text:
# Global Space-time Symmetries Gauging and Kaluza-Klein Dimensional Reduction

## 1 Foreword

One of the miracles of String theory is its higher dimensional nature. But since everyone can directly feel and observe only four-dimensional world, it is a great puzzle how to connect the String/M-theory living at a Planck energy scale in ten/eleven space-time dimensions with phenomenological models describing experimental data. A way to resolve this problem is to compactify additional dimensions.

In this volume in memory of the 75th anniversary of D. V. Volkov it is worth to emphasize that Dmitrij Vasilievich Volkov was one of the pioneers in the investigation of mechanisms of spontaneous compactifications of Kaluza-Klein (KK) theories . In ,  D. V. Volkov and V. I. Tkach proposed for the first time the mechanism of spontaneous compactification based on embedding the spin connection of the compactified manifold into a gauge field connection, which was then applied in  for studying KK supergravities.

To compactify extra dimensions one needs as a starting point an ansatz being the classical solution for the low energy effective superstring theory (supergravity) equations of motion , and the choice of every ansatz compatible with the equations of motion determines its own independent classical vacuum state. Small fluctuations over the vacuum form a spectrum of massless and massive modes with masses depending on internal properties of the compactified manifold. Because there is no additional rule of the selection of the ground state metric and antisymmetric tensor fields (for instance, classical stability of vacuum and compactified manifold can be broken by quantum corrections and non-perturbative effects) there exists a problem of the choice of the true classical vacuum state. However, taking into account the requirement of unbroken supersymmetry one can restrict the consideration to the ansätze which correspond to backgrounds which are maximally symmetric from the lower-dimensional observer point of view, i.e. which are invariant under the space-time group/supergroup of rotations and translations generated by a set of Killing vectors/spinors. The form of the maximally-symmetric ground-state ansatz is governed by the properties of Killing vectors and in general involves a “warp” factor, which is a function of internal coordinates in the Randall-Sundrum (RS1)/Rubakov-Shaposhnikov (RS2) scenarios , .

This restriction leads to the space-time manifolds of a constant curvature or Einstein spaces among which only Minkowski and anti-de Sitter spaces are selected as the spaces compatible with supersymmetry. In its turn the internal manifold may also possesses the invariance under the action of an isometry group, which becomes an internal group of the lower-dimensional theory after compactification and which is defined by another set of Killing vectors. The latter play an important rôle in the definition of the massless states in the complete Kaluza-Klein ansatz especially in the case of dimensional reduction when all massive modes are ignored and the massless sector of the compactified theory is considered independently 111Since all massive modes arising in the standard KK compactification have an order of the Planck mass they are not important for low-energy phenomenology. Note however that this is not true for quantum KK theories and also for RS1/2 scenarios. . The form of the KK ansatz for dimensional reduction is further restricted by the requirement of its consistency with higher-dimensional equations of motion. This poses an additional problem of finding a consistent ansatz in the case of nontrivial (and nonlinear) reduction.

At this point it is necessary to recall that the above arguments do not appeal to the existence of Killing vectors in the original arbitrary higher-dimensional background. However, things change if from the beginning a higher-dimensional background allows for the existence of an isometry group. This feature is important for the construction of T(arget-space)-dual theories  as well as for the investigation of properties of “non-standard” BPS objects such as KK-monopoles  and space-time-filling branes (see, for instance,  and Refs. therein). In this case the space-time isometry group is generated by a set of the space-time Killing vectors and the requirement of local invariance under isometry group transformations leads to the introduction of compensator fields akin to that of the KK theories. The goal of this note is to find the conditions for the application of the global space-time symmetry gauging technique to the description of dimensionally reduced theories and to establish a way to recover dimensionally reduced theories starting from geometrical properties of manifolds with isometries but without appealing to a dimensional reduction ansatz.

To this end we begin with the consideration of the dimension reduction in Kaluza-Klein theories, after that the philosophy of gauged $`\sigma `$-models will be discussed. Having these thesis and anti-thesis the syn-thesis is realized in establishing a bridge between these two techniques. We conclude by discussing the results and open questions.

## 2 Dimensional reduction in Kaluza-Klein theories

Because the dimensional reduction in Kaluza-Klein theories is a sufficiently well-known subject, we only remind what kind of geometrical objects appears in this scheme .

In the Kaluza-Klein approach dealing with theories in space-time dimensions higher than four it is assumed that the higher-dimensional space-time manifold $`M^D`$ is the direct product of an internal manifold $`M^k`$ and a space-time manifold $`M^{Dk}`$. If a group $`G`$ is the isometry group of the metric tensor in $`M^k`$, then $`G`$ is generated by the set of the Killing vectors $`k_i^A`$ $`(A=1,\mathrm{},dimG)`$ having the following properties:

$$_kg_{ij}=0_{(i}k_{j)}^A2_{(i}k_{j)}^A2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^lk_l^A=0,$$

$$[k^A,k^B]=f_C^{AB}k^C,k^A=k^{iA}\frac{}{Z^i},$$

where $`_k`$ is the Lie derivative in the Killing vector direction, $`g_{ij}`$ is the metric tensor in the internal manifold $`M^k`$ parameterized by the coordinates $`Z^i`$, $``$ is the covariant derivative with the standard definition of the Christoffel connection

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ij}^l=\frac{1}{2}g^{lk}(_jg_{ki}+_ig_{kj}_kg_{ij}),$$

and $`f_C^{AB}`$ are the structure constants of the isometry group $`G`$.

The $`D`$-dimensional metric tensor can be split on to $`M^k`$ and $`M^{Dk}`$ blocks as follows 222Throughout the paper all hatted quantities indicate an object in $`D`$-dimensional space-time with $`\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}`$ coordinates, unhatted quantities belong to the $`(Dk)`$-dimensional space-time with $`X^{\underset{¯}{m}}`$ coordinates, and the small indices from the middle of the Latin alphabet are the indices of the internal space parameterized by $`Z^i`$.

$$\widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}(X,Z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g_{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}& g_{\underset{¯}{m}i}\\ g_{i\underset{¯}{n}}& g_{ij}\end{array}\right).$$

To dimensionally reduce the theory it is necessary to choose an ansatz, which shall define the form of the matrix blocks and will be consistent with equations of motion for the original $`D`$-dimensional theory. It is known that, in particular, the following choice of the off-diagonal matrix element

$$g_{\underset{¯}{m}i}(X,Z)=A_{\underset{¯}{m}}^A(X)k_i^A(Z)+massivemodes$$

is self-consistent (at least in the case of toroidal compactification). Here a new vector field $`A_{\underset{¯}{m}}^A`$ as a massless mode appears. Because we deal with dimensional reduction, all massive modes are ignored. The complete form of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz can be extracted from the expression for the line element written as

$$d\widehat{s}^2=dX^{\underset{¯}{m}}dX^{\underset{¯}{n}}g_{\underset{¯}{m}\underset{¯}{n}}(dZ^iA^Ak^{Ai})$$

$$(dZ^jA^Ak^{Aj})g_{ij}.$$

Under the $`D`$-dimensional general coordinate transformations $`\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{\xi }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}(\widehat{X})`$ the metric tensor transforms as

$$\delta \widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}=2_{(\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{\xi }_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}})}.$$

For a special choice of the local parameter

$$\widehat{\xi }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}(X,Z)=(0,ϵ^A(X)k^{Ai}),$$

which corresponds to local coordinate shifts in the internal manifold coordinate directions a transformation rule for the vector field $`A_{\underset{¯}{m}}^A`$ has the form of the gauge transformation for a Yang-Mills gauge field with the gauge group $`G`$

$$\delta A_{\underset{¯}{m}}^A(X)=_{\underset{¯}{m}}ϵ^A(X)f_{BC}^AA_{\underset{¯}{m}}^Bϵ^C.$$

This observation is one of the key points of the Kaluza-Klein philosophy: The gauge group in $`Dk`$ space-time dimensions is connected to the isometry group of the extra dimensions and is a subgroup of the $`D`$-dimensional general coordinate transformation (g.c.t.) group .

## 3 Global space-time symmetries and their gauging

Let us outline now a resemblance of the construction above to that of gauged sigma-model formulation. To this end consider a $`\sigma `$-model ($`p`$-brane) described by the action

$$S=d^{p+1}\xi [\sqrt{h}(_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}_n\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}h^{mn}+(p1))$$

$$+\epsilon ^{m_1\mathrm{}m_{p+1}}\widehat{B}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}_{m_1}\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1}\mathrm{}_{m_{p+1}}\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}]$$

with $`h_{mn}`$ being the metric on the $`p`$-brane worldvolume.

For special backgrounds allowing for the existence of isometry directions this action is invariant under the following global space-time transformations

$$\delta \widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=ϵ^Ak^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}A}$$

with a constant parameter $`ϵ^A`$. Here $`k^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}A}`$ are the Killing vectors generating the isometry group of the background, i.e.

$$_k\widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}=0,$$

and the target space antisymmetric gauge field $`\widehat{B}`$ should satisfy the equation

$$_k(d\widehat{B})_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}=0.$$

For further consideration it is important that having the global target-space invariance we can gauge the isometry group 333Other aspects of space-time symmetry gauging can be found in  (and Refs. therein). From the modern point of view the existence of a global symmetry in the original theory is a sufficient but not necessary (see, for instance, Ref. ) condition for a possibility of constructing its dual  . , i.e. to require the invariance under the local space-time transformations

$$\delta \widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=ϵ^A(\widehat{X})k^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}A}.$$

To keep the action invariance we have to introduce a gauge field $`A_m^A`$ which is minimally coupled to the $`\sigma `$-model and transforming as

$$\delta A_m^A(\widehat{X})=_mϵ^Af_{BC}^AA_m^Bϵ^C,$$

which enters the derivative covariant with respect to the local space-time transformations

$$𝖣_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}A_m^Ak^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}A}.$$

Gauged $`\sigma `$-model action can be obtained after replacing the usual derivative with the covariant one. For keeping the minimal coupling to the $`A_m^A`$ we should require ,

$$_k\widehat{B}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}=0.$$

Therefore

$$S_{g.}=d^{p+1}\xi [\sqrt{h}(𝖣_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}𝖣_n\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}h^{mn}+(p1))$$

$$+\epsilon ^{m_1\mathrm{}m_{p+1}}\widehat{B}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}𝖣_{m_1}\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_1}\mathrm{}𝖣_{m_{p+1}}\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}_{p+1}}].$$

## 4 The bridge

We have observed that one of the essential ingredients of the abovementioned approaches is the notion of the Killing vector. The properties of dimensional reduction and global space-time symmetry gauging based on the features of Killing vectors are summarized in the Table 1.

Therefore, we can fit the global symmetry gauging approach to the description of dimensionally reduced theories if we apply the gauged sigma-model-like technique to a subgroup of g.c.t. group and restrict fields and gauge parameters by the requirement that they do not depend on several spatial coordinates regarded as the coordinates of an effective “internal” manifold.

To realize this observation consider a space-time manifold with isometries. For the sake of simplicity we shall consider the manifold with only one isometry direction. Restrict now the field configuration of a theory by the requirement

$$_k\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$

for any field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It is always possible to rotate the coordinate system in such a way that the Killing vector $`k^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}`$ will be settled along one of the spatial directions, say $`Z`$. In this so-called adapted frame $`k^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=\delta _{\underset{¯}{Z}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}`$, and our restriction becomes

$$_k\mathrm{\Phi }=_{\underset{¯}{Z}}\mathrm{\Phi }=0,$$

which is the standard requirement for the dimensional reduction in $`\underset{¯}{Z}`$ direction.

To describe the geometry of an arbitrary Riemannian manifold we have to introduce a vielbein and connection one-forms which should be invariant under the local coordinate transformations along the Killing vector

$$_k\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}=0,_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}=0.$$

If in addition we impose the zero torsion condition

$$𝒟\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}=d\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}\widehat{\omega }_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}\widehat{T}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}=0$$

we can recover the general expression for the vielbeins

$$\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=e^{\alpha \varphi }E^{\underset{¯}{a}},\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{z}}=e^{\beta \varphi }(dZA)$$

in the Kaluza-Klein ansatz which form triangular matrix

$$\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(X,Z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}(X)& \widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{\underset{¯}{z}}(X)\\ 0& \widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{Z}}^{\underset{¯}{z}}(X)\end{array}\right).$$

It is very important to note that the form of the Kaluza-Klein ansatz is completely defined by the geometry of the space-time manifold.

We can arrive at the same result by fitting the gauged $`\sigma `$-model technique. To this end note that the requirement of the Kaluza-Klein scheme to consider the special choice of the general coordinate transformations – $`\delta Z=ϵ(X)`$ in the case under consideration – is equivalent to the local space-time transformation

$$\delta \widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=ϵ(X)k^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}$$

with the parameter $`ϵ`$ which does not depend on $`Z`$. Then, to require the invariance of our theory under this transformation we can introduce the differential

$$𝖣\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}=d\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}Ak^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}},$$

which is covariant with respect to the local shift in $`Z`$ direction when

$$\delta A=dϵ(X),$$

and the covariant vielbein one-form

$$\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(𝖣)𝖣\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}.$$

An important point is that to establish the connection with the KK approach the component structure of the vielbein one-form should be restricted to the very special diagonal form of $`\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(X,Z)`$

$$\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(X,Z)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{m}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}(X)& 0\\ 0& \widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{Z}}^{\underset{¯}{z}}(X)\end{array}\right),$$

which, in particular, means that $`g_{\underset{¯}{z}\underset{¯}{m}}=0`$. This kind of representation is similar to that of Ref.  where the construction of a target-space geometry in the presence of isometries has been discussed. In its turn, the transition to the covariant differential deforms this structure to the triangular Kaluza-Klein form. Therefore, in this representation the line element can be simply written as

$$d\widehat{s}^2=\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(𝖣)\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}(𝖣)\widehat{\eta }_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}.$$

For antisymmetric tensor fields the form $`\widehat{C}^{(n)}(𝖣)`$ is apparently invariant under the local transformation in the Killing vector direction. Rearranging $`n`$-form in terms of usual differentials we arrive at

$$\widehat{C}^{(n)}(𝖣)=C^{(n)}(d)+C^{(n1)}(d)dZ,$$

$$C^{(n)}=C^{(n)}C^{(n1)}A,$$

which is nothing but the standard rule of reduction for the $`n`$-form gauge field in the Kaluza-Klein theories.

In particular, since the dynamics of a $`p`$-brane is described by the pullback of target-space fields, we conclude that under assumptions above the gauged $`(p+1)`$-dimensional $`\sigma `$-model describes the dynamics of a directly dimensionally reduced p-brane.

This observation is in agreement with a result of Ref.  adapted to the massless case.

## 5 Discussion and open questions

To summarize, we have outlined the connection between dimensional reduction and global space-time symmetries gauging. By presenting the line element in a more “economic” form by means of “covariant” vielbein one-forms and the reduction law for the antisymmetric target-space tensor fields, the investigation of the reduced theory symmetry structure is simplified especially in the case when the original theory has a non-trivial symmetry structure. An example of such a theory is the covariant formulation of the M5-brane , , . The action for the bosonic M5-brane propagating in a D=11 background has the form

$$S_{M5}=d^6\xi [\sqrt{det(\widehat{g}_{mn}+i\widehat{H}_{mn}^{})}$$

$$+\frac{\sqrt{det\widehat{g}_{mn}}}{4}\widehat{H}^{mn}\widehat{H}_{mn}]+_^6_{WZ}(d).$$

Here $`\widehat{g}_{mn}=_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{g}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}_n\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}`$ is the induced metric, $`H^{(3)}=db^{(2)}\widehat{C}^{(3)}`$ is the curl of the worldvolume second-rank chiral form and

$$\widehat{H}_{mn}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{a\widehat{g}a}}\widehat{H}_{mnr}^{}^ra(\widehat{H}^{}\widehat{v})_{mn},$$

$$\widehat{H}_{mn}=(H\widehat{v})_{mn},\widehat{H}^{mnl}=\frac{1}{3!\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}ϵ^{mnlpqr}H_{pqr}.$$

The explicit form of the Wess-Zumino term is

$$_^6_{WZ}(d)=_^6(\widehat{C}^{(6)}+\frac{1}{2}db^{(2)}\widehat{C}^{(3)}).$$

The details of the symmetry structure of this action can be found in literature.

Let us now consider an eleven-dimensional background having isometry along the coordinate $`Z`$. Then after transition to the target space fields which contain covariant derivative or differential, i.e.

$$\widehat{g}_{mn}\widehat{g}_{mn}(𝖣)=𝖣_m\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{m}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}\widehat{\eta }_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}𝖣_n\widehat{X}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}\widehat{E}_{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{n}}}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}},$$

$$\widehat{C}^{(n)}(d)\widehat{C}^{(n)}(𝖣)$$

and leaving the worldvolume fields ($`b^{(2)}`$ and $`a`$) the same we get the M5 gauged sigma-model action

$$S_{M5g.}=d^6\xi [\sqrt{det(\widehat{g}_{mn}(𝖣)+i\widehat{H}_{mn}^{}(𝖣))}$$

$$+\frac{\sqrt{det\widehat{g}_{mn}(𝖣)}}{4}\widehat{H}^{mn}(𝖣)\widehat{H}_{mn}(𝖣)]$$

$$+_^6_{WZ}(𝖣).$$

In view of the statement of the previous section, this action is nothing but the action for an NSIIA five-brane . Because the structure of the NSIIA five-brane action formally remains the same it is evident that the symmetry structure of the NSIIA5-brane is akin to that of the M5-brane. New gauge symmetries arising under reduction can be derived from the definition of the covariant derivative.

Consider now the application of the proposed scheme to the description of dimensionally reduced (super)gravity theories. To this end recall that the procedure of dimensional reduction, say, onto multidimensional torus can be reformulated in the following way. Imagine that our action functional is described by a $`p`$-form integrated over $`p`$-dimensional manifold $`^p`$ being the direct product of the space-time manifold $`^{pn}`$ and $`n`$-dimensional torus $`T^n`$. The latter is parameterized by $`Z^i`$ coordinates with $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then we can write down the action as

$$S=_^p^{(p)}$$

$$=_{^{pn}\times ^n}[\alpha i_{i_1}\mathrm{}i_{i_n}(^{(p)}dZ^{i_1}\mathrm{}dZ^{i_n})$$

$$+\omega i_{i_1}\mathrm{}i_{i_n}^{(p)}dZ^{i_1}\mathrm{}dZ^{i_n}]$$

with numerical coefficients $`\alpha `$ and $`\omega `$. The first integral is zero as it should be for a $`p`$-form on the $`p`$-dimensional manifold, which does not contain $`n`$ differentials of the manifold coordinates. Upon integration over $`Z^i`$ the second term takes the form

$$S_{Red.}=\mathrm{\Omega }_^n_{^{pn}}ϵ^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}i_{i_1}\mathrm{}i_{i_n}^{(p)},$$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^{i_1\mathrm{}i_n}=_^n\omega 𝑑Z^{i_1}\mathrm{}dZ^{i_n},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^n`$ is the global volume of the internal space which we take to be of a unite value.

In the simplest case of $`^p=^{p1}\times ^1`$

$$_^p^{(p)}(d)=_^pi_Z^{(p)}dZ.$$
(1)
On the other hand, by definition

$$^{(p)}(𝖣)=\frac{1}{p!}𝖣X^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{m}_1}}\mathrm{}𝖣X^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{m}_p}}_{\underset{¯}{\widehat{m}_p}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\widehat{m}_1}}$$

$$=^{(p)}(d)i_k^{(p)}A.$$

Therefore taking into account eq. (1) and choosing the adapted coordinate frame one arrives at

$$^{(p)}(𝖣)=i_Z^{(p)}(d)(dZA).$$
(2)
Integrating (2) over $`Z`$ we recover the result of dimensional reduction.

To illustrate how it works, consider the classical example of the reduction of a five-dimensional Kaluza-Klein gravity down to four dimensions in a way presented in . The $`D=5`$ gravity action

$$S=_^5\frac{1}{3!}\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_1}\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_2}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_3}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_4}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}}$$

$$d^5x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\widehat{R}.$$

Consider now the Lagrangian 5-form

$$^{(5)}(𝖣)=\frac{1}{3!}\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_1}\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_2}}(𝖣)\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_3}}(𝖣)\mathrm{}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}}(𝖣)ϵ_{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}},$$

which by use of the representation for the curvature and vielbein forms

$$\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}(𝖣)=\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}(d)dA(i_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}})A𝒟(i_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}),$$

$$\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(𝖣)=\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}}(d)A(i_k\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}})$$

is written as

$$^{(5)}(𝖣)=\frac{1}{3!}[3(\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{a_1}\underset{¯}{a_2}}dA(i_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{a_1}\underset{¯}{a_2}}))$$

$$\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_3}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_4}}(dZA)ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{a_4}}$$
(3)
$$3𝒟(i_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{a_1}\underset{¯}{a_2}})\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_3}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_4}}A(dZA)ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{a_4}}],$$

where we have used that $`i_k\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}}=\delta _{\underset{¯}{z}}^{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_5}}`$ and $`ϵ_{\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\widehat{a}_4}\underset{¯}{z}}=ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{a_4}}`$.

What we can say about the last term of eq. (3)? It is not so difficult to observe that the torsion two-form $`\widehat{T}^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ vanishes. The Bianchi identity $`𝒟\widehat{T}^{\underset{¯}{a}}=\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{b}}\widehat{R}_{\underset{¯}{b}}^{\underset{¯}{a}}`$ implies in particular $`i_k\widehat{R}_{[\underset{¯}{abc}]}=0,`$ or, in view of the requirement $`_k\widehat{\omega }^{\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{a}}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}}=0`$,

$$𝒟_{[\underset{¯}{a}}i_k\widehat{\omega }_{\underset{¯}{b}\underset{¯}{c}]}=0.$$

Hence, the term under consideration vanishes and

$$i_k\widehat{\omega }_{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}=\frac{1}{2}_{[\underset{¯}{a}}A_{\underset{¯}{b}]}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}.$$

Integrating over $`Z`$ and taking into account

$$F_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{c}\underset{¯}{d}}^{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}F_{\underset{¯}{a}\underset{¯}{b}}$$

one arrives at

$$S_{Red.}=_^4[\frac{1}{2!}\widehat{R}^{\underset{¯}{a_1}\underset{¯}{a_2}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_3}}\widehat{E}^{\underset{¯}{a_4}}ϵ_{\underset{¯}{a_1}\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{a_4}}$$

$$\frac{1}{2}F^{(2)}F^{(2)}].$$

By rescaling the vielbeins we can rewrite the action in the Einstein frame

$$S_{Red.}=d^4x\sqrt{g}[R\frac{1}{2}(\varphi )^2+\frac{1}{4}e^{\sqrt{3}\varphi }F^2],$$

which is a well known result (cf. ).

Thus, in the simplest case it does work. Moreover, it works in the case when antisymmetric tensor fields enter the action which describes a bosonic sector of supergravity. It is clear also, that the generalization to the reduction onto $`T^n`$ is straightforward and in this case, because the reduction can be performed in a step-by-step manner, we have the embedding chain, which we call “matryoshka”, of the lower-dimensional theories into the original one which should lead to the result similar to that of .

Several concluding remarks are in order. Firstly, we may expect that this scheme can be modified to describe more complicated cases of the reduction onto G/H coset manifolds and $`S^n`$, although, apparently, the hint with fixing an adapted coordinate frame will not work. Secondly, the approach we discuss is restricted to the pure bosonic consideration and the application of this scheme has allowed, for instance, to make a new test for T-duality in the bosonic string theory .

Therefore, the problems for further study are to extend this approach to the non-Abelian and to the supersymmetric cases. We hope to make a progress in these directions.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge partial support of the D. V. Volkov’s memorial conference by the INTAS and would like to thank the stuff of the Institute for Theoretical Physics of NSC KIPT for kind help and collaboration in organizing this meeting. Special thanks to all the participants of this conference. I am very grateful to Dmitri Sorokin for pleasant and fruitful discussions of Kaluza-Klein theories, for careful reading the manuscript and his clarifying criticism thereof. I would also like to thank Paolo Pasti and Mario Tonin for encouragement, Ergin Sezgin for interest to this work, Igor Bandos and Vladimir Zima for the discussion of the subject of this paper. This work is supported in part by the Ukrainian Ministry of Science and Education Grant N 2.5.1/52.


format: text

text:
# Exact Solution of Heisenberg-liquid models with long-range coupling

## I introduction

Spin fluctuations are a common feature of strongly correlated electron systems such as high $`T_c`$ superconductors and heavy fermion compounds. Exchange interactions of the Heisenberg type, originally introduced to describe the properties of insulating magnets, have now been realized playing a central role in doped Mott insulators and heavy fermion systems. Two related models are the $`tJ`$ model and the Kondo lattice model. In these systems, the spin exchange among the itinerant electrons or between the conduction electrons and the local moments induce fascinating physical phenomena, such as very large mass enhancements and non-Fermi liquid behavior. For some low-carrier-density systems, especially in low dimensions, the small number of carriers and their reduced mobility do not provide an effective mechanism for screening and long-range interactions should be considered. A special class of integrable systems with long-range interactions are the Calogero-Sutherland model (CSM) and its $`SU(N)`$ generalizations. The lattice versions of these models, which generically are referred to as Haldane-Shastry models,  can be obtained by freezing the orbital dynamics within a proper scheme. In this letter, we present two integrable models of particles with arbitrary spin interacting via a Calogero-Sutherland potential with a hyperbolic space dependence. In case I the spin-spin coupling is of the simple Heisenberg exchange form, i.e. $`\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$, while in case II, the interaction is of the Babujian-Takhatajan model (BTM) type. Finally, based on the structure of the Bethe ansatz equations (BAE), an $`SU(2)`$-invariant high-spin chain model, which corresponds to the long-range-coupling generalization of the BTM,  is conjectured to be integrable.

The structure of the present paper is the following: In the subsequent section, we construct the model Hamiltonians. The energy spectra and the BAE are derived via the so-called asymptotic Bethe ansatz (ABA). In sect.III, we study the thermodynamics as well as the ground state properties. Concluding remarks are given in sect.IV.

## II Models and Bethe ansatz

The general form of the model Hamiltonian we shall consider is

$`H={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{x_j^2}}+2{\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^2g_{ij}}{\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma (x_ix_j)}},`$ (1)
where $`x_j`$ is the position of the particle $`j`$, $`\gamma >0`$ is a real constant, and $`g_{ij}`$ is a spin-dependent coupling, which for our two cases is:

$`g_{ij}=2\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j+2S(S+1),`$ (2)
for model $`I`$ and

$`g_{ij}=4SQ_{2S}(\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j)[2S\widehat{l}_{ij}][2S+1\widehat{l}_{ij}],`$ (3)
for model $`II`$, where

$`\widehat{l}_{ij}=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+(\stackrel{}{S}_i+\stackrel{}{S}_j)^2}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$

which has eigenvalues $`0,\mathrm{},2S`$ and $`Q_{2S}`$ is just the Babujian polynomial. Hence, in case $`I`$ the spin coupling is a simple antiferromagnetic exchange, while in case $`II`$ it is ferromagnetic and of the Babujian-Takhatajan form. It is interesting to compare model $`I`$ to the $`tJ`$ model. Their physics is quite similar, although in the present model the coordinate $`x_j`$ is continuous while it is restricted to a lattice in the $`tJ`$ model, and that here the interaction is of variable range. For some high $`T_c`$ compounds, the next-nearest-neighbor spin exchange is believed to be relevant. In the present model the range of the interaction is governed by the free parameter $`\gamma ^1`$. For instance, for sufficiently large $`\gamma `$ the interaction is short-ranged, while the long-range Calogero-Sutherland interaction is readily recovered in the limit $`\gamma 0`$. We note that in both cases, $`I`$ and $`II`$, the total spin is conserved in the two-body scattering processes and the Hamiltonian (1) has a basic $`SU(2)`$-invariance.

The asymptotic Bethe ansatz (ABA) is a powerful tool to derive the energy spectrum for models with nonlocal interactions, like e.g. the CSM. If the model is integrable it is sufficient to know the asymptotic long-distance behavior, i.e. the scattering phase shifts, which can be obtained without the full knowledge of the wave functions. The ABA also assumes that the particles are asymptotically free, i.e., that they do not form charge bound states. The ABA only needs the two-body phase shifts (or two-body scattering matrix), but requires an independent proof of the integrability of the model Hamiltonian. The integrability of the present model is related to the unitary matrix model of Minahan and Polychronakos, who have shown that the CSM with a coupling strength $`g_{ij}=J_{ij}J_{ji}`$ is exactly soluble. In Ref. \[\] $`J_{ij}`$ was chosen to be the $`SU(q)`$ angular momentum. For the $`2S`$-fold $`SU(2)`$ case, we can map $`J_{ij}J_{ji}`$ to $`(\stackrel{}{S}_i+\stackrel{}{S}_j)^2`$, which is of more interest to condensed matter problems and corresponds to our case $`I`$. In fact, a potential $`\stackrel{}{J}{}_{}{}^{2}/r^2`$ can be generated naturally from the dynamics of two free particles in three dimensions in spherical coordinates. Such a potential describes the angular dynamics of the center of mass of two free particles. If the angular momentum is considered a “spin”, the problem is reduced to a one-dimensional one and the scattering matrix must be factorizable, which already infers the integrability of many particles in one dimension with such a potential. Hence, for case $`I`$ our choice of $`g_{ij}`$ is quite natural. On the other hand, case $`II`$ can be realized by a proper quantization of $`J_{ij}`$ using projection operators.

To derive the two-body $`S`$-matrix, we note that the two-particle scattering occurs in $`2S+1`$ different channels of total spin $`l`$ ranging from $`0`$ to $`2S`$. In a given channel of spin $`l`$, the coupling strength is $`l(l+1)`$ for case $`I`$ and $`(2Sl)(2Sl+1)`$ for case $`II`$. For convenience we will express our results in terms of the operator $`\widehat{l}_{ij}`$ defined above. Below we study the two cases separately.

### A Model $`I`$

The two-body transmission $`S`$-matrix can be derived following Sutherland’s method. Consider the two-particle case. The asymptotic wave function for $`|x_1x_2|\mathrm{}`$ can be written as

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2)A_{12}(12)e^{ik_1x_1+ik_2x_2}+A_{12}(21)e^{ik_2x_1+ik_1x_2},`$ (4)
for $`x_1<x_2`$ and

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2)A_{21}(21)e^{ik_1x_1+ik_2x_2}+A_{21}(12)e^{ik_2x_1+ik_1x_2},`$ (5)
for $`x_1>x_2`$, where $`k_1,k_2`$ are the asymptotic momenta carried by the particles and the $`A^{}s`$ are constant coefficients, which determine the $`S`$-matrices. For example, $`S_{1,2}(k_1k_2)=A_{21}(21)/A_{12}(12)`$. By solving the Schrödinger equation for two particles we obtain

$`S_{i,j}(k_ik_j)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ik_{ij})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ik_{ij})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\widehat{l}_{ij}ik_{ij})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\widehat{l}_{ij}+ik_{ij})}}P_{ij},`$ (6)
where $`k_{ij}=(k_ik_j)/2\gamma `$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(x)`$ is the gamma function and $`P_{ij}`$ is the spin permutation operator. In fact, $`S_{i,j}`$ is a polynomial of $`\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j`$ of order $`2S`$ and is proportional to the Lax-operator of the BTM. Hence, it satisfies the Yang-Baxter relation $`S_{i,j}S_{i,m}S_{j,m}=S_{j,m}S_{i,m}S_{i,j}`$. For example, when $`S=1/2`$, we have

$`S_{i,j}={\displaystyle \frac{k_{ij}+i(1/2+2\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j)}{k_{ij}i}},`$ (7)
while for $`S=1`$ it is

$`S_{i,j}={\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j(1ik_{ij}+\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{S}_j)k_{ij}^2+ik_{ij}2}{(ik_{ij}+1)(ik_{ij}+2)}}.`$ (8)
Because the system is non-diffractive, the wave function must asymptotically be given by plane waves $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x|Q)_P\mathrm{\Psi }(P|Q)\mathrm{exp}[i_{j=1}^Nx_{Q_j}k_{P_j}]`$ when $`|x_ix_j|\mathrm{}`$ for all pairs $`i,j`$, where $`x_{Q_1}<\mathrm{}<x_{Q_N}`$, and $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are permutations of $`(1,2,\mathrm{},N)`$. With the periodic boundary conditions of the wave function, the momenta $`k_j`$ are determined by a set of Yang eigenvalue equations

$`S_{j,j1}\mathrm{}S_{j,1}S_{j,N}\mathrm{}S_{j,j+1}\mathrm{\Psi }(P|Q)=e^{ik_jL}\mathrm{\Psi }(P|Q).`$ (9)
For convenience, we introduce an auxiliary spin $`\stackrel{}{S}_0`$ and define $`S_{0,j}=S_{0,j}(\lambda k_j)`$, so that $`S_{0,j}(0)=P_{0j}`$. Further we define the $`(2S+1)\times (2S+1)`$ monodromy matrix

$`T_0(\lambda )=S_{0,j}\mathrm{}S_{0,N}S_{0,1}\mathrm{}S_{0,j+1}.`$ (10)
By summing over the auxiliary spin of the matrix $`T_0(\lambda )`$, it is easy to show that the trace

$$tr_0T_0(k_j)=S_{j,j1}\mathrm{}S_{j,1}S_{j,N}\mathrm{}S_{j,j+1}$$

is just the transfer matrix of the BTM with an extra multiplying factor and lattice disorder (we consider a continuum model). The eigenvalue problem Eq.(9) can be solved following the standard method of the algebraic Bethe ansatz,

$`e^{ik_jL}=\left\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{2S}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{i,ij}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_jk_i2in\gamma }{k_jk_i+2in\gamma }}\right\}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_j\lambda _\alpha +2iS\gamma }{k_j\lambda _\alpha 2iS\gamma }},`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha k_j2iS\gamma }{\lambda _\alpha k_j+2iS\gamma }}={\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\beta \alpha }{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta 2i\gamma }{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta +2i\gamma }},`$ (12)
where $`\lambda _\alpha `$ are the rapidities of the spin waves and $`M`$ is the total number of spin wave quanta. Here we dropped a multiplying factor $`\mathrm{exp}[i\pi (2S+1)N]`$ in the first of Eqs.(11), because it is irrelevant in the thermodynamic limit. The first set of Eqs. (11) is determined by the eigenvalue of the transfer matrix $`tr_0T_0(k_j)=\mathrm{exp}(ik_jL)`$, while the second set arises as the condition that ensures that the Bethe states are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian. The energy eigenvalues are given by

$`E={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}k_j^2,`$ (13)
by acting the Hamiltonian on the asymptotic wave function.

### B Model $`II`$

For our second model the two-body $`S`$-matrix is given by

$`S_{i,j}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+ik_{ij})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1ik_{ij})}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2S\widehat{l}_{ij}ik_{ij})}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+2S\widehat{l}_{ij}+ik_{ij})}}P_{ij}.`$ (14)
With the same procedure, we obtain the BAE as

$`e^{ik_jL}={\displaystyle \underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{k_j\lambda _\alpha 2iS\gamma }{k_j\lambda _\alpha +2iS\gamma }},`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha k_j2iS\gamma }{\lambda _\alpha k_j+2iS\gamma }}={\displaystyle \underset{\beta ,\beta \alpha }{\overset{M}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta 2i\gamma }{\lambda _\alpha \lambda _\beta +2i\gamma }}.`$ (16)
The energy eigenvalues are still given by Eq.(12).

## III Thermodynamics

### A model $`I`$

Since $`g_{ij}0`$, the potential is repulsive and no charge bound state can exist. This can be seen clearly in the two-particle case. In fact, the two-particle wave function can be solved exactly in terms of two hypergeometric functions which has no bound state solution in the parameter region we considered. The solutions of the BAE, Eqs.(11), are therefore classified into real charge rapidities $`k_j`$ and strings of length $`n`$ of spin-rapidities. In the thermodynamic limit $`L\mathrm{},N\mathrm{},N/Ln_e`$, we denote with $`\rho (k)`$, $`\sigma _n(\lambda )`$ and $`\rho _h(k)`$, $`\sigma _n^h(\lambda )`$ the rapidity densities and the densities of their holes, respectively. By taking the thermodynamic limit of the BAE, we have

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}=\rho (k)+\rho _h(k)+\widehat{B}^{}\rho (k){\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\sigma _n(k),`$ (17)
$`\sigma _n^h(\lambda )+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{A}_{m,n}\sigma _n(\lambda )=\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\rho (\lambda ),`$ (18)
where the integral operators are given by $`\widehat{B}^{}=_{m=1}^{2S}[2m]`$, $`\widehat{B}_{2S,n}=_{l=1}^{min\{2S,n\}}[2S+n+12l]`$, $`\widehat{A}_{m,n}=[m+n]+2[m+n2]+\mathrm{}+2[|mn|+2]+[|mn|]`$, and $`[n]`$ is the integral operator with the kernel

$`a_n(k)={\displaystyle \frac{n\gamma }{\pi (k^2+n^2\gamma ^2)}}.`$ (19)
The free energy is expressed as

$`F/L={\displaystyle (k^2\mu Sh)\rho (k)𝑑k}+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}nh{\displaystyle \sigma _n(\lambda )𝑑\lambda }`$ (20)
$`T{\displaystyle [(\rho (k)+\rho _h(k))\mathrm{ln}(\rho (k)+\rho _h(k))\rho (k)\mathrm{ln}\rho (k)\rho _h(k)\mathrm{ln}\rho _h(k)]𝑑k}`$ (21)
$`T{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle [(\sigma _n(\lambda )+\sigma _n^h(\lambda ))\mathrm{ln}(\sigma _n(\lambda )+\sigma _n^h(\lambda ))\sigma _n(\lambda )\mathrm{ln}\sigma _n(\lambda )\sigma _n^h(\lambda )\mathrm{ln}\sigma _n^h(\lambda )]𝑑\lambda }.`$ (22)
where $`\mu ,T`$ and $`h`$ are the chemical potential, the temperature and the magnetic field, respectively. It is convenient to introduce the quantities $`\zeta (k)=\rho _h(k)/\rho (k)`$ and $`\eta _n(\lambda )=\sigma _n^h(\lambda )/\sigma _n(\lambda )`$. By minimizing the free energy with respect to the particle dendities, we obtain

$`\mathrm{ln}\zeta ={\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mu Sh}{T}}+\widehat{B}^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1){\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _n^1),`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _n)={\displaystyle \frac{nh}{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{A}_{m,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _m^1)\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1).`$ (24)
Substituting the above equations into Eq.(17), we obtain

$`F/L={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{ln}[1+\zeta ^1(k)]𝑑k.`$ (25)
The thermodynamic BAE (18) can be further simplified. For convenience, we define $`\widehat{G}=[1]/([0]+[2])`$. With the following operator identities

$`\widehat{A}_{m,n}\widehat{G}[\widehat{A}_{m,n+1}+\widehat{A}_{m,n1}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{m,n},`$ (26)
$`\widehat{A}_{1,m}\widehat{G}\widehat{A}_{2,m}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{1,m},`$ (27)
$`\widehat{B}_{m,n}\widehat{G}[\widehat{B}_{m,n+1}+\widehat{B}_{m,n1}]`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{m,n}\widehat{G},`$ (28)
$`\widehat{B}_{1,m}\widehat{G}\widehat{B}_{2,m}`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{1,m}\widehat{G},`$ (29)
we can rewrite the second equation of Eqs.(18) as

$`\mathrm{ln}\eta _n=\delta _{n,2S}\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1)+\widehat{G}[\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{n+1})+\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{n1})],`$ (30)
with the boundary conditions $`\eta _0=0`$, and $`lim_n\mathrm{}\mathrm{ln}\eta _n/n=h/T2x_0`$. From Eqs.(20) obviously $`\widehat{G}\widehat{A}_{m,n}=\widehat{B}_{m,n}`$, so that from the second of Eqs.(18) we have

$`\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{2S})={\displaystyle \frac{Sh}{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\widehat{B}_{m,2S}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _m^1)\widehat{G}\widehat{B}_{2S,2S}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1).`$ (31)
Substituting the above equation into the first equation of Eqs.(18), we get

$`\mathrm{ln}\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mu }{T}}+\widehat{B}^{}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1)\widehat{G}[\widehat{B}_{2S,2S}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1)+\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{2S})]`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mu }{T}}+\widehat{B}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1)\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{2S}),`$ (33)
where $`\widehat{B}^{\prime \prime }=\widehat{G}_{m=1}^{2S}[2m+1]`$.

For $`T0`$ and $`h0`$ we obtain from Eq.(23) that $`\zeta 0`$ for $`k<\sqrt{\mu }`$ and $`\zeta \mathrm{}`$ for $`k>\sqrt{\mu }`$. This implies that the charges form a Fermi sea. In addition, in the same limit $`\eta _{2S}0`$ while all other $`\eta _n`$ tend to some constant as indicated by Eq.(21). Therefore, the spin quanta form a Fermi sea of $`2S`$-strings in the ground state, as in the case of the BTM. The ground state properties are then given in terms of $`\rho (k)`$ and $`\sigma _{2S}(\lambda )`$ (which describe the two Fermi seas). The rapidities are densely distributed in the intervals $`[K,K]`$ and $`[\mathrm{\Lambda },\mathrm{\Lambda }]`$, respectively, where in zero-field $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{}`$ for finite $`\gamma `$, and the integral equations are

$`\rho (k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _K^K}B^{}(kk^{})\rho (k^{})𝑑k^{}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }}B_{2S,2S}(k\lambda )\sigma _{2S}(\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,`$ (34)
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }}A_{2S,2S}(\lambda \lambda ^{})\sigma _{2S}(\lambda ^{})𝑑\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle _K^K}B_{2S,2S}(\lambda k)\rho (k)𝑑k,`$ (35)
where $`B^{}(k)`$, $`B_{m,n}(k)`$ and $`A_{m,n}(\lambda )`$ are the kernels of $`\widehat{B}^{}`$, $`\widehat{B}_{m,n}`$ and $`\widehat{A}_{m,n}`$, respectively. The elementary excitations are uniquely determined by the dressed energies $`ϵ_c(k)`$ (of charges) and $`ϵ_s(\lambda )`$ (of spins), which for $`h0`$ satisfy

$`ϵ_c(k)=k^2\mu {\displaystyle _K^K}B^{}(kk^{})ϵ_c(k^{})𝑑k^{}+{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }}B_{2S,2S}(k\lambda )ϵ_s(\lambda )𝑑\lambda ,`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mathrm{\Lambda }}A_{2S,2S}(\lambda \lambda ^{})ϵ_s(\lambda ^{})𝑑\lambda ^{}={\displaystyle _K^K}B_{2S,2S}(\lambda k)ϵ_c(k)𝑑k,`$ (37)
The group velocities of the two bands are $`v_c=ϵ_c^{}(K)/2\pi \rho (K)`$ and $`v_s=ϵ_s^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda })/2\pi \sigma _{2S}(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where the prime denotes derivative with respect to the rapidity. By integrating the second of Eqs. (25) for $`h=0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{}`$) we have $`N=2M`$, i.e. as expected the ground state is a spin singlet. At low $`T`$ the system then is a two-component Luttinger liquid with charge dynamics of central charge $`1`$ and spin dynamics with central charge $`2S`$. The latter is very similar to the BTM.

In the Calogero-Sutherland limit, all the above quantities can be derived explicitely, since for $`\gamma 0`$, the integral operator $`[m]`$ becomes a $`\delta `$-function,

$`\rho (k)=2\sigma _{2S}(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (K|k|)}{2\pi (S+1)}},`$ (38)
$`ϵ_c(k)=2ϵ_s(k)={\displaystyle \frac{k^2K^2}{S+1}},`$ (39)
$`v_c=v_s=2\pi n_e(S+1),`$ (40)
where $`\theta (x)`$ is the step function and the Fermi momentum is $`K=\pi n_e(S+1)`$ with $`n_e=N/L`$. Without magnetic field the particles occupy each spin state equally, so that the distribution function $`n_s(k)`$ ($`s=S,\mathrm{},S`$) is that of an exclusion statistics with the statistical weight $`g=(S+1)(2S+1)`$,

$`n_s(k)={\displaystyle \frac{\theta (K|k|)}{(S+1)(2S+1)}}.`$ (41)
### B Model $`II`$

The solutions of the BAE for model $`II`$ are still given by real $`k_j`$ and $`\lambda `$-strings of length $`n`$. In the thermodynamic limit, the BAE, Eqs.(14), yield

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}=\rho (k)+\rho _h(k)+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{B}_{n,2S}\sigma _n(k),`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{A}_{m,n}\sigma _m(\lambda )+\sigma _n^h(\lambda )=\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\rho (\lambda ).`$ (43)
The free energy is still given by Eqs.(17) and (19). Using a similar procedure, i.e., by minimizing the the free energy functional with respect to $`\rho (k)`$ and $`\sigma _n(\lambda )`$, we readily obtain the thermal BAE of model $`II`$

$`\mathrm{ln}\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k^2\mu Sh}{T}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _n^1),`$ (44)
$`\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{nh}{T}}+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{A}_{m,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _m^1)+\widehat{B}_{2S,n}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1),`$ (45)
or equivalently

$`\mathrm{ln}\zeta =(k^2\mu )/T\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}(1+\eta _{2S})\widehat{G}\widehat{B}_{2S,2S}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1),`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{ln}\eta _n=\delta _{n,2S}\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}(1+\zeta ^1)+\widehat{G}\mathrm{ln}[(1+\eta _{n+1})(1+\eta _{n1})],`$ (47)
with the same boundary conditions as in Eq.(21). A strikingly different feature of this model is that when $`T0`$, $`h0`$, all $`\eta _n\mathrm{}`$, which indicates that there are no flipped spins in the ground state. Hence, the ground state is ferromagnetic, since all the electrons align along a spin direction. The rapidity distributions in the ground state are then

$`\rho (k)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\theta (K|k|),`$ (48)
$`\sigma _n(\lambda )=0,`$ (49)
where $`K`$ is the cutoff (integration limit or Fermi momentum) given by

$`K=\pi n_e.`$ (50)
The group velocity of the charge excitations at the Fermi surface is

$`v_c=2\pi n_e.`$ (51)
The spin sector is no longer a Luttinger liquid, but has a quantum critical point. A single spin-wave excitation with momentum $`p`$, has an excitation energy $`ϵ_s(p)p^2`$ if $`p`$ is small. At low but finite $`T`$, the charge sector behaves almost like non-interacting spinless fermions, while for the spin sector we have a ferromagnetic Babujian-Takhatajan spin liquid, so that asymptotically as $`T0`$ the specific heat and the spin susceptibility are

$`CT^{\frac{1}{2}},\chi T^2\mathrm{ln}^1T.`$ (52)
The low-$`T`$ specific heat can also be inferred from the spin-wave dispersion relation.

In the Calogero-Sutherland limit $`\gamma 0`$, bothm, the charge and spin sectors, obey ideal fractional statistics. The thermal BAE can then be solved analytically, since in this limit the integral equations reduce to algebraic ones. Solving for $`\eta _n`$ separately for $`n2S`$ and $`n2S`$ we obtain

$`\eta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}^2[(n+1)\alpha ]}{\mathrm{sin}^2\alpha }}1,n2S,`$ (53)
$`\eta _n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}^2[(n2S)x_0+\beta ]}{\mathrm{sinh}^2x_0}}1,n2S,`$ (54)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are functions of $`\zeta (k)`$ determined by

$`\mathrm{sin}[(2S+1)\alpha ]\mathrm{sinh}x_0=\mathrm{sinh}\beta \mathrm{sin}\alpha ,`$ (55)
$`\mathrm{sin}(2S\alpha )\sqrt{1+\zeta ^1}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\mathrm{sinh}x_0}}|\mathrm{sinh}(\beta x_0)|.`$ (56)
The solution of Eqs. (35) and (36) yields $`\eta _n`$ as a function of $`\zeta `$. Substituting the result into the first of Eqs.(30) we obtain a relation for $`\zeta (k)`$, which uniquely determines the free energy. The distribution function for the charges is

$`n(k)={\displaystyle \frac{}{\mu }}\mathrm{ln}[1+\zeta ^1(k)].`$ (57)
A careful calculation also shows that the logarithm in Eq.(34) disappears, i.e., $`\chi T^2`$. This is due to the free nature of the particles in the limit $`\gamma 0`$.

## IV Concluding remarks

In conclusion, we constructed two integrable models with long-range spin couplings. In model $`I`$, the coupling between spins is of the antiferromagnetic exchange form, while in model $`II`$, the spin coupling is ferromagnetic of the Babujian-Takhatajan type. The BAE for the spin sector are the same as for the BTM (here the $`k_j`$ introduce a lattice disorder). As we have learned from ordinary integrable models, almost all lattice models have a continuum counterpart in the sense that their BAE share a common structure. Examples are the spin-1/2 isotropic Heisenberg chain with the $`\delta `$-potential boson gas model, the Hubbard model with the $`\delta `$-potential Fermi gas model,  and the $`SU(N)`$-invariant $`tJ`$ model with the $`SU(N)`$-invariant $`\delta `$-potential Fermi gas model.  However, no continuum counterpart to the BTM with contact interaction was known so far. The present work fills this gap in the integrable model family.

Finally, we conjecture that the following lattice model

$`H=\mathrm{sinh}^2\gamma {\displaystyle \underset{m<n}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{Q(\stackrel{}{S}_m\stackrel{}{S}_n)}{\mathrm{sinh}^2[\gamma (mn)]}},`$ (58)
is integrable for the following reasons: (a) With the proper freezing process (eliminating the charge dynamics), the continuum models may be reduced to Eq.(58), since the BAE have the same form as for the BTM. (b) For $`\gamma \mathrm{}`$, Eq.(58) flows to the BTM, which has been demonstrated to be integrable.

We acknowledge the support by the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy under grants No. DMR98-01751 and No. DE-FG02-98ER45797. Y. Wang is also supported by the National Science Foundation of China.


text:
# A Proof of the Generalized Second Law for Two-Dimensional Black Holes

## 1 Introduction

Bekenstein’s conjecture of a generalized second law (GSL) for a self-gravitating system  effectively incapacitated Wheeler’s demon, who allows entropy to escape from our universe into black holes and challenges the second law of thermodynamics. According to GSL, a black hole has its own entropy, and then the total entropy $`S_{\mathrm{total}}`$, which is the sum of the black hole entropy $`S_H`$ and of the thermodynamic entropy outside the black hole $`S_{\mathrm{out}}`$, never decreases:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{total}}=\mathrm{\Delta }S_H+\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{out}}0.$$
(1)
The conjectured GSL was based on the observed relationship between black hole mechanics and ordinary thermodynamics . In the semiclassical approximation, Hawking has shown that the relationship is not just an analogy. The black hole really emits thermal radiation at a definite temperature like an ordinary thermal object . Moreover, in this analysis, black hole entropy was derived in an exact form as $`A/4G`$, called the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, where $`A`$ is the area of the black hole and $`G`$ is the gravitational constant. (We adopt units in which $`\mathrm{}=c=k=1`$.) Since then, our understanding of the microscopic interpretation of the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy has developed considerably, especially in the context of string theory .

However, an explicit general proof of the GSL has not been given until now. When it comes to the question of the fundamentals of the connection between the laws of black hole physics and thermodynamics, the GSL is still an interesting problem; since black hole entropy in the GSL is treated on an equal footing with ordinary thermodynamic entropy, if the GSL holds, a black hole should be nothing but an ordinary thermodynamic object, not just an analogue

Unruh and Wald  investigated GSL using gedanken experiments in which one slowly lowers a box containing energy and entropy into a black hole and the reverse of this process. They have shown that taking into account quantum effects, GSL is valid in these processes without introducing Bekenstein’s entropy bound. More generally, Frolov and Page  proved the validity of GSL for eternal black holes by assuming that the state of matter fields on the past horizon is a thermal state, and that the set of radiation modes on the past horizon and on past null infinity are quantum mechanically uncorrelated. However, these assumptions are not valid for realistic cases such as black holes formed by gravitational collapse. Relaxing these conditions, Mukohyama has shown that the GSL holds for black holes arising from gravitational collapse . (See, also )

The first law of black hole mechanics is formulated as a relation between infinitesimal variations of the parameters of stationary black holes. In the proofs of GSL in , the first law was generalized to a quasi-stationary evolution of the parameters, which means small changes of physical quantities from an initial near-stationary black hole to a final near-stationary black hole. However, the assumption of quasi-stationarity is still only an approximation to the evolution of a black hole formed by gravitational collapse. Apparently, one cannot exclude some amount of net flux of stress-energy induced from vacuum polarization on the (apparent) horizon of the black hole, and then the black hole is not in thermal equilibrium with Hawking radiation surrounding it (Unruh state ). Thus, in order to investigate the GSL for a black hole arising from gravitational collapse in more realistic situations, the assumption of quasi-stationarity has to be relaxed to a dynamical evolution of thermodynamic variables. Even though the concept of a first law for dynamical black holes is still an open problem, we have a plausible prescription for this developed by Hayward . In this paper, we use the term of dynamical first law in Hayward’s formulation.

On the other hand, according to relativistic covariance, one can construct a compact form of equation of state with covariant thermodynamic variables such as stress-energy-momentum tensor rather than with energy density and pressure. In particular, when the net energy flux is concerned, i.e., a black hole in a nonequilibrium state, the covariant formulation of black hole thermodynamics has great advantages over ordinary thermodynamic description. (For review of the covariant formulation, see  and references therein.)

The purpose of this paper is to prove the GSL for black holes in nonequilibrium states (Unruh) as well as in equilibrium states (Hartle-Hawking ) with Hawking radiation surrounding the black holes. Our strategy is to use the dynamic first law and the covariant formulation of black hole thermodynamics. Then, we obtain a very simple expression for change of total entropy in terms of covariant thermodynamic variables, and it will be seen that the covariant expression for the change of total entropy is valid not only for equilibrium states but also for nonequilibrium states up to leading order.

Our investigation for the GSL will be carried out for a two-dimensional theory of gravity. A proof of GSL for a two-dimensional effective theory of gravity going beyond the assumption of quasi-stationarity was studied in . In that paper, the RST version  of CGHS model  was discussed with the aid of given exact spacetime solutions including the quantum backreaction effects. In this article, an arbitrary two-dimensional static spacetime will be considered for investigation of GSL for the equilibrium states, while for the nonequilibrium states, the S-wave sector in four-dimensional general relativity will be considered.

In Section2, a covariant form of the change of total entropy is obtained for two-dimensional static eternal black holes. Using the stationarity of thermodynamic variables and energy momentum conservation, we show that as expected in a trivial sense, the change of total entropy vanishes and the GSL holds for black holes in equilibrium state. The covariant expression for the change of total entropy of black holes in nonequilibrium states is discussed in Section3. Up to leading order in the Hawking radiation, we show that the change of total entropy is always positive. Section4 will be devoted to a summary of this article.

## 2 Hartle-Hawking State

In the semiclassical approximation, a black hole is surrounded by quantum Hawking radiation which becomes thermal far away from the hole. First, in this section, we assume that a two-dimensional black hole is in thermal equilibrium with the heat bath (Hartle-Hawking state). Our descriptions are given bearing in mind of a stationary eternal black hole with an outer boundary endowed with the Diriclet boundary condition111The outer boundary with the Dirichlet boundary condition is introduced in a conceptual sense for the black hole to be in equilibrium with the heat bath. Thus, the location of the boundary is out of the problem.. The backreaction effect of the heat bath is characterized by the expectation value of the renormalized stress-energy tensor of a free massless conformal scalar field, $`T_{ab}`$. The most general form of static metric satisfying Einstein equations with the source $`T_{ab}`$ is written by

$$ds^2=\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}f(r)e^{2\psi (r)}dt^2,f(r)=1\frac{2Gm(r)}{r},$$
(2)
and the ”dilaton” field222Since the dilaton field does not play an important role in the procedure, we do not require an explicit form of the dilaton field. In addition, our argument given in this section is valid for arbitrary two-dimensional gravitational theory, so the ”dilaton” can be considered (for instance) as the scalar field of the effective two-dimensional theory of the S-wave sector of the general relativity and that of the dilaton gravity inspired by the string theory. $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$. In our system, taking the classical limit in the metric (2), $`\psi (r)`$ goes to zero and the mass function $`m(r)(>0)`$ becomes a positive constant.

For the procedure, we begin with brief review of local thermodynamic description for the Hartle-Hawking state .

### 2.1 Local Thermodynamic Description

In a thermodynamic sense, the Hartle-Hawking state is described by local equations of state, so called Duhem-Gibbs relations,

$$s=\beta (\rho +P),ds=\beta d\rho ,$$
(3)
where $`\beta (r)^1=T(r)`$ is a local temperature parameterizing the equilibrium state and $`s(r)`$, $`\rho (r)=T_t^t`$, $`P(r)=T_r^r`$ are local thermodynamic variables identified as entropy density, quantum energy density, and pressure, respectively. Using the Duhem-Gibbs relations together with the conservation law $`_aT_b^a=0`$, one finds that distribution of the stress-energy also satisfies the Tolman condition

$$\sqrt{g_{tt}}T(r)=\mathrm{constant}.$$
(4)
On the other hand, the local thermodynamic variables are to be completely determined (up to a boundary condition) by the conservation law and the trace anomaly $`T_a^a=R/24\pi `$;

$`P(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _H^2\kappa ^2}{fe^{2\psi }}},`$ (5)
$`\rho (r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi }}\left(2e^\psi {\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa }{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _H^2\kappa ^2}{fe^{2\psi }}}\right),`$ (6)
$`s(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6\kappa _H}}\left(\sqrt{f}{\displaystyle \frac{d\kappa }{dr}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa _H^2\kappa ^2}{\sqrt{f}e^\psi }}\right),`$ (7)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity calculated with respect to a timelike Killing vector $`\xi ^a=x^a/t`$ given as

$$\kappa =e^\psi \left(\frac{1}{2}_rf+f_r\psi \right)$$
(8)
and $`\kappa _H=\kappa (r_H)`$ is the surface gravity at the Killing horizon $`r=r_H`$ determined by $`f(r_H)=0`$. The integration constant in (5) and (6) was chosen so that the energy density and pressure are regular at the horizon.

From the equation (7), entropy outside the black hole is given by

$$S_{\mathrm{out}}=_{r_H}^{r_0}𝑑r\sqrt{g_{rr}}s(r),$$
(9)
where $`r_0`$ is an outer boundary. In fact, the outside entropy given by (9) is equivalent to the fine-grained entropy evaluated in ; the infrared divergent part of $`S_{\mathrm{out}}`$ becomes

$$S_{\mathrm{out}}^R\frac{1}{6}\kappa _H(r_0r_H),$$
(10)
where $`r_0\mathrm{}`$. Then $`S_{\mathrm{out}}^R`$ precisely matches the infrared divergent part of the fine-grained entropy given in (95) in . It is quite interesting to notice that while the fine-grained entropy suffers from the typical ultraviolet divergence appearing near horizon and requires a cutoff near the horizon, the outside entropy $`S_{\mathrm{out}}`$ is free of ultraviolet divergences; according to the definition of the Hartle-Hawking state, the thermodynamic variables in (5)-(7) are regular at the horizon.

### 2.2 Covariant Formulation and GSL

It is well known that the Gibbs laws (3) can be translated into covariant equations given by

$$s^a=P\beta ^a\beta ^bT_b^a,ds^a=\beta ^bdT_b^a,$$
(11)
where $`\beta ^a=\beta _H\xi ^a=\beta u^a`$, $`u^au_a=1`$, and $`\beta _H=T_H^1`$ is the inverse Hawking temperature. The entropy density vector $`s^a`$ is defined by $`s^a=s(r)u^a`$ and $`T_b^a`$ in terms of the energy density and pressure is written by

$$T_a^b=\rho u_au^b+P\mathrm{\Delta }_a^b,$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_a^b=g_a^b+u_au^b`$.

Now, consider an evolution of two chosen spacelike hypersurfaces ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$)333Through out the paper, it is understood that the spacelike hypersurfaces are parameterized with a time function that well behaves at the horizon such as Kruskal-like time coordinate.. The total entropy change in the evolution is composed of the sum of the change of black hole entropy $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_H`$ plus the change of entropy outside the black hole $`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{out}}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{total}}=\mathrm{\Delta }S_H+\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{out}}.$$
(13)
In terms of covariant variables, the entropy change of outside black hole is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{out}}=S_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}S_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}=_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}s^a𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_a,$$
(14)
where $`_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}`$ means integration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ minus integration over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$. The second equality in (14) can be easily checked comparing with (9) as following;

$`S_{\mathrm{out}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}s^a𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_a`$ (15)
$`=`$ $`\beta _H{\displaystyle _{r_H}^{r_0}}𝑑re^{\psi (r)}\left(P(r)+\rho (r)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{r_H}^{r_0}}𝑑r\sqrt{g_{rr}}s(r).`$
On the other hand, the change of the black hole entropy should arise from heat flow going through the horizon. To be exact, heat passing through the horizon causes an entropy change of the black hole and work done along the horizon (in the case of non-vanishing net flux). Obviously, work term is not generated on the Killing horizon with vanishing net flux. Thus, the change of black hole entropy should be equivalent to the amount of heat flow passing through the horizon

$$\mathrm{\Delta }S_H=S__2S__1=__1^_2s^a𝑑\widehat{}_a,$$
(16)
where $`_i`$ are intersecting points of the horizon $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$.

Substituting (14), (16) into (13), and using Gauss-Stokes theorem, we obtain a simple form of change of total entropy given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }S_{\mathrm{total}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __1^_2}s^a𝑑\widehat{}_a+{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}^{\mathrm{\Sigma }_2}}s^a𝑑\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_a`$ (17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _M}d^2x\sqrt{g}_as^a,`$
where $`M`$ denotes a spacetime patch444Strictly speaking, the spacetime patch $`M`$ is also bounded by the outer boundary. However, since the Dirichlet boundary condition is imposed on the boundary, the surface integral on the boundary $`s^a𝑑\widehat{l}_a`$ does not give any effect to the change of total entropy given by (17) bounded by the spacelike hypersurfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$, and the horizon $``$. Thus, GSL for the Hartle-Hawking state can be easily estimated by determining the sign of the term $`_as^a`$ ($`_Md^2x\sqrt{g}_as^a`$) in a strong (weak) sense; hereafter, we refer $`_as^a`$ to rate of local entropy production.

Using the conservation law of the stress-energy tensor and the Killing equation $`\beta _{(a;b)}=0`$, we find that the density of total entropy change vanishes $`_as^a=0`$. Thus, GSL holds for any two-dimensional eternal black holes in equilibrium with surrounding Hawking radiation in a ‘strong’ sense. In fact, GSL for the Hartle-Hawking state is trivially satisfied, because according to the inherence of the Hartle-Hawking state, on the Killing horizon (and the outer boundary), in-flux exactly compensates for out-flux.

In  Shimomura et al investigated the GSL for two-dimensional black holes, and argued that if one takes a finite region outside the black hole, GSL does not hold even for the Hartle-Hawking state. As argued in , the violation of GSL is caused by fixing the outer boundary of the finite accessible region so that the size of the accessible region decreases. However, fixing the outer boundary, one should miss in-flux from infinity to the finite accessible region passing through the outer boundary, and the violation of GSL in  is an artificial effect. In this paper, we have required that the outer boundary evolve satisfying the Dirichlet boundary condition and maintaining the balance between in-flux and out-flux on the boundary rather than fixing the outer boundary.

## 3 Unruh State

### 3.1 S-wave Sector

Now, consider a black hole out of equilibrium with the thermal heat bath (Unruh state). Our two-dimensional black holes considered here are S-wave sector in four-dimensional general relativity. The action is given by spherically symmetric reduction;

$`I_G`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g^{(4)}}R^{(4)}}+\mathrm{surface}\mathrm{terms}`$ (18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4G}}{\displaystyle d^2x\sqrt{g}(r^2R+2(r)^2+2)}+\mathrm{surface}\mathrm{terms},`$
where four-dimensional spherically symmetric spacetime metric

$$ds_{(4)}^2=g_{ab}dx^adx^b+r^2(x)d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(19)
was used, and the covariant derivative is defined with respect to the two-dimensional metric $`g_{ab}`$. Here, we refer two-dimensional geometric quantities without dimensional notations, such as superscript (4).

On the other hand, taking into account the Hawking radiation and its backreaction on the spacetime in the semiclassical approximation, one-loop quantum effective action is to be added to the classical gravitational action (18),

$$I=I_G+\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$
(20)
In a self-consistent manner, the two-dimensional one-loop effective action has to be obtained by the same spherically symmetric reduction of four-dimensional matter fields as has been done for the gravitational part $`I_G`$. In our analysis, however, we assume that the effective two-dimensional matter is conformal and the expectation value of the stress-energy tensor defined by $`T_{ab}=(2/\sqrt{g})(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }/\delta g^{ab})`$ is given as an Unruh-like one

$$T_a^b=\rho u_au^b+P\mathrm{\Delta }_a^bF_0l_al^b,$$
(21)
where $`l_a`$ is an affinely parameterized ingoing light-like vector, and $`F_0`$ denotes the Hawking flux.

Variations of the action $`I`$ with respect to the two-dimensional metric $`g_{ab}`$ and ‘dilaton’ $`r^2`$ give field equations as follows

$`G_{ab}2r_a_br+g_{ab}(2r\mathrm{}r+(r)^21)=2GT_{ab},`$
$`rR2\mathrm{}r=0.`$ (22)
A general solution to the field equations (3.1) can be written by the type considered by Bardeen ,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`f(v,r)e^{2\psi (v,r)}dv^2+2e^{\psi (v,r)}dvdr,`$
$`f(v,r)`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{2Gm(v,r)}{r}},`$ (23)
which becomes the Vaidya metric for $`\psi =0`$ and $`m=m(v)`$, and the Schwarzshild metric in Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates for $`\psi =0`$ and $`m=\mathrm{constant}>0`$. The apparent horizon, $`r_H`$, will be given by the relation $`f(r=r_H,v)=0`$. Substituting (3.1) into (3.1), then the Einstein’s equations become

$$\frac{m}{r}=\rho ,\frac{m}{v}=e^\psi F_0,\frac{\psi }{r}=\frac{G}{r}f^1(P+\rho ).$$
(24)
In order to formulate the black hole thermodynamics on a non-static spacetime such as (3.1), one needs appropriate definitions of energy and surface gravity in a dynamical sense. The first law of black hole dynamics proposed in  was given in terms of Misner-Sharp energy , $`m(v,r)`$ in our coordinates system,

$$m(r,v)=\frac{r}{2G}\left(1(r)^2\right),$$
(25)
and dynamical surface gravity $`\kappa ^{dyn}`$

$$\kappa ^{dyn}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{}r=\frac{1}{2}\left(_rf+f_r\psi \right).$$
(26)
The dynamical surface gravity (26) is evaluated with respect to the 1-form $`k=𝐝r`$ , where $`𝐝`$ is the exterior derivative and $``$ is the Hodge operator, which generates a preferred flow of time and is a dynamic analogue of the stationary Killing vector . Then, the dynamical first law is obtained from Einstein equations and holds for any apparent horizon555In fact, apparent horizon might be conceptually different from trapping horizon, which is the term used in Hayward’s articles for local definition of a dynamical black hole. Since, in our analysis, there is not any reason to distinguish between them, we just use the term apparent horizon.. In the case of two-dimensional black holes, it is written as

$$\beta _H^{dyn}^{}m_H=^{}S_H+\beta _H^{dyn}\omega _H^{}r,$$
(27)
where $`^{}`$ denotes the derivative along the apparent horizon and $`\omega T_a^a/2`$. $`(\beta _H^{dyn})^1=T_H^{dyn}=\kappa ^{dyn}/2\pi `$ is the inverse dynamical Hawking temperature. Note that the second term on the right hand side of (27) applies to work done along the horizon.

On the other hand, the dynamical surface gravity $`\kappa ^{dyn}`$ defined in (26) is obtained in a remarkably simple form by using the equations (3.1) and the trace anomaly; The trace anomaly together with the dilaton equation (3.1) is written as

$$T_a^a=\frac{R}{24\pi }=\frac{\kappa ^{dyn}}{6\pi r}.$$
(28)
Using the Einstein equations (3.1), the trace of the stress-energy tensor is also given by

$$T_a^a=\frac{1}{G}\left(2r\kappa +f1\right).$$
(29)
Then, using equations (28) and (29), we obtain the dynamical surface gravity

$$\kappa ^{dyn}=\frac{Gm}{r^2}\left(1\frac{G}{12\pi r^2}\right)^1,$$
(30)
and dynamical temperature on the horizon

$$T_H^{dyn}=\frac{\kappa _H^{dyn}}{2\pi }=\frac{1}{8\pi Gm_H}\left(1\frac{1}{48\pi Gm_H^2}\right)^1,$$
(31)
where $`m_H=m(r_H,v)`$. It is quite interesting that the one-loop correction to dynamical temperature appeared in (31) has exactly the same form as the one-loop correction to the Hawking temperature of a static black hole evaluated in . However, it has to be noticed that since in our analysis $`m_H`$ is not a constant, but contains quantum corrections, the factor $`1/8\pi Gm_H`$ cannot be interpreted as the ‘classical’ Hawking temperature. Instead, quantum corrections to the dynamical temperature are contained in the factor $`1/8\pi Gm_H`$ as well as in the factor in parentheses of (31).

### 3.2 GSL for Unruh State

Now, we are ready to examine the GSL for the Unruh state. First, it is obvious that the expression for the outside entropy change in the Hartle-Hawking state given in (14) is still valid for the Unruh state. However, for the Unruh state, the expression for the black hole entropy change given in (16) should be corrected by a work term, which is generated along the apparent horizon by heat flow passing through the horizon. Let us evaluate the integral in (16);

$`{\displaystyle __1^_2}s^a𝑑\widehat{}_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __1^_2}e^{\psi _H}\left(s^vdrs^rdv\right)_{}`$ (32)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle __1^_2}\beta _H^{dyn}𝑑m_H`$
$`=`$ $`4\pi G\left(m_{H_2}^2m_{H_1}^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m_{H_2}}{m_{H_1}}}\right).`$
As well known, a typical one-loop correction to black hole entropy is given by a logarithmic term  and the quantity given in (32) looks like just the change of (one-loop corrected) black hole entropy. However, this is not true. It has to be noticed that from the viewpoint of the black hole, the heat flow passing through the horizon causes the work done along the horizon as well as the change of black hole entropy, and the logarithmic term represents the work along the horizon from $`_1`$ to $`_2`$. It could be checked from the dynamical first law (27); performing integrations along the horizon on the both side of the first law, one finds that on the right hand side, the first term gives the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy (area law) and the second term, which is understood as the work term, becomes the logarithmic term appearing in (32).

Thus, the volume integration of the divergence of the entropy vector (17) represents the sum of the change of total entropy and of the work done along the horizon. However, as we have shown in the above paragraph, fortunately, the work term contributes to the integration in only subleading order. So, up to leading order, the change of total entropy for the Unruh state is still given by the volume integral (17), just like the case of Hartle-Hawking state.

Using (24) and (30), the rate of local entropy production becomes

$`_as^a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r}{Gm}}F_0e^{2\psi }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{r}{2}}\left(_r\psi +_r\mathrm{ln}m\right)\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{G}{12\pi r^2}}\right)\right)`$ (33)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi r}{Gm}}F_0e^{2\psi },`$
where approximation has been made for taking only leading term in the evaluation. Finally, we find that the rate of local entropy production for the Unruh state is always positive in leading order. Note that taking a static limit of the two-dimensional spacetime is taken, $`F_0=0`$, the rate of local entropy production vanishes, and we return to the case of the Hartle-Hawking state. In addition, the rate of local entropy change calculated in the equation (33) can be also obtained by considering only near the horizon.

## 4 Concluding Remarks

Our main result in this article was to obtain the covariant form of the change of total entropy given by (17) and verify the GSL for two-dimensional black holes in equilibrium and nonequilibrium with the heat bath. Especially, we were interested in the dynamical evolution of the black holes and its contribution to the change of total entropy.

For two-dimensional (eternal) black holes in thermal equilibrium with the heat bath, we have shown that the rate of local entropy production $`_as^a`$ vanishes and the GSL holds for the system. That the rate of local entropy production vanishes in the equilibrium situation is due to the balance between in-flux and out-flux on the Killing horizon and the outer boundary with the Dirichlet boundary condition. On the other hand, it has been argued that the covariant form of the change of total entropy is still valid for the nonequilibrium situation up to leading order. We have shown that the rate of local entropy production for the nonequilibrium system is positive at the leading order.

Our important tools for the investigation was the covariant formulation and the dynamical first law (27) of black hole thermodynamics. In fact, there may be a criticism of the dynamical black hole thermodynamics introduced by Hayward. However, the dynamical first law given in equation (27) is nothing but the Einstein equation on the horizon and in  the dynamic black hole entropy in the first law has been inspected by using the original Clausius definition of thermodynamic entropy and the Wald’s Noether charge method . Even though the definition of the dynamical temperature in the dynamical black hole thermodynamics can be flawed by considering general physical systems, since in this article the source term of the r.h.s. of Einstein equations is contributed by only the conformal scalar field, which effectively characterizes the quantum backreaction, not by any other ordinary matter fields, the dynamical temperature is well defined. Indeed, we obtained the dynamical temperature on the horizon with the one-loop correction (31), which has exactly the same form as the one-loop correction to the Hawking temperature of a static black hole, and it can be seen that taking the classical limit (excluding the quantum backreaction), it recovers the Hawking temperature of a static spacetime.

## Acknowledgment

I thank W. Israel and S. Mukohyama for very helpful discussions and suggestions to this work.