text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In recent papers , the interest on the role of multi-trace interactions in the AdS/CFT correspondence  has been revived by introducing the proposal that, to deform the boundary CFT by double-trace operators, gives rise to a new perturbation expansion for string theory which is based on a non-local worldsheet.

In the AdS/CFT picture, multi-trace operators in the boundary CFT are understood as multi-particle states in AdS (see, for example, ), and this raises the question of how to place a boundary condition on a multi-particle state and perform explicit calculations in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence.

A solution to this problem came with the proposal in  that multi-trace operators can be incorporated by generalizing the usual Dirichlet prescription which is considered in the case of single-trace operators. Such prescription reads

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(I_{AdS}[\varphi _0]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(d^dx𝒪(\stackrel{}{x})\varphi _0(\stackrel{}{x})\right),$$
(1)
where $`d+1`$ is the dimension of the AdS bulk, and $`\varphi _0`$ is the boundary value of the bulk field $`\varphi `$ which couples to the boundary CFT operator $`𝒪`$.

The perturbation of the boundary CFT by multi-trace operators can be written schematically as

$$I_{QFT}[𝒪]=I_{CFT}[𝒪]+d^dxW[𝒪],$$
(2)
where $`W[𝒪]`$ is an arbitrary function of $`𝒪`$. In the particular case of a double-trace perturbation of the form

$$W[𝒪]=\frac{\beta }{2}𝒪^2,$$
(3)
where $`𝒪`$ has conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=d/2`$, it has been shown in  that a generalized boundary condition gives rise to the correct renormalization formula for the coupling $`\beta `$.

The purpose of this paper is to introduce a further development of the proposal in  by considering a generalized AdS/CFT prescription in which multi-trace interactions can be consistently incorporated. More specifically, we aim at showing that the recent proposal in  for a generalized AdS/CFT prescription which makes use of generalized boundary conditions provides a natural frame for consistently describing multi-trace operators in the AdS/CFT correspondence. For the sake of simplicity, we will concentrate on the particular case of double-trace interactions, for which we will relate the coupling coefficient to specific boundary conditions on the scalar field, or equivalently, to the addition of specific boundary terms to the usual bulk action. We will also interpret our results in terms of the energy of the theory in the bulk and the constraints which arise when performing its quantization. In addition, we will extend the formulation to the non-minimally coupled case.

In considering the quantization of the scalar field theory on AdS, it has been shown in  that there exist particular constraints on the mass and the coupling coefficient to the metric for which two different asymptotic behaviors of the field make the energy to be conserved, positive and finite. Such asymptotic behaviors are of the form

$$\varphi ^Rϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }_+},\varphi ^Iϵ^\mathrm{\Delta }_{},$$
(4)
where $`\varphi ^R`$ and $`\varphi ^I`$ stand for ‘regular’ and ‘irregular’ modes, $`ϵ`$ is a measure of the distance to the boundary which is considered to be small, and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =\frac{d}{2}\pm \nu ,$$
(5)
where

$$\nu =\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{4}+M^2}.$$
(6)
Here $`M`$ is the effective mass of the scalar field, and in the non-minimally coupled case it is given by

$$M^2=m^2+\varrho R,$$
(7)
where $`R`$ is the Ricci scalar of the metric (which is a negative constant) and $`\varrho `$ is the coupling coefficient. In the minimally coupled case $`\varrho =0`$, the equation above reduces to $`M=m`$.

Since there exist two possible quantizations of the theory on the bulk, we expect that there must exist two different boundary CFT’s. However, it has been pointed out in  that the usual Dirichlet prescription Eq.(1) can only account for one of them, namely, the one with conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, which corresponds to regular modes propagating in the bulk. In order to also account for the missing conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, the proposal in  is that its generating functional is the Legendre transform of the one which gives rise to the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$. It was explicitly shown in  that in fact this prescription gives rise to the missing conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

Later, it was shown in  that there were still some problems which needed to be considered. One of them is the fact that the usual AdS/CFT prescription is unable to reproduce the constraints in $`\varrho `$ and $`\nu `$ for which the energy in  is conserved, positive and finite for irregular modes propagating in the bulk. The second problem is that the usual Legendre transform prescription leaves a coefficient to be fixed ‘by hand’. And the last problem regarding the usual Legendre transform is that it does not work for some particular values of $`\nu `$.

Then, the proposal in  was to consider a generalized formalism which involves modifications both in the bulk quantization and in the AdS/CFT prescription. From the bulk point of view, it was suggested in  that the natural energy to be considered in the AdS/CFT correspondence context is the ‘canonical’ energy which is constructed out of the Noether current corresponding to time translations, rather than the ‘metrical’ one which is constructed through the stress-energy tensor, as in . The reason for considering the canonical energy is that, unlike the metrical one, it is sensitive to the addition of boundary terms to the action, as it happens to the AdS/CFT prescription Eq.(1).

Finally, from the AdS/CFT correspondence point of view, the proposal in  was to consider a generalized AdS/CFT prescription of the form (see also  for previous results)

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(I_{AdS}[f_0]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(d^dx𝒪(\stackrel{}{x})f_0(\stackrel{}{x})\right),$$
(8)
where, unlike the usual prescription Eq.(1), we make use of a generalized source $`f_0`$ which depends on the boundary conditions.111 Note that the addition of boundary terms to the action changes the boundary conditions under which the action is stationary, and on the other hand it also changes the generating functional for the boundary CFT. This is the reason why considering generalized boundary conditions as in Eq.(8) involves more information than making use of the usual prescription Eq.(1). The formulation in  makes use of Dirichlet, Neumann and mixed boundary conditions on the scalar field in both the minimally and non-minimally coupled cases. In addition, it involves a generalized Legendre transform prescription of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_{AdS}[f_0,\stackrel{~}{f}_0]=I_{AdS}[f_0]d^dxf_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_0\left(\stackrel{}{x}\right),$$
(9)
which differs from the usual one in  by the fact that it involves the whole on-shell action rather than only the leading non-local term. It was shown in  that the divergent local terms of the action contain information about the transformed generating functional, and then they have to be taken into account. In addition, the prescription above leaves no coefficient to be fixed ‘by hand’. After performing the Legendre transformation, the transformed boundary CFT can be determined from the prescription

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\stackrel{~}{I}_{AdS}[\stackrel{~}{f}_0]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(d^dx\stackrel{~}{𝒪}(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_0(\stackrel{}{x})\right).$$
(10)
It was shown in  that this generalized Legendre transform prescription removes all problems mentioned above regarding the usual prescription. In addition, the key result in  has been to show that the generalized prescription Eqs.(8-10) gives rise to precisely the same constraints on $`\varrho `$ and $`\nu `$ for which irregular modes propagate in the bulk when the quantization is performed by making use of the canonical energy rather than the metrical one.

One of the purposes of this paper is to show that the introduction of double-trace perturbations at the boundary CFT can be understood in terms of the formulation in . This would be a powerful result for many reasons. The first one is that it would lead in a natural way to a generalized AdS/CFT prescription in which multi-trace interactions can be consistently incorporated.

The second reason is that it would enable us to relate the coupling coefficient of the double-trace perturbation to specific boundary conditions on the bulk field, or equivalently, to the addition of specific boundary terms to the action. In particular, we will show that there exist particular couplings which require to consider new boundary conditions that have not been analyzed in . In this article, we will also perform a detailed analysis of such new boundary conditions. In all cases, we will find the explicit form of the coupling coefficients and the surface terms.

The third reason is that to consider double-trace operators in terms of the formulation in  let us to relate the corresponding coupling coefficients to the constraints on $`\varrho `$ and $`\nu `$ for which irregular modes propagate in the bulk when the canonical energy is employed instead of the metrical one. In particular, we will show that, when such constraints are satisfied, the couplings of the double-trace perturbations diverge. This result is consistent with the statement in  that, as the coupling grows, the system approaches the condition that is suitable for quantization to get a field of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. It is also important to point out that, in this formulation, the canonical energy in the bulk depends on the boundary multi-trace perturbations.

And the last reason why it is useful to analyze double-trace operators in terms of the formulation in  is that it let us to extend, in a natural way, the formulation of double-trace perturbations to the non-minimally coupled case. In particular, an interesting result that we will find is that the introduction of a double-trace perturbation at the boundary generates the natural extension of the Gibbons-Hawking surface term  which is added to the Einstein-Hilbert action in order to have a well-defined variational principle under variations of the metric.

We also aim at connecting to the recently proposed formulation in  for an improved correspondence formula which gives correct boundary field theory correlators for multi-trace perturbations. In particular, the key observation in  is that the conformal operator $`𝒪`$ is to be identified with the Legendre transformed field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$. In this paper, we claim that, in order to map to the boundary all the information contained in the bulk, we also need to identify, in the transformed formulation, the conjugated operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ with the field $`\varphi _0`$. In particular, we will show that to require consistency imposes a precise constraint between the couplings of the double-trace perturbations corresponding to the conformal operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. Another difference with respect to the formulation in  is that, in this work, we consider that the coupling of the double-trace perturbation depends on the distance to the boundary. We will show that this is needed for consistency. In particular, a result that we will find is that when the constraints for which irregular modes are allowed to propagate in the bulk are satisfied, the couplings of the double-trace perturbations corresponding to the operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ have different asymptotic behaviors. A final thing to be mentioned is that, in this paper, we will consider the full functionals containing all local and non-local terms, unlike the formalism in  which considers only the leading non-local term. We make so because the divergent local terms contain information about the transformed generating functional, and then they have to be taken into account .

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we revisit the formulation in  and claim that, in order to map to the boundary all the information contained in the bulk, we also need to identify, in the transformed formulation, the conjugated operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ with the field $`\varphi _0`$. We find the explicit form of the generating functionals for the boundary CFT’s in terms of the couplings of the double-trace perturbations corresponding to the operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. We also show that the requirement for consistency imposes a constraint between such couplings. In section 3, we analyze the precise way in which the introduction of double-trace perturbations changes the boundary conditions on the field by adding surface terms to the action, and extend the formulation to the non-minimally coupled case. In this situation, we will show that the introduction of double-trace perturbations generates the natural extension of the Gibbons-Hawking term. We also show how double-trace perturbations can be understood in terms of the generalized AdS/CFT prescription and the new quantization in the bulk as developed in . In addition, an interesting result that we will find is that irregular modes are allowed to propagate precisely when the asymptotic behaviors of the couplings of the double-trace perturbations corresponding to the operators $`𝒪`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ are different. In this situation, the coupling corresponding to the operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ diverges. We also show that a complete formulation requires the inclusion of new boundary conditions which have not been considered in . We perform a detailed analysis of such new boundary conditions. Finally, section 4 contains our conclusions.

## 2 Double-Trace Operators and AdS/CFT

Throughout this paper, we work in the Euclidean representation of the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ in Poincaré coordinates, described by the half space $`x_0>0`$, $`x_i𝐑`$ with metric

$$ds^2=\frac{1}{x_0^2}\underset{\mu =0}{\overset{d}{}}dx^\mu dx^\mu ,$$
(11)
where we have fixed the radius of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ equal to one. We consider the space as foliated by a family of surfaces $`x_0=ϵ`$ homeomorphic to the boundary at $`x_0=0`$. The corresponding outward pointing unit normal vector is

$$n_\mu =(ϵ^1,\mathrm{𝟎}).$$
(12)
The limit $`ϵ0`$ is to be taken only at the end of calculations .

The usual action for the massive scalar field reads

$$I_0=\frac{1}{2}d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +M^2\varphi ^2\right).$$
(13)
Performing an infinitesimal variation of the scalar field $`\varphi \varphi +\delta \varphi `$, the action above transforms as

$$\delta I_0=d^dx\sqrt{h}_n\varphi _ϵ\delta \varphi _ϵ,$$
(14)
where $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ is the induced metric at the surface $`x_0=ϵ`$, $`\varphi _ϵ`$ is the value of the field at $`x_0=ϵ`$ and $`_n\varphi `$ is the Lie derivative of $`\varphi `$ along $`n_\mu `$. It is given by

$$_n\varphi =n^\mu _\mu \varphi .$$
(15)
Note that, in Eq.(14), the absence of a bulk contribution is due to the equation of motion

$$^2\varphi M^2\varphi =0.$$
(16)
The variation Eq.(14) shows that the action $`I_0`$ is stationary for a Dirichlet boundary condition which fixes the value of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ at $`x_0=ϵ`$, namely

$$\delta \varphi _ϵ=0.$$
(17)
Integrating by parts and making use of the equation of motion, the action Eq.(13) can be written as the following pure-surface term

$$I_0=\frac{1}{2}d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ_n\varphi _ϵ.$$
(18)
The next step involves to solve the equation of motion and write $`_n\varphi _ϵ`$ in terms of the boundary data $`\varphi _ϵ`$. This procedure has been carried out in , where the final result was expanded in powers of the distance to the boundary in order to select the leading non-local term, which is understood as the generating functional for the boundary CFT . However, the divergent local terms of the action contain information about the Legendre transformed generating functional , and then we need to take them into account. This means that, instead of the leading non-local term, we will make use of the full action containing all local and non-local terms. It reads

$$I_0\left[f_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}F(kϵ),$$
(19)
where $`f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is the source which couples to the boundary conformal operator through the prescription Eq.(1), $`\stackrel{}{x}=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^d)`$, $`k=\stackrel{}{k}`$ and

$$F(kϵ)=\frac{d}{2}+\nu kϵ\frac{K_{\nu +1}(kϵ)}{K_\nu (kϵ)}.$$
(20)
Here $`K_\nu `$ is the modified Bessel function.

The action Eq.(19) is only one of the two functionals which contain the information about the boundary CFT’s. The another one is obtained by performing the Legendre transformation Eq.(9), which gives rise to the following transformed functional containing all local and non-local terms

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_0\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)}.$$
(21)
Both functionals $`I_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{I}_0`$ are needed in order to map to the boundary all the information contained in the bulk. Each one of the sources $`f_ϵ`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ`$ will couple, after performing the limit $`ϵ0`$ in a proper way and through the prescriptions Eqs.(8, 10), to the corresponding boundary conformal operator.

The important result in  is that the transformed source $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0`$ can be identified with the conformal operator $`𝒪`$. In order to do this, we transform back the functional $`\stackrel{~}{I}_0\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]`$ and find

$$I_0=d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})+f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\right].$$
(22)
Now we will analyze the way in which the results above are affected by perturbing at the boundary with a double-trace operator of the form

$$W[𝒪]=\frac{\beta }{2}𝒪^2,$$
(23)
where $`\beta `$ is the coupling coefficient. Following , the next step is to identify $`𝒪`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0`$. This would give

$$W[\stackrel{~}{f}_0]=\frac{\beta }{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_0^2.$$
(24)
However, it is important to note that the limit $`ϵ0`$ is to be taken only at the very end of calculations .222 This acquires a new importance in the light of the result in  that the divergent local terms of the action contain information about the transformed generating functional. To take the limit $`ϵ0`$ at this early stage would imply losing information. This means that, instead of the equation above, we must consider

$$W_ϵ[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ]=\frac{\beta (ϵ)}{2}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ^2,$$
(25)
where we have replaced $`\stackrel{~}{f}_0`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ`$. Note that there is still another important difference between Eqs.(24, 25), namely, that we have also introduced a dependence of the coupling $`\beta `$ on the distance to the boundary $`ϵ`$. We will show that this is needed for consistency.

From the considerations above, we write the perturbed functional as

$$I=d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1}{F(kϵ)}+\beta (kϵ)\right)\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})+f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\right],$$
(26)
which for $`\beta =0`$ reduces to Eq.(22). The expression above is to be contrasted with the one in . There are two important differences, namely, that $`\beta `$ depends on $`ϵ`$, and that $`F(kϵ)`$ contains all local and non-local terms, rather than only the leading non-local term.333 The formulation in  makes use, instead of $`F(kϵ)`$, of the conformal Green function $`G(k)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}\left(\frac{k}{2}\right)^{2\nu }`$, which involves a procedure in which the Legendre transformation is performed after having selected the leading non-local term, rather than following the opposite way as in .

Setting $`\frac{I}{\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ}=0`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ=\frac{F(kϵ)}{1+\beta (kϵ)F(kϵ)}f_ϵ,$$
(27)
and introducing this into Eq.(26) we find

$$I\left[f_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{F(kϵ)}{1+\beta (kϵ)F(kϵ)}.$$
(28)
Comparison with Eq.(19) shows that the double-trace perturbation Eq.(23) has introduced the replacement

$$F(kϵ)\frac{F(kϵ)}{1+\beta (kϵ)F(kϵ)}.$$
(29)
In the next section, we will show that this can be understood as a modification of the boundary conditions on the field, or equivalently, as the addition of a surface term to the action Eq.(13). We will also show how to extend the formulation to the case of a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the metric.

It has been stated in  that the formulation above applies to both regular and irregular modes propagating in the bulk. However, the formulation remains incomplete, because so far we have only considered a perturbation in the conformal operator $`𝒪`$ (see Eq.(23)). We still need to consider a perturbation in the conjugated operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$, and we will show that the requirement for consistency imposes a precise constraint between both perturbations.

Note that, in the transformed situation, we identify $`f_0`$ with the conjugated operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$. In order to do this, we perform a Legendre transform in Eq.(19) and get

$$\stackrel{~}{I}_0=d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[\frac{1}{2}F(kϵ)f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})+\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\right].$$
(30)
We introduce the following double-trace perturbation in $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$

$$\stackrel{~}{W}[\stackrel{~}{𝒪}]=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}{2}\stackrel{~}{𝒪}^2,$$
(31)
and, identifying $`f_0`$ with the conjugated operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$, we write the perturbed functional as

$$\stackrel{~}{I}=d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(F(kϵ)\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)\right)f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})+\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\right].$$
(32)
Note that, as we have done with the coupling $`\beta `$, we have introduced a dependence of $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ on $`ϵ`$. Setting $`\frac{\stackrel{~}{I}}{f_ϵ}=0`$ we get

$$f_ϵ=\frac{1}{F(kϵ)\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ,$$
(33)
and introducing this into Eq.(32) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)}.$$
(34)
There is still one last thing to be considered in order to have a complete and consistent formulation, and it is to require the expression above to be actually the Legendre transform of Eq.(28). As anticipated, this will impose a precise constraint between $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. By Legendre transforming Eq.(28) we find

$$\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1+\beta (kϵ)F(kϵ)}{F(kϵ)}.$$
(35)
From Eqs.(34, 35) we find the constraint

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=\frac{\beta (kϵ)F^2(kϵ)}{1+\beta (kϵ)F(kϵ)},$$
(36)
which is required for consistency. Note that both functionals Eqs.(28, 35) are needed in order to map to the boundary all the information contained in the bulk. The corresponding boundary CFT’s can be obtained through the prescriptions Eqs.(8, 10). We emphasize that the functionals Eqs.(28, 35) contain all local and non-local terms, and that this is needed in order to map to the boundary the constraints that the quantization imposes in the bulk . This topic will be discussed in the following section.

So far, we have developed a generic formulation in which the double-trace perturbations at the boundary of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ can be consistently incorporated into an extended AdS/CFT prescription. We still need to understand the precise way in which such perturbations change the boundary conditions on the field by adding surface terms to the action Eq.(13), and to extend the formalism to the non-minimally coupled case. This is left for the following section, where we will connect the formulation developed so far to the generalized AdS/CFT prescription in , which analyzes the role of boundary conditions in the AdS/CFT correspondence. We will also relate the previous formalism to the energy of the theory on the bulk, and to the existence of constraints for which the irregular modes are allowed to propagate. We will find the explicit expressions of the couplings, and show that they exhibit very interesting behaviors when irregular modes are also allowed to propagate.

## 3 Generalized Boundary Conditions

In this section, we will show that the double-trace perturbations at the boundary of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ can be understood as the introduction of Dirichlet, Neumann and mixed boundary conditions on the scalar field. We will consider both minimally and non-minimally coupled cases. We begin by concentrating on the minimally coupled case.

### 3.1 The Minimally Coupled Case

In this case we set $`\varrho =0`$ in Eq.(7) thus getting $`\nu =\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{4}+m^2}`$. It is natural to begin by analyzing the simplest case in which the coupling $`\beta `$ does not depend on the distance to the boundary. For this purpose, we set

$$\beta (kϵ)=2\lambda ,$$
(37)
where $`\lambda `$ is a real coefficient. Then, from Eq.(36) we also find

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=\frac{2\lambda F^2(kϵ)}{12\lambda F(kϵ)}.$$
(38)
Note, then, that consistency of the formulation requires that at least one of the couplings depends on the distance to the boundary, as anticipated in the previous section. We will later show that the particular cases for which irregular modes are also allowed to propagate in the bulk correspond to the situations in which $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have different asymptotic behaviors.

Under the identification Eq.(37), the functionals Eqs.(28, 35) read

$$I\left[f_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{F(kϵ)}{12\lambda F(kϵ)},$$
(39)
$$\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]=\frac{1}{2}d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{12\lambda F(kϵ)}{F(kϵ)}.$$
(40)
The key result is that the functionals above are precisely the ones found in  when considering a boundary condition which fixes at the border the field

$$\varphi +2\lambda _n\varphi .$$
(41)
Then, for the particular choice Eq.(37), the double-trace perturbation acts by turning the usual Dirichlet boundary condition into a mixed one.444 In , this particular boundary condition was called as ‘Type II’ mixed boundary condition. This is also equivalent to add to the action Eq.(13) a boundary term of the form

$$I=I_0+\lambda d^dx\sqrt{h}\left(_n\varphi _ϵ\right)^2.$$
(42)
Note that, in the particular case $`\lambda =0`$, we recover the usual Dirichlet boundary condition. One important point is that for general $`\lambda `$ both functionals Eqs.(39, 40) correspond to the same boundary conformal dimension, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$. However, in the particular situation in which both constraints

$$\lambda =\frac{1}{2\mathrm{\Delta }_{}},$$
(43)
and

$$\nu <1,$$
(44)
are satisfied, the divergent local terms of both functionals Eqs.(39, 40) cancel out. This fact encodes the information that the Legendre transform interpolates between different conformal dimensions, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. In this situation, the addition of counterterms is not required. From the bulk point of view, in this case both regular and irregular modes can propagate, because the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for both of them. When Eq.(43) is satisfied, but Eq.(44) is not, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ reaches the unitarity bound $`(d2)/2`$, and becomes independent of the mass. The unitarity bound is also reached for $`m=0`$. For details, see .

We will now show that there exists an interesting relation between the values and asymptotic behaviors of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the phenomenon of the propagation of irregular modes in the bulk. Let us first consider the situation in which Eq.(43) is not satisfied. For simplicity, we concentrate on the case of $`\nu `$ not integer.555 The case of $`\nu `$ integer is analogous. The only difference is that there arise additional logarithmic terms which must be taken into account (see, for example, ). By expanding the Bessel functions in Eq.(38) in powers of $`ϵ`$ we find

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=\frac{2\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2}{12\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }_{}}+\mathrm{},$$
(45)
where the dots stand for higher order terms in $`ϵ`$. Comparison with Eq.(37) shows that in this case, where only regular modes are allowed to propagate in the bulk, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have the same asymptotic behavior, namely, both of them differ from a constant only on terms which vanish as we approach the boundary. We also note from Eq.(45) that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges as we get closer to the critical value Eq.(43) for which irregular modes are also allowed to propagate. Note that this result is consistent with the statement in  that, as the coupling grows, the system approaches the condition that is suitable for quantization to get a field of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$.

We finally consider the situation where Eq.(43) is satisfied and irregular modes are allowed to propagate as well. We expect from the results above that something special will happen in this particular situation. We will show that, in fact, in this case $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have different asymptotic behaviors, and the last one diverges as we approach the boundary. We have to consider separately the cases where Eq.(44) is, or not, also satisfied. Expanding in Eq.(38) we find for $`\nu <1`$

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=2^{2\nu 1}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}(kϵ)^{2\nu }+\mathrm{},$$
(46)
whereas for $`\nu >1`$ we get

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=2(\nu 1)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^2(kϵ)^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(47)
In the equations above, the dots stand for higher order terms in $`ϵ`$. As anticipated we find that, in the particular situation where irregular modes are also allowed to propagate in the bulk, the couplings $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have different asymptotic behaviors, and the last one, which corresponds to the operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ , diverges as we approach the boundary.

So far, we have considered the situation where $`\beta `$ does not depend on the distance to the boundary. As the next step, it is natural to analyze the case where $`\beta `$ depends on $`ϵ`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ does not. In order to do this, we consider, instead of Eq.(37), the following starting point

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=2\lambda ,$$
(48)
where, as before, $`\lambda `$ is a real coefficient. From Eq.(36) we get

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{2\lambda }{F(kϵ)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)+2\lambda }.$$
(49)
From the equation above, we write the functionals Eqs.(28, 35) as

$`I\left[f_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[F(kϵ)+2\lambda \right]},`$ (50)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)+2\lambda }}.`$ (51)
The functionals above have not been considered in . However, by following an analogous procedure, it can be verified that they correspond to consider a Dirichlet boundary condition and add to the usual action Eq.(13) a boundary term of the form

$$I=I_0\lambda d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ^2.$$
(52)
The fact that the action above is stationary under a Dirichlet boundary condition can be verified by noting that, under a transformation $`\varphi \varphi +\delta \varphi `$, its variation is given by the following surface term

$$\delta I=d^dx\sqrt{h}(_n\varphi _ϵ2\lambda \varphi _ϵ)\delta \varphi _ϵ,$$
(53)
which vanishes for $`\delta \varphi _ϵ=0`$. Since we are still considering a Dirichlet boundary condition, it may seem that in this situation the double-trace perturbation causes no effect. However, this is not the case, because the importance of the surface term in Eq.(52) is that it allows for irregular modes to propagate in the bulk for particular values of $`\lambda `$. This can be verified by making use of a formalism which is analogous to the one developed in  for other possible boundary conditions. In particular, it can be seen that for

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{2},$$
(54)
the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for both regular and irregular modes propagating in the bulk, provided that the constraint Eq.(44) is satisfied as well.666Since this particular case has not been analyzed in , we summarize here the main results. Making use of global coordinates $`(\tau ,\rho ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ defined as in  (recall here that $`\tau `$ is the time coordinate, $`\rho `$ is the radial coordinate and $`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ are the angular coordinates) we find from the action Eq.(52) that the canonical energy is of the form $`E=d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }_\tau ^\tau +\lambda _\mu (n^\mu \varphi ^2)\right]`$, where the integration is carried out over the spatial coordinates, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\left[g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +m^2\varphi ^2\right]`$. It can be verified that, for regular modes propagating in the bulk, the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for any values of $`\lambda `$ and $`\nu `$, whereas for irregular modes propagating in the bulk the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite only when the constraints Eqs.(44, 54) are satisfied. We emphasize that, when both constraints Eqs.(44, 54) are satisfied, the Legendre transform interpolates between different conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$, due to the cancellation of the divergent local terms of the functionals Eqs.(50, 51). This statement can be verified by following a procedure analogous to the one in . When Eq.(54) is satisfied, but Eq.(44) is not, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ reaches the unitarity bound $`(d2)/2`$.

Now we analyze the existing relation between the values and asymptotic behaviors of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the phenomenon of the propagation of irregular modes. We have seen that in the previously analyzed mixed boundary condition the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges when the critical value Eq.(43) is reached. Since in the current Dirichlet situation the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ corresponds to the conformal operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$, rather than to $`𝒪`$,777This result can be found by computing the boundary CFT’s through the prescription Eqs.(8, 10) then in this situation we expect that it will be $`\beta `$, rather than $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, the coupling which diverges as we approach the critical value Eq.(54). We now verify this statement. Again, we concentrate on the case of $`\nu `$ not integer. Let us first consider the situation when Eq.(54) is not satisfied. Expanding in $`ϵ`$ in Eq.(49) we find

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{2\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+2\lambda )}+\mathrm{},$$
(55)
where the dots stand for higher order terms in $`ϵ`$. We note from Eq.(48) that, as in the previous mixed case, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have the same asymptotic behavior when only regular modes propagate in the bulk. Note also that, as expected, $`\beta `$ diverges as we approach the critical value Eq.(54) for which irregular modes are allowed to propagate as well.

Now we analyze the case when the constraint Eq.(54) is satisfied. The calculations are analogous to the ones performed in the previous mixed case, and the results are as follows. For $`\nu <1`$ we get

$$\beta (kϵ)=2^{2\nu }\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}(kϵ)^{2\nu }+\mathrm{},$$
(56)
whereas for $`\nu >1`$ we find

$$\beta (kϵ)=4(\nu 1)\frac{\lambda }{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}(kϵ)^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(57)
Then, as in the previous mixed case, in the situation when the irregular modes are also allowed to propagate the couplings have different asymptotic behaviors, as noticed by comparing Eqs.(56, 57) to Eq.(48). We also note that in this case the coupling $`\beta `$, which corresponds to the conformal operator of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, diverges as we approach the boundary.

So far, we have considered the situations in which one of the couplings does not depend on $`ϵ`$. Since the consistency relation Eq.(36) makes it impossible to consider a case where both couplings are simultaneously independent of the distance to the boundary, there is only one case left to be considered, namely, the situation in which both couplings depend on $`ϵ`$. In order to analyze this case, we set

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{1+F(kϵ)\left[F(kϵ)2\lambda \right]}{F(kϵ)},$$
(58)
and from Eq.(36) we also find

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=\frac{1+F(kϵ)\left[F(kϵ)2\lambda \right]}{F(kϵ)2\lambda }.$$
(59)
The reason why we choose the particular expressions above will be clarified later. Introducing Eq.(58) into Eqs.(28, 35) we get

$`I\left[f_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)2\lambda }},`$ (60)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[F(kϵ)2\lambda \right]}.`$ (61)
The key result is that, as it can be verified, the functionals above correspond to add to the action Eq.(13) the following surface terms

$$I=I_0\lambda d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ^2d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ_n\varphi _ϵ,$$
(62)
which give rise to an action which is stationary under a boundary condition which fixes at the border the field 888Note that, under a transformation $`\varphi \varphi +\delta \varphi `$, the variation of the action Eq.(62) is given by the surface term $`\delta I=d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ\delta (_n\varphi _ϵ+2\lambda \varphi _ϵ)`$ which vanishes under a boundary condition which fixes at the border the field Eq.(63).

$$_n\varphi +2\lambda \varphi .$$
(63)
This means that the double-trace perturbation Eq.(58) turns the usual Dirichlet boundary condition into a mixed one which is different from the previously analyzed mixed boundary condition (see Eq.(41)). This clarifies the reason why we chose the specific coupling Eq.(58). Different choices may not make sense in terms of a problem of boundary conditions on the scalar field. Note that, in the particular case $`\lambda =0`$, this new mixed boundary condition reduces to a Neumann one. Even when this boundary condition has not been analyzed in , the procedure is analogous, and it can be verified that in this situation the irregular modes are allowed to propagate in the bulk as well as the regular ones only when the following constraint 999 Since this particular case has not been analyzed in , we give here the main results. The canonical energy corresponding to the action Eq.(62) is given by $`E=d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\mathrm{\Theta }_\tau ^\tau +\lambda _\mu (n^\mu \varphi ^2)+\frac{1}{2}\left(^2\varphi ^2^\tau _\tau \varphi ^2\right)\right]`$, where we consider global coordinates $`(\tau ,\rho ,\stackrel{}{\mathrm{\Omega }})`$ defined as in , the integration is carried out over the spatial coordinates, and $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }\left[g^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha \varphi _\beta \varphi +m^2\varphi ^2\right]`$. It can be shown that the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for irregular modes propagating in the bulk only when both constraints Eqs.(44, 64) are satisfied.

$$\lambda =\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{2},$$
(64)
is satisfied together with Eq.(44). It can be shown that in this situation the divergent local terms of the functionals Eqs.(60, 61) cancel out and, correspondingly, the Legendre transform interpolates between different conformal dimensions, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. When Eq.(64) is satisfied, but Eq.(44) is not, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ reaches the unitarity bound $`(d2)/2`$.

Regarding the relation between the values and asymptotic behaviors of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the phenomenon of the propagation of irregular modes, we expect to find results which are analogous to the ones found in the previous cases. In particular, we expect that in this situation the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$, which is the one that corresponds to the conformal operator of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, 101010 This result can be found by computing the boundary CFT’s through the prescription Eqs.(8, 10) should diverge as we approach the critical value Eq.(64). Now we verify this statement for the case of $`\nu `$ not integer. Since calculations are analogous to the ones performed in the previous cases, we just present the main results. Let us first consider that Eq.(64) is not satisfied. Then, expanding in Eqs.(58, 59) we find

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\lambda )\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (65)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\lambda }}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\lambda )\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (66)
where, as in the previous cases, the dots stand for higher order terms in $`ϵ`$. As anticipated, we note that $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have the same asymptotic behavior, and that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges as we approach the critical value Eq.(64).

Finally, we consider the situation in which the constraint Eq.(64) is satisfied. For $`\nu <1`$ we find

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (67)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{2\nu 1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}}(kϵ)^{2\nu }+\mathrm{},`$ (68)
whereas for $`\nu >1`$ we get

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (69)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\nu 1)(kϵ)^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (70)
Then, as expected, the couplings have different asymptotic behaviors, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges as we approach the boundary.

### 3.2 The Non-Minimally Coupled Case

In the previous sub-section, we have shown, for the particular minimally coupled case, that the perturbation of the conformal field theory by a double-trace operator can be understood as the introduction of a generalized boundary condition on the scalar field. Now we consider the more general situation of a non-minimally coupled scalar field. In this case, we have a non-vanishing coupling coefficient $`\varrho `$ in Eq.(7). But, as pointed out in , the effect of the non-minimal coupling does not limit itself to a redefinition of the effective mass of the theory. In this subsection we will show, in particular, that the introduction of a double-trace perturbation at the boundary generates the natural extension of the Gibbons-Hawking surface term , which is added to the Einstein-Hilbert action in order to have a well-defined variational principle under variations of the metric. As in the minimally coupled case, we will consider different boundary conditions on the scalar field and perform a detailed analysis of each one of them.

We begin by considering the simplest case where the coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ does not depend on the distance to the boundary

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=2\varrho d,$$
(71)
where $`\varrho `$ has been introduced in Eq.(7). Recall here that, throughout this section, we will consider $`\nu =\sqrt{\frac{d^2}{4}+m^2+\varrho R}`$. From Eq.(36) we also find

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{2\varrho d}{F(kϵ)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)2\varrho d}.$$
(72)
Introducing the equation above into Eqs.(28, 35) we get

$`I\left[f_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[F(kϵ)2\varrho d\right]},`$ (73)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)2\varrho d}}.`$ (74)
The functionals above are precisely the same as the ones found in  when considering, in the non-minimally coupled case, a Dirichlet boundary condition which fixes the field $`\varphi `$ at the border. We note from  that the functionals above correspond to add to the usual action Eq.(13) a boundary term of the form

$$I=I_0\varrho d^dx\sqrt{h}𝒦_ϵ\varphi _ϵ^2,$$
(75)
where $`𝒦`$ is the trace of the extrinsic curvature at the boundary. The above surface term is just the natural extension of the usual Gibbons-Hawking term . The importance of this surface term is that, even when we are considering a Dirichlet boundary condition, it lets irregular modes to propagate in the bulk for particular values of $`\varrho `$ . We have just shown that such surface term can be generated by perturbing the conformal field theory with a double-trace operator. Note that in the particular case $`\varrho =0`$, corresponding to the minimally coupled case, we recover the usual Dirichlet boundary condition. We also point out that for general $`\varrho `$ both functionals Eqs.(73, 74) give rise to the same conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, with one particular exception, namely, the situation in which both constraints Eq.(44) and

$$\varrho =\frac{d1}{8d}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+\left(\frac{4m}{d1}\right)^2}\right],$$
(76)
are satisfied.111111 It is interesting to note that, in the particular case $`m=0`$, one of the solutions in Eq.(76) vanishes, whereas the another one reduces to the conformal value for which the ‘improved’ stress-energy tensor of the scalar field becomes traceless. This means that, in particular, Weyl-invariant theories in the bulk allow for irregular modes to propagate as well, and give rise to functionals in which the divergent local terms cancel out. In this case, the divergent local terms of both functionals Eqs.(73, 74) cancel out, making the addition of counterterms to be unnecessary, and the Legendre transform interpolates between different conformal dimensions, namely $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. From the bulk point of view, both regular and irregular modes can propagate, because the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for both of them. When Eq.(76) is satisfied but Eq.(44) is not, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ reaches the unitarity bound $`(d2)/2`$. For details, see .

Now we concentrate on the relation between the values and asymptotic behaviors of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the phenomenon of the propagation of irregular modes in the bulk. Note that, in this case, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ corresponds to the conformal operator $`\stackrel{~}{𝒪}`$ , and we expect $`\beta `$ to diverge as we approach any of the critical values Eq.(76). We begin by considering the situation in which Eq.(76) is not satisfied. Expanding for $`\nu `$ not integer in Eq.(72) we find

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{2\varrho d}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}2\varrho d)}+\mathrm{},$$
(77)
where the dots stand for higher order terms in $`ϵ`$. From Eqs.(71, 77) we find that $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have the same asymptotic behavior, as expected. Also as expected, we note from the equation above that $`\beta `$ diverges as we approach any of the critical values Eq.(76).121212 Recall here that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ depends on $`\varrho `$.

We still need to consider the case when Eq.(76) is satisfied. This is done as in the previous cases. For $`\nu <1`$ we get

$$\beta (kϵ)=2^{2\nu }\frac{\varrho d}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}(kϵ)^{2\nu }+\mathrm{},$$
(78)
whereas for $`\nu >1`$ we find

$$\beta (kϵ)=4(\nu 1)\frac{\varrho d}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}(kϵ)^2+\mathrm{}.$$
(79)
As expected, if irregular modes are also allowed to propagate, then the couplings have different asymptotic behaviors, as noticed from Eqs.(71, 78, 79). In this situation, $`\beta `$ diverges as we approach the boundary.

Finally, we consider a situation in which both couplings $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ depend on the distance to the boundary. This is done by setting

$$\beta (kϵ)=\frac{1+F(kϵ)\left[F(kϵ)+2\varrho d\right]}{F(kϵ)}.$$
(80)
From Eq.(36) we also get

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)=\frac{1+F(kϵ)\left[F(kϵ)+2\varrho d\right]}{F(kϵ)+2\varrho d}.$$
(81)
Introducing Eq.(80) into Eqs.(28, 35) we find

$`I\left[f_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})f_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\frac{1}{F(kϵ)+2\varrho d}},`$ (82)
$`\stackrel{~}{I}\left[\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ\right]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dy\sqrt{h}\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{x})\stackrel{~}{f}_ϵ(\stackrel{}{y})\frac{d^dk}{\left(2\pi \right)^d}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}\left(\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}\right)}\left[F(kϵ)+2\varrho d\right]}.`$ (83)
The key result is that the functionals above are precisely the same as the ones considered in  when analyzing a boundary condition which fixes at the boundary the field

$$_n\varphi +2\varrho 𝒦\varphi .$$
(84)
This means that, for the particular choice Eq.(80), the double-trace perturbation acts by turning the Dirichlet boundary condition into a mixed one, which is different from the ones considered in the minimally coupled case (see Eqs.(41, 63)).131313 In , this particular boundary condition was called as ‘Type I’ mixed boundary condition. It is also interesting to note from Eq.(84) that, in the particular minimally coupled case ($`\varrho =0`$), this mixed boundary condition reduces to a Neumann one. We also point out that setting this mixed boundary condition is equivalent to add to the usual action Eq.(13) the following boundary terms

$$I=I_0\varrho d^dx\sqrt{h}𝒦_ϵ\varphi _ϵ^2d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi _ϵ_n\varphi _ϵ,$$
(85)
where the first surface term is the same that arises in the Dirichlet situation Eq.(75), whereas the second surface term is new. We emphasize that the new surface term does not spoil the property of having a well-defined variational principle under variations of the metric. We also point out that for general $`\varrho `$ both functionals Eqs.(82, 83) give rise to the same conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$, with one particular exception, namely the situation in which both constraints Eq.(44) and

$$\varrho =\frac{3d+1}{8d}\left[1\sqrt{1+\left(\frac{4m}{3d+1}\right)^2}\right],$$
(86)
are satisfied. In analogy to the former cases, in this situation the divergent local terms of the functionals Eqs.(82, 83) cancel out, and this fact encodes the information that the Legendre transform interpolates between different conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. In this case there is no need to add any counterterms. From the bulk point of view, both regular and irregular modes are allowed to propagate, because the canonical energy is conserved, positive and finite for both of them. In addition, when Eq.(86) is satisfied but Eq.(44) is not, the conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ reaches the unitarity bound $`(d2)/2`$ and becomes independent of the effective mass. For details, see .

We still need to analyze the relation between the values and asymptotic behaviors of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and the phenomenon of the propagation of irregular modes. In this particular case, we expect $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ to diverge as we approach any of the critical values Eq.(86). This is due to the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ corresponds to the conformal operator of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ . Let us first consider the situation where Eq.(86) is not satisfied. Expanding in Eqs.(80, 81) we get

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+2\varrho d)\right]+\mathrm{},`$ (87)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+2\varrho d}}\left[1+\mathrm{\Delta }_{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{}+2\varrho d)\right]+\mathrm{}.`$ (88)
As expected, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have the same asymptotic behavior, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges as we approach any of the critical values Eq.(86).141414 Recall here that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ depends on $`\varrho `$.

Finally, we consider the situation in which Eq.(86) is satisfied. For $`\nu <1`$ we get

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (89)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2^{2\nu 1}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\nu )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}}(kϵ)^{2\nu }+\mathrm{},`$ (90)
whereas for $`\nu >1`$ we have

$`\beta (kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (91)
$`\stackrel{~}{\beta }(kϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`2(\nu 1)(kϵ)^2+\mathrm{}.`$ (92)
As expected, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have different asymptotic behaviors, and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ diverges as we approach the boundary.

## 4 Conclusions

In this work, we have introduced a generalized AdS/CFT prescription, which is suggested by results in , and can consistently incorporate double-trace perturbations at the boundary CFT. This leads to a formalism in which we can perform explicit calculations. We have analyzed both minimally and non-minimally coupled cases, and obtained new results for both of them.

We have shown that consistency of the formalism imposes a precise relation between the couplings $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (see Eq.(36)), and requires that at least one of them depends on the distance to the boundary. We have considered many possible couplings, and in all situations we have shown that, to introduce a double-trace perturbation at the border, is equivalent to add a surface term to the usual action Eq.(13). This gives rise to different kinds of Dirichlet, Neumann and mixed boundary conditions on the scalar field. In all cases, we have performed the explicit calculation of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ and of the corresponding surface terms. We have found that there exist particular values of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ which allow for irregular modes to propagate as well. We have computed the explicit expressions of such special couplings. We have shown that, as we get closer to the situation in which irregular modes are allowed to propagate, the coupling corresponding to the operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ diverges. This result is consistent with the statement in  that, as the coupling grows, the system approaches the condition that is suitable for quantization to get a field of dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$. In addition, we have shown that, when the constraints for which irregular modes propagate are satisfied, $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ have different asymptotic behaviors, and the coupling corresponding to the operator of conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+`$ diverges as we approach the boundary.

We have also shown that there exist particular values of $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ which require the introduction of new boundary conditions which have not been considered in . We have included these new boundary conditions in our analysis.

In the particular non-minimally coupled case, we have also shown that the introduction of a double-trace perturbation at the boundary generates the natural extension of the Gibbons-Hawking surface term.

In general, we have shown that the introduction of double-trace perturbations can be understood in terms of the formulation in . In particular, this enables us to relate the double-trace perturbations to the quantization which makes use of the canonical energy instead of the metrical one. Such quantization appears to be the natural one to be considered in the AdS/CFT context.

Throughout this article, we have only considered the simplest non-trivial case of multi-trace perturbations, namely, that of double-trace ones. It would be interesting to extend this formalism to the case of higher power trace perturbations. It should be noted that in such case non-linear boundary conditions would arise which would require to consider a perturbative approach. More complex calculations would be involved to first extend the formulation in  and then to employ it to describe the more complicated multi-trace perturbations. We also would like to be able to reproduce the constraints for which irregular modes propagate in the bulk and the couplings diverge by performing calculations exclusively on the boundary CFT side. It also would be interesting to understand the meaning of the generalized boundary conditions in the string theory context. This requires a more detailed study.

## 5 Acknowledgements

I would like to thank J. Maldacena for helpful discussions. Special thanks to V. O. Rivelles for encouragement and a critical reading of the manuscript. This work was supported by FAPESP grant 01/05770-1.


format: text

text:
# Effects of Relativistic Expansion on the Late-time Supernova Light Curves

## 1 Introduction

It has long been recognized that the radiative transfer in supernova(SN) ejecta should be treated relativistically to account for the high velocities achieved in its outermost layers. However, it is only in the last decade that the first numerical codes for radiative transfer that take relativistic effects into account were developed and applied to transfer problems in SN ejecta. At early times of explosion, the energy of photons emitted from the photosphere of SN ejecta is greatly enhanced by the Doppler effect. As time goes on and the photosphere recedes towards the center of ejecta, the degree of the enhancement decreases, and eventually the resultant light curve(LC) is expected to follow an (quasi-)exponential deposition curve due to radioactive decays. However, there are several factors that cause the late-time LCs deviate from the radioactive decay curve. One possibility is the flattening of LCs owing to the so-called ionization freeze-out effect, as first pointed out by Fransson & Kozma (1993) for the late-time LC of SN 1987A. Another one is the signatures of contributions from other energy sources such as possible pulsar activity and circumstellar interaction as have been discussed by previous works.

In this Letter, I would like to point out that late-time SN LCs may show a deviation from radioactive decay curves as a result of the relativistic Doppler effect. In particular, for very energetic SNe or what are called hypernovae(HNe), the relativistic effect would be very important since the maximum velocity near the surface of ejecta reaches a significant fraction of the speed of light. It will be shown that the Doppler effect makes a LC brighter due to the Lorentz boosting, but at the same time the light-traveling-time effect and a pure-relativistic effect delay the decay of radioactive nuclei, thus tending to make the LC even brighter at late phases. The net result is determined by the sum of these two effects. Late-time LCs provide direct information to determine the 56Ni masses ejected by SNe. Therefore, its precise determination is of great importance for studies of SN explosion mechanism and chemical evolution of galaxies. In this Letter, we study the relativistic effect on the late-time LCs and estimate the size of the correction to the (quasi-)exponential decay for ordinary SNe and HNe. For simplicity, we use the approximation that energy input from radioactivity is emitted as optical photons on the spot and carried away from the SN ejecta free of absorption.

## 2 Light Curves

We consider a spherically symmetric SN ejecta that expands homologously, so that its radius is given by $`R(t)=R_0+\beta ct`$ as a function of time $`t`$ after explosion, where $`R_0`$ is the initial radius, $`\beta c`$ is the surface velocity, and $`c`$ is the speed of light. Let us introduce the radial and azimuthal coordinates, $`x`$ and $`\mu `$, as shown in Figure 1, to designate volume elements of ejecta, such that $`x`$ runs from 0 to 1 outwards and that $`\mu `$ is the cosine of angle $`\theta `$ made between radial direction and the line of sight.

The flux of photons received by an observer at time $`t`$ is the sum of the emissions from the volume element at a retarded time $`t_{\mathrm{ret}}`$, $`dV=2\pi R(t_{\mathrm{ret}})^3x^2dxd\mu `$, where $`t_{\mathrm{ret}}`$ is defined by

$`c(tt_{\mathrm{ret}})`$ $`=`$ $`dR(t_{\mathrm{ret}})x\mathrm{cos}\theta `$ (1)
$``$ $`dc\beta \mu xt_{\mathrm{ret}}`$
and $`d`$ is the distance between the SN and the observer. We used the fact that the initial hydrodynamical time scale is short compared to the elapsed time considered, $`R_0/\beta c<<t`$. Solving equation (1) in terms of $`t_{\mathrm{ret}}`$, we obtain

$`t_{\mathrm{ret}}={\displaystyle \frac{td/c}{1\beta \mu x}}.`$ (2)
Let us define the frequency-integrated emissivity $`j`$ as the total energy of photons emitted per unit volume, unit time, and unit solid angle. Then, the emissivity in the rest frame in the direction toward the observer $`j(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})`$ is related to that of the comoving frame $`j_c`$ such that

$`j(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})={\displaystyle \frac{j_\mathrm{c}(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret},\mathrm{c}})}{\gamma _x^3(1\beta \mu x)^3}},`$ (3)
where $`\gamma _x=(1\beta ^2x^2)^{1/2}`$ and $`t_{\mathrm{ret},\mathrm{c}}=t_{\mathrm{ret}}/\gamma _x`$ is the retarded time in the comoving frame (e.g.,Rybicki & Lightman, 1979). We assume that the radiative loss from the ejecta is balanced by the energy input due to radioactive decay and that the emissivity in the comoving frame is isotropic. Then, $`j_c`$ is written as

$`j_\mathrm{c}(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret},\mathrm{c}})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}fϵ{\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{c}(x,t_{\mathrm{ret}})}{\tau }},`$ (4)
where $`n_c`$ is the number density of radioactive nuclei in the comoving frame, $`\tau `$ is its decay time, $`ϵ`$ is the energy available per decay, and $`f`$ is the deposition fraction. The total number of radioactive nuclei in a volume element $`\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, $`\gamma _xn_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }V`$, obeys the decay law given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_{\mathrm{ret},\mathrm{c}}}}(\gamma _xn_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }V)={\displaystyle \frac{\gamma _xn_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\tau }},`$ (5)
or

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}}(n_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }V)={\displaystyle \frac{n_\mathrm{c}\mathrm{\Delta }V}{\gamma _x\tau }},`$ (6)
which has a solution

$`n_\mathrm{c}(x,t_{\mathrm{ret}})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Delta }V(0)}{\mathrm{\Delta }V(t_{\mathrm{ret}})}}n_\mathrm{c}(x,0)e^{{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}{\gamma _x\tau }}}=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{R(t_{\mathrm{ret}})}}\right)^3n_\mathrm{c}(x,0)e^{{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}{\gamma _x\tau }}}`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{R(t_{\mathrm{ret}})}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{n(x,0)}{\gamma _x}}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}{\gamma _x\tau }}}.`$
Using equation (7) in equation (4), we obtain

$`j_\mathrm{c}(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret},\mathrm{c}})=\left({\displaystyle \frac{R_0}{R(t_{\mathrm{ret}})}}\right)^3{\displaystyle \frac{fϵ}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{n(x,0)}{\gamma _x\tau }}e^{{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}{\gamma _x\tau }}}.`$ (8)
In equating the energy emitted in a time $`dt_{\mathrm{ret}}`$ by a volume element at $`x,\mu `$ and time $`t_{\mathrm{ret}}`$, $`dV(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})`$, with the corresponding energy passing through a normal area $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ at the observer during time $`dt`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }SdF(t)dt`$, we have

$`dF(t)dt\mathrm{\Delta }S=j(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})dt_{\mathrm{ret}}dV(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (9)
where $`dF(t)`$ is the differential flux corresponding to the volume element and $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the solid angle subtended for the area $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$ by the volume element, and thus $`\mathrm{\Delta }S=d^2\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Adding up contributions by all the volume elements, we have the observed flux at time $`t`$,

$`F(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{t_{\mathrm{ret}}}{t}j(x,\mu ,t_{\mathrm{ret}})𝑑V}`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{fN_{\mathrm{tot}}ϵ}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x3x^2\stackrel{~}{n}(x)\times {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^1}𝑑\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\gamma _x^4(1\beta \mu x)^4}}\mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\left(td/c\right)/\tau }{\gamma _x(1\beta \mu x)}}\right].`$
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{n}(x)=n(x,0)/\overline{n}`$ is the dimensionless number density of the radioactive nuclei and $`N_{\mathrm{tot}}=(4\pi /3)R_0^3\overline{n}`$ is its total number at $`t=0`$, where $`\overline{n}`$ is the average number density defined as

$`\overline{n}{\displaystyle \frac{{\displaystyle _0^1}n(x,0)x^2𝑑x}{{\displaystyle _0^1}x^2𝑑x}}=3{\displaystyle _0^1}n(x,0)x^2𝑑x,`$ (11)
and thus $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ is normalized such that

$`{\displaystyle _0^1}3x^2\stackrel{~}{n}(x)𝑑x=1.`$ (12)
In deriving equation (10), it is assumed that $`f`$ is constant throughout the ejecta for simplicity. This holds for 56Co decay at sufficiently late times when the deposition is primarily due to $`e^+`$ decay, and even for general cases if only the effect of a varying $`f`$ is incorporated into $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$. Using the variable $`y\gamma _x^1(1\beta \mu x)^1`$ instead of $`\mu `$, the equation (10) is rewritten as

$`F(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{fN_{\mathrm{tot}}ϵ}{\tau }}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x3x^2\stackrel{~}{n}(x)f(\beta ,x,X),`$ (13)
where

$`f(\beta ,x,X)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\gamma _x\beta x}}{\displaystyle _{a(\beta ,x)}^{b(\beta ,x)}}y^2e^{Xy}𝑑y,`$ (14)
$`X{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau }}\left(t{\displaystyle \frac{d}{c}}\right),`$ and $`a(\beta ,x),b(\beta ,x)`$ are given by

$`a(\beta ,x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\beta x}{1+\beta x}}\right)^{1/2},b(\beta ,x)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta x}{1\beta x}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (15)
respectively. Note that $`b(\beta ,x)=a(\beta ,x)`$ so that $`f(\beta ,x,X)`$ is an even function of $`\beta `$.

The integration in equation (14) can be readily done to yield

$`f(\beta ,x,X)={\displaystyle \frac{g(b(\beta ,x))g(a(\beta ,x))}{2\gamma _x\beta x}},`$ (16)
with

$`g(y)={\displaystyle y^2e^{Xy}𝑑y}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{X^3}}e^{Xy}\left(X^2y^2+2Xy+2\right).`$ (17)
Expanding $`g(a(\beta ,x))`$ and $`g(b(\beta ,x))`$ in equation (16) in terms of $`\beta `$, we obtain

$`f(\beta ,x,X)=g^{}(1)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{g^{\prime \prime }(1)}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{g^{(3)}(1)}{6}}\right)\beta ^2x^2+O(\beta ^4)=e^X\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{X^27X+8}{6}}\beta ^2x^2+O(\beta ^4)\right].`$ (18)
Using equation (18) in equation (13) and retaining terms up to the second order in $`\beta `$, we get

$`F(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi d^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{fN_{\mathrm{tot}}ϵ}{\tau }}e^X\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{X^27X+8}{6}}<\beta _x^2>\right],`$ (19)
where $`<\beta _x^2>`$ is the average of square velocity of radioactive nuclei given by

$`<\beta _x^2>={\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x3x^2\stackrel{~}{n}(x)\beta ^2x^2.`$ (20)
## 3 Size of the Relativistic Correction

The leading term in equation (19) corresponds to an (quasi-)exponential decay of the flux that is expected for the exponential decay of radioactive energy sources. It is quasi-exponential, because, in general, $`f`$ changes with time. The next term is a relativistic correction, which is of second order in $`\beta `$ and is generally very small. The correction is quadratic in $`t^{}td/c`$. It takes a value $`(4/3)<\beta _x^2>`$ at $`t^{}=0`$ and has a minimum $`(17/24)<\beta _x^2>`$ at $`t^{}=3.5\tau `$. At late times when $`t^{}>>\tau `$, the correction term becomes quite large.

To calculate $`<\beta _x^2>`$, we need to know the density structure of the ejecta. Here we assume a density profile

$`\rho (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\rho _c\hfill & \hfill 0xx_c,\\ \rho _c\left({\displaystyle \frac{x}{x_c}}\right)^p\hfill & \hfill x_cx1,\end{array}`$ (23)
which is a good approximation to the actual SN ejecta and greatly simplifies our analysis. This profile is characterized by the core radius $`x_c`$ and the index of the power-law $`p`$. For given $`x_c`$ and $`p`$, $`\rho _c`$ is determined to be

$`\rho _c={\displaystyle \frac{p3}{px_c^33x_c^p}}{\displaystyle \frac{3M_{\mathrm{ej}}}{4\pi R^3}}.`$
In addition, the maximum velocity achieved in SN ejecta, $`\beta `$, is given by

$`\beta =\left({\displaystyle \frac{10E_\mathrm{k}}{3M_{\mathrm{ej}}c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p5}{p3}}{\displaystyle \frac{px_c^33x_c^p}{px_c^55x_c^p}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (24)
where $`E_\mathrm{k}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ are the kinetic energy of explosion and the ejecta mass, respectively. Using the fact that $`x_c0.1`$ and $`p`$ is as large as $`810`$ for typical cases, the equation (24) reduces to

$`\beta \left({\displaystyle \frac{10E_\mathrm{k}}{3M_{\mathrm{ej}}c^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p5}{p3}}\right)^{1/2}x_c^1,`$ (25)
which gives $`\beta 0.33(E_\mathrm{k}/10^{51}\mathrm{erg})^{1/2}(M_{\mathrm{ej}}/M_{})^{1/2}(x_c/0.1)^1`$ for $`p=8`$.

If radioactive nucleus 56Ni is homogeneously mixed within the ejecta and thus $`\stackrel{~}{n}(x)`$ has the same profile as $`\rho (x)`$, we find from equation (20)

$`<\beta _x^2>={\displaystyle \frac{3}{5}}{\displaystyle \frac{p3}{p5}}{\displaystyle \frac{px_c^55x_c^p}{px_c^33x_c^p}}\beta ^2.`$ (26)
From equations (24) and (26), we obtain $`<\beta _x^2>=2E_\mathrm{k}/(M_{\mathrm{ej}}c^2)`$. Then, the correction term in the bracket of equation (19) turns out to be

$`{\displaystyle \frac{X^27X+8}{6}}<\beta _x^2>`$ $`=`$ $`1.11\times 10^3{\displaystyle \frac{X^27X+8}{6}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_\mathrm{k}}{10^{51}\mathrm{erg}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mathrm{ej}}}{M_{}}}\right)^1.`$ (27)
It is seen from equation (27) that the size of the relativistic correction depends only on $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{k}`$, irrespective of the density profile of the ejecta in the homogeneous-mixing case.

We use the fact that radioactivity is dominantly mediated by 56Co decay of the decay chain 56Ni$`^{56}`$Co$`^{56}`$Fe, and thus $`\tau =\tau _{\mathrm{Co}}\tau _{\mathrm{Ni}}111.38.8=102.5`$ days and $`ϵ=ϵ_{\mathrm{Co}}`$, the energy available per decay of 56Co, effectively. Then, it is found that the correction term is only 0.16, 0.88, and 3.7 percent of the leading term even at $`t^{}=`$2, 3, and 5 years, respectively, for the case of Type Ia SN(SN Ia), which has a relatively large expansion velocity because of its small mass $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}M_{}`$ and canonical explosion energy $`E_\mathrm{k}=10^{51}`$ erg. For Type II SNe(SNe II), the ejecta mass is much larger, e.g., $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}10M_{}`$, so that the correction will be much smaller. In the actual SN ejecta, 56Ni is more centrally concentrated than the homogeneous-mixing case now considered. Thus, the above numbers are likely to be an overestimate. Therefore, it is concluded that, for ordinary SNe, the relativistic effect would be very small compared to other possible effects such as ionization freeze-out, circumstellar interaction, and contributions from radioactivity of other than 56Co.

## 4 The Case of SN 1998bw

HNe have larger explosion energies than ordinary SNe by an order of magnitude. Thus, we expect that the relativistic effect will be more important for HNe. As an example of HNe, we take a model for a hypernova SN 1998bw, CO138 (Iwamoto et al., 1998; Nakamura et al., 2001), which has $`M_{\mathrm{ej}}10M_{}`$ and $`E_\mathrm{k}(2050)\times 10^{51}`$ erg. We found that the density distribution of CO138 is well reproduced by a profile given by equation (23) with $`p=10`$ and $`x_c=0.1`$. Figure 2 compares the analytic fit(dotted line) and the result of hydrodynamical calculation (solid line) for $`\stackrel{~}{n}`$ of CO138 with $`E_\mathrm{k}=30\times 10^{51}`$ erg (Iwamoto et al., 1998) and with homogeneous 56Ni distribution. The value of $`p`$ is in good agreement with results by Matzner & McKee (1999) obtained for cases of compact SN progenitors.

Then, from equation (27), we find that the change of the flux will be still relatively small at early times, but it grows considerably at late times. It is only 1.8, 2.6, and 4.4 percent at $`t^{}=3`$ years, but becomes 7.4, 11.1, and 18.5 percent at $`t^{}=5`$ years for cases of $`E_\mathrm{k}=`$ 20, 30, and $`50\times 10^{51}`$ erg, respectively. If the explosion occurs in a jet-like (Nagataki, 2000) or whatever non-spherical geometry, 56Ni is likely to be boosted to higher velocities and then we might see an appreciable change in flux. In late-time spectra of SN 1998bw, it was observed that iron has a larger velocity than oxygen, indicating that such a non-spherical 56Ni distribution may be realized in the ejecta of SN 1998bw (Mazzali et al., 2001).

Even for spherically symmetric models, it is reported that the ejecta of HNe may become trans-relativistic with its outer envelope having a mean velocity $`\gamma =(1\beta ^2)^{1/2}2`$ ($`\beta \sqrt{3}/2`$) and a flatter density gradient of $`p4`$ (Tan, Matzner, & McKee, 2001). Therefore, to make a detailed comparison between the observed late-time LCs and those predicted by non-spherical HN models, it is recommended that we calculate model LCs by taking the relativistic effect into account. Note that for large values of $`\beta `$ the expansion series in terms of $`\beta `$ (equation 18) may not converge well. However, the analytic solution with equations (16) and (17) is exact, and thus we can use it to study such cases with large $`\beta `$.

The author would like to thank Drs. Shiomi Kumagai, Takayoshi Nakamura, and Professor Emeritus Masatomo Sato for useful discussion. This work has been supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (12740122, 12047208) of The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science, and Technology(MEXT) in Japan.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

I have given a similar talk in ref.  in 2000, so I will not repeat material that was presented there. Rather I will emphasize what is new since that time. The main new results fall under the categories of (1) effects of brane cosmology, (2) nonthermal production of sphalerons by preheating, and (3) refinements of the computation of electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM.

## 2 Brane-world implications for Baryogenesis

In the context of large (ADD ) extra dimensions, it has already been noted that baryogenesis is difficult because of the extremely low reheat temperature that is needed to keep light Kaluza-Klein gravitons out of thermal equilibrium, since they would distort the cosmic gamma ray background . A warped extra dimension à la Randall and Sundrum (RS)  however provides an interesting possibility: the Friedmann equation is modified to the form -

$$H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho \left(1+\frac{\rho }{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\right)$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the tension of the brane on which we are presumed to be living. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is sufficiently small, then the expansion rate could be significantly increased at the time of the electroweak phase transition , making it possible for sphalerons to go out of equilibrium as is required for electroweak baryogenesis, without having to add new physics for the purpose of strengthening the electroweak phase transition. Unfortunately the modified Friedmann equation (1) is specific to the RS-II model in which there is a just a single brane; in the two-brane version that was invented to solve the hierarchy problem, the $`O(\rho ^2)`$ correction has the wrong sign for helping with baryogenesis . It would be interesting to find other brane-world models which had the desired behavior.

On a more general note, it could be expected that cosmology at the TeV scale (or perhaps 100 GeV if we push the parameters) might be rather radically altered in the RS-I model, since the TeV brane on which we live in that model should cease to exist as we know it at temperatures exceeding this scale -. At sufficiently high temperatures the TeV brane is hidden behind a horizon in the extra dimension. Its emergence is associated with a phase transition in the conformal field theory corresponding to the bulk graviton degrees of freedom. If this coincides with the electroweak phase transition, the situation could be richer than is normally assumed.

## 3 Preheating Effects

One of the holy grails in electroweak baryogenesis is satisfying the sphaleron bound: the rate of sphaleron interactions per unit volume must be less than $`H^4`$ once the baryon asymmetry has been created in order to avoid its relaxation back to negligible levels. I mentioned eq. (1) as one new idea for achieving this. Another which has gotten some attention recently is related to preheating. If inflation occurs with a low reheat temperature $`T100`$ GeV (as one would like for the large extra dimension scenarios), then sphalerons could not be created by normal thermal processes. However they might be produced by nonequilibrium conversion of the coherent field energy of the inflaton near the end of inflation, as has been discussed by A. Rajantie in these proceedings  and in the references .

In order to make this idea work, one can couple the inflaton to the Higgs field in the manner of hybrid inflation, through an interaction of the form

$$V=\lambda (H^2v^2)^2+\frac{1}{2}m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+g^2\sigma ^2H^2$$
(2)
but the COBE observations require that $`m_\sigma 10^{10}`$ eV, which is unstable against radiative corrections . The problem can be ameliorated in inverted hybrid inflation models, in which the inflaton $`\sigma `$ rolls away from $`\sigma =0`$ instead of towards it, due to the addition of some nonrenormalizable operators to $`V`$. The number of counterterms which need to be fine tuned to keep $`V`$ sufficiently flat in this model is much smaller than in the ordinary hybrid model. Nevertheless, this discussion underscores the difficulties in constructing a convincing or natural realization of low temperature baryogenesis.

## 4 Electroweak Baryogenesis in the MSSM

It has become standard to compute the baryon asymmetry due to sphalerons in three steps -: first compute the source term that appears in diffusion equations for the various species which couple to left-handed quarks (since these are the particles which ultimately bias sphalerons); then solve the diffusion equations for the chemical potentials of the left-handed quarks. This is easily fed into the sphaleron rate equation to compute the baryon asymmetry. Because the network of diffusion equations is complicated, it was also standard to employ some simplifying approximations, one of which was to assume that the sum of the chemical potentials for the two Higgs fields $`H_1`$ and $`H_2`$ is driven to zero by interactions involving the top quark Yukawa coupling. In this approximation one considers only the source for the difference between the two, and this turns out to be suppressed by the fact that the ratio $`H_1/H_2`$ remains quite constant within the bubble walls that form during the electroweak phase transition . However, it was pointed out by us  that the assumption of top Yukawa equilibrium is not realistic, and that the source term for $`H_1+H_2`$ is much larger than that for $`H_1H_2`$, since it is not suppressed by the constancy of $`H_1/H_2`$ inside the wall, nor is it very strongly suppressed by the top Yukawa interactions.

Despite this enhancement, we still find that the baryon asymmetry is small, and it is rather difficult to tune the parameters of the MSSM to get an acceptably large baryon asymmetry. Our results are in contrast to those of , who find larger values. The difference comes from our respective derivations of the source term in the diffusion equations, which we do starting from the semiclassical CP-violating force acting on Higgsinos in the bubble wall . From this force, one can derive the diffusion equations from the Boltzmann equation in a controlled and rigorous fashion.

It should be emphasized that if we were simply making rough order-of-magnitude estimates of the baryon asymmetry based on the semiclassical formalism, our results would be in better agreement with those of . The suppression comes from the detailed properties of our source term for the Higgsinos, which looks like

$$S_H=\frac{v_wD_{\stackrel{~}{H}}}{2v^2T}\frac{|p_z|}{E^3}\gamma \left(m^2\theta ^{}\right)^{\prime \prime }$$
(3)
where $`v_w`$ is the bubble wall velocity, $`D_{\stackrel{~}{H}}`$ is the Higgsino diffusion coefficient, $``$ denotes thermal averaging, and $`me^{i\theta (x)}`$ is the locally varying Higgsino mass inside the wall. The salient feature is that this source is close to being a total derivative, and it must be integrated in the solution of the diffusion equations. Its integral is much smaller than its typical values, which we would have used had we been doing an order-of-magnitude estimate. This can be seen from Fig. 1(a), which shows $`S_H`$ as a function of distance in the wall, and Fig. 1(b), the left-handed quark chemical potential. The latter is several orders of magnitude smaller than the former due to the large cancellations which take place in integrating the diffusion equations.

As a result, we are forced to take the CP violating phase of the $`\mu `$ parameter to be close to maximal, and to assume that the wall velocity $`v_w`$ and $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ are close to their optimal values, as shown in fig. 2. The required value of $`v_w`$ is not unlikely , but such large phases require the squarks to be quite heavy in order to suppress the loop contributions to the EDM of Mercury . Moreover, we need to take the chargino and Higgsino mass parameters $`|\mu |`$ and $`m_2`$ to be nearly degenerate, as shown in fig. 3.

In addition to the tunings of parameters already mentioned, one needs for the right-handed stop mass to be very light  and the left-handed stop to be heavy. Therefore electroweak baryogenesis in the MSSM is not yet ruled out, but it is close to being so. Life is easier in the NMSSM though, where the MSSM is supplemented by a singlet field. Not only is it easy to make the electroweak phase transition stronger , but the CP violation can occur transitionally and thus be relatively free from experimental constraints . The semiclassical analysis of the source term in this model has been carried out in .