text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum integrable field models and spin chains in low dimensions have recently attracted much attention due to their close connection with diverse areas of physics as well as mathematics. By using algebraic Bethe ansatz, which occurs naturally in the framework of quantum inverse scattering method (QISM), one can find out the spectrum and various correlation functions of quantum integrable models with short-range interactions \[1-4\]. The nonlinear Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger (NLS) model is a well known example of such quantum integrable field model in $`1+1`$-dimension \[1-8\]. For the case of derivative nonlinear Schr$`\ddot{\mathrm{o}}`$dinger (DNLS) model, however, the situation is a little bit complicated due to the following reason. There exists one type of classical DNLS model with equation of motion like

$$iq_t+q_{xx}4i\xi (q^{}q^2)_x=0,$$
(1.1)
where the subscripts denote the derivatives with respect to corresponding variables. By using an equal time ‘nonultralocal’ Poisson bracket (PB) structure given by $`\{q(x),q(y)\}=\{q^{}(x),q^{}(y)\}=0,\{q(x),q^{}(y)\}=\delta _x(xy)`$, one can show that the infinite number of conserved quantities (including the Hamiltonian) associated with this DNLS equation of motion yield vanishing PB relations among themselves . This fact establishes the classical integrability of DNLS model (1.1) in the Liouville sense. However, due to the appearance of nonultralocal commutation relations among the basic field operators, quantum version of such DNLS model can not be handled by QISM and therefore quantum integrability can not be established for this case.

On the other hand, there exists another type of DNLS model with equation of motion like

$$i\psi _t+\psi _{xx}4i\xi (\psi ^{}\psi )\psi _x=0.$$
(1.2)
The Hamiltonian

$$H=_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\left(\psi ^{}\psi _{xx}+2i\xi (\psi ^{}\psi )\psi ^{}\psi _x\right)𝑑x,$$
(1.3)
and an equal time ‘ultralocal’ PB structure

$$\{\psi (x),\psi (y)\}=\{\psi ^{}(x),\psi ^{}(y)\}=0,\{\psi (x),\psi ^{}(y)\}=i\delta (xy),$$
(1.4)
yield eqn.(1.2) through a canonical evolution: $`\psi _t=\{\psi ,H\}`$. By using the ultralocal PB structure (1.4) and Lax operator given by

$`\stackrel{~}{U}(x,\lambda )=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi \psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)\lambda ^2/4& \sqrt{\xi }\lambda \psi ^{}(x)\\ \sqrt{\xi }\lambda \psi (x)& \xi \psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)+\lambda ^2/4\end{array}\right),`$ (1.5)
where $`\lambda `$ is a spectral parameter, one can prove the classical integrability for the DNLS model (1.2) in the Liouville sense. Furthermore, by taking advantage of ultralocal commutation relations among the basic field operators, integrability of the corresponding quantum DNLS model can also be established through QISM .

Similar to the case of other integrable systems, the monodromy matrix plays a key role in deriving the conserved quantities and studying exact solvability of the DNLS model (1.2) as well as its quantum analogue. Though the PB relations (commutation relations) among various elements of classical (quantum) monodromy matrix associated with such DNLS model have been computed earlier , this problem should be reinvestigated due to the following reasons. First of all, it was assumed earlier that the monodromy matrix of classical (quantum) DNLS model exhibits $`SU(2)`$ ($`U(2)`$) symmetry for any value of the corresponding coupling constant $`\xi `$. However, in comparison to the case of NLS model where the symmetry of monodromy matrix depends on the sign of the corresponding coupling constant, this seems to be a rather questionable assumption. Therefore, it is necessary to properly study the symmetry properties of the classical (quantum) monodromy matrix of DNLS model and use those symmetries as an input for deriving the PB relations (commutation relations) among the elements of the monodromy matrix. Secondly, a rather cumbersome method was adopted earlier for finding out the commutation relations among the elements of quantum monodromy matrix at the infinite interval limit. As it will be clear from the discussions in Sec.4 of the present article, the above mentioned method yields an incorrect commutation relation between creation and annihilation operators associated with the quasi-particles of quantum DNLS model. Since such commutation relation plays a crucial role in finding out the norm of Bethe eigenstates, the $`S`$-matrix for two-body scattering and various correlation functions, it is necessary to calculate very carefully the commutation relations among the elements of quantum monodromy matrix at infinite interval limit. Finally, it may be noted that two different approaches were taken earlier for treating the classical and quantum DNLS model . The integrability of quantum DNLS model was established by first discretising the system on a lattice, evaluating the commutation relations among the elements of the monodromy matrix defined on that lattice and finally taking the continuum limit. For the case of classical DNLS model, however, no such lattice regularisation was taken and PB relations among the elements of monodromy matrix were evaluated directly for the continuum model.

The aim of the present article is to shed some light on the above mentioned issues and especially study the quantum DNLS model by using a variant of QISM  which can be applied to continuum field models without performing any lattice regularisation. In Sec.2 of this article, we find out the symmetry properties of monodromy matrix associated with the classical DNLS model (1.2) and subsequently use those symmetries for evaluating PB relations among various elements of this monodromy matrix. In Sec.3, we construct the quantum monodromy matrix of DNLS model on a finite interval and derive all possible commutation relations among the elements of such monodromy matrix through QISM. In Sec.4, we take the infinite interval limit of these commutation relations and construct exact eigenstates for the diagonal elements of quantum monodromy matrix through algebraic Bethe ansatz. Furthermore, we obtain the commutation relation between creation and annihilation operators of quasi-particles associated with DNLS model and find out the $`S`$-matrix of two-body scattering among such quasi-particles. Sec.5 is the concluding section.

## 2 Integrability of the classical DNLS model

To investigate the symmetry properties of monodromy matrix associated with the classical DNLS model (1.2), we start with a Lax operator of the form

$`U(x,\lambda )=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi \psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)\lambda ^2/4& \xi \lambda \psi ^{}(x)\\ \lambda \psi (x)& \xi \psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)+\lambda ^2/4\end{array}\right).`$ (2.1)
Note that the off-diagonal elements of this Lax operator differ from the corresponding elements of previously given Lax operator (1.5) through some scale factors. However, as will be shown later, the traces of monodromy matrices associated with the Lax operators (1.5) and (2.1) coincide with each other and consequently both of these Lax operators correspond to the same DNLS model (1.2).

By using the Lax operator (2.1) along with its asymptotic form at $`|x|\mathrm{}`$, we define the monodromy matrices of DNLS model on finite and infinite intervals as

$$T_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )=𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{x_1}^{x_2}U(x,\lambda )𝑑x$$
(2.2)
and

$$T(\lambda )=\underset{\stackrel{x_2+\mathrm{}}{x_1\mathrm{}}}{lim}e(x_2,\lambda )\left\{𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{x_1}^{x_2}U(x,\lambda )𝑑x\right\}e(x_1,\lambda )$$
(2.3)
respectively, where $`𝒫`$ denotes the path ordering and $`e(x,\lambda )=e^{\frac{i}{4}\lambda ^2\sigma _3x}`$. To find out the symmetries of such monodromy matrices, we note that the Lax operator (2.1) satisfies the relations

$`U(x,\lambda )^{}=KU(x,\lambda ^{})K^1,U(x,\lambda )=LU(x,\lambda )L^1,(2.4a,b)`$
where $`K=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \sqrt{\xi }\\ 1/\sqrt{\xi }& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`L=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$. By using these relations we find that the symmetries of monodromy matrix (2.3) are given by

$`T(\lambda )^{}=KT(\lambda ^{})K^1,T(\lambda )=LT(\lambda )L^1.(2.5a,b)`$
By exploiting the symmetry relation (2.5a) and restricting to the case when $`\lambda `$ is a real parameter, one may now express $`T(\lambda )`$ in the form

$`T(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a(\lambda )& \xi b^{}(\lambda )\\ b(\lambda )& a^{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (2.6)
Since the Lax operator (2.1) is a traceless matrix, we also get $`detT(\lambda )=1`$ or, equivalently, $`|a(\lambda )|^2+\xi |b(\lambda )|^2=1`$. Moreover, by using the symmetry relation (2.5b), it is easy to see that $`a(\lambda )=a(\lambda )`$ and $`b(\lambda )=b(\lambda )`$. So, for the case of real $`\lambda `$, $`T(\lambda )`$ within the range $`\lambda 0`$ contains all informations about the scattering data. Therefore, in the following we shall consider the PB relations among the elements of monodromy matrix (2.6) only within the range $`\lambda 0`$.

In analogy with the monodromy matrix $`T(\lambda )`$ (2.3) which is defined through Lax operator (2.1), one can also define the monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ corresponding to Lax operator (1.5) as

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )=\underset{\stackrel{x_2+\mathrm{}}{x_1\mathrm{}}}{lim}e(x_2,\lambda )\left\{𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{x_1}^{x_2}\stackrel{~}{U}(x,\lambda )𝑑x\right\}e(x_1,\lambda ).$$
(2.7)
It was assumed earlier that this $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ can be written in a $`SU(2)`$ symmetric form for any value of the corresponding coupling constant $`\xi `$ . For the purpose of properly investigating the symmetry properties of $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$, we observe that the Lax operators (1.5) and (2.1) are related through a symmetry transformation given by

$$MU(x,\lambda )M^1=\stackrel{~}{U}(x,\lambda ),$$
(2.8)
where $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\xi ^{\frac{1}{4}}& 0\\ 0& \xi ^{\frac{1}{4}}\end{array}\right)`$. Consequently, the corresponding monodromy matrices would also be related as $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )=MT(\lambda )M^1`$. By using this relation along with eqn.(2.6), we can express $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ for real $`\lambda `$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )& \rho \stackrel{~}{b}^{}(\lambda )\\ \stackrel{~}{b}(\lambda )& \stackrel{~}{a}^{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),$$
(2.9)
where $`\rho =\mathrm{sign}\xi `$ and

$`\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )=a(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{a}^{}(\lambda )=a^{}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{b}(\lambda )=\sqrt{\xi }b(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(\lambda )=\rho \sqrt{\xi }b^{}(\lambda ).`$ (2.10)
Now from eqn.(2.9) it is evident that the monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ takes the form of a $`SU(2)`$ group valued object when $`\xi >0`$ and $`SU(1,1)`$ group valued object when $`\xi <0`$. Thus we find that, similar to the case of NLS model, symmetry of the monodromy matrix associated with DNLS model is also determined through the sign of the corresponding coupling constant. As a result PB relations among the scattering data of DNLS model, which were derived earlier by assuming $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ to be a $`SU(2)`$ group valued object, actually correspond to the case $`\xi >0`$.

It may be noted that, the diagonal elements of the monodromy matrices $`T(\lambda )`$ (2.6) and $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ (2.9) coincide with each other. So, by using the results of Ref.12 where $`\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )`$ was expanded in powers of $`\frac{1}{\lambda }`$, we can write

$$\mathrm{ln}a(\lambda )=\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{iC_n}{\lambda ^{2n}},$$
(2.11)
and find out the first few $`C_n`$s as

$`C_0=\xi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}\psi 𝑑x,C_1=4i\xi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\psi ^{}\psi _x𝑑x,`$ $`(2.12a,b)`$
$`C_2=8\xi {\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}}\left(\psi ^{}\psi _{xx}2i\xi (\psi ^{}\psi )\psi ^{}\psi _x\right)𝑑x.`$ $`(2.12c)`$
Note that the Hamiltonian (1.3) of DNLS model is related to the third expansion coefficient (2.12c) as $`H=\frac{1}{8\xi }C_2`$. As a result, the monodromy matrices $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ (2.9) and $`T(\lambda )`$ (2.6) correspond to the same DNLS model (1.2).

Next, we want to derive the PB relations among the elements of $`T(\lambda )`$ (2.6) for both positive and negative values of the coupling constant $`\xi `$. To this end, we apply (1.4) to evaluate the PB relations among the elements of Lax operator (2.1) and find that

$$\left\{U(x,\lambda )\stackrel{}{,}U(y,\mu )\right\}=[r(\lambda ,\mu ),U(x,\lambda )1\mathrm{l}+1\mathrm{l}U(y,\mu )]\delta (xy),$$
(2.13)
where

$$r(\lambda ,\mu )=\xi \left(t^c\sigma _3\sigma _3+s^c(\sigma _+\sigma _{}+\sigma _{}\sigma _+)\right)$$
(2.14)
with $`t^c=\frac{\lambda ^2+\mu ^2}{2(\lambda ^2\mu ^2)},s^c=\frac{2\lambda \mu }{\lambda ^2\mu ^2}`$. Next, by employing a standard technique  for deriving PB relations among the elements of monodromy matrix (2.3) with the help of eqn.(2.13), we obtain

$$\left\{T(\lambda )\stackrel{}{,}T(\mu )\right\}=r_+(\lambda ,\mu )T(\lambda )T(\mu )T(\lambda )T(\mu )r_{}(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(2.15)
where $`r_\pm (\lambda ,\mu )`$ matrices are given by

$`r_\pm (\lambda ,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`E^{\pm 1}(L,\lambda )E^{\pm 1}(L,\mu )r(\lambda ,\mu )E^1(L,\lambda )E^1(L,\mu )`$
$`=`$ $`\xi \left(t^c\sigma _3\sigma _3+s_\pm ^c\sigma _+\sigma _{}+s_{}^c\sigma _{}\sigma _+\right),`$
with $`s_\pm ^c=\pm 2i\pi \lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)`$. By substituting the symmetric form of $`T(\lambda )`$ (2.6) to eqn.(2.15) and expressing it in elementwise form, we finally obtain

$`\{a(\lambda ),a(\mu )\}=0,\{a(\lambda ),a^{}(\mu )\}=0,(2.16a,b)`$
$`\{a(\lambda ),b(\mu )\}=\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2+\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2\mu ^2}}\right)a(\lambda )b(\mu )2i\pi \xi \lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)b(\lambda )a(\mu ),(2.16c)`$
$`\{a(\lambda ),b^{}(\mu )\}=\xi \left({\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2+\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2\mu ^2}}\right)a(\lambda )b^{}(\mu )+2i\pi \xi \lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)b^{}(\lambda )a(\mu ),(2.16d)`$
$`\{b(\lambda ),b^{}(\mu )\}=4i\pi \lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)|a(\lambda )|^2.(2.16e)`$
The above PB relations among the scattering data of the DNLS model are evidently valid for all values of the coupling constant $`\xi `$. Since from eqns.(2.16a) and (2.11) it follows that $`\{C_m,C_n\}=0`$ for all $`m,n`$, the DNLS model (1.2) represents a classical integrable system in the Liouville sense. With the help of transformation (2.10), one can also recast eqns.(2.16a-e) as the PB relations among the elements of monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ (2.9) and compare such PB relations with their counterparts in Ref.12. It is easy to see that the forms of eqns.(2.16a-d) remain unaltered through the transformation (2.10) and coincide with their counterparts as given earlier (after taking care of slight changes in notations and in the definition of fundamental PB relation). However, by using eqns.(2.16e) and (2.10) we find that

$$\{\stackrel{~}{b}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{b^{}}(\mu )\}=4i\pi |\xi |\lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)|\stackrel{~}{a}(\lambda )|^2.$$
(2.17)
It is interesting to note that, for the case $`\xi <0`$, the above equation differs from its counterpart  through a sign factor. Thus, we are able to derive here the correct PB relation between $`\stackrel{~}{b}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b^{}}(\mu )`$ for the case $`\xi <0`$. It is well known that the commutation relation between the quantum analogues of $`\stackrel{~}{b}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b^{}}(\mu )`$ plays a crucial role in finding out the norm of the Bethe eigenstates, the $`S`$-matrix for two-body scattering and various correlation functions. As a first step for evaluating this commutation relation and other commutation relations which would represent the quantum counterparts of the classical PB relations (2.16), in the following we shall quantise the monodromy matrix (2.2) of DNLS model on a finite interval.

## 3 Commutation relations for the quantum monodromy matrix on a finite interval

In the quantised version of the DNLS model (1.2), the fundamental PB relations (1.4) are replaced by equal time commutation relations among the basic field operators:

$$[\psi (x),\psi (y)]=[\psi ^{}(x),\psi ^{}(y)]=0,[\psi (x),\psi ^{}(y)]=\delta (xy),$$
(3.1)
and vacuum state is defined as $`\psi (x)|0=0`$. By using the ultralocal commutation relations (3.1) and a version of QISM which can be applied to field models without performing any lattice regularisation , at present we shall construct the quantum monodromy matrix of DNLS model on a finite interval and derive all commutation relations among the elements of such quantum monodromy matrix. To this end, we assume that the quantised form of the classical Lax operator (2.1) is given by

$`𝒰_q(x,\lambda )=i\left(\begin{array}{cc}f\rho (x)\lambda ^2/4& \xi \lambda \psi ^{}(x)\\ \lambda \psi (x)& g\rho (x)+\lambda ^2/4\end{array}\right)`$ (3.2)
where $`\rho (x)=\psi ^{}(x)\psi (x)`$, and $`f,g`$ are two yet undetermined parameters. It will be shown later that $`f\xi `$, $`g\xi `$ at the classical limit and, as a result, $`𝒰_q(x,\lambda )`$ (3.2) correctly reproduces $`U(x,\lambda )`$ (2.1) in this limit. By using $`𝒰_q(x,\lambda )`$, we define the quantum monodromy matrix of DNLS model on a finite interval as

$$𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )=:𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{x_1}^{x_2}𝒰_q(x,\lambda )dx:,$$
(3.3)
where the symbol $`::`$ denotes the normal ordering of operators. It is evident that this quantum monodromy matrix (3.3) satisfies a differential equation given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )`$ $`=`$ $`:𝒰_q(x_2,\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda ):`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\lambda ^2\sigma _3𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )+i\xi \lambda \psi ^{}(x_2)\sigma _+𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )+i\lambda \sigma _{}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )\psi (x_2)`$ (3.4)
$`+if\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{11}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )\psi (x_2)ig\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{22}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )\psi (x_2),`$
where $`e_{11}=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _3)`$ and $`e_{22}=\frac{1}{2}(1\sigma _3)`$. For the purpose of applying QISM, however, it is needed to find out the differential equation satisfied by the product $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )`$. To this end, we borrow a notation of Ref.2 where the sign for normal arrangement of operator factors is taken as $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ . The sign $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ , applied to the product of several operator factors (including $`\psi `$ and $`\psi ^{}`$), ensures the arrangement of all $`\psi ^{}`$ on the left, and all $`\psi `$ on the right, without altering the order of the remaining factors. For example,

$$\mathrm{}X\psi \psi ^{}Y\mathrm{}=\psi ^{}XY\psi ,$$

where $`X`$ and $`Y`$ may be taken as some elements of the quantum monodromy matrix (3.3). Now by using the basic commutation relations (3.1) and the method of ‘extension’ , we find that the product of two monodromy matrices satisfies the following differential equation (details of this calculation are given in the Appendix):

$$\frac{}{x_2}\left(𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\right)=\mathrm{}(x_2;\lambda ,\mu )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\mathrm{},$$
(3.5)
where

$$(x;\lambda ,\mu )=𝒰_q(x,\lambda )1\mathrm{l}+1\mathrm{l}𝒰_q(x,\mu )+_{\mathrm{}}(x;\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(3.6)
with

$$_{\mathrm{}}(x;\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}f^2\rho (x)& \mu \xi f\psi ^{}(x)& 0& 0\\ 0& gf\rho (x)& 0& 0\\ \lambda f\psi (x)& \lambda \mu \xi & gf\rho (x)& \mu \xi g\psi ^{}(x)\\ 0& \lambda g\psi (x)& 0& g^2\rho (x)\end{array}\right).$$

Next, let us consider a $`(4\times 4)`$ $`R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ matrix of the form

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& s(\lambda ,\mu )& t(\lambda ,\mu )& 0\\ 0& t(\lambda ,\mu )& s(\lambda ,\mu )& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),$$
(3.7)
with $`t(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\lambda ^2\mu ^2}{\lambda ^2q\mu ^2q^1},s(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{(qq^1)\lambda \mu }{\lambda ^2q\mu ^2q^1}`$ and $`q=e^{i\alpha }`$, $`\alpha `$ being an yet undetermined real parameter. It is easy to check that the $`R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ matrix (3.7) and $`(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$ (3.6) satisfy an equation given by

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )(x;\lambda ,\mu )=(x;\mu ,\lambda )R(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(3.8)
provided the parameters $`f`$, $`g`$, $`\alpha `$ and the coupling constant $`\xi `$ are related as

$`\xi =\mathrm{sin}\alpha ,f={\displaystyle \frac{\xi e^{i\alpha /2}}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha /2}},g={\displaystyle \frac{\xi e^{i\alpha /2}}{\mathrm{cos}\alpha /2}}.(3.9a,b,c)`$
By using eqns.(3.5) and (3.8), we find that the monodromy matrix (3.3) of DNLS model satisfies the quantum Yang-Baxter equation (QYBE):

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )=𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )R(\lambda ,\mu ).$$
(3.10)
Expressing this QYBE in elementwise form, one may explicitly obtain all possible commutation relations among the elements of quantum monodromy matrix (3.3).

Note that the relations (3.9a,b,c) are obtained as a necessary condition for satisfying QYBE (3.10). By solving eqns.(3.9a,b,c), the parameters $`f`$, $`g`$ and $`\alpha `$ can be determined as some functions of the known coupling constant $`\xi `$. Thus QYBE fixes all undetermined parameters in the quantum Lax operator (3.2) and corresponding $`R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ matrix (3.7). Due to eqn.(3.9a) it is evident that, the coupling constant of quantum DNLS model must be restricted within a range given by $`|\xi |1`$ and the parameter $`\alpha `$ has a one-to-one correspondence with such coupling constant for $`\frac{\pi }{2}\alpha \frac{\pi }{2}`$. It may be noticed that, by putting $`x_2=x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in eqn.(3.3) (here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a small positive parameter) and retaining terms only up to the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, one obtains

$$𝒯_{x_1}^{x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )1\mathrm{l}+i\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{cc}f\rho _n\lambda ^2/4& \xi \lambda \psi _n^{}\\ \lambda \psi _n& g\rho _n+\lambda ^2/4\end{array}\right),$$
(3.11)
where $`\psi _n^{}=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{x_1}^{x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}\psi ^{}(x)𝑑x`$, $`\psi _n=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{x_1}^{x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}\psi (x)𝑑x`$, $`\rho _n=\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{x_1}^{x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}\rho (x)𝑑x`$. It is interesting to observe that this $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_1+\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda )`$ (3.11) satisfies QYBE (3.10) up to order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and reproduces (up to a gauge transformation) the lattice Lax operator for quantum DNLS model  when the parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is identified as a lattice constant. In this article, however, we shall not use any lattice discretisation and directly work with the quantum monodromy matrix (3.3) which satisfies QYBE exactly.

Next, for the purpose of investigating the classical limit of the quantum Lax operator (3.2), we replace the last commutation relation in eqn.(3.1) by $`[\psi (x),\psi ^{}(y)]=h\delta (xy)`$, where $`h`$ is the Planck’s constant, and then repeat all calculations of this section. It turns out that eqns.(3.9b,c) remain unchanged, but eqn.(3.9a) is modified as: $`h\xi =\mathrm{sin}\alpha `$. Consequently, for any fixed value of $`\xi `$, $`\alpha 0`$ limit is essentially equivalent to $`h0`$ limit. Since from eqns.(3.9b,c) it follows that $`f\xi `$ and $`g\xi `$ when $`\alpha 0`$, the quantum Lax operator (3.2) indeed reproduces the classical Lax operator (2.1) at $`h0`$ limit.

## 4 Algebraic Bethe ansatz for the quantum monodromy matrix on an infinite interval

For the purpose of taking infinite interval limit of QYBE (3.10), we define the quantum analogue of classical monodromy matrix (2.3) as

$$𝒯(\lambda )=\underset{\stackrel{x_2+\mathrm{}}{x_1\mathrm{}}}{lim}e(x_2,\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )e(x_1,\lambda ),$$
(4.1)
where $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )`$ is given by eqn.(3.3). It may be observed that, exactly like the case of classical Lax operator (2.1), the quantum Lax operator (3.2) also satisfies the following relations:

$`𝒰_q(x,\lambda )^{}=K𝒰_q(x,\lambda ^{})K^1,𝒰_q(x,\lambda )=L𝒰_q(x,\lambda )L^1,(4.2a,b)`$
where $`K`$ and $`L`$ are same matrices which have appeared in (2.4a,b). By using eqn.(4.2a) and assuming $`\lambda `$ to be a real parameter, is easy to show that the quantum monodromy matrix (4.1) can be expressed in a symmetric form given by

$`𝒯(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A(\lambda )& \xi B^{}(\lambda )\\ B(\lambda )& A^{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right).`$ (4.3)
Since from eqn.(4.2b) it follows that $`A(\lambda )=A(\lambda )`$ and $`B(\lambda )=B(\lambda )`$, it is necessary to consider the quantum monodromy matrix (4.3) only within the range $`\lambda 0`$. In analogy with $`𝒯(\lambda )`$ (4.1), which is defined by quantising the classical monodromy matrix $`T(\lambda )`$(2.3), one may also define the quantum analogue of the classical monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\lambda )`$ (2.7). By using arguments similar to the classical case, it is easy to show that such quantum monodromy matrix can be written in a symmetric form given by

$`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}(\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{A}(\lambda )& \rho \stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\lambda )\\ \stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda )& \stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\lambda )\end{array}\right),`$ (4.4)
where $`\rho =\mathrm{sign}\xi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\lambda )=A(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda )=\sqrt{\xi }B(\lambda )`$. Thus we find that, the quantum monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}(\lambda )`$ can be expressed like a $`U(2)`$ group valued object when $`\xi >0`$ and $`U(1,1)`$ group valued object when $`\xi <0`$. As a result, the commutation relations which were derived earlier by assuming $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}(\lambda )`$ to be a $`U(2)`$ group valued object  should correspond to the case $`\xi >0`$.

For finding out the commutation relations among the operator elements of monodromy matrix (4.1), it is required to get rid of the oscillatory terms which arise from the product $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )`$ at the asymptotic limits $`x_1,x_2\pm \mathrm{}`$. To this end, we split the $`(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$ matrix (3.6) into two parts:

$$(x;\lambda ,\mu )=_0(\lambda ,\mu )+_1(x;\lambda ,\mu ),$$

where $`_0(\lambda ,\mu )`$ is given by

$$_0(\lambda ,\mu )=\underset{|x|\mathrm{}}{lim}(x;\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\frac{i}{4}(\lambda ^2+\mu ^2)& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \frac{i}{4}(\lambda ^2\mu ^2)& 0& 0\\ 0& \xi \lambda \mu & \frac{i}{4}(\lambda ^2\mu ^2)& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \frac{i}{4}(\lambda ^2+\mu ^2)\end{array}\right),$$

and $`_1(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$ is the field dependent part of $`(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$, which vanishes at $`x\pm \mathrm{}`$. Due to eqn.(3.8) it follows that

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )\epsilon (x;\lambda ,\mu )=\epsilon (x;\mu ,\lambda )R(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(4.5)
where $`\epsilon (x;\lambda ,\mu )=e^{_0(\lambda ,\mu )x}`$. By using the above mentioned splitting of $`(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$, one can derive the integral form of differential equation (3.5) as

$$𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )=\epsilon (x_2x_1;\lambda ,\mu )+_{x_1}^{x_2}𝑑x\epsilon (x_2x;\lambda ,\mu )\mathrm{}_1(x;\lambda ,\mu )𝒯_{x_1}^x(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^x(\mu )\mathrm{}.$$

Due to the presence of field dependent matrix $`_1(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$, the second term in the r.h.s. of above integral equation vanishes at the limit $`x_1,x_2\pm \mathrm{}`$. Consequently, at this limit, one gets $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\epsilon (x_2x_1;\lambda ,\mu )`$ , which is an oscillatory term. To get rid of this unwanted term, we define an operator like

$$W(\lambda ,\mu )=\underset{\stackrel{x_1\mathrm{}}{x_2+\mathrm{}}}{lim}\epsilon (x_2;\lambda ,\mu )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\epsilon (x_1;\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(4.6)
which is clearly well behaved at the infinite interval limit. By using (3.10) and (4.5), it is easy to verify that this $`W(\lambda ,\mu )`$ (4.6) satisfies an equation given by

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )W(\lambda ,\mu )=W(\mu ,\lambda )R(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(4.7)
which represents QYBE for the infinite interval limit.

Next, we want to express QYBE (4.7) through the direct product of two monodromy matrices of the form (4.1). To this end, we note that $`W(\lambda ,\mu )`$ (4.6) may be rewritten as

$$W(\lambda ,\mu )=C_+(\lambda ,\mu )𝒯(\lambda )𝒯(\mu )C_{}(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(4.8)
where

$`C_+(\lambda ,\mu )=\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}\epsilon (x;\lambda ,\mu )E(x;\lambda ,\mu ),C_{}(\lambda ,\mu )=\underset{x\mathrm{}}{lim}E(x;\lambda ,\mu )\epsilon (x;\lambda ,\mu ),`$ $`(4.9a,b)`$
with $`E(x;\lambda ,\mu )=e(x,\lambda )e(x,\mu )`$. Substituting the explicit forms of $`E(x;\lambda ,\mu )`$ and $`\epsilon (x;\lambda ,\mu )`$ to (4.9a,b), and extracting the limits in the principal value sense: $`lim_{x\pm \mathrm{}}P(\frac{e^{ikx}}{k})`$ $`=\pm i\pi \delta (k)`$, we obtain

$`C_+(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& \rho _+(\lambda ,\mu )& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right)C_{}(\lambda ,\mu )=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& 0\\ 0& \rho _{}(\lambda ,\mu )& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ (4.10)
where

$$\rho _\pm (\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{2i\xi \lambda \mu }{\lambda ^2\mu ^2}+2\pi \xi \lambda \mu \delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)=\frac{2i\xi \lambda \mu }{\lambda ^2\mu ^2iϵ}.$$

By using the expression (4.8), we rewrite QYBE (4.7) for the infinite interval limit as

$$R(\lambda ,\mu )C_+(\lambda ,\mu )𝒯(\lambda )𝒯(\mu )C_{}(\lambda ,\mu )=C_+(\mu ,\lambda )𝒯(\mu )𝒯(\lambda )C_{}(\mu ,\lambda )R(\lambda ,\mu ).$$
(4.11)
By inserting the explicit forms of $`R(\lambda ,\mu )`$ (3.7), $`C_\pm (\lambda ,\mu )`$ (4.10), and $`𝒯(\lambda )`$ (4.3) to QYBE (4.11) and comparing its matrix elements from both sides, we finally obtain

$`[A(\lambda ),A(\mu )]=0,[A(\lambda ),A^{}(\mu )]=0,(4.12a,b)`$
$`A(\lambda )B^{}(\mu )={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2q\lambda ^2q^1}{\mu ^2\lambda ^2iϵ}}B^{}(\mu )A(\lambda )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2q\lambda ^2q^1}{\mu ^2\lambda ^2}}B^{}(\mu )A(\lambda )2\pi \xi \lambda \mu \delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)B^{}(\lambda )A(\mu ),(4.12c)`$
$`B(\mu )A(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2q\lambda ^2q^1}{\mu ^2\lambda ^2iϵ}}A(\lambda )B(\mu )`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2q\lambda ^2q^1}{\mu ^2\lambda ^2}}A(\lambda )B(\mu )2\pi \xi \lambda \mu \delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)A(\mu )B(\lambda ),(4.12d)`$
$`B(\mu )B^{}(\lambda )=\tau (\lambda ,\mu )B^{}(\lambda )B(\mu )+4\pi \lambda \mu \delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)A^{}(\lambda )A(\lambda ),(4.12e)`$
where $`q=e^{i\alpha }`$ and $`\tau (\lambda ,\mu )=\left[1+\frac{8\xi ^2\lambda ^2\mu ^2}{(\lambda ^2\mu ^2)^2}\frac{4\xi ^2\lambda ^2\mu ^2}{(\lambda ^2\mu ^2iϵ)(\lambda ^2\mu ^2+iϵ)}\right]`$. The above commutation relations among the elements of quantum monodromy matrix (4.1) are evidently valid for both positive and negative values of the coupling constant $`\xi `$. With the help of transformations like $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\lambda )=A(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda )=\sqrt{\xi }B(\lambda )`$, one can also recast eqns.(4.12a-e) as the commutation relations among the elements of the monodromy matrix $`\stackrel{~}{𝒯}(\lambda )`$ (4.4) and compare such commutation relations with their counterparts in Ref.12. It is easy to see that the forms of commutation relations (4.12a-d) remain unaltered through the above mentioned transformation and match with their counterparts as given earlier. However, by using the transformation $`\stackrel{~}{A}(\lambda )=A(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda )=\sqrt{\xi }B(\lambda )`$, equation (4.12e) may be expressed as

$$\stackrel{~}{B}(\mu )\stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\lambda )=\tau (\lambda ,\mu )\stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{B}(\mu )+4\pi \lambda \mu |\xi |\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2)\stackrel{~}{A}^{}(\lambda )\stackrel{~}{A}(\lambda ),$$

which does not match at all with its counterpart  for either positive or negative value of $`\xi `$. It can be shown that, due to a problem which arises while taking the infinite interval limit of QYBE, an incorrect commutation relation was obtained earlier between the operators $`\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda )`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\mu )`$ for both positive and negative values of $`\xi `$. It is interesting to observe that, for the case $`\lambda \mu `$, eqn.(4.12e) gives $`[\stackrel{~}{B}(\lambda ),\stackrel{~}{B}^{}(\mu )]0`$. On the other hand, from eqn.(2.16e) it follows that $`\{b(\lambda ),b^{}(\mu )\}=0`$ for $`\lambda \mu `$. Thus we find that, similar to the case of NLS model , the correspondence between Poisson brackets and commutators among some elements of monodromy matrix may turn out to be a quite nontrivial one.

Due to eqn.(4.12a) it follows that all operator valued coefficients occurring in the expansion of $`\mathrm{ln}A(\lambda )`$ in powers of $`\lambda `$ would commute among themselves and, as a consequence, the monodromy matrix (4.1) of DNLS model leads to a quantum integrable system. With the help of eqn.(4.1), it is easy to find that $`A(\lambda )|0=|0`$. By using this relation and eqn.(4.12c), it can be shown that

$$A(\lambda )|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N=\underset{r=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{\mu _r^2q\lambda ^2q^1}{\mu _r^2\lambda ^2iϵ}\right)|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N,$$
(4.13)
where $`\mu _j`$s are all distinct real numbers and $`|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _NB^{}(\mu _1)B^{}(\mu _2)\mathrm{}B^{}(\mu _N)|0`$. Thus the states $`|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ diagonalise the generator of conserved quantities for the quantum DNLS model. However, by using eqn.(4.13), one finds that the eigenvalues corresponding to different expansion coefficients of $`\mathrm{ln}A(\lambda )`$ would be complex quantities in general. To extract real eigenvalues, we define another operator $`\widehat{A}(\lambda )`$ through the relation: $`\widehat{A}(\lambda )A(\lambda e^{\frac{i\alpha }{2}})`$ and expand $`\mathrm{ln}\widehat{A}(\lambda )`$ as

$$\mathrm{ln}\widehat{A}(\lambda )=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i𝒞_n}{\lambda ^{2n}}.$$
(4.14)
With the help of eqns.(4.13) and (4.14) it is easy to see that $`𝒞_n`$s satisfy eigenvalue equations like $`𝒞_n|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N=\kappa _n|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$, where the first few $`\kappa _n`$s are explicitly given by

$$\kappa _0=\alpha N,\kappa _1=2\mathrm{sin}\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _j^2,\kappa _2=\mathrm{sin}2\alpha \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _j^4.$$
(4.15)
In analogy with the classical case, one may now define the Hamiltonian for quantum DNLS model as $`=\frac{1}{8\xi }𝒞_2`$. Eigenvalue equations corresponding to this Hamiltonian are evidently given by

$$|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N=+\frac{1}{4}\sqrt{1\xi ^2}\left(\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mu _j^4\right)|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N.$$
(4.16)
Till now we have assumed that $`\mu _j`$s are some real parameters, for which $`|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ represents a scattering state. One can also construct the quantum $`N`$-soliton state for DNLS model  by choosing complex values of $`\mu _j`$ given by

$$\mu _j=\mu \mathrm{exp}\left[i\alpha \left(\frac{N+1}{2}j\right)\right],$$
(4.17)
where $`\mu `$ is a real parameter and $`j[1,2,\mathrm{}N]`$. Thus $`\mu _j`$s are uniformly distributed on a circle of radius $`\mu `$. For this choice of $`\mu _j`$, eqn.(4.13) reduces to a simple form like

$$A(\lambda )|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N=q^N\left(\frac{\lambda ^2\mu ^2q^{N+1}}{\lambda ^2\mu ^2q^{N+1}}\right)|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N,$$
(4.18)
where the eigenvalue of $`A(\lambda )`$ has only one zero and one pole on the complex $`\lambda ^2`$-plane. By using (4.18), we obtain the energy eigenvalue corresponding to the quantum $`N`$-soliton state as

$$|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N=\frac{\mu ^4\mathrm{sin}(2\alpha N)}{8\mathrm{sin}\alpha }|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N.$$
(4.19)
In general, we may choose any positive integer value of $`N`$ (greater than one) for constructing a quantum soliton state. However, we now consider the DNLS model with some particular values of coupling constant given by $`\xi =\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi m}{n}\right)`$, where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are nonzero integers which do not have any common factor. By using eqn.(4.17), one obtains $`\mu _j=\mu _{j+n}`$ for this case. Since all $`\mu _j`$ must take distinct values, we get $`Nn`$ as a restriction on the number of quasi-particles which form a bound state for the quantum DNLS model corresponding to coupling constant $`\xi =\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi m}{n}\right)`$.

Thus, by applying the method of algebraic Bethe ansatz, we are able to construct the exact eigenstates for quantum DNLS model. The commutation relation (4.12e) also plays an important role in the framework of algebraic Bethe ansatz, since by using this commutation relation one should be able to calculate the norm of eigenstates $`|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ and various correlation functions of the DNLS system. However, it may be noted that the commutation relation (4.12e) contains product of generalised functions $`(\lambda ^2\mu ^2iϵ)^1(\lambda ^2\mu ^2+iϵ)^1`$, which does not make sense at the limit $`\lambda \mu `$. As a result, the action of operators $`B^{}(\lambda ),B(\mu )`$ are not well defined on the Hilbert space  and eigenstates like $`|\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _N`$ are not normalised on the $`\delta `$-function. However, it is well known that, one can avoid this type of problem in the case of NLS equation by considering the quantum analogue of classical reflection operators . So, in analogy with the case of NLS equation, at present we consider a reflection operator given by

$$R^{}(\lambda )=A^1(\lambda )B(\lambda ),$$
(4.20)
and its adjoint $`R(\lambda )`$. By using eqns.(4.12a-e), we find that such reflection operators satisfy well defined commutation relations like

$`R(\lambda )R(\mu )=S^1(\lambda ,\mu )R(\mu )R(\lambda ),`$
$`R^{}(\lambda )R^{}(\mu )=S^1(\lambda ,\mu )R^{}(\mu )R^{}(\lambda ),`$
$`R(\lambda )R^{}(\mu )=S(\lambda ,\mu )R^{}(\mu )R(\lambda )+4\pi \lambda ^2\delta (\lambda ^2\mu ^2),`$ (4.21)
where

$$S(\lambda ,\mu )=\frac{\lambda ^2q\mu ^2q^1}{\lambda ^2q^1\mu ^2q}.$$
(4.22)
It is evident that these commutation relations among reflection operators of DNLS model are nicely encoded in a form of Zamolodchikov-Faddeev algebra  and $`S(\lambda ,\mu )`$ (4.22) represents the nontrivial $`S`$-matrix element of two-body scattering between the related quasi-particles. It is easy to check that this $`S(\lambda ,\mu )`$ satisfies the conditions given by

$$S^1(\lambda ,\mu )=S(\mu ,\lambda )=S^{}(\lambda ,\mu ),$$
(4.23)
and remains nonsingular at the limit $`\lambda \mu `$. As a result, the action of operators $`R^{}(\lambda ),R(\mu )`$ would be well defined on the Hilbert space and eigenstates like $`R(\mu _1)R(\mu _2)\mathrm{}R(\mu _N)|0`$ can be normalised on the $`\delta `$-function.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

We find that the classical monodromy matrix for DNLS model can be written as a $`SU(2)`$ ($`SU(1,1)`$) group valued object for positive (negative) value of the corresponding coupling constant. By using such symmetric form of classical monodromy matrix, we derive Poisson bracket relations among the scattering data of the DNLS model for all values of the coupling constant. We also quantise the monodromy matrix of DNLS model on a finite interval. A variant of quantum inverse scattering method, which can be applied to field models without performing any lattice regularisation, fixes all parameters in the quantum monodromy matrix of DNLS model in a nontrivial way. Similar to the classical case, this quantum monodromy matrix exhibits $`U(2)`$ ($`U(1,1)`$) symmetry for positive (negative) value of the coupling constant. By applying quantum inverse scattering method, we derive all possible commutation relations among the elements of such monodromy matrix. Infinite interval limits of these commutation relations enable us to construct the exact eigenstates for quantum DNLS model through algebraic Bethe ansatz. In this context, we consider the DNLS model with some special values of coupling constant given by $`\xi =\mathrm{sin}\alpha =\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{2\pi m}{n}\right)`$, where $`m`$ and $`n`$ are nonzero integers which do not have any common factor. It turns out that the number of quasi-particles, which form a bound state for such quantum DNLS model, can not exceed the value $`n`$.

We also obtain the commutation relation between creation and annihilation operators associated with quasi-particles of DNLS model and find out the $`S`$-matrix for two-body scattering. Such a commutation relation between creation and annihilation operators should play an important role in a future study, since by using it one might be able to calculate the norm of Bethe eigenstates and various correlation functions of the DNLS system. It may be noted that, there exist quantum integrable multicomponent generalisations of NLS model which can be diagonalised through algebraic Bethe ansatz \[14-17\]. A large class of multicomponent classical DNLS models, having infinite number of conserved quantities, are also studied in the literature . However, the Hamiltonian structure of such multicomponent DNLS models have not yet received much attention. So it might be interesting to investigate whether there exist some multicomponent generalisations of classical DNLS model which are integrable in the Liouville sense and retain their integrability property even after quantisation.

Appendix

A direct attempt to calculate $`\frac{}{x_2}\left(𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\right)`$ by using eqn.(3.4) evidently leads to indeterminate expressions of the form $`[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]`$. To bypass this problem, we follow the method of extension  which shifts the upper limit of one monodromy matrix (say $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda )`$) by introducing a small parameter $`ϵ`$ and takes $`ϵ0`$ limit only after differentiating the product $`𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )`$ with respect to $`x_2`$. Thus, by using eqn.(3.4), we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{}{x_2}}\left(𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\left(𝒰_q(x_2+ϵ,\lambda )1\mathrm{l}+1\mathrm{l}𝒰_q(x_2,\mu )\right)𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\mathrm{}`$
$`+K_++K_{},(A1)`$
where

$`K_+`$ $`=`$ $`i\xi \mu [𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]\sigma _+𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )+if[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]`$
$`e_{11}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\psi (x_2)ig[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]e_{22}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )\psi (x_2),`$
$`K_{}`$ $`=`$ $`i\lambda \sigma _{}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )[\psi (x_2+ϵ),𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )]+if\psi ^{}(x_2+ϵ)e_{11}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )`$
$`[\psi (x_2+ϵ),𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )]ig\psi ^{}(x_2+ϵ)e_{22}𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda )[\psi (x_2+ϵ),𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )].`$
Now we consider the case $`ϵ>0`$. Since $`\psi (x_2+ϵ)`$ commutes with $`\psi (x),\psi ^{}(x)`$ for all $`x`$ lying within $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$, we can write $`[\psi (x_2+ϵ),𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )]=0`$ and $`K_{}=0`$ for this case. So, we have to calculate only the nontrivial commutator $`[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]`$ which appears in the expression of $`K_+`$. To this end, we consider a ‘transformation’ $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ which replaces the classical variables $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x)`$ by quantum operators $`\psi (x)`$ and $`\psi ^{}(x)`$ respectively ($`\mathrm{\Omega }^1`$ denotes the reverse transformation). By applying a correspondence principle  to the present case, we obtain

$`[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]=i:\mathrm{\Omega }\{T_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)\}:,(A2)`$
where $`T_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda )`$ represents a classical monodromy matrix given by

$$T_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda )=𝒫\mathrm{exp}_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}U_q(x,\lambda )dx,$$

and $`U_q(x,\lambda )=\mathrm{\Omega }^1𝒰_q(x,\lambda )`$. By using the fundamental PB relations (1.4), it is easy to find that

$`\{T_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)\}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}}𝑑xT_x^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda )\{U_q(x,\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)\}T_{x_1}^x(q;\lambda )`$
$`=`$ $`T_{x_2}^{x_2+ϵ}(q;\lambda )\left(f\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{11}g\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{22}+\lambda \sigma _{}\right)T_{x_1}^{x_2}(q;\lambda ).`$
Taking $`ϵ0`$ limit of the above expression and inserting it to (A2), we obtain

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}[𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2+ϵ}(\lambda ),\psi ^{}(x_2)]=i(f\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{11}g\psi ^{}(x_2)e_{22}+\lambda \sigma _{})𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\lambda ).(A3)`$
Taking $`ϵ0`$ limit also in eqn.(A1) and using (A3), we finally obtain the differential equation (3.5). Note that, instead of $`ϵ>0`$, we could have chosen $`ϵ<0`$ in eqn.(A1). Only the commutator $`[\psi (x_2+ϵ),𝒯_{x_1}^{x_2}(\mu )]`$ gives a nontrivial contribution for this case. However, repeating similar steps as outlined above and finally taking the $`ϵ0`$ limit, we get again the same differential equation (3.5).

References

1. L.D. Faddeev, Sov. Sci. Rev. C1 (1980) 107; in Recent Advances in Field Theory and Statistical Mechanics,  ed. J.B.Zuber and R.Stora , (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1984 ) p.561.
2. E.K. Skylanin, in Yang-Baxter Equation in Integrable systems, Advanced series in Math. Phys. Vol. 10, edited by M. Jimbo ( World Scientific, Singapore, 1990) p.121.
3. V. E. Korepin, N. M. Bogoliubov, and A. G. Izergin, Quantum Inverse Scattering Method and Correlation Functions (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1993) and references therein.
4. Z.N.C. Ha, Quantum Many-Body Systems in One Dimension (World Scientific, Singapore, 1996) and references therein.
5. J. Honerkamp, P. Weber, A. Wiesler, Nucl. Phys. B 152 (1979) 266.
6. H.B. Thacker and D. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. D 19 (1979) 3660; D.B. Creamer, H.B. Thacker and D. Wilkinson, Phys. Rev. D 21 (1980) 1523.
7. K. M. Case, J. Math. Phys. 25 (1984) 2306.
8. E. Gutkin, Phys. Rep. 167 (1988) 1.
9. D.J. Kaup and A.C. Newell, J. Math. Phys. 19 (1978) 798.
10. A. Kundu, J. Phys. A 21 (1988) 945.
11. H.H. Chen, Y.C. Lee and C.S. Liu, Phys. Scr. 20 (1979) 490.
12. A. Kundu and B. Basu-Mallick, J. Math. Phys. 34 (1993) 1052.
13. A.B. Zamolodchikov and A.B. Zamolodchikov, Ann. Phys. 120 (1979) 253.
14. F.C. Pu and B.H. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 30 (1984) 2253.
15. F.C. Pu and B.H. Zhao, Nucl. Phys. B 275 \[FS 17\] (1986) 77.
16. S. Murakami and M. Wadati, J. Phys. A 29 (1996) 7903.
17. M. Mintchev, E. Ragoucy, P. Sorba and P. Zaugg, J. Phys. A 32 (1999) 5885.
18. T. Tsuchida and M. Wadati, Phys. Lett. A 257 (1999) 53; Inv. Prob. 15 (1999) 1363.
19. P.J. Olver and V.V. Sokolov, Inv. Prob. 14 (1998) L5.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

It became nowadays popular to consider theories in extra dimensions as possible candidates for models of physics beyond the Standard Model. They provide new scenarios for the coupling unification as well as are able to elegantly solve some problems like doublet-triplet splitting, suppression of proton decay, SUSY breaking, etc. (See e.g. Ref. and references therein.) Usually, for the sake of simplicity one considers one extra dimension and then assumes compactification on the orbifold. Particular models with $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2^{})`$ compactification are shown to possess some interesting properties and may serve as a basis for the Grand Unified Theories . In this case, one has N=1 supersymmetry in a five-dimensional bulk which is equivalent to N=2 SUSY at a four dimensional brane. The field content of the resulting theory at the brane depends on the compactification prescription and on quantum numbers with respect to the orbifold symmetries adjusted to the fields. Thus, below the compactification scale (which might be the GUT scale), one has the resulting D=4 theory on the brane with specific properties and above this scale one has a full N=1 D=5 theory in the bulk.

One may wonder whether this extra dimensional theory can be considered as a consistent QFT in any sense. Since by general power counting it is non-renormalizable, it looks hardly possible. However, there is a chance that all the UV divergences cancel each other, like it takes place in N=4, 2 and even N=1 SUSY theories in D=4 , and one has a consistent theory.

One way to consider an extra dimensional theory is the Kaluza-Klein approach. In this case, one takes the Fourier transform over the extra dimensions and obtains an infinite tower of states with quantized masses. Then one has to sum over all the states. This sum is usually divergent and a special prescription is needed to regularize it. Following this approach divergences in D=5 SUSY theory have been studied in  for the scalar effective potential. Some cancellations of UV divergences have been found.

The detailed structure of the K-K modes depends on the compactification pattern. Provided that in the zero mode sector the divergences cancel each other, one may wonder if this is also possible at each floor of an infinite tower. This way one may get a finite theory.

In what follows, we investigate the other possibility and consider explicitly D=6 N=1 SUSY gauge theory. We show that indeed under certain circumstances UV divergences may cancel each other and one can have a totally finite consistent quantum field theory in extra dimensions. These models are very distinguished by their properties and may serve as a basis for SUSY GUT models mentioned above. Below we discuss some of their properties.

## 2 The Model

We consider D=6 gauge QFT with on shell N=1 supersymmetry formulated in components. D=6 is chosen for simplicity as the lowest even dimension. It has the same N=1 supersymmetry as the D=5 one (equivalent to N=2 SUSY in D=4), but the integration in even dimensions is more familiar (in odd dimensions there are no one loop divergences in dimensional regularization which we are going to apply in the calculations). We do not take any particular compactification pattern, since the UV divergences do not depend on it; they reflect the small distance properties where locally one has the flat Minkowski metric. We assume that the theory is regularized in a SUSY invariant way but for practical purposes we take the dimensional regularization (or reduction), since there is no difference in the one loop order as concerns the UV divergences.

In what follows, we take the usual gauge invariant Lagrangian for the gauge and matter fields, and choose the background field gauge as being more useful for the calculations. Of course, the superfield formalism  would be most appropriate for our purposes and one should try to apply it. However, in this paper we confine ourselves to the component approach as a more familiar one. Then, the gauge and N=1 SUSY invariant Lagrangian in D=6 is

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}TrF_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+i\overline{\lambda }\widehat{D}\lambda +i\overline{\psi }\widehat{D}\psi +(D_\mu \varphi _1)^+(D_\mu \varphi _1)+(D_\mu \varphi _2)^+(D_\mu \varphi _2)`$
$`+`$ $`i\sqrt{2}g[(\overline{\psi }\lambda \varphi _1+\overline{\lambda }\psi \varphi _1^+)+(\overline{\psi }\lambda ^c\varphi _2+\overline{\lambda }^c\psi \varphi _2^+)]{\displaystyle \frac{g^2}{2}}|\varphi _1^{}T^a\varphi _1\varphi _2^{}T^a\varphi _2|^2+2g^2|\varphi _1^{}T^a\varphi _2|^2`$
and contains the following set of fields: one gauge field, $`A_\mu ^a`$, one Weyl gaugino field, $`\lambda `$, a set of chiral matter fields in a representation $`R`$, $`\psi `$, and the corresponding complex scalar fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$.

### 2.1 The gauge sector

In the gauge sector, due to the background field gauge invariance the divergent structures in the one loop order can take one of the following forms:

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`TrD_\rho F_{\mu \nu }D_\rho F_{\mu \nu },`$ (2)
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`TrD_\mu F_{\mu \nu }D_\rho F_{\rho \nu },`$
$`I_3`$ $`=`$ $`TrD_\rho F_{\mu \nu }D_\mu F_{\rho \nu },`$
$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`TrF_{\mu \nu }F_{\nu \rho }F_{\rho \mu }.`$
However, these invariants are not independent. Due to the relation $`[D_\mu ,D_\nu ]=F_{\mu \nu }`$, and the Bianchy identity $`D_\mu F_{\nu \rho }+D_\rho F_{\mu \nu }+D_\nu F_{\rho \mu }=0`$ one has only 2 independent structures and can choose any of them. We take the first two. Then calculating the diagrams and extracting the contribution to two independent Lorentz structures one can find the coefficients in front of them.

The structures written above contain 2-,3-,4-,5- and 6-leg diagrams. For simplicity, we consider 2- and 3-point functions. We use the Feynman rules from Ref.. The calculation of the two-point function can be performed exactly in an arbitrary dimension. The result is proportional to the transverse tensor and the proper power of momenta. The coefficient functions are summarized in the table (in Feynman gauge).

It is instructive to consider separately the dimension of integration $`D`$ and the space-time dimension $`D^{}`$. The latter corresponds to Lorentz algebra. Then the formulas in the table are modified as follows: in the first line one has to change

$$7D88(D1)D^{}+\frac{(D4)(D1)\alpha (8\alpha )}{2(D2)},$$
(3)
where we give the result in an arbitrary $`\alpha `$-gauge ($`\alpha =0`$ corresponds to Feynman gauge), and in the last line one has to change $`2^{[D/2]}`$ by $`2^{[D^{}/2]}`$.

Let us first take the $`D=D^{}=4,N=1`$ case. It corresponds to a gauge and a ghost field, one Majorana spinor in adjoint representation, and a number of supermultiplets which contain a Weyl spinor and a complex scalar in representation R. Then, the pole term is

$$\frac{11}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{2}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{2}{3}T(R)+\frac{1}{3}T(R)=3C_2(G)+T(R),$$

i.e., cancellation of divergences is possible if

$$T(R)=3C_2(G).$$
(4)
In the $`D=D^{}=4,N=2`$ case, one has to take one supermultiplet in the adjoint representation and add a mirror partner to any matter supermultiplet. The pole term here is

$$\frac{11}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{2}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{2}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{1}{3}C_2(G)+2(\frac{2}{3}T(R)+\frac{1}{3}T(R))=2C_2(G)+2T(R).$$

Hence, on has instead of (4)

$$T(R)=C_2(G).$$
(5)
This case corresponds to the zero modes of D=6 theory in the K-K approach. So for zero modes the UV divergences in the gauge sector cancel if eq.(5) is satisfied. If the other modes follow the same pattern, one can get a finite theory.

Consider now the $`D=D^{}=6,N=1`$ case. This corresponds to one Weyl spinor in the adjoint representation and matter supermultiplets in R representation which contain a Weyl spinor and two complex scalars. The pole term, which corresponds to logarithmic divergence, is (in Feynman gauge)

$$\frac{17}{30}C_2(G)\frac{1}{30}C_2(G)+\frac{8}{30}C_2(G)+\frac{8}{30}T(R)+\frac{2}{30}T(R)=\frac{1}{3}C_2(G)+\frac{1}{3}T(R),$$

i.e. one has the same relation (5) as in the D=4 case.

However, there is also a quadratic divergence in D=6. The corresponding gauge invariant operator in this case is simply $`TrF_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }`$. It can be reproduced in dimensional regularization as the residue at the pole at $`\epsilon =1`$, i.e one has to take $`D=4`$ . Substituting in eq.(3) $`D^{}=6,D=4`$ one gets for the quadratic divergence

$$\frac{1}{6}[(182+8)C_2(G)+12T(R)]=2[C_2(G)+T(R)],$$

i.e. one has again eq.(5), but the gauge dependence disappears here from the result. It is gauge invariant.

Though we are interested here in D=6 theory, it is interesting to apply eq.(3) to D=10 case, since it corresponds to N=4 SUSY theory in D=4. One has here besides logarithmic also quadratic, quartic and sextic divergences. They can be reproduced from eq.(3) by allowing $`D^{}=10`$ and $`D=10,8,6`$ and $`4`$, respectively. In this case one has no matter, but one Majorana-Weyl spinor in adjoint representation. The pole term is proportional to (for any D)

$$C_2(G)[16+16+\frac{(D4)(D1)\alpha (8\alpha )}{2(D2)}],$$

i.e. all divergences cancel in Feynman gauge and the highest divergence is gauge invariant and vanishes in any gauge.

Consider now the three-point vertices. The divergent part of the 3-point diagrams in the $`D=6,N=1`$ case is (in Feynman gauge):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{T(R)C_2(G)}{6}}\{`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}`$ $`k_{1\mu }k_{1\nu }k_{1\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k_{2\mu }k_{2\nu }k_{2\rho }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_{1\rho }k_{1\mu }k_{2\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_{1\mu }k_{2\rho }k_{2\nu }`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k_{1\mu }k_{1\nu }k_{2\rho }{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k_{2\mu }k_{2\nu }k_{1\rho }`$
$`+`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }k_{1\rho }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_1^2+2k_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(k_1k_2)\right]g_{\mu \nu }k_{2\rho }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_2^2+2k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}(k_1k_2)\right]`$
$``$ $`g_{\mu \rho }k_{1\nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}k_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(k_1k_2)\right]g_{\mu \rho }k_{2\nu }\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k_1^2\right]`$
$`+`$ $`g_{\nu \rho }k_{1\mu }[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}k_2^2]+g_{\nu \rho }k_{2\mu }[{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}k_1^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}k_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}(k_1k_2)]\}.`$
This leads to the following terms (after reduction)

$$\frac{T(R)C_2(G)}{3}f^{abc}\left(2_\mu _\rho A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c+2^2_\nu A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c+6_\nu A_\mu ^a^2A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c+4_\nu _\rho A_\mu ^a_\rho A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c\right)$$
(6)
At the same time, expansion of the invariants over the fields up to the third oder gives

$`I_1`$ $`=`$ $`2A_\mu ^a^2(g_{\mu \nu }^2_\mu _\nu )A_\nu ^a+f^{abc}(4^2_\nu A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c4_\rho _\nu A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^bA_\rho ^c+4_\rho _\nu A_\mu ^a_\mu A_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c),`$
$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^a^2(g_{\mu \nu }^2_\mu _\nu )A_\nu ^a+f^{abc}(2^2_\nu A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c6^2A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c+4_\rho _\nu A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^bA_\rho ^c`$
$`+2_\mu _\nu A_\mu ^a_\rho A_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c).`$
Adding them together one finds

$`xI_1+yI_2=A_\mu ^a^2(g_{\mu \nu }^2_\mu _\nu )A_\nu ^a(2x+y)`$
$`+2f^{abc}^2_\nu A_\mu ^aA_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c(2x+y)2f^{abc}_\rho _\nu A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^bA_\rho ^c(2x2y)`$
$`2f^{abc}^2A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\mu ^bA_\nu ^c(3y)+2f^{abc}_\mu _\rho A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c(2x+y)2f^{abc}_\rho A_\mu ^a_\mu A_\nu ^b_\nu A_\rho ^c(2x).`$
Comparing this with eq.(6), one gets ($`C_2(G)C_A`$)

$$2x+y=\frac{T_RC_A}{3},2x2y=2\frac{T_RC_A}{3},3y=T_RC_A,2x=0.$$

Thus, one has the one-loop logarithmic divergences in the form

$$\frac{T_RC_A}{3}TrD_\mu F_{\mu \nu }D_\rho F_{\rho \nu }.$$
(7)
One finds that the result for ALL the structures is proportional to $`T(R)C_2(G)`$, like for the two-point functions, and vanishes if eq.(5) is satisfied. Due to the fact that all the structures vanish we claim that all the one loop divergences in the gauge sector cancel for $`T(R)=C_2(G)`$!

The situation is not that simple in an arbitrary $`\alpha `$-gauge. Equation (7) in accordance with (3) in this case looks like

$$\frac{T_RC_A(1+\alpha \alpha ^2/8)}{3}TrD_\mu F_{\mu \nu }D_\rho F_{\rho \nu }.$$
(8)
The cancellation is not obvious anymore. One has to consider the proper combination of the Green functions to observe the cancellation of the gauge dependence and associated cancellation of the UV divergences. We come back to this problem when considering the matter sector.

### 2.2 The matter sector

In the matter sector, in four dimensions one has both the propagators and the vertices to diverge and only the proper combination of them is finite. The situation is even more complicated in D=6, since here one has extra powers of momenta in the diagrams and the usual cancellation does not work. Still one can try to find a proper combination of vertices that gives finite matrix elements. We consider some examples of this cancellation below but first we calculate the one-loop diagrams with the matter fields.

The spinor fields

Consider the fermions first. Restricting oneself to the diagrams with two fermion legs, in the one-loop order one has the following invariants:

$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`J_3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\nu D_\nu D_\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi },`$
$`J_4`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho \mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (9)
Expanding them up to the third order over the gauge fields one has

$`J_1`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu (^2_\mu +2A_\nu _\nu _\mu +_\nu A_\nu _\mu +^2(A_\mu \mathrm{\Psi })`$
$`p^2\widehat{p}+(2\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_1p_3^\mu +p_2^2\gamma ^\mu )A_\mu ,`$
$`J_2`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu (^2_\mu +A_\nu _\nu _\mu +_\nu A_\mu _\nu +A_\mu _\nu _\nu +_\nu _\mu (A_\nu \mathrm{\Psi })`$
$`p^2\widehat{p}+(\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_2p_2^\mu +p_1^2\gamma ^\mu +p_1p_3\gamma ^\mu )A_\mu ,`$
$`J_3`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu \left(^2_\mu +A_\mu ^2+2_\mu A_\nu _\nu +2A_\nu _\nu _\mu +_\nu _\mu A_\nu +_\nu A_\nu _\mu \right)\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`p^2\widehat{p}+(2\widehat{p}_3p_1^\mu +2\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_3p_3^\mu +\widehat{p}_1p_3^\mu +p_1^2\gamma ^\mu )A_\mu ,`$
$`J_4`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\gamma ^\mu (^2_\mu +^2(A_\mu +\widehat{}(A_\mu \widehat{}+A_\mu \widehat{}\widehat{})\mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`p^2\widehat{p}+(p_2^2\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_1+p_1^2\gamma ^\mu )A_\mu .`$
Adding these expressions together one finds ($`p_1+p_2+p_3=0`$)

$`xJ_1+yJ_2+zJ_3+tJ_4=\widehat{p}p^2(x+y+z+t)+A_\mu [\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu (x+y)`$
$`+`$ $`\widehat{p}_2p_2^\mu (y+z)+\widehat{p}_1p_2^\mu (x)+\widehat{p}_2p_1^\mu (z)+\gamma ^\mu [(z+t)p_1^2yp_1p_2+(x+t)p_2^2)]+\widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_1(t)].`$
At the same time, the calculation of two- and three-point diagrams gives (we take here an arbitrary $`\alpha `$-gauge)

$``$ $`\widehat{p}p^2\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{C_R}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{6}}[(6+\alpha )\widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_1+(2+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^2)(\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_2p_2^\mu )+(8+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^2)\widehat{p}_2p_1^\mu `$
$`+`$ $`(8+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{2}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^2)\widehat{p}_1p_2^\mu +\gamma ^\mu [(2{\displaystyle \frac{7}{2}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\alpha ^2)(p_1^2+p_2^2)+(105\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^2)p_1p_2]]A_\mu `$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{C_RC_A/2}{3}}\left[\alpha \widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu \widehat{p}_12(\widehat{p}_1p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_2p_2^\mu )2(\widehat{p}_2p_1^\mu +\widehat{p}_1p_2^\mu )+(2\alpha )\gamma ^\mu (p_1^2+p_2^2)+4\gamma ^\mu p_1p_2\right]A_\mu .`$
Comparing these expressions one gets

$$x=z=\frac{2}{3}C_R\frac{C_A}{3}(5+\frac{5}{4}\alpha \frac{1}{8}\alpha ^2),y=\frac{4}{3}C_R+\frac{C_A}{3}(7+\frac{5}{2}\alpha \frac{1}{4}\alpha ^2),t=\frac{C_A}{3}(3)\frac{C_R}{3}\alpha .$$

Thus, the one loop divergences for the matter spinor fields have the following form:

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ $`\{\gamma ^\nu [D_\mu D_\mu D_\nu 2D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu +D_\nu D_\mu D_\mu ][{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}C_R{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}(5+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8}})]`$
$`[\gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho ]{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}(3)\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{C_R}{3}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho \}\mathrm{\Psi }.`$
For the gaugino field they are slightly different

$`\overline{\lambda }`$ $`\{\gamma ^\nu [D_\mu D_\mu D_\nu 2D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu +D_\nu D_\mu D_\mu ][{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}({\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8}})T_R]`$
$`[\gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho ]{\displaystyle \frac{C_A+2T_R}{3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{C_A(1\alpha )T_R}{3}}\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho \}\lambda .`$
In the case when $`T(R)=C_A`$ one has

$`\overline{\lambda }`$ $`\{\gamma ^\nu [D_\mu D_\mu D_\nu 2D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu +D_\nu D_\mu D_\mu ]{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}(3{\displaystyle \frac{5}{4}}\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^2}{8}})`$
$`[\gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho ]{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{3}}(3){\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3}}C_A\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho \}\lambda ,`$
and for $`\alpha =0`$

$$C_A\overline{\lambda }\left\{\gamma ^\nu [D_\mu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu D_\nu D_\mu +D_\nu D_\mu D_\mu ]\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\rho D_\mu D_\nu D_\rho \right\}\lambda .$$
(13)
No wonder, these expressions look complicated. The same is in D=4. However there, if one takes the product of the 3-point function and the square roots of the propagators for each leg, the resulting invariant charge is finite and does not depend on the gauge. One can try the same combination in D=6, but apparently it does not work due to the complicated momentum structure of the 3-point function.

Since our final goal is to get finite and gauge invariant observables, we consider the amplitude of a physical process. As an example we take the Compton scattering. In this case one has the combination of 2-,3- and 4-point functions shown in Fig.1.

Taking the contribution to the diagrams on the r.h.s. of Fig.1 from eq.(2.2) one gets the resulting amplitude. Since there are three independent structures in eq.(2.2), we consider their contribution separately. The simplest is the last one which comes with the coefficient proportional to the gauge parameter and is expected to disappear from the final answer. Indeed, one has the following divergent contribution coming from this structure

which gives

$`Amp=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu (\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)\gamma ^\nu }{(p_1+p_3)^2}}[p_1^2+(p_1+p_3)^2+p_2^2]+i[\gamma ^\mu (\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)\gamma ^\nu +\widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \widehat{p}_1]`$
$``$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{\gamma ^\mu (\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)}{(p_1+p_3)^2}}[\gamma ^\nu p_1^2+\gamma ^\nu (p_1+p_3)^2+(\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)\gamma ^\nu \widehat{p}_1]`$
$``$ $`i[\gamma ^\mu p_2^2+\gamma ^\mu (p_1+p_3)^2\widehat{p}_2\gamma ^\mu (\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)]{\displaystyle \frac{(\widehat{p}_1+\widehat{p}_3)\gamma ^\nu }{(p_1+p_3)^2}}`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$
so this contribution indeed cancels.

Unfortunately, the same is not true for the other structures though the gauge dependence should disappear in this case as well. We have not found yet the way how it actually happens. Strictly speaking this should be true for the $`S`$-matrix which means that one has to impose the equations of motion on the fields. However, since we would like to trace the cancellation of the UV divergences in all loops, we keep all the structures off shell.

The scalar fields

The situation with the scalar fields is similar. Restricting oneself again to the diagrams with two scalar legs one has the following invariants in the one-loop order:

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`(D_\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\nu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }),`$ (14)
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`(D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }),`$
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`(D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\nu D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }).`$
Expanding them up to the third order over the gauge fields one gets

$`S_1`$ $`=`$ $`^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}^2\mathrm{\Phi }+^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\nu A_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+2^2\mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu A_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }2_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\mu ^2\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$``$ $`p^4+(p_2^2p_3^\mu +2p_2^2p_1^\mu p_1^2p_3^\mu 2p_1^2p_2^\mu )A_\mu =p^4+[p_1^\mu (p_1^2+p_2^2)p_2^\mu (p_1^2+p_2^2)]A_\mu ,`$
$`S_2`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu A_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }+2_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu A_\nu _\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }2_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\mu _\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }`$
$``$ $`p^4+[2p_1p_2p_2^\mu +p_2p_3p_2^\mu 2p_1p_2p_1^\mu p_1p_3p_1^\mu ]A_\mu =p^4+[p_1^\mu (p_1^2p_1p_2)p_2^\mu (p_2^2p_1p_2)]A_\mu ,`$
$`S_3`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\nu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\nu A_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }+2_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_\mu A_\nu _\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }2_\nu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}A_\mu _\mu _\nu \mathrm{\Phi }`$
$``$ $`p^4+[2p_1p_2p_2^\mu +p_2p_3p_2^\mu 2p_1p_2p_1^\mu p_1p_3p_1^\mu ]A_\mu =p^4+[p_1^\mu (p_1^2p_1p_2)p_2^\mu (p_2^2p_1p_2)]A_\mu ,`$
so that the combination looks like

$`xS_1+yS_2+zS_3=p^4(x+y+z)`$
$`+A_\mu [p_1^\mu (p_1^2(x+y+z)p_1p_2(y+z)+p_2^2(x))p_2^\mu (\mathrm{})].`$
At the same time, the calculation of the 2- and 3-point functions gives

$``$ $`p^4{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}}C_R`$
$`+`$ $`A_\mu \{p_1^\mu [{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}}(p_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{34\alpha }{12}}+p_1p_2{\displaystyle \frac{512\alpha }{6}}p_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{5+15\alpha }{6}})`$
$`+`$ $`(C_R{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}})(p_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}p_1p_2+p_2^2{\displaystyle \frac{83\alpha }{6}})(2C_R{\displaystyle \frac{C_A}{2}})p_1^2{\displaystyle \frac{3+2\alpha }{12}}]p_2^\mu (\mathrm{})\}.`$
Comparing the above two expressions one gets

$$x+y+z=\frac{\alpha }{2}C_R,y+z=(\frac{1}{4}+\alpha )C_A\frac{4}{3}C_R,x=(\frac{1}{4}+\alpha )C_A+(\frac{4}{3}\frac{\alpha }{2})C_R.$$

Thus, the one-loop divergences in the scalar sector have the form

$`[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\alpha )C_A({\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2}})C_R](D_\mu D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\nu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })+y(D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })`$
$`+[({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}+\alpha )C_A{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}C_Ry](D_\mu D_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })^{}(D_\nu D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }).`$ (15)
To find the value of $`y`$, one has to calculate the 4-point function.

One can see that in the scalar sector, like in the spinor one, there is no simple cancellation of divergences. One has to consider again the proper combination of the Green functions. Since the usual product of the propagators and the 3-point vertices does not work here as well, we look for the physical amplitude.

Consider again the Compton-like amplitude but for the scalar fields and take the first invariant $`S_1`$ from eq.(14). Then, in full analogy with the fermion case, one has

$`Amp`$ $`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1+p_3p_2)^\mu (2p_1+p_3)^\nu }{(p_1+p_3)^2}}[p_1^2+(p_1+p_3)^2+p_2^2]ig^{\mu \nu }(p_1^2+p_2^2)`$
$`i{\displaystyle \frac{(p_1+p_3p_2)^\mu }{(p_1+p_3)^2}}[p_1^\nu (p_1^2+(p_1+p_3)^2)+(p_1+p_3)^\nu ((p_1+p_3)^2+p_1^2)]`$
$`i[(p_1+p_3)^\mu (p_2^2+(p_1+p_3)^2)p_2^\mu (p_2^2+(p_1+p_3)^2)]{\displaystyle \frac{(2p_1+p_3)^\nu }{(p_1+p_3)^2}}`$
$`+i[g^{\mu \nu }(p_1^2+p_2^2)+2p_1^\mu p_1^\nu +p_1^\mu p_3^\nu 2p_2^\mu p_1^\nu p_2^\mu p_3^\nu +2p_3^\mu p_1^\nu +p_3^\mu p_3^\nu ]`$
$`=`$ $`0,`$
i.e., this contribution drops from the amplitude. Again, like in the spinor case, this does not happen for the other invariants, though the gauge invariance arguments are still valid and one has to find out how the gauge dependence actually goes away.

### 2.3 The Yukawa sector

In the Yukawa sector in D=4 due to analyticity in superspace one has no renormalization of a superpotential. This means that all the vertex diagrams converge and divergences can only happen in chiral field propagators. This might also be true in D=6 in a superfield approach, but in components it looks more complicated. We have not studied this sector yet.

## 3 SUSY GUT Models in the Bulk

Taking eq.(5) seriously, one may wonder what kind of models in the bulk satisfy this requirement. It happens to be not so many possibilities bearing in mind that one should have at least three generations of the SM particles.<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1The result depends of course on whether or not some particles propagate in the bulk or confined to the brane in the brane world scenario. Here for simplicity we assume that all the particles are in the bulk. Looking for the values of Dynkin indices  one finds for instance that the SU(5) theory does not satisfy eq.(5), neither any other SU(N) or SO(2k+2), $`k>2`$ theory does. There are only two viable models: SO(10) and E(6) with the following particle content:

Each SM particle in these models being projected to a 4-dimensional brane obtains the mirror partner in a conjugated representation $`\overline{R}`$, which has to be heavy enough not to be observed. This is the well-known problem in N=2 SUSY models in D=4. It can be solved in the brane world scenario by adjusting proper quantum numbers to all the particles with respect to an orbifold symmetry group. One can then remove some unwanted particles from the SM brane confining them to another brane, etc . There may be complicated scenarios when some particles are in the bulk while the others are confined to the brane. We do not consider these questions here, but concentrate on the construction of a consistent QFT in extra dimensions.

## 4 Conclusion

We have demonstrated how UV divergences cancel each other in some cases even in non-renormalizable models. In Feynman gauge it is straightforward in the gauge sector but is rather tricky in the matter one.

The situation can be simplified when going on shell; however, since the equations of motion mix the matter fields due to the Yukawa type interactions, one should consider all the invariants (2.2,2.2,15) together. This does not seem to be simple. On the other hand, as has already been mentioned, we would like to stay off shell to be able to go beyond one loop.

Unfortunately, we have not completed this task. We rely here on the superfield formalism which should simplify the situation drastically. On the other hand, the K-K approach can also be useful if cancellation of infinite towers level by level is really possible.

If the N=1 D=6 SUSY theory inherits some properties of N=2 D=4 one (see e.g.), where the UV divergences occur only in one loop, one can hope that these results are valid in higher orders as well.

## Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank A.Sheplyakov and V.Velizhanin for help in the calculations and H.-P.Nilles, R.Nevzorov, S.Mikhailov and A.Bakulev for valuable discussions. I am grateful to the Theory Group of KEK where part of this work has been done, for hospitality. Financial support from RFBR grants # 02-02-16889 and \# 00-15-96691 is kindly acknowledged.