text:
# CMB Observations: improvements of the performance of correlation radiometers by signal modulation and synchronous detection

## 1 Introduction

The fine structures (spatial anisotropies, spectral distortions, residual polarization) of the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), relic of the Big Bang, are among the most powerfull tools available for probing the evolution of the Universe (for a general discussion see for instance \[Partridge 1995\] and \[Staggs et al. 2001\]). Their detection can in fact be used to go back at least up to redshisft $`Z10^610^7`$, when the Universe was extremely young and the matter condensations and objects we observe today not yet formed. So far however only spatial anisotropies have been discovered (\[Smoot 1992\]) and are currently studied (e.g. \[De Bernardis 2000\], \[Hanany 2000\]). Spectral distortions and polarization escaped so far detection and only upper limits to their amplitude have been obtained (see for instance \[Sironi 2000\], \[Sironi et al. 2001\], \[Staggs et al. 1999\]). In fact the expected signals are extremely faint when compared with spurious effects produced by small instabilities of the receiver, $`1/f`$ noise, pick up of tiny fractions of undesired signals, deviations of the system components from their ideal behaviour etc. Therefore many radiometers succesfully used for standard radioastronomical observations become useless when applied to search for the CMB fine structures: ad hoc systems are necessary. For polarization studies correlation receivers are usually preferred (e.g. \[Sironi et al. 1998\], \[MAP 2001\], \[SPOrt 2001\], \[Torbet et al. 1999\], \[Hedman et al. 2001\], \[Keating et al. 2001\]) because they make possible simultaneous measurements of pair of Stokes parameteres, (U and Q or U and V), and in principle allow to detect signals of few $`\mu K`$. Unfortunately such a sensitivity is barely sufficient because the expected amplitude of the CMB polarized component is probably below the $`\mu K`$ level. Therefore the receivers so far used for studies of the CMB polarization have to be improved. In the following we discuss the limits of a standard two channel correlation receiver and the improvements in noise rejection and offset cancellation one obtains adding phase modulation (at the system front end) and synchronous detection (at the back end).

## 2 Radiometers and noise

A radiometer (see figure 1) is a chain of linear devices plus a square law detector which amplify and convert the signal $`s(t)`$, collected by the antenna, and the noise $`n(t)`$, produced by the system components, into DC signals $`V_s(t)`$ and $`V_n(t)`$ proportional to the power content of $`s`$ and $`n`$

$$V(t)=[|s(t)|^2+|n(t)|^2]G=[v_s(t)+v_n(t)]G=V_s(t)+V_n(t)$$
(1)
Here the power gain G includes the detector responsivity, (conversion factor between power and output voltage (current)), $`s`$ and $`n`$ are electric (magnetic) fields with zero mean values, while $`V_i`$ and $`v_i`$ are voltages, proportional to the power content of the signals, whose mean value is greater than zero: all of them fluctuate and behave as noise \[Van der Ziel 1954\].

Let’s call $`x(t)`$, $`E\{x(t)\}`$ and $`\mu _x=E\{x(t)\}`$ one of these signals, its expectation value and its mean value respectively. The signal variance is (e.g. \[Van der Ziel 1954\], \[Rohlfs 86\]):

$$\sigma _x^2=E\{x^2\}E^2\{x\}=_0^{\mathrm{}}w_x(\nu )𝑑\nu \mu _x^2$$
(2)
where $`w_x(\nu )=|a(\nu )|^2`$ is the signal power spectrum and

$$a(\nu )=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}x(t)e^{2\pi \nu t}𝑑t$$
(3)
the Fourier transform of $`x(t)`$. In practice we can write

$$\sigma _x^2+\mu _x^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}w_x(\nu )𝑑\nu _{\nu _{min}}^{\nu _{max}}w_x(\nu )𝑑\nu =_{1/T}^{1/\tau }w_x(\nu )𝑑\nu $$
(4)
where $`\nu _{min}1/T`$ and $`\nu _{max}1/\tau `$ are the minimum and maximum frequencies of the signal fluctuations accepted by the system, $`\tau `$ the sample collecting time, $`N`$ the number of samples and $`T=N\tau `$ the total observing time. To guarantee that the samples are statistically independent $`\tau `$ must be longer than the system time constant $`\tau ^{}`$ ($`\tau 3\tau ^{}`$).

Two classes of noise $`n`$ are considered here:

a) white noise (also called random, or gaussian, or steady state). The power spectrum is frequency independent:

$$w_{wn}(\nu )d\nu =A_{wn}d\nu $$
(5)
therefore

$$\sigma _{wn}^2+\mu _x^2=\left[A_{wn}(\nu _{max}\nu _{min})\right]=A_{wn}(\frac{1}{\tau }\frac{1}{T})_N\mathrm{}\frac{A_{wn}}{\tau }$$
(6)
No matter which value $`\mu _x`$ assumes (in many situations $`\mu _x=0`$), in case of reasonable statistics the noise variance approaches quickly a constant value. In this case the rms fluctuations of the mean value decrease as $`N`$ and $`T`$ increase.Therefore when white noise is dominant one can improve the quality of the data collected by a radiometer extending the observing time or increasing the number of independent data samples collected.

b) $`1/fnoise`$. The power spectrum is a power law

$$w_{1/f}(\nu )d\nu =\frac{A_{1/f}}{\nu ^\alpha }d\nu $$
(7)
with spectral index $`\alpha 1`$.

$$\sigma _{1/f}^2+\mu _x^2=\frac{A_{1/f}}{1\alpha }[\nu _{max}^{(1\alpha )}\nu _{min}^{(1\alpha )}]=\frac{A_{1/f}}{1\alpha }[\tau ^{(\alpha 1)}T^{(\alpha 1)}]$$

$$_{\alpha 1}A_{1/f}\mathrm{ln}\frac{\nu _{max}}{\nu _{min}}=A_{1/f}\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\tau }=A_{1/f}\mathrm{ln}N$$
(8)
It follows that, when $`1/f`$ noise is important $`(\alpha 1)`$, increasing the observing time or the number of samples collected does not help. In fact as T increases a growing fraction of low frequency noise is added to the system output whose level starts to fluctuates at very low frequencies. This effect cannot be cured improving the stability of the system temperature or the performance of the power supply.

## 3 Application to polarimetry

### 3.1 General layout of a correlation polarimeter

A common configuration used in radioastronomy for polarimetry is the two channel correlation receiver shown in figure 2.

Fed by a corrugated horn, an orthomode transducer (OMT) splits the high frequency signal collected by the antenna into orthogonally polarized components with a well defined phase difference: $`\varphi =0`$ if the components are linearly polarized and $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ if the components are circularly polarized. Inserting or removing an iris polarizer between horn and OMT we can set $`\varphi =\pi /2`$ or $`\varphi =0`$. The signals available at the OMT outputs are then amplified by separate receivers and finally injected into the Phase Discriminator (PD), a network of four Hybrid circuits and square law detectors which combines phases and amplitudes of the incoming signals (\[Sironi et al. 1998\], \[Peverini et al. 2001\]).

To outline the behaviour of the two channel correlation polarimeter we go to the frequency domain. If $`A(\nu )`$ and $`B(\nu )`$ are the monochromatic signals which arrive at the inputs of the Phase Discriminator (PD), and $`\gamma (t)=\varphi (t)+\theta `$ their phase difference, ($`\theta `$ is a constant phase difference which accounts for differences between the electrical lengths of the receivers), the PD outputs are:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}U_1\\ U_2\\ U_3\\ U_4\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}h_1[A^2+B^2+2AB\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )]\\ h_2[A^2+B^22AB\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )]\\ h_3[A^2+B^2+2AB\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )]\\ h_4[A^2+B^22AB\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )]\end{array}\right]$$
(9)
where $`h_i`$ describes the overall gain of receivers and PD components. Differential amplification then gives:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}S_1\\ S_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}U_1U_2\\ U_3U_4\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1[A^2+B^2]+\eta _1[AB\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )]\\ \delta _2[A^2+B^2]+\eta _2[AB\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )]\end{array}\right]$$
(10)
where

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1\\ \delta _2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}(h_1h_2)\\ (h_3h_4)\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}2(h_1+h_2)\\ 2(h_3+h_4)\end{array}\right]$$
(11)
Finally integration of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ over a time length $`\tau `$ gives the outputs $`O_1`$ and $`O_2`$.

For symmetry reasons an ideal receiver should have $`h_1=h_2,h_3=h_4`$ consequently $`\delta _i`$ should be zero, the constant ($`\gamma `$ independent) terms should vanish and $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ should be sinusoidal functions of $`\gamma `$ with zero average value. Because it is well known (see for instance \[Kraus 1966\]) that $`<AB\mathrm{cos}(\gamma )>`$ and $`<AB\mathrm{sin}(\gamma )>`$ are linear combinations of the Stokes Parameters, we can write:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1\\ O_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}<S_1>\\ <S_2>\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}K(Q\mathrm{cos}(\theta )U\mathrm{sin}(\theta ))\\ K(Q\mathrm{sin}(\theta )+U\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\end{array}\right](\varphi =\pi /2)$$
(12)
or

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1\\ O_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}<S_1>\\ <S_2>\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}K(Q\mathrm{cos}(\theta )V\mathrm{sin}(\theta ))\\ K(Q\mathrm{sin}(\theta )+V\mathrm{cos}(\theta ))\end{array}\right](\varphi =0)$$
(13)
The Milano Polarimeter (\[Sironi et al. 1998\]) is an example of two channel correlation polarimeter similar to the one we described above. Observations made with two prototypes (Mk-1 used in 1994 at Baia Terra Nova (Antarctica) and Mk-2 used in 1998 at Dome C (Antarctica)) showed however that in spite of the stability and sensitivity provided by the correlation technique, both prototypes suffered gain variations and the system outputs had offsets (\[Sironi et al. 1997\], \[Sironi et al. 1998\], \[Zannoni 2000\]). In fact small differences between the receiver components give $`h_1h_2`$, $`h_3h_4`$ instead of $`h_1=h_2`$ and $`h_3=h_4`$ therefore the constant terms do not vanish completely and offsets of the system outputs appear. Easily these offsets are large compared to the amplitude of the sinusoidal terms to be measured. Even worse $`1/f`$ noise and variations of the offset level caused by gain instabilities, mimic signals produced by polarized sources.

To cure these effects receivers can be enclosed in a (modulation - synchronous detection) loop,a technique widely used by radioastronomers (see for instance the classical Dicke Receiver (\[Kraus 1966\])). We can modulate the power signal or the wave signal, in amplitude or, when applicable, in phase. Modulation is used to mark the signals we want to detect and produces a shift of the average receiver output. The synchronous detector (also called demodulator) picks out only the components of the signals and noise marked by modulation and exclude all the remaining components, above all the noise components, improving the signal to noise ratio. The demodulator type and the modulation technique must be matched.

For polarimetry, where it is essential to preserve phase and amplitude of the wave signal, phase modulation of the wave signal $`E(t)`$ is a natural choice, therefore the synchronous detector is a Phase Sensitive Detector (PSD). Figure 3 is the block diagram of a Two Channel Correlation Receiver to which Phase Modulation and Phase Sensitive Detection have been added. Modulator and detector are driven by a periodic signal whose frequency $`\nu _{mod}`$ is usually between tens and thousands of Hz.

In the following we analyze the benefits this technique has on the system performance.

### 3.2 Modulation and Offset Elimination

Phase modulation of the electric wave $`E(t)`$ is achieved including into arm 1 of the correlation receiver a ($`0\pi `$), just after the OMT, a phase shifter, driven by a square wave signal of period $`T_{mod}=1/\nu _{mod}`$ (short compared to $`\tau `$),

$$r(t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}+1& nT_{mod}<t<(n+\frac{1}{2})T_{mod}\\ 1& (n+\frac{1}{2})T_{mod}<t<(n+1)T_{mod}\end{array}$$
(14)
It multiplies $`E_1`$ by $`\pm 1`$. An identical phase shifter in channel 2, locked in a stable position, equalizes the attenuations in channel 1 and channel 2.

If $`E_1(t)=E_{o1}(t)e^{i\omega t}`$ and $`E_2(t)=E_{o2}(t)e^{i(\omega t+\varphi )}`$, are the signals available at the OMT outputs, the inputs of the Phase Discriminator are

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}A\\ B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}k_1E_1(t)r(t)\\ k_2E_2(t)\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}k_1E_{o1}e^{i\omega t}r(t)\\ k_2E_{02}e^{i(\omega t+\varphi +\theta )}\end{array}\right]$$
(15)
where $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ account for the system gain between OMT and PD, and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}S_1\\ S_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2]+\eta _1k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )]r(t)\\ \delta _2[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2]+\eta _2k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )]r(t)\end{array}\right]$$
(16)
are the outputs of the differential amplifiers.

The Phase Sensitive Detector multiplies $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ by $`r^{}(t)`$, a function similar to $`r(t)`$, and integrates the product for a time $`\tau `$, giving:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1\\ O_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}<S_1\times r^{}(t)>\\ <S_2\times r^{}(t)>\end{array}\right]=$$

$$=\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2]<r^{}(t)>\\ \delta _2[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2]<r^{}(t)>\end{array}\right]+$$

$$+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )]<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )]<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>\end{array}\right]$$
(17)
Because $`<r(t)>=0`$ and $`<r^{}(t)>=0`$ now the offset terms vanish even when $`\delta _i0(h_ih_{i+1})`$.

Three configurations are possible:

i) system unlocked: $`r(t)`$ and $`r^{}(t)`$ are generated independently therefore $`<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>=0`$

In this condition (marked by apex $`ul`$)

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1^{ul}\\ O_2^{ul}\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\end{array}\right]$$
(18)
always.

ii) system locked: PSD and modulator are driven, in phase, by the same function $`r^{}(t)r(t)`$ (condition marked by apex $`l`$).

Now $`<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>=<r^2(t)>=`$ 1 therefore

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1^l\\ O_2^l\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )>\end{array}\right]$$
(19)
and one gets the Stokes Parameter (see equations.12 and 13)

iii) system locked with a phase difference (time delay $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$) between the application of $`r(t)`$ to the modulator and to the PSD ($`r^{}(t)=r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$, condition marked by apex $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$):

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1^\mathrm{\Delta }\\ O_2^\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )r(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )r(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)>\end{array}\right]$$
(20)
Because $`T_{mod}`$ is small compared to $`\tau `$ and the time during which the amplitude $`E_{01}`$ and $`E_{02}`$ of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are expected to vary, we can write

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1^\mathrm{\Delta }\\ O_2^\mathrm{\Delta }\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )><r(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )><r(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)>\end{array}\right]=$$

$$=F\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2<E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )>\end{array}\right]$$
(21)
where

$$F=<r(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)>=\frac{1}{T}_0^Tr(t)r(t+\mathrm{\Delta }t)𝑑t=$$

$$=14\frac{|\mathrm{\Delta }t|}{T}(\frac{T}{2}\mathrm{\Delta }t+\frac{T}{2})$$
(22)
When $`\mathrm{\Delta }t0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t\pm T/2`$, $`|F|<1`$ and a reduction of the system sensitivity occurs.

### 3.3 Synchronous Detection and Noise reduction

So far we neglected the system noise. Let‘s now call $`\epsilon _i`$ the noise produced in channel $`i`$ and $`\psi _{ri}(t)`$ a random phase. When we add it to the signal $`E_i`$ equations 15 and 17 become:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}A\\ B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}k_1[E_1r(t)+\epsilon _1e^{i\psi _{r1}(t)}]\\ k_2[E_2e^{i(\varphi +\theta )}+\epsilon _2e^{i\psi _{r2}(t)}]\end{array}\right]$$
(23)
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}O_1\\ O_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2+|k_1\epsilon _1|^2+|k_2\epsilon _2|^2)]<r^{}(t)>\\ \delta _2[|k_1E_1|^2+|k_2E_2|^2+|k_1\epsilon _1|^2+|k_2\epsilon _2|^2)]<r^{}(t)>\end{array}\right]+$$

$$+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{cos}(\theta +\varphi )]<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>\\ \eta _2k_1k_2[E_1E_2\mathrm{sin}(\theta +\varphi )]<r(t)\times r^{}(t)>\end{array}\right]$$

$$+\left[\begin{array}{c}<N_1\times r^{}+N_1^{}>\\ <N_2\times r^{}+N_2^{}>\end{array}\right]$$
(24)
where

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N_1\\ N_2\end{array}\right]=2\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1\\ \delta _2\end{array}\right]k_2^2\epsilon _2E_2+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right]k_1k_2\epsilon _1(E_2+\epsilon _2)$$
(25)
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N_1^{}\\ N_2^{}\end{array}\right]=2\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1\\ \delta _2\end{array}\right]k_1^2\epsilon _1E_1+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right]k_1k_2\epsilon _2E_1$$
(26)
are noise terms ($`\epsilon _1`$ and $`\epsilon _2`$ have random phases). As in equation 17 the offset terms, (which now include $`\epsilon _1^2`$ and $`\epsilon _2^2`$) vanish.

To appraise the filter action of the synchronous detector we have to evaluate the noise variance going back to the time domain, (see equations 2, 3 and 4). By integration of equations 24, 25 and 26 over the frequency bandwith of the receiver we get the total power measured at the system output:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}<V_1(t)>\\ <V_2(t)>\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}<S_1(t)+V_{n,1}(t)\times r(t)+V_{n,1}^{}>\\ <S_2(t)+V_{n,2}(t)\times r(t)+V_{n,2}^{}>\end{array}\right]$$
(27)
where $`S_i(t)`$ is the power of the signal, $`V_{n,i}(t)`$ and $`V_{n,i}^{}(t)`$ are the power of the noise associated to $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ respectively.

We then compute the ratio between the standard deviations of the noise calculated when the system is locked and unlocked:

$$R=\frac{\sigma _l}{\sigma _{ul}}=\sqrt{\frac{\sigma _{V_{n,i}\times r}^2+\sigma _{V_{n,i}^{}}^2}{\sigma _{V_{n,i}}^2+\sigma _{V_{n,i}^{}}^2}}$$
(28)
Assuming the worst conditions ($`1/f`$ noise dominant everywhere) for the power spectra of $`V_{n,i}`$ and $`V_{n,i}^{}`$ we set $`w_{V_{n,i}}=A_i/\nu `$ and $`w_{V_{n,i}^{}}=A_i^{}/\nu `$. Moreover $`k_1k_2`$, $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon `$, $`E_1E_2E`$, $`N_1N_2N`$, $`N_1^{}N_2^{}N^{}`$, $`A_1A_2A`$, $`A_1^{}A_2^{}A^{}`$, $`V_{n,1}V_{n,2}V_n`$, $`V_{n,1}^{}V_{n,2}^{}V_n^{}`$ and $`\delta _1\delta _2\delta <<\eta \eta _1\eta _2`$. It follows $`(N^{}/N)E/(E+\epsilon )<1`$ and, when $`E`$ is small compared to the system noise, (as usual when we look for the fine structures of the CMB), $`N^{}<<N`$, $`A>>A^{}`$ and $`\sigma _{V_n}^2=A\mathrm{ln}(T/\tau )>>\sigma _{V_n^{}}^2=A^{}\mathrm{ln}(T/\tau )`$.

To get $`\sigma _{V_{n,i}\times r}`$ first of all we compute the power spectrum $`w_{V_{n,i}\times r}(\nu )`$ of $`V_{n,i}\times r`$. Calculations (see Appendix A and \[Spiga 2000\]) give (here an in the following we omit all $`i`$ indexes)

$$w_{V_n\times r}(\nu )=\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}\frac{A}{|\nu \nu _k|}+\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}\frac{A}{|\nu +\nu _k|}$$
(29)
Because $`<V_n\times r>=0`$ from equation 4 follows:

$$\sigma _{V_n\times r}^2=_{\nu _{min}}^{\nu _{max}}w_{V_n\times r}(\nu )𝑑\nu =_{1/T}^{1/\tau }w_{V_n\times r}(\nu )𝑑\nu =$$

$$=\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A}{(2k+1)^2}_{1/T}^{1/\tau }\frac{1}{\nu _k\nu }𝑑\nu +\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A}{(2k+1)^2}_{1/T}^{1/\tau }\frac{1}{\nu _k+\nu }𝑑\nu $$

$$=\frac{4A_i}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}\left[\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _k1/T}{\nu _k1/\tau }\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _k+1/\tau }{\nu _k+1/T}\right)\right]$$
(30)
($`1/T1/\tau \nu _k`$ for each $`k`$). <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1When $`\nu _{mod}0`$ (PSD off) $`\sigma _{V\times r}^2A\mathrm{ln}(T/\tau )=\sigma _{1/f}^2`$ because $`_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}=\frac{\pi ^2}{8}`$

Finally neglecting $`k>O^3`$ terms, we get

$$R=\frac{\sigma _l}{\sigma _{ul}}=\sqrt{\frac{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{mod}1/T}{\nu _{mod}1/\tau }\right)+\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\nu _{mod}+1/\tau }{\nu _{mod}+1/T}\right)}{2\mathrm{ln}\frac{T}{\tau }}}$$

$$\sqrt{\frac{(\nu _{max}\nu _{min})/\nu _{mod}}{\mathrm{ln}(\nu _{max}/\nu _{min})}}$$
(31)
## Discussion

Above we got formulae which can be used to evaluate the noise reduction $`R`$ or, equivalently, the improvement of the system sensitivity $`1/R`$ one obtains adding phase modulation and synchronous detection to a correlation receiver. Assuming for instance $`\nu _{mod}=1kHz`$, $`\tau =5sec(\nu _{max}=0.2Hz)`$ and $`T=60min(\nu _{min}=2.810^4Hz)`$, as common in CMB observations, we get $`R5.510^3`$ and $`1/R180`$. In practice the effective reduction can be smaller. In fact:

i)We assumed square wave modulation. It gives maximum efficiency, because the modulator reaches almost immediately a well defined status, and keep it for almost $`50\%`$ of the modulation cycle. However the circuits which carries out this operation must be carefully studied because spurious signals are easily triggered by sharp transitions. For that reason sine wave modulation is sometimes preferred. It gives smooth transitions therefore the generation of spurious signals can be more easily controlled. However the signal which drives the modulator varies sinusoidally therefore the modulator response can vary and during an important fraction the modulation cycle be poorly defined.

ii)No matter which shape is preferred, practical modulating functions, modulators and detectors are only approximations of the mathematical functions we assumed. Deviations of the real components from their model as well as phase dependence of the attenuation and impedance of the modulator and detector may produce spurious modulations and/or cycle asymmetries. Because when present, they give rise to $`<r>0`$ and/or $`<V\times r>0`$ these effects must be carefully removed once again through proper design of circuits and devices. Residuals which should survive can be cancelled by fine shaping the function which drives the synchronous detector (e.g. \[Sironi et al. 1990\])

iii)For technical reasons sometimes the modulator - demodulator loop does not include the system front end. For instance in the most recent model (Mk-3) of the Milano Polarimeter the front end has been set outside the loop because no reliable cryogenic phase shifter was available (\[Sironi et al. 2001\]). In this case to analyze the system we have to split gain and noise in channel 1 in two components: $`k_{01}`$ and $`\epsilon _{01}`$, gain and noise of the section which precedes the loop, $`k_{11}`$ and $`\epsilon _{11}`$, gain and noise of the section inside the loop. Now $`k_1=k_{01}k_{11}`$$`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _{01}+(k_{11}/k_1)\epsilon _{11}=(\alpha +\beta )\epsilon _1`$ ($`\alpha =\epsilon _{01}/\epsilon _1`$, $`\beta =(k_{11}/k_1)\epsilon _{11}/\epsilon _1`$), and equation 23 becomes

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}A\\ B\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}k_1[(E_1+\epsilon _{01}e^{i\psi _{r01}})r(t)+k_{11}\epsilon _{11}e^{i\psi _{r1}(t)}]\\ k_2[E_2e^{i(\varphi +\delta )}+\epsilon _2e^{i\psi _{r2}(t)}]\end{array}\right]$$
(32)
By an analysis similar to the one we made before, for the noise terms we get now:

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\\ N_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\end{array}\right]=2\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1\\ \delta _2\end{array}\right][k_1^2\epsilon _{01}E_1+k_2^2\epsilon _2E_2]+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right]k_{11}k_2\epsilon _{11}(E_2+\epsilon _2)$$

$$\beta \left[\begin{array}{c}N_1\\ N_2\end{array}\right]<\left[\begin{array}{c}N_1\\ N_2\end{array}\right]$$
(33)
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}\\ N_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}\end{array}\right]=2\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta _1\\ \delta _2\end{array}\right]k_1k_{11}\epsilon _{11}(E_1+\epsilon _{01})+$$

$$+\left[\begin{array}{c}\eta _1\\ \eta _2\end{array}\right]k_1k_2[E_1\epsilon _2+\epsilon _{01}(E_2+\epsilon _2)]$$

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}N_1^{}\\ N_2^{}\end{array}\right](1+\alpha (1+\epsilon /E)>[\begin{array}{c}N_1^{}\\ N_2^{}\end{array})]$$
(34)
where, to evaluate the approximated expression, we set $`\epsilon _1\epsilon _2\epsilon `$ and $`E_1E_2E`$. The noise component $`N_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}`$ unaffected by modulation/demodulation, is now larger by a factor $`1+(\epsilon _{01}/\epsilon _1)+(\epsilon _{01}/E_1)`$. To keep it small and preserve the efficiency of the modulation/demodulation process, $`\epsilon _{01}`$ and $`k_{01}`$ must be small compared to $`\epsilon _1`$ and $`k_1`$ and, even more important, possibly free from $`1/f`$ contribution. Viceversa the component of the total noise one can control through modulation, $`N^{}`$, decreases by $`\beta `$.

iv)Last but not least $`\nu _{mod}`$ must be far from harmonics of all periodic signal signals used into the receiver. Among them the frequency $`\nu _{ac}`$ of the AC power supply is particularly dangerous: it can in fact induce, through residuals ripples on the DC outputs of the power supply which feed amplifiers and active components, modulated signals which are picked up by the synchronous detector if $`\nu _{mod}`$ is close to harmonics of $`\nu _{ac}`$.

All the effects we listed above reduce the efficiency of the modulation / synchronous detection techniques in improving the stability and in rejecting the noise of a radiometer. By carefull design of the circuitry which realizes the system the degradation of R can however be contained sufficiently to make it a second order effect.

The above results have been obtained assuming a phase modulated correlation receiver. They can be extended to other radiometer configurations, like the classical Dicke Receiver (\[Kraus 1966\]) or bolometric systems which use amplitude modulation. In doing it we must remember that modulation and synchronous detection have different effects on the performance of a receiver. An important effect of modulation is a shift of the average output of the receiver. This shift can be used to bring to zero the average value of the receiver output, making the system insensitive to gain fluctuations and allowing large amplifications without saturation. Synchronous detection improve the signal to noise ratio, creating a filter which excludes signals not marked by modulation and cutting the components of the noise at frequency different from and below $`\nu _{mod}`$.

Used in the past for classical radioastronomical observations and in many physical experiments (the so called lock in technique) modulation and synchronous detection are today essential to reach the sensitivities necessary to study the fine structures of the CMB.

## Acknowledgements

This work is part of a program aimed at detecting the CMB polarization. It is supported by the Italian Ministry for University and Research (COFIN programs), the Italian Program for Antarctic Research (CSNA), the National Council for Research (CNR), the University of Milano Bicocca and the Italian Space Agency (ASI)

## Appendix A Appendix A : Power spectrum of the modulated noise $`(V\times r)`$

By proper choice of $`t`$, the square wave $`r(t)`$ of period $`T_{mod}=1/\nu _{mod}`$ can be represented by a Fourier serie containing only $`\mathrm{cos}`$ terms and $`\nu _{mod}`$ odd multiples $`\nu _k=(2k+1)\nu _{mod}`$:

$$r(t)=\frac{4}{\pi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _kt)$$
(35)
The noise $`V`$ can be written as a Fourier integral

$$V(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )e^{i(2\pi \nu t+\psi _\nu (t))}𝑑\nu $$
(36)
where $`\psi _\nu (t)`$ is a randomly variable phase (here and in the following we will omit pedix $`i`$ which marks the system channel). Therefore

$$V(t)\times r(t)=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _\nu (t))𝑑\nu \times \frac{4}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _kt)$$

$$+i_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _\nu (t))𝑑\nu \times \frac{4}{\pi }\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu _kt)$$
(37)
Using standard trigonometric formulae we can write

$$V(t)\times r(t)=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}\times $$

$$\times \{_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )[\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu (t))+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t+\psi _\nu (t))]d\nu +$$

$$+i_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )[\mathrm{sin}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu (t))+\mathrm{sin}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t)+\psi _\nu (t)]d\nu \}$$
(38)
Rearranging terms and omitting for semplicity the time dependence of $`\psi `$ we get:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )[\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )+\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )]𝑑\nu =$$

$$=_0^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )𝑑\nu +_0^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )𝑑\nu +$$

$$+_{\mathrm{}}^0a(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )𝑑\nu +_{\mathrm{}}^0a(\nu )\mathrm{cos}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )𝑑\nu =$$

$$=_{+\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})𝑑\nu +_{\mathrm{}}^{+\nu _k}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})𝑑\nu +$$

$$+_{\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})𝑑\nu $$

$$+_{\mathrm{}}^{\nu _k}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})𝑑\nu $$
(39)
and

$$_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu )[\mathrm{sin}(2\pi (\nu +\nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )+\mathrm{sin}(2\pi (\nu \nu _k)t+\psi _\nu )]𝑑\nu =$$

$$=_{+\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})𝑑\nu +_{\mathrm{}}^{+\nu _k}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})𝑑\nu +$$

$$+_{\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})𝑑\nu $$

$$+_{\mathrm{}}^{\nu _k}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{sin}(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})𝑑\nu $$
(40)
Therefore

$$V(t)\times r(t)=\frac{2}{\pi }\underset{k=0}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^k}{2k+1}[_{+\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{exp}[i(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})]d\nu +$$

$$+_{\mathrm{}}^{+\nu _k}a(\nu \nu _k)\mathrm{exp}[i(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu \nu _k})]𝑑\nu $$

$$+_{\nu _k}^+\mathrm{}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{exp}[i(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})]𝑑\nu +$$

$$+_{\mathrm{}}^{\nu _k}a(\nu +\nu _k)\mathrm{exp}[i(2\pi \nu t+\psi _{\nu +\nu _k})]d\nu ]$$
(41)
Because $`\psi _{\nu \pm \nu _k}`$ is a random function of $`\nu `$, the $`k`$ component of the power spectrum of $`V\times r`$ is a sum of power spectra:

$$w_k(\nu )=\frac{4}{\pi ^2(2k+1)^2}\{\begin{array}{cc}|a(\nu \nu _k)|^2& \mathrm{}<\nu <\nu _k\\ |a(+\nu +\nu _k)|^2& \nu _k<\nu <+\mathrm{}\end{array}+$$

$$+\{\begin{array}{cc}|a(\nu _k\nu )|^2& \mathrm{}<\nu <+\nu _k\\ |a(\nu \nu _k)|^2& +\nu _k<\nu <+\mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(42)
which, when the noise is $`1/f`$ noise ($`|a(\nu )|^2=|a(\nu )|^2=A/|\nu |)`$ becomes

$$w_k(\nu )=\frac{4}{\pi ^2(2k+1)^2}\left[\frac{A}{|\nu \nu _k|}+\frac{A}{|\nu +\nu _k|}\right]$$
(43)
Because the phases of the $`w_k`$ terms vary very rapidly in a random way (they are calculated at frequencies different for each $`k`$), the total power spectrum is obtained adding the incoherent terms $`w_k`$

$$w_{V\times r}(\nu )=\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}\frac{A}{|\nu \nu _k|}+\frac{4}{\pi ^2}\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{(2k+1)^2}\frac{A}{|\nu +\nu _k|}$$
(44)


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

Consider 4–dimensional supersymmetric gauge theory placed in a small spatial torus $`T^3`$ of size $`L`$. We assume that $`g^2(L)1`$ and perturbation theory makes sense. For unitary and symplectic gauge groups $`G`$, the only classical vacua of this theory are given by constant gauge potentials $`A_k,k=1,2,3`$, lying in the Cartan subalgebra of the group111It is not the case for higher orthogonal and exceptional groups , but these complications are beyond the scope of the present paper. $`G`$. The low–energy dynamics of the model is determined by the effective Hamiltonian describing motion over the vacuum moduli space. Due to supersymmetry, the energy of a classical vacuum configuration stays zero after loop corrections are taken into account – no potential is generated. 222This is true only for nonchiral theories, which are only considered in the present paper. In the theories with chiral matter content, the situation is more complicated . However, supersymmetry usually allows the existence of a nontrivial metric on the moduli space, in which case such a metric is generated after loop corrections are taken into account.

The loop corrections to the effective Hamiltonian were calculated first in Ref. in the simplest case of $`𝒩=1`$ supersymmetric QED with two chiral matter multiplets of opposite charges. In this case, the moduli space is represented by the constant gauge potentials $`A_k`$ and their superpartners. Note that, for a field theory on $`T^3`$, the moduli space is compact, $`0A_k2\pi /L`$.

The original calculation was carried out in the Hamiltonian framework. The effective Hamiltonian is expressed in terms of $`A_k`$, $`P_k=i/A_k`$, and the zero Fourier mode of the photino field $`\psi _\alpha ,\alpha =1,2`$. It has the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2}}H^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f(𝐀)P_k^2f(𝐀)`$
$`ϵ_{jkp}\overline{\psi }\sigma _j\psi f(𝐀)_pf(𝐀)P_k{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f(𝐀)_k^2f(𝐀)(\overline{\psi }\psi )^2,`$ (1.1)
where $`\sigma _i`$ are the Pauli matrices and

$`f(𝐀)=1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐧}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|𝐀L2\pi 𝐧|^3}}+\mathrm{}`$ (1.2)
(we have rescaled $`AA/e`$ compared with the normalization of Ref. ). The dots stand for possible higher–loop corrections. The expression (1.2) is written for the theory where the charged fields are massless.

Note that the sum in the right side of Eq. (1.2) diverges logarithmically at large $`|𝐧|`$. This is none other than the effective charge renormalization

$`e^2(L)=e_0^2\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{e_0^2}{4\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UV}L)+\mathrm{}\right].`$ (1.3)
In the massive case and if the box is large enough, $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }L)`$ is substituted by $`\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }/m)`$. On the other hand, if we are dealing with dimensionally reduced SQED, where all Fourier harmonics with $`𝐧0`$ are ignored, we obtain

$`f(𝐀)=1{\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{4|L𝐀|^3}}.`$ (1.4)
It is obvious that the coefficients in Eq. (1.4) and in Eq. (1.3) are related333The procedure for getting the aforementioned relation is similar to the T-duality transformation on D-branes in string theory (see in particular Ref. ). In fact, $`N=2`$ SQED with doublet of hypermultiplets (plus free uncharged hypermultiplets) reduced to one dimension can be interpreted as the theory of a D0-brane in the vicinity of a D4-brane. The latter system was extensively studied . In this note we concentrate, however, on the $`N=1,d=4`$ systems, which were not considered so far in the string theory framework.. The knowledge of $`\beta `$–function allows one to determine the modification of the metric on the moduli space, and this is how the effective Hamiltonian for $`𝒩=1`$ non-Abelian theories was evaluated in recent Ref. . The inverse is also true, however, and this is one of the main emphasize of the present paper. We note that the $`\beta `$–function of field theories can be conveniently calculated via modification of the metric in the quantum mechanical limit where all nonzero Fourier harmonics are ignored. Ideologically, this is the ultraviolet cutoff procedure brought to its extreme. One can call it ultraviolet chopoff.

As was mentioned, the result (1) was first obtained in the Hamiltonian framework using a systematic Born–Oppenheimer expansion for $`H^{\mathrm{eff}}`$. There is, however, a simpler way to derive the same result: to evaluate the term $`\dot{𝐀}\dot{𝐀}`$ in the effective Lagrangian in a slowly varying bosonic background $`𝐀(t),\psi _\alpha =0`$. Other structures in the Lagrangian can be restored using supersymmetry. The plan of the paper is the following. In Sect. 2 we present one–loop calculations of the effective Lagrangian. We use the background field method and demonstrate that the result is given by exactly the same graphs as the graphs determining the 4–dimensional $`\beta `$–function. Like in 4–dimensional case, the contribution of scalar deteminant cancels out in supersymmetric case, and we are left with the graphs describing fermion and gauge boson magnetic interactions.

Next, we go beyond one loop and prove in Sect. 3 non-renormalization theorems for four-dimensional $`𝒩=2`$ and $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theories. Sect. 4 is not devoted to the $`\beta `$ function, but addresses a related question of the connections between effective models in different dimensions. The Hamiltonian (1) represents a nonstandard $`\sigma `$ model. The model enjoys $`𝒩=2`$ QM symmetry (it has 2 different complex supercharges), but is not a Kählerian model (Kählerian $`\sigma `$ models are defined on even–dimensional target spaces, whereas the model (1) is defined on a 3–dimensional conformally flat manifold). We show that the model (1) is related, however, to Kählerian models in a nontrivial way: to obtain a Kählerian model out of Eq. (1), one has to go back to the original 4–dimensional field theory and consider it on an asymmetric torus, with one of the sizes much larger than the others.

## 2 Ultraviolet chopoff and $`\beta `$ function.

Let us consider for definiteness $`𝒩=1`$ four–dimensional $`SU(2)`$ SYM theory

$$=\frac{1}{g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\frac{1}{2}F_{\mu \nu }^2+\mathrm{i}\overline{\lambda }/D\lambda \right),$$
(2.5)
where $`\lambda `$ are Majorana fermions in the adjoint representation of $`SU(2)`$ and $`D_\mu =_\mu \mathrm{i}[A_\mu ,]`$. Put the system in a small spatial box and impose the periodic boundary conditions. We would like to calculate quantum corrections to the effetive action in the abelian background field $`A_\mu =C_\mu t^3`$, $`C_\mu =(0,C_i)`$. We assume that $`C_i`$ varies slowly with time, but does not depend on spatial coordinates444The setup of the problem is basically the same as in Refs.,. There are two differences: (i) We are considering the $`𝒩=1`$ rather than $`𝒩=4`$ theory and the corrections are not going to vanish. (ii) The authors of Ref.  did their calculation bearing in mind the geometric picture of scattered $`D0`$ branes and their background was slightly more sophisticated than ours.. The background fermionic fields (superpartners of $`C_\mu `$) are taken to be zero at this stage.

The calculation can be conveniently done using background gauge method . We decompose the field in the classical (abelian) background and quantum fluctuations,

$`A_\mu C_\mu t^3+𝒜_\mu ,`$ (2.6)
and add to the Lagrangian the gauge-fixing term

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}(D_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}𝒜_\mu )^2,`$ (2.7)
where $`D_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}=_\mu \mathrm{i}[A_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}},]`$. In what follows we use the notation $`A_\mu A_\mu ^{\mathrm{cl}}=C_\mu t^3`$. The coefficient chosen in Eq. (2.7) defines the “Feynman background gauge”, which is simpler and more convenient than others. Adding (2.7) to the first term in Eq. (2.5) and integrating by parts, we obtain for the gauge–field–dependent part of the Lagrangian

$$_𝒜=\frac{1}{2g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left(F_{\mu \nu }^2\right)+\frac{1}{g^2}\mathrm{Tr}\left\{𝒜_\mu \left(D^2g_{\mu \nu }𝒜_\nu 2i[F_{\mu \nu },𝒜_\nu ]\right)\right\}+\mathrm{},$$
(2.8)
where the dots stand for the terms of higher order in $`𝒜_\mu `$. The ghost part of the Lagrangian is

$$_{ghost}=2\mathrm{Tr}\left(\overline{c}D^2c\right)+\mathrm{higher}\mathrm{order}\mathrm{terms}$$
(2.9)
Now we can integrate over the quantum fields $`𝒜_\mu `$, $`c`$, and also over the fermions using the relation

$$\left(\mathrm{i}/D\right)^2=D^2+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\sigma _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu },$$

$`\sigma _{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{2}[\gamma _\mu ,\gamma _\nu ]`$. We obtain the effective action as follows:

$`S_{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2g^2}}{\displaystyle _{T^3\times R}}\mathrm{Tr}(F_{\mu \nu }^2)+`$
$`\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{det^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(D^2I+\frac{i}{2}\sigma _{\mu \nu }[F_{\mu \nu },]\right)det\left(D^2\right)}{det^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(D^2g_{\mu \nu }+2i[F_{\mu \nu },]\right)}}\right).`$ (2.10)
We see that the fermion and gauge field determinants involve, besides the term $`D^2`$ which is present also in the scalar determinant, the term $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ describing the magnetic moment interactions. An important observation is that, were these magnetic interactions absent, the contributions of the ghosts, fermions, and gauge bosons would just cancel and the effective action would not acquire any corrections. This feature is common for all supersymmetric gauge theories ($`𝒩=1`$, $`𝒩=2`$, $`𝒩=4`$; non-Abelian and Abelian). This fact is related to another known fact that, when supersymmetric $`\beta `$ function is calculated in the instanton background, only the contribution of the zero modes survives .

For nonsupersymmetric theories, also nonzero instanton modes provide a nonvanishing constribution in the $`\beta `$ function. On the other hand, the contributions due to det $`(D^2)`$ in the effective action do not vanish in the nonsupersymmetric case.

To find the magnetic contributions, we have to calculate the graphs drawn in Fig. 1. The vertices there are proportional to $`ϵ^{abc}F_{\alpha \beta }J_{\alpha \beta }`$ ($`J_{\alpha \beta }`$ being the spin operator in the corresponding representation) and the lines are Green’s functions of the operator $`D^2`$. Only the color components 1 and 2 circulate in the loops. They acquire the mass $`|𝐂|`$ in the Abelian background $`C_it^3`$. One can be convinced that gauge boson loop involves the factor $`4`$ compared to the fermion one \[the factor $`\frac{1}{2}:\frac{1}{4}=2`$ is displayed in Eq. (2) and Fig. 1 and another factor 2 comes from spin; see Eq. (16.128) in Peskin’s book\].

Let us calculate, say, the fermion loop. If all higher Fourier modes are “chopped off”, $`D^2_0^2𝐂^2`$ and the corresponding contribution to the effective Lagrangian is

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}2\dot{C}_j\dot{C}_k\mathrm{Tr}\{\sigma _{0j}\sigma _{0k}\}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\omega ^2+𝐂^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{𝐂}^2}{4|𝐂|^3}}.`$ (2.11)
(the factor $`\frac{1}{4}`$ is the power of the determinant in Eq. (2), $`\frac{1}{2}`$ comes from the expansion of the logarithm and 2 is the color factor.) Adding the gauge boson contribution and also the free bosonic term, we obtain

$$\frac{g^2}{L^3}_{\mathrm{bos}}^{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{\dot{𝐂}^2}{2f^2(𝐂)}$$
(2.12)
with

$`f(𝐂)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{4L^3|𝐂|^3}}+\mathrm{}.`$ (2.13)
If higher Fourier modes are taken into account, we obtain in the exact analogy with Eq. (1.2)

$`f(𝐂)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{n_k}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\left[_k(C_kL_k2\pi n_k)^2\right]^{3/2}}}+\mathrm{},`$ (2.14)
where, bearing in mind further applications, we assumed that the sizes of the torus $`L_k`$, $`k=1,2,3`$, do not coincide. The sum is divergent at large $`n_k`$. The coefficient of the logarithm gives the $`\beta `$ function of the $`𝒩=1`$ SYM theory. For sure, this could be expected in advance. What is not quite trivial, however, is that the calculation in the truncated theory is absolutely parallel to the well-known calculation in 4 dimensions : in four dimensions the corrections to the effective action are also given by the graphs in Fig. 1, and the gauge boson and the fermion contributions in the $`\beta `$ function have the respective coefficients555A remarkable fact is that one obtains the same ratio calculating the effective action in the instanton background field: the correct coefficient 6 in the $`\beta `$ function is obtained as 8 - 2, where “8” is the number of bosonic zero modes and “2” is a half of the number of fermionic zero modes in the instanton background. $`4:1`$. We will see soon that this is specific for supersymmetric theories. In nonsupersymmetric case, the $`\beta `$ function can also be calculated with the chopoff technique, but the relevant graphs are different.

The bosonic effective action (2.12) can be supersymmetrized using the superfield technique developped in Ref. . The explicit expression in components was written in Ref. :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{L_1L_2L_3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2f^2}}\dot{C}^j\dot{C}^j+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2f^2}}\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}}\mathrm{\Psi }\right){\displaystyle \frac{_if}{f^3}}ϵ^{ijk}\dot{C}_j\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _k\mathrm{\Psi }+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{D^2}{2f^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{D_if}{f^3}}\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _i\mathrm{\Psi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{f^2}}\right)\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right)^2\left(\mathrm{\Psi }\right)^2,`$ (2.15)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\psi f`$, $`\psi `$ and $`\overline{\psi }`$ being the canonically conjugated variables of Eq. (1); $`D`$ is the auxilary field. The action corresponding to the Lagrangian (2.15) is invariant under the transformations

$`\delta _ϵC_k`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}\sigma _k\mathrm{\Psi }+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\sigma _kϵ,`$
$`\delta _ϵ\mathrm{\Psi }_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}(\sigma _kϵ)_\alpha \dot{C}_k+ϵ_\alpha D,`$
$`\delta _ϵD`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}\left(\dot{\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}}ϵ\overline{ϵ}\dot{\mathrm{\Psi }}\right).`$ (2.16)
The chopoff procedure works also for nonsupersymmetric theories. Consider the simplest case of scalar QED. The one–loop correction to the effective Lagrangian is just

$`\delta _{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{QED}}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{log}det(_0^2A_k^2).`$ (2.17)
The double derivative term is given by the graph depicted in Fig. 2. We obtain

$`\delta _{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{QED}}=(𝐀\dot{𝐀})^2{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{ϵ^2}}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{[\omega ^2+𝐀^2][(\omega +ϵ)^2+𝐀^2]}}|_{ϵ=0}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{(𝐀\dot{𝐀})^2}{8|𝐀|^5}}.`$ (2.18)
Restoring the contribution of the higher Fourier modes, $`𝐀𝐀2\pi 𝐧/L`$, and performing the summation over $`𝐧`$, with averaging over directions $`n_jn_k\frac{1}{3}𝐧^2\delta _{jk}`$, we reproduce the known result for the one–loop $`\beta `$ function in the scalar QED,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{e^2(L)}}|{}_{\mathrm{scalar}\mathrm{QED}}{}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e_0^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24\pi ^2}}\mathrm{ln}(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{UV}L).`$ (2.19)
Therefore, the chopoff method works also for nonsupersymmetric theories. Actually, it was applied before to pure Yang–Mills theory in Ref. . There are three important distinctions, however:

* In the nonsupersymmetric case, the effective Lagrangian calculated in the Abelian background (2.6) involves besides the kinetic term also the potential part $`|𝐂|`$. As a result, in the non–Abelian case, the true slow variables are not only Abelian, but all zero Fourier modes of the gauge potential, and the Born–Oppenheimer Lagrangian becomes more complicated.
* A remark related to the previous one is that the metric in Eq. (2) is not conformally flat as it is in Eq. (2.12).
* The graph in Fig. 2 which determines the correction to the effective Lagrangian in the QM limit is quite different from the standard graph giving the $`\beta `$ function in four dimensions. In particular, the former does not diverge in the ultraviolet in four dimensions.

## 3 Nonrenormalisation theorems.

In the dimensionally reduced $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory (alias, maximally supersymmetric quantum mechanics, alias matrix model, alias the system of $`D0`$-branes), the corrections to the metric on the moduli space are absent. There are $`D`$-brane arguments in favor of this conclusion , it was confirmed by explicit calculation , and finaly proven using simple symmetry arguments . To make the paper self-contained, we present here a somewhat refined version of these arguments.

In the maximally supersymmetric $`SU(2)`$ theory the effective Lagrangian is written in terms of a 9–dimensional vector $`C_k`$ and a real 16–component $`SO(9)`$ spinor $`\lambda _\alpha `$. The Lagrangian must be invariant with respect to the supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta _ϵC_k`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{i}ϵ\gamma _k\lambda ,`$
$`\delta _ϵ\lambda _\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\left(\gamma _k\dot{C}_kϵ\right)_\alpha +\left[M(c)ϵ\right]_\alpha ,`$ (3.20)
where $`ϵ`$ is a real Grassmann spinor and $`\gamma _k`$ are the 9–dimensional $`\gamma `$ matrices, $`\gamma _j\gamma _k+\gamma _k\gamma _j=2\delta _{jk}`$. They are all real and symmetric. The transformations (3) represent an analog of (2.16) with the auxiliary field expressed out.

The commutator of two SUSY transformations with parameters $`ϵ_1`$ and $`ϵ_2`$ should amount to a time translation. A trivial calculation gives

$`[\delta _1,\delta _2]C_k=2\mathrm{i}ϵ_2ϵ_1\dot{C}_k\mathrm{i}ϵ_2\{\gamma _kM+M^T\gamma _k\}ϵ_1,`$ (3.21)
and we conclude that

$`\gamma _kM+M^T\gamma _k=0.`$ (3.22)
As was noticed in Ref., this implies that $`M=0`$. Let us prove it. On the first step, note that any $`M`$ satisfying (3.22) commutes with all generators $`J_{kj}=\frac{1}{4}[\gamma _k,\gamma _j]`$ of $`Spin(9)`$. This means that, for any set $`\lambda `$ belonging to the spinor representation of $`Spin(9)`$, the set $`M\lambda `$ also forms a spinor representation. Hence $`M=\xi R`$, where $`\xi `$ is a real number and $`RSpin(9)`$. But $`R`$ commutes with all generators of $`Spin(9)`$ and should belong to the center of $`Spin(9)`$, i.e. $`M=\pm \xi I`$. Then (3.22) tells us that $`\xi =0`$.

When proving this, we used implicitly the fact that the real spinor representation of $`SO(9)`$ is irreducible. If it could be decomposed in a direct sum of two other representations, we could choose $`M`$ as diag$`(\xi _1z_1,\xi _2z_2)`$, with $`z_1`$ and $`z_2`$ belonging to the center of the group in the corresponding subspaces. Such $`M`$ would not be necessarily proportional to $`I`$. This discussion is not purely academic. Actually, for $`Spin(3)`$ and $`Spin(5)`$, where real spinor representations are reducible, nontrivial matrices satisfying (3.22) exist.

The only structure not involving higher derivatives666Higher derivative terms, in particular the term $`(\dot{C}_k\dot{C}_k)^2`$ and its superpartners are allowed. See  for detailed discussion. and invariant with respect to the transformations (3) with $`M=0`$ is

$$\frac{1}{2}\left[\dot{C}_k^2+\mathrm{i}\lambda \dot{\lambda }\right].$$

Nontrivial corrections to the metric are not allowed. Bearing in mind the discussion in the previous section, this simultaneously proves that the $`\beta `$ function in $`𝒩=4`$ SYM theory vanishes exactly in all loops.

In the $`𝒩=2`$ case, the corrections to the metric survive, but the presence of 4 different complex supercharges dictates that the function $`f^2(𝐂)`$ ($`𝐂`$ is now a 5–dimensional vector. In four dimensions this corresponds to the gauge potential and a complex scalar.) is not arbitrary, but should be a harmonic function, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{(5)}f^2(𝐂)=0`$ . The $`O(5)`$ invariance, which is manifest in the chopoff quantum–mechanical limit, tells us then that the only allowed form of the effective Lagrangian is

$`^{\mathrm{eff}}={\displaystyle \frac{\dot{𝐂}^2}{2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{const}}{|𝐂|^3}}\right),`$ (3.23)
i.e. all the corrections beyond one loop vanish. But this means also that multiloop corrections to the $`\beta `$ function vanish in this case.

## 4 Effective action in (1+1) dimensions.

Consider the gauge SYM theory with $`SU(2)`$ gauge group compactified on $`T^2`$ rather than on $`T^3`$. The low–energy dynamics is described by an effective (1+1) dimensional field theory depending on two bosonic variables $`C_{1,2}(z,t)`$ and their fermionic superpartners. The effective Lagrangian represents in this case a supersymmetric Kählerian $`\sigma `$-model . The corresponding Kählerian manifold represents a 2–torus dual to the spatial torus. The precise form of the metric can be determined by a simple one–loop calculation. It can be done along the same lines as in Sect. 2. Calculating the graphs in Fig. 1, we obtain for the correction to the effective Lagrangian density

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{bos}}^{d=2}=3(_\alpha C_j)^2{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2+C_j^2)^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(_\alpha C_j)^2}{4\pi C_j^2}},`$ (4.24)
where $`\alpha =0,3`$ and $`j=1,2`$. We obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{L^2}}_{\mathrm{bos}}^{d=2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(_\alpha C_j)^2\stackrel{~}{f}^2(C_j),`$ (4.25)
where

$`\stackrel{~}{f}(C_j)=1+{\displaystyle \frac{3g^2}{4\pi L^2C_j^2}}.`$ (4.26)
The fermion terms can be restored by supersymmetrizing. The full effective Lagrangian is

$`g^2^{d=2}={\displaystyle d^2\theta d^2\overline{\theta }\left[\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{3}{4\pi }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{ln}\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\right]},`$ (4.27)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a chiral superfield with the lowest component $`\varphi =L(C_1+\mathrm{i}C_2)/\sqrt{2}`$. When deriving (4.25), we neglected higher Fourier modes associated with compactified directions. This is justified if $`|\varphi |1`$. (On the other hand, we have to keep $`|\varphi |g`$, otherwise higher loop corrections become relevant.) For $`|\varphi |1`$, the higher Fourier modes should be taken into account, which can be easily done by substituting $`C_jC_j2\pi n_j/L`$ and performing the sum over integer 2–dimensional $`n_j`$.

It is very instructive to explore the relationship between the effective $`d=2`$ Lagrangian (4.27) and our nonstandard (0+1)–dimensional $`\sigma `$ model (2.15). To begin with, let us study the geometric structure of the Lagrangian (2.15). To this end, we integrate out the auxiliary field $`D`$ and express the Lagrangian in the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{L_1L_2L_3}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{jk}\dot{C}^j\dot{C}^k+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}}\left(\overline{\psi }\dot{\psi }\dot{\overline{\psi }}\psi \right)+\mathrm{i}\omega _j^{ab}\dot{C}^j\overline{\psi }\sigma ^{ab}\psi +`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\left[f(^2f)2(_jf)^2\right]\left(\overline{\psi }\right)^2\left(\psi \right)^2,`$ (4.28)
where we have raised the index of the vector $`C^j`$ indicating its contravariant nature, $`g_{jk}=f^2\delta _{jk}`$, $`\psi =\mathrm{\Psi }/f`$, $`\sigma ^{ab}=\frac{i}{2}ϵ^{abc}\sigma ^c`$ is the generator of rotations in the tangent space, and

$`\omega _i^{ab}=\delta _i^b^a\mathrm{log}(f)\delta _i^a^b\mathrm{log}(f)`$ (4.29)
is the spin connection on a conformally flat manifold with the natural choice of the dreibein, $`e_j^a=f^1\delta _j^a`$.

We have succeeded in presenting the bifermion term in a nice geometric form. However, the 4–fermion term in Eq. (4.28) does not have an obvious geometric interpretation. In particular, its coefficient is not a 3–dimensional scalar curvature.

To establish the relation of (4.28) to the Kählerian model, let us consider the original theory on an asymmetric torus $`L_3L_1=L_2L`$. The effective QM model is given by the Lagrangian (4.25) with $`f(C_{1,2},C_3)`$ written in Eq. (2.14). If $`L_3`$ is very large, the range where $`C_3`$ changes is very small. In the limit $`L_3\mathrm{}`$, $`C_3`$ is frozen to zero, but to perform this limit, we cannot just set $`C_3=0`$ in Eq. (2.14), but rather average over $`C_3`$ within the range $`0C_32\pi /L_3`$ and simultaneously perform the summation over $`n_3`$. This amounts to calculating the integral

$$\frac{1}{f^2(C_3,C_{1,2})}1\frac{3g^2}{2}\underset{n_j}{}\frac{da}{2\pi }\frac{1}{[_{j=1,2}(LC_j2\pi n_j)^2+a^2]^{3/2}},$$

which exactly gives the correction to the metric in Eq. (4.25), (4.26).

The Lagrangian (4.28) involves also the kinetic term for the field $`C_3`$ and the term where $`\dot{C}_3`$ multiplies a bifermion structure. Performing the functional integral of exp$`\{iS\}`$ over $`_tdC_3(t)`$, we arrive at the expression

$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}\dot{y}^j\dot{y}^k+\mathrm{i}\overline{\chi }^a\left(\delta ^{ab}_t\omega _j^{ab}\dot{y}^j\right)\chi ^b+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R\left(\overline{\chi }\right)^2\left(\chi \right)^2,`$ (4.30)
where $`y^j=Lc^j/g`$, $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{jk}=\stackrel{~}{f}^2\delta _{jk}`$, $`\chi `$ is related to $`\psi `$ by a unitary transformation, $`\omega _j^{ab}`$ is the two-dimensional spin connection (4.29), and $`R=2[\stackrel{~}{f}^2\stackrel{~}{f}(_j\stackrel{~}{f})^2]`$ is the two-dimensional scalar curvature. The Lagrangian (4.30) coincides with the standard Lagrangian of the supersymmetric $`\sigma `$ model . in the QM limit. The $`(1+1)`$ effective Lagrangian could be obtained if taking into account the higher Fourier harmonics $`\mathrm{exp}\{izn/L_3\}`$ of $`C_j(z,t)`$ and $`\psi (z,t)`$ in the background.

## Acknowledgements

A.V.S. is indebted to A. Losev and N. Nekrasov for illuminating discussions. E.T.A. acklowledges warm hospitality extended to him at the University of Nantes where this work was done. His work was partially supported by the grants RFFI 01-02-17488 and INTAS-00-390.