text:
# Comparison of Star and Ring Topologies for Entanglement Distribution

## I Introduction

In quantum information processing, entanglement revs  is a particularly useful resource and has many applications such as secret key distribution Ek , teleportation ben  and dense coding wies . Recently, these quantum communication protocols have been implemented impl . It is imaginable that in the future a large number of distant users would want to engage in communicating with each other through quantum protocols. To enable this to happen, such distant users will need to share particles in maximally entangled states, irrespective of noise in the entanglement distribution channels. Various schemes have been put forward which could directly or indirectly help in such distribution of entanglement qdistr1 ; purf1 ; purf2 ; purf21 ; bhm ; zuk ; multswp ; seriesswp ; qreapt , and have been experimentally demonstrated distrexpts . Given a certain physical distribution of users intending to communicate quantum mechanically, one can connect them with quantum channels to construct networks for the distribution of entanglement. Networks for such entanglement distribution can have different architectures depending on which users are linked directly by quantum channels and which users are indirectly linked through intermediate nodes.

In classical networks, two of the major network topologies are the star network and the ring network. In a ring network, one continuous ring joins all parties who wish to communicate (as shown in Fig.1(a)), whereas in a star network all parties are connected to a central hub where information is exchanged (as shown in Fig.1(b)). If all the nodes of such classical networks are assumed to be free from attacks and failures, then wire length becomes the variable of interest for comparison of the two network types - i.e., one network is said to be better than the other when it requires less wire to construct. This is because noise in the connecting channels is unimportant for classical communications. No matter how noisy the connecting channels are, classical information can be amplified arbitrarily and sent faultlessly through these channels. Based on the wire-length criterion, for networks having the simple circular layouts with symmetrically placed users, as shown in Fig.1, the ring network is better than a star network when the number of users is $`N6`$, while the reverse holds true for $`N<6`$.

For a quantum network, however, we use entanglement, rather than wire-length, as a figure of merit in comparing networks. This is due to the fact that when distributing entanglement via quantum channels, unavoidable noise always degrades perfect entanglement in the transmission process and consequently it is not as easy to reliably distribute entanglement. We therefore use the criterion that the better network is the one that permits the sharing of a greater amount of entanglement between pairs of users on average.

To begin, we tackle the problem for a general channel, when the available resources are unlimited or so large that asymptotic entanglement distillation protocols purf1 ; purf2 ; purf21  can be used as a part of the entanglement distribution method. Note that physically such a situation is permitted only when each user can ”store” qubits noiselessly for a long time. This gives them the chance to manipulate a large number of qubits together, as is required for asymptotic entanglement distillation. In this asymptotic case, we find the criterion for better entanglement distribution becomes equivalent to the wire-length criterion of classical networks. Next we examine two cases of extremely limited resources (only one initial entangled pair available to one user, and exactly one initial entangled pair available to each user) with a specific quantum channel to illustrate the fact that the network for better entanglement distribution can differ sharply from that for better classical communications. After that, we give a heuristic explanation of this striking difference between the cases of limited and infinite resources as seen in our specific examples.

## II A General Formulation of the Problem

We consider a very simple type of network to facilitate study of the problem. Suppose there are $`N`$ parties, who are distributed in a circle at a constant distance R from the centre, and wish to share entanglement. They connect themselves using quantum channels using either a star or a ring layout (see Fig.1). As the number $`N`$ increases, the distance between a party and its neighbors decreases. We define a ’wirelength’ as the shortest connection available on either network - for the ring network this is the channel between neighbors and for the star network it is the channel between one party and the hub.

When any two parties wish to share entanglement, they must use some distribution method to share entanglement between themselves using the most efficient route available to them for the network they are connected by. For a given channel, this method will involve sharing entangled pairs either directly between the two interested parties or between intermediate parties and then joining them using entanglement swapping zuk ; multswp ; seriesswp ; qreapt . There may be some form of distillation involved to concentrate the intermediate or final entanglement in the distribution. In general, one will have to adopt a specific entanglement distillation protocol. It could be asymptotic or non-asymptotic, depending on the availability of resources. It may be optimal or non-optimal depending on whether the knowledge of the optimal distillation protocol exists for the classes states generated during distribution through the channels provided, and whether technology exists for its implementation. A specific type of quantum channel and associated entanglement distillation protocol (not necessarily optimal), together with entanglement swapping to link up adjacent nodes, will comprise a specific distribution method. The basic approach of this paper will be to first choose a specific distribution method and then compare its efficiency on the star and the ring lay-outs. The variables which describe the quantum channel available between two parties are:

* $`n`$ \- the number of wirelengths between them
* $`d`$ \- the length of the wirelengths between them

To clarify this, consider Fig. 1 which shows 6 parties of whom two may wish to communicate. If parties 1 and 4 wish to share entanglement, then using the star network (Fig. 1(a)) they must use $`n=2`$ wirelengths of length $`d=R`$ each. If they are connected using the ring network (Fig. 1(b)) then they must use $`n=3`$ wirelengths of length $`d=2R\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{6})`$ each.

Let us define a function $`E(d,n)`$ which gives the entanglement distributed between two parties separated by $`n`$ wirelengths each of length $`d`$. To be able to compare the two network layouts we calculate an $`E_{av}`$ which is the distributed entanglement averaged over all possible pairs of parties who wish to communicate:

$$E_{av}=\frac{1}{N1}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}E(d,n)$$
(1)
For a star network $`d`$ is always $`R`$ and $`n`$ is always $`2`$ so we have:

$$E_{av}^{star}=E(R,2)$$
(2)
For a ring network, $`d`$ is the distance between two neighboring parties, and is $`2R\mathrm{sin}(\frac{\pi }{N})`$ so we have:

$$E_{av}^{ring}=\frac{1}{N1}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}E(2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}\right),n)$$
(3)
Bearing in mind that in a ring network entanglement can be distributed either way round the network means this formula can be refined to always use the shortest distance:

$$E_{av}^{ring}=\frac{1}{N1}2\underset{n=1}{\overset{U}{}}E(2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}\right),n)+\mu E(2R\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{\pi }{N}\right),N/2)$$
(4)
where $`U=(N1)/2`$ if $`N`$ is odd or $`N/21`$ if N is even and $`\mu `$ is 0 if $`N`$ is odd, or 1 if $`N`$ is even.

To find at what point one layout becomes better than the other, we are interested in finding, for a particular distribution method, the $`n`$ where:

$$E_{av}^{ring}=E_{av}^{star}$$
(5)
We are interested in comparing how this value of $`N`$ compares with the classical case, where, for parameters we specify, the ring network became better than the star network as the number of parties is increased. For a classical network, as noted before, this occurs at $`N=6`$.

Unfortunately there is no analytic formula available for the function $`E(d,n)`$ for an arbitrary quantum channel. This is because $`E(d,n)`$ represents the amount of entanglement that can be distilled from a state after decoherence during transmission through a noisy channel. No general formula is known yet for the distillable entanglement of a given state. Despite this fact, it is possible (as we will show) to provide a general statement about the case when an unlimited number of pairs are available across each wirelength. However, when only a limited amount of resources are available per user, we have to rely on the explicit form of the distillable entanglement. In case of limited resources, we will therefore calculate $`E(d,n)`$ for specific circumstances (specific channel types and specific distribution methods) and use in Eq.(1). The cases we consider are:

* Distributing an unlimited number of pairs along each wirelength and linking each wirelength up using entanglement swapping. We consider a general noisy channel for this case.
* Distributing one pair traveling from source to destination along one or more wirelengths. We use a specific type of quantum channel and a specific distribution method.
* Distributing one pair between each party, and then using entanglement swapping to link them up. We use a specific type of channel for this case as well.

We then try to investigate and explain the trends observed in the above specific cases.

## III The case of an unlimited number of pairs for a general channel

First we consider the case where the parties in the network share a very large number $`T`$ of maximally entangled pairs. An equal number $`T/N`$ is given to each party. In the case of a ring network each party then sends one half of the pair to their neighbour on the left whereas in a star network each party would send one half to a central hub. The consequence is that in either case, $`T/N`$ pairs are shared across each wirelength. Since $`T`$ was very large, $`T/N`$ is very large (assuming $`N`$ stays small, of course) and so an asymptotic number of maximally entangled pairs can be distilled across each wirelength i.e. $`(T/N)E_D`$ where $`E_D`$ is the distillable entanglement of a pair that has decohered on travel through the wirelength. In this asymptotic case we assume that the maximally entangled states can be collected together in each wirelength and then matched (i.e., aligned end to end) with maximally entangled states in adjacent wirelengths. The ability to do this would depend on being able to discriminate and store the distilled maximally entangled states. Connecting up adjacent maximally entangled pairs in succession by entanglement swapping then produces $`(T/N)E_D`$ maximally entangled pairs shared between any two users. In this asymptotic case, the same entanglement arises independent of the number of wirelengths separating two users. In Eq.(1) then $`E`$ becomes a function of only the length $`d`$ of a single wirelength. Therefore because $`E`$ depends only on $`d`$, the situation becomes equivalent to the classical case and the crossover at which the ring network becomes better than the star network is also at $`N=6`$. This is because for $`N=6`$ a radial wirelength has the same length as a circumferential wirelength and therefore $`E_D`$ will be the same for states travsersing the star or ring networks. For $`N<6`$ the radial wirelengths are shorter than circumferential ones and so $`E_D`$ will be greater for states passing through a star network. For $`N>6`$ then circumferential wirelengths are shorter and so the ring network gives a greater overall entanglement.

## IV One Pair Travelling All The Way For A Bit-Flip Channel

In this scenario we suppose that only one entangled pair is provided to any one of the users and he may have to communicate with any of the other users through a bit-flip channel. This means that the two parties must distribute the single pair between themselves. In the case of a star network one party sends one half of the pair to a central point and then on again to the other party. For a ring network the half of the pair would travel around the ring through other parties until it reached the destination party. This channel acts on states in the following way:

$$|\psi ^+\psi ^+|\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda |\psi ^+\psi ^+\left|+(1\lambda )\right|\varphi ^+\varphi ^+|$$
(6)
We relate $`\lambda `$ to the length of the channel $`d`$ by:

$$\lambda =\frac{1+e^d}{2}$$
(7)
For such states the maximum distillable entanglement is known vp  to be $`1S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ where $`S(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes the Von Neumann entropy of the state $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$.

One particle was kept at the originator while the other was sent to the other party, passing through one or more wirelength to reach it. Fig.2 shows $`E_{av}^{ring}`$ and $`E_{av}^{star}`$ plotted against $`N`$. We see that right from the start ($`N=2`$) the ring layout is better. This is true for all values of the radius $`R`$ of the network. So we see a difference from the classical case where it was only at $`N=6`$ that the ring network became better than the star network.

## V One Pair Between Each Party For A Bit-Flip Channel

In this scenario we consider each party in the network having one maximally entangled pair. Each party then sends one particle of the pair to their neighbour through a bitflip channel. Entanglement swapping is then used to create a link between any two parties who wish to share entanglement. The procedure of entanglement swapping produces a pair linking across the two original pairs with a fidelity given by:

$$F_n=1+2F_aF_bF_aF_b$$
(8)
For a bit-flip channel, the order in which pairs are connected by entanglement swapping does not matter. Fig.3 shows $`E_{av}^{ring}`$ and $`E_{av}^{star}`$ plotted against $`N`$. We see again that straight away the ring layout is better. In fact, due to the nature of the bit-flip channel, the resultant fidelities for this situation and the previous one where one pair is shared across the entire distance between the two communicating parties, turn out to be identical.

Thus in the case dealt with in sections IV and V, it becomes apparent that the results of comparing network topologies for entanglement distribution can be *very different* from the classical case.

## VI A Heuristic Explanation Of The Results

In this section, we attempt to explain heuristically the difference in the results for the unlimited number of pairs (where the ring network becomes better than the star network only after there are more than $`6`$ parties in the network), and the result for one pair (where the ring network is always better than the star network).

We will first give a general description which encompasses both the case for an unlimited number of pairs and that for a small number of pairs between parties. When a distillation procedure operates on a finite ensemble finite , we generally have outcomes of various degrees of entanglement with various probabilities. In these outcomes, the entanglement is either pumped up or pumped down from the original values. To try to express a general pattern, we restrict ourselves to distribution methods obeying the following assumptions:

1. Assume a general distillation protocol operating on arbitrarily sized ensembles (finite or infinite) where there is a probability $`p`$ that distillation in a wirelength is successful and boosts the entanglement to $`E_D+\delta _s`$, $`E_D`$ being the distillable entanglement of the state. There is a probability $`1p`$ that it fails and the entanglement is reduced to $`E_D\delta _f`$. In most cases there will be more than two possible outcomes of a general distillation protocol, but for simplicity we assume just two outcomes.

2. Assume $`E_D+\delta _s`$ is quite near to maximal so that the entanglement swapping to connect adjacent wirelengths is near perfect. When adjacent pairs are connected using entanglement swapping we assume that the resultant entanglement is equal to the lower value of the two pairs. Therefore when connecting $`n`$ wirelengths, the entanglement will be the lowest value of the $`n`$ wirelengths.

Using these rules, we can formulate the following expression for the average entanglement obtained over $`n`$ wirelengths:

$$p^n(E_D+\delta _s)+(1p^n)(E_D\delta _f)=E_D+p^n(\delta _s+\delta _f)\delta _f.$$
(9)
As we move from distributing a finite number of entangled pairs to an infinite number the $`\delta `$’s will tend to zero and $`p1`$, meaning the average entanglement will asymptotically tend to approach the distillable entanglement. To make it more clear, in the asymptotic case we have a unit probability ($`p1`$) conversion of a homogenous ensemble to an inhomogenous ensemble of maximally entangled and unentangled pairs with the fraction of maximally entangled pairs being $`E_D`$. This fraction $`E_D`$ of maximally entangled pairs in each wirelength can now be connected with unit efficiency using entanglement swapping. Asymptotic distillation essentially conserves the distillable entanglement and tiny fluctuations $`\delta `$ in the final entanglement tend to zero. If we put $`p1`$ and $`\delta 0`$ in Eq.(9) we are left with with an average of $`E_D`$ over different lengths and the merit of the star and the ring networks simply depends on the total wirelength. In the other extreme (non asymptotic), the fluctuation $`\delta `$ is large (say of the order $`E_D`$) and we compare $`_np^n`$ with $`p^2`$. This leads to the behaviour of ring always being better than the star. Thus we have successfully interpolated between the case of distributing a finite number of entangled pairs to an infinite number.

Note that in the above presentation, asymptotic distillation has been viewed in a rather different angle than usual. Usually $`E_D`$ is interpreted as the probability of a successful distillation and the entanglement produced as a result of a successful distillation is maximal. We invert the interpretation of this same process as a method succeeding with probability $`p=1`$ and creating an amount of entanglement $`E_D`$ per initial impure pair in the form of maximally entangled pairs. In this latter (maximally entangled) form, the pairs can be connected in series without any loss of entanglement through entanglement swapping.

In order to illustrate the meaning of the above heuristic approach with specific values of $`p`$ and $`\delta `$’s we consider an example - a watched amplitude damped channel where we distribute the state $`\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|00+|11\right)`$, with two pairs between connected users to obtain a case somewhat intermediate between the previous examples.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}|\mathrm{\Psi }^{^{}}_{12E_1E_2}\hfill & =\hfill & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\sqrt{1+e^{4d}}[\frac{|00+e^{2d}|11}{\sqrt{1+e^{4d}}}]_{12}|00_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & e^d\sqrt{1e^{2d}}|01_{12}|10_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & e^d\sqrt{1e^{2d}}|10_{12}|01_{E_1E_2}\hfill \\ & +\hfill & (1e^{2d})|00_{12}|11_{E_1E_2})\hfill \end{array}$$
(10)
Then, if the environment is being monitored, there is a probability of $`\frac{1}{2}\left(1+e^{4d}\right)`$ that the state observed is (corresponds to the state $`|00_{E_1E_2}`$ of the environment)

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{^{}}_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+e^{4d}}}\left(|00+e^{2d}|11\right)$$
(11)
where the subscript $`c`$ represents the fact that this state is a result of conditional evolution. $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{^{}}_{12}`$ is not maximally entangled and must now be purified. One method of doing this is to use the Procrustean method. This has probability of producing a maximally entangled stated (MES) of twice the modulus squared of the lower coefficient. i.e.

$$\frac{2e^{4d}}{1+e^{4d}}$$
(12)
We combine the probability of observation with that of purification to give an expression for $`p`$ i.e. the successful concentration to an MES.

$$p=e^{4d}$$
(13)
Before the entanglement was $`E_D`$, now it is 1. So

$$\delta _s=1E_D$$
(14)
$$\delta _f=E_D$$
(15)
So the expression for the average entanglement above becomes:

$$e^{4nd}$$
(16)
With this expression for one pair having been distributed, the ring network is immediately better than the star network as before.

## VII Conclusions

In this paper, we have compared entanglement distribution between several users connected by star and ring network configurations. We have shown that the cross over point at which the ring network becomes better than the star network varies with the amount of resources. When the amount of resources is limited and cannot be stored, so that the number of entangled pairs available across a channel at a time is finite, then the results for entanglement distribution can differ sharply from that for classical communications. We have given a heuristic explanation of this fact that it stems from the comparison of different powers of probabilities arising in the comparison of star and ring networks. However, in the asymptotic case (which can physically arise when we can store particles for long and can process a large number of shared entangled pairs parallelly) the relative merits of the star and the ring configurations are the same as classical.

We have arrived at our conclusions by considering extreme examples. At one extreme is just one pair per wirelength and just one pair available to travel all the way from user to user. At the other extreme is a very large number of pairs shared in parallel between each adjacent user (or user and node) in which asymptotic manipulations of entanglement are used. As we gradually increase the number of pairs available to be processed parallelly between users from $`1`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, we would expect the cross over point in $`N`$ to increase from $`1`$ to $`6`$. This is because when more and more pairs can be stored, we have a greater chance of selectively connecting the higher entangled pairs in adjacent wirelengths. When the number of pairs becomes really large, this selective connection becomes really successful and gives just the entanglement in a single wirelength as the effective criterion for comparison. In the future, we intend to investigate explicit examples when an intermediate number of pairs are shared in parallel per wirelength to explore the transition from the non-asymptotic to the asymptotic case.

## VIII Acknowledgements

AH thanks the UK EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council) for financial support.


format: text

text:
# Witten-Veneziano Relation, Quenched QCD, and Overlap Fermions

## I Introduction

The physics of the flavor singlet pseudoscalar eta-prime meson has long been a source of puzzles.

* The eta-prime is not a Goldstone boson because of the presence of the axial anomaly.
* The eta-prime propagator in full QCD involves a set of connected and disconnected quark-line diagrams. Summing a plausible subset of these diagrams (see Fig. 1) produces a shift in the eta-prime mass away from the masses of the true Goldstone bosons. But what gauge field dynamics “fills in the white space” between the quark loops?
* In the limit of a large number of colors $`N_c`$, the eta-prime mass is expected to scale as $`1/N_c`$ as opposed to the masses of non-Goldstone mesons, which remain order one. A mass formula relating the eta-prime mass to the topological susceptibility has been derived by Witten and Veneziano

$$m_\eta ^{}^2+m_\eta ^22m_K^2=\mu _0^2=\frac{4N_f\chi _T}{f_\pi ^2}$$
(1)
where $`\chi _T`$ is the topological susceptibility of the pure gauge theory, $`N_f`$ is the number of flavors, and the pion decay constant, defined through $`0|\overline{\psi }\gamma _0\gamma _5\psi |\pi =m_\pi f_\pi `$, has the experimental value of 132 MeV. The right-hand side is formally $`O(1/N_c)`$ because $`f_\pi \sqrt{N_c}`$. The suppression of fermion loops at large $`N_c`$ is similar to the absence of fermion loops in the quenched approximation, and lattice calculations of the topological susceptibility in quenched QCD (using pure gauge observables) give numbers with good numerical agreement with Eq. (1), when evaluated with the physical masses of the particles. It seems strange that this large-$`N_c`$ formula should be quantitatively correct, since the eta-prime mass is not particularly small compared to the masses of other non-Goldstone boson mesons. (It is worth remarking that the flavor-nonsinglet pseudoscalar sector is also the home of other large-mass quantities: one example is the scale of chiral symmetry breaking: $`m_\pi ^2/(m_u+m_d)3`$ GeV. The physical eta-prime mass is less than one third of that number.)

The relation of these statements to each other is an ongoing source of controversy. Lattice simulations can in principle contribute to the discussion and indeed, there have been many studies of the eta-prime on the lattice, dating back to the earliest days of simulation (a partial list includes ). Most of these studies have been in the quenched approximation, where the mass of the eta-prime is inferred from the size of the hairpin graph compared to the connected graph, and compared to the topological susceptibility. When the contribution of individual eigenmodes of the Dirac operator to the hairpin graph is computed, it is often seen that the low-lying eigenmodes make a substantial contribution to the hairpin graph.

This paper is another calculation of the hairpin diagram in quenched QCD. Why revisit this question yet again? The reason is that the calculations presented here are done with a fermion action which respects chiral symmetry on the lattice via the Ginsparg-Wilson relation : an overlap  action. All previous studies of the eta-prime were done with lattice actions which have chiral symmetry breaking artifacts: for Wilson-type fermions, for example, real eigenmodes of the Dirac operator are not zero modes nor are they eigenstates of $`\gamma _5`$. Since the properties of the eta-prime are known to be intertwined with the anomaly, one would expect that calculations with exact lattice chiral symmetry might be more revealing for the study of the eta-prime.

Indeed that is the case: when the fermions are described by an overlap action, the Witten-Veneziano relation is an exact relation between the expectation value of the hairpin diagram–which is given by the susceptibility of fermion zero modes–and the anomalous coupling between two flavor singlet Goldstone bosons. Interpreting that coupling as the eta-prime mass and equating the zero mode susceptibility to the topological susceptibility yields Eq. (1).

To see this, first recall some facts about the overlap action:

The eigenmodes of any massless overlap operator $`D(0)`$ are located on a circle in the complex plane of radius $`x_0`$ with a center at the point $`(x_0,0)`$. The corresponding eigenfunctions are either chiral (for the eigenmodes with real eigenvalues located at $`\lambda =0`$ or $`\lambda =2x_0`$) or nonchiral and paired; the two eigenvalues of the nonchiral modes are complex conjugates. The massive overlap Dirac operator is conventionally defined to be

$$D(m_q)=(1\frac{m_q}{2x_0})D(0)+m_q$$
(2)
and it is also conventional to define the propagator so that the chiral modes at $`\lambda =2x_0`$ are projected out,

$$\widehat{D}^1(m_q)=\frac{1}{1m_q/(2x_0)}(D^1(m_q)\frac{1}{2x_0}).$$
(3)
For a summary of useful formulas, see Ref.  (for the special case $`x_0=1/2`$).

Now consider the hairpin diagram involving a single flavor of quarks, where the source and sink (black dots in Fig. 1) are the local pseudoscalar density, $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi `$. The hairpin diagram then is just

$$H(x,y)=\text{Tr}\gamma _5\widehat{D}(x,x)^1\text{Tr}\gamma _5\widehat{D}(y,y)^1.$$
(4)
Because only zero modes are chiral, the volume integral of the hairpin graph is proportional to the zero mode susceptibility

$$\frac{1}{V}\underset{x,y}{}H(x,y)=\frac{Q^2}{Vm_q^2}=\frac{\chi }{m_q^2},$$
(5)
where $`Q`$ is just the number of zero modes, the difference of positive and negative chirality zero modes, $`Q=n_+n_{}`$. Regardless of any dynamical model used to describe the hairpin graph, we expect to see a large contribution from zero modes to $`H(x,y)`$ itself, since only they contribute to the susceptibility.

In quenched QCD, as described by quenched chiral perturbation theory , there is an anomalous coupling of two Goldstone bosons in the flavor singlet channel, parameterized by a coupling with the dimensions of a squared mass. The hairpin graph is analyzed as if each of its quark loops is a propagator for an ordinary pseudoscalar Goldstone meson. That is, the momentum space amplitude for the connected graph is

$$C(q)=f_P\frac{1}{q^2+m_\pi ^2}f_P$$
(6)
while the hairpin amplitude involving a single flavor is

$$H(q)=f_P\frac{1}{q^2+m_\pi ^2}\frac{\mu _0^2}{N_f}\frac{1}{q^2+m_\pi ^2}f_P.$$
(7)
The quantity $`\mu _0^2`$ is the squared mass of the “quenched approximation eta-prime” in the chiral limit. (The factor $`1/N_f`$ converts the single-flavor graph into the expectation of the eta-prime mass in $`N_f`$-flavor QCD, since each closed loop has a multiplicity of $`N_f`$, and the wave function (vertex) is scaled by a factor of $`1/\sqrt{N_f}`$.) In full QCD the correlator which gives the mass of the isosinglet meson is the difference $`C(t)N_fH_{full}(t)`$, and $`H(t)`$ is supposed to represent the first term in a geometric series, which sums up to

$$C(q)N_fH_{full}(q)=C(q)N_fH(q)+\mathrm{}=f_P\frac{1}{q^2+m_\pi ^2+\mu _0^2}f_P,$$
(8)
shifting the squared mass of the meson from $`m_\pi ^2`$ to $`m_\pi ^2+\mu _0^2`$. In these expressions, $`f_P=0|\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi |\pi =m_\pi ^2f_\pi /(2m_q)`$ from the PCAC relation. Computing the susceptibility directly from Eq. (7) gives

$$\frac{1}{V}\underset{x,y}{}H(x,y)=\frac{f_P^2}{m_\pi ^4}\frac{\mu _0^2}{N_f}=\frac{\mu _0^2f_\pi ^2}{4N_fm_q^2}.$$
(9)
Equating Eqs. (5) and (9), we obtain the Witten-Veneziano relation $`\mu _0^2=4N_f\chi /f_\pi ^2`$, where $`\chi `$ is the zero mode susceptibility.

This simple derivation of the Witten-Veneziano relation from the overlap action uses only the quenched approximation, without any reference to the large $`N_c`$ limit. The crucial ingredient is the fact that the hairpin graph, in the quenched approximation, takes the form of Eq. (7). Conventional derivations of the Witten-Veneziano relation in unquenched QCD proceed rather differently: One begins by considering a correlator of the local topological charge density,

$$U(k)=d^4x\mathrm{exp}(ikx)(\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2N_c}F\stackrel{~}{F}(x))(\frac{g^2}{16\pi ^2N_c}F\stackrel{~}{F}(0))$$
(10)
which is assumed to be dominated by an eta-prime resonance plus other massive states

$$U(k)=\frac{C_\eta ^{}^2}{k^2+m_\eta ^{}^2}+\mathrm{}$$
(11)
with $`C_\eta ^{}=0|(g^2/(16\pi ^2N_c)F\stackrel{~}{F}|\eta ^{}`$. Using the anomaly equation $`2N_f(g^2/(16\pi ^2N_c)F\stackrel{~}{F}=_\mu J_5^\mu `$ allows one to replace the gluonic matrix element by the matrix element of the divergence of the quark current. Computing the susceptibility by taking $`k`$ to zero and setting the eta-prime and pion decay constants equal, so $`0|_\mu J_5^\mu |\eta ^{}=\sqrt{N_f}m_\eta ^{}^2f_\pi `$, gives the Witten-Veneziano relation. The difference is that here the eta-prime really is a propagating particle, whereas in the quenched approximation the mass is just the value of the two-boson coupling. Note also that in the derivation we have just given, the topological susceptibility is replaced by the squared fluctuation in the number of fermionic zero modes. The $`k0`$ limit of $`U(k)`$ is a problematic one due to the contribution of contact terms .

A third kind of derivation of the Witten-Veneziano relation has recently been given by Giusti, Rossi, Testa and Veneziano . Building on derivations of the Ward identity for the flavor singlet axial vector current by Hasenfratz, Laliena and Niedermayer and Lüscher , they show that the Witten-Veneziano relation for overlap fermions involves the zero mode susceptibility, not the topological susceptibility. However, they assume that the axial current correlator is saturated by a propagating eta-prime resonance, keeping Eq. (11). That does not occur in quenched approximation, where the flavor singlet channel propagator is given by Eq. (7).

In full QCD the hairpin correlator is a single particle propagator, but the correlator which gives the eta-prime mass is given by $`C(q)N_fH_{full}(q)`$. $`H_{full}(q)`$ still couples to zero modes, but in order for the difference to couple only to the eta prime, the hairpin must have a piece which cancels the connected correlator $`C(q)`$, the susceptibility of which is order $`1/m_\pi ^2`$. Then $`H_{full}(0)=1/m_\pi ^2+\mathrm{}=\chi /m_q^2`$ and one finds  the expected result  that $`\chi m_q`$. The eta-prime mass is only connected to the zero-mode susceptibility through terms which are higher order in the quark mass.

We will compute the zero mode susceptibility both directly and via a calculation of the hairpin graph, and compare the results. In practice, in common with all lattice calculations of matrix elements, we will extract $`\mu _0^2`$ from correlators using extended sources and sinks. We infer that the mass relation persists, regardless of the choice of source and sink, by assuming that the hairpin graph is a two-point vertex of pseudoscalar mesons, as required by quenched chiral perturbation theory.

We will see that Eq. (5) produces a measurement of $`\mu _0^2`$ and $`\chi `$ with a somewhat larger statistical uncertainty than one would get from a direct measurement (counting zero modes) of $`Q^2`$. This happens despite the fact that in the fit to the hairpin, one is using information from many points of the lattice, while counting zero modes gives just one number per lattice. The signal from the many points just shows very strong correlations from point to point, and the actual hairpin graph is computed at nonzero quark mass and must be extrapolated to the chiral limit.

## II The Lattice Calculation

The overlap action used in these studies is built from an action with nearest and next-nearest neighbor couplings, and APE-blocked links. Eigenmodes of the massless overlap Dirac operator $`D(0)`$ are constructed from eigenmodes of the Hermitian Dirac operator $`H(0)=\gamma _5D(0)`$, using an adaptation of a Conjugate Gradient algorithm of Bunk et. al. and Kalkreuter and Simma. These eigenmodes are used to precondition the calculation of the quark propagator and to construct quark propagators truncated to some number of low lying eigenmodes.

The data set is generated in the quenched approximation using the Wilson gauge action at a coupling $`\beta =5.9`$. The nominal lattice spacing is $`a=0.13`$ fm from the measured rho mass (a value we prefer; see below) or inferred to be 0.11 fm from the Sommer parameter using the interpolation formula of Ref. . We worked with lattices with $`12^3\times 24`$ sites. Quark masses in lattice units are $`am_q=0.02`$, 0.04, and 0.06, corresponding to pseudoscalar-to-vector meson mass ratios of $`m_{PS}/m_V0.5`$, 0.61 and 0.67. The fermions have periodic boundary conditions in the spatial directions and anti-periodic temporal boundary conditions. We calculated the twenty smallest eigenvalue modes of $`H^2(0)`$ in the chiral sector of the minimum eigenvalue, and reconstructed the degenerate opposite chirality eigenstate of $`H^2(0)`$ for each nonzero eigenvalue mode. These modes are then recoupled into eigenmodes of $`D(0)`$. Their eigenvalues have imaginary parts ranging up to $`0.3/a`$-$`0.35/a`$, or about 500 MeV .

All correlators we measured will include a smearing function which averages the source of the propagator over a localized spatial volume, in order that the meson source resembles an actual hadron wave function. The hairpin correlator that we measure is

$$H_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\frac{1}{T}\underset{t_1}{}\underset{x}{}\underset{y}{}\text{Tr}L_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,t+t_1)\text{Tr}L_\mathrm{\Gamma }(y,t_1)$$
(12)
where the single fermion loop is

$$L_\mathrm{\Gamma }(x,t)=\underset{x_1,x_2}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2x)\overline{\psi }(x_1,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (x_2,t).$$
(13)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a product of Dirac matrices: $`\gamma _5`$ and $`\gamma _0\gamma _5`$ are studied for the eta prime.

The connected correlator uses the same (separable) weighting function

$$C_\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=\underset{x}{}\underset{x_1,x_2}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2x)\overline{\psi }(x_1,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (x_2,t)\underset{y_1,y_2}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(y_1)\mathrm{\Phi }(y_2)\overline{\psi }(y_1,0)\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (y_2,0).$$
(14)
We take the weighting function to be a Gaussian, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x)=\mathrm{exp}(|x|^2/r_0^2)`$, of width $`r_0=3a`$.

In coordinate space we fit

$$C(t)=\frac{Z}{2m}(\mathrm{exp}(mt)+\mathrm{exp}(m(Tt))$$
(15)
and, since

$$H(q)=\frac{\mu _0^2}{N_f}\frac{}{m^2}C(q),$$
(16)
the coordinate space hairpin is

$$H(t)=\frac{Z}{4m^3}\frac{\mu _0^2}{N_f}((1+mt)\mathrm{exp}(mt)+(1+m(Tt))\mathrm{exp}(m(Tt))).$$
(17)
We break up the computation of the single loop into two terms. The first term includes the contribution of the low eigenmodes of $`D`$, and is done exactly (for those modes): Chiral eigenmodes of $`D(0)^{}D(0)`$ are labeled as $`\varphi _{j\pm }(x,t)`$, the plus or minus sign corresponding to the chirality. They have associated eigenvalues $`\lambda _j`$. These modes are recoupled into eigenmodes of $`\widehat{D}^1(m)`$. The only mode mixing occurs between degenerate eigenmodes of $`D(0)^{}D(0)`$. The single fermion loop becomes

$$L_1(x,t)=\underset{j}{\overset{N}{}}\left[\text{Tr}\alpha _{j+}\mathrm{\Psi }_{j+}^{}(x,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_{j+}(x,t)+\text{Tr}\alpha _j\mathrm{\Psi }_j^{}(x,t)\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Psi }_j(x,t)\right],$$
(18)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{j\pm }(x,t)=_{x_1}\mathrm{\Phi }(xx_1)\varphi _{j\pm }(x_1,t)`$ is the convolution of the $`j`$th eigenmode with the smearing function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Here, defining $`\mu =m/(2x_0)`$, $`ϵ_j=\lambda _j/(2x_0)`$, the $`\alpha _{j\pm }`$, the eigenvalues of $`\widehat{D}^1(m)`$, are

$$\alpha _{j\pm }=\frac{1}{2x_0}\frac{\mu (1ϵ_j^2)\pm iϵ_j\sqrt{1ϵ_j^2}}{ϵ_j^2+\mu ^2(1ϵ_j^2)}.$$
(19)
For zero modes only one term in the brackets in Eq. (18) exists.

The second part of the loop is computed using a stochastic estimator. We cast a vector of Gaussian random numbers $`|r(x,t)`$ on every site of the lattice, projected the modes used in $`L_1`$ from it (so $`|r_1=|r_j|jj|r`$), convoluted $`|r_1`$ with the smearing function, and used this vector as the source for a propagator. A final convolution of the propagator with the source vector produced a noisy estimator for the difference $`L(x,t)L_1(x,t)`$. We averaged over twelve random sources per lattice. Each source was broken into two opposite chirality pieces, so a total of 24 inversions, restricted to a single chirality sector each, were done per configuration.

In retrospect, our simple stochastic estimator did not produce a useful signal. We first generated a 40-lattice data set, on which we found the complete hairpin correlator, from both low modes and stochastic estimator of high modes. For the pseudoscalar hairpin, all of the signal is contained in the low eigenmodes, which we captured exactly. Even so, we did not have a good enough signal from 40 lattices to analyze the hairpin graph, so we generated an additional 40 lattices. On these lattices we did an ordinary spectroscopy calculation for the connected diagram and computed the hairpin from the low modes. For our version of the overlap, the cost of finding the eigenmodes in addition to constructing ordinary propagators is neglegible because the eigenmodes can be used to precondition the Conjugate Gradient calculation of propagators. At 24 inversions per lattice, a stochastic evaluation of the higher modes’ contribution is about twice as costly as an ordinary propagator calculation.

We did not experiment with more sophisticated noise reduction methods .

## III Results

It is an interesting exercise to ask how the contributions of different sets of eigenmodes contribute to the pseudoscalar hairpin correlator. We find that the low modes completely saturate the hairpin graph at all mass values studied. Because the plots are rather cluttered, we show results for only one mass value, $`am_q=0.04`$, in Fig. 2: The full correlator, including the low modes treated exactly and the high modes computed using the noisy estimator, is shown by octagons. Completely overlapping these points is the correlator built of the lowest 20 eigenmodes of $`D^{}D`$.

The zero mode piece is shown by diamonds. At large quark mass there is a rather strong interference between the zero mode contribution and the nonzero modes, which pulls the full propagator down. Since the low modes themselves saturate the correlator, this interference must be dominated by them.

Finally, the contribution of the nonzero modes by themselves is positive at short distance but becomes negative above a separation of $`t7`$ lattice spacings. We have displayed this by changing the plotting symbol for this contribution from crosses, when the signal is positive, to bursts, where it becomes negative.

It is easy to understand why nonzero modes contribute negatively at large separation. The $`j`$th pair of nonchiral modes contribute a term to the hairpin of

$$\widehat{H}(t)=\frac{1}{T}\underset{t^{}}{}\underset{j,j^{}}{}\underset{x,x^{}}{}\alpha _j\alpha _j^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_j(x,t+t^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_j^{}(x^{},t^{})$$
(20)
where (see Eq. (18))

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_j(x,t)=\underset{x_1,x_2}{}\mathrm{\Phi }(x_1x)\mathrm{\Phi }(x_2x)\varphi _j(x_1,t)^{}\gamma _5\varphi _j(x_2,t)$$
(21)
is a local smearing of the chiral density of the $`j`$th mode. The nonzero modes have zero overall chirality and so at large distance the correlation function of the chiral density must become negative. This can be seen even on a single configuration. This behavior has been observed in the eigenmode studies of Ref. . It may be more than a coincidence that these authors saw the chirality autocorrelator (for the same data set as we studied here) becoming negative around a distance of 6 or 7 lattice spacings.

Could we have used fewer modes? Fig. 3 shows the contributions to the hairpin correlator of the lowest 5, 10, 15, and 20 modes of $`H(0)^2`$, for the $`am_q=0.04`$ data set. The pictures for the other masses are virtually identical. We could have kept only five modes of $`H(0)^2`$ and almost completely saturated the hairpin correlator, in our particular simulation volume.

We have performed correlated fits to the connected and hairpin pseudoscalar graphs to Eqs. (15) and (17) and extracted lattice predictions for $`\mu _0^2/N_f`$. An example of a fit, to the $`am_q=0.04`$ low-eigenmode hairpin, is shown in Fig. 4. The error bars on the points are the naive ones and do not show the considerable correlation between the data from different time slices. A set of fits, for a time slice range of $`t_{min}=3`$ out to $`t_{max}=12`$, is shown in Fig. 5. We have separated fits to using hairpin correlators with truncated quark propagators and fits using the full quark propagator in the hairpin. All of the fits to the low-mode hairpin have good confidence levels for $`t_{min}56`$. Pion masses are also a byproduct of the fit. Their values are stable for $`t_{min}34`$ and equal within uncertainties to the results of fits to pion propagators in isolation.

The “full” signal is much noisier than the low mode truncation (even more than one would expect, knowing that the low mode data set is twice as big), and, since both are equal within uncertainties, we quote the latter. Our chosen best fits, typically over a range 6-12, are shown in Table I and plotted in Fig. 6. We have also extrapolated our results for $`\mu _0^2/N_f`$ to zero quark mass, assuming that $`\mu _0^2/N_f`$ is a linear function of the quark mass, using a single elimination jackknife.

Taking the lattice spacing from the rho mass, i.e. $`a=0.13`$ fm, and setting $`N_f=3`$ we predict $`\mu _0=770(54)`$ MeV $`\times (a^1/1520`$ MeV). Had we used the Sommer parameter to set the scale, i.e. $`a=0.11`$ fm or $`a^1=1770`$ MeV, the mass would have come out about 16% higher. This difference is, of course, a reflection of the inherent scale uncertainty in quenched QCD. Evaluating the left-hand side of Eq. (1) with observed particle masses gives $`\mu _0=860`$ MeV.

If the “standard picture” of the hairpin graph makes sense, we should be able to measure $`\mu _0^2`$ using any interpolating field at the source and sink points. In particular, the axial vector ($`\gamma _0\gamma _5\gamma _0\gamma _5`$) hairpin correlator is an interesting operator to study. No zero modes contribute to its hairpin correlator, and yet the pseudoscalar and axial vector hairpins should both give the same result for $`\mu _0^2`$ – the only difference in the two channels is that the coupling of the external current source to the pseudoscalar channel is different.

We attempted to measure $`\mu _0^2`$ from this correlator, without success. We raise the point as a potentially interesting exercise if future high-statistics data become available.

At short distances this correlator is negative. At larger distances it swings positive, before disappearing into noise at large separation. (See Fig. 7 for the $`am_q=0.04`$ data set.) The node in the correlator makes it impossible to fit the data to the simple form of the hairpin we have used above. Notice from Fig. 7 that the hairpin correlator saturates more slowly with number of eigenmodes, than the pseudoscalar correlator does: this, plus the nodes in the signal, makes the analysis impossible to do.

Now we return to the pseudoscalar correlator. To make contact with other chiral observables we need a lattice determination of $`f_\pi `$. We do this by measuring the pseudoscalar density $`P`$ (as one vertex of a two-point function) and extracting $`f_\pi `$ from $`m_\pi ^2f_\pi =2m_q0|P|\pi `$. Because the overlap action is chiral, the renormalization factors for the quark mass and the pseudoscalar density cancel. The pseudoscalar density is taken to be the naive operator $`P(x)=\overline{\psi }\gamma _5\psi `$. Note that because we use the “subtracted” propagator $`\widehat{D}^1`$, Eq, (3), our measurement is equivalent to the use of the “order $`a^2`$ improved current” $`\overline{\psi }(1+D/(2x_0))\gamma _5(1+D/(2x_0))\psi `$. The results of this exercise are shown in Fig. 8 and also given in Table I. Using again the lattice spacing from the rho mass we find in the chiral limit, obtained by linear extrapolation in the quark mass, $`f_\pi =163(21)`$ MeV. Had we used the Sommer parameter to set the scale we would have obtained $`f_\pi =193(25)`$ MeV. The latter number is obviously much larger than the experimental value of 132 MeV. We prefer the lattice spacing from the rho mass for phenomenology with the overlap fermions. A comparison of the point-to-point correlator in the pseudoscalar channel with instanton liquid model predictions also requires a large lattice spacing  of 0.13 fm. This correlator is proportional to $`0|P|\pi ^2`$.

The two parameters which are related to $`\mu _0^2`$ are the zero mode susceptibility $`\chi =\mu _0^2f_\pi ^2/(4N_f)`$ and the parameter which characterizes the strength of the hairpin contribution in quenched chiral perturbation theory , $`\delta =\mu _0^2/(8\pi ^2N_ff_\pi ^2)`$. We compute each of these parameters for each value of quark mass using a combination of single-elimination jackknife with correlated fits to pairs of two-point functions, and extrapolate the results linearly in the quark mass to $`m_q=0`$. The resulting values are shown in Table I and in Figs. 9 and 10.

We can also perform a direct measurement of the topological susceptibility by counting zero modes: the topological charge $`Q`$ on each configuration is just defined as the difference in number of opposite chirality zero modes in the configuration. For our 80 lattices, we find $`Q=0.31\pm 0.32`$. We can (formally) eliminate the $`Q^2`$ term from the average by combining our data with a parity-reversed copy of every lattice. (This is equivalent to the usual replacement of a propagator by its real part in conventional spectroscopy or matrix element calculations.) The zero modes give us the result $`Q^2=8.24\pm 1.11`$, and

$$a^4\chi =\frac{Q^2}{V}=1.98(27)\times 10^4.$$
(22)
This result agrees with the calculation of $`\chi `$ from $`\mu _0^2`$. The quality of our signal is similar to what is seen in calculations of $`\chi `$ using pure gauge observables (lattice analogs of the topological charge density) with similar statistics. Converting this lattice number to a continuum result using the Sommer scale, as is conventional for the topological susceptibility, and taking the fourth root yields $`\chi ^{1/4}=213(7)`$ MeV from the direct counting of zero modes and $`\chi ^{1/4}=226(12)`$ MeV from the hairpin fit. Pure gauge studies produce similar numbers to what we see .

Obviously, with the scale set by the rho mass, the result would be about 16 per cent lower, 180(6) and 191(11) MeV.

Our measurement of $`\delta 0.093`$ is a bit higher than recent determinations made using nonchiral actions, which measure $`\delta 0.065`$ (but somewhat smaller than what one would infer from the W-V relation with physical masses, Eq. (1)). The first calculation is done using clover fermions at $`\beta =5.7`$. Clover fermions have real eigenmodes which make a nonvanishing contribution to $`\text{Tr}\gamma _5D^1`$. The overlap action counts each zero mode with unit weight. It is our experience that as the value of the real eigenvalue of a clover mode moves away from zero, the associated chirality also decreases, and so it is not surprising that our result is larger. The other two calculations determine $`\delta `$ from the small quark mass behavior of the pion mass, i.e. from observing quenched chiral logarithms, and can easily have quite different systematic uncertainties than our measurement.

We do not see any effects of quenched chiral logarithms in any observables. A fit to the pion mass in various channels (pseudoscalar, axial vector, difference of pseudoscalar and scalar) to the form suggested in Ref. , $`m_\pi ^2=Cm_q(1\delta \mathrm{log}(Cm_q/\mathrm{\Lambda }^2))`$, chooses $`\delta `$’s in the range 0.0-0.2, but with uncertainties from any fit also of the same order. The main effect of quenching we have seen is the presence of zero modes in the pseudoscalar and scalar channels; in contrast to the hairpin case, these are finite volume artifacts.

We do not have any useful signals from other channels. The scalar channel is dominated by zero and low eigenmodes, but the major structure in the channel is just the constant chiral condensate. In the vector channel the low-eigenmode correlator even has the wrong sign–it is negative over most of its range (compare Fig. 11). The absence of a signal could be consistent with a naive expectation from Zweig’s rule, namely that the size of the hairpin in the vector channel is small. The low eigenmodes which we include exactly do not seem to make much of a contribution to disconnected diagrams in the vector channel, either. This feature is expected in instanton liquid models .

We would feel much more comfortable making these statements if we had a real signal .

## IV Conclusions

For overlap actions, and in the quenched approximation, the Witten-Veneziano formula is an exact relation between the eta-prime mass inferred from the hairpin graph and the fermionic zero-mode susceptibility. However, the physics of the Witten-Veneziano relation in the overlap is rather different than in “standard derivations:” the eta-prime is not a real particle; the mass we measure is the size of a quenched-artifact coupling between two flavor-singlet Goldstone bosons. For quenched QCD, the gauge configurations which “fill in the white space” in the hairpin diagram are the ones which produce zero modes. We have not addressed the question of what choice of contact term is needed to equate a particular definition of the topological susceptibility to the zero mode susceptibility.

The numbers we have found for the inferred eta-prime mass and the zero mode susceptibility are not all that different from previous results using nonchiral fermion actions. We believe that the theoretical underpinning of our calculation done with a chiral action is more reliable than any calculation done with a nonchiral action. We are well aware that our calculation is performed at only one value of the lattice spacing, and that simulations at several lattice spacings are necessary for an honest extrapolation to a continuum value.

The strong coupling of low eigenmodes to the hairpin amplitude allowed us to perform the numerical simulation. This connection between the zero mode susceptibility and the coupling strength is not automatic for a nonchiral fermion action. Nevertheless, we expect that small eigenmodes of the Dirac operator will make a large contribution to the pseudoscalar hairpin correlator. We suggest that future studies of the hairpin graph, even done using nonchiral actions, can reduce the measurement noise by first finding all the zero or near-zero eigenmodes of the Dirac operator so that their contribution can be included exactly .

## Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy with grants DE-FG02-97ER41022 (UMH) and DE-FG03-95ER40894 (TD). The computations were carried out on Linux clusters at CU and FSU.


text:
# 1 The Dirac Monopole

## 1 The Dirac Monopole

A convenient representation for the Dirac monopole  is given by

$$\stackrel{}{A}=g\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x}),w(\stackrel{}{x})=|\stackrel{}{x}|+\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{n},$$
(1)
where $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is positive, but vanishes along the Dirac string pointing along $`\widehat{n}`$, as seen from the monopole. The magnetic field is

$$\stackrel{}{B}=\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{A}=g\stackrel{}{}\left(\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})\right)+g\widehat{n}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})=\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{reg}}+\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{str}},$$
(2)
and using that $`\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})=1/|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ (the derivative along the direction of the Dirac string) is independent of $`\widehat{n}`$, the first term gives rise to the radial magnetic field associated with a magnetic point charge, whereas the second term represents the Dirac string, which takes care of the return flux. This follows from the fact that $`\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is harmonic, except where $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ vanishes. To be specific, choosing for convenience $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{e}_3=(0,0,1)`$, we find $`\stackrel{}{B}=g\stackrel{}{x}/|\stackrel{}{x}|^3+4\pi g\widehat{e}_3\delta (x)\delta (y)\theta (z)`$ and $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{reg}}=\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{str}}=4\pi g\delta _3(\stackrel{}{x})`$. It gives the appropriate magnetic point charge for $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{reg}}`$, but when including the return flux $`\stackrel{}{}\stackrel{}{B}=0`$, as it should.

The function $`\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ can be viewed as a potential, although from the point of view of the Maxwell equations it is more natural to consider $`A_0g\widehat{n}\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ as such. Not only $`\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{reg}}=\stackrel{}{}A_0`$, but also as the time component of the Euclidean vector potential this choice of $`A_0`$ gives rise to a self-dual configuration, with $`\stackrel{}{E}=\stackrel{}{}A_0=\stackrel{}{B}_{\mathrm{reg}}`$. The usefulness of $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ becomes clear when one considers the massless (Euclidean) Dirac equation in such a background. As usual we split this into positive and negative chirality Weyl equations,

$$H_+=\overline{D}=D^{}=\overline{\sigma }^\mu D_\mu ,H_{}=D=\sigma ^\mu D_\mu ,$$
(3)
where $`D_\mu =_\mu +ieA_\mu `$ is the covariant derivative and $`\sigma _j=i\tau _j`$, whereas $`\sigma _0`$ is the $`2\times 2`$ identity matrix. For $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{e}_3`$ a solution of $`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})=\sqrt{w(\stackrel{}{x})}\left(\begin{array}{c}_1+i_2\\ _3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(4)
If so desired a (spin-)rotation allows one to obtain the solution for arbitrary $`\widehat{n}`$, but to keep things simple we stick to $`\widehat{n}=\widehat{e}_3`$, such that

$$iH_+=\left(\begin{array}{cc}_3+i_0& _1i_2\\ _1+i_2& _3+i_0\end{array}\right)eg\left(\begin{array}{cc}_3& _1+i_2\\ _1+i_2& _3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x}).$$
(5)
Using the Dirac quantisation condition $`eg={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$, one easily verifies

$$iH_+\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})=\sqrt{w(\stackrel{}{x})}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ \mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})\end{array}\right).$$
(6)
Since $`\sqrt{w}`$ vanishes along the Dirac string, we find that $`\sqrt{w}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w=0`$ (as a distribution), hence $`\overline{D}\mathrm{\Psi }=0`$. Likewise $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=w\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{log}w\stackrel{}{}\mathrm{log}w=\mathrm{\Delta }ww\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w`$. Thus $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2=\mathrm{\Delta }w=2/|\stackrel{}{x}|`$ has an integrable singularity at the origin, and the Dirac string is invisible, as it should. Nevertheless, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ does not decay sufficiently fast to be normalisable. Note that the zero-mode is time independent. Putting $`_0`$ to zero, $`H`$ is precisely the Dirac Hamiltonian, with $`A_0`$ playing the role of a Higgs field. A non-zero asymptotic value of $`A_0`$ would lead to a mass scale and exponentially decaying wave functions222A constant $`A_0`$ in the Euclidean Weyl equation can also be identified with a non-zero chemical potential..

It should not come as a surprise that existence of zero-energy solutions is sensitive to the sign of the electron charge (relative to $`g`$). With $`eg={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ we have

$$iH_+\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{w(\stackrel{}{x})}}\left(\begin{array}{c}_3\\ _1+i_2\end{array}\right)\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})\right)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{w(\stackrel{}{x})}}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})\\ 0\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
However, here the singularity of the Dirac string is no longer nullified but enhanced. Nevertheless, it can be turned into a proper zero-energy solution, identical to $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{}\sigma _2`$, by replacing $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ with $`1/w(\stackrel{}{x})`$, but this has the same effect as changing $`g`$ to $`g`$, explaining why the new zero-energy solution is the charge conjugate of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ in Eq. (4). Negative chirality zero-energy solutions cannot appear because the self-duality of $`A_\mu `$ implies that $`\overline{D}D=D_\mu ^2`$. Therefore such a solution would satisfy $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0`$, which is ruled out.

It is well known that the ’t Hooft-Polyakov monopole  allows for a normalisable chiral zero-energy solution of the Dirac equation . The size of the core of these non-abelian monopoles is determined by the mass scale set by the asymptotic value of the Higgs field. When the core size shrinks to zero, so does the support for the zero-mode. Adding to the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }^a\sigma _a`$ a constant element in U(1), $`\mathrm{\Phi }_z=\mathrm{\Phi }2\pi iz`$, as it appears in Nahm’s work , the zero-mode remains normalisable for a finite range of $`z`$ determined by the Callias index theorem . Our solution corresponds to $`z`$ at the boundary of this range, where the zero-mode fails to be normalisable. This boundary value of $`z`$ is defined by $`det(\mathrm{\Phi }_z)=0`$, and the abelian field $`A_0`$ given above corresponds to the isospin component of $`\mathrm{\Phi }_z`$ responsible for this vanishing eigenvalue. It does imply the support of the zero-mode is no longer confined to the non-abelian core.

There has been another context in which solutions to the Dirac equation in the background of a monopole have appeared in the past, namely that of monopole-induced proton decay (the Callan-Rubakov effect ). Boundary conditions  for the fermions are imposed at the core of the monopole to describe the scattering states in the limit where the size of the monopole core can be neglected, so as to properly reflect the breaking of B-L, compatible with the chiral anomaly. There it is assumed, as for the Jackiw-Rebbi zero-energy solution, that the Higgs field approaches a non-zero constant at infinity, which through the Yukawa coupling gives a mass to the fermions333For a non-vanishing Higgs mass, this together with the Dirac monopole field, is all that is left when neglecting the core of the monopole. In the Bogomol’ny limit considered here, identifying the Higgs field with $`A_0`$ (self-duality implied by the BPS equations ), the long range component of the Higgs field modifies the Dirac equation.. In our case the asymptotic value of the Higgs field ($`A_0`$) vanishes and as we will see, the limit of zero monopole core size can be taken without any approximation, but at the expense of the zero-energy state being non-normalisable.

## 2 The Abelian BPS Dipole

To find a normalisable zero-energy solution, we have to do something about the asymptotic behaviour. A natural way to achieve this is to consider an abelian BPS (self-dual) dipole, or bipole for short. We now profit from having expressed the zero-mode in terms of the function $`w`$. The bipole field is generated by

$$\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{log}(|\stackrel{}{x}|+\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{n})\mathrm{log}(|\stackrel{}{x}+s\widehat{n}|+\stackrel{}{x}\widehat{n}+s)$$
(8)
where the first term represents a monopole at $`\stackrel{}{x}=\stackrel{}{0}`$ and the second term, with the opposite sign, an anti-monopole at $`\stackrel{}{x}=s\widehat{n}`$. It is convenient to express $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ as

$$w(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{r_1+r_2s}{r_1+r_2+s},$$
(9)
where $`\stackrel{}{r}_1=\stackrel{}{x}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{r}_2=\stackrel{}{x}+s\widehat{n}`$. This shows that the Dirac strings of the monopole and anti-monopole partly cancel. All that we need to check is if $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$, with this choice of $`w`$ is now normalisable. A simple computation shows that $`|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})|^2=\mathrm{\Delta }w(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{4s^2}{r_1r_2(r_1+r_2+s)^2}`$, as shown in Fig. 1 (left). This is indeed integrable at the location of the two point charges and at infinity, $`d^3x|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})|^2=d^3x\mathrm{\Delta }w(\stackrel{}{x})=4\pi s`$, using that $`w(\stackrel{}{x})=1s/|\stackrel{}{x}|+𝒪(1/|\stackrel{}{x}|^3)`$.

Having found a normalisable zero-mode for one bipole, a generalisation to a collection of bipoles is obvious, by taking the product of $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ for each such bipole. This does not affect the property that $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ is positive, vanishes along the Dirac strings, and its logarithm is harmonic elsewhere. However, the form of the zero-mode requires all factors $`w`$ to be formulated in terms of the same $`\widehat{n}`$, which means all bipoles have to point in the same direction, i.e. the magnetic moments of all bipoles have to be uni-directional. It is not clear if this is just a limitation of our simple ansatz. For multi-bipoles, all separated much further than each of the individual bipole sizes ($`s`$), $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ will near each bipole be of the same form as for a single bipole. However, when two or more bipoles coincide, or equivalently when $`g`$ is bigger than the minimal Dirac value of $`\frac{1}{2e}`$, $`|\mathrm{\Psi }|^2`$ will be suppressed along the line segment connecting the two charges. To demonstrate this, we note that for $`g=\frac{k}{2e}`$, $`w_k(\stackrel{}{x})=w^k(\stackrel{}{x})`$, with $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ as given in Eq. (9). Thus, using $`w(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}w(\stackrel{}{x})=0`$, we find

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{}{x})|^2=\mathrm{\Delta }w(\stackrel{}{x})^k=k^2w^{k1}(\stackrel{}{x})\mathrm{\Delta }w(\stackrel{}{x})=\frac{4s^2k^2(r_1+r_2s)^{k1}}{r_1r_2(r_1+r_2+s)^{k+1}},$$
(10)
which integrates to $`4\pi ks`$. The case for $`k=2`$ is shown in Fig. 1 (right).

## 3 The Caloron

The context in which the bipole appears in a natural way is the caloron with non-trivial holonomy , in the infinite temperature limit. The periodic boundary conditions in the Euclidean time direction, relevant for these finite temperature instantons, allow for a non-trivial holonomy determined by the Polyakov loop, which approaches a constant value at spatial infinity,

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{}}=\underset{|\stackrel{}{x}|\mathrm{}}{lim}P(\stackrel{}{x}),P(\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{P}\mathrm{exp}(_0^\beta A_0(t,\stackrel{}{x})𝑑t).$$
(11)
With $`A_0`$ playing the role of a Higgs field, a non-trivial value implies that an SU($`n`$) charge one caloron splits into $`n`$ constituent BPS monopoles, whose masses are determined by the eigenvalues of the Polyakov loop

$$𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^0\mathrm{exp}(2\pi i\text{diag}(\mu _1,\mu _2,\mathrm{},\mu _n)),\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\mu _i=0.$$
(12)
arranged to satisfy $`\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n\mu _{n+1}\mu _1+1`$. The constituent masses $`8\pi ^2\nu _m`$, with $`\nu _m(\mu _{m+1}\mu _m)/\beta `$, add up to $`8\pi ^2/\beta `$ such that the action equals that of a charge one instanton. The presence of these constituents is easily established from the formula

$`\mathrm{Tr}F_{\alpha \gamma }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(x)=_\alpha ^2_\gamma ^2\mathrm{log}\psi (x),\psi (x)={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{tr}(𝒜_n\mathrm{}𝒜_1)\mathrm{cos}(2\pi t),`$ (13)
$`𝒜_m{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r_m}}(\begin{array}{cc}r_m& |\stackrel{}{\rho }_{m+1}|\\ 0& r_{m+1}\end{array})(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{cosh}(2\pi \nu _mr_m)& \mathrm{sinh}(2\pi \nu _mr_m)\\ \mathrm{sinh}(2\pi \nu _mr_m)& \mathrm{cosh}(2\pi \nu _mr_m)\end{array}),`$ (18)
where we introduced $`r_m|\stackrel{}{x}\stackrel{}{y}_m|`$ and $`\stackrel{}{\rho }_m\stackrel{}{y}_m\stackrel{}{y}_{m1}`$ ($`r_{n+1}r_1`$ and $`\stackrel{}{y}_{n+1}\stackrel{}{y}_1`$), with $`\stackrel{}{y}_m`$ the location of the $`m^{\mathrm{th}}`$ constituent monopole with a mass $`8\pi ^2\nu _m`$.

The basic ingredient in the construction of caloron solutions is the Greens function $`\widehat{f}_x`$ defined on the circle444For example $`\mathrm{Tr}F_{\alpha \gamma }^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}(x)=_\alpha ^2_\gamma ^2\mathrm{log}det\widehat{f}_x`$, leading to the result of Eq. (13)., $`z[0,\beta ^1]`$, satisfying

$$\left(\left(\frac{1}{2\pi i}\frac{d}{dz}t\right)^2+r^2(\stackrel{}{x};z)+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{m}{}\delta (z\mu _m/\beta )|\stackrel{}{\rho }_m|\right)\widehat{f}_x(z,z^{})=\delta (zz^{}),$$
(19)
where $`r^2(\stackrel{}{x};z)=r_m^2`$ for $`z[\mu _m/\beta ,\mu _{m+1}/\beta ]`$. The variable $`z`$ can be introduced through Fourier transformation with respect to time, where the Fourier coefficients are related to the ADHM data  of instantons, periodic up to a gauge rotation with $`𝒫_{\mathrm{}}`$ (giving the solution in the so-called algebraic gauge). This is in one-to-one relation with the Nahm transformation . For $`\mu _m/\beta z^{}z\mu _{m+1}/\beta `$ ($`\widehat{f}_x(z^{},z)=\widehat{f}_x^{}(z,z^{})`$ for $`z<z^{}`$) the explicit result  for the Greens function can be expressed as

$$\widehat{f}_x(z,z^{})=\frac{\pi e^{2\pi it(zz^{})}}{r_m\psi }v_m(z^{})|𝒜_{m1}\mathrm{}𝒜_1𝒜_n\mathrm{}𝒜_me^{2\pi it}|\sigma _2v_m(z),$$
(20)
where the spinor $`v_m(z)`$ is defined by

$$v_m(z)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sinh}[2\pi (z\mu _m/\beta )r_m]\\ \mathrm{cosh}[2\pi (z\mu _m/\beta )r_m]\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
The chiral Dirac, or Weyl equation can be solved with the boundary condition $`\mathrm{\Psi }_z(t+\beta ,\stackrel{}{x})=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi iz\beta )𝒫_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Psi }_z(t,\stackrel{}{x})`$ (in addition to the two component spinor index, there is now also a colour index). With $`z={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta ^1`$ one obtains the finite temperature “anti-periodic” fermion zero-mode, and for $`z=0`$ the “periodic” zero-mode.

To be specific, for the SU(2) caloron we have $`\mu _2=\mu _1\beta \omega `$ and $`|\stackrel{}{\rho }_1|=|\stackrel{}{\rho }_2|\pi \rho ^2/\beta `$ ($`\rho `$ is the instanton scale parameter). The gauge field and zero-mode can be expressed in terms of the functions $`\varphi ^11\rho ^2\widehat{f}_x(\omega ,\omega )/\beta `$ and $`\chi \rho ^2\widehat{f}_x(\omega ,\omega )/\beta `$. In the algebraic gauge, choosing $`𝒫_{\mathrm{}}=𝒫_{\mathrm{}}^0`$ and the constituents along the $`z`$-axis (by proper combinations of gauge and space rotations this can always be achieved)

$$A_\alpha =\frac{i}{2}\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^3\tau _3_\gamma \mathrm{log}\varphi +\frac{i}{2}\varphi \mathrm{Re}\left((\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^1i\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^2)(\tau _1+i\tau _2)_\gamma \chi \right),$$
(22)
with $`\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^a\sigma _a\overline{\sigma }_{[\alpha }\sigma _{\gamma ]}`$ the anti-selfdual ’t Hooft tensor, and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_z(x)=\frac{\rho }{2\pi \beta }\sqrt{\varphi (x)}(\left(\begin{array}{c}_2+i_1\\ _0i_3\end{array}\right)\widehat{f}_x(\omega ,z),\left(\begin{array}{c}_0i_3\\ _2i_1\end{array}\right)\widehat{f}_x(\omega ,z)).$$
(23)
Particularly simple and valid for arbitrary SU($`n`$), is the expression for the density of the fermion zero-modes

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_z(x)|^2=(4\pi ^2\beta )^1_\alpha ^2\widehat{f}_x(z,z).$$
(24)
The limit $`\beta 0`$ can be seen as a dimensional reduction and only the time independent field components are expected to survive in this high temperature limit. It is therefore more appropriate to consider the periodic gauge. For general $`z`$ this periodic gauge is obtained by applying the gauge transformation $`g(t)e^{tA_0^{\mathrm{}}}`$, where $`A_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}2\pi i(\omega \tau _3z)\delta _{\alpha 0}`$, such that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_z=g(t)\mathrm{\Psi }_z`$ and the new gauge field $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ are now periodic, with

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\alpha =A_\alpha ^{\mathrm{}}+\frac{i}{2}\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^3\tau _3_\gamma \mathrm{log}\varphi +\frac{i}{2}\varphi \mathrm{Re}\left((\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^1i\overline{\eta }_{\alpha \gamma }^2)(\tau _1+i\tau _2)e^{2\pi it\nu _1}_\gamma \chi \right),$$
(25)
We find that  $`lim_{\beta 0}\chi (x)=0`$ and $`lim_{\beta 0}\varphi ^1(x)=w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ with $`w(\stackrel{}{x})`$ as in Eq. (9). The resulting abelian gauge field splits into an isospin up and down component, decoupled in the Weyl equation. For $`z=0`$ this gives a mass of $`\pi \nu _1`$ to both isospin components, which contribute equally to the density, and the zero-mode is supported entirely at $`\stackrel{}{y}_1`$, whereas for $`z={\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta ^1`$ the mass is $`\pi \nu _2`$, but the zero-mode is now supported entirely at $`\stackrel{}{y}_2`$. For other values of $`z`$ the mass will depend on the isospin component, but as long as $`z\pm \omega `$ the zero-mode remains localised to either of the two constituent locations, jumping from one to the other when $`z`$ crosses $`\pm \omega `$, where the zero-mode becomes delocalised, having support at both constituents simultaneously. Indeed, for $`z=\omega `$

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega (x)=\frac{\sqrt{\varphi (x)}}{2\pi \rho }(\frac{1}{\varphi (x)}\left(\begin{array}{c}_2+i_1\\ _0i_3\end{array}\right)\mathrm{log}\varphi (x),\left(\begin{array}{c}_0i_3\\ _2i_1\end{array}\right)\chi ^{}(x)),$$
(26)
whereas for $`z=\omega `$, the same result follows after charge and isospin conjugation, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^1(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^2(x)^{}\sigma _2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^2(x)=\mathrm{\Psi }_\omega ^1(x)^{}\sigma _2`$ (with the isospin index made explicit). Since $`\chi `$ vanishes in the high temperature limit, the only surviving isospin component of the Weyl zero-mode is the one for which the asymptotic value of $`A_0`$ vanishes, and for which the zero-mode is time independent. This non-trivial isospin component agrees (up to an irrelevant factor $`2\pi i\rho `$) with Eq. (4), for $`w(\stackrel{}{x})=\varphi ^1(x)`$.

For the high temperature limit to be smooth and unambiguous, it was essential that $`\varphi `$ be time independent, $`\varphi ^1\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{log}\varphi =0`$, and that $`\chi =0`$. It is interesting to note that, imposing self-duality on Eq. (22), leads to a natural generalisation at finite temperature

$`\varphi ^2_\alpha ^2\mathrm{log}\varphi +|(_1i_2)\chi |^2+|(_0i_3)\chi |^2=0,`$ (27)
$`\varphi ^1(_1+i_2)\varphi ^2(_1i_2)\chi +\varphi ^1(_0+i_3)\varphi ^2(_0i_3)\chi =0.`$
In principle, but not in practise, this can be used to define $`\varphi `$ and $`\chi `$. Interestingly these equations also appear when formulating self-duality in the so-called R-gauge introduced by Yang , after a suitable Bäcklund transformation .

We will end with a few words on the case of SU($`n>2`$). In the high temperature limit the zero-mode is again exponentially localised at one of the constituents . This we can read off from Eq. (24), using the explicit expression for $`\widehat{f}_x(z,z)`$ given in Eq. (20). When $`z`$ passes through $`\mu _m/\beta `$ the zero-mode jumps from one constituent location to the other, and only for these values of $`z`$ the zero-mode will delocalise, with the proviso that it will only “see” two out of the $`n`$ constituents. In the periodic gauge, diagonalising $`A_0`$ at infinity by a constant gauge rotation, we have $`A_02\pi i\text{diag}(\mu _1/\beta z,\mu _2/\beta z,\mathrm{},\mu _n/\beta z)`$. The only non-vanishing colour component of the fermion zero-mode is the one for which $`\mu _j/\beta z=0`$. The resulting configuration is again that of the bipole in section 2.

## 4 Discussion

An interesting question is if there is some physical significance to the zero-modes, like for chiral symmetry breaking in the effective description of QCD in terms of monopoles obtained through abelian projection . But first we would like to better understand how to go beyond the case where the magnetic moments of the bipoles are no longer parallel. A natural setting in which to address this particular question would be through the study of charge $`k>1`$ calorons. It is not clear if in the high temperature limit a global abelian embedding for the case of non-parallel magnetic moments exists. Even when the magnetic moments are parallel, one would expect $`k`$ independent zero-energy solutions, of which we have only provided one.

What led us to the results presented in this paper, was an attempt to solve the Weyl equation in the background of the abelian gauge field  that is obtained from the Nahm transformation of an SU(2) charge one instanton on $`T^3\times R`$. This self-dual abelian gauge field is described by two bipoles on $`T^3`$, but unfortunately with anti-parallel orientations. Furthermore, two zero-modes are required in order for the (inverse) Nahm transformation to reconstruct the SU(2) instanton, for which $`z`$ is to be identified with the time. When the zero-modes are localised at the monopole singularities, it can be shown that the resulting SU(2) gauge field is abelian. This describes the asymptotically flat connections ($`F=0`$) of the instanton on $`T^3\times R`$, required for the integral over the action density to be finite, and equal to $`8\pi ^2`$. Thus, to obtain genuine non-abelian behaviour the zero-mode has to become delocalised for certain values of $`z`$. Here the gauge field is no longer flat ($`F0`$) and the density will have a maximum, in accordance with a general relationship between holonomies (with respect to each of the generating circles of the manifold) of a self-dual gauge field on the one hand and the constituent locations of the Nahm dual gauge field on the other hand. This dual relationship has been verified in a careful numerical study . Similar results have been seen  for instantons on $`T^2\times R^2`$.

It is the applications to the Nahm transformation on a torus that has been our prime motivation for studying this problem. Taken out of this context and the context of the caloron, our exact result for the chiral zero-mode is so simple we believe it is worthwhile to share it with the reader.

## Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Štefan Olejnik and Jeff Greensite for inviting me to a wonderfully well organised workshop in the beautiful setting of Slovakia’s “pearl”, the Spis region with its High Tatra mountains. I also thank Maxim Chernodub for our attempts to find physical applications for these bipoles with parallel magnetic moments, Chris Ford for pointing me to Ref. , and them as well as Falk Bruckmann, Conor Hougton and Valya Zakharov for useful discussions. I am particularly grateful to Margarita García Pérez for her generous collaboration in attempting to apply the methods presented here to the Nahm transformation on $`T^3\times R`$ and for comments on a first draft of this paper.