text:
# Random-matrix ensembles in 𝑝-wave vortices

## 1 Single-Quantum Vortex

In this section we consider a vortex in the order parameter similar to the $`A`$ phase of 3He. Namely, we assume that the condensate wave function has the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\pm =e^{i\phi }[d_x\left(\right|+|)+id_y\left(\right||)+d_z\left(\right|+|)](k_x\pm ik_y),$$
(3)
and that the vector $`𝐝`$ defining the orientation of the triplet is fixed (without loss of generality, take it to be in the $`𝐳`$ direction. We also assume a fixed chirality of the order parameter and take positive sign in place of $`\pm `$ in (3). Then the only allowed vortices are those involving a rotation of the phase of the order parameter, and the magnetic flux in such vortices is quantized in conventional superconducting flux quanta $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=hc/2e`$.

Below we analyze the low-lying energy levels obtained as solutions to Bogoliubov–deGennes equations for the mean-field Hamiltonian

$$H=\underset{\alpha }{}\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\left[\frac{(𝐩e𝐀)^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)\epsilon _F\right]\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha +\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_x\frac{p_x}{k_F}+\mathrm{\Delta }_y\frac{p_y}{k_F}\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.,$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ are the electron operators ($`\alpha `$ is the spin index), $`V(𝐫)`$ is the external potential of impurities, $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ is the electromagnetic vector potential, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x(𝐫)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y(𝐫)`$ are the coordinate-dependent components of the superconducting gap. \[In the bulk, the preferred superconducting order is one of the two chiral components $`\eta _\pm =\mathrm{\Delta }_x\pm i\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$, but in inhomogeneous systems, such as a vortex core, an admixture of the opposite component may be self-consistently generated . We account for this effect by allowing the two independent order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_y`$.\] Star ($``$) denotes the symmetrized ordering of the gradients $`p_\mu `$ and the order parameters $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ \[definition: $`AB(AB+BA)/2`$\]. At infinity, the order parameter imposes the vortex boundary conditions:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_x(r\mathrm{},\varphi )=\mathrm{\Delta }_0e^{\pm i\varphi },\mathrm{\Delta }_y(r\mathrm{},\varphi )=i\mathrm{\Delta }_0e^{\pm i\varphi },$$
(5)
where $`r`$ and $`\varphi `$ are polar coordinates. Plus or minus signs in the exponent correspond to a positive or a negative single-quantum vortex. For an axially-symmetric vortex with the chirality of the order parameter non-self-consistently fixed ($`\mathrm{\Delta }_yi\mathrm{\Delta }_x`$), without the vector-potential $`𝐀(𝐫)`$ and without disorder $`V(𝐫)`$, the low-lying eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (4) have been found by Kopnin and Salomaa . The spectrum is

$$E_n=n\omega _0,(p\mathrm{wave}),n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(6)
with $`\omega _0\mathrm{\Delta }^2/\epsilon _F`$. This result should be compared with the spectrum of the vortex core in a $`s`$-wave superconductor :

$$E_n=\left(n+\frac{1}{2}\right)\omega _0,(s\mathrm{wave}),n=0,\pm 1,\pm 2,\mathrm{}$$
(7)
The common feature of the spectra in the $`s`$-wave and $`p`$-wave cases is the symmetry with respect to zero energy. If we interpret holes in the negative-energy levels as excitations with positive energies (and with opposite spin), then this symmetry implies that the excitations are doubly degenerate in spin: to each spin-up excitation there corresponds a spin-down excitation at the same energy. For the $`s`$-wave vortex, this degeneracy is due to the full spin-rotation $`SU(2)`$ symmetry. The $`p`$-wave Hamiltonian (4) has a reduced spin symmetry. Namely, it has the symmetry group $`O(2)`$ generated by rotations about the $`z`$-axis ($`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}e^{i\alpha }\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$) and by the spin flip $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }_{}`$. This non-abelian group causes the two-fold degeneracy of all levels, except for the zero-energy level(s) where the symmetry $`O(2)`$ may mix the creation and annihilation operators for the same state. This symmetry is crucial for our discussion. Note that we have not included in the Hamiltonian neither the spin-orbit term $`(𝐔_{\mathrm{SO}}[\sigma \times 𝐩])`$, nor the Zeeman splitting $`𝐇(𝐫)\sigma `$. Either of these terms would break the spin symmetry $`O(2)`$, which would eventually result in a different universality class of the disordered system (type $`D`$ with non-degenerate levels), if these terms are sufficiently strong.

The difference between the $`s`$\- and $`p`$-wave vortices is the zero-energy level in the $`p`$-wave case. It has been shown by Volovik that this level has a topological nature . Indeed, suppose we gradually increase disorder in the Hamiltonian (4). The levels shift and mix, but the degeneracy of the levels remains the same as long as the symmetry $`O(2)`$ is preserved. The total number of levels remains odd, and therefore the zero-energy level cannot shift if the final Hamiltonian is a continuous deformation of the original one (without disorder), i.e. if the topological class of the boundary conditions (5) remains the same.

Now we can identify the symmetry class of the Bogoliubov–deGennes Hamiltonian. The only symmetry of the mean-field Hamiltonian (4) is the spin symmetry $`O(2)`$. The time-reversal symmetry is already broken by the vortex and by the pairing, and therefore neither the vector potential $`𝐀(x)`$ nor local deformations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu `$ can reduce the symmetry of the Hamiltonian. When projected onto spin-up excitations $`\gamma _{}^{}=[u(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(𝐫)+v(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(𝐫)]d^2𝐫`$, the Bogoliubov–deGennes Hamiltonian for the two-component vector $`(u,v)`$ takes the form:

$$H_{\mathrm{BdG}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\left[\frac{(ie𝐀)^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)\epsilon _F\right]& \left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_x}{k_F}(i_x)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_y}{k_F}(i_y)\right]\\ \left[\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_x^{}}{k_F}(i_x)+\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_y^{}}{k_F}(i_y)\right]& \left[\frac{(i+e𝐀)^2}{2m}+V(𝐫)\epsilon _F\right]\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
In an arbitrary orthonormal basis of electronic states, this Hamiltonian may be written as a matrix

$$H_{\mathrm{BdG}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}h& \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \mathrm{\Delta }^{}& h^{}\end{array}\right).$$
(9)
From the hermiticity of the Hamiltonian, it follows that $`h^{}=h`$. From the explicit form of the $`p`$-wave pairing, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^T`$ (it is here that the $`p`$-wave structure of the pairing is important; for $`s`$-wave pairing we would have $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }^T`$ instead). These are the only restrictions on the Hamiltonian (9). If we define

$$U_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 1\\ i& i\end{array}\right),$$
(10)
the restrictions on the Hamiltonian (9) are equivalent to the condition that the rotated matrix $`iU_0H_{\mathrm{BdG}}U_0^1`$ is real antisymmetric, i.e. it belongs to the Lie algebra $`so(M)`$, where $`M`$ is the dimension of the Hilbert space (the same rotation of the Hamiltonian was used in  to identify the $`D`$ universality class).

The last step in our argument is to note that, under the vortex boundary conditions, the dimension of the Hamiltonian (9) is odd, not even (this may be difficult to visualize from the particle-hole representation (9), but easier from the rotated Hamiltonian $`U_0H_{\mathrm{BdG}}U_0^1`$). Thus for a single-quantum vortex, we identify the space of the Hamiltonians as $`so(2N+1)`$ (class $`B`$ in Cartan’s notation, see Table 1).

## 2 Half-Quantum Vortex

Now let us consider a slightly different order parameter: suppose that the condensate wave function is described by the same expression (3), but now the vector $`𝐝`$ is able to rotate (either in plane or in all three dimensions). The order parameter does not change under simultaneous change of sign of the vector $`𝐝`$ and phase shift by $`\pi `$ of the phase $`\phi `$: $`(\phi ,𝐝)(\phi +\pi ,𝐝)`$. This makes possible a half-quantum vortex with magnetic flux $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0/2`$ . On going around such a vortex, both the vector $`𝐝`$ and the phase $`\phi `$ rotate by $`\pi `$ (Fig. 1a) (see also discussion of such vortices in ).

Consider first the case when the vector $`𝐝`$ rotates in a plane (without loss of generality, let $`𝐝`$ rotate in the $`x`$$`y`$ plane). Then the condensate wave function (3) is the sum of two decoupled components containing $`|`$ and $`|`$ pairings:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(r,\theta )=\left[\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{(1)}(r,\theta )\right|+\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{(2)}(r,\theta )|](k_x+ik_y)$$
(11)
\[here $`r`$ and $`\theta `$ are the polar coordinates\]. In a half-quantum vortex, one of the pairing components $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{(1)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{(2)}`$ has an odd winding number of the phase around the vortex, while the other has an even winding number of the phase. In the simplest vortex of this type, the even winding number is zero, the corresponding component of the order parameter is nearly uniform and does not produce states near Fermi energy. The component with an odd winding number (without loss of generality, let it be $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+^{(1)}`$, and the winding number be one) has vortex boundary conditions. The mean-field Hamiltonian decouples and the vortex part of the Hamiltonian (spin-up sector) takes the form \[we have also assumed an axially symmetric order parameter\]:

$$H=d^2𝐫[\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(\frac{𝐩^2}{2m}\epsilon _F)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}+e^{i\theta }\mathrm{\Delta }(r)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(_x+i_y)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.].$$
(12)
In this form the half-quantum vortex is equivalent to a single-quantum vortex in a superconductor of spinless fermions (such a superconductor must have odd pairing). The quasiparticles do not have a definite spin projection, but mix particles and holes in the same spin-up sector: $`\gamma ^{}=[u(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}^{}(𝐫)+v(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_{}(𝐫)]d^2𝐫`$. The Bogoliubov–deGennes equations for $`u`$ and $`v`$ turn out to be identical to those for a single-quantum vortex (8), and the solution of Kopnin and Salomaa  is equally applicable to this half-quantum vortex resulting in the same spectrum (6). However, because of the relation $`\gamma ^{}(E)=\gamma (E)`$, the number of subgap states in the half-quantum vortex is one half of those in a single-quantum vortex: particles in negative-energy levels are identical to holes in positive-energy levels. The zero-energy state is a Majorana fermion .

Now add a disorder term to the Hamiltonian of a clean vortex (12). Consider the following perturbations:

* potential scattering: $`H_V=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}V(𝐫)\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$,
* Zeeman field: $`H_𝐡=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\left(𝐡(𝐫)\sigma _{\alpha \beta }\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$,
* vector potential: $`H_𝐚=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\left(𝐚(𝐫)𝐩\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$,
* spin-orbit scattering: $`H_𝐔=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\left(𝐔_{\mathrm{SO}}(𝐫)[𝐩\times \sigma _{\alpha \beta }]\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta `$,
* deformation of order parameter:
$`H_\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha ^{}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{(x)}(𝐫)p_x+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }^{(y)}(𝐫)p_y\right)\mathrm{\Psi }_\beta ^{}+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$

We assume that the perturbation may be switched on adiabatically in such a way that subgap levels stay localized. One possible way to fulfill this condition is to require that the perturbation is introduced only in a finite region around the vortex core.

The symmetry classification proceeds slightly differently depending on whether the perturbation preserves the decoupling of the Hamiltonian into spin-up and spin-down sectors.

The Hamiltonian remains decoupled under the perturbations $`H_V`$, $`H_𝐚`$, $`H_𝐡`$ with $`𝐡\widehat{𝐳}`$, $`H_𝐔`$ with $`𝐔_{\mathrm{SO}}\widehat{𝐳}`$, and $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\alpha \beta }`$. With these perturbations, the “spin-up” sector of the Hamiltonian in the basis $`(u,v)`$ preserves its form (9) with the same symmetries as for a single-flux vortex. The symmetry class of the Hamiltonian is therefore identified as $`so(2N+1)`$ (class $`B`$).

If other perturbations are present, so that the Hamiltonian no longer splits into “spin-up” and “spin-down” parts, the full matrix of the Hamiltonian needs to be considered. Without any spin structure, the Hamiltonian breaking time-reversal and spin symmetries belongs to the $`so(M)`$ symmetry class, as shown by Altland and Zirnbauer . Their argument also works in our case, with the reservation that the number of levels $`M`$ is odd (with each level counted twice: once as a particle and the other time as a hole). It follows from the usual continuity consideration (the Majorana fermion at zero energy survives any local perturbation). Therefore the symmetry class is again $`so(2N+1)`$ (class $`B`$). \[In the examples considered by Altland and Zirnbauer, the number of levels was even, which lead to the symmetry class $`D`$ or $`so(2N)`$\].

It is important however, that to reach the RMT limit in the latter case, such a system must have sufficiently strong disorder to bring the quasiparticles from the “spin-down” sector (gapped in the clean vortex) to the Fermi energy and to mix them strongly with the quasiparticles in the “spin-up” sector. In the present paper, we do not discuss conditions for reaching this limit.

## 3 Spin Vortex

In this section we consider a hypothetical phase of a triplet superconductor analogous to the phase $`B`$ of 3He. Namely, the condensate wave function is assumed to be

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Delta }e^{i\phi }[d_x(𝐤)\left(\right|+|)+id_y(𝐤)\left(\right||)],𝐝(𝐤)=R_\theta (𝐤),$$
(13)
and $`R_\theta `$ is a rotation in the plane by angle $`\theta `$ (like in the previous sections, we consider a two-dimensional problem, and $`𝐤`$ is a two-dimensional vector). In this phase, the vector $`𝐝`$ rotates a full turn as the vector $`𝐤`$ goes around the circular Fermi surface. The parameter $`\theta `$ denotes the angle between vectors $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐝`$. We neglect spin-orbit interactions and assume that all values of $`\theta `$ are allowed.

It is important that this phase preserves the time-reversal symmetry. Moreover, a vortex structure is possible without time-reversal symmetry breaking. It is realized by rotating the angle $`\theta `$ a full turn of $`2\pi `$ when going around the vortex center and keeping the phase $`\phi `$ constant (Fig. 1b). This vortex preserves the time-reversal symmetry and is a topological defect in the spin structure of the triplet pairing, thus we shall call it “spin vortex”.

The Hamiltonian of the clean axially symmetric spin vortex splits into “spin-up” and “spin-down” sectors, similarly to the case of the half-quantum vortex considered in the previous section. In the spin vortex, both the “spin-up” and the “spin-down” components have vortex structure. The “spin-up” Hamiltonian is identical to the Hamiltonian $`H`$ of (12), while the “spin-down” component is its complex conjugate $`H^{}`$ (with spin reversed) — or vice versa.

In a clean spin vortex, the spectrum of each of the two vortices (in the “spin-up” and the “spin down” sectors) are identical to that in the half-quantum vortex of the previous section, and therefore the total spectrum coincides with that of the single-flux vortex of Section I (with the two Majorana fermions combining into a single zero-energy level). In contrast to the single-quantum vortex, it is now not the spin symmetry which is responsible for the double degeneracy of the levels with non-zero energy, but the time-reversal symmetry (the degeneracy is due to Kramers’ theorem).

Now suppose that the Hamiltonian is perturbed by a disorder term preserving the time-reversal symmetry. The allowed perturbations include potential scattering $`H_V`$, spin-orbit scattering $`H_𝐔`$, as well as deformation of the order parameter $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in a time-reversal invariant way. Then the levels with non-zero energy stay doubly degenerate, and the zero-energy level cannot shift (because it is non-degenerate). The symmetry class of the perturbed Hamiltonian may be identified from the argument of Altland and Zirnbauer as $`D`$III (time-reversal symmetry present, spin symmetry broken) . In the $`p`$-wave vortex, the number of subgap levels is odd, and therefore the symmetry class is $`D`$III-odd, in contrast to class $`D`$III-even studied by Altland and Zirnbauer \[similarly to distinguishing between classes $`B`$ and $`D`$, we find it useful to distinguish between classes $`D`$III-even and $`D`$III-odd: they have different parameters $`\alpha `$, as a consequence of the zero-energy level in odd dimensions\].

## 4 Level Mixing by Disorder

In this section we discuss whether the RMT limit may be realized in disordered vortices. We suppose that the superconductor contains a finite concentration $`n_{\mathrm{imp}}`$ of spinless impurities with strong electron scattering (Born parameter is of order one). Then the effect of impurities is dual: they directly contribute a potential term $`H_V`$ in the Hamiltonian and they also suppress the superconducting order parameter thus inducing an inhomogeneous pairing perturbation $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We shall see that the latter effect has a much stronger influence on shifting the energy levels of the subgap states.

Consider first the potential term $`H_V`$ with the impurity potential $`V(𝐫)=_iV_i\delta (𝐫𝐫_i)`$. The matrix element of the impurity potential between the two localized states is equal to

$$(H_V)_{mn}=\underset{i}{}V_i\rho _{mn}(𝐫_i),\rho _{mn}(𝐫)=\left(u_m^{}(𝐫)u_n(𝐫)v_m^{}(𝐫)v_n(𝐫)\right).$$
(14)
From explicitly solving Bogoliubov–deGennes equations for a clean $`p`$-wave vortex , one finds that $`u_n`$ and $`v_n`$ are proportional to each other, to the leading order in $`E/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (where $`E=n\omega _0`$ is the energy of the $`n`$-th level). Therefore the matrix element $`\rho _{mn}`$ between any two low-lying states nearly vanishes (this was noticed by Volovik in ). A more accurate calculation shows that matrix elements of the charge density between states at energy $`E`$ is of the order of $`\xi ^2(E/\mathrm{\Delta })`$, which is by the factor $`(E/\mathrm{\Delta })`$ smaller than that in the $`s`$-wave vortex. As a consequence, even for strong impurities (with $`V_i\epsilon _Fk_F^2`$), an extremely high impurity concentration ($`n_{\mathrm{imp}}k_F^2`$) is required to mix low-energy levels — a much higher disorder than that destroying $`p`$-wave superconductivity ($`n_{\mathrm{imp}}k_F\xi ^1`$. Therefore, for a uniformly disordered $`p`$-wave superconductor, the $`H_V`$ term is insufficient for the RMT regime in the vortex core.

The suppression of the order parameter $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ turns out to be a more important effect. In unconventional superconductors, spinless impurities suppress pairing in the region of size $`\xi `$ which is of the same order as the size of the vortex core. For a homogeneous order parameter (without vortex), the suppression of the order parameter $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(r)`$ decreases as $`R^1`$ (in our two-dimensional problem) at distances up to $`\xi `$, and is negligible at distances much larger than $`\xi `$ , and the integral suppression may be estimated as $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }d^2𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }\xi k_F^1`$. Also, in a chiral superconductor, the component of the order parameter of opposite chirality is admixed in the vicinity of impurity . The two effects gives comparable contributions to the matrix elements between subgap states. An accurate calculation of the impurity influence on the states in the vortex core requires a full self-consistent solution for the order parameter taking into account both the vortex and the impurities. This goes beyond the scope of this paper, and we only estimate the order of magnitude of the corresponding matrix elements. The deformation of the order parameter $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has the matrix elements between subgap states $`m`$ and $`n`$:

$`(H_\mathrm{\Delta })_{mn}={\displaystyle }d^2𝐫(`$ $`u_m^{}(𝐫)\left[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }^{(\alpha )}(𝐫)(i_\alpha )\right]u_n(𝐫)`$ (15)
$`+v_m^{}(𝐫)[\delta \mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{(\alpha )}{}_{}{}^{}(𝐫)(i_\alpha )]v_n(𝐫)).`$
Unlike the case of the matrix elements of $`H_V`$, there is no cancellation in $`(H_\mathrm{\Delta })_{mn}`$, and we may estimate, for one impurity in the vortex core

$$(H_\mathrm{\Delta })_{mn}\frac{1}{\xi ^2}\delta \mathrm{\Delta }(𝐫)d^2𝐫\mathrm{\Delta }(k_F\xi )^1\omega _0.$$
(16)
Thus, a single impurity introduces matrix elements of the order of interlevel spacing. These estimates suggest that the RMT regime may be achieved when the number of impurities in the vortex core is much greater than one (which corresponds to the moderately clean regime $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1\tau \omega _0^1`$).

## 5 Summary and Discussion

We have shown that symmetries of vortex Hamiltonians in $`p`$-wave superconductors correspond to one of the two random-matrix ensembles: $`B`$ or $`D`$III-odd. These two RMT ensembles are distinguished from the rest of ensembles by the presence of zero-energy modes (zero-energy modes are also present in chiral ensembles at $`pq`$, see Table 1). Zero-energy levels appear in $`p`$-wave vortices as a consequence of odd pairing symmetry combined with the vortex (topologically nontrivial) boundary conditions. We have checked the symmetries of the Hamiltonian explicitly taking three vortices as examples: a single-quantum vortex with spin symmetry, a half-quantum vortex, and a flux-less (spin) vortex without time-reversal symmetry breaking. Based on these examples, we may conjecture that classes $`B`$ and $`D`$III-odd appear in any vortex-like structure with odd pairing, whenever a zero-energy mode is present. In cases with time reversal symmetry, the vortex belongs to the class $`D`$III-odd; when the time-reversal symmetry is broken — to the class $`B`$. Of course, this can also be checked explicitly in any particular case.

The two classes $`B`$ and $`D`$III-odd considered in this paper are odd-dimensional counterparts of the classes $`D`$ and $`D`$III-even, respectively (see Table 1), with the even-dimensional classes realized in conventional (singlet-pairing) normal-superconducting structures . Far from zero energy, the statistics of energy levels is not affected by the zero mode. In the immediate vicinity of zero energy, repulsion from the zero mode in classes $`B`$ and $`D`$III-odd increases the exponent $`\alpha `$ (see Table 1), suppressing the average density of states $`\rho (\omega )`$ as $`\rho (\omega )\omega ^2`$ for class $`B`$, and $`\rho (\omega )|\omega |^5`$ for class $`D`$III-odd.

Because of the zero modes, the classes $`B`$ and $`D`$III-odd stand somewhat separately from the rest of RMT ensembles. In particular, they do not appear in the table of correspondence between symmetries of the Hamiltonian and those of the transfer matrix  (for RMT ensembles without zero-energy levels, this table establishes a one-to-one correspondence). Neither these two ensembles are known to be derived from a supersymmetric sigma-model as other classes are . Understanding the latter fact remains an interesting problem, as well as a possible microscopic derivation of the random-matrix theory for $`p`$-wave vortices with the supersymmetric method, analogously to that for the $`s`$-wave vortex .

Several more comments can be made on comparing our results to the level statistics in $`s`$-wave vortices. The latter is known to belong to the symmetry class $`C`$  having spin-rotational symmetry and broken time-reversal symmetry . In contrast with the $`SU(2)`$ spin symmetry in conventional superconductors, the single-quantum vortex considered in our paper has the $`O(2)`$ spin symmetry instead, which leads to a somewhat different symmetry classification. The resulting symmetry is $`so(N)`$, which leads to classes $`D`$ (in even dimensions, no vortex) or $`B`$ (odd dimensions, vortex with zero mode).

The joint probability distributions of the energy levels (2) for classes $`B`$ ($`p`$-wave vortex) and $`C`$ ($`s`$-wave vortex) coincide (with $`\alpha =\beta =2`$), and only the zero-energy level distinguishes the two ensembles. In particular, the average density of states in the class $`B`$ random-matrix ensemble is

$$\rho (\omega )=\frac{1}{\omega _0}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \omega /\omega _0)}{2\pi \omega }+\delta (\omega ).$$
(17)
(for class $`C`$ it is the same but without the $`\delta (\omega )`$ term).

In $`s`$-wave vortices, Koulakov and Larkin found that in a wide range of impurity concentrations, the level mixing does not lead to a class $`C`$, but has more symmetries . These symmetries arise from the fact that the impurities are local scatterers in a chiral quasi-one-dimensional two-channel system, resulting in an ensemble of $`2\times 2`$ random matrices, instead of $`N\times N`$ matrices with large $`N`$. Such effect seems improbable in $`p`$-wave vortices where the main contribution to level mixing comes from the distortion of the order parameter around impurities which is extended in space to distances of the order of the core size. In this paper we performed only an order-of-magnitude estimate suggesting that the RMT limit may be reached in moderately clean vortices (with the number of impurities per vortex core much greater than one). A more accurate self-consistent treatment of impurities in the vortex core is required for a quantitative study of the effects of disorder.

The author wishes to thank M. V. Feigel’man for suggesting this problem, discussions, and comments on the manuscript. At different stages of work, the author benefited from discussions with G. Blatter, V. Geshkenbein, D. Gorokhov, R. Heeb, L. Ioffe, C. Mudry, M. Skvortsov, G. E. Volovik, and M. Zhitomirsky. The author thanks Swiss National Foundation for financial support.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Over the past few years, many attempts have been made to check the AdS/CFT correspondence . (For a review, see Ref. ). As an example, it is shown in Ref.  that the spectrum of chiral operators of $`𝒩=4`$ super Yang-Mills in four dimensions coincides with that of the Kaluza-Klein modes of type IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$. Also, the computation of anomalies via bulk gravity has been shown to exactly reproduce the results of the super Yang-Mills theory . However, this matching of the anomalies is valid only in the regime where $`N\mathrm{},\lambda =g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N1`$, since the analysis is based on a classical supergravity computation. At present, it remains an important issue to test the duality beyond this regime.

There have been several attempts to confirm the validity of the duality beyond the classical gravity approximation . Among these, Ref.  treats $`𝒩=2G=USp(N)`$ superconformal field theory (SCFT) in four dimensions. This SCFT can be realized on the world volume of D$`3`$-branes situated inside eight D$`7`$-branes coincident with an O$`7^{}`$ brane, and is known  to be dual to type IIB string on $`AdS_5\times S^5/𝒁_2`$. The authors of Ref.  showed that this duality reproduces the $`1/N`$ correction to the $`U(1)_{}`$ chiral anomaly correctly. In Refs.  and , the $`1/N`$ correction to the Weyl anomaly of the SCFT is computed using a higher-derivative gravity theory in which a curvature square term is added.

However, higher-derivative gravity theories111For a review of higher derivative gravity, see, e.g., Ref. .  exhibit some features in the AdS/CFT correspondence that differ from those in Einstein gravity. To see this, we first recall that the equation of motion for Einstein gravity is a second-order differential equation in time $`r`$. Thus, a classical solution can be totally specified by prescribing the value at the boundary if we further impose the regular behavior of the solution inside the bulk , and the boundary value can be identified with an external field coupled to an operator in the dual CFT . The situation changes drastically if we consider higher-derivative theories. In fact, a higher-derivative system with Lagrangian density $`(g,\dot{g},\mathrm{},g^{(N+1)})`$, where $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric and $`=/r`$, generically gives an equation of motion that is a differential equation of $`2(N+1)`$-order in $`r`$. We then would need $`(N+1)`$ boundary conditions for each field to specify a classical solution, even if we require its regular behavior inside the bulk.

The main aim of the present paper is to formulate higher-derivative gravity systems in accordance with the holographic principle. In this paper, we say that the holographic principle holds when the following two conditions are satisfied: (1) the classical solution of a higher-derivative system is specified uniquely by the boundary value of each bulk field, and (2) the bulk geometry becomes AdS-like near the boundary. In order to satisfy the first condition, we first note that the system $`(g,\dot{g},\mathrm{},g^{(N+1)})`$ can be transformed into a Hamilton system with $`(N+1)`$ pairs of canonical variables $`(g,Q^a),(p,P_a)`$ $`(a=1,\mathrm{},N)`$ by defining $`Q_{ij}^a=^ag_{ij}/r^a`$. (See the next section for details.) Thus, by setting boundary conditions that are of the Dirichlet type for $`g`$ and the Neumann type for $`Q^a`$, the classical solution of this system can be specified only by the boundary value of $`g`$. Note also that the classical action of this system, which is obtained by plugging this solution into the action, becomes a functional of these boundary values of bulk fields. The second condition ensures the existence of a UV fixed point of the dual theory at the boundary, and such a fixed point enables us to take the continuum limit . We see below that appropriate boundary terms need to be added to the bulk action in order for the bulk metric to exhibit such asymptotic behavior when higher-derivative terms exist.

For a systematic treatment of these issues, we employ the Hamilton-Jacobi formulation, as introduced by de Boer, Verlinde and Verlinde  to investigate the holographic RG structure of Einstein gravity. (See Refs.  for more details of the holographic RG.) This formulation is further elaborated in Refs. . In particular, a systematic prescription for calculating the Weyl anomaly in arbitrary dimensions is developed in Ref. . In this paper, we show that the Hamilton-Jacobi equation is quite a useful tool also to study the holographic RG structure in higher-derivative systems. Actually, we can derive a Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation that determines the classical action in accordance with the holographic principle. That is, the classical action can be solved as a functional of a boundary value for each bulk field. As a check of our formulation, we compute $`1/N`$ corrections to the Weyl anomaly of the $`𝒩=2`$ SCFT by solving the Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation. In the course of this analysis, we find that the prescription developed in Ref.  is again helpful. We show that our result can reproduce that of Refs.  and .

The organization of this paper is as follows. In §2, we formulate the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a higher-derivative system with emphasis on applications to the AdS/CFT correspondence. In §3, we apply the formulation to higher-derivative gravity and derive an equation that determines the classical action. In §4, we solve the equation following the prescription given in Ref. , and demonstrate how to calculate the Weyl anomaly. We show that the resulting Weyl anomaly correctly reproduces that given in Refs.  and . Section 6 is devoted to a conclusion. There, a comment is given on the holographic RG structure in higher-derivative gravity systems. Some useful results are summarized in the appendices.

## 2 Hamilton-Jacobi equation for a higher-derivative Lagrangian

In this section, we give a prescription for determining the classical action when higher-derivative terms are added. We start our discussion for a system of point particles with the action

$`𝑺[q(r)]={\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑rL(q,\dot{q},\mathrm{},q^{(N+1)})\left(q^{(n)}(r)d^nq(r)/dr^n\right).`$ (2.1)
The extension of our argument to gravitational systems is straightforward and will be carried out in the next section.222See also Ref. , where higher-derivative systems are discussed from the viewpoint of string theories.

The action (2.1) can be rewritten into the first-order form in the following way. We first introduce the Lagrange multipliers $`p,P_1,\mathrm{},P_{N1}`$, so that $`q,Q^1=\dot{q},\mathrm{},Q^N=q^{(N)}`$ can be regarded as independent canonical variables:

$`L(q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N,\dot{Q}^N;p,P_1,\mathrm{},P_{N1})`$
$`=p(\dot{q}Q^1)+P_1(\dot{Q}^1Q^2)+\mathrm{}+P_{N1}(\dot{Q}^{N1}Q^N)`$
$`+L(q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N,\dot{Q}^N).`$ (2.2)
We then carry out a Legendre transformation from $`(Q^N,\dot{Q}^N)`$ to $`(Q^N,P_N)`$ through

$`P_N={\displaystyle \frac{L}{\dot{Q}^N}}(q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N,\dot{Q}^N).`$ (2.3)
We here assume that this equation can be solved with respect to $`\dot{Q}^N`$ $`\left(f(q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N;P_N)\right)`$, and thus obtain the following action that is equivalent to (2.1) classically:

$`𝑺[q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N;p,P_1,\mathrm{},P_N]={\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑r\left[p\dot{q}+{\displaystyle \underset{a=1}{\overset{N}{}}}P_a\dot{Q}^aH(q,Q^a;p,P_a)\right],`$ (2.4)
where $`\dot{Q}^N`$ is now the time-derivative of the independent variable $`Q^N`$, and the Hamiltonian is given by

$`H(q,Q^a;p,P_a)`$ $`=`$ $`pQ^1+P_1Q^2+\mathrm{}+P_{N1}Q^N+P_Nf(q,Q^a;P_N)`$ (2.5)
$`L(q,Q^1,\mathrm{},Q^N,f(q,Q^a;P_N)).`$
The variation of the action (2.4) is given by

$`\delta 𝑺=`$ $`{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}dr[\delta p(\dot{q}{\displaystyle \frac{H}{p}})+{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\delta P_a(\dot{Q}^a{\displaystyle \frac{H}{P_a}})`$
$`\delta q(\dot{p}+{\displaystyle \frac{H}{q}}){\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}\delta Q^a(\dot{P}_a+{\displaystyle \frac{H}{Q^a}})]`$
$`+\left(p\delta q+{\displaystyle P_a\delta Q^a}\right)|_t^{}^t,`$ (2.6)
and thus the equation of motion consists of the usual Hamilton equations,

$`\dot{q}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{p}},\dot{Q}^a={\displaystyle \frac{H}{P_a}},\dot{p}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{q}},\dot{P_a}={\displaystyle \frac{H}{Q^a}},`$ (2.7)
and the following constraint, which must hold at the boundary, $`r=t`$ and $`r=t^{}`$:

$`p\delta q+{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}P_a\delta Q^a=0(r=t,t^{}).`$ (2.8)
The latter requirement, (2.8), can be satisfied when we use either Dirichlet boundary conditions,

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Dirichlet}}:\delta q=0,\delta Q^a=0(r=t,t^{}),`$ (2.9)
or Neumann boundary conditions,

$`\underset{¯}{\mathrm{Neumann}}:p=0,P_a=0(r=t,t^{}),`$ (2.10)
for each variable $`q`$ and $`Q^a(a=1,\mathrm{},N)`$. If, for example, we take the classical solution $`(\overline{q},\overline{Q}^a,\overline{p},\overline{P}_a)`$ that satisfies the Dirichlet boundary conditions for all $`(q,Q^a)`$ with the specified boundary values as

$`\overline{q}(r=t)=q,\overline{Q}^a(r=t)=Q^a,\mathrm{and}\overline{q}(r=t^{})=q^{},\overline{Q}^a(r=t^{})=Q^a,`$ (2.11)
then after plugging the solution into the action, we obtain the classical action that is a function of these boundary values,

$`S(t,q,Q^a;t^{},q^{},Q^a)=𝑺[\overline{q}(r),\overline{Q}^a(r);\overline{p}(r),\overline{P}_a(r)].`$ (2.12)
However, as we discussed in the Introduction, this classical action is not of great interest to us in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence, since the holographic principle requires that the bulk be specified by only the values $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$ at the boundary. This leads us to use mixed boundary conditions:

$`\delta q=P_a=0(r=t,t^{}).`$ (2.13)
That is, we impose Dirichlet boundary conditions for $`q`$ and Neumann boundary conditions for $`Q^a`$. In this case, the classical action (to be called the reduced classical action) becomes a function only of the boundary values $`q`$ and $`q^{}`$:

$`S=S(t,q;t^{},q^{}).`$ (2.14)
A renormalization group interpretation of this condition is discussed briefly in the concluding section, and will be discussed in detail in a forthcoming paper .

Now we derive a Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation that determines the reduced classical action (2.14). This can be derived in two ways, and we start with the more complicated way, since this gives us a deeper understanding of the mathematical structure. To this end, we first change the polarization of the system by performing the canonical transformation333The following procedure corresponds to a change of representation from the $`Q`$-basis to the $`P`$-basis in the WKB approximation:    $`\mathrm{\Psi }(t,q,Q)=e^{iS(t,q,Q)/\mathrm{}}\widehat{\mathrm{\Psi }}(t,q,P)=e^{i\widehat{S}(t,q,P)/\mathrm{}}{\displaystyle 𝑑Qe^{iP_aQ^a/\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }(t,q,Q)}.`$

$`\widehat{𝑺}𝑺{\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑F,`$ (2.15)
with the generating function

$`F={\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}P_aQ^a.`$ (2.16)
Although the Hamilton equation does not change under this transformation, the boundary conditions at $`r=t`$ and $`r=t^{}`$ become

$`p\delta q{\displaystyle \underset{a}{}}Q^a\delta P_a=0(r=t,t^{}).`$ (2.17)
These boundary conditions can be satisfied by imposing the Dirichlet boundary conditions for both $`\overline{q}`$ and $`\overline{P}_a`$:

$`\overline{q}(r=t)=q,\overline{P}_a(r=t)=P_a,\mathrm{and}\overline{q}(r=t^{})=q^{},\overline{P}_a(r=t^{})=P_a^{}.`$ (2.18)
Substituting this solution into $`\widehat{𝑺}`$, we obtain a new classical action that is a function of these boundary values,

$`\widehat{S}(t,q,P_a;t^{},q^{},P_a^{})=\widehat{𝑺}[\overline{q}(r),\overline{Q}^a(r);\overline{p}(r),\overline{P}_a(r)].`$ (2.19)
By taking the variation of $`\widehat{𝑺}`$ and using the equation of motion, we can easily show that the new classical action $`\widehat{S}`$ obeys the Hamilton-Jacobi equation:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{t}}`$ $`=`$ $`H(q,{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{P_a}};+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{q}},P_a),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{t^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`+H(q^{},+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{P_a^{}}};{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{S}}{q^{}}},P_a^{}).`$ (2.20)
The reduced classical action $`S(t,q;t^{},q^{})`$ is then obtained by setting $`P_a=0`$ in $`\widehat{S}`$:

$`S(t,q;t^{},q^{})=\widehat{S}(t,q,P_a=0;t^{},q^{},P_a^{}=0).`$ (2.21)
Note that the generating function $`F`$ vanishes at the boundary when we set $`P_a=0`$.

Here we briefly describe how the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (2.20) is solved. For simplicity, we consider the case $`N=1`$ and focus only on the upper boundary at $`r=t`$. Motivated by the gravitational system considered in the next section, we assume that the Lagrangian takes the form

$`L(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})=L_0(q,\dot{q})+cL_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q}),`$ (2.22)
where

$`L_0(q,\dot{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{ij}(q)\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^jV(q),`$
$`L_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{ij}(q)\ddot{q}^i\ddot{q}^jA_i(q,\dot{q})\ddot{q}^i\varphi (q,\dot{q}),`$ (2.23)
with

$`A_i(q,\dot{q})`$ $`=`$ $`a_{ijk}^{(2)}(q)\dot{q}^j\dot{q}^k+a_i^{(0)}(q),`$
$`\varphi (q,\dot{q})`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _{ijkl}^{(4)}(q)\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j\dot{q}^k\dot{q}^l+\varphi _{ij}^{(2)}(q)\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j+\varphi ^{(0)}(q).`$ (2.24)
We further assume that the determinants of the matrices $`m_{ij}(q)`$ and $`n_{ij}(q)`$ have the same signature.444In fact, it is easy to see that this is the case in the higher-derivative gravity system considered below. Following the procedure discussed above, this Lagrangian can be rewritten into the first-order form

$`L=p\dot{q}+P\dot{Q}H(q,Q;p,P),`$ (2.25)
with the Hamiltonian

$`H(q,Q;p,P)=`$ $`p_iQ^i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{ij}(q)Q^iQ^j+V(q)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}n^{ij}(q)\left(P_i+cA_i(q,Q)\right)\left(P_j+cA_j(q,Q)\right)+c\varphi (q,Q),`$ (2.26)
where $`n^{ij}=(n_{ij})^1`$. The Hamilton-Jacobi equation (2.20) is solved as a double expansion with respect to $`c`$ and $`P`$ by assuming that the classical action takes the form

$`\widehat{S}(t,q,P)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{c}}}\widehat{S}_{1/2}(t,q,P)+\widehat{S}_0(t,q,P)+\sqrt{c}\widehat{S}_{1/2}(t,q,P)+c\widehat{S}_1(t,q,P)`$ (2.27)
$`+𝒪(c^{3/2}).`$
After some simple algebra, the coefficients are found to be

$`\widehat{S}_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u^{ij}(q)P_iP_j+𝒪(P^3),`$
$`\widehat{S}_0`$ $`=`$ $`S_0(t,q)P_i^iS_0+𝒪(P^2),`$
$`\widehat{S}_{1/2}`$ $`=`$ $`P_iu^{ij}(q)n_{jk}(q)\left[𝚪_{lm}^k^lS_0^mS_0+^kV(q)+n^{kl}(q)A_l(q,{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q}})\right]`$ (2.28)
$`+𝒪(P^2).`$
Here,

$`_i{\displaystyle \frac{}{q^i}},^im^{ij}_i,`$ (2.29)
and $`𝚪_{jk}^i`$ is the affine connection defined by $`m_{ij}`$. Also $`u^{ij}`$ is defined by the relation

$`u^{ik}(q)u^{jl}(q)m_{kl}(q)=n^{ij}(q).`$ (2.30)
Furthermore, $`S_0(t,q)=\widehat{S}_0(t,q,P=0)`$ and $`S_1(t,q)=\widehat{S}_1(t,q,P=0)`$ satisfy the equations

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{t}}=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_{ij}(q){\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q^j}}+V(q),`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{S_1}{t}}=`$ $`m_{ij}(q){\displaystyle \frac{S_1}{q^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q^j}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{ij}(q)\left(𝚪_{kl}^i^kS_0^lS_0+^iV(q)\right)\left(𝚪_{mn}^j^mS_0^nS_0+^jV(q)\right)`$
$`A_i(q,{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q}})\left(𝚪_{kl}^i^kS_0^lS_0+^iV(q)\right)+\varphi (q,{\displaystyle \frac{S_0}{q}}),`$ (2.31)
which can be expressed as a Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation for the reduced classical action $`S(t,q)=S_0(t,q)+cS_1(t,q)+𝒪(c^2)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p),p_i={\displaystyle \frac{S}{q^i}},`$ (2.32)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^{ij}(q)p_ip_j+V(q)`$ (2.33)
$`+c[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}n_{ij}(q)(𝚪_{kl}^ip^kp^l+^iV(q))(𝚪_{mn}^jp^mp^n+^jV(q))`$
$`A_i(q,p)(𝚪_{kl}^ip^kp^l+^iV(q))+\varphi (q,p)].`$
It is important to note that $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is not the Hamiltonian. In fact, the Hamilton equation for $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ does not coincide with that obtained from (2.26).

In solving the full Hamilton-Jacobi equation (2.20) for $`\widehat{S}(t,q,P)`$, we imposed the condition that everything becomes regular around $`c=0`$ when we set $`P=0`$. This is because in most interesting cases (like those of the gravity systems we discuss in the following sections) the higher-derivative term is regarded as a perturbation, so that the reduced classical action must have a finite limit for $`c0`$. Once such a regularity condition is imposed, we have an alternative way to derive this pseudo-Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ with greater ease. In fact, for any Lagrangian of the form

$`L(q^i,\dot{q}^i,\ddot{q}^i)=L_0(q^i,\dot{q}^i)+cL_1(q^i,\dot{q}^i,\ddot{q}^i),`$ (2.34)
one can prove the following theorem, assuming that the classical solution can be expanded around $`c=0`$:555As long as we think of $`L_1`$ as a perturbation, any classical solution can be expanded as    $`\overline{q}(r)=\overline{q}_0(r)+c\overline{q}_1(r)+𝒪(c^2).`$  Here $`\overline{q}_0`$ is the classical solution for $`L_0`$, and $`\overline{q}_1`$ is obtained by solving a second-order differential equation. Note that we can, in particular, enforce the boundary conditions    $`\overline{q}_0(r=t)=q,\overline{q}_1(r=t)=0\mathrm{and}\overline{q}_0(r=t^{})=q^{},\overline{q}_1(r=t^{})=0.`$  In this case, due to the equation of motion for $`\overline{q}_0(r)`$ , the classical action is simply given by    $`S(q,t;q^{},t^{})={\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑r\left[L_0(\overline{q}_0,\dot{\overline{q}}_0)+cL_1(\overline{q}_0,\dot{\overline{q}}_0,\ddot{\overline{q}}_0)\right]+𝒪(c^2).`$  This corresponds to the classical action considered in Ref. .

Theorem
Let $`\mathrm{H}_0(\mathrm{q},\mathrm{p})`$ be the Hamiltonian corresponding to $`\mathrm{L}_0(\mathrm{q},\dot{\mathrm{q}})`$. Then the reduced classical action $`\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{t},\mathrm{q};\mathrm{t}^{},\mathrm{q}^{})=\mathrm{S}_0(\mathrm{t},\mathrm{q};\mathrm{t}^{},\mathrm{q}^{})+\mathrm{c}\mathrm{S}_1(\mathrm{t},\mathrm{q};\mathrm{t}^{},\mathrm{q}^{})+𝒪(\mathrm{c}^2)`$ satisfies the following equation up to $`𝒪(\mathrm{c}^2)`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t}}=\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p),p_i={\displaystyle \frac{S}{q^i}},\mathrm{and}+{\displaystyle \frac{S}{t^{}}}=\stackrel{~}{H}(q^{},p^{}),p_i^{}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{q^i}},`$ (2.35)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)`$ $``$ $`H_0(q,p)cL_1(q,f_1(q,p),f_2(q,p)),`$
$`f_1^i(q,p)`$ $``$ $`\{H_0,q^i\}={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_i}},`$
$`f_2^i(q,p)`$ $``$ $`\{H_0,\{H_0,q^i\}\}={\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_iq^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_ip_j}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^j}}.`$ (2.36)
$`\left(\{F(q,p),G(q,p)\}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{q^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{G}{p_i}}{\displaystyle \frac{F}{q^i}}\right)`$
A proof of this theorem is given in Appendix A. It can easily be confirmed that this correctly reproduces (2.32) and (2.33) for the Lagrangian given in (2.22)–(2.24).

## 3 Application to higher-derivative gravity

In this section, following the prescription developed in the previous section, we derive an equation that determines the reduced classical action for a higher-derivative gravity system.

We first recall the holographic description of RG flows in the dual boundary field theory. We parametrize the bulk metric with the Euclidean ADM decomposition. (For more details of the ADM decomposition, see Appendix B.) We then have

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu `$ (3.1)
$`=`$ $`N(x,r)^2dr^2+g_{ij}(x,r)\left(dx^i+\lambda ^i(x,r)dr\right)\left(dx^j+\lambda ^j(x,r)dr\right).`$
Here $`X^\mu =(x^i,r)`$, with $`i,j=1,2,\mathrm{},d`$, and $`N`$ and $`\lambda ^i`$ are the lapse and the shift function, respectively. The signature of the metric $`g_{ij}`$ is taken to be $`(+\mathrm{}+)`$. By assuming that the geometry becomes AdS-like in the limit $`r\mathrm{}`$, the Euclidean time $`r`$ is identified with the RG parameter of the $`d`$-dimensional boundary theory, and the time evolution of other bulk fields (such as scalars) is interpreted as an RG flow of the coupling constants with a UV fixed point at the boundary. To avoid a singularity of the metric $`g_{ij}`$ at $`r=\mathrm{}`$, we restrict the region of $`r`$ such that $`r_0r<\mathrm{}`$ . This corresponds to the introduction of a UV cut-off to the boundary field theory. In the following, we consider a $`(d+1)`$-dimensional manifold $`M_{d+1}=\{(x^i,r)\}`$ that has a topology given by $`M_{d+1}\left(𝑹^d\mathrm{}\right)\times 𝑹_+`$, with $`r_0r<\mathrm{}`$.

We consider classical gravity on $`M_{d+1}`$ with the action

$`𝑺=𝑺_B+𝑺_b.`$ (3.2)
Here $`𝑺_B`$ is the bulk action given by

$`𝑺_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M_{d+1}}}d^{d+1}X\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_B,`$ (3.3)
$`_B`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }\widehat{R}a\widehat{R}^2b\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }^2c\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2,`$ (3.4)
where $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ are some given constants. $`𝑺_b`$ contains boundary terms defined on the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d=M_{d+1}`$ at $`r=r_0`$. The form of $`𝑺_b`$ can be determined by requiring that it is invariant under the diffeomorphism

$`X^\mu X^\mu =f^\mu (X),`$ (3.5)
with the condition

$`f^r(r=r_0,x)=r_0.`$ (3.6)
Equation (3.6) implies that the diffeomorphism does not change the location of the boundary. It is then easy to verify that $`𝑺_b`$ takes the form (for details see Appendix C)

$`𝑺_b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\sqrt{g},`$ (3.7)
with

$`=2K+x_1RK+x_2R_{ij}K^{ij}+x_3K^3+x_4KK_{ij}^2+x_5K_{ij}^3,`$ (3.8)
where $`K_{ij}`$ is the extrinsic curvature of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_d`$ given by

$`K_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\left(\dot{g}_{ij}_i\lambda _j_j\lambda _i\right),`$ (3.9)
and $`K=g^{ij}K_{ij}`$. $`_i`$ and $`R_{ijkl}`$ are, respectively, the covariant derivative and the Riemann tensor defined by $`g_{ij}`$. The first term in $``$ ensures that the Dirichlet boundary conditions can be imposed in the Einstein theory  and also plays an important role in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence . We argue below that the coefficients $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_5`$ must obey some relations so that the holography holds even for higher-derivative gravity.666See, e.g., Refs.  and  for another discussion of boundary terms in higher-derivative gravity.

The action (3.2) is expressed in terms of the ADM parametrization as

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{M_{d+1}}}d^{d+1}X\left[\sqrt{\widehat{g}}_B{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(\sqrt{g}\right)\right]`$ (3.10)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[𝓛_0(g,K;N,\lambda )+𝓛_1(g,K,\dot{K};N,\lambda )\right]},`$
where777We here use the following abbreviated notation: $`K_{ij}^nK_{i_1}^{i_2}K_{i_2}^{i_3}\mathrm{}K_{i_n}^{i_1},(K^2)_{ij}K_{ik}K_j^k`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}𝓛_0`$ $`=`$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }R+K_{ij}^2K^2,`$ (3.11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}𝓛_1`$ $`=`$ $`aR^2bR_{ij}^2cR_{ijkl}^2+\left[(6a+2x_1)K_{ij}^2+(2ax_1)K^2\right]R`$
$`+\left[2(2b+4cx_2)(K^2)_{ij}+(2b+2x_1x_2)KK_{ij}\right]R^{ij}`$
$`+\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(6c+x_2)K_{ik}K_{jl}R^{ijkl}`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}(2b+c3x_5)K_{ij}^4+(4b+4x_4x_5)KK_{ij}^3`$
$`(9a+b+2c2x_4)\left(K_{ij}^2\right)^2+(6ab+6x_3x_4)K^2K_{ij}^2`$
$`(a+x_3)K^4`$
$`(4b+2x_1x_2)K_{ij}^i^jK+2(b4c+x_2)K_{ij}^j_kK^{ki}`$
$`+(8c+x_2)K_{ij}^2K^{ij}+2(b+x_1)K^2K`$
$`\left[(4a+b)g^{ij}g^{kl}+(b+4c)g^{ik}g^{jl}\right]L_{ij}L_{kl}`$
$`+[\{(4ax_1)R+(12a+2bx_4)K_{kl}^2(4a+3x_3)K^2\}g^{ij}`$
$`+(2bx_2)R^{ij}+(4b+8c3x_5)(K^2)^{ij}2(b+x_4)KK^{ij}]L_{ij},`$ (3.12)
with

$`K_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2N}}\left(\dot{g}_{ij}_i\lambda _j_j\lambda _i\right),`$ (3.13)
$`L_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left(\dot{K}_{ij}\lambda ^k_kK_{ij}_i\lambda ^kK_{kj}_j\lambda ^kK_{ik}+_i_jN\right).`$ (3.14)
By regarding $`g_{ij}`$ and $`K_{ij}`$ as independent canonical variables,888The correspondences between the variables in §2 are as follows: $`qg_{ij},p\sqrt{g}\pi ^{ij},QK_{ij},P\sqrt{g}P^{ij}`$.  the action (3.10) can be further rewritten into the first-order form

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\pi ^{ij}\left(\dot{g}_{ij}2NK_{ij}_i\lambda _j_j\lambda _i\right)+𝓛_0+𝓛_1\right]}`$ (3.15)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑r{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\pi ^{ij}\dot{g}_{ij}+P^{ij}\dot{K}_{ij}𝓗(g,K;\pi ,P;N,\lambda )\right]}.`$
Here the Hamiltonian density $``$ can be evaluated as

$``$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^{ij}\left(2NK_{ij}+_i\lambda _j+_j\lambda _i\right)+P^{ij}\dot{K}_{ij}𝓛_0𝓛_1`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`N(g,K;\pi ,P)+\lambda _i𝒫^i(g,K;\pi ,P),`$
with

$`(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $`=`$ $`2\pi ^{ij}K_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)}}P_{ij}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4a+b}{4(b+4c)\left(4da+(d+1)b+4c\right)}}P^2`$
$`_i_jP^{ij}+\left[A_1R^{ij}+A_2(K^2)^{ij}+A_3KK^{ij}\right]P_{ij}`$
$`+\left[A_4R+A_5K_{ij}^2+A_6K^2\right]P`$
$`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\mathrm{\Lambda }+RK_{ij}^2+K^2`$
$`+B_1R^2+B_2R_{ij}^2+B_3R_{ijkl}^2`$
$`+\left(C_1K_{ij}^2+C_2K^2\right)R+\left[C_3(K^2)_{ij}+C_4KK_{ij}\right]R^{ij}`$ (3.17)
$`+C_5K_{ik}K_{jl}R^{ijkl}`$
$`+D_1K_{ij}^4+D_2KK_{ij}^3+D_3(K_{ij}^2)^2+D_4K^2K_{ij}^2+D_5K^4`$
$`+E_1K_{ij}^i^jK+E_2K_{ij}^j_kK^{kj}`$
$`+E_3K_{ij}^2K^{ij}+E_4K^2K,`$
$`𝒫^i(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}_j\pi ^{ij}+P_{kl}^iK^{kl}2^k(K^{ij}P_{jk}).`$ (3.18)
The coefficients $`A_1,\mathrm{},E_4`$ are not important in the following discussion, and are listed in Appendix D. The classical equivalence between the two actions (3.10) and (3.15) can be easily established by noting that the latter gives the following equation of motion for $`\pi ^{ij}`$:

$`P^{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\left((4a+b)g^{ij}g^{kl}+(b+4c)g^{ik}g^{jl}\right)L_{kl}`$ (3.19)
$`+\left[(4ax_1)R+(12a+2bx_4)K_{kl}^2(4a+3x_3)K^2\right]g^{ij}`$
$`+(2bx_2)R^{ij}+(4b+8c3x_5)(K^2)^{ij}2(b+x_4)KK^{ij}.`$
This correctly reproduces the original action (3.10) when substituted into (3.15).

Following the prescription given in §$`2`$, we now make a canonical transformation that changes the polarization of $`S`$ from $`(g_{ij},K_{ij})`$ to $`(g_{ij},P^{ij})`$:

$`\widehat{𝑺}`$ $``$ $`𝑺{\displaystyle _{M_{d+1}}}d^{d+1}X{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(\sqrt{g}K_{ij}P^{ij}\right)`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r_0}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left(\pi ^{ij}\dot{g}_{ij}K_{ij}\dot{P}^{ij}N\widehat{}\lambda _i\widehat{𝒫}^i\right)},`$
with

$`\widehat{}(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $``$ $`(g,K;\pi ,P)+KK_{ij}P^{ij},`$
$`\widehat{𝒫}^i(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $``$ $`𝒫^i(g,K;\pi ,P)^i(K_{jk}P^{jk})`$ (3.21)
$`=`$ $`2_j\pi ^{ij}^iP^{jk}K_{jk}2^k(K^{ij}P_{jk}),`$
where we have used the relation

$`_r\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{g}\left(NK+^i\lambda _i\right).`$ (3.22)
Since $`N`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ are the Lagrange multipliers, we obtain the Hamiltonian and momentum constraints

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{𝑺}}{\delta N}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{}(g,K;\pi ,P)=0,`$ (3.23)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{𝑺}}{\delta \lambda _i}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{𝒫}^i(g,K;\pi ,P)=0.`$ (3.24)
We now let $`\overline{g}_{ij}`$ and $`\overline{P}^{ij}`$ represent the solution to the equation of motion for $`\widehat{𝑺}`$ that obeys the boundary conditions

$`\overline{g}_{ij}(x,r=r_0)=g_{ij}(x),\overline{P}^{ij}(x,r=r_0)=P^{ij}(x).`$ (3.25)
We also require that the solution be regular or be set to some specific value inside the bulk ($`r\mathrm{}`$), and assume that the above boundary condition is sufficient to specify the classical solution completely . Plugging the solution into $`\widehat{𝑺}`$, we obtain the classical action $`\widehat{S}[g(x),P(x)]`$, which satisfies the following Hamilton-Jacobi equation:999The last equation demonstrates the invariance of $`\widehat{S}`$ under a $`d`$-dimensional diffeomorphism,    $`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\sqrt{g}ϵ_i\widehat{𝒫}^i`$     $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\left[(_iϵ_j+_jϵ_i){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}}{\delta g_{ij}}}+(_kϵ^iP^{kj}_kϵ^jP^{ik}+ϵ^k_kP^{ij}){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}}{\delta P^{ij}}}\right],`$  with $`ϵ^i(x)`$ an arbitrary function. This also demonstrates the invariance of the reduced classical action,    $`0={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\left(_iϵ_j+_jϵ_i\right){\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}},`$  for arbitrary $`ϵ^i(x)`$.

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}}{\delta g_{ij}}}=\pi ^{ij},{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \widehat{S}}{\delta P^{ij}}}=+K_{ij},`$ (3.26)
$`\widehat{}(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (3.27)
$`\widehat{𝒫}^i(g,K;\pi ,P)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (3.28)
Since the Hamiltonian density is a linear combination of the constraints, the classical action $`\widehat{S}`$ does not depend on the coordinate of the lower boundary:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_0}}\widehat{S}={\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left(N\widehat{}+\lambda _i\widehat{𝒫}^i\right)}=0.`$ (3.29)
This implies that the reduced classical action

$`S[g(x)]\widehat{S}[g(x),P(x)=0]`$ (3.30)
is also independent of $`r_0`$:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{r_0}}S=0.`$ (3.31)
The Hamiltonian and the momentum constraints (3.27) and (3.28) can be translated into equations for the reduced classical action, as we sketched for point-particle systems in Eqs. (2.27)–(2.33). However, the resulting equation can be derived most easily by using the Theorem, (2.35) and (2.36), as follows: We first rewrite the Lagrangian density of zero-th order, $`𝓛_0`$, into the first-order form

$`𝓛_0\pi ^{ij}\dot{g}_{ij}𝓗_0,`$ (3.32)
where the zero-th order Hamiltonian density $`𝓗_0`$ is given by

$`𝓗_0(g,\pi ;N,\lambda )=N\left(\pi _{ij}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\pi ^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+R\right)2\lambda _i_j\pi ^{ij}.`$ (3.33)
Then by using the Theorem, the pseudo-Hamiltonian density is given by

$`\stackrel{~}{𝓗}(g,\pi ;N,\lambda )=𝓗_0(g,\pi ;N,\lambda )𝓛_1(g,K^0(g,\pi ),K^1(g,\pi );N,\lambda ).`$ (3.34)
Here $`K_{ij}^0(g,\pi )`$ is obtained by replacing $`\dot{g}_{ij}(x)`$ in (3.13) with $`\{d^dy\sqrt{g}𝓗_0(y),g_{ij}(x)\}`$, and it is calculated to be

$`K_{ij}^0=\pi _{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\pi g_{ij}.`$ (3.35)
On the other hand, $`K_{ij}^1\{d^dy\sqrt{g}𝓗_0(y),K_{ij}^0\}`$ is found to be equivalent to replacing $`L_{ij}`$ in $`𝓛_1`$ by

$`L_{ij}^0=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d1)^2}}\left[2(d1)\mathrm{\Lambda }+(d1)R+(d1)\pi _{kl}^23\pi ^2\right]g_{ij}`$
$`+R_{ij}+2(\pi ^2)_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{d1}}\pi \pi _{ij}.`$ (3.36)
Using Eqs. (3.31)–(3.36), we obtain the following Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation for the reduced classical action:

$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\stackrel{~}{𝓗}(g(x),\pi (x);N,\lambda ^i)}`$ (3.37)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[N\stackrel{~}{}(g(x),\pi (x))+\lambda ^i\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_i(g(x),\pi (x))\right]},`$
$`\pi ^{ij}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}(x)}},`$ (3.38)
where101010We have ignored those terms in $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ that contain the covariant derivative $``$. This is justified when we consider the holographic Weyl anomaly in four dimensions. Actually, it turns out that they give only total derivative terms in the Weyl anomaly.

$`\stackrel{~}{}(g,\pi )`$ $``$ $`\pi _{ij}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\pi ^22\mathrm{\Lambda }+R`$ (3.39)
$`+\alpha _1\pi _{ij}^4+\alpha _2\pi \pi _{ij}^3+\alpha _3\left(\pi _{ij}^2\right)^2+\alpha _4\pi ^2\pi _{ij}^2+\alpha _5\pi ^4`$
$`+\beta _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi _{ij}^2+\beta _2\mathrm{\Lambda }\pi ^2+\beta _3R\pi _{ij}^2+\beta _4R\pi ^2`$
$`+\beta _5R_{ij}(\pi ^2)^{ij}+\beta _6R_{ij}\pi \pi ^{ij}+\beta _7R_{ijkl}\pi ^{ik}\pi ^{jl}`$
$`+\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+\gamma _2\mathrm{\Lambda }R+\gamma _3R^2+\gamma _4R_{ij}^2+\gamma _5R_{ijkl}^2,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_i(g,\pi )`$ $``$ $`2^j\pi _{ij},`$ (3.40)
with

$`\alpha _1=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}c,\alpha _2={\displaystyle \frac{2x_5}{(d1)}},`$
$`\alpha _3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(d1)^2}}[4a+(d^23d+4)b+4(d2)(2d3)c`$
$`2(d1)(dx_4+3x_5)],`$
$`\alpha _4=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d1)^3}}[4a(d^23d+4)b4(2d^25d+4)c`$
$`3dx_3+(2d^27d+2)x_43(2d1)x_5],`$
$`\alpha _5=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(d1)^4}}[4a+(d^23d+4)b+4(2d^25d+4)c`$
$`+2(3d4)x_32(d^26d+6)x_4+2(5d6)x_5],`$ (3.41)
$`\beta _1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)^2}}\left[4dad(d3)b4(d2)c(d1)(dx_4+3x_5)\right],`$
$`\beta _2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)^3}}[4da+d(d3)b+4(d2)c`$
$`3dx_3+(d^22d2)x_4+3(d2)x_5],`$
$`\beta _3=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d1)^2}}[4a+(d^23d+4)b4(3d4)c`$
$`(d1)(dx_1+x_2(d2)x_4+3x_5)],`$
$`\beta _4=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2(d1)^3}}[4a(d^23d+4)b+4(d2)c`$
$`(d1)(d4)x_13(d1)x_2+3(d2)x_3`$
$`(d^28d+10)x_4+3(3d4)x_5],`$
$`\beta _5=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}16}c+3x_5,\beta _6={\displaystyle \frac{2(x_1+2x_2x_43x_5)}{d1}},\beta _7=12c2x_2,`$ (3.42)
$`\gamma _1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{(d1)^2}}\left[4da+(d+1)b+4c\right],`$
$`\gamma _2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(d1)^2}}\left[4dad(d3)b4(d2)c(d1)(dx_1+x_2)\right],`$
$`\gamma _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(d1)^2}}\left[4a+(d^23d+4)b4(3d4)c+2(d1)((d2)x_1x_2)\right],`$
$`\gamma _4`$ $`=`$ $`4c+x_2,\gamma _5=c.`$ (3.43)
Since the classical action $`\widehat{S}[g(x),P(x)]`$ is independent of the choice of $`N`$ and $`\lambda ^i`$ (and, thus, so is $`S[g(x)]`$), from Eqs. (3.37)–(3.40) we finally obtain the following equation that determines the reduced classical action:

$`\stackrel{~}{}(g_{ij}(x),\pi ^{ij}(x))=0,\stackrel{~}{𝒫}_i(g_{ij}(x),\pi ^{ij}(x))=0,\pi ^{ij}(x)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}(x)}}.`$ (3.44)
We conclude this section by making a few comments on the possible form of the boundary action $`𝑺_b`$ and the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. As discussed above, in order that the boundary field theory has a continuum limit, the geometry must be asymptotically AdS:

$`ds^2dr^2+e^{2r/l}\gamma _{ij}(x)dx^idx^j\mathrm{for}r\mathrm{}.`$ (3.45)
This should be consistent with our boundary condition $`P^{ij}=0`$. By investigating the equation of motion derived from the action (3.15) explicitly, it can easily be shown that this compatibility gives rise to the relation

$`x_1`$ $`=`$ $`4a,`$
$`x_2`$ $`=`$ $`2b,`$
$`d^2x_3+dx_4+x_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\left(d(d+1)a+db+2c\right).`$ (3.46)
It can also be shown that the asymptotic behavior (3.45) determines the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d(d3)}{2l^4}}\left[d(d+1)a+db+2c\right].`$ (3.47)
## 4 Solution to the flow equation and the Weyl anomaly

In this section, we solve the equation (3.44), using the derivative expansion that was developed in Ref. . We then apply the result to computing the holographic Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal field theory in four dimensions, which is dual to IIB supergravity on $`AdS_5\times S^5/𝒁_2`$.

We first note that the basic equation, (3.44), can be rewritten as a flow equation of the form

$`\{S,S\}+\{S,S,S,S\}=_d,`$ (4.1)
with

$`\left(\sqrt{g}\right)^2\{S,S\}`$ $`[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\left(g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2`$
$`+\beta _1\mathrm{\Lambda }\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2+\beta _2\mathrm{\Lambda }\left(g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2+\beta _3R\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2`$
$`+\beta _4R\left(g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2+\beta _5R_{ij}g_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ik}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{jl}}}`$
$`+\beta _6R_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}g_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}}+\beta _7R_{ijkl}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ik}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{jl}}}],`$ (4.2)
$`\left(\sqrt{g}\right)^4\{S,S,S,S\}`$ $``$ $`[\alpha _1\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^4+\alpha _2\left(g_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^3+\alpha _3\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2\right)^2`$ (4.3)
$`+\alpha _4\left(g_{kl}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{kl}}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^2+\alpha _5\left(g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta g_{ij}}}\right)^4],`$
$`_d`$ $``$ $`2\mathrm{\Lambda }R\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2\gamma _2\mathrm{\Lambda }R\gamma _3R^2\gamma _4R_{ij}^2\gamma _5R_{ijkl}^2.`$ (4.4)
Following Refs.  and , we then assume that the reduced classical action $`S[g(x)]`$ takes the form

$$\frac{1}{2\kappa _{d+1}^2}S[g(x)]=\frac{1}{2\kappa _{d+1}^2}S_{\mathrm{loc}}[g(x)]+\mathrm{\Gamma }[g(x)],$$
(4.5)
where $`2\kappa _{d+1}^2`$ is the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional Newton constant. The functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[g]`$ is identified with the generating functional of the boundary field theory in the background metric $`g_{ij}(x)`$, with any local sources set to zero, and $`S_{\mathrm{loc}}[g]`$ is the local counterterm in $`S[g]`$:

$`S_{\mathrm{loc}}[g(x)]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g(x)}_{\mathrm{loc}}(x)}`$ (4.6)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{g(x)}\underset{w=0,2,4,\mathrm{}}{}\left[_{\mathrm{loc}}(x)\right]_w}.`$
Here we have arranged the sum over local terms according to the weight $`w`$ , which is defined additively from the following rule:

|  | weight |
| --- | --- |
| $`g_{ij}(x),\mathrm{\Gamma }[g]`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`_i`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`R,R_{ij},\mathrm{}`$ | $`2`$ |
| $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta g_{ij}(x)`$ | $`d`$ |

We then substitute (4.5) into the flow equation (4.1) and rearrange the resulting equation with respect to the weight. The parts of weight $`0`$ and $`2`$ give

$`2\mathrm{\Lambda }\gamma _1\mathrm{\Lambda }^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_0+\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_0,`$ (4.7)
$`R\gamma _2\mathrm{\Lambda }R`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_2+\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_2.`$ (4.8)
These two equations determine $`[_{\mathrm{loc}}]_0`$ and $`[_{\mathrm{loc}}]_2`$ as

$`\left[_{\mathrm{loc}}\right]_0=W,\left[_{\mathrm{loc}}\right]_2=\mathrm{\Phi }R,`$ (4.9)
$`W=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)}{l}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l^3}}\left[4d(d+1)a4db8c+d(d^2x_3+dx_4+x_5)\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{d2}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(d1)(d2)l}}\left[d(d+1)a+db+2c\right]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l}}\left[dx_1+x_2+{\displaystyle \frac{3(d^2x_3+dx_4+x_5)}{2(d1)}}\right],`$ (4.10)
where (3.47) has been used. It is worthwhile to note that $`W`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ can be written in terms of only $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ upon substituting into (3.46):

$`W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{4(d+3)}{3l^3}}\left[d(d+1)a+db+2c\right],`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{d2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{(d2)l}}\left[d(d5)a2b2c\right].`$ (4.11)
For $`d>4`$, the flow equation of weight $`4`$ simply determines $`\left[_{\mathrm{loc}}\right]_4`$ in the local counterterm, as in the case of Einstein gravity (cf. Ref. ), while for $`d=4`$ this gives an equation that characterizes the generating functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[g(x)]`$:

$`2\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}\right]_4+4\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},\mathrm{\Gamma }\}\right]_4`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}(\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_4+\left[\{S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}},S_{\mathrm{loc}}\}\right]_4`$
$`+\gamma _3R^2+\gamma _4R_{ij}^2+\gamma _5R_{ijkl}^2).`$ (4.12)
From this, we can evaluate the trace of the stress tensor for the boundary field theory:

$`T_i^i_g{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{g}}}g_{ij}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta g_{ij}}}.`$ (4.13)
In fact, using the values in (4.10), we can show that the trace is given by

$`T_i^i_g={\displaystyle \frac{2l^3}{2\kappa _5^2}}[`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{5a}{3l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{3l^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{3l^2}}\right)R^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{5a}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b}{l^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{3c}{2l^2}}\right)R_{ij}^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2l^2}}R_{ijkl}^2].`$ (4.14)
This correctly reproduces the result111111The authors of Refs.  and  parametrized the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as    $`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{d(d1)}{2L^2}},`$  so that their $`L`$ is related to our $`l`$, the radius of asymptotic AdS, as    $`l^2=L^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{(d3)}{(d1)L^2}}\left(d(d+1)a+db+2c\right)\right].`$   obtained in Refs.  and , where the Weyl anomaly was calculated by perturbatively solving the equation of motion near the boundary and by looking at the logarithmically divergent term, as in Ref. .

For the case of $`𝒩=2`$ superconformal $`USp(N)`$ gauge theory in four dimensions, we choose $`2\kappa _5^2`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}=\frac{\mathrm{Vol}(S^5/𝒁_2)(\mathrm{radius}\mathrm{of}S^5/𝒁_2)^5}{2\kappa ^2},$$
(4.15)
where $`2\kappa ^2=(2\pi )^7g_s^2`$ is the ten-dimensional Newton constant , and the radius of $`S^5/𝒁_2`$ could be set to $`(8\pi g_sN)^{1/4}`$ . In this relation, we note the replacement $`N2N`$ as compared to the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ case. This is because here we must quantize the RR $`5`$-form flux over $`S_5/𝒁_2`$ instead of over $`S^5`$ . For the $`AdS_5`$ radius $`l`$, we may also set $`l=(8\pi g_sN)^{1/4}`$. Setting the values $`a=b=0`$ and $`c/2l^2=1/32N+𝒪(1/N^2)`$, as determined in Ref. , we find that the Weyl anomaly (4.14) takes the form

$`T_i^i_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48N}}\right)R^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32N}}\right)R_{ij}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32N}}R_{ijkl}^2\right]+𝒪(N^0).`$ (4.16)
This is different from the field theoretical result ,

$`T_i^i_g`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{2\pi ^2}}\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32N}}\right)R^2+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16N}}\right)R_{ij}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32N}}R_{ijkl}^2\right]+𝒪(N^0).`$ (4.17)
As was pointed out in Ref. , the discrepancy could be accounted for by possible corrections to the radius $`l`$ as well as to the five-dimensional Newton constant. In fact, if these corrections are

$`l=(8\pi g_sN)^{1/4}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\xi }{N}}\right),{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Vol}(S^5/𝒁_2)(8\pi g_sN)^{5/4}}{2\kappa ^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\eta }{N}}\right),`$ (4.18)
then the field theoretical result is correctly reproduced for $`3\xi +\eta =5/4`$.

## 5 Conclusion

In this paper, we investigated higher-derivative gravity systems in the context of the AdS/CFT correspondence. Although higher-derivative gravity requires more boundary conditions than Einstein gravity, we pointed out that by choosing the Neumann boundary conditions for higher-derivative modes, the classical action can be made such that it depends only on the boundary values of bulk fields. We further derived a Hamilton-Jacobi-like equation that determines such a classical action. Using this equation, we computed the $`1/N`$ correction to the Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=2`$ $`G=USp(N)`$ superconformal field theory in four dimensions on the basis of the holographic description in terms of type IIB string theory on $`AdS_5\times S^5/𝒁_2`$ . We found that the resulting Weyl anomaly correctly reproduces the holographic Weyl anomaly given in Refs.  and , and is consistent with the field theoretical result if we take into account the possible corrections discussed in Ref. .

Finally, we comment on how our Neumann boundary condition $`P=0`$ can be interpreted in the context of the holographic RG. To this end, we consider a toy model with the Lagrangian

$`L={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\dot{q}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2q^2+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2}}\ddot{q}^2,`$ (5.1)
whose first-order form reads

$`L=p\dot{q}+P\dot{Q}H(q,Q;p,P),`$ (5.2)
with

$`H(q,Q;p,P)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu ^2q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}Q^2+Qp+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2c}}P^2.`$ (5.3)
By performing an almost diagonal canonical transformation,

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}q\\ Q\\ p\\ P\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_1& a_2& \frac{1}{m^2}a_3& \frac{1}{M^2}a_4\\ a_3& a_4& a_1& a_2\\ cM^2a_3& cm^2a_4& cM^2a_1& cm^2a_2\\ cm^2a_1& cM^2a_2& ca_3& ca_4\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}q^{}\\ Q^{}\\ p^{}\\ P^{}\end{array}\right),`$ (5.16)
with

$`m^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{14c\mu ^2}}{2c}}=\mu ^2(1+𝒪(c)),`$
$`M^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{14c\mu ^2}}{2c}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{c}}(1+𝒪(c)),`$ (5.17)
$`a_1^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{m^2}}a_3^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12c\mu ^2}},a_2^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{M^2}}a_4^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12c\mu ^2}},`$ (5.18)
the Lagrangian can be rewritten into the following form with normalized kinetic term:

$`L=p^{}\dot{q}^{}+P^{}\dot{Q}^{}H^{}(q^{},p^{};Q^{},P^{}),`$ (5.19)
where

$`H^{}(q^{},Q^{};p^{},P^{})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}P^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M^2Q^2.`$ (5.20)
Since a bulk mode with mass $`M`$ is coupled to a scaling operator with scaling dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\frac{1}{2}\left(d+\sqrt{d+4M^2}\right)`$ , the relation (5.17) shows that the mode $`Q^{}`$ is coupled to a highly irrelevant operator with large scaling dimension when $`c1`$. The essential point of this conclusion does not change even if the variable $`q`$ corresponds to a bulk field with spin.

Turning to higher-derivative gravity systems, the above example shows that $`K_{ij}(QQ^{})`$ is highly irrelevant in the dual CFT and is approximated well by assuming that it takes a constant value along the renormalized trajectory, as long as we consider the vicinity of the conformal fixed point. This is equivalent to demanding that the corresponding beta function vanishes along the renormalized trajectory. Since $`P^{ij}`$, the conjugate momentum of $`K_{ij}`$, can be regarded as the RG beta function of $`K_{ij}`$, this leads to our requirement, $`P^{ij}=0`$. The holographic RG structure in higher-derivative systems will be explored in more detail in a subsequent paper .

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank M. Ninomiya, S. Nojiri and S. Ogushi for useful discussions. The work of M.F. is supported in part by a Grand-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture, and the work of T.S. is supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

## Appendix A Proof of Theorem

In this appendix, we give a detailed proof of Theorem, (2.35) and (2.36), for the action

$`𝑺={\displaystyle _t^{}^t}𝑑r\left[L_0(q^i,\dot{q}^i)+cL_1(q^i,\dot{q}^i,\ddot{q}^i)\right],`$ (A.1)
where $`i`$ runs over some values. In the following discussion, we focus only on the upper boundary, for simplicity.

We first rewrite the zero-th order Lagrangian $`L_0`$ into the first-order form by introducing the conjugate momentum $`p_{0i}`$ of $`q^i`$ as

$`𝑺[q(r),p_0(r)]={\displaystyle ^t}𝑑r\left[p_{0i}\dot{q}^iH_0(q,p_0)+cL_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})\right],`$ (A.2)
through the Legendre transformation from $`(q,\dot{q})`$ to $`(q,p_0)`$ defined by

$`p_{0i}={\displaystyle \frac{L_0}{\dot{q}^i}}(q,\dot{q}).`$ (A.3)
From this, the equation of motion for $`p_{0i}`$ and $`q^i`$ is given by

$`\dot{q}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_{0i}}},`$ (A.4)
$`\dot{p_{0i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^i}}+c\left[{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{q^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\dot{q}^i}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dr^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}\right)\right].`$ (A.5)
Let $`\overline{q}(r),\overline{p}_0(r)`$ be the solution to this equation of motion that satisfies the boundary condition

$`\overline{q}^i(r=t)=q^i.`$ (A.6)
Since this condition determines the classical trajectory uniquely \[together with the lower boundary values $`\overline{q}^i(r=t^{})=q^i`$ that we have not written here explicitly\], the boundary value of $`\overline{p}_0`$ is completely specified by $`t`$ and $`q`$: $`\overline{p}_0(r=t)=p_0(t,q)`$. By plugging the classical solution into the action $`S`$, the classical action is obtained as a function of the boundary value $`q^i`$ and $`t`$:

$`S(t,q)=𝑺[\overline{q}(r),\overline{p}_0(r)].`$ (A.7)
In order to derive a differential equation that determines $`S(t,q)`$, we then take the variation of $`S(t,q)`$. Using (A.4) and (A.5), this is easily evaluated to be

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`\delta t\left[p_{0i}\dot{q}^iH_0(q,p_0)+cL_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})\right]`$ (A.8)
$`+\delta \overline{q}^i(t)\left[p_{0i}+c\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\dot{q}^i}}(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q}){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}(\overline{q},\dot{\overline{q}},\ddot{\overline{q}})\right)|_{r=t}\right)\right]`$
$`+c\delta \dot{\overline{q}}^i(t){\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q}),`$
where

$`\dot{q}^i{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{q}^i}{dr}}(r=t),\ddot{q}^i{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\overline{q}^i}{dr^2}}(r=t),`$ (A.9)
and $`\delta \overline{q}^i(t)`$ and $`\delta \dot{\overline{q}}^i(t)`$ are understood to be $`\delta \overline{q}^i(r)|_{r=t}`$ and $`d\delta \overline{q}^i(r)/dr|_{r=t}`$, respectively. By expanding the classical solution $`\overline{q}^i(r)`$ around $`r=t`$, we find that the variations $`\delta \overline{q}^i(t)`$ and $`\delta \dot{\overline{q}}^i(t)`$ are given by

$`\delta \overline{q}^i(t)=\delta q^i\dot{q}^i\delta t,\delta \dot{\overline{q}}^i(t)=\delta \dot{q}^i\ddot{q}^i\delta t.`$ (A.10)
Here it is important to note that $`\dot{q}`$ can be written in terms of $`q`$ and $`t`$, since the classical solution is determined uniquely by the boundary value $`q`$. Actually it can be shown that

$`\delta \dot{q}^i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{q^jp_{0i}}}\delta q^j+{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0i}p_{0j}}}\delta p_{0j}`$ (A.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{q^jp_{0i}}}\delta q^j+{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0i}p_{0j}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{0j}}{t}}\delta t+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{0j}}{q^k}}\delta q^k\right),`$
where we have used (A.4) as well as the fact that $`p_0=p_0(t,q)`$. From these relations, the variation (A.8) is found to be

$`\delta S=p_i\delta q^i\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)\delta t,`$ (A.12)
with

$`p_i`$ $`=`$ $`p_{0i}+c[{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\dot{q}^i}}(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q}){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}(\overline{q},\dot{\overline{q}},\ddot{\overline{q}})\right)|_{r=t}`$ (A.13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^j}}({\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{q^ip_{0j}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0j}p_{0k}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{0k}}{q^i}})],`$
$`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)`$ $`=`$ $`H_0(q,p_0)`$ (A.14)
$`+c[L_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})+\dot{q}^i({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\dot{q}^i}}(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q}){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}(\overline{q},\dot{\overline{q}},\ddot{\overline{q}})\right)|_{r=t})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{L_1}{\ddot{q}^i}}(\ddot{q}^i{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0i}p_{0j}}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{0j}}{t}})].`$
In order to compute $`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)`$, we first note that the Hamilton equation appearing in (A.4) and (A.5) gives the relation

$`\ddot{q}^i={\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0i}q^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_{0j}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_{0i}p_{0j}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_{0j}}{q^k}}{\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_{0k}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{0k}}{t}}\right).`$ (A.15)
It is then easy to verify that $`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)`$ takes the form

$`\stackrel{~}{H}(q,p)=H_0(q,p)cL_1(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q})+𝒪(c^2).`$ (A.16)
Here $`\dot{q}^i`$ and $`\ddot{q}^i`$ in $`L_1`$ can be replaced by

$`f_1^i(q,p)\{H_0(q,p),q^i\}={\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_i}}(q,p)`$ (A.17)
and

$`f_2^i(q,p)`$ $``$ $`\{H_0(q,p),\{H_0(q,p),q^i\}\}`$ (A.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_iq^j}}(q,p){\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{p_j}}(q,p){\displaystyle \frac{^2H_0}{p_ip_j}}(q,p){\displaystyle \frac{H_0}{q^j}}(q,p),`$
respectively, up to $`𝒪(c^2)`$. This completes the proof of (2.35) and (2.36).

## Appendix B ADM Decomposition

In this appendix, we summarize the components of the Riemann tensor, Ricci tensor and scalar curvature written in terms of the ADM decomposition.

In the ADM decomposition, the metric takes the form

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }dX^\mu dX^\nu `$ (B.1)
$`=`$ $`N(x,r)^2dr^2+g_{ij}(x,r)\left(dx^i+\lambda ^i(x,r)dr\right)\left(dx^j+\lambda ^j(x,r)dr\right).`$
Here we use the following basis instead of the coordinate basis $`_\mu `$:

$`\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(_r\lambda ^i_i,),\widehat{e}_i=_i.`$ (B.2)
In this basis, the components of the metric are given by

$`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{g}(\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}},\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}})& \widehat{g}(\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}},\widehat{e}_j)\\ \widehat{g}(\widehat{e}_j,\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}})& \widehat{g}(\widehat{e}_i,\widehat{e}_j)\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& g_{ij}\end{array}\right).`$ (B.7)
For the purpose of computing the Riemann tensor in this basis, it is useful to start with the formula

$`\widehat{R}_{\rho \mu \nu }^\sigma \widehat{e}_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{R}(\widehat{e}_\mu ,\widehat{e}_\nu )\widehat{e}_\rho `$ (B.8)
$`=`$ $`[\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_\mu },\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_\nu }]\widehat{e}_\rho \widehat{}_{[\widehat{e}_\mu ,\widehat{e}_\nu ]}\widehat{e}_\rho .`$
Each component can be calculated explicitly by using the equations

$`\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_i}\widehat{e}_j`$ $`=`$ $`K_{ij}\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^k\widehat{e}_k,`$
$`\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_i}\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_i^k\widehat{e}_k,`$
$`\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}}\widehat{e}_j`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}_jN\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}+\left(K_j^k+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}_j\lambda ^k\right)\widehat{e}_k,`$
$`\widehat{}_{\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}}\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}g^{kl}_kN\widehat{e}_l,`$
$`[\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}},\widehat{e}_i]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}_iN\widehat{e}_{\widehat{n}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}_i\lambda ^k\widehat{e}_k,`$ (B.9)
where $`K_{ij}`$ is the extrinsic curvature and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ is the affine connection with respect to $`g_{ij}`$. We thus obtain

$`\widehat{R}_{ijkl}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ijkl}K_{ik}K_{jl}+K_{il}K_{jk},`$
$`\widehat{R}_{\widehat{n}jkl}`$ $`=`$ $`_lK_{jk}_kK_{jl},`$
$`\widehat{R}_{\widehat{n}j\widehat{n}l}`$ $`=`$ $`(K^2)_{jl}L_{jl},`$ (B.10)
with

$`L_{ij}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left(\dot{K}_{ij}\lambda ^k_kK_{ij}_i\lambda ^kK_{kj}_j\lambda ^kK_{kj}+_i_jN\right).`$ (B.11)
The components of the Ricci tensor $`\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{R}_{\mu \rho \nu }^\rho =\widehat{R}_{\nu \mu }`$ are given by

$`\widehat{R}_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`R_{ij}+2(K^2)_{ij}KK_{ij}L_{ij},`$
$`\widehat{R}_{i\widehat{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`^kK_{ki}_iK,`$
$`\widehat{R}_{\widehat{n}\widehat{n}}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{ij}^2g^{ij}L_{ij},`$ (B.12)
and the scalar curvature is

$`\widehat{R}=R+3K_{ij}^2K^22g^{ij}L_{ij}.`$ (B.13)
## Appendix C Boundary Terms

In this appendix, we supplement the discussion of the possible boundary terms given in §3.

We first consider the infinitesimal transformation

$`x^ix^i=x^i+ϵ^i(x,r),rr^{}=r+ϵ(x,r).`$ (C.1)
Under this transformation, $`N,\lambda _i`$ and $`g_{ij}`$ are found to transform as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N^{}}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}(1+\dot{ϵ}\lambda ^i_iϵ),`$
$`\lambda _i^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _i_iϵ^j\lambda _j\dot{ϵ}\lambda _i_iϵ(N^2+\lambda ^2)g_{ij}\dot{ϵ}^j,`$
$`g_{ij}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`g_{ij}_iϵ^kg_{kj}_jϵ^kg_{ik}_iϵ\lambda _j_jϵ\lambda _i.`$ (C.2)
Furthermore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$, the affine connection defined by $`g_{ij}`$, transforms under the diffeomorphism (C.1) as

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i_j_kϵ^i+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^m_mϵ^i\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mk}^i_jϵ^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jm}^i_kϵ^m+\stackrel{~}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i,`$ (C.3)
with

$`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i=\lambda ^i_j_kϵ_jϵ_k\lambda ^i_kϵ_j\lambda ^iNg^{il}(_jϵK_{lk}+_kϵK_{lj}_lϵK_{jk}).`$ (C.4)
Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jk}^i`$ does not contain $`ϵ^i`$. From these relations, it is straightforward to verify that the extrinsic curvature transforms as

$`K_{ij}^{}=`$ $`K_{ij}_iϵ^lK_{lj}_kϵ^lK_{jl}`$
$`+N_i_jϵ+_iϵ(_jN\lambda ^lK_{jl})+_jϵ(_iN\lambda ^lK_{lj}).`$ (C.5)
We can also show that the Riemann curvature $`R_{jkl}^i`$ transforms under (C.1) as

$`R_{jkl}^i`$ $`=`$ $`R_{jkl}^i+_mϵ^iR_{jkl}^m_jϵ^mR_{mkl}^i_kϵ^mR_{jml}^i_lϵ^mR_{jkm}^i`$ (C.6)
$`_kϵ\dot{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{lj}^i+_lϵ\dot{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_{kj}^i+_k\stackrel{~}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{lj}^i_l\stackrel{~}{\delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{kj}^i.`$
As argued in §$`3`$, we focus on the diffeomorphism that obeys the condition (3.6). This is equivalent to the following relation in an infinitesimal form:

$`_iϵ(r=r_0)=0.`$ (C.7)
Therefore, we find that the boundary action (3.7) is invariant under this diffeomorphism.

We remark that in the above, we have discarded boundary terms of the form

$`𝑺_b^{}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\sqrt{g}\left(K^{ij}L_{ij}+Kg^{ij}L_{ij}\right),`$ (C.8)
although these are allowed by the diffeomorphism.121212By definition, the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional scalar curvature $`\widehat{R}`$ is a scalar. It thus follows from (B.13) that $`L_{ij}(r=r_0)`$ transforms as a tensor under the diffeomorphism with (C.7).  The reason is that if there were such boundary terms, they would require us to further introduce an extra boundary condition, since

$`\delta 𝑺_b^{}={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_d}}d^dx\sqrt{g}\left[\mathrm{}+\delta \dot{K}_{ij}P_2^{ij}(g_{kl},K_{kl})\right].`$ (C.9)
## Appendix D Coefficients in Eq. (3.18)

We have the following values for the coefficients in Eq. (3.18):

$`A_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2bx_2}{2(b+4c)}},A_2={\displaystyle \frac{4b+8c3x_5}{2(b+4c)}},A_3={\displaystyle \frac{b+x_4}{b+4c}},`$
$`A_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4ab16ac+bx_1+4cx_14ax_2+2b^2bx_2}{2(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}},`$
$`A_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4ab16ac+2b^2+bx_4+4cx_412ax_53bx_5}{2(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}},`$
$`A_6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4ab16ac3bx_312cx_3+8ax_4+2b^2+2bx_4}{2(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}},`$ (D.1)
$`B_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$
$`\times [4b^3+4(d+1)ab^2+4ax_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4b^2x_2+bx_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+64ac^28abx_2`$
$`+16(d2)abc4dcx_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}dbx_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4b^2x_1+16bcx_18cx_1x_2`$
$`+32acx_22bx_1x_2+8dabx_1+32dacx_1],`$
$`B_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16bc+4bx_2x_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{4(b+4c)}},B_3=c,`$ (D.2)
$`C_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$ (D.3)
$`\times [8b^38abx_216(d+1)bcx_164c^2x_132dacx_1`$
$`4db^2x_1+8dabx_14b^2x_2+32acx_2+8dabx_424abx_5`$
$`+24ax_2x_5+6bx_2x_512b^2x_5+32(d2)abc2dbx_1x_4`$
$`+8(d+1)ab^2+16bcx_4+4b^2x_42bx_2x_46bx_1x_5`$
$`8cx_2x_48dcx_1x_4+32dacx_424cx_1x_5+96acx_5+128ac^2],`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$
$`\times [16b^2c+8bcx_2+64c^2x_1+32dacx_132(d+2)abc`$
$`8(7d+5)ab^2(d3)bx_2x_44(d4)ax_2x_4`$
$`+8(d2)abx_4+2(d3)b^2x_4+3(d1)bx_2x_36(d1)b^2x_3`$
$`4(d+3)b^3+32acx_2+24(d+1)abx_2+16(d+1)bcx_1`$
$`+64da^2x_212cx_2x_3+2(d+3)b^2x_2+8dabx_1+4db^2x_1`$
$`6dbx_1x_3+24bcx_34bx_1x_4+12dax_2x_3+8bcx_4+96dacx_3`$
$`4cx_2x_416cx_1x_4+64acx_424dcx_1x_3128da^2b128ac^2],`$
$`C_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{32bc+6bx_53x_2x_5+64c^28cx_2}{2(b+4c)}},`$
$`C_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8bc+2bx_42bx_1x_2x_48cx_1+4cx_2}{b+4c}},`$
$`C_5`$ $`=`$ $`12c2x_2,`$ (D.4)
$`D_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8bc9x_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}48cx_532c^2}{4(b+4c)}},`$
$`D_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4bx_516bc16cx_46x_4x_5+8cx_5}{2(b+4c)}},`$
$`D_3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$
$`\times [6bx_4x_564c^2x_4+96acx_516(d+1)bcx_432dacx_4+128c^3`$
$`4db^2x_424cx_4x_5+32(d+2)bc^2dbx_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}4dcx_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+8(d+1)b^2c`$
$`+4b^3+64(2d+1)ac^2+4(d+1)ab^2+16(3d2)abc24abx_5`$
$`12b^2x_58dabx_4+9bx_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+36ax_{5}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}],`$
$`D_4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$
$`\times [8b^332cx_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+48ax_4x_516dax_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+24abx_5+12b^2x_5+12bx_4x_5`$
$`24dabx_396dacx_3+64c^2x_496acx_5192c^2x_3`$
$`72cx_3x_5+32(d+2)abc48(d+1)bcx_38(3d+2)abx_4`$
$`+16(d1)bcx_4+32(d+2)acx_4+16(d+1)b^2c4(d+2)bx_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`4(d+4)b^2x_48(d+1)ab^2128ac^26dbx_3x_4`$
$`18bx_3x_524dcx_3x_412db^2x_3+64bc^2],`$
$`D_5`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(b+4c)(4da+(d+1)b+4c)}}`$ (D.5)
$`\times [16ax_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+64c^2x_38dabx_332dacx_312bx_3x_448cx_3x_4,`$
$`+4(d2)b^2x_364acx_4+8b^2x_4+4bx_{4}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4b^3+64ac^29dbx_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}`$
$`36dcx_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+4(d+1)ab^2+16(d2)abc+16abx_4+16(d1)bcx_3],`$
$`E_1`$ $`=`$ $`4b+2x_1x_2,`$
$`E_2`$ $`=`$ $`2b+8c2x_2,`$
$`E_3`$ $`=`$ $`8cx_2,`$
$`E_4`$ $`=`$ $`2b2x_1.`$ (D.6)