text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The construction of exact solutions of supergravity theories remains a subject of current interest. In part this is spurred by interest in D-branes : since D0-branes are massive superparticles, the development of exact solutions of supergravity theories that contain a superparticle provides a model system for studying their behaviour. More generally, a study of exact supergravity solutions yields some insight into the behaviour of supergravity theories beyond their low-energy limit, although the physical interpretation of the solutions awaits further clarification. However the technical issues are formidable and very few exact non-trivial classical solutions to supergravity theories are known (a list is given in ref. ). Moreover exact superspace supergravity solutions were non-existent until recently.

Progress was made along these lines by considering a version of two-dimensional $`(1,1)`$ dilaton supergravity . The first step was taken by constructing a theory of a massive superparticle coupled to supergravity in a manner that ensured the super stress-energy of the particle generated the superspace curvature, and the superspace curvature acted back on the superparticle. Exact classical superspace solutions for the superparticle worldline and the supergravity fields were obtained. However the resultant superspace consisted of two flat patches joined along the worldline. An extension of this solution for superspaces of constant curvature was made by adding a cosmological constant to the theory, which is necessarily negative because of supersymmetry . This yielded the first solutions describing a supersymmetric cosmological black hole, which is a supersymmetric version of an anti de Sitter black hole in two spacetime dimensions .

Even in two dimensions finding non-trivial solutions (those that cannot by infinitesimal local supersymmetry transformations be reduced to purely bosonic solutions) to classical supergravity theories is a difficult task. The (non)-triviality of a solution can be determined by the method given in  , which requires solving a differential equation for an appropriately well-behaved infinitesimal spinor. The virtue of superspace methods is that this problem is avoided  because a genuine superspace supergravity solution – one which satisfies the constraints – has nonzero torsion beyond that of flat superspace. The torsion is a supercovariant quantity, and as such its value remains unchanged under a gauge transformation. Consequently any exact superspace solution with non-zero torsion must necessarily be non-trivial in this sense.

Here we extend these methods to include $`(1,1)`$ supergravity coupled to a super-Liouville field. For the supergravity theory we employ a supersymmetric generalization of the $`(1+1)`$ dimensional “$`R=T`$” theory, in which the evolution of the supergravitational fields are determined only bythe supermatter stress-energy (and vice versa). This stress-energy is taken to be that of a Liouville field non-minimally coupled to supergravity. The superdilaton field classically decouples from the evolution of the supergravity/super-Liouville system, resulting in a two-dimensional theory that is most closely aligned with $`(3+1)`$ dimensional supergravity.

We obtain the first super black hole solutions in superspace which have non-constant curvature. These are generalizations of those found for a purely bosonic version of this system, in which a Liouville field was coupled to the bosonic “$`R=T`$” theory . The solution space is potentially just as rich as this case, and we investigate its properties. For the full superspace solution, we find a broad set of exact solutions characterized by three parameters. We then consider the possibility that a gravitini condensate forms. We find that, under this circumstance, nearly all of the exact solutions we obtain develop naked singularities, although there does exist a single class of new super black hole solutions which have reasonable properties.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In section 2, we review the bosonic Liouville action and its solution. We then give the supersymmetric Liouville action and explain its connection with the bosonic case. In section 3, we solve the field equations arising from the action and examine some features of the solution. In section 4, we examine the how the causal structure of the bosonic limit differs if a gravitini condensate forms. Finally, in section 5, we look at the energetics of these condensate solutions.

## 2 The Supersymmetric action

We begin by reviewing the solution for the bosonic Liouville field. The method differs slightly from that in  since we choose conformal coordinates before the variational principle is applied.

In conformal coordinates, the metric takes the form $`g_{\text{   }\text{  }}=g_{\text{  }\text{   }}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\rho }`$, $`g_{\text{   }\text{   }}=g_{\text{  }\text{  }}=0`$, so that

$$ds^2=e^{2\rho }dx^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}dx^{\text{  }}$$
(1)
where $`\sqrt{g}=\frac{1}{2}e^{2\rho }`$, $`g^{\text{   }\text{  }}=g^{\text{  }\text{   }}=2e^{2\rho }`$ and $`g^{\text{   }\text{   }}=g^{\text{  }\text{  }}=0`$. From this it is straightforward to derive

$$R=8e^{2\rho }_{\text{}}_{\text{}}\rho $$
(2)
$$(\varphi )^2=g^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi =4e^{2\rho }_{\text{}}\varphi _{\text{}}\varphi $$
(3)
Writing the gravitational coupling as $`\kappa =4\pi G`$, the action for a Liouville field minimally coupled to $`(1+1)`$ dimensional gravity is

$$I=d^2x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(\frac{1}{2}(\psi )^2+\psi R\right)+b(\varphi )^2+\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2a\varphi }+\gamma \varphi R\right)$$
(4)
Thus in conformal coordinates:

$$I=d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\psi _{\text{  }}\psi 4\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{\text{  }}\rho \right)+2b_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\varphi _{\text{  }}\varphi +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}4\gamma \varphi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{\text{  }}\rho \right)$$
(5)
The field equations are

$$4b_{\text{}}_{\text{}}\varphi +a\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}+4\gamma _{\text{}}_{\text{}}\rho =0$$
(6)
$$\frac{2}{\kappa }_{\text{}}_{\text{}}\psi \mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}+4\gamma _{\text{}}_{\text{}}\varphi =0$$
(7)
$$2_{\text{}}_{\text{}}\psi +4_{\text{}}_{\text{}}\rho =0$$
(8)
Combining these equations we find:

$$_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}_{\text{  }}(\rho a\varphi )=\frac{\kappa b+2a\gamma \kappa a^2}{4(\kappa \gamma ^2+b)}\mathrm{\Lambda }e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}$$
(9)
which agrees with (17) in , except for a difference in sign which is due to a different choice of conformal coordinates.

For the supersymmetric version, we start the following action for the supergravity theory considered in . Choosing the same normalization coefficients, the action for a super-Liouville field non-minimally coupled to supergravity is

$$I=4d^2xd^2\theta E^1\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(_+\mathrm{\Psi }_{}\mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Psi }R\right)+2b_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }+Le^{2a\mathrm{\Phi }}+\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }R\right)$$
(10)
where the light-cone coordinates are $`(\theta ^+,\theta ^{})`$ and $`(x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }},x^{\text{ }\text{ }})=\frac{1}{2}\left(x^1\pm x^0\right)`$. Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the super-Liouville field, $`R`$ is the scalar supercurvature, $`E=`$ sdet$`\left[E_A^M\right]`$, the superdeterminant of the vielbein, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is the dilaton superfield. The supercovariant derivatives are $`_\pm `$. Using $`(D_+,D_{})=(_++i\theta ^+_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }},_{}+i\theta ^{}_{\text{  }})`$, we express them in conformal gauge as

$`_+`$ $`=e^S(D_++2(D_+S)M)`$ (11)
$`_{}`$ $`=e^S(D_{}2(D_{}S)M)`$ (12)
$`R`$ $`=4e^S(D_{}D_+S)`$ (13)
$`E`$ $`=e^{2S}`$ (14)
They satisfy the $`(1,1)`$ supergravity constraints ,

$`\{_+,_+\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i_{},\text{ }\{_{},_{}\}=2i_{}`$ (15)
$`\{_+,_{}\}`$ $`=`$ $`RM\text{ }T_+^A=T_{}^A`$ (16)
where we have also given the relevant expressions for the vielbein and the curvature.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ are scalars, (10) becomes:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle }d^2xd^2\theta ({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}(D_+\mathrm{\Psi }D_{}\mathrm{\Psi }+4\mathrm{\Psi }D_{}D_+S)+2bD_+\mathrm{\Phi }D_{}\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (17)
$`+Le^{2(a\mathrm{\Phi }S)}+\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }D_{}D_+S)`$
We next consider the relationship between this action and its bosonic counterpart in (5). Setting the fermionic components of the superfields to zero, we write $`S=\frac{1}{2}\rho +\sigma \theta ^+\theta ^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{2}\varphi +B\theta ^+\theta ^{}i`$, and $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{1}{2}\psi +A\theta ^+\theta ^{}`$. Substituting this into (17) , we find:

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle }d^2x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_{}\psi _{\text{}}\psi A^2\psi _{}_{\text{}}\rho 4A\sigma )`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`(2\sigma 2aB)Le^{\rho a\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}_{}\varphi _{\text{}}\varphi 2bB^24\gamma \sigma B\gamma \varphi _{}_{\text{}}\rho )`$
where $`d^2\theta \theta ^+\theta ^{}=1`$. Varying with respect to the auxiliary fields $`A`$ and $`B`$ gives:

$`A`$ $`=`$ $`2\sigma `$ (19)
$`B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{aLe^{\rho a\varphi }+2\gamma \sigma }{2b}}`$ (20)
thereby yielding

$`I`$ $`=`$ $`4{\displaystyle }d^2x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_{}\psi _{\text{}}\psi +4\sigma ^2\psi _{}_{\text{}}\rho )+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{2}}_{}\varphi _{\text{}}\varphi `$
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{a\gamma +b}{b}}\right)2\sigma Le^{\rho a\varphi }+{\displaystyle \frac{L^2a^2}{2b}}e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}+{\displaystyle \frac{2\gamma ^2\sigma ^2}{b}}\gamma \varphi _{}_{\text{}}\rho `$
upon insertion of (19,20) into (18). Finally, varying with respect to the auxiliary field $`\sigma `$ gives

$$\sigma =\frac{\kappa L(a\gamma +b)e^{\rho a\varphi }}{b+\gamma ^2\kappa }$$

which gives us

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I& =4d^2x(\frac{1}{2\kappa }(\frac{1}{4}_{}\psi _{\text{}}\psi \psi _{}_{\text{}}\rho )+\frac{b}{2}_{}\varphi _{\text{}}\varphi \hfill \\ & +\frac{a^22a\gamma \kappa b\kappa }{2(b+\gamma ^2\kappa )}L^2e^{2(\rho a\varphi )}\gamma \varphi _{}_{\text{}}\rho )\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
as the bosonic limit of the action (10).

Comparing with (5), we see that provided

$$4\frac{a^22a\gamma \kappa b\kappa }{b+\gamma ^2\kappa }L^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(22)
we recover the bosonic action of . Note that even in the minimally coupled case ($`\gamma =0`$) the sign of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ depends upon the magnitude $`a`$ of the exponential coupling of the Liouville field. If $`a=\gamma =0`$, then the Liouville field decouples and (22) becomes the familiar result that supersymmetry produces only anti de Sitter space .

## 3 Solutions to the Field Equations

Varying the action (17) with respect to each of the three superfields gives the field equations

$$2D_{}D_+\mathrm{\Psi }+4D_{}D_+S=0$$
(23)
$$2bD_{}D_+\mathrm{\Phi }+aLe^{2(a\mathrm{\Phi }S)}+2\gamma D_{}D_+S=0$$
(24)
$$\frac{1}{2\kappa }4D_{}D_+\mathrm{\Psi }2Le^{2(a\mathrm{\Phi }S)}+4\gamma D_{}D_+\mathrm{\Phi }=0$$
(25)
where we have used the fact that:

$$d^2xd^2\theta D_{}XD_+Y=d^2xd^2\theta XD_{}D_+Y=d^2xd^2\theta D_{}D_+XY$$

for commuting superfields $`X`$, $`Y`$. Substituting (23) into (25) and combining the resulting equation with (24) we find that

$$D_{}D_+U=\alpha e^{2U}$$
(26)
$$\text{where}U=Sa\mathrm{\Phi }\text{and}\alpha =\frac{a^22a\gamma \kappa b\kappa }{2(b+\gamma ^2\kappa )}L$$
(27)
Now (26) is the super-Liouville equation and its general solution was given in . We have:

$$U=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{iD_+F_+D_{}F_{}}{2\alpha (F_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}F_{\text{  }}iF_+F_{})}\right)$$
(28)
where we have the constraints: $`D_{}F_+=D_+F_{}=0`$ and $`D_+F_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=iF_+D_+F_+`$, $`D_{}F_{\text{  }}=iF_{}D_{}F_{}`$. These equations are solved by:

$`F_{}`$ $`=f_{}\pm i\theta ^+\lambda ^+\sqrt{_{}f_{}}`$ (29)
$`F_+`$ $`=\pm \sqrt{_{}f_{}}\left(1+\lambda ^+{\displaystyle \frac{i_{}\lambda ^+}{2_{}f_{}}}\right)\theta ^++\lambda ^+`$ (30)
$`F_{\text{}}`$ $`=f_{\text{}}\pm i\theta ^{}\lambda ^{}\sqrt{_{\text{}}f_{\text{}}}`$ (31)
$`F_{}`$ $`=\pm \sqrt{_{\text{}}f_{\text{}}}\left(1+\lambda ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i_{\text{}}\lambda ^{}}{2_{\text{}}f_{\text{}}}}\right)\theta ^{}+\lambda ^{}`$ (32)
where $`f_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=f_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}(x_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }})`$ and $`f_{\text{  }}=f_{\text{  }}(x_{\text{  }})`$ are commuting and $`\lambda _+=\lambda _+(x_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }})`$ and $`\lambda _{}=\lambda _{}(x_{\text{  }})`$ are anti-commuting.

From (23), (24) and (25), we also find that:

$$D_{}D_+\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{a\gamma \kappa }{b\kappa +a\gamma \kappa }D_{}D_+S$$
(33)
and so

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{a\gamma \kappa }{b\kappa +a\gamma \kappa }S+\frac{1}{a}H$$
(34)
where $`H`$ is the general solution of the homogeneous equation, $`D_{}D_+H=0`$. Its superfield expansion is

$$H=H_++H_{}=h_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+\nu ^+\theta ^++h_{\text{  }}+\nu ^{}\theta ^{}$$
(35)
where $`H_\pm `$ are arbitrary functions of the superpspace coordinates, with $`h_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=h_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}(x_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }})`$ and $`h_{\text{  }}=h_{\text{  }}(x_{\text{  }})`$ are commuting and $`\nu _+=\nu _+(x_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }})`$ and $`\nu _{}=\nu _{}(x_{\text{  }})`$ are anti-commuting.

Combining (27) and (34), we find:

$$Sa\left(\frac{a\gamma \kappa }{b\kappa +a\gamma \kappa }S+\frac{1}{a}H\right)=U$$
(36)
and hence that

$$S=\beta U+H\text{where}\beta =\frac{\kappa (b+a\gamma )}{b\kappa +2a\gamma \kappa a^2}$$
(37)
Combining (37) with (35) and (28) gives us the complete general solution for $`S`$ as desired.

We now make a change of variables to put the solution for $`S`$ into a form which matches the solutions of . We choose $`H=0`$ to simplify our solution and let $`G_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=\sigma ^2/F_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$, where $`\sigma `$ is a constant which we will set later. Now if we write $`G_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}+i\theta ^+\mu ^+\sqrt{_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}`$, then equating components gives $`g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=\sigma ^2/f_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$ and $`\mu ^+=\lambda ^+\sigma /f_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$. We also set $`G_+=\sqrt{_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\left(1+\mu ^+\frac{i_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\mu ^+}{2_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right)\theta ^++\mu ^+`$ for convenience.

Substituting these component expressions into (37) gives:

$$S=\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{i\left(D_+G_+i\theta ^+\mu ^+\frac{_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}{g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}\right)D_{}F_{}}{2\alpha \left(\sigma i\theta ^+\mu ^+\frac{\sigma \sqrt{_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}}{g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}+f_{\text{  }}\frac{g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}{\sigma }+i\theta ^{}\lambda ^{}\frac{g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}\sqrt{_{\text{ }\text{ }}f_{\text{ }\text{ }}}}{\sigma }iG_+F_{}\right)}\right)$$
(38)
To make things a bit simpler, we choose coordinates so that $`D_+G_+=1=iD_{}F_{}`$. This gives us $`g_{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}=x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}`$, $`\mu ^+=\lambda _0^+`$ and $`f_{\text{  }}=x^{\text{  }}`$, and $`\lambda ^{}=i\lambda _0^{}`$, where $`\lambda _0^\pm `$ are anticommuting constants. The $`i`$ is taken for convenience. Substituting into (38) and performing the division, produces

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& =\frac{\beta }{2}\mathrm{ln}(2\alpha (\sigma \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }i(\theta ^+\lambda _0^+\frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^{}\frac{x^{}}{\sigma })\hfill \\ & +(\theta ^++\lambda _0^+)(\theta ^{}+\lambda _0^{})\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}\frac{1}{\sigma }))\hfill \end{array}$$
(39)
which yields the metric and gravitini fields for the curved superspace induced by a super-Liouville field.

We close this section by expanding $`e^S`$ to determine the functional form of the metric and gravitino fields. Following the procedure given in ,  we choose a Wess-Zumino gauge such that the superconformal gauge ($`E_\pm =e^SD_\pm `$) is compatible with the ordinary $`x`$-space conformal gauge. This gives

$$e^S=ϵ^{1/4}+\frac{1}{2}i\left(\theta ^+\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^+\theta ^{}\psi _{\text{  }}^{}\right)+\frac{1}{4}\theta ^+\theta ^{}ϵ^{1/4}\left(iA+\psi _{\text{  }}^{}\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^+\right)$$
(40)
where $`ϵ=det(ϵ_a^m)=det(e^\rho \delta _a^m)=e^{2\rho }`$.

Now we expand (38) to obtain:

$`e^S`$ $`=(2\alpha (\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}i(\theta ^+\lambda _0^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\sigma }})+(\theta ^++\lambda _0^+)(\theta ^{}+\lambda _0^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda ^+\lambda ^{}}{\sigma }}))^{\beta /2}`$
$`=\left(2\alpha (\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }})\right)^{\beta /2}[1(i(\theta ^+\lambda _0^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\sigma }}){\displaystyle \frac{\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}}{\sigma }}`$
$`+(\theta ^++\lambda _0^+)(\theta ^{}+\lambda _0^{})){\displaystyle \frac{\beta }{2(\sigma \frac{x^{}x^{}}{\sigma })}}+\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\beta (\beta 2)}{(2(\sigma \frac{x^{}x^{}}{\sigma }))^2}}]`$ (41)
Comparing this with (40) gives:

$`e^{\rho /2}=\left(2\alpha (\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }})\right)^{\beta /2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\beta \lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}}{2(\sigma \frac{x^{}x^{}}{\sigma })}}\right)`$ (42)
$`\psi _{}^+=\beta (2\alpha )^{\beta /2}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}\right)^{\beta /21}\left(\lambda _0^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+i\lambda _0^{}\right)`$ (43)
$`\psi _{\text{}}^{}=\beta (2\alpha )^{\beta /2}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}\right)^{\beta /21}\left(\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\sigma }}i\lambda _0^+\right)`$ (44)
$`A=2i\beta (2\alpha )^\beta \left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}\right)^{\beta 2}\left(\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+(\beta 1)\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}\right)`$ (45)
To complete the solution, we give the super-Dilaton and super-Liouville fields, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ respectively. These are derived from by substituting $`S`$ into (23) and (34) respectively.

$`\mathrm{\Psi }=\beta \mathrm{ln}(2\alpha (\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}i(\theta ^+\lambda _0^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\sigma }})`$
$`+(\theta ^++\lambda _0^+)(\theta ^{}+\lambda _0^{})\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}))+J`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }={\displaystyle \frac{\beta 1}{2a}}\mathrm{ln}(2\alpha (\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{x^{}x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}i(\theta ^+\lambda _0^+{\displaystyle \frac{x^{\text{}}}{\sigma }}+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{x^{}}{\sigma }})`$
$`+(\theta ^++\lambda _0^+)(\theta ^{}+\lambda _0^{})\theta ^+\theta ^{}\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma }}))`$ (47)
where $`J`$ is a solution to $`D_{}D_+J=0`$ (see (35)).

Several structural features of the superspace are already apparent from the preceding relations. If $`b=a\gamma `$ then $`\beta =0`$. This yields a flat superspace  and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ obeys the flat super-Liouville equation. If $`\gamma \kappa =a`$ then $`\beta =1`$. This corresponds to the anti de Sitter superspace  and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a free scalar superfield in a superspace of constant negative curvature. In the minimally coupled theory these situations respectively correspond to a constant scalar superfield with no kinetic energy term and a free scalar superfield with no coupling.

The solutions (4245) are not gauge transforms of a purely gravitational solution in dilaton gravity, but are indeed non-trivial as they have non-zero torsion. They furnish us with a rich 3-parameter set of supersymmetric black hole solutions that are extensions of those found in ref. . These solutions have non-constant superspace curvature everywhere except for the special cases $`\beta =0,2`$ mentioned above.

There are a number of physical interpretations of these solutions one could make. One possibility is interpret them as relevant only when the gravitini vanish. In this case our 3-parameter set of solutions reduces to those found in the bosonic case . However since the correction to the conformal factor of the metric is proportional to $`\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^{}{}_{}{}^{+}\psi _{\text{  }}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$, a condensate of gravitini will modify the structure of spacetime. In the next section we consider this possibility.

## 4 Bosonic Condensate

We now examine the possibility that in the bosonic limit, the gravitino and gravitini fields form a condensate. That is relative to some local vacuum $`\lambda _0^+=0=\lambda _0^{}`$ but $`\lambda _0^+\lambda _0^{}=c0`$ where the phases of $`\lambda _0^+`$ and $`\lambda _0^{}`$ are chosen so that $`c`$ is some real commuting constant. In this case, the gravitino and gravitini fields vanish ($`\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^+=0=\psi _{\text{  }}^{}`$) but the gravitini condensate becomes spacetime dependent:

$$\psi _{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}^+\psi _{\text{  }}^{}=\frac{c\beta ^2}{\sigma }(2\alpha )^\beta \left(\sigma \frac{x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}}{\sigma }\right)^{\beta 1}$$
(48)
and we also obtain $`ds^2=e^{2\rho }dx^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}dx^{\text{  }}`$, which becomes

$$ds^2=\left(2\alpha (\sigma \frac{x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}}{\sigma })\right)^{2\beta }\left(1\frac{2\beta c}{\sigma \frac{x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{ }\text{ }}}{\sigma }}\right)dx^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}dx^{\text{  }}$$
(49)
for the bosonic space-time metric.

We choose $`\sigma =2\alpha /K^2`$ and do a coordinate transformation of $`x^{\text{  }}=x^{\text{  }}`$ in order to connect with . This gives us:

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{4\alpha ^2}{K^2}K^2x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}\right)^{2\beta }\left(1+\frac{2\beta c}{\frac{2\alpha }{K^2}+\frac{K^2}{2\alpha }x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}}\right)dx^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}dx^{\text{  }}$$
(50)
Note that in the $`c=0`$ limit we recover the metric induced by a bosonic Liouville field (eq. (23) of ) with $`4\alpha ^2=A`$. This is consistent with (22). We see that supersymmetry forces A to be negative.

We next consider how the gravitini condensate affects the causal structure of the spacetime. The curvature scalar is

$`R`$ $`=16\beta \alpha K^{4(\beta 1)}{\displaystyle \frac{((4\alpha ^2+K^4x^{}x^{\text{}}))^{2\beta 1}}{(4\alpha ^2+4\beta \alpha cK^2+K^4x^{}x^{\text{}})^3}}`$
$`\times \left(K^8(2\alpha cK^2)(x^{}x^{\text{}})^2+16\alpha ^2K^4(\alpha +\beta cK^2)(x^{}x^{\text{}})+16c\alpha ^4(cK^2+2\alpha +4\beta cK^2)\right)`$ (51)
and we see that its singularity structure depends upon the values of the parameters. For all values of $`\beta `$, there is a singularity at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}(1+\frac{\beta cK^2}{\alpha })`$. For $`\beta >1`$ the curvature scalar $`R`$ diverges at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}\pm \mathrm{}`$, and for $`\beta <1/2`$, it diverges at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$. The volume element of the metric either diverges or vanishes at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$ depending on the sign of $`\beta `$, and the (50) is therefore only valid $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}<4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$. This region will have no curvature singularities if $`1/2<\beta <1`$ and $`\frac{\beta cK^2}{\alpha }<0`$.

The condensate (48) transforms as a scalar density, and so we write

$$\psi ^+\psi ^{}=e^{i\theta }\sqrt{g}\phi $$
(52)
where $`\phi `$ transforms as a scalar, and the phase $`\theta `$ may be chosen so that $`\phi `$ is always real. Its singular behaviour will be co-ordinate invariant. We obtain

$$\phi =e^{i\theta }K^4c\beta ^2(2\alpha )^{2\beta 1}\frac{\left(\frac{4\alpha ^2}{K^2}K^2x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}\right)^{3\beta }}{(4\alpha ^2+4\beta \alpha cK^2+K^4x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }})}$$
(53)
and so, as with the curvature, there is an additional divergence at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}(1+\frac{\beta cK^2}{\alpha })`$ for all values of $`\beta `$. We also see that for $`\beta <0`$ the condensate $`\phi `$ diverges at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$, whereas if $`\beta >1/3`$ it diverges at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}\pm \mathrm{}`$. As with the curvature, there is an additional divergence at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}(1+\frac{\beta cK^2}{\alpha })`$ for all values of $`\beta `$. If $`\frac{\beta cK^2}{\alpha }<0`$, then the range of coordinates is restricted by $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}<4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$, and this region will have no invariant condensate singularities if $`0<\beta 1/3`$. There is no nonzero value of $`\beta `$ for which the spacetime is free of condensate and coordinate singularities.

If $`2\beta `$ is an integer then (50) is valid for all $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$, with $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}`$ forming an asymptotic region of either of two distinct spacetimes. As noted previously, if $`\beta =0`$ the curvature and condensate vanish and the spacetime is flat. If $`\beta =\pm 1/2`$, the only singularity in the curvature is at $`x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=4\frac{\alpha ^2}{K^4}(1+\beta m)`$, where $`m\frac{cK^2}{\alpha }`$ is a dimensionless quantity which parametrizes the strength of the condensate.

Proceeding further, we switch to more familiar $`(r,t)`$ coordinates via the transformation

$$x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}x^{\text{  }}=\frac{4\alpha ^2}{K^4}(u(r)+1)\frac{x^{\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }\text{ }}}{x^{\text{  }}}=\mathrm{exp}(2ht)$$
(54)
which yields

$$ds^2=\frac{u\beta m}{u^{2\beta +1}}\left(\frac{(u^{}dr)^2}{4h^2(u+1)}(u+1)dt^2\right)$$
(55)
in place of (50), where prime denotes the derivative with respect to $`r`$ and $`h=(4\alpha ^2)^{\beta 1/2}K^{22\beta }`$, which we take to be positive

The range of the function $`u(r)`$ must be chosen to ensure that the metric is real and of the appropriate signature. If $`2\beta `$ is not an integer, then we must have $`u(r)>0`$, whereas otherwise the reality requirement is trivially met for any choice of sign for $`u(r)`$, with $`u(r)=0`$ corresponding to an asymptotic region of spacetime.

By choosing $`u(r)`$ so that $`u^{}=2hu^{2\beta }`$, we obtain the metric in the form

$$ds^2=(\frac{dr^2}{2Mr\pm (2Mr)^{2\beta /(2\beta 1)}}[2Mr\pm (2Mr)^{2\beta /(2\beta 1)}]dt^2))(1\beta m(2Mr)^{1/(2\beta 1)}))$$
(56)
provided $`\beta 1/2`$ where $`M=h(12\beta )`$, and both signs apply if $`\beta `$ is some other odd half-integer (otherwise only the plus sign applies). For $`\beta =1/2`$,

$$ds^2=(\frac{dr^2}{1\pm e^{2hr}}[1\pm e^{2hr}]dt^2))(1me^{2hr}))$$
(57)
These metrics are the same as those given in ref.  (with $`A<0`$), apart from a conformal factor due to the gravitini condensate. For $`\beta 1/2`$ the behaviour of the spacetime at infinity is not modified relative to these pure bosonic cases.

We turn now to consider specific cases, moving to Schwarzschild-type coordinates by selecting $`u`$ so that

$$(1\frac{\beta m}{u})u^{}=2hu^{2\beta }$$
(58)
Henceforth the function $`u`$ will be chosen to satisfy this equation, whose solution is

$$2hr=\frac{1u^{12\beta }}{2\beta 1}+\frac{mu^{2\beta }}{2}$$
(59)
where the constant of integration has been chosen so that the $`\beta \frac{1}{2}`$ limit can be straightforwardly taken:

$$2hr=\frac{u\mathrm{ln}(u^2/k)+m}{2u}$$
(60)
where the constant $`k`$ is arbitrary. In the $`(r,t)`$ coordinates, the gravitini condensate (53) becomes

$$\phi =e^{i\theta }\frac{m\beta h^3(2\alpha )^{2\beta }}{2K^4}\frac{u^{3\beta }}{u\beta m}$$
(61)
and the curvature scalar is

$$R=4h^2\frac{u^{2\beta 1}}{(u\beta m)^3}\left[(m2)u^2+2m(2\beta +1)u+\beta m^2(2\beta +1)\right]$$
(62)
The function $`r(u)`$ in (59) has a single minimum at $`u=\beta m`$ for $`u>0`$. If $`\beta <1/2`$ it will diverge as $`u\mathrm{}`$, whereas if $`\beta >1/2`$ it will asymptote to a constant. Inverting (59) we can obtain $`u(r)`$ on any interval with $`r^{}(u)0`$, i.e. any interval not containing $`0,m\beta `$. If $`2\beta `$ is not an integer then we are restricted to $`u>0`$, since we are raising it to a fractional power. Hence if $`m\beta >0`$ then we get two possible spacetimes $`m\beta u<\mathrm{}`$ and $`0um\beta `$, and there is a curvature and condensate singularity at $`u=m\beta `$ in each. On the other hand, if $`m\beta 0`$ then there will be only one spacetime, defined for $`0u<\mathrm{}`$. However freedom from condensate singularities forces $`0<\beta <1/3`$, whereas freedom from coordinate singularities forces $`1>\beta >1/2`$, and so there is no singularity-free region of parameter space as noted above.

If $`2\beta `$ is an integer, more possibilities emerge since the spacetime will be defined for $`u<0`$ as well. The second derivative of $`r(u)`$ is $`(\beta m)^{(1+2\beta )}`$, and so is always positive if $`2\beta `$ is an odd integer, yielding a minimum at $`u=\beta m`$. However if $`2\beta `$ is an even integer, $`r(u)`$ will have a maximum at $`u=\beta m`$ if $`\beta m<0`$, and a minimum at $`u=\beta m`$ if $`\beta m>0`$. In either case we have three possible spacetimes ($`0>\beta m>u`$, $`0>u\beta m`$, and $`u>0`$) for $`\beta m`$ negative and three possible spacetimes ($`u>\beta m>0`$, $`\beta mu>0`$, and $`0>u`$). The metric has the form

$$ds=f(r)dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{f(r)}$$
(63)
where

$$f(r)=\frac{(u\beta m)(u+1)}{u^{2\beta +1}}$$
(64)
with $`u(r)`$ implicitly defined in (59,60) above. There is now the possibility of placing the singularity behind a horizon at $`u=1`$.

We now need only demand that the curvature and condensate be finite outside the black hole (ie for $`u>1`$). Implicitly plotting the function (64) allows us to find the causal structure of the spacetimes. We construct the Penrose diagrams using the method outlined in , where we represent a horizon with a dashed line, a non-singular boundary with a thin black line is, and a singularity with a solid black line.

Searching through parameter space, only for $`\beta =1/2`$ do we find a spacetime whose curvature singularity is shielded by an event horizon. However the condensate singularity diverges at $`u=0`$, outside of the event horizon where $`u=1`$.

We close this section by computing the quasilocal energy of the solutions we obtain. Using methods of  we find from (46) that the dilaton field is

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=\beta \mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{4\alpha ^2}{K^2}}\right)\beta \mathrm{ln}(u+{\displaystyle \frac{m}{2\beta }})`$ (65)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{dr}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Psi }}{du}}{\displaystyle \frac{du}{dr}}={\displaystyle \frac{4h\beta u^{2\beta +1}}{(2u+m)(u\beta m)}}`$ (66)
taking the gravitino-gravitini condensate into account. The quasilocal energy has the generic form

$$E=2(N_{ref}N)\frac{d\psi }{dr}$$
(67)
where $`N(r)=\sqrt{f(r)}`$.

The choice of reference spacetime is somewhat problematic for the class of solutions we consider due to their varying asymptotic properties. For simplicity we set $`N_{ref}=0`$ (a reference value) obtaining

$$E=\frac{8h\beta u^{\beta +1/2}}{(2u+m)}\sqrt{\frac{u+1}{u\beta m}}$$
(68)
For large $`u`$, which is large $`r`$, we find that the quasilocal energy either diverges for $`\beta >1/2`$, or else vanishes for $`\beta <1/2`$. To extract further physical meaning from these solutions will require a more judicious choice of $`N_{ref}`$. However if $`\beta =1/2`$, (68) becomes

$$E=2K$$
(69)
in the large-$`r`$ limit, indicating that the parameter $`K`$ corresponds to a mass parameter.

## 5 Summary

We have obtained a new class of exact solutions in $`(1+1)`$ dimensional supergravity coupled to a super-Liouville field. This class of solutions depends on the three parameters $`\beta `$, $`K`$ and $`m`$. The first of these is a function purely of the coupling parameters of the super-Liouville field to supergravity. The second of these is a constant of integration, which is related to the overall mass-energy of the solutions. The third is a parameter related to the strength of the gravitini condensate. Overall, it is the combination of the constants $`\beta `$ and $`m`$ which determine the causal structure of the spacetime. If the condensate vanishes then the solutions we obtain reduce to those of ref. .

To our knowledge these solutions are the first exact superspace solutions of supermatter coupled to supergravity which have non-constant superspace curvature everywhere. Their interpretation remains to be clarified, and we have made a first attempt here by considering the possibility that the gravitini might form a condensate. If this does indeed happen in the manner we consider, then the structure of spacetime is considerably modified relative to the bosonic solutions of ref. . For all ranges of the parameters, the solutions we obtain typically have either a naked curvature singularity or a condensate singularity outside of the event horizon. If the condensate singularity could somehow be eliminated (perhaps by quantum effects), then the spacetime with $`\beta =1/2`$, $`m2`$) would yield a solution with a curvature singularity cloaked by an event horizon. This would appear to be the only ‘physically’ acceptable super Liouville black hole in the presence of a gravitini condensate.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. R.B.M. would like to thank M. Grisaru and M.E. Knutt for discussions.


format: text

text:
# References

The study of antiferromagnetic models is a notoriously difficult problem of statistical mechanics. The dependence on the lattice structure produces a variety of behaviours much richer than in the ferromagnetic case and forces a case-by-case analysis. Many antiferromagnetic models possess a critical point (often at zero temperature), so that their continuum limit can also be investigated through field theoretical methods. Among them, the square lattice three-state Potts model has been the object of both numerical and theoretical studies. While this model has been known for longtime to be critical at zero temperature, the issue of the approach to criticality presents several subtleties, including the identification of the correct scaling variable. Very recently, the authors of reference  exploited a mapping onto a height model to identify the excitations on the lattice at nonzero temperature and explain the anomalous corrections to scaling previously observed in Monte Carlo studies .

It is the purpose of this note to point out that the scaling limit of the square lattice three-state Potts antiferromagnet is exactly solvable due to its equivalence to a specific point of the sine-Gordon model (an integrable quantum field theory), and to derive from this continuum approach some universal predictions that can be checked through simulations on the lattice.

As it often happens for two-dimensional systems exhibiting a gaussian critical point, a relation of the scaling limit with the sine-Gordon model is expected. The actual task is that of understanding what the symmetries and the operators of the lattice model become in the field theoretic language. Here we will show that these identifications follow in a quite natural way from the analysis of the sine-Gordon operator space based on locality, and that the topologically charged scalar operators play a major role in the continuum description of the lattice model. Matrix elements for these operators were first computed in , where they arise in the description of the scaling Ashkin-Teller model. We will then illustrate how the correspondence at the operatorial level translates in the language of particle excitations, in order to exploit the exact $`S`$-matrix solution of the sine-Gordon model and extract from that the correlation functions for the operators of physical interest. In particular, we will give a number of specific and universal predictions suitable for a numerical verification on the lattice.

The three-state Potts model is defined by the lattice Hamiltonian

$$H=J\underset{i,j}{}\delta _{s_i,s_j},$$
(1)
where the spin variable $`s_j`$ on the $`j`$-th lattice site takes the values (colours) $`0`$,$`1`$,$`2`$ and the sum is over nearest neighbours. The Hamiltonian is invariant under permutations of the colours. Here we are interested in the antiferromagnetic case ($`J<0`$) on the square lattice.

At zero temperature, the system is in one of the ground states in which nearest neighbours spins have different values. This problem is equivalent to the three colouring problem of the square lattice which admits an exact mapping onto a specific point of the six-vertex model . From the exact solution of the latter we know that our zero-temperature system is critical and that its long-distance behaviour is described by a free massless boson. Relevant operators that can be identified through the zero-temperature analysis on the lattice  are the staggered magnetisation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j=(1)^{j_1+j_2}e^{2i\pi s_j/3}`$ with scaling dimension $`1/6`$, the uniform magnetisation $`\sigma _j=e^{2i\pi s_j/3}`$ with scaling dimension $`2/3`$, and the staggered polarisation111The primed sum indicates summation over the next nearest neighbours of $`j`$. $`𝒫_j=(1)^{j_1+j_2}_i^{}(2\delta _{s_i,s_j}1)`$ with scaling dimension $`3/2`$. We identify the $`j`$-th site of the square lattice through a pair of integers $`(j_1,j_2)`$, and call even (odd) sublattice the collection of the sites with $`j_1+j_2`$ even (odd).

At non-zero temperature, the model develops a finite correlation length and its scaling limit is described by the perturbation of the gaussian fixed point through the continuum version of the thermal operator $`_j=_i\delta _{s_i,s_j}`$. This perturbed theory is the sine-Gordon model defined by the euclidean action222Throughout this note we use the standard notation $`\beta `$ for the sine-Gordon dimensionless coupling. No confusion with the inverse temperature of the lattice model should be made.

$$𝒜=d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2}_\alpha \phi ^\alpha \phi \mu \mathrm{cos}\beta \phi \right),$$
(2)
for some value of the coupling $`\beta `$ to be determined. The theory (2) describes the scaling limit of several lattice models whose critical point corresponds to a conformal field theory with central charge $`C=1`$ (see e.g. Refs.  for other examples discussed in the framework of this note). In order to proceed with the description of the antiferromagnetic Potts model we need to recall few points about the operator content of the sine-Gordon model.

At criticality ($`\mu =0`$), the boson field can be decomposed into its holomorphic and antiholomorphic parts as $`\phi (x)=\varphi (z)+\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})`$, where we introduced the complex coordinates $`z=x_1+ix_2`$ and $`\overline{z}=x_1ix_2`$. The scaling operators of the theory are the vertex operators

$$V_{p,\overline{p}}(x)=e^{i[p\varphi (z)+\overline{p}\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})]},$$
(3)
with conformal dimensions $`(\mathrm{\Delta },\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }})=(p^2/8\pi ,\overline{p}^2/8\pi )`$ and spin $`s=\mathrm{\Delta }\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$. They satisfy the gaussian operator product expansion

$$V_{p_1,\overline{p}_1}(x)V_{p_2,\overline{p}_2}(0)=z^{p_1p_2/4\pi }\overline{z}^{\overline{p}_1\overline{p}_2/4\pi }V_{p_1+p_2,\overline{p}_1+\overline{p}_2}(0)+\mathrm{}.$$
(4)
We see from this relation that taking $`V_{p_1,\overline{p}_1}(x)`$ around $`V_{p_2,\overline{p}_2}(0)`$ by sending $`zze^{2i\pi }`$ and $`\overline{z}\overline{z}e^{2i\pi }`$ produces a phase factor $`e^{2i\pi \gamma _{1,2}}`$, where

$$\gamma _{1,2}=\frac{1}{4\pi }(p_1p_2\overline{p}_1\overline{p}_2)$$
(5)
is called index of mutual locality. If $`\gamma _{1,2}`$ is an integer the correlator $`V_{p_1,\overline{p}_1}(x)V_{p_2,\overline{p}_2}(0)`$ is single valued and the two operators are said to be mutually local. Since $`\gamma _{1,1}=2s`$, the operators which are local with respect to themselves (the only ones we are interested in here) must have integer or half integer spin.

In the off-critical theory (2), the operators wich are local with respect to the perturbing operator $`\mathrm{cos}\beta \phi V_{\beta ,\beta }+V_{\beta ,\beta }`$ form a ‘local sector’ into which all the operators of interest for the description of the lattice model are expected to fall. This locality requirement selects the operators $`V_{p,\overline{p}}`$ with $`p\overline{p}=4\pi m/\beta `$, $`m`$ integer, namely

$$V_p(x)V_{p,p}(x)=e^{ip\phi (x)},$$
(6)
and

$$U_{n,m}(x)V_{\frac{n\beta }{2m}+\frac{2\pi }{\beta }m,\frac{n\beta }{2m}\frac{2\pi }{\beta }m}(x)=e^{i\left[\frac{n\beta }{2m}\phi (x)+\frac{2\pi }{\beta }m\stackrel{~}{\phi }(x)\right]},n=2s=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{},m=\pm 1,\mathrm{}$$
(7)
Here we introduced the ‘dual’ boson field $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ which is $`\varphi (z)\overline{\varphi }(\overline{z})`$ at criticality and satisfy the relation

$$i\frac{\stackrel{~}{\phi }}{x_\alpha }=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\frac{\phi }{x_\beta }.$$
(8)
The operators $`V_p`$ and $`U_{0,m}`$ are scalars ($`s=0`$) and have scaling dimensions $`X_p=p^2/4\pi `$ and $`X_{0,m}=\pi m^2/\beta ^2`$, respectively ($`X=\mathrm{\Delta }+\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$). The action (2) describes a relevant perturbation of the gaussian fixed point for $`\beta ^2<8\pi `$; in this range the only operators $`U_{0,m}`$ which are relevant ($`X_{0,m}<2`$) are those with $`|m|3`$.

The lowest operators with $`|s|=1/2`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Psi }=U_{\pm 1,1}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}=U_{\pm 1,1}`$, are complex conjugated two-component spinors with conformal dimensions $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n,m}`$ given by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm 1,1}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\pm 1,1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }}\pm 2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\beta ^2}}\right),`$ (9)
$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\pm 1,1}=\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{\pm 1,1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\beta ^2}{4\pi }}2+{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{\beta ^2}}\right).`$ (10)
It is known since Coleman  that the sine-Gordon model is equivalent to the theory of a Dirac fermion with four fermion interaction, the Thirring model. The expression for $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ concides with the bosonisation formula for the Thirring fermion originally derived by Mandelstam . The value $`\beta ^2=4\pi `$ for which the dimensions (9), (10) take the free fermionic values corresponds to the free point of the Thirring model.

It follows from these considerations that the integer $`m`$ in (7) is a fermionic charge. Since the Thirring fermions correspond to the solitons interpolating between adjacent vacua of the periodic bosonic potential, we will also call $`m`$ topologic charge. Hence, we can make a distinction between neutral scalar operators $`V_p(x)`$ with a non-zero vacuum expectation value, and charged scalar operators $`U_{0,m}(x)`$.

Going back to the Potts model it is not difficult to identify the continuum limit of the lattice operators among the sine-Gordon operators. Both the staggered and uniform magnetisation are charged with respect to colour permutations and must be found among the $`U_{0,m}`$. Comparison with the known scaling dimensions gives $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(x)U_{0,1}(x)`$ and $`\sigma (x)U_{0,2}(x)`$, and selects

$$\beta =\sqrt{6\pi },$$
(11)
as the value for which the sine-Gordon model (2) describes the scaling limit of the three-state Potts antiferromagnet on the square lattice. This immediately fixes the scaling dimension of the thermal operator $`(x)\mathrm{cos}\beta \phi (x)`$ to be $`3/2`$, in agreement with the result obtained in  by studing the vortex excitations on the lattice.

On the basis of these identifications we can see how the symmetries of the lattice model translate in the sine-Gordon language. The group $`S_3`$ of colour permutations can be decomposed into the $`Z_3`$ transformations associated to cyclic permutations plus the complex conjugation of $`e^{2i\pi s_j/3}`$. The latter operation simply corresponds to the complex conjugation of the sine-Gordon exponentials, while the elementary $`Z_3`$ transformation maps into the shift $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }\stackrel{~}{\phi }+2\pi /\beta `$. The $`Z_3`$ charge coincides with the topologic charge $`m`$ (mod $`3`$).

The lattice operators are also characterised by their parity under the transformation which exchanges the even and odd sublattices: $`_j`$ and $`\sigma _j`$ are even, while $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_j`$ and $`𝒫_j`$ are odd. It appears that in the continuum limit this parity property corresponds to $`(1)^m`$. The staggered polarisation $`𝒫_j`$ is invariant under colour permutations and must correspond to the operator $`U_{0,3}+U_{0,3}`$, which has indeed the expected scaling dimension $`3/2`$. We summarise the situation in Table 1.

| $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | Lattice | Continuum | $`X_\mathrm{\Phi }`$ | Topologic |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  | definition | limit |  | charge |
| $``$ | $`_i\delta _{s_i,s_j}`$ | $`\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{6\pi }\phi `$ | $`3/2`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ | $`(1)^{j_1+j_2}e^{2i\pi s_j/3}`$ | $`e^{i\sqrt{2\pi /3}\stackrel{~}{\phi }}`$ | $`1/6`$ | $`1`$ |
| $`\sigma `$ | $`e^{2i\pi s_j/3}`$ | $`e^{2i\sqrt{2\pi /3}\stackrel{~}{\phi }}`$ | $`2/3`$ | $`2`$ |
| $`𝒫`$ | $`(1)^{j_1+j_2}_i^{}(2\delta _{s_i,s_j}1)`$ | $`\mathrm{cos}\sqrt{6\pi }\stackrel{~}{\phi }`$ | $`3/2`$ | $`\pm 3`$ |

Table 1

The equivalence with a particular case of the sine-Gordon model ensures that the scaling limit of the lattice model is an integrable quantum field theory whose associated scattering theory is known exactly . The elementary excitations are a pair of conjugated particles $`A_+`$ and $`A_{}`$ (the sine-Gordon soliton and antisoliton). The fact that $`\beta ^2=6\pi `$ falls in the repulsive sine-Gordon regime $`\beta ^2>4\pi `$ ensures that no other particles are present in the spectrum. It can be interesting to mention that the $`Z_3`$-preserving fusion $`A_+A_+A_{}`$ is forbidden here because it violates the sublattice parity $`(1)^m`$; it is instead characteristic of the scattering theory of the ferromagnetic case  in which the lattice plays no role.

Due to the factorisation of multiparticle scattering in the integrable quantum field theories, the scattering theory is completely determined by the two-particle $`S`$-matrix defined by the relation333 The rapidity $`\theta `$ parameterises the on-shell energy and momentum of a particle as $`(p^0,p^1)=(m\mathrm{cosh}\theta ,m\mathrm{sinh}\theta )`$.

$$A_a(\theta _1)A_b(\theta _2)=\underset{c,d=\pm }{}S_{ab}^{cd}(\theta _1\theta _2)A_d(\theta _2)A_c(\theta _1),a,b=\pm .$$
(12)
The non-zero scattering amplitudes are given by444For reasons that will become clear later, it is useful to give the results referring to generic values of $`\beta `$ in the sine-Gordon model, being understood that the scaling limit we are dealing with corresponds to $`\beta =\sqrt{6\pi }`$.

$`S_{++}^{++}(\theta )=S_{}^{}(\theta )=S_0(\theta ),`$ (13)
$`S_+^+(\theta )=S_+^+(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi \theta }{\xi }}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{\xi }(\theta i\pi )}}S_0(\theta ),`$ (14)
$`S_+^+(\theta )=S_+^+(\theta )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{i\pi ^2}{\xi }}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{\xi }(\theta i\pi )}}S_0(\theta ),`$ (15)
with

$$S_0(\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\left\{i_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{x}{2}\left(1\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{x\xi }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\frac{x}{2}}\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta x}{\pi }\right\},$$
(16)
$$\xi =\frac{\pi \beta ^2}{8\pi \beta ^2}.$$
(17)
From the $`S`$-matrix one can compute the form factors555$`|0`$ is the vacuum state.

$$F_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=0|\mathrm{\Phi }(0)|A_{a_1}(\theta _1),\mathrm{},A_{a_n}(\theta _n),a_i=\pm $$
(18)
which in turn determine the spectral decomposition of the correlation functions. The form factors satisfy the equations

$`F_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_i,a_{i+1},\mathrm{},a_n}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _i,\theta _{i+1},\mathrm{},\theta _n)=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{b_i,b_{i+1}=\pm }{}}S_{a_i,a_{i+1}}^{b_i,b_{i+1}}(\theta _i\theta _{i+1})F_{a_1,\mathrm{},b_{i+1},b_i,\mathrm{},a_n}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{i+1},\theta _i,\mathrm{},\theta _n),`$ (19)
$$F_{a_1,\mathrm{},a_n}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _1+2i\pi ,\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n)=e^{2i\pi \gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi },a_1}}F_{a_2,\mathrm{},a_n,a_1}^\mathrm{\Phi }(\theta _2,\mathrm{},\theta _n,\theta _1),$$
(20)
where $`\gamma _{\mathrm{\Phi },a}`$ in the last equation is the index of mutual locality between the scalar operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ and the soliton (for $`a=+`$) or the antisoliton (for $`a=`$). Since these particles are created by the operators $`U_{0,\pm 1}(x)`$, equation (5) gives for the scalar operators

$$\gamma _{V_p,\pm }=\gamma _{V_p;U_{0,\pm 1}}=\pm \frac{p}{\beta },$$
(21)
$$\gamma _{U_{0,m};\pm }=\gamma _{U_{0,m};U_{0,\pm 1}}=0.$$
(22)
Equations (19) and (20) can be used to determine the ‘lowest’ form factors for the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, i.e. the non-vanishing matrix elements (18) with the smallest $`n`$ ($`n>0)`$ which fix the initial conditions of the form factor bootstrap666The higher form factors contain additional pairs $`A_+(\theta )A_{}(\theta ^{})`$ in the asymptotic state and are related to the lowest ones by a recursive equation associated to particle-antiparticle annihilation .. The lowest form factors for the operators of interest in this note are

$$F_\pm ^{\mathrm{cos}\beta \phi }(\theta _1,\theta _2)=c_0\frac{\mathrm{cosh}\frac{\theta _{12}}{2}}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\pi }{2\xi }(\theta _{12}i\pi )}F_0(\theta _{12}),$$
(23)
$$F_{sg(m),\mathrm{},sg(m)}^{U_{0,m}}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _{|m|})=c_{|m|}\underset{i<j}{}F_0(\theta _{ij}),$$
(24)
where $`\theta _{ij}\theta _i\theta _j`$, $`sg(m)`$ denotes the sign of $`m`$, and the $`c_m`$ are normalisation constants. The function

$$F_0(\theta )=i\mathrm{sinh}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}\left\{_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{dx}{x}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\left[\frac{x}{2}\left(1\frac{\xi }{\pi }\right)\right]}{\mathrm{sinh}\frac{x\xi }{2\pi }\mathrm{cosh}\frac{x}{2}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{(i\pi \theta )x}{2\pi }}{\mathrm{sinh}x}\right\}$$
(25)
satisfies the equations

$`F_0(\theta )=S_0(\theta )F_0(\theta ),`$ (26)
$`F_0(\theta +2i\pi )=F_0(\theta ).`$ (27)
The lowest form factors determine the first term in the large distance expansion of the correlation functions. Using the subscript $`c`$ to denote the connected correlators we have

$`V_p(x)V_p(0)_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1}{2\pi }\frac{d\theta _2}{2\pi }|F_{+,}^{V_p}(\theta _1,\theta _2)|^2e^{M|x|(\mathrm{cosh}\theta _1+\mathrm{cosh}\theta _2)}}`$ (28)
$`+`$ $`O(e^{4M|x|}),`$
$`U_{0,m}(x)U_{0,m}(0)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m!}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta _1}{2\pi }\mathrm{}\frac{d\theta _m}{2\pi }|F_{,\mathrm{},}^{U_{0,m}}(\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _m)|^2e^{M|x|_{i=1}^m\mathrm{cosh}\theta _i}}`$ (29)
$`+`$ $`O(e^{(m+2)M|x|}),`$
where $`M`$ is the mass of the soliton and we took $`m>0`$.

There are a number of simple and distinguished universal predictions of the sine-Gordon description that can be tested in numerical simulations of the square lattice three-state Potts antiferromagnet. The ‘exponential’ and ‘second moment’ correlation lengths $`\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }^{2nd}`$ associated to an operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)`$ are defined as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(0)_c\mathrm{exp}(|x|/\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }),|x|\mathrm{},$$
(30)
$$\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }^{2nd}=\left(\frac{1}{4}\frac{d^2x|x|^2\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(0)_c}{d^2x\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(0)_c}\right)^{1/2}.$$
(31)
The leading behaviour of these quantities nearby the critical point is

$`\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }f_\mathrm{\Phi }t^\nu ,`$ (32)
$`\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }^{2nd}f_\mathrm{\Phi }^{2nd}t^\nu ,`$ (33)
where $`\nu =1/(2X_{})=2`$, and $`t`$ measures the deviation from criticality. It appears from numerical simulations  and has been discussed in  that for this zero-temperature critical point the scaling variable is $`t=e^{J/kT}`$. Our operator identifications and equations (28), (29) then give $`\xi _\mathrm{\Sigma }=1/M`$ and

$`f_\sigma /f_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (34)
$`f_{}/f_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}},`$ (35)
$`f_𝒫/f_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}},`$ (36)
$`f_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{2nd}/f_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ $``$ $`1,`$ (37)
$`f_\sigma ^{2nd}/f_\sigma `$ $``$ $`0.439.`$ (38)
The last two ratios are evaluated in the lowest form factor approximation which is known to give estremely accurate results for integrated correlators777See e.g.  for similar computations in other sine-Gordon related statistical models.. We estimate that our error on these two quantities does not exceed 1%.

The universal ratios (34)–(38) have not yet been measured in simulations. Lattice estimates of these quantities would provide the direct confirmation that the universality class of this antiferromagnet is described by the sine-Gordon field theory with $`\beta =\sqrt{6\pi }`$ and the operator identifications of Table 1. In this respect, it is important to mention that the study of the scaling limit of the model on the lattice is complicated in practice by strong corrections to scaling . Cardy et al. argued in  that such corrections are originated by a strictly marginal operator which couples to the temperature giving an effective thermal dependence to the stiffness $`K`$ of the bosonic field, which is related to the sine-Gordon coupling as $`\beta =6\sqrt{K}`$. Their estimate of this (nonuniversal) dependence for $`K_{eff}(t)`$ corresponds to $`\beta _{eff}^2(t)=6\pi 20.9(4)t37.8(2)t^2+\mathrm{}`$. Hence, according to this analysis, the leading corrections to scaling can be fitted by letting the critical exponents and the critical amplitudes vary with $`\beta _{eff}`$. Concerning the lattice verification of our predictions, the ratios (34)–(37) are not affected by this effect since their values in the sine-Gordon model are determined by symmetry properties of the operators which do not depend on the coupling888At least in the range $`\beta ^24\pi `$ in which there are no bound states.. The ratio $`(f_\sigma ^{2nd}/f_\sigma )_{eff}`$ is instead an increasing function of $`\beta _{eff}`$, so that the asymptotic value (38) should be approached from below as $`t0`$. For example, we find $`0.38`$ when computing this ratio at $`\beta _{eff}^2(t=0.1)6\pi 2.47`$.

Acknowledgments: I thank John Cardy for helpful discussions and remarks.

Note added: When this work had been completed reference  appeared which is devoted to the form factors of the sine-Gordon topologically charged operators and whose main purpose is the determination of their “conformal” normalisation.


text:
# A Simple Method to Make Asymptotic Series of Feynman Diagrams Converge

## Abstract

We show that for two non-trivial $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ problems (the anharmonic oscillator and the Landau-Ginzburg hierarchical model), improved perturbative series can be obtained by cutting off the large field contributions. The modified series converge to values exponentially close to the exact ones. For $`\lambda `$ larger than some critical value, the method outperforms Padé’s approximants and Borel summations. The method can also be used for series which are not Borel summable such as the double-well potential series. We show that semi-classical methods can be used to calculate the modified Feynman rules, estimate the error and optimize the field cutoff.

PACS: 11.10.-z, 11.15.Bt, 12.38.Cy, 31.15.Md

Perturbative series associated with Feynman diagrams are commonly used in particle physics, solid state physics, optics and chemistry . One remarkable success of this method is the prediction of the values of the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron and the muon with an incredible accuracy. Perturbative methods are also used to perform precision tests of the standard model of electro-weak and strong interactions . Despite these successes, it has been known for a long time  that series calculated from Feynman diagrams are not convergent but asymptotic. In other words, the range of validity shrinks with the order. One can improve this situation by using Padé approximants , either on the original series or a Borel sum  of the series, if meaningful. However, even in the cases where the convergence of these alternate procedures can be proven, the convergence is very slow when the coupling is too large. In addition, for short series, it is difficult to estimate the error and to choose the best approximants.

In this Letter, we construct improved perturbative series which converge to values which are exponentially close to the exact ones. The error can be estimated analytically. The method can be applied on the lattice and in the continuum and works well when the methods mentioned above are inefficient or not applicable. The method is a perturbative version of recent numerical calculations performed for various $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ models, namely the anharmonic oscillator and the Landau-Ginzburg model in the hierarchical approximation . In these calculations, we were led to introduce large $`\varphi `$ cutoffs and realized that as $`\lambda `$ increases, the field cutoff can be decreased without affecting the accuracy of the result. The calculations presented here are perturbative series calculated with a large field cutoff. We only consider $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ problems, however the procedure should extend to any kind of model where large field configurations are suppressed at positive coupling. This is in agreement with the general argument  linking the large field configurations to the impossibility of applying Lebesgue dominated convergence to the path integral expression of the perturbative series.

In order to give an idea about the efficiency of existing methods, we consider the well-known example of the ground state energy of the anharmonic oscillator . The solid lines of Fig. 1 represent the number of significant digits obtained with perturbation theory for various $`\lambda `$. As the order increases, the approximate lines rotate clockwise while moving left, forming an approximate envelope. For a fixed coupling, there is an order of perturbation for which the error is minimized. On the other hand, the number of digits obtained with Padé approximants increases with the order. This is a consequence of Carleman’s theorem which can be used to show  that diagonal sequences of Padé approximants converge to the ground state energy in an appropriately restricted domain of the complex plane. However, the convergence rate becomes slower as the coupling increases. This can be explained  from the fact that, when the coupling increases, a $`[L/L]`$ approximant tends to a constant while the energy increases like $`\lambda ^{1/3}`$. If Padé approximants are used for the Borel transform instead of the series, one obtains results qualitatively similar which are discussed later.

The method that we propose provides a systematic and controllable improvement to regular perturbation and a better convergence than the Padé based methods in the right hand part of Fig. 1. It can also be used in cases where the Borel sum has singularities on the positive real axis. In particle physics, the experimental error bars of precision measurements are shrinking and higher order terms of perturbative series are being calculated. Firmly established discrepancy or agreement between theory and experiment provides valuable information regarding the laws of nature at shorter distances. A common practice  to estimate at which order, for a given coupling, we reach the envelope illustrated in Fig. 1, is to determine when the ratio of successive contributions reaches one. This method works quite accurately for the three examples considered below. It seems reasonable to interpret ratios of successive contributions close to one as a signal that one needs to go beyond regular perturbative theory. We are getting close to this situation. For instance, the electro-weak corrections to $`g_\mu 2`$, give a contribution  of $`151(4)\times 10^{11}`$ and in this calculation, the two-loop effects reduce the one-loop prediction by 35 percent. The total electroweak contribution is about one third of the discrepancy of $`43(16)\times 10^{10}`$ found by the recent Brookhaven experiment . The problem is more serious in the case of QCD corrections. For instance, in the calculation  of the hadronic width of the $`Z^0`$, the term of order $`\alpha _s^3`$ is more than 60 percent of the term of order $`\alpha _s^2`$ and contributes to one part in 1,000 to the total width.

We claim that introducing large field cutoffs leads to significantly improved perturbative series. An important reference to understand the general mechanism and to interpret the results presented below is the well studied  integral

$$Z(\lambda )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\varphi \mathrm{e}^{(1/2)\varphi ^2\lambda \varphi ^4}.$$
(1)
If we expand $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \varphi ^4}`$, the integrand for the order $`p`$ contribution is $`\mathrm{e}^{(1/2)\varphi ^2}\varphi ^{4p}/p!`$ and has its maximum when $`\varphi ^2=4p`$. On the other hand, the truncation of $`\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \varphi ^4}`$ at order $`p`$ is accurate provided that $`\lambda \varphi ^4<<p`$. Requiring that the peak of the integrand for the $`p`$-th order term is within the range of values of $`\varphi `$ for which the $`p`$-th order truncation provides an accurate approximation, yields the condition $`\lambda <<(16p)^1`$. One sees that the range of validity for $`\lambda `$ shrinks as one increases the order. We can avoid this problem by restricting the range of integration in Eq. (1) to $`|\varphi |<\varphi _{max}`$. We call the truncated integral $`Z(\lambda ,\varphi _{max})`$. As the order increases, the peak of the integrand moves across $`\varphi _{max}`$ and the contribution is suppressed. It is easy to show that the coefficients of the modified series satisfy the bound $`|a_p|<\sqrt{2\pi }\varphi _{max}^{4p}/p!`$ and the modified series defines an entire function. However, we are now constructing a perturbative series for a problem which is slightly different than the original one. This procedure is justified from the fact that the error is controlled by the inequality

$$|Z(\lambda )Z(\lambda ,\varphi _{max})|<2\mathrm{e}^{\lambda \varphi _{max}^4}_{\varphi _{max}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\varphi \mathrm{e}^{(1/2)\varphi ^2}.$$
(2)
We have applied large field cutoffs to the anharmonic oscillator with an Hamiltonian $`H=p^2/2+\varphi ^2/2+\lambda \varphi ^4.`$ We use units such that the mass, the frequency and $`\mathrm{}`$ are unity. The method of Ref.  was used to obtain a solution of the time-independent Schroedinger equation for an arbitrary value of the energy $`E`$. The eigenvalues are determined by using Sturm-Liouville theorem to monitor the “entrance” of the zeroes of the wave function in a region $`0\varphi \varphi _{max}`$ as $`E`$ increases. If $`\varphi _{max}`$ is large enough, one obtains excellent numerical values of $`E_n`$ for $`n`$ not too large by requiring that the $`n+1`$-th zero occurs exactly at $`\varphi _{max}`$. This numerical procedure can be converted into a perturbative expansion order by order in $`\lambda `$. By taking $`\varphi _{max}`$ large enough, namely 8, we were able to reproduce accurately the first twenty terms of the series for the ground state calculated by Bender and Wu  without using diagrammatic techniques. We have also applied large field cutoffs to Dyson’s hierarchical model, an approximation of lattice scalar field theory where the renormalization group transformation can be calculated numerically with great accuracy . We have used a local Lagrangian density of the Landau-Ginzburg form $`A\varphi ^2\lambda \varphi ^4`$ such that when $`\lambda `$ = 0, the mass is unity. The field cutoff appears in the calculation of the Fourier transform of the local measure necessary for the numerical procedure. The free parameter (called $`c/4`$ in Ref. ) appearing in the kinetic term was chosen in a such a way that a free massless field scales as it would for a nearest neighbor model in 3 dimensions.

We now present numerical results concerning the perturbative series for $`Z(\lambda ,\varphi _{max})`$, the ground state of the anharmonic oscillator and the zero-momentum two point function of the Landau-Ginzburg model. In Fig. 2, we compare the accuracy of regular perturbation theory with what is obtained with various field cutoffs. The curves for the modified series reach an asymptotic value on the left and drop on the right with the same slope as regular perturbation theory but with an intercept on the coupling axis shifted to the right. In between the two regimes, the curve reaches a maximum. As the order increases, the maximum moves up and right making the convergence apparent in this region. In all cases, the modified models provide an accuracy that goes far beyond the envelope of regular perturbation theory. We have then compared our results with those obtained with Padé approximants. For the clarity of the figure, we have limited ourselves to order 3 and 4 but similar situations are observed for higher orders. At each order, we have selected the best approximant for the series or its Borel sum. These sums are obtained by dividing the $`l`$-th coefficient by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }[l+1+b]`$. We have followed the procedure of Ref. , except that at the end the inverse integral transform was performed numerically at fixed value of $`\lambda `$. We call this procedure the Padé-Borel method.

The values of $`b`$ were adjusted to get the best possible result. At order 4, the best approximant is $`[2/2]`$ in the 6 cases considered, but at order 3, the situation is more complicated. In summary, we have used our knowledge of the exact result to get the best possible result for the methods to which we compare our results. Random choices of approximants or of the value of $`b`$ lead to significantly worse results. The results are shown in Fig. 3. We have used field cutoffs of 1.5 and 1 for the integral and 2 and 1.5 for the two other models. As the field cutoff decreases, the curve moves right as in Fig. 2. By comparing the three methods at the same order, we see that beyond a certain value of $`\lambda `$, the method used here outperforms the two methods based on Padé approximants within a certain range (which broadens when the coupling increases).

In all the examples considered above, the Borel sum has no singularity on the positive real axis. One can introduce such singularities by adding a cubic interaction with an appropriate coupling. However, for all examples worked out, this modification can be handled properly with the proposed method. This is due to the fact that as in the previous examples, the exponentials converge uniformly in a compact neighborhood of the origin, and it is legitimate to interchange the sum and the integral. We report here the case of the double-well potential in quantum mechanics as discussed in Ref. . In shifted coordinates, the potential reads $`(1/2)y^2gy^3+(g^2/2)y^4`$. By imposing the vanishing of the wave function at $`y=\pm 10`$, we were able to reproduce all the significant digits of the first 10 coefficients for the ground state given in Table I of Ref. . This series is not Borel-summable. We have then constructed a modified series by imposing the wavefunction to vanish at $`y_{min}<0`$ and its derivative to vanish at $`y_{max}>0`$. If this prescription is used for numerical purposes, one obtains arbitrarily accurate results when $`g=(1/2y_{max})`$ and $`y_{min}`$ negative enough. The numerical results are shown in Fig. 4 for values of $`g`$ where the one-instanton contribution accounts for most of the discrepancy obtained with the regular series. The modified series converge rapidly to the numerical value obtained with the corresponding $`y_{min}`$ and $`y_{max}`$. It takes into account instanton effects and significantly improves the regular perturbative answer. Significant improvements have also been obtained for larger $`g`$ by decreasing $`y_{max}`$.

The striking resemblance among the three models appearing in Figs. 2 and 3 suggests that, in general, the corrections due to the field cutoffs can be expressed as simple one-dimensional integrals. The perturbative expansion of the partition function of an arbitrary lattice scalar field theory with a large field cutoff can be obtained by writing the truncated integral at each site as the integral over the whole real axis minus the integral over $`|\varphi |>\varphi _{max}`$. Regrouping the contributions with $`0,1,\mathrm{}`$ large field contributions, we obtain the partition function

$`Z[J]=C\mathrm{e}^{\lambda _x(\frac{}{J(x)})^4}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{1}{2}_{y,z}J(y)G(y,z)J(z)}\times `$ (3)
$`(1A_1{\displaystyle \underset{y}{}}{\displaystyle _{|\varphi _y|>\varphi _{max}}}\mathrm{e}^{A_2(\varphi _y_zG(y,z)J_z)^2}+\mathrm{}),`$ (4)
with $`A_1=(2\pi G(0,0))^{1/2}`$, $`A_2=(2G(0,0))^1`$, $`G(x,y)`$ being the two-point function at $`\lambda =0`$ (with no field cutoff) and all quantities being written in lattice spacing units. The dots in Eq. (4) are calculable and exponentiate in the limit of a coarse lattice where the correlations among the sites are small. In general, Eq. (4) can be interpreted in terms of Feynman diagrams. A continuum version of this expression can be obtained by using a dilute-gas approximation for configurations with one “lump” of large values. We carried the detail of this calculation in the case of the anharmonic oscillator using the classical configuration $`\varphi _{max}\mathrm{e}^{|\tau \tau _0|}`$ and adapting the arguments of Ref. . The result for the zero-th order correction to the ground state reads:

$$\delta E_0^{(0)}4\pi ^{1/2}\varphi _{max}^2_{\varphi _{max}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑\varphi \mathrm{e}^{\varphi ^2}.$$
(5)
This prediction fits the numerical data over a wide range of $`\varphi _{max}`$. We can estimate the optimal value of $`\varphi _{max}`$ without knowing the numerical answer. The left part of the curves shown in Fig. 2 can be estimated by semi classical methods while the right part is given by the next order contribution. In the case of the anharmonic oscillator, using the classical configuration mentioned above, we obtain the error at order $`n`$ :

$$|\delta E_o(\lambda )|\delta E_o^{(o)}\mathrm{e}^{(1/2)\lambda \varphi _{max}^4}+|a_{n+1}|\lambda ^{n+1}$$
(6)
This approximate formula fits the data very well if $`\varphi _{max}`$ is not too small and allows a good estimate of the value of the coupling where the accuracy peaks.

The semi-classical calculation performed for the anharmonic oscillator can be extended to other scalar theories with exponentially decaying two-point functions and we expect an exponential control of the error for these models. In the case of lattice gauge theory, the integration over the fields is already reduced to a compact space. In the literature on lattice perturbation theory (with the exception of van Baal ), one usually replaces $`𝑑g`$ by $`_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}𝑑A_\mu ^i`$ since in the continuum limit the range becomes infinite. We claim that this lattice artifact can be used to obtain a smooth truncation of the perturbative series as in the scalar case. Different approximations need to be developed to solve the massless quadratic theory with a field cutoff. We expect that, as in the case of the double-well, this approach will lead to a quantitative understanding of the instanton effect.

This research was supported in part by the Department of Energy under Contract No. FG02-91ER40664.


text:
# Spin squeezing in nonlinear spin coherent states

## I Introduction

In nonlinear systems such as optical Kerr medium, squeezed states of the radiation field have been extensively studied. The spin squeezed states are also studied in nonlinear systems and proved to be useful to enhance spectroscopic resolution, e.g., in atomic clocks. The generation of the spin squeezed states has been studied by many ways, such as by interaction of atoms with squeezed light, quantum nondemolition measurement of atomic spin states, and atomic collisional interactions.

The spin squeezed states can be characterized in many different ways. In our study we employ the criteria of spin squeezing recently proposed by Sørensen et al. as a new version of spectroscopic squeezing . The squeezing parameter is defined as

$$\xi _{\stackrel{}{n}_1}^2=\frac{2j(\mathrm{\Delta }J_{\stackrel{}{n}_1})^2}{J_{\stackrel{}{n}_2}^2+J_{\stackrel{}{n}_3}^2},$$
(1)
where $`J_\stackrel{}{n}=\stackrel{}{n}\stackrel{}{J},`$ $`\stackrel{}{n}_i(i=1,2,3)`$ are orthogonal unit vectors and $`\stackrel{}{J}`$ is the spin-$`j`$ angular momentum operator. The states with $`\xi _\stackrel{}{n}^2<1`$ are spin squeezed in the direction $`\stackrel{}{n}`$. We will show a interesting feature that the squeezing parameters $`\xi _x^2=\xi _y^2=\xi _z^2=1`$ for spin coherent states(SCS), which indicates that the SCS is not squeezed in the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions.

In this paper we introduce the nonlinear SCS and consider the spin squeezing in it. Sec. II gives the definition of the nonlinear SCS via its ladder operator formalism and propose a type of nonlinear SCS by the time evolution of the SCS under nonlinear Hamiltonian. In Sec. III we first prove that the SCS exhibits no squeezing in the $`x`$, $`y`$, and $`z`$ directions and then study the spin squeezing in the nonlinear SCS. A conclusion is given in Sec. IV.

## II Nonlinear SCS

We work in a $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional angular momentum Hilbert space $`\{|j,m;m=j,\mathrm{},+j\}`$. It is convenient to define a number operator $`𝒩=J_z+j`$, and the ‘number states’ $`|n`$ which satisfy

$$|n|j,j+n,𝒩|n=n|n.$$
(2)
The SCS is given by,

$$|\eta =(1+|\eta |^2)^j\underset{n=0}{\overset{2j}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2j}{n}\right)^{1/2}\eta ^n|n,$$
(3)
where $`\eta `$ is complex.

It is easy to check that the SCS satisfies the following equation

$$J_{}|\eta =\eta (2j𝒩)|\eta .$$
(4)
where the operators $`J_\pm =J_x\pm iJ_y`$. This is a ladder operator formalism of the SCS.

By recalling the definition of the bosonic nonlinear coherent state and su(1,1) nonlinear coherent states, it is natural to define the nonlinear SCS as

$$f(𝒩)J_{}|\eta _{nl}=\eta (2j𝒩)|\eta _{nl},$$
(5)
where $`f(𝒩)`$ is a nonlinear function of the number operator $`𝒩`$. Eq.(5) is of the ladder operator form.

Now we propose a type of nonlinear SCS. The SCS under the evolution of the nonlinear Hamiltonian $`F(𝒩)`$ is directly given by

$`|\eta ,t`$ $`=`$ $`e^{itF(𝒩)}|\eta `$ (6)
$`=`$ $`(1+|\eta |^2)^j{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2j}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2j}{n}}\right)^{1/2}\eta ^ne^{itF(n)}|n.`$ (7)
From Eqs.(4) and (7) we find the state $`|\eta ,t`$ satisfies

$$e^{it[F(𝒩+1)F(𝒩)]}J_{}|\eta ,t=\eta (2j𝒩)|\eta ,t.$$
(8)
According to the definition of the nonlinear SCS, the above state is a nonlinear SCS with the nonlinear function $`e^{it[F(𝒩+1)F(𝒩)]}`$.

For $`F(𝒩)=𝒩^2𝒩`$, Eq.(8) reduces to

$$e^{i2𝒩t}J_{}|\eta ,t=\eta (2j𝒩)|\eta ,t.$$
(9)
Further let $`t=\pi /2,`$ the above equation reduces to

$$\mathrm{\Pi }J_{}|\eta ,\pi /2=\eta (2j𝒩)|\eta ,\pi /2,$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }=(1)^𝒩`$ is the parity operator. Next we study the spin squeezing of the SCS $`|\eta `$ and the nonlinear SCS $`|\eta ,t`$.

## III Spin Squeezing

We first give a proof that there is no spin squeezing in the SCS along the $`x,y,`$ and $`z`$ directions, and then study the spin squeezing in the nonlinear SCS.

### A The SCS

In order to calculate the squeezing parameter (1) we need to know the expectation values $`𝒩^k`$ and $`J_{}^k(k=1,2).`$ It is convenient to calculate $`𝒩^k`$ by the generation function method. The generation function of the SCS is given by

$$G(\lambda )=\eta |\lambda ^𝒩|\eta =\frac{(1+\lambda |\eta |^2)^{2j}}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{2j}},$$
(11)
from which the factorial moments follow

$$F(k)=\frac{d^kG(\lambda )}{d^k\lambda }|_{\lambda =1}=\frac{|\eta |^{2k}(2j)!}{(1+|\eta |^2)^k(2jk)!}.$$
(12)
The factorial moments immediately give the expectation values of the operators $`𝒩`$ and $`𝒩^2`$ and the variance of $`𝒩`$

$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`F(1)={\displaystyle \frac{2j|\eta |^2}{1+|\eta |^2}},`$ (13)
$`𝒩^2`$ $`=`$ $`F(2)+F(1)={\displaystyle \frac{2j|\eta |^2+4j^2|\eta |^4}{(1+|\eta |^2)^2}}`$ (14)
$`(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩)^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2j|\eta |^2}{(1+|\eta |^2)^2}}.`$ (15)
From Eq.(3) the expectation value $`J_{}^k`$ are obtained as

$$J_{}^k=\frac{\eta ^k(2j)!}{(1+|\eta |^2)^k(2jk)!}$$
(16)
Now we calculate the squeezing parameter $`\xi _z^2,`$ which is rewritten as

$$\xi _z^2=\frac{2j(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩)^2}{|J_{}|^2}.$$
(17)
Then substituting Eqs.(15) and (16) into Eq.(17), we immediately obtain $`\xi _z^2=1.`$

To calculate $`\xi _x^2`$ and $`\xi _y^2`$ we need the identities

$`J_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[2j(2𝒩+1)2𝒩^2+J_+^2+J_{}^2],`$ (18)
$`J_y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}[2j(2𝒩+1)2𝒩^2J_+^2J_{}^2],`$ (19)
which gives the expectation values of $`J_x^2`$ and $`J_y^2`$ in terms of $`𝒩,𝒩^2`$ and $`J_\pm ^2.`$

From Eq.(16) and the relation $`J_z=𝒩j,`$ we get

$$J_x=\frac{j(\eta +\eta ^{})}{1+|\eta |^2},\text{ }J_y=\frac{j(\eta ^{}\eta )}{i(1+|\eta |^2)},\text{ }J_z=\frac{j(|\eta |^21)}{1+|\eta |^2}$$
(20)
From Eqs.(13-14), (16), and (18-20), the variances of $`J_x`$ and $`J_y`$ are expressed as

$`\mathrm{\Delta }J_x^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j(1+|\eta |^4\eta ^2\eta ^2)}{2(1+|\eta |^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{J_y^2+J_z^2}{2j}},`$ (21)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }J_y^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{j(1+|\eta |^4+\eta ^2+\eta ^2)}{2(1+|\eta |^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{J_z^2+J_x^2}{2j}}.`$ (22)
The above two equations directly lead to $`\xi _x^2=\xi _y^2=1.`$ Thus we have shown that the squeezing parameters $`\xi _x^2=\xi _y^2=\xi _z^2=1`$ for the SCS. That is to say, the SCS exhibits no squeezing in the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ direction, irrespective of the complex $`\eta `$. We expect that the spin squeezing exists in the nonlinear SCS.

### B The nonlinear SCS

We examine the spin squeezing in the nonlinear SCS $`|\eta ,t.`$ The expectation values $``$ $`𝒩`$ ,$`𝒩^2`$ and the variance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }𝒩)^2`$ are time independent and given by Eqs.(13), (14), and (15), respectively.

From Eq.(7), we obtain the expectation value of $`J_{}^k`$ on the state $`|\eta ,t`$ as

$`J_{}^k`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^k(1+|\eta |^2)^{2j}{\displaystyle \frac{(2j)!}{(2jk)!}}`$ (24)
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{2jk}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2jk}{n}}\right)|\eta |^{2n}e^{it[F(n)F(n+k)]}.`$
Of course Eq.(24) reduces to Eq.(16) at $`t=0.`$

By substituting Eqs.(15) and (24) into (17), the squeezing parameter $`\xi _z^2`$ is given by

$$\xi _z^2=\frac{1}{\left|\frac{1}{(1+|\eta |^2)^{2j1}}_{n=0}^{2j1}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{2j1}{n}\right)|\eta |^{2n}e^{it[F(n)F(n+1)]}\right|^2}$$
(25)
For $`M+1`$ complex quantities $`c_i(i=0\mathrm{}M),`$ there is an inequality

$$|c_0+c_1+\mathrm{}+c_M||c_0|+|c_1|+\mathrm{}+|c_M|$$
(26)
Using this inequality in Eq.(25), we find that

$$\xi _z^21.$$
(27)
So a general conclusion is made that no squeezing occurs in the $`z`$ direction for arbitrary nonlinear function $`F(𝒩).`$ However spin squeezing may exist in the $`x`$ or $`y`$ directions. Next we make numerical calculations to show the spin squeezing.

Fig.1 gives the squeezing parameters $`\xi _\alpha ^2(\alpha =x,y)`$ as a function of time $`t`$ for different nonlinear Hamiltonians $`F(𝒩)=𝒩^k(k=2,3,4)`$. For small time $`t`$ we observe that the state is squeezed in the $`x`$ direction other than the $`y`$ direction. As $`k`$ increases, the frequency of occurrence of spin squeezing increases. In most of the time we also see that the spin squeezing alternatively appears in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions, i.e., when the state is squeezed in the $`x(y)`$ direction, it is not squeezed in the $`y(x)`$ direction. The state can show no spin squeezing in both the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions in some small ranges of $`t`$, but it can not show spin squeezing at the same time in the two directions.

It is interesting to consider the squeezing in the nonlinear Hamiltonian $`H=\mathrm{sin}(a𝒩)`$ which can be realized in physical systems . The numerical results are shown in Fig.2. For $`\eta =0.1`$ we observe that the spin squeezing in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions appears alternatively in the beginning of the time evolution. For small time $`t`$, the state is squeezed in the $`y`$ direction other than $`x`$ direction in contrast to Fig.1. We also observe that the time range of spin squeezing decreases as the parameter $`\eta `$ increases, i.e., the squeezing does not occur in most of the time as $`\eta `$ is large.

## IV Conclusions

In conclusion we have given the definition and proposed an example of the nonlinear SCS. We have studied the spin squeezing in both the SCS and the nonlinear SCS. The main results are as follows:

1. The squeezing parameters $`\xi _x^2=\xi _y^2=\xi _z^2=1`$ for the SCS. That is to say, the SCS is not squeezed in the $`x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$ directions, irrespective of the parameter $`\eta `$.

2. The nonlinear SCS shows no spin squeezing in the $`z`$ direction for arbitrary nonlinear Hamiltonian $`F(𝒩)`$.

3. The nonlinear SCS may be squeezed in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions. In most of the time the squeezing appears alternatively in the $`x`$ and $`y`$ directions as time goes on. Also we observe that the state can not be squeezed at the same time in the two directions.

The spin squeezing originates from the nonlinearity of the nonlinear SCS. Then we expect that the spin squeezing exists in other nonlinear SCS with difference nonlinear functions.

## ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author thanks for many helpful discussions with Klaus Mølmer, Anders Sørensen, and Bin Shu. This work is supported by the Information Society Technologies Programme IST-1999-11053, EQUIP, action line 6-2-1.