text:
# Some remarks about pseudo gap behavior of nearly antiferromagnetic metals

## Abstract

In the antiferromagnetically ordered phase of a metal, gaps open on parts of the Fermi surface if the Fermi volume is sufficiently large. We discuss simple qualitative and heuristic arguments under what conditions precursor effects, i.e. pseudo gaps, are expected in the paramagnetic phase of a metal close to an antiferromagnetic quantum phase transition. At least for weak interactions, we do not expect the formation of pseudo gaps in a three dimensional material. According to our arguments, the upper critical dimension $`d_c`$ for the formation of pseudo gaps is $`d_c=2`$. However, at the present stage we cannot rule out a higher upper critical dimension, $`2d_c3`$. We also discuss briefly the role of statistical interactions in pseudo gap phases.

Experiments on metals close to an antiferromagnetic quantum critical point (QCP) show clearly that these systems cannot be described by standard Fermi liquid theory. This is not very surprising, as at the QCP magnetic fluctuations dominate and electronic quasi particles scatter from spin-fluctuations characterized by a diverging correlation length. Indeed, a theory of quantum critical fluctuations interacting weakly with Fermi liquid quasi particles  can explain a substantial part of the experiments at least if effects like weak impurity scattering are properly taken into account . However, a number of experiments seems to contradict the standard spin-fluctuation scenario, presently the best studied example for this is probably CeCu6-xAux . It has been speculated that this might be due to anomalous two-dimensional spin fluctuation or a partial breakdown of the Kondo effect.

In this paper we discuss a different route which can lead to a breakdown of the theory of weakly interacting spin fluctuations, first proposed by Hertz . The general idea is the following: close to the QCP, the behavior of the system is dominated by large antiferromagnetic domains of size $`\xi `$, slowly fluctuating on the time scale $`\tau _\xi \xi ^{z_{\text{op}}}`$ where $`z_{\text{op}}`$ is the dynamical critical exponent of the order parameter. As $`\xi `$ is diverging when the QCP is approached, it is suggestive to assume that the electrons will adjust their wave functions adiabatically to the local antiferromagnetic background and will therefore show a similar behavior as in the antiferromagnetically ordered phase. If the Fermi surface is sufficiently large, the (staggered) order parameter of the antiferromagnetic phase induces gaps in parts of the Fermi surface with $`ϵ_𝐤ϵ_{𝐤\pm 𝐐}0`$, where $`ϵ_𝐤`$ is the dispersion of the quasi particles measured from the Fermi energy and $`𝐐`$ the ordering wave-vector of the antiferromagnet. Will precursors of this effect show up and induce pseudo gaps in the paramagnetic phase for sufficiently large $`\xi `$? Pseudo gaps play an important role in the physics of underdoped cuprates and it has been speculated that they are indeed precursors of gaps in either superconducting, antiferromagnetic, flux or striped phases. In this report we want to investigate qualitatively on the basis of simple physical arguments under what generic conditions such pseudo gaps are expected to occur close to an antiferromagnetic QCP. We will consider only systems, where the ordered antiferromagnet is metallic, therefore our discussion might have less relevance for the high Tc superconductors where the undoped antiferromagnet is a (Mott-) insulator.

To define the concept of a pseudo gap more precisely, we first analyze the ordered phase where in mean field theory the Hamilton of the electrons is of the form

$`H_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}(c_{\sigma ,𝐤}^{},c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐐}^{})\left(\begin{array}{cc}ϵ_𝐤& \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }\\ \sigma \mathrm{\Delta }& ϵ_{𝐤+𝐐}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{\sigma ,𝐤}\\ c_{\sigma ,𝐤+𝐐}\end{array}\right).`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is proportional to the staggered order parameter (assumed to point in $`z`$ direction) and the $`𝐤`$ sum extends over a magnetic Brillouin zone. Close to the “hot lines” on the Fermi surface (“hot points” in two dimensions) with $`ϵ_{𝐤_h}=ϵ_{𝐤_h\pm 𝐐}=0`$, a gap opens (see Fig. 1) and the band structure at $`𝐤=𝐤_h+\delta 𝐤`$ is approximately given by

$`ϵ_{\delta 𝐤}^\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left((𝐯_1+𝐯_2)\delta 𝐤\pm \sqrt{\left((𝐯_1𝐯_2)\delta 𝐤\right)^2+4\mathrm{\Delta }^2}\right)`$ (6)
where $`𝐯_1=𝐯_{𝐤_h}`$ and $`𝐯_2=𝐯_{𝐤_h+𝐐}`$ are the Fermi velocities close to the hot points. The gap is e.g. visible if one integrates the spectral function $`A_𝐤(\omega )`$ for $`𝐤`$-vectors along a direction $`\widehat{n}`$ in the $`(𝐯_1,𝐯_2)`$ plane perpendicular to $`𝐯_1+𝐯_2`$ (dash-dotted line in Fig. 1) $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )=𝑑kA_{𝐤_h+k\widehat{𝐧}}(\omega )`$. In mean field theory $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )`$ displays a well-defined gap of size $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This gap is a consequence of the reduced translational symmetry and is expected to be present in the ordered phase of the antiferromagnet, even in a regime, where the predictions of mean field theory are quantitatively wrong. Interactions of quasi particles far away from $`𝐤_h`$ with each other and with the spin-fluctuations will actually induce some small weight within these (renormalized) gaps but this does not invalidate the mean field picture: $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )`$ vanishes rapidly in the limit $`\omega 0`$ in the ordered phase as it is obvious from the usual Fermi liquid phase space arguments. From general scaling arguments one expects in the paramagnetic phase close to the QCP, that at $`T=0`$

$`\stackrel{~}{A}(\omega )\omega ^\alpha f(1/(\omega \xi ^z))`$ (7)
with $`f(x0)const.`$ and $`f(x\mathrm{})x^\alpha `$ where $`z`$ is a dynamical critical exponent (see below). Within mean field theory no precursor of the gaps show up and $`\alpha =0`$. However, one would expect $`\alpha >0`$ if the wave function of the quasi particles adjusts adiabatically to the local antiferromagnetic order on length scales smaller than $`\xi `$.

This paper focuses on the $`T=0`$ behavior directly at the QCP as we are mainly interested in the question whether pseudogaps affect the quantum critical behavior and therefore (7) with $`\alpha >0`$ serves as a defintion for a pseudogap. Note that pseudogap physics can be considereably more pronounced in other regimes, e.g. for nearly magnetic metals with Heisenberg or xy symmetry in $`d=2`$ for low, but finite temperatures in a parameter regime, where the system is deep in the ordered phase at $`T=0`$. This regime has for example been investigated in detail by Vlik, Tremblay et al. .

For definiteness, we will consider a model of Fermions $`f_{𝐤\sigma }`$ coupled linearly to a collective bosonic field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐪`$ with the following action in imaginary time

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau [{\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}f_{\sigma ,𝐤}^{}(_\tau +ϵ_𝐤)f_{\sigma ,𝐤}+{\displaystyle \underset{𝐪}{}}𝚽_𝐪^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{J_𝐪}}𝚽_𝐪`$ (9)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{𝐤𝐪}i\alpha \beta }{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐪^if_{\alpha ,𝐤+𝐪}^{}\sigma _{\alpha \beta }^if_{\beta ,𝐤}+h.c.]`$
where $`\sigma ^i`$ are the Pauli matrices and $`\beta =1/T`$ the inverse temperature. Integrating out the collective field induces a spin-spin interaction $`J`$ of the Fermions. For realistic models one should also add charge-charge interactions, which are, however, not expected to change the physics close to a magnetic QCP qualitatively.

Many years ago, Hertz has proposed to describe the QC metallic antiferromagnet in the spirit of a Ginzburg-Landau-Wilson approach in terms of a fluctuating order parameter $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )`$ with an effective action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_0+S_{\text{int}}`$ (10)
$`S_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,\omega _n}{}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐤\omega _n}^{}(r+(𝐤\pm 𝐐)^2+\gamma |\omega _n|)\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐤\omega _n}`$ (11)
$`S_{\text{int}}`$ $`=`$ $`U{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^d𝐫|\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )|^4}`$ (12)
where $`\omega _n=2\pi n/\beta `$ are bosonic Matsubara frequencies and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{𝐤\omega _n}`$ is the Fourier transform of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )`$. The term linear in $`\omega _n`$ is due to the scattering from quasi particles which induce the Landau damping of the spin-fluctuations. As discussed in detail in the original paper by Hertz , the action $`S`$ describes only the leading terms in an expansion which is derived by integrating out the Fermions in (9). The expansion is shown schematically in Fig. 2a (due to time-reversal symmetry, cubic terms vanish in the limit $`\omega _n0`$). A simple scaling analysis with $`k1/L`$, $`\omega 1/L^{z_{\text{op}}}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x,\tau )L^{1(d+z_{\text{op}})/2}`$ with $`z_{\text{op}}=2`$ shows that the interaction term $`S_{\text{int}}`$ vanishes $`1/L^{d+z_{\text{op}}4}`$, i.e. $`U`$ is (dangerously) irrelevant in dimensions $`d>4z_{\text{op}}=2`$. Furthermore, higher order interactions and frequency and momentum dependencies of the effective vertices are even more irrelevant. A pseudogap as it is defined in (7) would certainly change the critical exponent $`z_{\text{op}}`$, as it would strongly reduce the damping of the spin-fluctuations. As the scaling analysis sketched above does give no indications for such a phenomenon for $`d4z_{\text{op}}`$, it strongly suggests that a strong-coupling effect like a pseudo gap should never occur in dimensions $`d>4z_{\text{op}}`$ at least as long as the (bare) interactions are not too strong.

This line of arguments (which would be completely valid close to a classical phase transitions) is not reliable in the case of a quantum phase transition in a metal. This can be seen for example by considering the ordered phase. An expansion of the Hertz action (10) around the mean field $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }+\delta \mathrm{\Phi }`$ suggests that the transverse spin-fluctuations (assuming Heisenberg or xy symmetry) are damped. However, the Goldstone theorem guarantees that the spin-waves are not damped in the limit $`\omega ,𝐤0`$. The physical origin of this is essentially the same as in the previous discussion of pseudo-gap formation: the wave function of the electrons adjust to the slowly varying antiferromagnetic background. A simple RPA approximation based upon the mean field Hamiltonian (5) correctly describes this effect on a qualitative level. It is therefore instructive to investigate how the RPA contribution arise in the effective action $`S[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$. In Fig. 2b it is shown that spin-spin interactions $`\mathrm{\Phi }^n`$ of arbitraryly high order $`n`$ are needed to recover the trivial RPA+mean-field result.

Two scenarios seem to be possible to resolve the apparent conflict that contributions which are irrelevant by power counting are important in the ordered phase. The first possibility is that all the higher interactions are indeed irrelevant in the sense that the physics of the formation of undamped spin fluctuations does not influence the quantum critical behavior on the paramagnetic side of the phase diagram in any qualitative manner – in technical terms, they are “dangerously irrelevant” and important only in the ordered phase. The analysis given below suggests that this situation is actually realized in three dimensions. The second possibility is that pseudo gap formation is important and that spin-spin interactions of arbitrarily high order have to be kept which implies that (10) does not describe the physics properly and the “true” critical theory cannot be formulated in terms of the order parameter alone but has to include fermionic modes. For example, the spin fluctuation theory of the cuprates as it is worked out by Abanov and Chubukov  suggests such a scenario in $`d=2`$. What can go wrong with the simple scaling arguments given above? Belitz, Kirkpatrick et al. have recently shown in their analysis of the dirty nearly ferromagnetic metal that scaling is indeed not reliable due to a very simple physical reason: The Hertz action implies that a domain of size $`\xi `$ fluctuates very slowly on the time scale $`\tau _\xi \xi ^{z_{\text{op}}}`$ with $`z_{\text{op}}=2`$. However, in a clean metal there is a much faster and more efficient way to propagate information from one side of a fluctuating domain to the other: ballistic electrons can traverse the domain in the time $`\tau _F\xi ^{z_F}`$ with $`z_F=1`$. This defines a second dynamical critical exponent $`z_F`$ (which can be renormalized due to scattering from spin fluctuations, see below). Power-counting is not reliable because two different dynamical exponents $`z_{\text{op}}`$ and $`z_F`$ exist simultaneously – while there is only one large length scale $`\xi `$, two rather different time scales exist. The question which of these scales is relevant for a given process generally requires a detailed analysis and is not at all obvious. This physics should therefore be investigated in a careful renormalization group calculations which includes both fermionic and bosonic degrees of freedom. We will not try such an analysis here but instead use a properly modified scaling argument to investigate the possibility of pseudo gap formation.

For our scaling analysis, we assume that the susceptibility at the QCP is of the form suggested by (11) ($`d2`$)

$`\chi _{𝐪\pm 𝐐}(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{𝐪^2+(i\omega )^{2/z_{\text{op}}}}}.`$ (13)
We are mainly interested in the case $`z_{\text{op}}=2`$, smaller values for $`z_{\text{op}}`$ might be relevant if pseudo gap formation takes place , larger values have e.g. been used to fit experiments in CeCu6-xAux and have been claimed to be relevant in $`d=2`$. It is not difficult to generalize the following arguments for susceptibilities with other $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$ dependencies.

The strategy of the following scaling analysis is to estimate the effective amplitude of the quasistatic collective field seen by the electrons. Obviously the answer will depend on which time- and length-scale the electrons probe the background magnetization. The main idea is, that a lower bound for the relevant time- and length scales can be derived from Heisenberg’s uncertainity relation and the effective size of the gap. The main assumptions of the following arguments are discussed in detail in the second half of the paper: we assume that above the upper critical dimension for pseudogap formation, the nature of the electrons is not changed completely by the quantum critical fluctuations. According to the mean field result (6) a gap of size $`\omega ^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ opens in a ($`d2`$ dimensional) stripe in momentum space of width $`k^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }/v_F`$. Below, we will discuss the effect of interactions which can change this relation to $`\omega ^{}(k^{})^{z_F}\mathrm{\Delta }^{z_F}`$ where $`z_F=1`$ is the mean field exponent. Heisenberg’s uncertainty relation dictates that the electrons have to see a quasi-static antiferromagnetic background for a time $`\tau ^{}1/\omega ^{}`$ on a length scale of order $`\xi ^{}1/k^{}`$ perpendicular to the direction of the hot lines to develop the pseudo gap. What is the effective size of the quasi-static antiferromagnetic order $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\xi ^{},\tau ^{}}^{\text{eff}}`$ on these length and time scales? The following estimate should at least give an upper bound at the QCP

$`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{\xi ^{},\tau ^{}}^{\text{eff}}\right)^2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\omega ^{}}𝑑\omega {\displaystyle _{q_{}<k^{}}}d^2q_{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d^{d2}q_{}\text{Im}\chi _{𝐪\pm 𝐐}(\omega )`$ (14)
$``$ $`(k^{})^{d+z_{\text{op}}2}+(k^{})^2(w^{})^{\frac{d+z_{\text{op}}4}{z_{\text{op}}}}`$ (15)
$``$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(d+z_{\text{op}}4)\frac{z_F}{z_{\text{op}}}+2}`$ (16)
where the anisotropic integration of $`q`$ takes into account that the momentum of the electrons parallel to the hot line can vary on the scale $`k_F`$. In (16) we assumed $`z_Fz_{\text{op}}`$. For our scaling argument, it does not matter whether we use $`\text{Im}\chi (\omega )`$ or e.g. $`\chi (i\omega )`$ in (14), the version given above is motivated by the estimate of the quasi-elastic weight obtained in a $`T=0`$ neutron scattering experiment with limited resolution $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`k^{}`$.

If we assume furthermore that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is proportional to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\xi ^{},\tau ^{}}^{\text{eff}}`$ as suggested by the mean field analysis (which should be valid above the upper critical dimension), we obtain the inequality $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2const.\mathrm{\Delta }^{(d+z_{\text{op}}4)\frac{z_F}{z_{\text{op}}}+2}`$. This implies that, at least in a weak coupling situation, pseudo gaps should appear only if

$`d+z_{\text{op}}4`$ (17)
which is the central result of this paper. We believe, that it is accidental that (17) coincides with the condition for the relevance of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ interaction (11) in the Hertz model as is evident from the fact that $`z_F`$ enters the inequality (16). Within the approach of Hertz, $`z_{\text{op}}=2`$ and the critical dimension for pseudo gap formation is therefore $`d_c=2`$. From our scaling arguments we cannot say much about what will happen in $`d=d_c=2`$ (or for $`d<d_c`$). Based on the observation, that the ordered phase is not well described by (10), we suspect that the Hertz description of a quantum critical antiferromagnet is not valid in $`d=2`$ – this point of view agrees with the results of Abanov and Chubukov  who have analyzed the spin-fermion problem in $`d=2`$ in a certain large $`N`$ expansion. In the pseudo gap phase we expect by comparison to the ordered phase that $`1z_{\text{op}}<2`$. Therefore it seems to be possible that the critical dimension is not two but somewhere between 2 and 3 (Abanov and Chubukov claim , however, that $`z_{\text{op}}`$ is larger than 2 in $`d=2`$ depending on the number of hot spots). In three dimensions, pseudo-gap formation will probably not invalidate the Hertz approach, at least for weak coupling.

The derivation of (17) is far from being rigorous and based on a number of assumptions. In the following two of them, which are probably the most important ones, are discussed in more detail. First we consider non-Fermi liquid effects due to the scattering from singular spin fluctuations, the second aspect concerns strong coupling effect and the respective role of amplitude and angular fluctuations of the staggered magnetization.

The scattering from spin fluctuations strongly modifies the quasi-particles close to the hot lines. In leading order perturbation theory, the self energy of those electrons at $`T=0`$ is given by

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(\mathrm{\Omega })g_S^2{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤^{}}{}}{\displaystyle _0^\mathrm{\Omega }}𝑑\omega \text{Im}\chi _{𝐤𝐤^{}}(\omega )\text{Im}g_𝐤^{}^0(\omega \mathrm{\Omega }),`$ (18)
where $`g_S`$ is the vertex of the coupling of electrons to spin-fluctuations (here, we assume the absence of pseudo gap formation and therefore $`g_S`$ is finite) and $`g_𝐤^{}^0(\omega )1/(\omega ϵ_𝐤+i0^+)`$ is the Greens function of the (free) fermions. Using (13) and (18) we obtain at the QCP

$`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{𝐤_h+\delta 𝐤}(\mathrm{\Omega })\mathrm{\Omega }^{1+\frac{d3}{z_{\text{op}}}}f\left({\displaystyle \frac{(\delta \kappa )^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }^{2/z_{\text{op}}}}}\right)`$ (19)
where $`\delta \kappa \delta 𝐤𝐯_{𝐤_h+𝐐}`$ is a measure for the distance from the hot line and $`f`$ is some scaling function with $`f(x0)const.`$ and $`f(x\mathrm{})1/x^{\frac{5d}{2}}`$. For $`z_{\text{op}}=2`$ and far away from the hot lines, Fermi liquid behavior is recovered. Our previous arguments suggest that typical frequencies and momenta for the pseudo gap formation are $`\delta \kappa \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{\Delta }^{z_F}`$, therefore the typical argument $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{2(1z_F/z_{\text{op}})}`$ of $`f`$ is small and the momentum dependence of $`\text{Im}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be neglected for $`z_F<z_{\text{op}}`$ and will not induce new effects for $`z_F=z_{\text{op}}`$ (this is the reason, why we used $`k^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in our scaling analysis). From this we obtain $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\text{typical}})\mathrm{\Omega }^{1+\frac{d3}{z_{\text{op}}}}`$. Below three dimensions, the quasi particle picture breaks down close to the hot lines and therefore some of our perturbative arguments might fail. Ignoring this possibility, we conclude that typical energies $`E_𝐤`$ of the (incoherent) fermionic excitations are determined from $`E_𝐤+cE_𝐤^{1+\frac{d3}{z_{\text{op}}}}v_F(kk_F)`$ (because we can neglect the $`𝐤`$ dependence of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) and therefore

$`z_F=\mathrm{max}[1,{\displaystyle \frac{z_{\text{op}}}{d+z_{\text{op}}3}}]`$ (20)
which is the value which should be used in our previous arguments for $`d+z_{\text{op}}4`$, i.e. in the absence of pseudo gap formation. An effect which we haven’t taken into account in our discussion, is that generically, close to the antiferromagnetic QCP, a superconducting phase is stabilized , however, at least in $`d3`$ the ordering temperature of the superconductor $`T_c`$ is usually much smaller than the typical scale $`T^{}`$ below which the quantum critical behavior of the antiferromagnet dominates. In $`d=2`$ the situation might be different  with $`T_ccT^{}`$, where $`c`$ is a constant of order 1.

It is important to emphasize, that our estimate (14) of $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\text{eff}}`$ and therefore our main result (17) is based on the assumption that amplitude fluctuations of the staggered order parameter are present and can be described by (13). Electrons adjust their wave functions much better to angular fluctuations of the direction of the staggered magnetization than to fluctuations of its size, because a rotation of the spin-quantization axis does not cost any energy in the long wave length limit (assuming weak spin-orbit coupling and/or a sufficient high symmetry of the underlying crystal). This adiabatic adjustment is not included in our estimates. Numerical results of Bartosch, Kopietz, Millis and Monien show that in $`d=1`$ amplitude and phase fluctuations have a drastically different effect on pseudo gap formation. Nevertheless, our approach to focus on amplitude fluctuations in our previous discussion was valid as within the theory of Hertz (10), the interactions of spin-fluctuations are irrelevant and amplitude fluctuations exist for $`d>2`$. If they are present they should be the dominating mechanism to destroy pseudo gap behavior. Below the upper critical dimensions, one expects that amplitude fluctuations are frozen out and only angular fluctuations dominate the critical regime. Even in dimensions larger than $`2`$ such a picture might be appropriate in a strong coupling regime, e.g. if one considers a Heisenberg model with a large antiferromagnetic coupling $`J_{AF}`$ coupled to a metal. Unfortunately, the behavior of electrons in such a situation is much less understood. To investigate the pseudo gap phase in this case, probably the most obvious theoretical route to describe the adiabatic adjustment of the wave function of the electrons is to rotate the quantization axis of the electrons into the local direction of the slowly fluctuating order parameter. This approach has been used by a number of authors interested in the pseudo gap phase of the cuprates. A natural model to discuss this type of physics consists of a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model coupled to the spin $`𝐒(𝐫)=\frac{1}{2}f_\alpha ^{}(𝐫)𝝈_{\alpha ,\beta }f_\beta (𝐫)`$ of fermions $`f`$. The non-linear $`\sigma `$-model $`S_\sigma `$ describes the directional fluctuations of the staggered order parameter $`𝐧`$ in the absence of amplitude fluctuations. The action in terms of $`𝐧`$ with $`𝐧^2=1`$ and the Grassmann fields $`f`$ is given by

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`S_f+S_\sigma +S_{f\sigma }`$ (21)
$`S_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}f_{\sigma ,𝐤}^{}(_\tau +ϵ_𝐤)f_{\sigma ,𝐤}`$ (22)
$`S_\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g}}{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^d𝐫(_\tau 𝐧)^2}+(v_𝐫𝐧)^2`$ (23)
$`S_{f\sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle _0^\beta }𝑑\tau {\displaystyle d^d𝐫\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{𝐐𝐫})𝐧(𝐫,\tau )𝐒(𝐫,\tau )}.`$ (24)
We have not written down the proper spin Berry phase which is essential to describe the Kondo lattice correctly. For simplicity, we focus in the following on a model with an $`O(2)`$ symmetry $`𝐧=(0,\mathrm{sin}\varphi (𝐫,t),\mathrm{cos}\varphi (𝐫,t))`$ and comment below on the more difficult situation with $`O(3)`$ symmetry. To describe the pseudo gap, we define new fields $`c`$ with a quantization axis rotated in the local direction of the order parameter.

$`\left(\begin{array}{c}c_{}(𝐫,\tau )\\ c_{}(𝐫,\tau )\end{array}\right)=\mathrm{exp}\left[i\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐫,\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^x}{2}}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}f_{}(𝐫,\tau )\\ f_{}(𝐫,\tau )\end{array}\right).`$ (29)
The new fields $`c`$, which we call “pseudo fermions” in the following, do not transform under a global rotation around $`x`$-axis, this implies a separation of spin and charge degrees of freedom  if the low energy excitations are well described by $`c`$ (see below). The advantage of the transformation is, that $`S_{f\sigma }`$ now describes the scattering of the pseudo fermions from a static order parameter pointing always in $`z`$ direction which can be treated non-perturbatively. The pseudo fermions are the natural degrees of freedom in a situation, where the the single-particle wave function adjusts to the (collective) magnetic background. If one neglects the residual interactions with $`𝐧`$, gaps open along the hot lines and the action of the pseudo fermions is given by

$`S_c={\displaystyle _0^\beta }({\displaystyle \underset{\sigma ,𝐤}{}}c_{\sigma 𝐤}^{}_\tau c_{\sigma 𝐤}+H_\mathrm{\Delta }(c^{},c))`$ (30)
where $`H_\mathrm{\Delta }(c^{},c)`$ is the mean field Hamiltonian (5).

The residual interaction of $`𝐧`$ and $`c`$ arises from the Berry phase $`f^{}_\tau f`$ and kinetic energy of the electrons. The semi-classical contributions $`S_{c\sigma }^{\text{sc}}`$ is given by the minimal substitution which corresponds to the gauge transformation (29). Using $`(_\mu \varphi )\frac{\sigma ^x}{2}=((_\mu 𝐧)\times 𝐧)\frac{𝝈}{2}`$, we obtain

$`S_{c\sigma }^{\text{sc}}=i{\displaystyle _0^\beta }d\tau {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}d^d𝐫([_\tau +(𝐯_F\mathbf{}))𝐧]\times 𝐧)𝐒.`$ (31)
In the notation used here, the Fermi velocity $`𝐯_F`$ is actually a function of $`𝐤=i`$ which acts on $`c_\sigma (𝐫)`$ hidden in $`𝐒(𝐫)`$. The action $`S_{c\sigma }^{\text{sc}}`$ describes an interaction of spin-currents.

As the vertex in (31) vanishes in the limit $`\omega ,𝐤0`$, Schrieffer has argued that the effect of $`S_{c\sigma }^{\text{sc}}`$ is small close to the QCP and that therefore pseudo gaps and the associated decoupling of spin-fluctuations from the fermions are a generic property of an antiferromagnetic QCP. This argument is however misleading. One reason is that amplitude fluctuations will destroy the pseudo gap in many relevant situations as discussed above. But even in the absence of amplitude fluctuations, the pseudo fermions interact strongly with the magnetic fluctuations by a pure quantum effect which is not included in the semi-classical $`S_{c\sigma }^{\text{sc}}`$. Formally, the origin of the effect is that the rotation of a Fermion by $`2\pi `$ changes its sign! If $`\varphi (𝐫,\tau )`$ in (29) jumps from $`2\pi `$ to $`0`$, the pseudo fermion $`c`$ abruptly flips its sign, giving rise to a huge contribution to the effective action. There are many possibilities to keep track of these sign changes in a path integral, one of them is to rewrite the problem as a local $`_2`$-gauge theory where the arbitrary sign $`\pm 1`$ is the origin of the $`_2`$ symmetry. Here we follow a slightly different route by replacing $`\varphi `$ in (29) by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ with

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\tau ,𝐫)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi (0,0)+{\displaystyle _{(0,0)}^{(\tau ,𝐫)}}(_\mu \varphi )𝑑r^\mu =\varphi (\tau ,𝐫)+2\pi n.`$ (32)
The line integral is along some path in space-time, e.g. $`r^\mu (u)=(u\tau ,u𝐫)`$, where $`u`$ varies in the interval $`[0,1]`$ and $`\mu =0,1,..,d`$ denotes the temporal and spatial directions. The integer $`n`$ in (32) is defined in such a way that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ is continuous along the path $`r^\mu (u)`$ and therefore the pseudo fermions, defined by replacing $`\varphi `$ by $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in (29), will vary smoothly without sudden sign changes along $`r^\mu (u)`$. But along some other paths, abrupt sign changes are unavoidable. This is obvious by considering the line integral $`_{(\tau ,𝐫)}^{(\tau ,𝐫)}(_\mu \varphi )𝑑r^\mu =2\pi n`$ along some closed path in space time. By definition it has to be a multiple of $`2\pi `$ and $`n`$ is obviously the number of magnetic vortices of the xy-model enclosed in the loop. From this we conclude that the pseudo fermions acquire a phase $`\pi `$, i.e. a minus sign, whenever they circle around a magnetic vertex: this is nothing but the well known Berry phase of a spin forced to move on a circle. A possible interpretation of this result is, that each xy- vortex has attached to its core a magnetic flux with half a flux quantum. The pseudo electrons are strongly interacting with the fluctuating magnetic vortices of the antiferromagnet and it is not obvious whether the gap will survive. A likely possibility is that the interactions are so strong that they are leading to confinement at least in some parameter regime as it has been suggested in the context of the $`_2`$ gauge theory of fluctuating superconductors . One possible way of confinement is the binding of the pseudo fermions to the magnetic excitations in such a way, that the resulting degree of freedom is nothing but the original electron $`f_{\sigma 𝐤}`$. In this case, we do not expect any pseudo gaps. As we are not aware of methods which can describe such a confinement transition, it is difficult to give an estimate under which conditions a pseudo gaps will occur in the model (10). We can only speculate that the formation of pseudo gaps might be controlled by the area-density of vortices, i.e. the number of vortices per area $`n_A`$ piercing through a given area in space time at the QCP, to be compared to $`(\mathrm{\Delta }/v_F)^2`$. Both $`n_A`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are non-critical at the transition. If these are the relevant parameters, then pseudo gap behavior is expected only if the density of vortices at the QCP is small.

If the magnet has O(3) instead of xy symmetry, one can follow the same steps which have been discussed before and one faces again the problem, that statistical interactions are induced as soon as pseudo fermions are introduced. Kübert and Muramatsu have proposed in the context of a theory of a slightly doped t-J model a convenient way to keep track of this statistical interaction with the help of a CP1 representation of $`𝐧`$ using two complex fields $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ with $`|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1`$ and $`𝐧=z_\alpha ^{}𝝈_{\alpha \beta }z_\beta `$. In this language the pseudo fermions interact strongly with the CP1 fields via a local $`U(1)`$ gauge theory. Again, confinement seems possible.

In this paper, we have investigated the possibility of pseudo gap behavior close to the QCP of a nearly antiferromagnetic metal. Based on heuristic scaling arguments we suggest that generically, amplitude fluctuations destroy pseudo gaps in dimensions $`d>2`$. In three dimensions we expect that the Hertz theory is valid at least for not too strong coupling while in $`d=2`$ it is probably modified due to pseudo gap formation and the strong interaction of spin-fluctuations and fermionic modes. These questions should be studied in a renormalization group treatment of both fermionic and bosonic modes. We were not able to derive any criteria for pseudo gap formation in a situation where amplitude fluctuations are completely frozen out and emphasized that the motion of the fermions on top of the spin background leads to strong statistical interactions of the fermionic modes with the excitations of the magnet.

I would like to thank A.V. Chubukov, F. Evers, M. Garst, A. Mirlin, A. Muramatsu, J. Schmalian, A.-M. S. Tremblay and P. Wölfle for helpful discussions and the Emmy Noether program of the DFG for financial support.


format: text

text:
# 1. Liouville central charge in a dynamic background

## 1. Liouville central charge in a dynamic background

We begin with a generalized Liouville action,

$$I_L[\phi ,g]=\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2x\sqrt{g}\left\{\frac{1}{2}g^{ab}_a\phi _b\phi +\frac{1}{\gamma }\phi R+V[\phi ]\right\}.$$
(1.1)
For standard Liouville theory, the potential is

$$V[\phi ]=\frac{\mu }{2\gamma ^2}e^{\gamma \phi },$$
(1.2)
but more general forms are possible . After the usual ADM decomposition of the metric,

$$ds^2=N^2dt^2\sigma ^2\left(dx+\beta dt\right)^2,$$
(1.3)
a tedious but straightforward computation brings the action to the canonical form

$$I_L=𝑑t𝑑x\left(\pi _\sigma \dot{\sigma }+\pi _\phi \dot{\phi }N\beta 𝒫\right),$$
(1.4)
with canonical momenta

$`\pi _\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left(\dot{\phi }\beta \phi ^{}\right),`$
$`\pi _\phi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{N}}\left(\dot{\phi }\beta \phi ^{}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\left(\dot{\sigma }(\beta \sigma )^{}\right)`$ (1.5)
and Hamiltonian and momentum constraints

$``$ $`=`$ $`2\pi \gamma \pi _\phi \pi _\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\gamma ^2\sigma \pi _\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \gamma }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^{}}{\sigma }}\right)^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\phi ^2}{\sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\sigma V[\phi ],`$
$`𝒫`$ $`=`$ $`\phi ^{}\pi _\phi \sigma \pi _\sigma ^{}.`$ (1.6)
(Primes denote derivatives with respect to $`x`$, dots derivatives with respect to $`t`$.)

The symmetries of the canonical theory are the “surface deformations,” generated by

$$H[\widehat{\xi }]=𝑑x\widehat{\xi },P[\widehat{\eta }]=𝑑x\widehat{\eta }𝒫.$$
(1.7)
These are closely related to diffeomorphisms: given a vector field $`(\xi ^t,\xi ^x)`$, the transformation

$$\delta F=\{H[N\xi ^t]+P[\xi ^x+\beta \xi ^t],F\}$$
(1.8)
of any function on phase space is equal on shell to the Lie derivative $`_\xi F`$. The surface deformation group splits into two chiral pieces, generated by

$$H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }]=\frac{1}{2}\left\{H[\sigma \widehat{\xi }]\pm P[\widehat{\xi }]\right\}.$$
(1.9)
Another long but straightforward computation then shows that

$`\{H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],H^\pm [\widehat{\eta }]\}`$ $`=`$ $`\pm H^\pm [(\widehat{\xi }\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\xi }^{})]`$
$`\{H^+[\widehat{\xi }],H^{}[\widehat{\eta }]\}`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (1.10)
As expected, we have obtained two chiral copies of the Virasoro algebra. But perhaps unexpectedly, instead of the Liouville central charge $`c=12/\gamma ^2`$, there is no central term in the algebra. Quantization may introduce a central charge, of course, but as noted in the introduction, the quantum central charge has the wrong dependence on $`\mathrm{}`$ to be useful to explain black hole entropy.

One way to understand what has happened is to write the dynamical metric $`g_{ab}`$ as

$$g_{ab}=e^{\gamma \chi }\overline{g}_{ab},$$
(1.11)
where $`\overline{g}_{ab}`$ is a constant curvature metric, determined by a finite number of moduli. Then using the standard Weyl transformation properties of the scalar curvature,

$$R[g]=e^{\gamma \chi }\left(R[\overline{g}]\gamma \overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\chi \right),$$
(1.12)
we find that

$$I_L[\phi ,g]=I_L[\phi +\chi ,\overline{g}]I_L[\chi ,\overline{g}].$$
(1.13)
The dynamical metric thus induces a Liouville action with the opposite sign, and the opposite central charge, of the original action, leading to a cancellation of the central term. This is again a known result, although now “read backwards.” It has long been understood that any conformal theory of “matter” coupled to a Liouville theory of “gravity” has vanishing central charge ; here, our “matter” is itself a Liouville field, while gravity was treated canonically, but essentially the same arguments apply.

## 2. Freezing the metric with Dirac constraints

It is clear from eqn. (1.13) that we should be able to recover the standard central charge by freezing the metric $`g_{ab}`$ (and thus the field $`\chi `$). This result can, of course, be obtained directly from the action (1.1) by fixing the metric . But for later purposes, it is useful to instead fix the metric by means of constraints in the Poisson algebra.

As our first constraint, we fix the spatial metric $`\sigma `$:

$$C_1(x)=\sigma (x)\sigma _0(x)=0$$
(2.1)
where $`\sigma _0`$ is a fixed spatial metric, that is, a (not necessarily constant) metric that has vanishing Poisson brackets with all phase space variables. As our second constraint, we demand that $`\sigma _0`$ be time-independent; from eqn. (1.5), this means that

$$C_2(x)=\pi _\phi (x)\frac{\gamma }{2}\sigma \pi _\sigma (x)=0.$$
(2.2)
Note that $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ do not commute. Indeed, from the canonical Poisson brackets,

$$\{C_1(x),C_2(y)\}=\frac{\gamma }{2}\sigma \delta (xy).$$
(2.3)
In Dirac’s terminology, $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ are second class constraints. Such constraints modify the Poisson brackets : one must construct a new bracket $`\{,\}^{}`$ to preserve the constraints. Specifically, let $`K_{ij}(x,y)`$ be the kernel

$$𝑑y\underset{j}{}K_{ij}(x,y)\{C_j(y),C_k(z)\}=\delta _{ik}\delta (xz),$$
(2.4)
where $`\{,\}`$ is the ordinary Poisson bracket. The Dirac bracket is then

$$\{A(x),B(y)\}^{}=\{A(x),B(y)\}𝑑z_1𝑑z_2\underset{i,j}{}\{A(x),C_i(z_1)\}K_{ij}(z_1,z_2)\{C_j(z_2),B(y)\},$$
(2.5)
and $`\{A(x),C_i(y)\}^{}`$ is identically zero.

For our Liouville theory, it follows from (2.3) that

$$K_{12}(z_1,z_2)=\frac{2}{\gamma }\sigma ^1\delta (z_1z_2),$$
(2.6)
and it is easy to verify that

$`\{H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],C_1\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(\sigma \xi \right)^{}`$ (2.7)
$`\{H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],C_2\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \gamma }}\left(\xi ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }}\xi \right)^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\xi \sigma ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{dV}{d\phi }}\gamma V\right).`$
If $`V[\phi ]`$ is the Liouville potential (1.2), the last term in the bracket of $`H^\pm `$ with $`C_2`$ vanishes. The Dirac brackets of the original constraints then become

$`\{H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],H^\pm [\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`\pm H^\pm [(\widehat{\xi }\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\xi }^{})]`$
$`\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\left[\left(\xi ^{}+\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\xi \right)\left(\eta ^{}+\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\eta \right)^{}\left(\eta ^{}+\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\eta \right)\left(\xi ^{}+\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\xi \right)^{}\right]}`$
$`\{H^+[\widehat{\xi }],H^{}[\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (2.8)
where, following Dirac, “weak equality” ($``$) means “equality up to terms proportional to the constraints.” If we now shift $`H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }]`$ by appropriate functions of $`\sigma `$,

$$\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [\widehat{\xi }]=H^\pm [\widehat{\xi }]+\frac{1}{4\pi \gamma ^2}𝑑z\xi \left[\left(\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\right)^22\left(\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }\right)^{}\right]$$
(2.9)
(note that $`\{H^\pm [\xi ],\sigma \}^{}0`$), we find

$`\{\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`\pm \stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [(\widehat{\xi }\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\xi }^{})]\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle 𝑑z\left[\xi ^{}\eta ^{\prime \prime }\eta ^{}\xi ^{\prime \prime }\right]}`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{H}^+[\widehat{\xi }],\stackrel{~}{H}^{}[\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (2.10)
describing two commuting Virasoro algebras with classical central charges

$$c^\pm =\frac{12}{\gamma ^2},$$
(2.11)
thus recovering the standard Liouville result .

## 3. Central charge from near-boundary conditions

While the method used in the preceding section is new, the conclusion, of course, is not. But the method gains power when one realizes that the constraints (2.1)–(2.2) need not be applied globally: it is enough to impose them as fall-off conditions near a boundary.

To see this, it is useful to reinterpret the Dirac brackets (2.5) in a manner suggested by Bergmann and Komar . Consider a system with second class constraints $`\{C_i\}`$, and let $`A`$ be a function on phase space that is a candidate for a physical observable. The constraints vanish on the space of physically admissible fields, so if $`A`$ has nonzero Poisson brackets with any of the $`C_i`$, it cannot really be an observable. But we can always shift $`A`$ by a term proportional to the constraints without altering the physics. In particular, if we set

$$A^{}=A+\underset{i}{}\lambda _iC_i\text{with}\lambda _i=\underset{j}{}\{A,C_j\}K_{ji}$$
(3.1)
with $`K_{ij}`$ defined as in eqn. (2.4), it is evident that $`\{A^{},C_k\}0`$. If we now consider two functions $`A`$ and $`B`$, it is easy to show that the Dirac bracket of $`A`$ and $`B`$ is simply the ordinary Poisson bracket of $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$:

$$\{A,B\}^{}=\{A^{},B^{}\}.$$
(3.2)
Now let us return to our Liouville theory, and suppose that we have a boundary at $`x=x_0`$. Let us try to impose the constraints (2.1)–(2.2) only in a small neighborhood $`[x_0,x_0+ϵ]`$ of the boundary. The standard Dirac procedure now fails, since $`\{C_1,C_2\}`$ is no longer invertible, but the Bergmann-Komar variation extends trivially: we need merely add a suitable multiple of the constraints in the region $`[x_0,x_0+ϵ]`$. The Poisson brackets (2.10) then become

$`\{\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [\widehat{\xi }],\stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`\pm \stackrel{~}{H}^\pm [(\widehat{\xi }\widehat{\eta }^{}\widehat{\eta }\widehat{\xi }^{})]\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \gamma ^2}}{\displaystyle _{x_0}^{x_0+ϵ}}𝑑z\left[\xi ^{}\eta ^{\prime \prime }\eta ^{}\xi ^{\prime \prime }\right]`$
$`\{\stackrel{~}{H}^+[\widehat{\xi }],\stackrel{~}{H}^{}[\widehat{\eta }]\}^{}`$ $``$ $`0,`$ (3.3)
where the only change is that the region of integration in the central term is now restricted to a neighborhood of the boundary. The brackets (3.3) are still those of a pair of commuting Virasoro algebras with central charge (2.11), now defined on a strip. In particular, the central charge is independent of the distance $`ϵ`$: the constraints need be imposed only in an arbitrarily small neighborhood of the boundary.

It would be worthwhile to develop a slightly different approach, in which the constraints (2.1)–(2.2) are imposed as fall-off conditions near a boundary: that is, we require $`C_10`$ and $`C_20`$ near $`x=x_0`$, where “$`0`$” means “approaches zero sufficiently rapidly.” I will not work out details here, but if we choose a coordinate $`x`$ that is independent of phase space (and thus has vanishing Poisson brackets with all fields), it is clear that the Bergmann-Komar approach can be adapted to conditions $`C_i=O((xx_0)^n)`$ to determine an asymptotic algebra of constraints.

## 4. Future steps: black holes and dilaton gravity

We have now seen that even in a dynamical spacetime background, the central charge of a Liouville theory can be recovered through the imposition of suitable boundary conditions. This means that Solodukhin’s “near-horizon conformal field” approach to back hole entropy  is consistent after all.

The results above also suggest a new approach to determining $`L_0`$, the value of the Virasoro zero mode needed to apply Cardy’s formula to the counting of states. A starting point is eqn. (2.9), which tells us that when the near-horizon metric is nonconstant, the Virasoro generators must be shifted. For conformal coordinates near a black hole horizon,

$$\frac{\sigma ^{}}{\sigma }=\kappa =\frac{2\pi }{\beta },$$
(4.1)
where $`\kappa `$ is the surface gravity and $`\beta `$ is the inverse Hawking temperature. If we look at diffeomorphisms with period $`L`$,

$$\xi _n=\frac{L}{2\pi }e^{2\pi inx/L}$$
(4.2)
(the normalization is fixed by the condition that $`\{\xi _m,\xi _n\}=\xi _{m+n}`$), eqn. (2.9) yields

$$L_0=\frac{1}{2\gamma ^2}\left(\frac{L}{\beta }\right)^2,$$
(4.3)
and thus by Cardy’s formula,

$$S=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{cL_0}{6}}=\frac{2\pi }{\gamma ^2}\frac{L}{\beta }.$$
(4.4)
Now, in Solodukhin’s analysis of dimensionally reduced spherically symmetric gravity in $`d`$ dimensions***Note that Solodukhin’s normalization of the Liouville action differs from the one used here. ,

$$\frac{1}{\gamma ^2}=q^2\left(\frac{d3}{d2}\right)\frac{A_{\text{hor}}}{8G},$$
(4.5)
where $`q`$ is an undetermined parameter coming from a field redefinition. This gives the right general form for the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy. If we further demand that

$$c=\frac{3A_{\text{hor}}}{2\pi G},$$
(4.6)
as determined by the boundary analysis of Ref. , then (4.4) yields an entropy

$$S=\frac{A_{\text{hor}}}{4G}\frac{L}{\beta },$$
(4.7)
giving the correct Bekenstein-Hawking entropy for the natural choice of periodicity $`L=\beta `$.

This is clearly not a complete explanation of black hole entropy, since it requires a condition (4.6) that has not been obtained within the Liouville formalism, but it might be more than a mere coincidence. To investigate this issue further, it may be useful to look at a similar analysis of dilaton gravity with more explicitly geometric boundary conditions at the horizon. Work on this problem is in progress.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by Department of Energy grant DE-FG03-91ER40674.


text:
# Evasion and prediction IV Fragments of constant prediction

## Introduction

This work is about evasion and prediction, a combinatorial concept originally introduced by Blass when studying set–theoretic aspects of the Specker phenomenon in abelian group theory \[Bl1\]. The motivation for our investigation came from a (still open) question of Kamo, as well as from an argument in a proof by the first author. Let us explain this in some detail.

For our purposes, let $`n\omega `$ and call a function $`\pi :n^{<\omega }n`$ a predictor. Say $`\pi `$ $`k`$–constantly predicts a real $`xn^\omega `$ if for almost all intervals $`I`$ of length $`k`$, there is $`iI`$ such that $`x(i)=\pi (xi)`$. In case $`\pi `$ $`k`$–constantly predicts $`x`$ for some $`k`$, say that $`\pi `$ constantly predicts $`x`$. The constant prediction number $`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}`$, introduced by Kamo in \[Ka1\], is the smallest size of a set of predictors $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that every $`xn^\omega `$ is constantly predicted by some $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$. Kamo \[Ka1\] showed that $`𝔳_\omega ^{\mathrm{const}}`$ may be larger than all the $`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}`$ where $`n\omega `$. He asked

Question.  (Kamo \[Ka2\]) Is $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}`$ for all $`n\omega `$.

Some time ago, the first author answered another question of Kamo’s by showing that $`𝔟𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}`$ where $`𝔟`$ is the unbounding number \[Br\]. Now, the standard approach to such a result would have been to show that, given a model $`M`$ of $`ZFC`$ such that there is a dominating real $`f`$ over $`M`$, there must be a real which is not constantly predicted by any predictor from $`M`$. This, however, is far from being true. In fact, one needs a sequence of $`2^k1`$ models $`M_i`$ and dominating reals $`f_i`$ over $`M_i`$ belonging to $`M_{i+1}`$ to be able to construct a real which is not $`k`$–constantly predicted by any predictor from $`M_0`$, and this result is optimal (see \[Br\] for details). This means $`k`$–constant prediction gets easier in a strong sense the larger $`k`$ gets, and one can expect interesting results when investigating the cardinal invariants which can be distilled out of this phenomenon.

Accordingly, let us define the $`k`$–constant prediction number $`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ to be the size of the smallest set of predictors $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ such that every $`xn^\omega `$ is $`k`$–constantly predicted by some $`\pi \mathrm{\Pi }`$. Interestingly enough, Kamo’s question cited above has a positive answer when relativized to the new situation. Namely, we shall show in Section 1 that $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ for all $`k,n<\omega `$ (see 1.4). Moreover, for $`k<\mathrm{}`$, one may well have $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(\mathrm{})<𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ (Theorem 2.1). Any hope to use Theorem 1.4 as an intermediate step to answer Kamo’s question is dashed, however, by Theorem 2.2 which says that $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}`$ may be strictly smaller than the minimum of all $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$’s.

In Section 3, we dualize Theorem 2.1 to a consistency result about evasion numbers and establish a connection between those and Martin’s axiom for $`\sigma k`$–linked partial orders (see Theorem 3.7).

We keep our notation fairly standard. For basics concerning the cardinal invariants considered here, as well as the forcing techniques, see \[BJ\] and \[Bl2\].

The results in this paper were obtained in September 2000 during and shortly after the second author’s visit to Kobe. The results in Sections 1 and 2 are due to the second author. The remainder is the first author’s work.

## 1 The $`ZFC`$–results

Temporarily say that $`\pi :n^{<\omega }n`$ weakly $`k`$–constantly predicts $`xn^\omega `$ if for almost all $`m`$ there is $`i<k`$ such that $`\pi (xmk+i)=x(mk+i)`$. This notion is obviously weaker than $`k`$–constant prediction. It is often more convenient, however. We shall see soon that in terms of cardinal invariants the two notions are the same.

Put $`G=\{\overline{g}=g_i;i<k;g_i:n^k2\}`$.

###### Theorem 1.1

There are functions $`\overline{\pi }=\pi ^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k\psi _{\overline{\pi }}`$ (where $`\pi ^{\overline{g},j}:2^{<\omega }2`$ and $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}:n^{<\omega }n`$) and $`yy^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k`$ (where $`yn^\omega `$ and $`y^{\overline{g},j}2^\omega `$) such that if $`\pi ^{\overline{g},j}`$ weakly $`k`$–constantly predicts $`y^{\overline{g},j}`$ for all pairs $`(\overline{g},j)`$, then $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}`$ $`k`$–constantly predicts $`y`$.

*Proof.* Given $`yn^\omega `$, define $`y^{\overline{g},j}`$ by

$$y^{\overline{g},j}(mk+i)=g_i(y[mk+j,(m+1)k+j)).$$

Also, for $`\sigma n^{<\omega }`$, say $`|\sigma |=m_0k+j`$, define $`\sigma ^{\overline{g},j}`$ by

$$\sigma ^{\overline{g},j}(mk+i)=g_i(\sigma [mk+j,(m+1)k+j))$$

for all $`m<m_0`$. So $`|\sigma ^{\overline{g},j}|=m_0k`$.

Given $`\overline{\pi }=\pi ^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k`$, a sequence of predictors for the space $`2^\omega `$, and $`\sigma n^{<\omega }`$, say $`|\sigma |=mk+j`$, put

$$A_\sigma ^k=\{\tau \sigma ;|\tau |=|\sigma |+k\text{ and }\overline{g}i(\tau ^{\overline{g},j}(mk+i)=\pi ^{\overline{g},j}(\tau ^{\overline{g},j}mk+i))\}.$$

For $`i<k`$, define $`A_\sigma ^i=\{\tau \sigma ;\tau A_{\sigma |\sigma |k+i}^k\}`$. So, if $`\tau A_\sigma ^i`$, $`|\tau |=|\sigma |+i`$.

###### Claim 1.2

$`|A_\sigma ^k|<2^k`$ for all $`\sigma `$.

*Proof.* Assume that, for some $`\sigma `$, we have $`|A_\sigma ^k|2^k`$. List $`\{\tau _{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}<2^k\}A_\sigma ^k`$ and list $`2^k=\{\sigma _{\mathrm{}};\mathrm{}<2^k\}`$. Fix $`m`$ and $`j`$ such that $`|\sigma |=mk+j`$. Define $`g_i(\tau _{\mathrm{}}[mk+j,(m+1)k+j))=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}(i)`$ and consider $`\overline{g}=g_i;i<k`$. Then $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{\overline{g},j}[mk,(m+1)k)=\sigma _{\mathrm{}}`$. This is a contradiction to the definition of $`A_\sigma ^k`$ for it would mean $`\pi ^{\overline{g},j}`$ cannot predict correctly all $`\tau _{\mathrm{}}^{\overline{g},j}`$ somewhere in the interval $`[mk,(m+1)k)`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

For $`\sigma n^{<\omega }`$ define $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}(\sigma )`$ as follows. First let $`ik`$ be minimal such that $`|A_\sigma ^i|<2^i`$. Such $`i`$ exists by the claim. Then let $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}(\sigma )`$ be any $`\mathrm{}`$ such that $`A_{\sigma \widehat{}\mathrm{}}^{i1}`$ is of maximal size.

To see that this works, let $`yn^\omega `$. Let $`\pi ^{\overline{g},j}`$ be predictors such that for all $`\overline{g},j`$ and almost all $`m`$, there is $`i`$ such that $`y^{\overline{g},j}(mk+i)=\pi ^{\overline{g},j}(y^{\overline{g},j}mk+i)`$. Fix $`m_0`$ such that for all $`mm_0`$ and all $`\overline{g},j`$, there is $`i`$ such that $`y^{\overline{g},j}(mk+i)=\pi ^{\overline{g},j}(y^{\overline{g},j}mk+i)`$. Let $`mk+j\omega `$ with $`mm_0`$. Thus $`ymk+j+iA_{ymk+j}^i`$ for all $`ik`$. We need to find $`i<k`$ such that $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}(ymk+j+i)=y(mk+j+i)`$. To this end simply note that if $`i`$ is such that $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}(ymk+j+i)y(mk+j+i)`$, then, by definition of $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}`$,

$$|A_{ymk+j+i+1}^{\mathrm{}_i1}|\frac{|A_{ymk+j+i}^\mathrm{}_i|}{2}$$

where $`\mathrm{}_i`$ is minimal with $`|A_{ymk+j+i}^\mathrm{}_i|<2^\mathrm{}_i`$. This means in particular $`|A_{ymk+j+i+1}^{\mathrm{}_i1}|<2^{\mathrm{}_i1}`$. A fortiori, $`\mathrm{}_{i+1}\mathrm{}_i1`$. Since $`\mathrm{}_0k`$, this entails that if we had $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}(ymk+j+i)y(mk+j+i)`$ for all $`i<k`$, we would get $`\mathrm{}_i=0`$ for some $`ik`$. Thus $`|A_{ymk+j+i}^0|<2^0=1`$. So $`A_{ymk+j+i}^0=\mathrm{}`$. However $`ymk+j+iA_{ymk+j+i}^0`$, a contradiction. This completes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

Define the $`k`$–constant evasion number $`𝔢_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ to be the dual of $`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$, namely the size of the smallest set of functions $`Fn^\omega `$ such that for every predictor $`\pi `$ there is $`xF`$ which is no $`k`$–constantly predicted by $`\pi `$. Similarly, define the constant evasion number $`𝔢_n^{\mathrm{const}}`$.

Let $`\overline{𝔳}_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ denote the size of the least family $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ of predictors $`\pi :n^{<\omega }n`$ such that every $`yn^\omega `$ is weakly $`k`$–constantly predicted by a member of $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$. Dually, $`\overline{𝔢}_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ is the size of the least family $`Fn^\omega `$ such that no predictor $`\pi :n^{<\omega }n`$ weakly $`k`$–constantly predicts all members of $`F`$. The above theorem entails

###### Corollary 1.3

$`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)\overline{𝔳}_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$. Dually, $`𝔢_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)\overline{𝔢}_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$.

*Proof.* Let $`\mathrm{\Pi }`$ be a family of predictors in $`2^\omega `$ weakly $`k`$–constantly predicting all functions. Put $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _{\overline{\pi }};\overline{\pi }=\pi ^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k\mathrm{\Pi }^{<\omega }\}`$. By the theorem, every $`yn^\omega `$ is $`k`$–constantly predicted by a member of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. This shows $`𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)\overline{𝔳}_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$.

Next let $`Fn^\omega `$ be a family of functions such that no predictor $`k`$–constantly predicts all of $`F`$. Let $`Y=\{y^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k`$ and $`yF\}2^\omega `$. Assume $`\pi :2^{<\omega }2`$ weakly $`k`$–constantly predicts all members of $`Y`$. Then $`\psi _{\overline{\pi }}`$ $`k`$–constantly predicts all members of $`F`$, where we put $`\overline{\pi }=\pi ^{\overline{g},j};(\overline{g},j)G\times k`$ with $`\pi ^{\overline{g},j}=\pi `$ for all $`(\overline{g},j)G\times k`$, a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since the other inequalities are trivial, we get

###### Theorem 1.4

$`\overline{𝔳}_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ for all $`n`$. Dually, $`\overline{𝔢}_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔢_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$ for all $`n`$.

A fortiori, we also get $`\mathrm{min}\{𝔳_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}=\mathrm{min}\{𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}`$ and $`sup\{𝔢_n^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}=sup\{𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}`$ for all $`n`$.

## 2 Prediction and relatives of Sacks forcing

For $`2k<\omega `$, define $`k`$–ary Sacks forcing $`\mathrm{SS}^k`$ to be the set of all subtrees $`Tk^{<\omega }`$ such that below each node $`sT`$, there is $`ts`$ whose $`k`$ immediate successor nodes $`t\widehat{}i`$ ($`i<k`$) all belong to $`T`$. $`\mathrm{SS}^k`$ is ordered by inclusion. Obviously $`\mathrm{SS}^2`$ is nothing but standard Sacks forcing $`\mathrm{SS}`$.

Iterating $`\mathrm{SS}^k`$ $`\omega _2`$ many times with countable support over a model for $`CH`$ yields a model where $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(\mathrm{})`$ is large if $`2^{\mathrm{}}k`$ and small otherwise. This has been observed independently around the same time by Kada \[Kd2\]. However, one can get better consistency results by using large countable support products instead. The following is in the spirit of \[GSh\].

###### Theorem 2.1

Assume $`CH`$. Let $`2k_1<\mathrm{}<k_{n1}`$. Also let $`\kappa _i`$, $`in`$, be cardinals with $`\kappa _i^\omega =\kappa _i`$ and $`\kappa _n<\mathrm{}<\kappa _0`$. Then there is a generic extension satisfying $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=\mathrm{min}\{𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}=𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k_{n1}+1)=\kappa _n`$, $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k_i)=𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k_{i1}+1)=\kappa _i`$ for $`0<i<n`$ and $`𝔠=\kappa _0`$.

*Proof.* We force with the countable support product $`=_{\alpha <\kappa _0}_\alpha `$ where

* $`_\alpha `$ is Sacks forcing $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha `$ for $`\kappa _1\alpha <\kappa _0`$,
* $`_\alpha `$ is $`2^{k_i}`$–ary Sacks forcing $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha ^{2^{k_i}}`$ for $`0<i<n`$ and $`\kappa _{i+1}\alpha <\kappa _i`$, and
* $`_\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{SS}_\alpha ^\mathrm{}_\alpha `$ where $`|\{\alpha ;\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_\alpha \}|=\kappa _n`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$, for $`\alpha <\kappa _n`$.

By $`CH`$, $``$ preserves cardinals and cofinalities. $`𝔠=\kappa _0`$ is also immediate.

Note that if $`X2^\omega `$ and $`|X|<\kappa _i`$, then there is $`A\kappa _0`$ of size $`<\kappa _i`$ such that $`XV[G_A]`$, the generic extension by conditions with support contained in $`A`$, i.e. via the ordering $`_{\alpha A}_\alpha `$. So there is $`\alpha (\kappa _i\kappa _{i+1})A`$. Clearly the generic real added by $`_\alpha =\mathrm{SS}_\alpha ^{2^{k_i}}`$ is not $`k_i`$–constantly predicted by any predictor from $`V[G_A]`$. This shows $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k_i)\kappa _i`$. A similar argument shows $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}\kappa _n`$.

So it remains to see that $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k_{i_01}+1)\kappa _{i_0}`$ for $`0<i_0n`$. Put $`\mathrm{}=k_{i_01}+1`$. Let $`\dot{f}`$ be a $``$–name for a function in $`2^\omega `$. By a standard fusion argument we can recursively construct

* a strictly increasing sequence $`m_j`$, $`j\omega `$,
* $`A\kappa _0`$ countable,
* $`D_\alpha ;\alpha A`$, a partition of $`\omega `$ into countable sets,
* a condition $`p=p_\alpha ;\alpha A`$, and
* a tree $`T2^{<\omega }`$

such that

* if $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$, $`jD_\alpha `$, and $`\alpha \kappa _i\kappa _{i+1}`$ ($`i<n`$), then $`|\{\tau T2^{m_{j+1}};\sigma \tau \}|=2^{k_i}`$ where we put $`k_0=1`$,
* $`p\dot{f}[T]`$, and
* whenever $`qp`$ where $`q=q_\beta ;\beta B`$ with $`AB`$, $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$, and $`jD_\alpha `$ are such that $`q\sigma \dot{f}`$, then there are $`r_\alpha q_\alpha `$ and $`\tau T2^{m_{j+1}}`$ with $`\tau \sigma `$, such that $`r\tau \dot{f}`$ where $`r=r_\beta ;\beta B`$ with $`r_\beta =q_\beta `$ for $`\beta \alpha `$.

Now let $`G_{\kappa _{i_0}}`$ be $`_{\alpha <\kappa _{i_0}}_\alpha `$–generic with $`p\kappa _{i_0}G_{\kappa _{i_0}}`$. By (c) above, there is, in $`V[G_{\kappa _{i_0}}]`$, a tree $`ST`$ such that for all $`\alpha A\kappa _{i_0}`$, $`jD_\alpha `$ and $`\sigma S2^{m_j}`$, there is a unique $`\tau S2^{m_{j+1}}`$ extending $`\sigma `$, and such that $`\dot{f}`$ is forced to be a branch of $`S`$ by the remainder of the forcing below $`p`$. By (a), we also have that for all $`\alpha A\kappa _{i_0}`$, $`jD_\alpha `$ and $`\sigma S2^{m_j}`$, there are at most $`2^{k_{i_01}}`$ many $`\tau S2^{m_{j+1}}`$ extending $`\sigma `$. This means we can recursively construct a predictor $`\pi V[G_{\kappa _{i_0}}]`$ which $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predicts all branches of $`S`$. A fortiori, $`\dot{f}`$ is forced to be predicted by $`\pi `$ by the remainder of the forcing below $`p`$. On the other hand, $`V[G_{\kappa _{i_0}}]`$ satisfies $`𝔠=\kappa _{i_0}`$ so that there are a total number of $`\kappa _{i_0}`$ many predictors in $`V[G_{\kappa _{i_0}}]`$, and they $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predict all reals of the final extension. This completes the argument. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is easy to see that in models obtained by such product constructions, $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=\mathrm{min}\{𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}`$ must always hold. To distinguish between these two cardinals, we must turn once again to a countable support iteration.

###### Theorem 2.2

Assume $`CH`$. There is a generic extension satisfying $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=\mathrm{}_1<\mathrm{min}\{𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k\omega \}=𝔠=\mathrm{}_2`$.

*Proof.* Let $`k_\alpha ;\alpha <\omega _2`$ be a sequence of natural numbers $`2`$ in which each $`k`$ appears $`\omega _2`$ often and such that in each limit ordinal, the set of $`\alpha `$ with $`k_\alpha =2`$ is cofinal.

We perform a countable support iteration $`_\alpha ,\dot{}_\alpha ;\alpha <\omega _2`$ such that

$$_\alpha \mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\dot{}_\alpha =\dot{\mathrm{SS}}^{k_\alpha },\text{ that is }k_\alpha \text{–ary Sacks forcing}.\mathrm{"}$$

By $`CH`$, $`_{\omega _2}`$ preserves cardinals and cofinalities. As in the previous proof, we see $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=𝔠=\mathrm{}_2`$ for all $`k`$. We are left with showing that $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=\mathrm{}_1`$.

Let $`\dot{f}`$ be a $`_{\omega _2}`$–name for a function in $`2^\omega `$. Notice given any $`p_0_{\omega _2}`$, we can find $`pp_0`$ and $`\alpha <\omega _2`$ such that

$$p\dot{f}V[\dot{G}_\alpha ]\underset{\beta <\alpha }{}V[\dot{G}_\beta ].$$

First consider the case $`\alpha `$ is a successor ordinal, say $`\alpha =\beta +1`$. Let $`\mathrm{}`$ be such that $`2^{\mathrm{}}>k_\beta `$. The following is the main point.

###### Main Claim 2.3

There are $`qp`$ and a predictor $`\pi V`$ such that

$$q\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\pi \mathrm{}\text{–constantly predicts }\dot{f}.\mathrm{"}$$

*Proof.* We construct recursively

* $`A\alpha `$ countable,
* $`D_\gamma ;\gamma A`$, a partition of $`\omega `$ into countable sets,
* finite partial functions $`a_j:A\omega `$, $`j\omega `$,
* conditions $`p_j_\alpha `$, $`j\omega `$,
* a strictly increasing sequence $`m_j`$, $`j\omega `$,
* a tree $`T2^{<\omega }`$, and
* a predictor $`\pi :2^{<\omega }2`$

such that

* $`\beta A`$,
* $`a_0=\mathrm{}`$,
* if $`jD_\gamma `$, then $`\mathrm{dom}(a_{j+1})=\mathrm{dom}(a_j)\{\gamma \}`$; in case $`\gamma \mathrm{dom}(a_j)`$, we have $`a_{j+1}(\gamma )=0`$, otherwise $`a_{j+1}(\gamma )=a_j(\gamma )+1`$; $`a_{j+1}(\delta )=a_j(\delta )`$ for $`\delta \gamma `$,
* $`p_0=p`$,
* $`p_{j+1}p_j`$; furthermore for all $`\gamma \mathrm{dom}(a_{j+1})`$,
$`p_{j+1}\gamma _\gamma p_{j+1}(\gamma )_{a_{j+1}(\gamma )}p_j(\gamma )`$,
* $`_j\mathrm{dom}(p_j)=_j\mathrm{dom}(a_j)=A`$,
* if $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$, $`jD_\gamma `$, then $`|\{\tau T2^{m_{j+1}};\sigma \tau \}|=k_\gamma `$,
* for each $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$, there is $`p_j^\sigma p_j`$ which forces $`\sigma \dot{f}`$; furthermore $`p_j\dot{f}m_jT2^{m_j}`$, and
* $`\pi `$ $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predicts all branches of $`T`$.

Most of this is standard. There is, however, one trick involved, and we describe the construction. For $`j=0`$, there is nothing to do. So assume we arrived at stage $`j`$, and we are supposed to produce the required objects for $`j+1`$. This proceeds by recursion on $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$. Since the recursion is straightforward, we confine ourselves to describing a single step.

Fix $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$. Let $`\gamma `$ be such that $`jD_\gamma `$. Without loss $`\gamma <\beta `$ (the case $`\gamma =\beta `$ being easier). Consider $`p_j^\sigma `$. Step momentarily into $`V[G_\beta ]`$ with $`p_j^\sigma \beta G_\beta `$. Then $`p_j^\sigma (\beta )__\beta \sigma \dot{f}`$. Since $`\dot{f}`$ is forced not to be in $`V[G_\beta ]`$, we can find $`m^\sigma \omega `$, pairwise incompatible $`r_i^\sigma p_j^\sigma (\beta )`$, and distinct $`\tau _i^\sigma 2^{m^\sigma }`$ where $`i<k_\gamma `$ extending $`\sigma `$ such that $`r_i^\sigma __\beta \tau _i^\sigma \dot{f}`$. As $`_\beta `$ is $`k_\beta `$–ary Sacks forcing, we may do this in such a way that the predictor $`\pi `$ can be extended to $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predict all $`\tau _i^\sigma `$.

Back in $`V`$, by extending the condition $`p_j^\sigma `$ if necessary, we may without loss assume that it decides $`m^\sigma `$ and the $`\tau _i^\sigma `$. We therefore have the extension of $`\pi `$ which $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predicts all $`\tau _i^\sigma `$ already in the ground model $`V`$. We may also suppose that $`p_j^\sigma \gamma `$ decides the stem of $`p_j^\sigma (\gamma )`$, say $`p_j^\sigma \gamma _\gamma \mathrm{stem}(p_j^\sigma (\gamma ))=t`$. For $`i<k_\gamma `$ define $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }`$ such that

* $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }\gamma =p_j^\sigma \gamma `$, $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }[\gamma +1,\beta )=p_j^\sigma [\gamma +1,\beta )`$,
* $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }\gamma _\gamma p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }(\gamma )=(p_j^\sigma (\gamma ))_{t\widehat{}i}`$,
* $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }\beta _\beta p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }(\beta )=\dot{r}_i^\sigma `$.

Doing this (in a recursive construction) for all $`\sigma T2^{m_j}`$ and increasing $`m^\sigma `$ if necessary, we may assume there is $`m_{j+1}`$ with $`m_{j+1}=m^\sigma `$ for all $`\sigma `$. Finally $`p_{j+1}`$ is the least upper bound of all the $`p_{j+1}^{\tau _i^\sigma }`$.

This completes the construction. By (c), (e), and (f), the sequence of $`p_j`$’s has a lower bound $`q_\alpha `$. By (d), $`qp`$. By (h), $`q\dot{f}[T]`$ which means that (i) entails $`q\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\dot{f}`$ is $`\mathrm{}`$–constantly predicted by $`\pi `$,” as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now let $`\alpha `$ be a limit ordinal. Using a similar argument and the fact that below $`\alpha `$, $`\dot{}_\beta `$ is cofinally often Sacks forcing, we see

###### Claim 2.4

There are $`qp`$ and a predictor $`\pi V`$ such that

$$q\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\pi \mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}\hspace{0.33em}2}\text{–constantly predicts }\dot{f}.\mathrm{"}$$

This completes the proof of the theorem. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 Evasion and fragments of $`MA(\sigma `$–linked)

Let $`k2`$. Recall that a partial order $``$ is said to be $`\sigma k`$–linked if it can be written as a countable union of sets $`P_n`$ such that each $`P_n`$ is $`k`$–linked, that is, any $`k`$ many elements from $`P_n`$ have a common extension. Clearly every $`\sigma `$–centered forcing is $`\sigma k`$–linked for all $`k`$, and a $`\sigma k`$–linked p.o. is also $`\sigma (k1)`$–linked. Random forcing is an example of a p.o. which is $`\sigma k`$–linked for all $`k`$, yet not $`\sigma `$–centered. A p.o. with the former property shall be called $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$–linked henceforth. We shall deal with p.o.’s which arise naturally in connection with constant prediction and which are $`\sigma (k1)`$–linked but not $`\sigma k`$–linked for some $`k`$. Let $`𝔪(\sigma k`$–linked) denote the least cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that for some $`\sigma k`$–linked p.o. $``$, Martin’s axiom $`MA_\kappa `$ fails for $``$.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $``$ be $`\sigma 2^k`$–linked, and assume $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is a $``$–name for a function $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$. Then there is a countable set $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of functions $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$ such that whenever $`g2^\omega `$ is such that for all $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ there are infinitely many $`i`$ with $`\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)`$, then

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\text{there are infinitely many }i\text{ with }\dot{\varphi }(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k).\mathrm{"}$$

*Proof.* Assume $`=_nP_n`$ where each $`P_n`$ is $`2^k`$–linked. Define $`\psi _n:_i2^{ik}2^k`$ such that, for each $`\sigma 2^{ik}`$, $`\psi _n(\sigma )`$ is a $`\tau `$ such that no $`pP_n`$ forces $`\dot{\varphi }(\sigma )\tau `$. (Such a $`\tau `$ clearly exists. For otherwise, for each $`\tau 2^k`$ we could find $`p_\tau P_n`$ forcing $`\dot{\varphi }(\sigma )\tau `$. Since $`P_n`$ is $`2^k`$–linked, the $`p_\tau `$ would have a common extension which would force $`\dot{\varphi }(\sigma )2^k`$, a contradiction.) Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\{\psi _n;n\omega \}`$.

Now choose $`g2^\omega `$ such that for all $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }`$ there are infinitely many $`i`$ with $`\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)`$. Fix $`i_0`$ and $`p`$. There is $`n`$ such that $`pP_n`$. We can find $`ii_0`$ such that $`\psi _n(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)`$. By definition of $`\psi _n`$, there is $`qp`$ such that $`q\dot{\varphi }(gik)=\psi _n(gik)`$. Thus $`q\dot{\varphi }(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)`$, as required. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`_n,\dot{}_n;n\omega `$ be a finite support iteration, and assume $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is a $`_\omega `$–name for a function $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$. Also assume for each $`n`$ and each $`_n`$–name $`\dot{\varphi }_n`$ for a function $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$, there is a countable set $`\mathrm{\Psi }_n`$ of functions $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$ such that $`g2^\omega `$, if $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }_n^{\mathrm{}}i(\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k))`$, then

$$_n\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}^{\mathrm{}}i(\dot{\varphi }_n(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)).\mathrm{"}$$

Then there is a countable set $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of functions $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$ such that $`g2^\omega `$, if $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}i(\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k))`$, then

$$_\omega \mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}^{\mathrm{}}i(\dot{\varphi }(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)).\mathrm{"}$$

*Proof.* This is a standard argument which we leave to the reader. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.3

Let $``$ be a p.o. of size $`\kappa `$, and assume $`\dot{\varphi }`$ is a $``$–name for a function $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$. Then there is a set $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of size $`\kappa `$ of functions $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$ such that $`g2^\omega `$, if $`\psi \mathrm{\Psi }^{\mathrm{}}i(\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k))`$, then

$$_\omega \mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}^{\mathrm{}}i(\dot{\varphi }(gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k)).\mathrm{"}$$

*Proof.* This is well–known and trivial. $`\mathrm{}`$

Using the first two of these three lemmata we see that if we iterate $`\sigma 2^k`$–linked forcing over a model $`V`$ containing a family $`2^\omega `$ such that

* for all countable sets $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ of functions $`_i2^{ik}2^k`$ there is $`g`$ with $`^{\mathrm{}}i(\psi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k))`$,

then $``$ still satisfies $`()`$ in the final extension. We also have

###### Lemma 3.4

If $``$ satisfies $`()`$, then $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)||`$.

*Proof.* Simply note $``$ is a witness for $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$. For given a predictor $`\pi :2^{<\omega }2`$, define $`\varphi :_i2^{ik}2^k`$ by $`\varphi (\sigma )=`$ the unique $`\tau 2^k`$ such that $`\pi `$ predicts $`\sigma \widehat{}\tau `$ incorrectly on the whole interval $`[ik,(i+1)k)`$ where $`|\sigma |=ik`$. If $`g`$ is such that $`^{\mathrm{}}i(\varphi (gik)=g[ik,(i+1)k))`$, then $`\pi `$ does not $`k`$–constantly predict $`g`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`2k`$. The partial order $`^k`$ for adjoining a generic predictor $`k`$–constantly predicting all ground model reals is defined as follows. Conditions are triples $`(\mathrm{},\sigma ,F)`$ such that $`\mathrm{}\omega `$, $`\sigma :2^{<\omega }2`$ is a finite partial function, and $`F2^\omega `$ is finite, and such that the following requirements are met:

* $`\mathrm{dom}(\sigma )=2^{\mathrm{}}`$,
* $`f\mathrm{}g\mathrm{}`$ for all $`fg`$ belonging to $`F`$,
* $`\sigma (f\mathrm{})=f(\mathrm{})`$ for all $`fF`$.

The order is given by: $`(m,\tau ,G)(\mathrm{},\sigma ,F)`$ if and only if $`m\mathrm{}`$, $`\tau \sigma `$, $`GF`$, and for all $`fF`$ and all intervals $`I(\mathrm{},m)`$ of length $`k`$ there is $`iI`$ with $`\tau (fi)=f(i)`$. This is a variation of a p.o. originally introduced in \[Br\]. It has been considered as well by Kada \[Kd1\], who also obtained the following lemma.

###### Lemma 3.5

$`^k`$ is $`\sigma (2^k1)`$–linked.

*Proof.* Simply adapt the argument from \[Br, Lemma 3.2\], or see \[Kd1, Proposition 3.3\]. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 3.6

(Kada \[Kd1, Corollary 3.5\]) $`𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)`$.

We are ready to prove a result which is dual to Theorem 2.1.

###### Theorem 3.7

Let $`\kappa _k;\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}k\omega `$ be a sequence of uncountable regular cardinals with $`\kappa _k\kappa _{k+1}`$. Also assume $`\lambda =\lambda ^{<\lambda }`$ is above the $`\kappa _k`$. Then there is a generic extension satisfying $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=\kappa _k`$ for all $`k`$ and $`𝔠=\lambda `$. We may also get $`𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})=\kappa _k`$ for all $`k`$.

*Proof.* Let $`_\alpha ,\dot{}_\alpha ;\alpha <\lambda `$ be a finite support iteration of ccc forcing such that each factor $`\dot{}_\alpha `$ is forced to be a $`\sigma (2^k1)`$–linked forcing notion of size less than $`\kappa _k`$ for some $`k2`$. Also guarantee we take care of all such forcing notions by a book–keeping argument. Then $`𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})\kappa _k`$ is straightforward. In view of Corollary 3.6 it suffices to prove $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)\kappa _k`$ for all $`k`$. So fix $`k`$. Note that in stage $`\kappa _k`$ of the iteration we adjoined a family $``$ of size $`\kappa _k`$ satisfying $`()`$ above with countable replaced by less than $`\kappa _k`$. Show by induction on the remainder of the iteration that $``$ continues to satisfy this version of $`()`$. The limit step is taken care of by Lemma 3.2. For the successor step, in case $`\dot{}_\alpha `$ is $`\sigma 2^{\mathrm{}}`$–linked for some $`\mathrm{}k`$, use Lemma 3.1, and in case it is not $`\sigma 2^k`$–linked (and thus of size less than $`\kappa _k`$), use Lemma 3.3. By Lemma 3.4, $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)\kappa _k`$ follows. $`\mathrm{}`$

By somewhat changing the above proof, we can dualize Kamo’s $`CON(𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}>\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}(𝒩))`$ (and thus answer a question of his, see \[Ka2\]), and reprove his result as well.

###### Theorem 3.8

* $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}<\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝒩)`$ is consistent; in fact, given $`\kappa <\lambda =\lambda ^{<\kappa }`$ regular uncountable, there is a p.o. $``$ forcing $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}=\kappa `$ and $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝒩)=𝔠=\lambda `$.
* (Kamo, \[Ka1\]) $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}>\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}(𝒩)`$ is consistent; in fact, given $`\kappa `$ regular uncountable and $`\lambda =\lambda ^\omega >\kappa `$, there is a p.o. $``$ forcing $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=𝔠=\lambda `$ and $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}(𝒩)=\kappa `$.

*Proof.* (a) Let $`_\alpha ,\dot{}_\alpha ;\alpha <\lambda `$ be a finite support iteration of ccc forcing such that

* for even $`\alpha `$, $`_\alpha \dot{}_\alpha `$ is amoeba forcing,
* for odd $`\alpha `$, $`_\alpha \dot{}_\alpha `$ is a subforcing of some $`^k`$ of size less than $`\kappa `$.

Guarantee that we go through all such subforcings by a book–keeping argument. Then $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}\kappa `$ is straightforward, as is $`\mathrm{𝖺𝖽𝖽}(𝒩)=𝔠=\lambda `$. Now note that amoeba forcing is $`\sigma \mathrm{}`$–linked (like random forcing). Therefore we can apply Lemmata 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 for all $`k`$ simultaneously, and see that there is a family $``$ of size $`\kappa `$ which satisfies the appropriate modified version of $`()`$ (such a family is adjoined after the first $`\kappa `$ stages of the iteration).

(b) First add $`\lambda `$ many Cohen reals. Then make a $`\kappa `$–stage finite support iteration of amoeba forcing. Again, $`\mathrm{𝖼𝗈𝖿}(𝒩)=\kappa `$ is clear. $`𝔳_2^{\mathrm{const}}=𝔠=\lambda `$ follows from Lemmata 3.1 and 3.2 using standard arguments. $`\mathrm{}`$

One can even strengthen Theorem 3.7 in the following way. Say a p.o. $``$ satisfies property $`K_k`$ if for all uncountable $`X`$ there is $`YX`$ uncountable such that any $`k`$ many elements from $`Y`$ have a common extension. Property $`K_k`$ is a weaker relative of $`\sigma k`$–linkedness. Let $`𝔪(K_k)`$ denote the least cardinal $`\kappa `$ such that $`MA_\kappa `$ fails for property $`K_k`$ p.o.’s.

###### Lemma 3.9

Assume $`CH`$. $`^k`$ does not have property $`K_{2^k}`$. In fact no property $`K_{2^k}`$ p.o. adds a predictor which $`k`$–constantly predicts all ground model reals.

*Proof.* List all predictors as $`\{\pi _\alpha ;\alpha <\omega _1\}`$. Choose reals $`f_\alpha 2^\omega `$ such that $`\pi _\alpha `$ does not $`k`$–constantly predict $`f_\beta `$ for $`\beta \alpha `$. Let $`X=\{f_\alpha ;\alpha <\omega _1\}`$.

Let $``$ be property $`K_{2^k}`$. Also let $`\dot{\pi }`$ be a $``$–name for a predictor. Assume there are conditions $`p_\alpha `$ such that $`p_\alpha \mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}\dot{\pi }k`$–constantly predicts $`f_\alpha `$ from $`m_\alpha `$ onwards.” Without loss $`m_\alpha =m`$ for all $`\alpha `$, and any $`2^k`$ many $`p_\alpha `$ have a common extension. Let $`T2^{<\omega }`$ be the tree of initial segments of members of $`X`$. Given $`\sigma T`$ with $`|\sigma |m`$, let $`A_\sigma ^k=\{\tau T;\sigma \tau `$ and $`|\tau |=|\sigma |+k\}`$. Note that if $`|A_\sigma ^k|<2^k`$ for all such $`\sigma `$, then we could construct a predictor $`\pi `$ $`k`$–constantly predicting all of $`X`$ past $`m`$ as in the proof of Theorem 1.1. So there is $`\sigma T`$ with $`|A_\sigma ^k|=2^k`$. Find $`\alpha _0,\mathrm{},\alpha _{2^k1}`$ such that $`A_\sigma ^k=\{f_{\alpha _i}|\sigma |+k;i<2^k\}`$ and notice that a common extension of the $`p_{\alpha _i}`$ forces a contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

Note that some assumption is necessary for the above result for $`MA_\mathrm{}_1`$ implies all p.o.’s have property $`K_k`$ for all $`k`$. We now get

###### Theorem 3.10

Assume $`CH`$. Let $`2k<\omega `$. Then there is a generic extension satisfying $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)=\mathrm{}_1`$ and $`𝔪(K_{2^k})=\mathrm{}_2`$.

*Proof.* Use the lemma and the folklore fact that the iteration of property $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$ p.o.’s is property $`K_{\mathrm{}}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Since we saw in Corollary 3.6 that $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})`$. one may ask, on the other hand, whether $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k)>𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})`$ is consistent. This, however, is easy, for the forcing $`^k`$ is Suslin ccc \[BJ\] while it is well–known that iterating Suslin ccc forcing keeps numbers like $`𝔪(\sigma (2^k1)\mathrm{linked})`$ small (it even keeps the splitting number $`𝔰`$ small).

We close this section with a few questions. We have no dual result for Theorem 2.2 so far.

###### Question 3.11

Is $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}>sup\{𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}(k);k<\omega \}`$ consistent?

###### Question 3.12

Can $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}`$ have countable cofinality?

By Theorem 3.7, either of these two questions must have a positive answer. In fact, in view of the proof of Theorem 3.8, $`𝔢_2^{\mathrm{const}}`$ must be

* either $`\mathrm{max}\{\kappa _k;k\omega \}`$ (in case the set has a max),
* or $`sup\{\kappa _k;k\omega \}`$ or its successor (in case the set has no max)

in the model of Theorem 3.7.