\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}\frac{\mathrm{exp}\left(\mathrm{ln}\omega \sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{})/\mathrm{ln}\phi }\right)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}}}$$
(6)
on scales $`\mathrm{\Gamma }<\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$. Asymptotically, this distribution converges to $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Quite importantly, the transition to this asymptotic behavior can extend over many orders of magnitude depending on the scaling parameters $`\omega `$ and $`\phi `$. In order to check the perturbation prediction we constructed a quantum graph realization (see below) of the chain model. In fact, one finds an excellent agreement of the numerical data with Eq. (6), as shown in Fig. 3a. Regular islands, which are not included in the chain model, give an additional contribution $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Numerically, we find for the kicked rotor the broad transition region $`(10^3<\mathrm{\Gamma }/\mathrm{\Delta }<1)`$ due to the hierarchy and the asymptotic power law (Fig. 3a, upper inset).

We now want to apply the concept of the flux barrier together with our findings for the break time and the distribution of resonance widths to conductance fluctuations. We will show that FCF come from regions before the flux barrier while isolated resonances are scattering signatures of the hierarchical states living behind the flux barrier. Thus, in general, they coexist but appear on different energy scales.

Since the semiclassical derivation of FCF does not take into account the quantum effects caused by the flux barrier, it is valid for times $`t<t^{}`$ only. This predicts that FCF have a smallest energy scale

$$\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}=\frac{h}{t^{}}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}^{1/\gamma 1},$$
(7)
and that they originate from phase space regions before the flux barrier. The largest energy scale for FCF is related to the time $`t_0`$ at which the classical power-law decay starts and is given by $`t_0=\mathrm{\Omega }_1/\mathrm{\Phi }_{0,1}\tau _\text{H}\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}`$ for the chain model. The ratio $`t^{}/t_0=\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}^{1/\gamma }`$ thus determines over how many orders of magnitude FCF can be observed.

Below the energy scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}`$, the conductance $`g(E)`$ is determined by the states behind the flux barrier, which are characterized by $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of Eq. (6). Each of the resonances will lead to an isolated feature of width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in the conductance. Under the assumption that the height and the width of these features are uncorrelated, it was shown in Ref.  that $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\delta 2}`$ leads to $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{\Delta }E^\delta `$. Therefore, the asymptotic power law $`p(\mathrm{\Gamma })1/\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ should lead to a linear increase $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ for small $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ together with a broad transition region.

In order to check the above predictions for conductance fluctuations we construct a quantum graph realization of the chain model. Each of its regions $`n`$ is modelled by a fully connected graph with $`v`$ vertices and a total length proportional to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_n`$. These graphs are connected such that the flux from region $`n`$ to $`n+1`$ is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n,n+1}`$ with leads attached to region $`n=0`$ (Fig. 3a lower inset), details will be published elsewhere. By increasing $`v`$ the semiclassical limit, $`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}0`$, is approached and the flux barrier moves deeper into the hierarchy. For $`v=32`$ ($`\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}=0.02`$, $`\omega =0.6`$,$`\phi =0.21`$) the flux barrier is located between regions $`n=3`$ and $`n=4`$. Indeed, the conductance shows FCF on energy scales above $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}=14.8\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (Fig. 1b) and isolated resonances on scales below $`\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}`$ (Fig. 1c). When restricting this graph to regions $`n3`$, i.e., regions before the flux barrier, we find FCF without isolated resonances. By successively appending regions $`n4`$ a growing number of isolated resonances appears. For a quantitative analysis of the isolated resonances we use a quantum graph with $`v=4`$ $`(\mathrm{}_{\mathrm{ef}\mathrm{f}}=2)`$, showing many isolated resonances (Fig. 3b inset), since the flux barrier is located between regions $`n=0`$ and $`n=1`$. For small $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ we find $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ together with a broad transition region confirming the predictions of the perturbation theory (Fig. 3b).

Our analysis suggests that the numerically observed isolated resonances for the cosine billiard are scattering signatures of the phase space region behind the flux barrier. The size of this region can be estimated from the relative number of isolated resonances (18%). From a classical simulation we determine the time up to which only regions before the flux barrier are explored (82% of the phase space), which gives an estimate for the break time $`t^{}25`$ (in units of the traversal time). Thus the classical power law which starts at $`t_03`$ (Fig. 1 in Ref. ) can be mimicked for less than one order of magnitude and this explains why no FCF were observed for the considered energy range. Another puzzling observation in Ref.  was the occurrence of the classical exponent $`\gamma `$ in a power law of $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)`$ on scales below the mean level spacing. Our analysis suggests, however, that in this regime one has a broad transition to the asymptotic $`\mathrm{var}(\mathrm{\Delta }E)\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. Since this transition can extend over many orders of magnitude, it may locally fake a power law with exponent larger than one. Thus the numerically observed isolated resonances are explained by our theoretical approach.

Experimentally, FCF have been observed in semiconductor nanostructures where typically the conductance is measured as a function of an external magnetic field. In order to observe isolated resonances, one has to measure the conductance on magnetic field scales smaller than the smallest scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}`$ of FCF. The scale $`\mathrm{\Delta }B^{}=h/(eA^{})`$ originates from the area $`A^{}`$ enclosed by a trajectory which stays up to the break time $`t^{}=h/\mathrm{\Delta }E^{}`$ in the cavity. If the phase coherence time $`\tau _\phi `$ is larger than $`t^{}`$, one can observe isolated resonances.

We thank B. Huckestein and F. Steinbach for helpful discussions.