text:
# On matrices in prescribed conjugacy classes with no common invariant subspace and sum zero

## 1. Introduction

A problem considered by Deligne, Simpson , and others, concerns the equation

(1)
$$A_1A_2\mathrm{}A_k=1$$

for $`n\times n`$ matrices $`A_i`$, with entries in an algebraically closed field $`K`$, say. The additive analogue is the equation

(2)
$$A_1+A_2+\mathrm{}+A_k=0.$$

A solution of the additive equation over the field of complex numbers leads to a solution of the multiplicative equation, as the monodromy of a Fuchsian system of ODEs. See for example .

The problem is to describe those $`k`$-tuples of conjugacy classes $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_k`$ for which there exists a solution to (1) or (2) with $`A_iC_i`$, and which is *irreducible*, meaning that there is no nonzero proper subspace of $`K^n`$ which is invariant for all the $`A_i`$. It is stated in this form, and studied, by Kostov , who calls it the ‘Deligne-Simpson problem’.

In this paper we solve the problem for equation (2). It is a consequence of our work on preprojective algebras and the moment map for representations of quivers .

For each $`1ik`$, choose elements $`\xi _{i,1},\xi _{i,2},\mathrm{},\xi _{i,d_i}K`$ (not necessarily distinct) with

(3)
$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_i}{}}(A\xi _{i,j}1)=0$$

for the matrices $`AC_i`$. For notational convenience we assume that $`d_i2`$ for all $`i`$. The conjugacy class $`C_i`$ is uniquely determined by the elements $`\xi _{i,j}`$ and the ranks $`r_{i,j}`$ of the partial products $`_{\mathrm{}=1}^j(A\xi _{i,\mathrm{}}1)`$. Clearly

$$n=r_{i,0}r_{i,1}\mathrm{}r_{i,d_i}=0$$

and

(4)
$$r_{i,j1}r_{i,j}r_{i,\mathrm{}1}r_{i,\mathrm{}}$$

whenever $`1j<\mathrm{}d_i`$ and $`\xi _{i,j}=\xi _{i,\mathrm{}}`$.

Our answer depends on the root system for the Kac-Moody Lie algebra with symmetric generalized Cartan matrix $`𝐂`$ whose diagram is

Thus the rows and columns of $`𝐂`$ are indexed by the vertex set

$$I=\{0\}\{[i,j]1ik,1jd_i1\},$$

the diagonal entries are $`𝐂_{vv}=2`$ for $`vI`$, and the off-diagonal entries are $`1`$ if there is an edge joining the two vertices, otherwise zero.

The root system can be considered as a subset of the set of column vectors $`^I`$. It includes the *coordinate vectors* $`ϵ_v`$ ($`vI`$) and the *fundamental region*, which consists of the nonzero elements $`\alpha ^I`$ which have connected support and all components of $`𝐂\alpha `$ $`0`$. It is then closed up under change of sign and the action of the Weyl group, which is generated by the reflections $`s_v:^I^I`$, defined for $`vI`$ by $`s_v(\alpha )=\alpha (ϵ_v^T𝐂\alpha )ϵ_v`$. The roots coming from a coordinate vector are called *real roots*; those coming from an element of the fundamental region are called *imaginary roots*.

If $`\lambda K^I`$ we denote by $`R_\lambda ^+`$ the set of positive roots $`\alpha ^I`$ with the property that $`\lambda \alpha :=_{vI}\lambda _v\alpha _v=0`$. For $`\alpha ^I`$ we define $`p(\alpha )=1\frac{1}{2}\alpha ^T𝐂\alpha `$. For a root $`\alpha `$, one has $`p(\alpha )0`$, with equality if and only if $`\alpha `$ is a real root. We denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$ the set of $`\alpha R_\lambda ^+`$ with the property that

(5)
$$p(\alpha )>p(\beta ^{(1)})+p(\beta ^{(2)})+\mathrm{}$$

for any decomposition $`\alpha =\beta ^{(1)}+\beta ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ as a sum of two or more elements of $`R_\lambda ^+`$. Other characterizations of this set are given by Theorems 5.6 and 8.1 of . Our result is as follows.

###### Theorem 1.

There is an irreducible solution to equation (2) with matrices $`A_iC_i`$ if and only if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$, where $`\alpha `$ is defined by $`\alpha _0=n`$ and $`\alpha _{[i,j]}=r_{i,j}`$, and $`\lambda `$ is defined by $`\lambda _0=_{i=1}^k\xi _{i,1}`$ and $`\lambda _{[i,j]}=\xi _{i,j}\xi _{i,j+1}`$. In this case, if $`\alpha `$ is a real root, then any other solution to (2) with matrices in $`C_i`$ is conjugate to this solution, while if $`\alpha `$ is an imaginary root, then there are infinitely many non-conjugate irreducible solutions.

We prove Theorem 1 in Section 3. The case where there is an irreducible solution which is unique up to conjugacy is called the *rigid* case, and we discuss it in Section 4. Another special case worth considering is when the $`C_i`$ are nilpotent conjugacy classes. We discuss it in Section 5. Finally, at the opposite extreme, we discuss the case when the $`C_i`$ have generic eigenvalues in Section 6. I would like to thank L. Hille for bringing this problem to my attention, and several referees for their helpful remarks.

## 2. Deformed preprojective algebras

In this section we recall the deformed preprojective algebras of , and a result proved in .

Let $`Q`$ be a quiver with vertex set $`I`$. Let $`𝐂`$ be the corresponding generalized Cartan matrix, with rows and columns indexed by $`I`$, so with diagonal entries $`𝐂_{vv}=2`$ and off-diagonal entries $`𝐂_{vw}=(n_{vw}+n_{wv})`$ where $`n_{vw}`$ denotes the number of arrows with head at $`v`$ and tail at $`w`$. Let $`R_\lambda ^+`$, $`p(\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$ be defined as in the introduction. (For simplicity we are assuming that $`Q`$ has no loops at vertices, otherwise these definitions need to be modified.)

The *double* of $`Q`$ is the quiver $`\overline{Q}`$ obtained from $`Q`$ by adjoining a reverse arrow $`a^{}:wv`$ for each arrow $`a:vw`$ in $`Q`$. If $`\lambda K^I`$, the *deformed preprojective algebra* is

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda =K\overline{Q}/\left(\underset{aQ}{}(aa^{}a^{}a)\underset{vI}{}\lambda _ve_v\right)$$

where $`K\overline{Q}`$ is the path algebra of $`\overline{Q}`$, and $`e_v`$ denotes the trivial path at vertex $`v`$.

Recall that a *representation* $`X`$ of $`\overline{Q}`$ is given by a vector space $`X_v`$ for each vertex and a linear map $`a:X_vX_w`$ for each arrow $`a:vw`$ in $`\overline{Q}`$. The *dimension vector* of $`X`$ is the vector in $`^I`$ whose components are the dimensions of the spaces $`X_v`$.

Representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ are the same as representations of $`\overline{Q}`$ in which the linear maps satisfy

$$\underset{\begin{array}{c}aQ\\ h(a)=v\end{array}}{}aa^{}\underset{\begin{array}{c}aQ\\ t(a)=v\end{array}}{}a^{}a=\lambda _v1,$$

for each $`i`$. Here $`h(a)`$ and $`t(a)`$ denote the head and tail vertices of an arrow $`a`$. The concepts of ‘isomorphism’ of representations and ‘simple’ representations are straightforward.

In \[3, Theorem 1.2\] we have proved the following.

###### Theorem 2.

There is a simple representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$ if and only if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$. If $`\alpha `$ is a real root, the simple representation is unique up to isomorphism, and is the only representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$. If $`\alpha `$ is an imaginary root there are infinitely many non-isomorphic simple representations.

Some parts are not explicitly stated there, but they follow easily: the number of simple representations is discussed in the remarks following the statement of the theorem; and if there is a non-simple representation $`X`$ whose dimension vector is a real root $`\alpha `$, then the decomposition of $`\alpha `$ as the sum of the dimension vectors of the composition factors of $`X`$ shows that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$.

## 3. Proof of Theorem 1

Let $`𝐂`$ be the generalized Cartan matrix constructed in the introduction, let $`Q`$ be the quiver obtained from its diagram by orienting all arrows towards the vertex $`0`$, and denote by $`a_{i,j}`$ the arrow with tail at vertex $`[i,j]`$ and head at $`[i,j1]`$. (For convenience we use the convention that $`[i,0]`$ denotes the vertex $`0`$ for any $`i`$.) Let $`\alpha `$ and $`\lambda `$ be defined as in the statement of Theorem 1.

Given a solution to equation (2) with matrices $`A_iC_i`$, we construct a representation $`X`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$ in which all the linear maps $`a_{[i,j]}`$ are injective and $`a_{[i,j]}^{}`$ are surjective. The vector spaces at each vertex are $`X_0=K^n`$ and $`X_{[i,j]}=\mathrm{Im}(_{\mathrm{}=1}^j(A_i\xi _{i,\mathrm{}}1))`$. The linear map for arrow $`a_{i,j}`$ is the inclusion, and the linear map for $`a_{i,j}^{}`$ is

$$a_{i,j}^{}=(A_i\xi _{i,j}1)|_{X_{[i,j1]}}.$$

This is well-defined since $`(A_i\xi _{i,j}1)(X_{[i,j1]})=X_{[i,j]}`$.

We show that $`X`$ is a representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$. For $`j<d_i1`$ we have

$$a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}a_{i,j}^{}a_{i,j}=(A_i\xi _{i,j+1}1)(A_i\xi _{i,j}1)=\lambda _{[i,j]}1$$

which is the relation at vertex $`[i,j]`$. Also, since the restriction of $`A_i\xi _{i,d_i}1`$ to $`X_{[i,d_i1]}`$ is zero by (3), we have

$$a_{i,d_i1}^{}a_{i,d_i1}=(A_i\xi _{i,d_i1}1)=\lambda _{[i,d_i1]}1$$

which is the relation at $`[i,d_i1]`$. Finally (2) implies that

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}a_{i,1}a_{i,1}^{}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}(A_i\xi _{i,1}1)=\lambda _01$$

which is the relation at 0.

Conversely, given a representation $`X`$ of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$ in which all the linear maps $`a_{[i,j]}`$ are injective and $`a_{[i,j]}^{}`$ are surjective, we construct a solution to equation (2) with matrices $`A_iC_i`$. Identify $`X_0`$ with $`K^n`$. Define $`A_i=a_{i,1}a_{i,1}^{}+\xi _{i,1}1`$. For $`j<d_i1`$ the relation at vertex $`[i,j]`$ is $`a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}a_{i,j}^{}a_{i,j}=\lambda _{[i,j]}1`$, which implies that

(6)
$$a_{i,j}^{}(a_{i,j}a_{i,j}^{}+(\xi _{i,j}+c)1)=(a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}+(\xi _{i,j+1}+c)1)a_{i,j}^{}$$

for $`cK`$. The relation at $`[i,d_i1]`$ is $`a_{i,d_i1}^{}a_{i,d_i1}=\lambda _{[i,d_i1]}1`$, which implies that

(7)
$$a_{i,d_i1}^{}(a_{i,d_i1}a_{i,d_i1}^{}+(\xi _{i,d_i1}+c)1)=(\xi _{i,d_i}+c)a_{i,d_i1}^{}.$$

For $`j<d_i1`$, equation (6) gives

(8)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,2}^{}a_{i,1}^{}(A_i+c1)& =a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,2}^{}a_{i,1}^{}(a_{i,1}a_{i,1}^{}+(\xi _{i,1}+c)1)\hfill \\ & =a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,2}^{}(a_{i,2}a_{i,2}^{}+(\xi _{i,2}+c)1)a_{i,1}^{}\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{}\hfill \\ & =a_{i,j}^{}(a_{i,j}a_{i,j}^{}+(\xi _{i,j}+c)1)a_{i,j1}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,1}^{}\hfill \\ & =(a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}+(\xi _{i,j+1}+c)1)a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,1}^{}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now equation (7) gives

(9)
$$a_{i,d_i1}^{}a_{i,d_i2}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,1}^{}(A_i+c1)=(\xi _{i,d_i}+c)a_{i,d_i1}^{}a_{i,d_i2}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,1}^{}.$$

Taking $`c=\xi _{i,j+1}`$ in (8) we have

(10)
$$a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,2}^{}a_{i,1}^{}(A_i\xi _{i,j+1}1)=a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,1}^{}.$$

and hence by induction

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{j}{}}(A_i\xi _{i,\mathrm{}}1)=a_{i,1}a_{i,2}\mathrm{}a_{i,j}a_{i,j}^{}\mathrm{}a_{i,2}^{}a_{i,1}^{}$$

for $`jd_i1`$. Now (9) gives

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{d_i}{}}(A_i\xi _{i,\mathrm{}}1)=0.$$

Using the injectivity of the $`a_{i,j}`$ and the surjectivity of the $`a_{i,j}^{}`$ these two product formulas imply that $`A_iC_i`$. Finally, the relation at vertex 0 is $`_{i=1}^ka_{i,1}a_{i,1}^{}=\lambda _01`$, which implies that the matrices $`(A_i)`$ are a solution to equation (2).

Thus we have a correspondence between solutions of equation (2) with matrices $`A_iC_i`$ and representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$ in which all the linear maps $`a_{[i,j]}`$ are injective and $`a_{[i,j]}^{}`$ are surjective. It is clear that this gives a 1-1 correspondence between conjugacy classes of solutions and isomorphism classes of representations. Thus, provided we can show that irreducible solutions correspond to simple representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$, the result follows from Theorem 2.

If the solution to (2) is irreducible, then $`X`$ as constructed above is a simple representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$, for if $`Y`$ is a subrepresentation, the irreducibility implies that $`Y_0=0`$ or $`Y_0=X_0`$. But if $`Y_0=0`$ then $`Y=0`$ since the linear maps $`a_{i,j}`$ are all injective, and if $`Y_0=X_0`$ then $`Y=X`$ since the linear maps $`a_{i,j}^{}`$ are all surjective.

Conversely, suppose that $`X`$ is a simple representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$. We show that the linear maps $`a_{i,j}`$ are injective. For a contradiction, let $`xX_{[i,\mathrm{}]}`$ be a nonzero element in the kernel of $`a_{i,\mathrm{}}`$. We define elements $`x_jX_{[i,j]}`$ for $`j\mathrm{}`$ by setting $`x_{\mathrm{}}=x`$ and $`x_{j+1}=a_{i,j+1}^{}(x_j)`$ for $`j\mathrm{}`$. An induction, using the relation

$$a_{i,j+1}a_{i,j+1}^{}a_{i,j}^{}a_{i,j}=\lambda _{[i,j]}1$$

for $`j<d_i1`$, shows that $`a_{i,j+1}(x_{j+1})`$ is a multiple of $`x_j`$ for $`j\mathrm{}`$. It follows that the elements $`x_j`$ span a subrepresentation of $`X`$. It must be a proper subrepresentation since it is zero at the vertex 0, but $`\alpha _0=nr_{i,\mathrm{}}0`$. This contradicts the simplicity of $`X`$.

A dual argument shows that the linear maps $`a_{i,j}^{}`$ are surjective.

Now suppose that $`Y_0`$ is an subspace of $`X_0=K^n`$ which is invariant under the $`A_i`$. Define subspaces $`Y_{[i,j]}X_{[i,j]}`$ via $`Y_{[i,j]}=a_{i,j}^{}(Y_{[i,j1]})`$ for $`j1`$. Thanks to equation (10) this defines a subrepresentation of $`X`$. But $`X`$ is simple. Thus the solution $`(A_i)`$ is irreducible.

## 4. The rigid case

An irreducible solution is said to be *rigid* if any other solution (with the matrices in the same conjugacy classes) is conjugate to it. Two additional problems which may be considered as part of the ‘Deligne-Simpson problem’ are to enumerate all cases in which there is a rigid solution, and to construct the corresponding solutions.

For the multiplicative equation (1), Katz  has an algorithm which enables one to determine whether or not a given $`k`$-tuple of conjugacy classes has a rigid solution. Katz does not, however, attempt to enumerate all rigid cases, instead remarking that ‘Even a cursory glance …leaves one with the impression that there is a fascinating bestiary waiting to be compiled’.

Katz’s algorithm was simplified by Dettweiler and Reiter , who also adapted it to the additive equation (2), but again made no attempt to enumerate the cases.

Our results show that for equation (2), there is a rigid solution if and only if

* $`\alpha `$ is a positive real root,
* $`\lambda \alpha =0`$, and
* for any decomposition $`\alpha =\beta ^{(1)}+\beta ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ as a sum of two or more positive roots, one has $`\lambda \beta ^{(s)}0`$ for some $`s`$.

Thus we see that the problem of enumerating all rigid cases amounts to enumerating the positive real roots $`\alpha `$, and for each one, determining the set of $`\lambda `$ satisfying (ii) and (iii). Note that since a positive real root cannot be proportional to any other positive root, this set contains the general element of $`\{\lambda K^I\lambda \alpha =0\}`$.

For example, given 3 conjugacy classes $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$ of $`2\times 2`$ matrices, there is a rigid solution to equation (2) if and only if

* none of the $`C_i`$ consists of a multiple of the identity matrix,
* the sum of all six eigenvalues for the three conjugacy classes is zero, and
* the sum of three eigenvalues, one for each $`C_i`$, is always nonzero.

Namely, taking $`\xi _{i,1},\xi _{i,2}`$ to be the two eigenvalues for $`C_i`$, we work with the diagram

Since none of the $`C_i`$ consists of a multiple of the identity matrix, $`\alpha `$ is the real root

(where we display the components of $`\alpha `$ at the appropriate vertices in the diagram). The sum of all six eigenvalues being zero corresponds to the obvious requirement that $`\mathrm{tr}(A_1)+\mathrm{tr}(A_2)+\mathrm{tr}(A_3)=0`$ for $`A_iC_i`$, and also to the condition $`\lambda \alpha =0`$. Now, for example, the decomposition

corresponds to the condition $`\xi _{1,1}+\xi _{2,1}+\xi _{3,2}0`$, or equivalently $`\xi _{1,2}+\xi _{2,2}+\xi _{3,1}0`$.

As another example, consider 3 conjugacy classes $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$, $`C_3`$ of diagonalizable $`3\times 3`$ matrices, where $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ have distinct eigenvalues $`\xi _{i,1},\xi _{i,2},\xi _{i,3}`$ ($`i=1,2`$), and $`C_3`$ has eigenvalues $`\xi _{3,1},\xi _{3,2}`$ of multiplicities 2, 1 respectively. Thus we deal with the diagram and vector $`\alpha `$

Since $`\alpha `$ is a real root, there is a rigid solution for general $`\lambda `$ satisfying $`\lambda \alpha =0`$, or equivalently, for general $`\xi _{i,j}`$ satisfying

(11)
$$\xi _{1,1}+\xi _{1,2}+\xi _{1,3}+\xi _{2,1}+\xi _{2,2}+\xi _{2,3}+2\xi _{3,1}+\xi _{3,2}=0.$$

There is no rigid solution when

(12)
$$\xi _{1,1}+\xi _{2,1}+\xi _{3,1}=0,$$

because of the decomposition

where both terms in the sum are roots. On the other hand, there can be rigid solutions when

(13)
$$\xi _{1,1}+\xi _{2,1}+\xi _{3,2}=0.$$

Namely, decompositions of $`\alpha `$ of the form

could perhaps fail condition (iii) because the dot product of $`\lambda `$ with the indicated summand is zero, but the difference

is not a root, so this decomposition of $`\alpha `$ must have at least 3 summands, and the dot product of $`\lambda `$ with any of the later summands will be nonzero for general $`\xi _{i,j}`$ satisfying (11) and (13). (I am grateful to a referee of an earlier version of the paper for suggesting this example.)

Using the methods developed in , we now give short proof that conditions (i), (ii) and (iii) characterize the existence of a unique simple representation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$, avoiding Theorem 2, whose proof in  is quite complicated. Assuming either that there is a unique simple of dimension vector $`\alpha `$, or that $`\alpha `$ satisfies (i)-(iii) we deduce the other.

Since the relations for $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ are given by a moment map, a standard symplectic geometry argument shows that the simple representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$, if any, depend on $`2p(\alpha )`$ parameters. (For example, using the notation of \[2, Theorem 10.3\], the simple representations form an open subset $`𝒮`$ of the vector space $`\mathrm{Rep}(K\overline{Q},\alpha )`$ of representations of $`\overline{Q}`$ of dimension vector $`\alpha `$. Representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ correspond to a fibre of $`\mu :\mathrm{Rep}(K\overline{Q},\alpha )\mathrm{End}(\alpha )_0`$, whose restriction to $`𝒮`$ is smooth, and isomorphism classes correspond to orbits of the group $`\mathrm{GL}(\alpha )`$ which acts on $`𝒮`$ with one-dimensional stabilizers. Thus the number of parameters is $`dim𝒮dim\mathrm{End}(\alpha )_0(dim\mathrm{GL}(\alpha )1)=2p(\alpha )`$, as claimed.)

Thus either condition implies that $`p(\alpha )=0`$, so $`\alpha ^T𝐂\alpha >0`$, and hence $`ϵ_v^T𝐂\alpha >0`$ for some vertex $`v`$. Thus the reflection $`s_v(\alpha )`$ is strictly smaller than $`\alpha `$.

Now if $`\lambda _v0`$ then the reflection functors of  show that simple representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ of dimension $`\alpha `$ correspond to simple representations of $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda ^{}`$ of dimension $`s_v(\alpha )`$ for suitable $`\lambda ^{}`$. Moreover conditions (i)-(iii) for $`\alpha `$ correspond to the equivalent conditions for $`s_v(\alpha )`$ by \[3, Lemma 5.2\]. Thus the claim follows by an induction.

On the other hand, if $`\lambda _v=0`$ then there is a unique simple representation if and only if $`\alpha =ϵ_v`$ by \[3, Lemma 7.2\], and conditions (i)-(iii) hold if and only if $`\alpha =ϵ_v`$, for otherwise, either (i) or (ii) fails, or the decomposition $`\alpha =s_v(\alpha )+ϵ_v+\mathrm{}+ϵ_v`$ contradicts (iii).

Finally, we remark that Dettweiler and Reiter’s additive version \[5, Appendix\] of Katz’s algorithm corresponds to the the reflection functor at the vertex 0 for the generalized Cartan matrix introduced in the introduction. (The reflection functors at other vertices have the same effect as re-ordering the elements $`\xi _{i,j}`$.) Either approach can in principle be used to construct the solutions in the rigid cases. See  for an alternative explicit construction of solutions in some special cases.

## 5. The nilpotent case

The case where the $`C_i`$ are nilpotent conjugacy classes has been considered by Kostov . Here we may take all $`\xi _{i,j}=0`$, so that $`\lambda =0`$. Now \[3, Theorem 8.1\] characterizes the elements of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ as the coordinate vectors, and the elements of the fundamental region, except those of three special types (I), (II) and (III). For the generalized Cartan matrix constructed in the introduction, the fundamental region consists of the nonzero vectors $`\alpha ^I`$ with connected support, $`2\alpha _{[i,j]}\alpha _{[i,j1]}+\alpha _{[i,j+1]}`$ for $`1ik`$ and $`1j<d_i1`$, $`2\alpha _{[i,d_i1]}\alpha _{[i,d_i2]}`$ for $`1ik`$, and

$$2\alpha _0\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _{[i,1]}.$$

For $`\alpha `$ constructed as in Theorem 1, the first conditions follow automatically from (4), and the last condition becomes

$$2n\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}r_{i,1}.$$

Deleting any vertices $`v`$ at which $`\alpha _v=0`$, the special types are:

* The diagram is an extended Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`\alpha `$ is a proper multiple of the minimal positive imaginary root $`\delta `$.
* The diagram is obtained from an extended Dynkin diagram $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by adding a new vertex $`w`$ connected to an extending vertex of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The restriction of $`\alpha `$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a proper multiple of $`\delta `$, and $`\alpha _w=1`$.
* Does not occur.

As an example, suppose that $`C_1`$, $`C_2`$ and $`C_3`$ are all the conjugacy class of nilpotent $`12\times 12`$ matrices consisting of four $`3\times 3`$ Jordan blocks. In this case the diagram and vector $`\alpha `$ are

This is of type (I), with the diagram being extended Dynkin of type $`\stackrel{~}{E}_6`$, so there is no irreducible solution. Changing $`C_3`$ to involve Jordan blocks of sizes $`4,3,3,2`$, we obtain

which is of type (II), so again there is no irreducible solution. Changing $`C_3`$ again, to involve Jordan blocks of sizes $`4,4,2,2`$, we obtain

which is in the fundamental region (since $`2\times 128+8+8`$), and is not a special type, so there is an irreducible solution in this case.

Observe that type (I) corresponds to the ‘special’ cases, and type (II) to the ‘almost special’ cases (a1), (b1), (c2) and (d3) of \[10, §6\]. Thus one implication in our characterization has already been obtained by Kostov \[10, Theorem 34\].

## 6. The generic eigenvalues case

Let $`\nu _{i,1},\mathrm{},\nu _{i,r_i}`$ be the distinct eigenvalues of $`C_i`$, and let $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ be the algebraic multiplicity of $`\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}`$. We assume that

(14)
$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{r_i}{}}m_{i,\mathrm{}}\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}=0,$$

which is an obvious necessary condition for equation (2) to have a solution. Following Kostov , we say that the $`C_i`$ have *generic eigenvalues* if, for any integers $`0m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`_{\mathrm{}=1}^{r_i}m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}`$ is independent of $`i`$, an equality of the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{r_i}{}}m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}=0$$

implies that $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}=0`$ for all $`i,\mathrm{}`$, or $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{}=m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`i,\mathrm{}`$. Clearly, if the $`C_i`$ have generic eigenvalues, then the $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ have no common divisor.

In , Kostov determines those $`C_i`$ with generic eigenvalues for which equation (2) has an irreducible solution. His answer can be neatly reformulated in terms of roots, and we show that it also follows from Theorem 1. Choose elements $`\xi _{i,j}`$ as in the introduction, and let $`\lambda `$ and $`\alpha `$ be constructed as in Theorem 1. Assuming that the $`C_i`$ have generic eigenvalues, we show that $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$ (so that equation (2) has an irreducible solution) if and only if $`\alpha `$ is a root.

First note that $`\alpha `$ is indivisible, that is, its components have no common divisor, for otherwise the $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ will have the same common divisor. Also, equation (14) implies that $`\lambda \alpha =0`$.

By definition, if $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$, then $`\alpha `$ is a root. For the converse, suppose that $`\alpha `$ is a root, and that $`\alpha =\beta ^{(1)}+\beta ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ is a nontrivial decomposition of $`\alpha `$ as a sum of elements of $`R_\lambda ^+`$. We show that inequality (5) holds.

Let $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ be a summand occurring in this decomposition. For given $`i`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$, define

$$m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=1\\ \xi _{i,j}=\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}\end{array}}{\overset{d_i}{}}(\beta _{[i,j1]}^{(s)}\beta _{[i,j]}^{(s)}),$$

where, for convenience, we define $`\beta _{[i,d_i]}^{(s)}=0`$, and $`[i,0]`$ denotes the vertex 0. Clearly

$$\underset{\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{r_i}{}}m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=\underset{j=1}{\overset{d_i}{}}(\beta _{[i,j1]}^{(s)}\beta _{[i,j]}^{(s)})=\beta _0^{(s)},$$

which is independent of $`i`$.

We claim that $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}0`$ for all $`i,\mathrm{}`$. To prove it, we divide into two cases. If $`\beta _0^{(s)}0`$, then the fact that $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ is a root implies that $`\beta _{[i,j1]}^{(s)}\beta _{[i,j]}^{(s)}`$ for all $`i,j`$, which immediately gives the claim. On the other hand, if $`\beta _0^{(s)}=0`$, then since any root has connected support, $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ is supported on one arm of the diagram, say the $`i`$-th. Moreover, using the classification of roots for type $`A_n`$, it follows that there are $`1pqd_i1`$ with

(15)
$$\beta _{[i,p]}^{(s)}=\beta _{[i,p+1]}^{(s)}=\mathrm{}=\beta _{[i,q]}^{(s)}=1,$$

and all other components of $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ are zero. Now

$$0=\lambda \beta ^{(s)}=\lambda _{[i,p]}+\lambda _{[i,p+1]}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{[i,q]}=\xi _{i,p}\xi _{i,q+1}.$$

so that $`\xi _{i,p}=\xi _{i,q+1}`$. From this it follows that $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=0`$ for all $`\mathrm{}`$, and clearly also $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=0`$ for all other arms $`i`$.

Now, varying $`s`$, we have

$$m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(1)}+m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(2)}+\mathrm{}=\underset{\begin{array}{c}j=1\\ \xi _{i,j}=\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}\end{array}}{\overset{d_i}{}}(\alpha _{[i,j1]}\alpha _{[i,j]})=m_{i,\mathrm{}}$$

(where, again, we define $`\alpha _{[i,d_i]}=0`$). Thus $`0m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$. Moreover,

$`0`$ $`=\lambda \beta ^{(s)}={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}(\xi _{i,]}\xi _{i,j+1})\beta _{[i,j]}^{(s)}({\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\xi _{i,1})\beta _0^{(s)}`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j}{}}\xi _{i,j}(\beta _{[i,j]}^{(s)}\beta _{[i,j1]}^{(s)})={\displaystyle \underset{i,\mathrm{}}{}}\nu _{i,\mathrm{}}m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}.`$
This contradicts the genericity assumption unless $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=m_{i,\mathrm{}}`$ for all $`i,\mathrm{}`$, or $`m_{i,\mathrm{}}^{(s)}=0`$ for all $`i,\mathrm{}`$. Thus, exactly one of the summands $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ has $`\beta _0^{(s)}0`$. By renumbering we may suppose it is the one with $`s=1`$.

We show that $`\alpha ^T𝐂\beta ^{(s)}0`$ for $`s1`$, where $`𝐂`$ is the generalized Cartan matrix. Namely, using that $`\beta ^{(s)}`$ is of the form (15), we have

$$\alpha ^T𝐂\beta ^{(s)}=(\alpha _{[i,q]}\alpha _{[i,q+1]})(\alpha _{[i,p1]}\alpha _{[i,p]}),$$

so the assertion follows from equation (4).

Now let $`\gamma =\beta ^{(2)}+\beta ^{(3)}+\mathrm{}=\alpha \beta ^{(1)}0`$. We have $`\gamma ^T𝐂\gamma >0`$ since the support of $`\gamma `$ is contained in the diagram obtained by deleting the vertex 0, which is a union of Dynkin diagrams of type $`A_n`$, so has positive definite quadratic form. Since $`𝐂`$ is symmetric we have

$`p(\beta ^{(1)})`$ $`=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\beta ^{(1)})^T𝐂\beta ^{(1)}=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^T𝐂\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^T𝐂\gamma +\alpha ^T𝐂\gamma `$
$`=p(\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^T𝐂\gamma +\alpha ^T𝐂\beta ^{(2)}+\alpha ^T𝐂\beta ^{(3)}+\mathrm{}<p(\alpha ).`$
Since also $`p(\beta ^{(s)})=0`$ for $`s1`$, inequality (5) follows. Thus $`\alpha \mathrm{\Sigma }_\lambda `$.


format: text

text:
# Modular transformation and boundary states in logarithmic conformal field theory

## I Introduction

The existence of critical systems with logarithmic correlation functions has been known for some time. It was almost a decade ago when Saleur pointed out the existence of logarithmic behavior in the correlation functions of some geometrical critical systems. Subsequently, the importance of such logarithmic terms in conformal field theories (CFTs) was emphasized by Gurarie, who pointed out that this phenomenon occurs when two (or more) primary operators have scaling dimensions differing by integers, and that these operators are not diagonal under conformal transformations but they form Jordan cells. Such theories had never been studied seriously till then, mainly because they are not unitary. Importantly, however, non-unitary does not mean unrealistic – there are a large number of non-unitary models relevant in statistical and high-energy physics. Such logarithmic conformal field theories (LCFTs) are now known to be quite ubiquitous, and are being studied not only for their mathematical interests, but also for their potential applicability in string theory and statistical physics.

Although much work has been done in recent years, our knowledge of LCFTs is still incomplete. In particular, the behavior of such systems in the presence of a boundary is not fully understood. In ordinary CFTs, the system near the boundary is described by bulk and boundary operators. Then, once the physical boundary states are identified, the scaling properties of the given system are completely understood. At least in the case of unitary minimal models, such physically consistent boundary states are most systematically obtained by the “fusion method” of Cardy. This method uses the duality of open-string and closed-string channels; one partition function is calculated in two different ways, and consistency gives non-trivial constraints on the boundary states which are realized physically. In LCFTs, however, the validity of this method, and even the existence of well-defined physical boundary states, has not been clear. The main obstacle is that operators in LCFTs are not classified into simple conformal towers which split the partition function into Virasoro characters. The purpose of this note is to show that Cardy’s method is applicable to LCFTs and that LCFTs allow physically consistent boundary states.

In this paper we focus on the triplet model of $`c=2`$ which has explicit Lagrangian representation:

$$S=\frac{1}{\pi }d^2z(\eta \overline{}\xi +\overline{\eta }\overline{\xi }),$$
(1)
where $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ are fermionic fields of scaling dimensions $`1`$ and $`0`$, respectively, with operator products $`\eta (z)\xi (w)\xi (z)\eta (w)1/(zw)`$. This is nothing but the fermionic ghost system with central charge $`2`$. Our strategy is to derive explicit boundary states in Fock space and then to study their modular properties. Before discussing boundary states, we shall briefly summarize how the bulk chiral theory is constructed from the action (1) and thereby define our model precisely. The energy-momentum tensor of this system is $`T(z)=:\xi (z)\eta (z):`$, from which the central charge is read off as $`c=2`$. The system has a $`U(1)`$ symmetry whose current is $`J_{U(1)}(z)=:\xi (z)\eta (z):`$. Due to this symmetry the system has twisted, as well as untwisted, sectors. In this paper we consider the $`Z_2`$ orbifold model, where the twist operation is restricted to $`Z_2`$, which is a finite Abelian subgroup of $`U(1)`$. The two fields $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ are conveniently combined into a two-component symplectic fermion of conformal dimension $`1`$ as

$$\chi ^+=\eta ,\chi ^{}=\xi .$$
(2)
This $`Z_2`$ orbifold symplectic fermion differs from the $`\eta `$-$`\xi `$ system (1) in the treatment of the $`\xi `$ zero mode, and its bosonic sector has been shown to be identical to the so-called triplet model, which is one of the few models of LCFT that have been studied extensively. Mode operators are defined by $`\chi ^\pm (z)=_{mZ+\lambda }\chi _m^\pm z^{m1}`$ and $`\overline{\chi }^\pm (\overline{z})=_{mZ+\lambda }\overline{\chi }_m^\pm \overline{z}^{m1}`$, where $`\lambda =0`$ for the untwisted (Neveu-Schwartz) sector and $`\lambda =1/2`$ for the $`Z_2`$-twisted (Ramond) sector. Anticommutation relations consistent with the operator product of $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ are

$$\{\chi _m^\alpha ,\chi _n^\beta \}=md^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{m+n},$$
(3)
where $`d^{\alpha \beta }`$ is an antisymmetric tensor such that $`d^\pm =\pm 1`$, and $`d_{\alpha \beta }`$ is defined by $`d^{\alpha \gamma }d_{\gamma \beta }=\delta _\beta ^\alpha `$. The normal ordering in the twisted sector is defined on the twisted vacua, and the formulae are obtained using the operator products of the symplectic fermions with twist operators, or resorting to the twisted Borcherds identity in operator formalism. Then the energy-momentum tensor in terms of the generalized normal ordering becomes $`T(z)=d_{\alpha \beta }:\chi ^\alpha (z)\chi ^\beta (z):/2+\lambda (\lambda 1)/2,`$ and from this, the Virasoro operators are given as

$$L_n=\frac{1}{2}d_{\alpha \beta }\underset{mZ+\lambda }{}:\chi _m^\alpha \chi _{nm}^\beta :+\frac{\lambda (\lambda 1)}{2}\delta _{n0}.$$
(4)
In the twisted sector, the ground state is unique and is denoted by $`\mu `$. This has weight $`1/8`$ and is identified as the ground state of the representation $`𝒱_{1/8}`$. There is another representation $`𝒱_{3/8}`$ in this sector, which is built on the state $`\nu ^\alpha =\chi _{1/2}^\alpha \mu `$, with weight $`3/8`$. The untwisted sector is more complicated because the existence of a zero-mode leads to quadruply degenerate ground states. Let $`\omega `$ be a state annihilated by $`\chi _{m>0}^\alpha `$. Then, the four degenerate ground states are $`\omega `$, $`\theta ^\pm =\chi _0^\pm \omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\chi _0^{}\chi _0^+\omega =L_0\omega `$. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is annihilated by further operations of zero-modes, and hence identified as the Möbius invariant vacuum. The bosonic ground states $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega `$ span a two-dimensional Jordan cell on the action of $`L_0`$, and they are said to form a logarithmic pair. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\omega `$ constitute an irreducible vacuum representation $`𝒱_0`$, which is a sub-representation of the “reducible but indecomposable” representation $`_0`$. There is another such logarithmic pair, $`\varphi ^\alpha =\chi _1^\alpha \omega `$ and $`\psi ^\alpha =\chi _1^\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }`$, constituting an irreducible representation $`𝒱_1`$, which is again included in a reducible but indecomposable larger representation $`_1`$. These six representations, $`𝒱_{1/8}`$, $`𝒱_{3/8}`$, $`𝒱_0`$, $`𝒱_1`$, $`_0`$ and $`_1`$, are the building blocks of the $`Z_2`$ orbifold $`c=2`$ model. We emphasize that these six are not all independent since $`𝒱_0`$ and $`𝒱_1`$ are sub-representations of $`_0`$ and $`_1`$, respectively. The characters for these representations are calculated in  as:

$`\chi __0(\tau )=\chi __1(\tau )=2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\tau ),`$ (5)
$`\chi _{𝒱_0}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\tau )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta (\tau )^2,`$ (6)
$`\chi _{𝒱_1}(\tau )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\tau ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta (\tau )^2,`$ (7)
$`\chi _{𝒱_{1/8}}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\tau ),`$ (8)
$`\chi _{𝒱_{3/8}}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\tau ),`$ (9)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{mn}(\tau )=\mathrm{\Theta }_{mn}(\tau )/\eta (\tau )`$. We define the modular parameter as $`q=e^{2\pi i\tau }`$, and denote the Jacobi $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$-function and Dedekind $`\eta `$-function by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{mn}(\tau )=_{kZ}q^{(2nk+m)^2/4n}`$ and $`\eta (\tau )=q^{1/24}_{kZ_+}(1q^k)`$, respectively. The characters (9) do not close under the modular transformation $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\tau }=1/\tau `$ since $`\eta (\tau )^2`$ is transformed into $`i\stackrel{~}{\tau }\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$. The fusion rules are proposed in  as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_i\times _j\hfill & =2_0+2_1\hfill & i,j=0,1,\hfill \\ _i\times 𝒱_j\hfill & =_0\hfill & (i,j)=(0,0),(1,1),\hfill \\ & =_1\hfill & (i,j)=(0,1),(1,0),\hfill \\ & =2𝒱_{1/8}+2𝒱_{3/8}\hfill & i=0,1;j=\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8},\hfill \\ 𝒱_i\times 𝒱_j\hfill & =𝒱_0\hfill & (i,j)=(0,0),(1,1),\hfill \\ & =𝒱_1\hfill & (i,j)=(0,1),(1,0),\hfill \\ & =𝒱_{1/8}\hfill & (i,j)=(0,\frac{1}{8}),(1,\frac{3}{8}),\hfill \\ & =𝒱_{3/8}\hfill & (i,j)=(1,\frac{1}{8}),(0,\frac{3}{8}),\hfill \\ & =_0\hfill & (i,j)=(\frac{1}{8},\frac{1}{8}),(\frac{3}{8},\frac{3}{8}),\hfill \\ & =_1\hfill & (i,j)=(\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8}),(\frac{3}{8},\frac{1}{8}).\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Since the four representations $`_0`$, $`_1`$, $`𝒱_{1/8}`$ and $`𝒱_{3/8}`$ close under the fusion, this model is considered as a rational conformal field theory, with a slightly weakened definition of rationality.

## II Boundary states of the symplectic fermion

Now let us construct boundary states from the action (1). Consider a cylinder of circumference $`L`$ and length $`T`$. Modular parameters are defined as $`\stackrel{~}{q}=e^{4\pi T/L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }=2iT/L`$. As in the construction of Dirichlet and Neumann boundary states in open superstring theory, we assume that the boundary term in the action vanishes, $`\eta \xi +\overline{\eta }\overline{\xi }=0.`$ Since $`\eta `$ and $`\xi `$ have different scaling dimensions, this condition is decomposed into the linear conditions that $`\eta =e^{i\varphi }\overline{\eta }`$ and $`\xi =e^{i(\pi \varphi )}\overline{\xi }`$ on the boundary. Here, $`\varphi `$ is a phase factor reflecting the $`U(1)`$ symmetry of the system. These conditions are trivially consistent with the conformal invariance. Although it might be possible to include non-trivial interactions between bulk and boundary by introducing conformally invariant boundary terms, we do not consider such terms here. On Fourier decomposition of the symplectic fermion into mode operators, this condition is rephrased as constraints on boundary states $`|B`$ and $`B|`$ at boundaries as

$`\left(\chi _m^\pm e^{\pm i\varphi }\overline{\chi }_m^\pm \right)|B=0,`$ (11)
$`B|\left(\chi _m^\pm e^{\pm i\varphi }\overline{\chi }_m^\pm \right)=0.`$ (12)
These equations are satisfied by coherent states,

$`|B_{0\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`N\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{k}}\chi _k^{}\overline{\chi }_k^++{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{k}}\overline{\chi }_k^{}\chi _k^+\right)|0_\varphi ,`$ (13)
$`B_{0\varphi }|`$ $`=`$ $`0_\varphi |N^{}\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{k>0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{k}}\chi _k^{}\overline{\chi }_k^++{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i\varphi }}{k}}\overline{\chi }_k^{}\chi _k^+\right),`$ (14)
where $`N`$ and $`N^{}`$ are normalization constants, and $`k`$ runs over integers in the untwisted sector and half-integers in the twisted sector. $`|0_\varphi `$ stands for a non-chiral ground state satisfying

$$\chi _{k>0}^\pm |0_\varphi =0=\overline{\chi }_{k>0}^\pm |0_\varphi .$$
(15)
In addition to this, $`|0_\varphi `$ in the untwisted sector must satisfy

$$\left(\chi _0^\pm e^{\pm i\varphi }\overline{\chi }_0^\pm \right)|0_\varphi =0.$$
(16)
The bra-ground state $`0_\varphi |`$ satisfies similar conditions.

The non-chiral ground state $`|0_\varphi `$ in the twisted sector is merely a direct product $`|\mu \overline{\mu }`$. In the untwisted sector, there are two chiral bosonic ground states $`\omega `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and therefore we have four non-chiral ground states, namely, $`|\omega \overline{\omega }`$, $`|\omega \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\omega }`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$. Among these, $`|\omega \overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\omega }`$ are not consistent with (16) since $`\chi _0^\pm \omega 0`$ and $`\chi _0^\pm \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$. The condition (16) non-trivially connects the left and right sectors of $`|\omega \overline{\omega }`$ through the phase factor $`\varphi `$, whereas $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ trivially satisfies (16). Thus we have three non-chiral ground states $`|\omega \overline{\omega }`$, $`|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, and $`|\mu \overline{\mu }`$. We normalize these states to be

$`\omega \overline{\omega }|\omega \overline{\omega }=\kappa ,`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}|\omega \overline{\omega }=\omega \overline{\omega }|\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=\rho 1,`$ (18)
$`\mu \overline{\mu }|\mu \overline{\mu }=1.`$ (19)
For the convenience of later discussions we have chosen $`\rho =1`$. We leave the value of $`\kappa `$ unfixed. The boundary states (14) are indexed by the phase factor $`\varphi `$ and the choice of ground state $`0_\varphi `$ which may also depend on $`\varphi `$. With a slight misuse of the notation we shall denote in the sequel $`\omega \overline{\omega }`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`\mu \overline{\mu }`$ as $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\mu `$, respectively.

The condition of continuity for a general chiral field $`J`$ across the boundary $`\zeta =\overline{\zeta }`$ is

$$\left[J(\zeta )\overline{J}(\overline{\zeta })\right]_{\zeta =\overline{\zeta }}=0.$$
(20)
A semi-annular domain in the upper half $`\zeta `$-plane is conformally mapped onto a full annulus in the $`z`$-plane by $`z=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iw/L)`$ and $`w=(T/\pi )\mathrm{ln}\zeta `$. Under this mapping the boundary $`\zeta =\overline{\zeta }`$ is mapped to $`|z|=1`$, $`\mathrm{exp}(2\pi T/L)`$, and the condition (20) reads

$$z^{s_J}J(z)=(\overline{z})^{s_J}\overline{J}(\overline{z}),$$
(21)
on the boundary. Here, $`s_J`$ is the spin of $`J`$. Now that the $`z`$-plane allows radial quantization, the continuity of $`J`$ may be translated into conditions on the boundary states as

$$(J_m(1)^{s_J}\overline{J}_m)|B_{0\varphi }=0.$$
(22)
When $`J(z)`$ is the energy-momentum tensor $`T(z)`$, (22) reduces to the diffeomorphism invariance of the boundary

$$(L_m\overline{L}_m)|B_{0\varphi }.$$
(23)
Recalling that the Virasoro operators are given as (4), it is easily verified that indeed the states (14) satisfy this condition. There are extra symmetries in our system other than the conformal invariance, as is hinted by the $`U(1)`$ invariance of the action (1). In fact, the symmetry is upgraded to $`SU(2)`$ through the re-formulation into the symplectic fermion. Combining the $`su(2)`$ and the Virasoro algebra, our system has a W-algebra of type $`𝒲(2,3^3)`$, which is generated by the Virasoro operators (of weight 2) plus three operators of weight 3:

$`W^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{:\chi ^+\chi ^{}:+:\chi ^{}\chi ^+:\},`$ (24)
$`W^\pm =:\chi ^\pm \chi ^\pm :,`$ (25)
where the normal ordering is taken on appropriate (twisted or untwisted) vacuum for each sector. The mode operators $`W_m^a`$ are

$`W_n^0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{jZ+\lambda }{}}j\{:\chi _{nj}^+\chi _j^{}:+:\chi _{nj}^{}\chi _j^+:\},`$ (26)
$`W_n^\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{jZ+\lambda }{}}j\chi _{nj}^\pm \chi _j^\pm ,`$ (27)
where $`\lambda =0`$ for the untwisted and $`1/2`$ for the twisted sector as before. Since the W-operators have spin 3, the continuity condition for the W-field reads

$$(W_m^a+\overline{W}_m^a)|B_{0\varphi }=0.$$
(28)
Besides (16) which has already been imposed for the conformal invariance, (28) implies an extra condition

$$e^{2i\varphi }=1,$$
(29)
which means that the values of $`\varphi `$ must be $`0`$ modulo $`\pi `$. Thus in our $`Z_2`$ orbifold model, we restrict the values of $`\varphi `$ to be either $`\varphi =0`$ or $`\varphi =\pi `$, and in the following text we write $`|B_{0+}=|B_{0,\varphi =0}`$, $`|B_0=|B_{0,\varphi =\pi }`$, and $`B_{0+}|=B_{0,\varphi =0}|`$, $`B_0|=B_{0,\varphi =\pi }|`$. Then we have six distinct boundary states, $`|B_{\omega +}`$, $`|B_\omega `$, $`|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}`$, $`|B_\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`|B_{\mu +}`$ and $`|B_\mu `$, which we collectively write $`|a=|B_{0\varphi }`$. Once boundary states are constructed, the boundary-to-boundary amplitudes (partition functions on the cylinder) $`a|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0+1/6}|b`$ are calculated. Setting $`|N|^2=1`$, they are summarized in Table 1.

Strictly speaking, the boundary states (14) are not normalizable. Their non-trivial inner products are

$`B_{\omega \pm }|B_\omega =\kappa \underset{\stackrel{~}{\tau }0}{lim}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }),`$ (30)
$`B_{\mathrm{\Omega }\pm }|B_\omega =B_{\omega \pm }|B_\mathrm{\Omega }=\underset{\stackrel{~}{\tau }0}{lim}\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau }),`$ (31)
$`B_{\mu \pm }|B_\mu =\underset{\stackrel{~}{\tau }0}{lim}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })).`$ (32)
The right hand sides of (32) are all divergent, which is a well-known feature of such boundary states.

## III Modular properties of the boundary states

The amplitude $`a|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0+1/6}|b`$ represents the tree-level graph of a closed string propagating from one boundary to the other. The same amplitude describes the one-loop graph of an open string having specific boundary states at each end. This equivalence imposes strong constraints on the physical boundary states. Assume an open string has boundary states $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ at its ends. If these boundary states are physical, $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i`$ (a non-negative integer) copies of representations $`i`$ appear in the bulk. The partition function is then the sum of the bulk characters and written as $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(q)=_in_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i\chi _i(q)`$, where $`\chi _i(q)`$ are the characters for representations $`i`$, and $`q=e^{\pi L/T}`$. Duality of the open and closed channels demands $`Z_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(q)=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0+1/6}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. In the literature this is often called Cardy’s relation. On expanding physical boundary states by the boundary states we constructed above, we obtain

$$\underset{i}{}n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i\chi _i(q)=\underset{a,b}{}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|aa|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0+1/6}|bb|\stackrel{~}{\beta }.$$
(33)
Here, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|a`$ and $`b|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ should be understood merely as coefficients in expansions $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|=_a\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|aa|`$, and $`|\stackrel{~}{\beta }=_bb|\stackrel{~}{\beta }|b`$, as ordinary orthonormal bra-ket operations are not possible in our case.

Using the modular transformations of Jacobi and Dedekind functions, relations between $`|a`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ are found by comparing the coefficients of functions on both sides. Some care is needed: all non-diagonal contributions have to be considered since on the right hand side amplitudes are not diagonalized into characters. Equating the coefficients of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$, $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$, we have

$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\omega +}B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\omega B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }=0,`$ (34)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\omega +}B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\omega B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_0}n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_1}}{4\pi }},`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\omega +}B_\mathrm{\Omega }|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\omega B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (36)
$`+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\mathrm{\Omega }B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }=n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_{3/8}}n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_{1/8}},`$ (37)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\omega +}B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\omega B_\mathrm{\Omega }|\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (38)
$`+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\mathrm{\Omega }B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (39)
$`\kappa (\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\omega B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\omega +}B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0,`$ (40)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\mu +}B_\mu |\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\mu B_{\mu +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }={\displaystyle \frac{n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_{1/8}}+n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_{3/8}}}{2}},`$ (41)
(42)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_{\mu +}B_{\mu +}|\stackrel{~}{\beta }+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|B_\mu B_\mu |\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ (43)
$`=n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^_0+n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_0}+n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{𝒱_1}).`$ (44)
Now following Cardy’s fusion method, let us find the consistent physical boundary states one by one. We assume that bra and ket boundary states have the same real coefficients $`a|\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }|a`$. We start by looking for a reference state $`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ such that $`n_{\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^i=n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0}^i=\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}^i`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ in (34)-(44). In the untwisted sector, from (34) we have $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_{\omega +}B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=0`$. Since we can exchange $`\varphi =0`$ and $`\varphi =\pi `$ as a consequence of $`Z_2`$ symmetry, we may put $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_{\omega +}=B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=0`$ without loss of generality. Then from (35) we have $`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_\omega |^2=1/(4\pi )`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_\omega =B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=1/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$. Substituting these values, (37) gives $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}=B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=0`$. From (40) we find $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_\mathrm{\Omega }=B_\mathrm{\Omega }|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=\kappa /(4\sqrt{\pi })`$. In the twisted sector, (42) becomes $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_{\mu +}B_\mu |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=0`$, and again without losing generality we can choose $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_{\mu +}=B_{\mu +}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=0`$. Then from (44) we find $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0|B_\mu =B_\mu |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=1/2`$. Thus we found $`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0=(1/2\sqrt{\pi })|B_\omega +(\kappa /4\sqrt{\pi })|B_\mathrm{\Omega }+(1/2)|B_\mu `$.

Next, we put $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$. We find $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_\omega =B_\omega |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=1/(2\sqrt{\pi })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_\mathrm{\Omega }=B_\mathrm{\Omega }|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=\kappa /(4\sqrt{\pi })`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_\mu =B_\mu |\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=1/2`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_{\omega +}=B_{\omega +}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}=B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1|B_{\mu +}=B_{\mu +}|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1=0`$. The rest of the states are found similarly by putting $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{1/8},\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{3/8},\stackrel{~}{}_0,\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ one by one, all with $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }=\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$. Then we find

$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}|B_\omega +{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4\sqrt{\pi }}}|B_\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mu ,`$ (45)
$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi }}}|B_\omega {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa }{4\sqrt{\pi }}}|B_\mathrm{\Omega }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mu ,`$ (46)
$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{1/8}=|B_{\mu +}2\sqrt{\pi }|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+},`$ (47)
$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{3/8}=|B_{\mu +}+2\sqrt{\pi }|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+},`$ (48)
$`|\stackrel{~}{}|\stackrel{~}{}_0=|\stackrel{~}{}_1=2|B_\mu .`$ (49)
Since $`\stackrel{~}{}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_1`$ are the same state, we shall denote it as $`\stackrel{~}{}`$. There are other solutions obtained from the above by exchanging $`\omega +`$ and $`\omega `$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }+`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\mu +`$ and $`\mu `$ (first and second pairs have to be exchanged simultaneously), as a consequence of the $`Z_2`$ symmetry. Apart from this, the solutions are unique. Therefore, the duality of open and closed string channels provides strong enough constraints for the physical boundary states to be determined without ambiguity. Substituting these states back into (33), possible $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i`$ on the left hand side are found. Note that $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i`$ cannot be determined uniquely by this procedure, since the characters are not independent but $`\chi __0=\chi __1=2(\chi _{𝒱_0}+\chi _{𝒱_1})`$. Up to this ambiguity $`n_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^i`$ is identical to the fusion matrix $`n_{jk}^i`$, which appears as $`\mathrm{\Phi }_j\times \mathrm{\Phi }_k=_in_{jk}^i\mathrm{\Phi }_i`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$’s stand for the representations) in the fusion rule (10).

## IV Discussion

The essential point in our analysis is the appearance of the term $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$ in the cylinder amplitude (Table 1) through the proper treatment of the zero-mode. Note that the five modular functions $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$, $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ close under the modular transformation $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }1/\stackrel{~}{\tau }`$. Discarding either $`B_{\omega +}`$ or $`B_\omega `$ in order to get rid of the unwanted function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q}`$, we obtained a set of boundary states including the reference state $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ which is necessary for the Cardy fusion procedure. This situation is quite similar to what happens in the Ising model case, where one of the two $`R`$ sector states has to be discarded to give three boundary states, namely spin up, down, and free, which behave appropriately under modular transformations. In fact, the Ising model is the only known example which allows free-field construction of boundary states.

However, our model differs from the Ising model in one important respect. Neglecting the row and column involving the discarded state $`B_{\omega +}`$, the cylinder amplitude of the untwisted sector in Table 1 gives a matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(\kappa \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q})\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2& \mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })& \eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2\\ \mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })& 0& 0\\ \eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$
(50)
which is not regular. Since one of the three eigen-values is zero, the untwisted sector has only two non-trivial partition functions on diagonalization. This means that the net content of the space spanned by $`|B_\omega `$, $`|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }\pm }`$, $`|B_{\mu \pm }`$ consists of only four states, not five. Therefore it is not possible to allocate five boundary states to the five modular functions.

This is related to the difficulty in expressing the physical boundary states in terms of the Ishibashi states. In ordinary CFTs, the solutions to (23) are found in the form of Ishibashi states

$$|j\underset{M}{}|j;MU\overline{|j;M},$$
(51)
where $`U`$ is an antiunitary operator, $`j`$ is a label for Verma modules, and $`M`$ is a level in the module. Ishibashi states diagonalize the cylinder amplitudes to give characters,

$`i|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|i=\chi _i(\stackrel{~}{q}),`$ (52)
$`i|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0c/12}|j=0\text{for}ij.`$ (53)
In our model, we can find candidates for the Ishibashi states such as

$`|𝒱_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (54)
$`|𝒱_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mathrm{\Omega },`$ (55)
$`|𝒱_{1/8}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_{\mu +}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mu ,`$ (56)
$`|𝒱_{3/8}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_{\mu +}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}|B_\mu ,`$ (57)
$`||_0=|_1=\sqrt{2}|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+},`$ (58)
and

$`𝒱_0|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\omega |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\omega +}|,`$ (59)
$`𝒱_1|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\omega +}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\omega |,`$ (60)
$`𝒱_{1/8}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\mu +}|+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu |,`$ (61)
$`𝒱_{3/8}|={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_\mu |{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\mu +}|,`$ (62)
$`|_0|=_1|=\sqrt{2}B_\omega |,`$ (63)
whereby the characters (9) are reproduced in the form (52), and the orthogonality (53) holds for $`𝒱_0`$, $`𝒱_1`$, $`𝒱_{1/8}`$, and $`𝒱_{3/8}`$. Note that it is not possible to find such states with the same bra and ket coefficients. It can be easily checked that the physical boundary states $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1`$ cannot be expressed as linear combinations of the states (58), (63). As a consequence, it is not possible to derive the Verlinde formula using the modular transformations as in , since $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ plays an essential role in such discussions. The failure of the Verlinde formula is indeed consistent with the fusion rule (10), which cannot be diagonalised.

Alternatively, the four representations $`_0`$, $`_1`$, $`𝒱_{1/8}`$ and $`𝒱_{3/8}`$ can be regarded as fundamental constituents of the theory, since they themselves close under the fusion. It is argued by Kausch and Gaberdiel that local and non-chiral bulk theory with finite multiplicity is given by three non-chiral representations, namely, $`𝒱_{1/8}\overline{𝒱}_{1/8}`$, $`𝒱_{3/8}\overline{𝒱}_{3/8}`$, and $``$ which is a combination of $`(_0\overline{}_0)/𝒩_{0\overline{0}}`$ and $`(_1\overline{}_1)/𝒩_{1\overline{1}}`$, where $`𝒩_{0\overline{0}}`$ and $`𝒩_{1\overline{1}}`$ are subspaces to be quotiented out. This is analogous to our result that the physical boundary states for $`_0`$ and $`_1`$ are identical. Considering the four representations $`_0`$, $`_1`$, $`𝒱_{1/8}`$ and $`𝒱_{3/8}`$, we see from (49) and (58) that the physical ket-states and Ishibashi ket-states are related as

$`|\stackrel{~}{}=2|𝒱_{1/8}2|𝒱_{3/8},`$ (64)
$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{1/8}=|𝒱_{1/8}+|𝒱_{3/8}\sqrt{2\pi }|,`$ (65)
$`|\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{3/8}=|𝒱_{1/8}+|𝒱_{3/8}+\sqrt{2\pi }|.`$ (66)
These are the combinations of $`|B_{\mu \pm }`$ and $`|B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}`$. However, the boundary bra-states for these representations cannot be expressed in terms of the corresponding Ishibashi bra-states (63), since the former are the combinations of $`B_{\mu \pm }|`$ and $`B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}|`$, whereas the latter are of $`B_{\mu \pm }|`$ and $`B_\omega |`$. The candidate of the Ishibashi states (58), (63) are not unique, and alternatively, we can define such states so that the bra-states are linearly related to the physical boundary states, but then the ket-states cannot be. That is, it is possible to express the physical boundary states in terms of such Ishibashi states on either of the two boundaries, but not on both.

We started from the Lagrangian representation of the $`c=2`$ LCFT model and presented a possible solution for physical boundary states. Modular invariance imposes tight enough constraints on the partition function to identify the boundary states which allow the appearance of bulk representations. Although we could find five possible physically consistent boundary states $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{1/8}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{3/8}`$, their implication is still not evident. The three states $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{1/8}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_{3/8}`$ may be considered as genuinely physical as they correspond to non-chiral bulk representations. However, this speculation is not necessarily persuasive. Among well-studied unitary minimal models, the 3-state Potts model is known to possess a W-algebra, and its complete boundary states were found quite recently. In that model, only the fixed and mixed boundary states are obtained by Cardy’s method from the W-invariant conformal towers; in order to obtain the complete set including “free” and “new” boundary states, all chiral representations from the Kac table not constrained by the W-symmetry had to be considered. Then in our $`c=2`$ model, the boundary states $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒱}_1`$ may well represent some boundary conditions of a statistical model since the $`c_{2,1}`$ Kac table indicates representations with conformal weights $`0`$, $`1`$, $`1/8`$ and $`3/8`$. Further study of the properties of the states we have obtained requires analysis of particular statistical models, such as critical polymers. These topics are beyond the scope of this paper.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors appreciate stimulating discussions with I. I. Kogan and Y. Ishimoto.

Table 1: Amplitudes $`a|(\stackrel{~}{q}^{1/2})^{L_0+\overline{L}_0+1/6}|b`$.

Untwisted Sector

|  | $`|b`$ | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`a|`$ | $`B_{\omega +}`$ | $`B_\omega `$ | $`B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}`$ | $`B_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ |
| $`B_{\omega +}`$ | $`(\kappa \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q})\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ | $`(\kappa \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ |
| $`B_\omega `$ | $`(\kappa \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q})\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`(\kappa \mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{q})\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ |
| $`B_{\mathrm{\Omega }+}`$ | $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |
| $`B_\mathrm{\Omega }`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{1,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`\eta (\stackrel{~}{\tau })^2`$ | $`0`$ | $`0`$ |

Twisted Sector

|  | $`|b`$ | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| $`a|`$ | $`B_{\mu +}`$ | $`B_\mu `$ |
| $`B_{\mu +}`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ |
| $`B_\mu `$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })+\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ | $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{0,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })\mathrm{\Lambda }_{2,2}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ |