text:
# The Singularity Threshold of the Nonlinear Sigma Model Using 3D Adaptive Mesh Refinement

## Abstract

Numerical solutions to the nonlinear sigma model (NLSM), a wave map from $`3+1`$ Minkowski space to $`S^3`$, are computed in three spatial dimensions (3D) using adaptive mesh refinement (AMR). For initial data with compact support the model is known to have two regimes, one in which regular initial data forms a singularity and another in which the energy is dispersed to infinity. The transition between these regimes has been shown in spherical symmetry to demonstrate threshold behavior similar to that between black hole formation and dispersal in gravitating theories. Here, I generalize the result by removing the assumption of spherical symmetry. The evolutions suggest that the spherically symmetric critical solution remains an intermediate attractor separating the two end states.

Nonlinear sigma models have attracted the attention both of physicists and mathematicians. For physicists, the models represent the possibility of describing particles with a field theory, while mathematicians study singularity formation in geometrically motived nonlinear models. Recently, a nonlinear sigma model has attracted the attention of relativists because it demonstrates behavior similar to black hole critical phenomena discovered by Choptuik Choptuik (1993).

Studying the gravitational collapse of a spherically symmetric scalar field, he found that initial data with large energy formed a black hole while that for small initial energy dispersed its energy to infinity. By tuning the initial energy, he approached the so-called critical regime which separates these two end states. In this regime, solutions approach a unique, universal solution which demonstrates self-similarity.

The model studied here serves as a useful toy model for such threshold behavior because it also possesses two stable end-states, dispersal and singularity formation. These end-states serve as analogues for the gravitating case in which initial data can either disperse or form a black hole. Similar to Choptuik’s gravitating model, spherically symmetric studies of this model have found a universal, self-similar critical solution Liebling et al. (2000); Bizoń et al. (2000). The utility of the nonlinear sigma model arises from its relative simplicity compared to any of a variety of gravitating models. Perhaps the study of such nonlinear, flat systems will guide the way to further insight in the gravitating models.

While questions about the nature of black hole critical behavior remain, many unexplored “experiments” have yet to be conducted. While many matter models have been studied (for a review see Gundlach (1999)), generally these studies have been restricted to spherical symmetry. The only work to model fully nonlinear collapse in less symmetry is that of Abrahams and Evans Abrahams and Evans (1993) who studied vacuum gravitational collapse in axisymmetry. One reason for the scarcity of multi-dimensional evolutions of the critical regime is the extreme resolution demanded by approach to scale invariance. Perturbation methods are a complementary approach with recent work Gundlach (2002); Martin-Garcia and Gundlach (1999) suggesting that spherical critical solutions in the scalar field and perfect fluid cases extend to the nonspherical regime. While work is underway to duplicate and extend the work of Abrahams and Evans in axisymmetry Choptuik et al. (2002), it makes sense to look ahead to a simple model in three spatial dimensions.

To obtain the resolution required for evolving self-similar solutions, Choptuik developed a computational infrastructure in one spatial dimension which dynamically and locally adds numerical resolution where needed using adaptive mesh refinement (AMR). With this infrastructure, fine subgrids are added and subtracted to the computational domain providing resolution only where and when needed. Because the computational cost scales as a power law in the spatial dimension (i.e. doubling the resolution of a $`d`$-dimensional evolution requires a factor $`2^{d+1}`$ more work), it is expected that AMR will be absolutely crucial in higher dimensions for well-resolved evolutions of interest, in particular black hole critical phenomena or black hole collisions.

Constructing such a gravitating model with AMR is an ambitious project. Instead I report on the construction of a 3D AMR code of the nonlinear sigma model, which genuinely requires AMR and holds physical interest.

The NLSM Model: The nonlinear sigma model studied here represents a mapping from the base space of $`3+1`$ Minkowski to a target space of $`S^3`$. In spherical symmetry, it is common to choose the hedgehog ansatz for the map reducing the dynamics to that of a single spherically symmetric field $`\chi (r,t)`$. Here a simple generalization of this ansatz is chosen

$$\varphi ^a=\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}\chi (x,y,z,t)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{sin}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\chi (x,y,z,t)\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\phi \\ \mathrm{sin}\chi (x,y,z,t)\mathrm{cos}\theta \\ \mathrm{cos}\chi (x,y,z,t)\end{array}\right),$$
(1)
where $`\theta `$ and $`\phi `$ are the usual spatial angles. The dynamics reduce to the scalar field $`\chi (x,y,z,t)`$ which satisfies the equation of motion

$$\ddot{\chi }=\chi _{,xx}+\chi _{,yy}+\chi _{,zz}\frac{\mathrm{sin}2\chi }{r^2},$$
(2)
where commas indicate partial differentiation with respect to subscripted coordinates, an overdot denotes $`/t`$, and $`r\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}`$. The equation of motion (2) implies the regularity condition $`\chi (0,0,0,t)=0`$ which is enforced by the evolution procedure. This ansatz requires that the origin is singled out as a special point. More elegant generalizations may be considered in the future.

The energy density of the map is given by

$$\rho =\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(\dot{\chi }\right)^2+\left(\chi _{,x}\right)^2+\left(\chi _{,y}\right)^2+\left(\chi _{,z}\right)^2\right]+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2\chi }{r^2}.$$
(3)
The angular momentum densities are given by Ryder (1996)

$$M^{\mu \nu }=d^3x\left(T^{0\mu }x^\nu T^{0\nu }x^\mu \right),$$
(4)
so that the $`z`$-component of the angular momentum, for example, is

$$J_z=d^3xM^{xy}=d^3x\dot{\chi }\left(y\chi _{,x}x\chi _{,y}\right).$$
(5)
While the map allows for the possibility of a texture charge associated with the third homotopy group, only initial data with zero charge is considered here. The model requires initial data $`\chi (x,y,z,0)`$ and $`\dot{\chi }(x,y,z,0)`$ be specified at the initial time.

Various types of initial data have been implemented and are described in Table 1. Some of these families are defined in terms of a generalized Gaussian pulse defined by

$$G(x,y,z)=Ae^{(\stackrel{~}{r}R)^2/\delta ^2},$$
(6)
where $`\stackrel{~}{r}`$ is a generalized radial coordinate

$$\stackrel{~}{r}=\sqrt{ϵ_x\left(xx_c\right)^2+ϵ_y\left(yy_c\right)^2+\left(zz_c\right)^2}.$$
(7)
Such a pulse depends on parameters: amplitude $`A`$, shell radius $`R`$, pulse width $`\delta `$, pulse center $`(x_c,y_c,z_c)`$, and skewing factors $`ϵ_x`$ and $`ϵ_y`$. For $`ϵ_x1ϵ_y`$ such a pulse has elliptic cross section. Family (a) represents a single pulse for which the parameter $`\nu `$ takes the values $`\{1,0,+1\}`$ for an approximately out-going, time-symmetric, or approximately in-going pulse. The angular momentum of the pulse about the $`z`$-axis is proportional to the parameter $`\mathrm{\Omega }_z`$ as well as to $`\left(ϵ_xϵ_y\right)^2`$.

Numerical method: RNPL Choptuik and Marsa (2002) is used to develop and debug a stable and convergent unigrid code which solves Eq. (2) using finite differences and iterative Crank-Nicholson. The RNPL generated update procedure is called from the AMR code to evolve any given fine grid. The AMR implementation follows that of Berger and Oliger Berger and Oliger (1984) with some simplifications:

(1) Instead of estimating truncation error, I use the energy density as a criterion of refinement. In particular, normalizing the energy density $`\rho `$ by the grid resolution $`1/h`$, the refinement criterion is $`h^2\rho >ϵ`$, where $`ϵ`$ is a user-specified threshold. This simplification is less general than truncation error but provides an easily computable and smooth function from which to estimate resolution requirements.

(2) Fine grids are completely contained within their parents. Grids do not overlap or abut other grids at the same level. This restriction reduces the maximum obtainable efficiency but provides for considerable simplification.

(3) Fine grids are created strictly aligned with parent grids with no rotation. The transformations necessary to relax this would be especially onerous in the gravitating case.

(4) The ratio of refinement between parent and child grids is constrained to be an even integer.

The first two of these restrictions appear especially suited for the case of central collapse studied here, and the intention is to relax them for more general problems.

The usefulness of AMR depends obviously on whether it produces correct solutions and whether it allows for high resolution with only proportional work. Starting with the unigrid code, convergence and energy conservation were confirmed. The AMR results were then checked against high resolution unigrid results. Perhaps a stronger test is that this code finds the same results for spherically symmetric initial data as that in Liebling et al. (2000) (as demonstrated in Fig. 1). As an example of the benefit of AMR consider Fig. 2. A rough estimate of the computational work for the entire evolution is $`2^8`$, in units where the work for a unigrid evolution at the coarsest resolution is unity. In comparison, to achieve uniform resolution equal to that of the finest sub-grid would require work equal to $`\left(2^9\right)^{3+1}`$, a factor $`2^{26}`$ more work than that with AMR.

Results: As discussed in Liebling et al. (2000), solutions generically evolve to one of two stable end states. For large initial data, the energy density collapses toward the origin suggesting the formation of a singularity. As in the strictly spherical case, the usual caveat applies that we only have indications, not proof, that a singularity is forming. For small initial data, the energy density implodes through the origin and then disperses to infinity. Removing the restriction to spherical symmetry has not revealed any additional stable end states.

The aim is to investigate the region of solution space separating these two end states. In the jargon of nonlinear dynamics, we look at the so-called critical surface occurring between the two basins of attraction. To do so, one chooses a 1-parameter family of initial data with the property that data with small parameter disperses while large parameter initial data forms a singularity. By tuning the free parameter according to the resulting end state of the evolution, the critical surface is approached.

The previous results in spherical symmetry indicated that all initial data of compact support, when tuned, approached the same universal, self-similar solution Liebling et al. (2000). This critical solution happens to be one of a family of solutions found by Aminneborg and Bergstrom by assuming self-similarity and solving the resulting ODE Aminneborg and Bergstrom (1995). A linear perturbation analysis revealed the $`n=1`$ solution to have the requisite single unstable mode necessary to be a proper critical solution (a so-called intermediate attractor).

This solution is shown in coordinates adapted to its self-similarity in Fig. 1. Given a self-similar solution which takes the form $`f(r,t)=f\left(r/|T^{}T|\right)`$, one can recast it as $`g\left(\mathrm{ln}r\mathrm{ln}|T^{}T|\right)`$. This form makes apparent that the solution executes linear motion in log space and log time, where one is free to set the collapse time $`T^{}`$. Thus, in Fig. 1 the self-similar solution travels leftward retaining its shape.

Along with the $`n=1`$ solution is shown a cut along the $`x`$-axis of a near-critical evolution from spherically symmetric initial data. Such an evolution would be expected to agree with previous results in spherical symmetry, as it appears to do in the plot. The collapse time of the $`n=1`$ solution was chosen so that the two solutions agree in the first frame. The $`n=1`$ solution is then completely determined at other times by translation in $`\mathrm{ln}r`$.

It was also observed in Liebling et al. (2000) that whenever the range of $`\chi `$ exceeded $`\pi `$ at a given time, a singularity would eventually form in its future. However, evolutions of non-spherically symmetric families do not obey such a condition, having exceeded $`\pi `$ while remaining nonsingular. One still finds solutions which disperse (sub-critical) separated from those which form a singularity (super-critical).

For such non-symmetric initial data, the question is whether some different critical solution appears. If the $`n=1`$ solution has non-symmetric unstable modes not present in spherical symmetry, then a change in critical solution would be expected. However, all such non-symmetric variations of the types of initial data in Table 1 have failed to find a different critical solution.

An example from initial data with angular momentum is shown in Fig. 2. The pulse evolves in a nontrivial manner eventually dispersing much of its energy toward the edges of the grid. However, near the origin, a spherically symmetric waveform emerges which propagates toward the origin. In this case, the waveform has negative amplitude (the model is invariant with respect to the transformation $`\chi \chi `$). Further detail of this waveform is shown in Fig. 3. The upward sweep at the origin corresponds to the regularity constraint mentioned previously that $`\chi (0,0,0,t)=0`$.

Another example of initial data with angular momentum is shown in Fig. 5. Two pulses are sent towards one another and, for sufficiently large initial amplitude, singularity formation occurs. Four frames of a near critical evolution show the region near the origin approaching the spherically symmetric, self-similar solution.

A more systematic exploration away from spherical symmetry is shown in Fig. 4. Here, $`\sigma `$ parameterizes the asymmetry of the initial data, and near-critical solutions are shown for four different values of $`\sigma `$. Furthermore, for each case the region near the origin (the region which approaches self-similarity) is shown along the three different axes. Their agreement suggests that this region approaches spherical symmetry.

There remains, however, the possibility that some other spherically symmetric self-similar solution becomes the critical solution away from spherical symmetry. Though there is no evidence of any transition, the various excited self-similar solutions of Aminneborg and Bergstrom (1995) are very similar near the origin consisting of a peak followed by oscillations about $`\chi =\pi /2`$. To distinguish among them, a perturbation analysis allowing for non-symmetric modes would be appropriate, with the critical solution being the one with a single unstable mode.

The evidence therefore suggests that the $`n=1`$ self-similar solution remains the intermediate attractor away from spherical symmetry, but a perturbation analysis should settle the issue. Further work will likely be directed towards (1) using the AMR infrastructure with a gravitating model, (2) relaxing the noted simplifications in the clustering, and (3) distributing the grids using MPI along the lines of Hern (1999).

###### Acknowledgements.

Acknowledgments: Many thanks to Frans Pretorius and Matthew W. Choptuik for providing me with the extremely useful Data-Vault, a software application they are developing for visualizing AMR data. Thanks go also to Richard A. Matzner for reviewing the manuscript. I appreciate the support of NSF PHY-9900644 and of the financial support of Southampton College.


format: text

text:
# Kähler metrics on 𝐺^ℂ

## 1. Introduction

We study $`G`$-invariant Kähler metrics on $`G^{}`$. We give Hamiltonian ansätze for such metrics, in the spirit of  but for non-abelian Lie groups. We are particularly interested in such metrics being Ricci-flat. We give sufficient conditions for Ricci-flatness in terms of our Hamiltonian ansatz. For example, when $`G`$ is a Heisenberg group, we construct explicitly $`G`$-invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metrics on a neighbourhood of $`G`$ in $`G^{}`$. For compact $`G`$ we can do better:

###### Theorem 1.

Let $`G`$ be a compact simple Lie group and let $`\gamma `$ be a real closed $`G\times G`$-invariant $`(1,1)`$-form on $`G^{}`$. Then there exists a $`G\times G`$-invariant Kähler metric on $`G^{}`$ such that its Ricci form is $`\gamma `$. In particular, there exists a $`G\times G`$-invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metric on $`G^{}`$.

This result has been previously known for $`G=SU(2)`$ . In this case it is known that the Ricci-flat metric is complete and we expect this to be true in the general case, although we have been unable to prove it. Similarly the question of uniqueness is left open.

The proof of Theorem 1 relies on existence and regularity of entire solutions to the (real) Monge-Ampère equation

(1.1)
$$f(u)detD_{ij}u=g$$

where $`f,g`$ are certain smooth functions defined on $`^n`$. The $`^n`$ in question is a Cartan subalgebra of $`\text{Lie}(G)`$ and all the functions are invariant under the Weyl group $`W`$. There are very few results about entire solutions to (1.1). In fact, it is usually assumed that either $`gL^1(^n)`$ or that $`f=1`$ and $`g,1/g`$ are bounded . None of these conditions applies in our situation and so we prove:

###### Theorem 2.

Let $`f,g:^n`$ be two nonnegative locally bounded functions invariant under a finite reflection group $`WO(n)`$ which acts irreducibly. If $`_^nf(x)𝑑x=+\mathrm{}`$, then there exists an entire convex $`W`$-invariant weak solution $`u:^n`$ of (1.1). If, in addition, $`f`$ and $`g`$ are strictly positive and of class $`C^{p,\alpha }`$, then $`u`$ is of class $`C^{p+2,\alpha }`$.

Theorem 1 can be viewed in a more general context. Given a real-analytic Riemanian manifold $`(M,g)`$ one asks whether the metric $`g`$ can be extended to a Ricci-flat Kähler metric $`\overline{g}`$ on a complex thickening $`M^{}`$ of $`M`$, perhaps satisfying some additional conditions. In this direction Bryant  showed that if $`dimM=3`$, then such an extension exists with the original manifold $`M`$ being a special Lagrangian submanifold. As Bryant indicates, such a result should also hold for higher-dimensional manifolds with trivial tangent bundles. A similar result is true when $`(M,g)`$ is Kähler . A stronger condition on $`\overline{g}`$ is that there exists an anti-holomorphic and isometric involution on $`M^{}`$ fixing $`M`$ (which is true in ). Our Theorem 1 (for $`\gamma =0`$) can be viewed as an example of such an extension when $`M=G`$ with the bi-invariant metric. The main point, however, is that our extension is global. In this direction, one should ask a) when does there exist a geodesically complete extension; b) what is the relation with the global existence of the adapted global structure of Lempert and Szöke  and of Guillemin and Stenzel . Recall that these authors have shown that a real-analytic Riemannian manifold $`(M,g)`$ admits a canonical complex complex structure, called adapted, on $`TM`$ or part thereof, characterised by the condition that the geodesic foliation is holomorphic. Thus one could ask whether there exists a Ricci-flat Kähler metric on the maximal domain of definition of the adapted complex structure. The only previous cases where we know of some sort global Ricci-flat Kähler extension are compact homogeneous Kähler manifolds, where the Ricci-flat Kähler extensions are actually hyperkähler, and for compact symmetric spaces of rank $`1`$ .

Although Theorem 1 for $`G=SU(2)`$ has been proved by Candelas and de la Ossa  and by Stenzel , our approach is somewhat different and it expresses the Kähler potential directly as an invariant function on $`SL(2,)`$.

###### Theorem 3.

There exists a unique (up to homothety) complete $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metric on $`SL(2,)`$. It is given by the Kähler potential

$$K(u)=_0^R\sqrt[3]{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)2t}𝑑t,$$

where $`R=|h|`$ and $`h`$ is an element of $`𝔰u(2)`$ such that $`u=g\mathrm{exp}ih`$ with $`gSU(2)`$.

This metric is of cohomogeneity one. Ricci-flat Kähler metrics of cohomogeneity one were studied by Dancer and Wang  under the assumption (generically satisfied) that the isotropy representation of the principal orbit is multiplicity-free. The above metric is an example of cohomogeneity one metric for which this assumption does not hold.

## 2. Notation and conventions

All $`G`$-actions are on the left. If $`G`$ acts on a smooth manifold $`M`$ and $`\rho `$ is an element of the Lie algebra $`𝔤`$, then $`\rho ^{}`$ denotes the fundamental vector field generated by $`\rho `$. As the action is on the left, the map $`\rho \rho ^{}`$ is an antihomomorphism (i.e. $`[\rho ^{},\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]=[\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]^{}`$).

If $`E`$ is a representation of $`G`$, then by an $`E`$-valued $`p`$-form we mean a $`G`$-equivariant map from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^p(TM)`$ to $`E`$, linear on fibers. If $`E`$ is equipped with a $`G`$-invariant bilinear form $`,`$ and $`\varphi ,\psi `$ are $`E`$-valued $`1`$-forms on $`M`$, then we define a real-valued $`2`$-form $`\varphi \psi `$ by

(2.1)
$$\varphi \psi (X,Y)=\varphi (X),\psi (Y)\varphi (Y),\psi (X).$$

In general, we adopt the convention that $`vw=vwwv`$. Because of this and the fact that we consider left $`G`$-actions, the structure equation for a connection $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ on a principal $`G`$-bundle $`P`$ takes the form

(2.2)
$$d\theta =[\theta ,\theta ]+\mathrm{\Omega }$$

where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the curvature of $`\theta `$.

## 3. Complex structures on $`G\times 𝔤`$

Let $`P`$ be a (trivial) principal $`G`$-bundle over $`𝔤`$ and suppose that we are given a $`G`$-invariant complex structure on $`P`$ (in other words we have a $`G`$-invariant map $`G^{}𝔤`$). Any tangent vector on $`P`$ can be written uniquely as $`\rho ^{}+I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}`$ for some $`\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝔤`$. Since $`I`$ is $`G`$-invariant, we have a connection $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ on $`P`$ defined by

(3.1)
$$\theta (\rho ^{}+I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=\rho .$$

We also have a horizontal (i.e. $`\mathrm{ad}G`$-valued and vanishing on vertical vector fields) $`1`$-form $`L`$ defined by:

(3.2)
$$L(\rho ^{}+I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=\stackrel{~}{\rho }.$$

Conversely, given a connection $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ and a non-degenerate horizontal $`1`$-form $`L`$ we can define an almost complex structure $`I`$ by:

(3.3)
$$I\rho ^{}=\text{unique horizontal }Y\text{ such that }L(Y)=\rho .$$

We have

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`P`$ be a principal $`G`$–bundle over $`𝔤`$. A connection $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ and a non-degenerate horizontal $`1`$-form $`L`$ on $`P`$ define an integrable $`G`$-invariant complex structure on $`P`$ if and only if

(3.4)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Omega }=[L,L]\hfill & \\ DL=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

###### Remark 3.2.

The minus sign is the consequence of $`G`$ acting on the left. For $`G`$ semisimple, the assumption of horizontality of $`L`$ is unnecessary as it follows from the first equation (and the non-degeneracy).

###### Proof.

Since $`I`$ is $`G`$-invariant by definition, it satisfies $`[\rho ^{},IX]=I[\rho ^{},X]`$, for any vector field $`X`$ and any $`\rho ^{}𝔤`$. It follows then from the formula for the Nijenhuis tensor that $`I`$ is integrable if and only if $`[I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]=[\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]^{}`$ for any $`\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝔤`$. From the definition of $`I`$ we have:

$$DL(I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=dL(I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=L\left([I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]\right),$$

where we have used the fact, that for any $`1`$-form $`\varphi `$ and any vector fields $`X,Y`$:

$$d\varphi (X,Y)=X(\varphi (Y))Y(\varphi (X))\varphi ([X,Y]).$$

Therefore $`[I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]`$ is vertical for all $`\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }`$ if and only if $`DL=0`$. On the other hand, from the properties of curvature,

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=\theta \left([I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]\right)$$

and so the vertical part of $`[I\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{}]`$ is equal to $`[\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]^{}`$ precisely when $`\mathrm{\Omega }=[L,L]`$. ∎

As an example of a solution to (3.4) consider a compact $`G`$ with the $`G`$-equivariant diffeomorphism between $`G\times 𝔤`$ and $`G^{}`$ given by:

$$(g,h)g\mathrm{exp}(ih),$$

i.e. by the polar decomposition. We shall describe $`\theta `$ and $`L`$ given by this diffeomorphism. As everything is equivariant it is enough to describe $`\theta `$ and $`L`$ at points of $`\{1\}\times 𝔤`$.

For the exponential map of any Lie group we have the following formula:

$$(d\mathrm{exp})_u\mathrm{exp}(u)=\frac{\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{ad}u)1}{\mathrm{ad}u}.$$

Applying this to $`\mathrm{exp}ih`$ and separating into the real and imaginary parts we obtain:

(3.5)
$$\theta (\rho ,v)=\rho +\frac{\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{ad}h)1}{\mathrm{ad}h}(v),$$

(3.6)
$$L(\rho ,v)=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{ad}h)}{\mathrm{ad}h}(v)$$

where $`(\rho ,v)`$ is tangent to $`G\times 𝔤`$ at the point $`(1,h)`$.

## 4. Kähler metrics on $`G^{}`$

We now consider the following problem. Let $`\mu :G\times 𝔤𝔤^{}`$ be a regular $`G`$-equivariant map. For a given $`G`$-invariant complex structure on $`P=G\times 𝔤`$ defined by $`\theta `$ and $`L`$ we wish to describe Kähler metrics on $`P`$ for which $`\mu `$ is the moment map.

The covariant derivative $`D\mu =d\mu +[\mu ,\theta ]`$ vanishes on vertical vector fields. This is also true for $`L`$ and since both $`D\mu `$ and $`L`$ are non-degenerate, there exists an invertible $`\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{ad}^{}G,\mathrm{ad}G)`$-valued function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ on $`P`$ such that

(4.1)
$$L=\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu ).$$

A map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝔤^{}𝔤`$ can be viewed as giving a bilinear form on $`𝔤^{}`$: $`x,\mathrm{\Phi }(y)`$. We can therefore speak of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ being symmetric, positive-definite etc. Let us introduce the following notation. If $`\mu `$ is a map from a manifold into $`𝔤^{}`$, then $`\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ denotes the map into $`\mathrm{Hom}(𝔤,𝔤^{})`$ defined by $`\mathrm{ad}\mu (m)(x),y=\mu (m),[x,y]`$. Before stating the next result, let us explain the notation used there. For any $`mG\times 𝔤`$, $`\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a map from $`𝔤^{}`$ to itself and we can talk about its square. We have

###### Theorem 4.1.

A regular equivariant map $`\mu :P𝔤^{}`$ on $`P=G\times 𝔤`$ is a moment map for a $`G`$-invariant Kähler metric on $`P`$ if and only if the function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ defined by (4.1) is symmetric and if both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ are positive-definite. If this is the case then the Kähler metric is given by

(4.2)
$$g=\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu ),D\mu +\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\theta ),\theta +\mu ,[\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu ),\theta ][\theta ,\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu )]$$

and its Kähler form $`\omega `$ by

(4.3)
$$\omega =d\mu ,\theta .$$

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\mu `$ is a moment map for a Kähler metric $`g`$. Then, for any $`\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝔤`$,

(4.4)
$$g(\rho ^{},\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=d\mu (I\rho ^{}),\stackrel{~}{\rho }=D\mu (I\rho ^{}),\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\rho ),\stackrel{~}{\rho }$$

which shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is symmetric. Moreover

$$g(\rho ^{},I\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=\omega (\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{},\rho ^{})=d\mu (\rho ^{}),\stackrel{~}{\rho }=[\rho ,\mu ],\stackrel{~}{\rho }=\mu ,[\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]$$

which shows that the metric has the form (4.2) (as $`I\theta =L`$).

To find out the conditions for this $`g`$ to be positive-definite we rewrite $`g`$ as a metric on a Riemannian submersion. Let $`\sigma `$ be the connection form of the Riemannian submersion defined by $`g`$. In other words $`\sigma (X)=\rho `$ where $`X\rho ^{}`$ is orthogonal to all vertical vector fields. Since $`d\mu (IX),\stackrel{~}{\rho }=g(X,\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})=g(\sigma (X)^{},\stackrel{~}{\rho }^{})`$, we have from (4.4)

(4.5)
$$Id\mu =\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\sigma ).$$

It follows that

(4.6)
$$\sigma =I\mathrm{\Phi }(d\mu )=I\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu [\mu ,\theta ])=\theta +\mathrm{\Phi }\left([\mu ,L]\right).$$

Using this formula, we can write metric (4.2) as

(4.7)
$$g=\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu ),D\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\left([\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu )]\right),[\mu ,\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu )]+\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\sigma ),\sigma .$$

Computing the metric separately on vertical and horizontal (with respect to $`\sigma `$) vectors, we see that both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ must be positive-definite.

It remains to show that $`\omega =g(I,)`$ has the form (4.3). We compute (using symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and (3.4))

$$\begin{array}{c}g(I,)=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(L),\theta +\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\theta ),L+\mu ,[L,L]+[\theta ,\theta ]=\hfill \\ \hfill \theta D\mu +\mu ,d\theta +2[\theta ,\theta ]=\theta d\mu \mu ,d\theta =d\mu ,\theta .\end{array}$$

Here $`\varphi \psi `$ for a $`𝔤`$-valued $`1`$-form $`\varphi `$ and a $`𝔤^{}`$-valued $`1`$-form $`\psi `$ denotes the $`2`$-form $`\varphi \psi (X,Y)=\psi (Y),\varphi (X),\varphi (Y),\psi (X)`$. This proves the theorem. ∎

If we are interested only in pseudo-Kähler metrics, then the relevant condition is much simpler.

###### Proposition 4.2.

A regular equivariant map $`\mu :P𝔤^{}`$ on $`P=G\times 𝔤`$ is a moment map for a $`G`$-invariant pseudo-Kähler metric on $`P`$ if and only if the $`1`$-form $`\mu ,L`$ is closed.

###### Proof.

From the proof of the above theorem, $`\mu `$ defines a pseudo-Kähler metric if and only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is symmetric ($`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is non-degenerate, since $`\mu `$ is regular). Computing $`d\mu ,L`$ and using (3.4) shows that $`d\mu ,L=D\mu L`$. As $`L=\mathrm{\Phi }(D\mu )`$, this last expression vanishes precisely when $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is symmetric.∎

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`G`$ be compact. There is a canonical $`G\times G`$ invariant Kähler metric on $`G^{}`$ given by the Kähler potential $`K(u)=\frac{1}{2}|h|^2`$, where $`u=g\mathrm{exp}ih`$, $`gG`$, $`h𝔤`$. The moment map is given at points of $`\{1\}\times 𝔤`$ by $`\mu (h)=h`$. The Kähler form, from (4.3) and (3.5), is

$$\omega =dh,\rho $$

where $`\rho `$ is the canonical flat connection on $`G`$. In other words $`\omega `$ is just the canonical Kähler form of $`T^{}G=G\times 𝔤`$. We also have

$$D\mu =\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{ad}h),$$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^1=\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{ad}h)\frac{\mathrm{ad}h}{\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{ad}h)}.$$

Using (4.7) one can easily compute the metric on $`G\backslash G^{}/G`$, i.e. on a Weyl chamber, which turns out to be the standard Euclidean metric.

## 5.  Ricci-flat metrics and proof of Theorem 1

As the Ricci curvature of a Kähler metric $`g`$ is given by $`i\overline{}\mathrm{ln}detg`$, we wish to write the Kähler form in terms of a holomorphic frame, namely

$$\begin{array}{c}\omega =d\mu \theta \mu ,d\theta =\left(d\mu \theta +\mu ,[\theta ,\theta ][L,L]\right)=\hfill \\ \hfill \frac{i}{2}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\theta +iL)(\theta iL)+i[\mu ,\theta +iL](\theta iL)\right)=\\ \hfill \frac{i}{2}\left((\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu )(\theta +iL)\right)(\theta iL).\end{array}$$

Thus $`g`$ is Ricci-flat if the determinant of the operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ is constant for some basis of $`𝔤`$ and the dual basis.

###### Example 5.1.

We shall find invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metrics on the complexification of a Heisenberg group. Let $`(V,\omega )`$ be a symplectic vector space and let $`𝔥(V)=V\times `$ denote the corresponding Heisenberg algebra. Thus $`[(v,r),(w,s)]=(0,\omega (v,w))`$. Let $`H(V)`$ denote the corresponding (simply-connected) Lie group. To define a Kähler metric on $`H(V)^{}`$ we need $`\mu ,\theta `$ and $`L`$. Choose a symplectic basis $`p_1,q_1\mathrm{},p_n,q_n`$ of $`V`$, so that

$$\omega =p_i^{}q_i^{}.$$

Then $`p_1,q_1\mathrm{},p_n,q_n,1`$ is a basis of $`𝔥(V)`$ and we define $`\mu `$ to be the map sending each vector of this basis to the corresponding vector of the dual basis. We shall look for a $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ which, in the above basis, is of the form

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{(v,t)}=\text{diag}(1,\mathrm{},1,f(t))$$

for a positive function $`f`$. It follows easily that

(5.1)
$$det(\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu )_{(v,t)}=\frac{(1t^2)^n}{f(t)}.$$

The connection $`1`$-form $`\theta `$ will be given at a point $`(p_i,q_i,t)`$ by $`(0,0,p_idq^i)`$. Then $`D\mu =d\mu `$ and $`L=\mathrm{\Phi }(d\mu )`$ is given at a point $`(p_i,q_i,t)`$ by $`(dp_i,dq_i,f(t)dt)`$. Since $`[L,\theta ]=0`$ and $`dL=0`$, the equations (3.4) are satisfied. Thus we obtain an $`H(V)`$-invariant Kähler metric on $`H(V)^{}`$ for any positive function $`f(t)`$. The equation (5.1) implies that the metric is Ricci-flat if $`f(t)=c(1t^2)^n`$ for some constant $`c`$. These metrics are defined only on an open subset of $`H(V)^{}`$ and are incomplete there.

We shall now consider in detail the case of a compact semisimple $`G`$ and a metric $`g`$ which is also invariant with respect to the right $`G`$-action. First of all we have:

###### Proposition 5.2.

Let $`G`$ be compact semisimple and let $`\gamma `$ be a real closed $`G\times G`$-invariant $`(1,1)`$-form on $`G^{}`$. Then there exists a unique (up to an additive constant) real $`G\times G`$-invariant function $`u`$ such that $`\gamma =i\overline{}u`$.

###### Proof.

The existence of a function $`u`$ satisfying $`\gamma =i\overline{}u`$ follows from the fact that $`G^{}`$ is Stein (and its second Betti number is zero). As $`G`$ is compact we can average over $`G\times G`$ and obtain a $`G\times G`$-invariant $`u`$. To show uniquness we have to prove that a $`G\times G`$ invariant pluriharmonic ($`\overline{}f=0`$) function $`f`$ on $`G^{}`$ is constant. We use the complex structure given by $`(\theta ,L)`$ in (3.5) and (3.6). Under this diffeomorphism $`G^{}G\times 𝔤`$, the right $`G`$-action on $`G^{}`$ becomes the adjoint action on $`𝔤`$. Let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_n`$ be a basis of invariant polynomials on $`𝔤`$. A $`G\times G`$ invariant function on $`G\times 𝔤`$ can be written as $`f=f(p_1,\mathrm{},p_n)`$. We shall compute $`dIdf`$.

Let us write $`df=F,dh`$ for a map $`F:𝔤𝔤`$. Since $`dp_i([\rho ,h])=0`$ for any $`\rho `$ and at any point $`h𝔤`$, $`[F(h),h]=0`$ at any regular $`h`$. Therefore, by (3.5) and (3.6), $`Idf=F,dgg^1`$ and

$$dIdf=dFdgg^1+F,[dgg^1,dgg^1].$$

Since $`F`$ is invariant for the left $`G`$-action, $`dF(\rho ^{})`$ vanishes for any $`\rho 𝔤`$ and so $`F,[\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }]=0`$ for all $`\rho ,\stackrel{~}{\rho }𝔤`$. Since $`𝔤`$ is semisimple, $`F=0`$ and $`f`$ is constant. ∎

Therefore finding a Kähler metric with prescribed Ricci form is equivalent to finding a Kähler metric of the form (4.2) with prescribed (positive) determinant of the hermitian operator $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu `$.

Now, notice that

$$(\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu )L=D\mu +i[\mu ,L]=d\mu +[\mu ,\theta +iL].$$

Therefore, using $`(\theta ,L)`$ given by (3.5) and (3.6) we require finding a map $`\mu :𝔤𝔤`$ such that, at every point $`h𝔤`$, the determinant of the operator

(5.2)
$$d\mu +[\mu ,\frac{\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{ad}h)1}{\mathrm{ad}h}]$$

is equal to $`e^u`$-multiple of the determinant of the operator (3.6).

Since we look for $`G\times G`$ invariant metrics on $`G^{}`$, $`\mu `$ must have a special form. As the right action of $`G`$ becomes the adjoint action on $`𝔤`$ under the polar decomposition and the two actions commute, the moment map $`\mu `$ for the left action must be $`\mathrm{ad}G`$-invariant. This means that $`\mu `$ maps any Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$ to itself. Since, for any $`x𝔥`$ and any $`\rho 𝔤`$, $`d\mu ([\rho ,x])=[\rho ,\mu (x)]`$, we easily compute the determinant of (5.2) as $`\left(detd\mu _{|_𝔥}\right)\frac{\alpha (\mu (x))}{\alpha (x)}`$, where the product is taken over all roots $`\alpha `$. On the other hand, the operator $`L`$ given by $`(\text{3.6})`$ has determinant $`\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\alpha (x)}{\alpha (x)}`$. Thus, to prove Theorem 1 we have to find a $`W`$-equivariant ($`W`$ being the Weyl group) map $`\mu :𝔥𝔥`$ satisfying the equation

$$\left(\alpha (\mu (x))\right)detd\mu =e^{\stackrel{~}{u}(x)}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha (x)$$

for an arbitrary $`W`$-invariant function $`\stackrel{~}{u}`$. Moreover, from Proposition 4.2, $`\mu ,L`$ must be a closed $`1`$-form on $`𝔤`$. As $`\mu (x)`$ commutes with $`x`$, this form is just $`\mu (x),dx`$. Therefore $`\mu `$ is the gradient of a $`G`$-invariant function $`K`$ defined on $`𝔤`$. $`K`$ is of course the Kähler potential of the metric. By restricting $`K`$ to $`𝔥`$ we obtain:

###### Proposition 5.3.

For a compact semisimple Lie group $`G`$, the $`G\times G`$-invariant Kähler metrics on $`G^{}`$ with Ricci form $`\gamma =i\overline{}u`$ are (up to homothety) in one-to-one correspondence with smooth convex $`W`$-invariant solutions $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to the Monge-Ampère equation

(5.3)
$$\left(\alpha (\stackrel{~}{K})\right)detD_{ij}\stackrel{~}{K}=e^{\stackrel{~}{u}(x)}\mathrm{sinh}\alpha (x)$$

defined on an entire Cartan subalgebra $`𝔥`$, where the product is taken over all roots $`\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{u}=u_|_𝔥`$.

Equivalently, such metrics are in one-to-one correspondence with smooth convex $`G`$-invariant solutions $`K`$ to the Monge-Ampère equation

(5.4)
$$detD_{ij}K=e^{u(x)}\frac{\mathrm{sinh}\alpha (x)}{\alpha (x)}$$

defined on all of $`𝔤`$ (where the right-hand side is viewed as an invariant function on $`𝔤`$).

###### Proof.

We have to show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ are positive definite. As $`D\mu `$ is given by the real part of (5.2), it follows that $`L`$ and $`D\mu `$ commute. As they are both self-adjoint, so is $`\mathrm{\Phi }=L(D\mu )^1`$. $`L`$ is positive definite and $`D\mu `$ is positive definite on vectors tangent to $`𝔥`$, where it is given by the matrix of second derivatives of $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$. On the other hand $`D\mu `$ is diagonal on the root spaces and its eigenvalues are $`\frac{\alpha (\stackrel{~}{K})}{\alpha (x)}\mathrm{cosh}\alpha (x)`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is convex, these eigenvalues are positive. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is positive definite. To check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ is positive-definite note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ commute. Therefore we have

$$\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2=\mathrm{\Phi }^3(\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu )(\mathrm{\Phi }^1i\mathrm{ad}\mu )$$

which is positive definite as $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu `$ is hermitian (it is nondegenerate as $`det(\mathrm{\Phi }^1+i\mathrm{ad}\mu )`$ is positive).∎

###### Remark 5.4.

For $`u=0`$ (i.e. the Ricci-flat case), the Monge-Ampère equation (5.4) has the following interpretation. We seek a map $`\mu :𝔤𝔤`$ with a convex potential (i.e. $`\mu =K`$ for a convex function $`K`$) such that the pullback under $`\mu `$ of the canonical volume form of $`𝔤`$ (given by the Killing metric) is equal to the volume form $`\widehat{\omega }`$ which is the pullback of the canonical volume form on the symmetric space $`G\backslash G^{}`$ via the exponential map $`\mathrm{exp}:𝔤G\backslash G^{}`$.

###### Corollary 5.5.

Let $`G`$ be a compact simple Lie group and let $`\gamma `$ be a real closed $`G\times G`$-invariant $`(1,1)`$-form on $`G^{}`$. Then there exists a $`G\times G`$-invariant Kähler metric on $`G^{}`$ whose Ricci form is $`\gamma `$.

###### Proof.

Theorem A.1 in the appendix shows the existence of a weak solution $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to (5.3). By Proposition A.2, $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ is proper. Since a weak solution is equivalent to a solution a.e. (every convex function has first and second derivatives a.e.), $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ gives rise to a proper (convex) weak solution $`K`$ of (5.4) on $`𝔤`$. To show that $`K`$ is smooth apply Theorem 2 in  to $`u(x)=Kc`$, $`c`$ and the convex set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\{x;K(x)c\}`$.∎

We have been unable to show that the Ricci-flat Kähler metrics obtained from Theorem 1 are complete. From (4.7), it follows easily

###### Proposition 5.6.

Let $`G`$ be a compact semisimple Lie group of rank $`n`$. A $`G\times G`$-invariant Kähler metric on $`G^{}`$ given by a $`W`$-invariant convex solution $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ to (5.3) is complete if and only if

$$\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{K}}{x_ix_j}dx_idx_j$$

is a complete metric on $`^n`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6.  Ricci-flat Kähler metrics on $`SU(2)`$

We will compute explicitly $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$-invariant metrics on $`SL(2,)`$. By the arguments of the previous section such a metric is given by a moment map of the form $`\mu (h)=f(|h|)h`$ for some real function $`f`$ (at points of $`\{1\}\times 𝔰u(2)`$). We compute the determinant of the operator (5.2). It can be rewritten as

(6.1)
$$f(|h|)1+\dot{f}(|h|)d(|h|)h+f(|h|)(\mathrm{cos}(\mathrm{ad}h)1+i\mathrm{sin}(\mathrm{ad}h)).$$

Now, on $`𝔰u(2)`$, $`(\mathrm{ad}h)^2`$ has the eigenvalue $`0`$ corresponding to the eigenvector $`h`$ and the eigenvalue $`|h|^2`$ with the eigenspace corresponding to vectors orthogonal to $`h`$ (we fix here an $`\mathrm{ad}SU(2)`$-invariant metric on $`𝔰u(2)`$, so that the norm of the Pauli matrices is $`1`$). For the operator (6.1) $`h`$ is also an eigenvector and its eigenvalue is:

$$\lambda _0=f(|h|)+\dot{f}(|h|)|h|.$$

We can also easily compute the other two eigenvalues as being

$$\lambda _\pm =f(|h|)\left(\mathrm{cosh}|h|\pm \mathrm{sinh}|h|\right)=f(|h|)e^{\pm |h|}.$$

On the other hand, the operator $`L`$ given by $`(\text{3.6})`$ has eigenvalues $`1`$ and (twice) $`\mathrm{sinh}(|h|)/|h|`$. Therefore the metric will be Ricci flat if and only if the function $`f=f(t)`$ satisfies

(6.2)
$$f^2(f+t\dot{f})=c\left(\frac{\mathrm{sinh}t}{t}\right)^2$$

where $`c`$ is a positive constant. The constant $`c`$ amounts to changing the metric by a homothety and so we can assume that $`c=1`$. Let us denote the function on the right by $`G(t)`$ and let us also write $`u=f^3/3`$. Then the last equation becomes

$$t\frac{du}{dt}+3u=G(t),$$

whose general solution is

$$u(t)=\left(a+_0^ts^2G(s)𝑑s\right)t^3.$$

As $`u`$ needs to be smooth at the origin, $`a=0`$. Therefore

(6.3)
$$u(t)=t^3_0^t(\mathrm{sinh}\tau )^2𝑑\tau =\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2t)2t}{4t^3}$$

To check that we obtained a Kähler metric we have to, according to Theorem 3.1, check that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is self-adjoint and that both $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{ad}\mu \mathrm{\Phi })^2`$ are positive-definite. This is done in the proof of Proposition 5.3.

Thus we have obtained an $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ invariant Ricci-flat Kähler metric on $`SL(2,)`$. It follows from the arguments that any other such a metric is homothetic to this one.

Let us show that this metric is complete. As it is $`SU(2)\times SU(2)`$ invariant, it is of cohomogeneity one and it is enough to show that the metric on the quotient $`_0`$ is complete. This means computing the first two terms in (4.7) in the radial direction $`h/|h|`$. The second term becomes zero. The first one is $`L,D\mu `$, and since $`L(h/|h|)=h/|h|`$ and $`D\mu (h/|h|)=\left(f(|h|)+\dot{f}(|h|)|h|\right)h/|h|`$ (from (6.1) and the subsequent paragraph), the quotient metric is just

$$(t\dot{f}+f)dt^2.$$

From (6.2) $`t\dot{f}+f=G(t)(3u)^{2/3}`$ and it follows from (6.3) that $`t\dot{f}+f`$ has an exponential growth. Therefore the metric is complete.

Finally, let us compute its Kähler potential, i.e. a real-valued function $`K`$ such that $`\omega =i\overline{}K`$. By Theorem 3.1, $`\omega =d\mu ,\theta `$. Therefore a Kähler potential will be a function $`K`$ such that $`2\mu ,\theta =IdK`$. i.e. $`dK=2\mu ,L`$. In our case the right-hand side becomes $`2f(|h|)h,dh`$, which means that $`K=K(|h|)`$ with $`K(t)`$ satisfying $`\frac{dK}{dt}=tf`$. This shows that the Kähler potential has the form stated in Theorem 3 (up to a constant multiple).

## Appendix A Entire $`W`$-invariant solutions of Monge-Ampère equations

We wish to show existence and regularity of entire solutions to a class of Monge-Ampère equations

(A.1)
$$f(\varphi )detD_{ij}\varphi =g(x)$$

where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are nonnegative functions on $`^n`$. We recall first the concept of a weak solution of (A.1). Let $`\varphi `$ be a convex function. Then $`\varphi `$ is a well-defined multi-valued mapping: $`(\varphi )(x)`$ is the set of slopes of all supporting hyperplanes to the graph of $`\varphi `$ at $`(x,\varphi (x))`$. If $`B`$ is a subset of $`^n`$, let $`\varphi (B)`$ be its image in the multi-valued sense. Then $`\varphi `$ is a weak solution of (A.1) if

$$_Bg(x)𝑑x=_{\varphi (B)}f(y)𝑑y$$

for every Borel set $`B`$. Let us denote the right-hand side by $`\omega (B,\varphi ,f)`$. It can be shown that it is a Borel measure on $`^n`$. A basic result is that if $`u_ku`$ compactly and $`f_kf`$ uniformly, then $`\omega (,u_k,f_k)`$ converges to $`\omega (,u,f)`$ weakly, i.e. as functionals on the space of compactly supported continuous functions.

After these preliminaries we are going to prove:

###### Theorem A.1.

Let $`WO(n)`$ be a finite reflection group acting irreducibly on $`^n`$ and let $`f,g`$ be two nonnegative $`W`$-invariant functions on $`^n`$. Furthermore, assume that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are locally bounded and that

$$_^nf=+\mathrm{}.$$

Then there exists a (weak) $`W`$-invariant solution $`\varphi :^n`$ of the Monge-Ampère equation (A.1). Moreover $`\varphi `$ is convex and Lipschitz continuous.

###### Proof.

Put $`f_k=f+1/k`$ and $`g_k=g+1/k`$, $`k_+`$. Let $`B_r`$ denote the ball of radius $`r`$ centred at the origin. Let $`R_k`$ be a number defined by

$$_{B_{R_k}}f_k=_{B_k}g_k.$$

According to  there exists a unique (up to a constant) strictly convex solution $`\varphi _k`$ of

(A.2)
$$f_k(\varphi _k)detD_{ij}\varphi _k=g_k(x)$$

which is of class $`C^{1,\beta }`$, for some $`\beta >0`$, and such that $`\varphi _k`$ maps $`B_k`$ onto $`B_{R_k}`$. Moreover, as $`WO(n)`$ and all the data is $`W`$-invariant, $`\varphi _k`$ is $`W`$-invariant (this follows from uniqueness, since $`\varphi _kw`$ is also a solution of (A.2)). To prove the existence of a weak solution to (A.1), defined on all of $`^n`$, it is enough to show that the functions $`\varphi _k`$ are uniformly (in $`k`$) bounded on any ball $`B_R`$, $`kR`$. Indeed, a bounded sequence of convex functions on a bounded open convex domain has a convergent subsequence. This follows from the elementary fact, which we will use repeatedly, that the slopes of supporting hyperplanes of a convex function, bounded by $`R`$ on a domain $`G`$, are bounded by $`2R/\delta `$ on any subdomain $`G^{}`$ such that $`\text{dist}(G^{},G)\delta `$.

Let us show that the functions $`\varphi _k`$, $`kR`$, are bounded on $`B_R`$ uniformly in $`k`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a minimal set of reflections generating $`W`$ and consider a subgroup $`W^{}`$ of $`W`$ generated by $`n1`$ elements of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`L`$ be the one-dimensional subspace of $`^n`$ fixed by $`W^{}`$. Since $`\varphi _k`$ is $`W`$-invariant, $`\varphi _k`$ maps $`L`$ to itself. We claim that $`\varphi _k`$ are uniformly bounded on $`LB_R`$. Suppose that they are not. Then there exists a subsequence $`k_j`$ such that $`\varphi _{k_j}`$ maps $`LB_R`$ onto $`LB_{s_j}`$ ($`\varphi _k`$, being $`W`$-invariant, satisfy $`\varphi _k(0)=0`$), where $`s_j+\mathrm{}`$. Now consider the unique solution $`\psi _k`$, $`\psi _k(0)=0`$, to the equation

$$g_k(\psi _k)detD_{ij}\psi _k=f_k(y)$$

mapping $`B_{R_{k_j}}`$ onto $`B_{k_j}`$. According to , $`\psi _k`$ is the inverse of $`\varphi _k`$. Thus $`\psi _{k_j}`$ maps $`LB_{s_j}`$ onto $`LB_R`$. It follows that the functions $`\psi _{k_j}`$ are uniformly bounded (by $`rR`$) on any $`LB_r`$ (for sufficiently large $`j`$). As the $`\psi _{k_j}`$ are $`W`$-invariant and convex, they are bounded by $`rR`$ on the convex hull of the set $`W(LB_r)`$. Since $`W`$ acts irreducibly, $`WL`$ generates $`^n`$ and so the sets $`\text{conv}\left(W(LB_r)\right)`$ cover $`^n`$. In fact, there is a number $`\delta (0,1)`$, such that $`B_{\delta r}\text{conv}\left(W(LB_r)\right)`$ for any $`r`$. It follows that there is a subsequence of $`\psi _{k_j}`$ convergent to a convex solution $`\psi :^n`$ of

$$g(\psi )detD_{ij}\psi =f.$$

The function $`\psi `$ is bounded by $`Rr/\delta `$ on any $`B_r`$. Since $`\psi `$ is convex, $`\psi `$ is bounded by $`4R/\delta `$ on $`B_{r/2}`$. Thus $`U=\psi \left(^n\right)`$ is contained in $`B_{4R/\delta }`$. However

$$+\mathrm{}=_^nf=_Ug,$$

which leads to a contradiction.

We have shown so far that $`\varphi _k`$ are uniformly bounded on $`LB_R`$. Therefore the $`\varphi _k`$ are bounded on $`LB_R`$ (we assume $`\varphi _k(0)=0`$). The argument applied before to $`\psi _k`$ can now be used for the $`\varphi _k`$: since $`WL`$ generates $`^n`$ and $`\varphi _k`$ are convex and $`W`$-invariant, $`\varphi _k`$ are bounded on every compact subset of $`^n`$. Thus there exists a Lipschitz continuous limit of some subsequence. ∎

###### Proposition A.2.

Suppose, in addition, that $`_^ng>0`$. Then any entire $`W`$-invariant convex solution $`\varphi `$ of (A.1) is a proper function.

###### Proof.

First of all, the assumption on $`g`$ implies that $`\varphi `$ cannot be a bounded function. Indeed, otherwise $`\varphi `$, being convex and defined on all of $`^n`$, is constant.
Let $`C_W`$ denote the polytopal complex of $`W`$, i.e. all hyperplanes fixed by reflections in $`W`$ and all their intersections. We proceed by induction on $`dimL`$, $`LC_W\{^n\}`$, to show that $`\varphi `$ is proper on all elements of $`C_W\{^n\}`$. Let $`L`$ be a $`1`$-dimensional element of $`C_W`$. Then $`\varphi `$ is proper on $`L`$, since otherwise $`\varphi `$ would be bounded (as $`\text{conv}(WL))`$ is all of $`^n`$). Now assume that $`\varphi `$ is proper on all $`p`$-dimensional elements of $`C_W`$. Let $`LC_W`$, $`dimL=p+1`$. We claim that $`\varphi `$ is actually proper on the vector space $`V_L`$ spanned by $`L`$. Indeed, otherwise there is a number $`K`$ and a set of points $`x_k\mathrm{}`$ such that $`\varphi (x_k)K`$. For sufficiently large $`k`$, the points $`x_k`$ do not lie on $`p`$-dimensional elements of $`C_W`$ contained in $`L`$. There is a reflection subgroup $`W^{}W`$ acting on $`V_L`$. By taking the intervals joining points of $`W^{}x_k`$, for each $`k`$, we obtain a contradiction, as these intervals intersect the $`p`$-dimensional elements of $`C_W`$ contained in $`L`$ and $`\varphi `$ is convex. ∎

###### Corollary A.3.

In the situation of Theorem A.1 suppose, in addition, that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are strictly positive and of class $`C^{p,\alpha }`$. Then any entire $`W`$-invariant convex solution $`\varphi `$ of (A.1) is $`C^{p+2,\alpha }`$.

###### Remark .

It is well-known that the conclusion of this corollary does not hold for solutions which are not $`W`$-invariant.

###### Proof.

We can apply Corollary 2 in  to the convex (and bounded by the last proposition) set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\{x;\varphi (x)c\}`$. Doing this for every $`c`$ shows that $`\varphi `$ is strictly convex. Now the main result of  implies that $`\varphi `$ is of class $`C^{1,\beta }`$. Therefore $`\varphi `$ is Hölder continuous and $`\varphi `$ is a solution of $`detD_{ij}\varphi =\stackrel{~}{g}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{g}=g/f(\varphi )`$ is of class $`C^{0,\beta }`$. We can apply Theorem 2 in  to $`u(x)=\varphi (x)c`$, $`c`$ and the convex and bounded set $`\mathrm{\Omega }_c=\{x;u(x)0\}`$ to conclude that $`\varphi `$ is of class $`C^{2,\beta }`$. Higher regularity is standard. ∎

###### Acknowledgment .

It is a pleasure to thank David Calderbank for comments; in particular for his suggestion that the Hamiltonian ansatz of section 4 can be stated in a form suitable for non-compact groups.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

In the study of AdS/CFT correspondence , the instantons are of particular interest as a non-perturbative probe. They entered in the subject through the work of Dorey, et al works , where they showed that, the Yang-Mills multi-instanton measure is related to the D-instanton counterpart in the gravity theory of the bulk. To reach this correspondence, the saddle point approximation is used for $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills in the large $`N`$ limit and the result is that the integral measure of YM instantons is equivalent to the D(-1)-brane (D-Instanton) effective action in the bulk. Moreover in the large $`N`$ and large $`k`$ limit ($`k`$ is the instantons number), the effective action corresponds to the $`U(k)`$ matrix model in IIB theory which, in turn is the D-Instanton effective action.

Since for $`SU(N)`$ gauge theory, every instanton lives in a $`SU(2)`$ subgroup, actually, the integration over zero modes of the gauge orientations in $`SU(N)`$ gives effectively the moduli of the instanton in $`SU(2)`$. Beside following the method of integration over zero modes and saddle point approximation for large $`N`$ limit, it is worth to ask for a direct relation between the moduli space of YM instantons on the boundary and the moduli space of D-instantons on the bulk.

However, we know that the moduli of the D-instanton is the $`AdS_5`$ itself, but it is not so clear for the YM instanton moduli. The most natural metric for the YM instanton moduli is the usual $`L^2`$ metric in the field configuration space. However, this metric for a single instanton on $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ is a flat metric and for an instanton on $`S^4`$ (which is the $`AdS_5`$ boundary) is a very complicated metric . It means with $`L^2`$ metric the direct map between two moduli spaces in gauge theory and gravity sides is impossible. Therefore, we need a new definition for the metric on the moduli space.

Fortunately, as proposed by Blau, et al, there exists an interesting metric on the YM instantons moduli called Information Metric (formerly introduced in ) which can do the job. This metric is constructed simply by the Instanton density $`\mathrm{Tr}_NF^2`$ (see (3.2)) and has the important property of conformal invariance which makes it a good candidate metric for the boundary theory.

It has been shown in , that the Information Metric for a single instanton on $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ (and also on $`S^4`$) is an $`AdS_5`$ metric in which the radial coordinate corresponds to the instanton size and the other transverse coordinates indicate the location of instanton in $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$. Therefore, this is the exact correspondence between YM instanton moduli space and the D-instanton location in the Supergravity Theory. Moreover, in , the authors consider possible small fluctuations of the base geometry around $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and find the correction to the $`AdS_5`$ metric. In this direction, one can think about another deformation of $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$, particularly non-commutative $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$, and look for the corresponding instanton moduli and compare it with the Supergravity side.

On the gravity side, it is worth mentioning the work of Maldacena and Russo  in which the AdS/CFT correspondence is understood as correspondence of the non-commutative YM theories in the boundary to Supergravity with anti-symmetric $`B`$ field in the bulk. The latter has an Einstein metric (in selfdual $`B`$ background ) and contains the D-instantons. The non-commutativity is related to the boundary value of $`1/B`$. So in this context, it is quiet natural to expect that an extension of YM instantons to the $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ background may have a correspondence to the Supergravity D-instantons in the Maldacena-Russo background.

On the other hand, in the gauge theory side, the non-commutative instantons are also well-known. The general prescription, as a non-commutative version of ADHM construction , introduced in the work by Nekrasov and Schwarz in  and the more explicit solutions for the non-commutative ADHM equations are discussed in several works .

The purpose of this letter is to extend the idea of the Information Metric to the NC single $`SU(N)`$ instanton and find the relation with the D-instanton in , if any.

The extension needs a careful definition for the Information Metric in the NC background. To overcome some technical problems and to recover the commutative case, we study the Information Metric in the small non-commutativity limit. By proposing a modified definition for the Information Metric, we can relate it to the Supergravity metric in the first order of approximation.

## 2 Non-Commutative Instantons

In the following subsections, the instanton construction in a non-commutative space is reviewed along which we introduce our notations.

2.1 Non-Commutative $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$

Let us start by the non-commutative Euclidean four dimensional space, $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$. In general, the non-commutativity is defined by the commutator of coordinates as follows,

$`[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (2.1)
where $`\theta `$ is a real anti-symmetric constant tensor. If we consider $`\theta `$ to be a rank 4 tensor, then by four dimensional rotations and re-scaling, it is possible to transform it to the following form,

$`\theta ^{12}=\pm \theta ^{34}`$ (2.2)
with the other components equal to zero. In (2.2), the $`+`$ and $``$ signs define self-dual and anti-selfdual $`\theta `$ tensor, respectively. We use self-dual $`\theta `$ in this letter and set $`\theta ^{12}=\theta ^{34}\zeta /2`$. It can be converted to the anti-self-dual case by a parity transformation.

It is also convenient to use complex coordinates defined as:

$`z_1=x_2+ix_1,\overline{z}_1=x_2ix_1,`$ (2.3)
$`z_2=x_4+ix_3,\overline{z}_2=x_4ix_3.`$ (2.4)
Then, the commutation relations will be

$`[z_i,\overline{z}_j]=\zeta \delta _{ij}`$ (2.5)
The above commutators have a harmonic oscillator representation in which coordinates $`z`$ act as operators on the basis $`|n_1,n_2`$ as follows,

$`z_1|n_1,n_2=\sqrt{\zeta }\sqrt{n_1+1}|n_1+1,n_2,\overline{z}_1|n_1,n_2=\sqrt{\zeta }\sqrt{n_1}|n_11,n_2,`$ (2.6)
$`z_2|n_1,n_2=\sqrt{\zeta }\sqrt{n_2+1}|n_1,n_2+1,\overline{z}_2|n_1,n_2=\sqrt{\zeta }\sqrt{n_2}|n_1,n_21,`$ (2.7)
and as usual:

$`z_i\overline{z}_i|n_1,n_2=\zeta n_i|n_1,n_2,(i=1,2\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}).`$ (2.8)
The relation between operator valued functions and ordinary c-functions can be obtained by the following map:

$`\mathrm{\Omega }:\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{z},\widehat{\overline{z}})\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(z,\overline{z})=z|\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{z},\widehat{\overline{z}})|\overline{z},`$ (2.9)
where $`|\overline{z}`$ and $`z|`$ are the normalized coherent states,

$`\widehat{\overline{z}}|\overline{z}=\overline{z}|\overline{z},z|\widehat{z}=z|z,z|\overline{z}=1.`$ (2.10)
In this map, one can also relate sum over states to an integral over functions as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }:(\zeta \pi )^2\mathrm{Tr}_{}\widehat{\varphi }(\widehat{z},\widehat{\overline{z}}){\displaystyle d^4z\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(z,\overline{z})}`$ (2.11)
where $``$ is the representing Hilbert space.

2.2 The ADHM Construction of Instantons

SD or ASD instantons are defined as field configurations for SD or ASD Yang-Mills field, respectively, and subject to the constraint,

$`Q:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4x\mathrm{Tr}_NF}F=\pm k`$ (2.12)
where $`Q`$ is known as the instanton charge and its absolute value is an integer constant $`k`$. The sign $`\pm `$ corresponds to SD or ASD instantons, respectively.

The solutions can be found by an algebraic ansatz so-called ADHM construction . Here, we briefly review the construction.

Firstly, consider an $`(N+2k)\times (2k)`$ matrix $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ which is linear in coordinates as follows,

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}+b_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}x_{[2]\times [2]}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{SD}\mathrm{Instantons}`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}+b_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}\overline{x}_{[2]\times [2]}\mathrm{for}\mathrm{ASD}\mathrm{Instantons}`$ (2.13)
where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are constant complex valued matrices and we have used quaternionic representation for coordinates $`x_\mu `$,

$`\overline{x}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{z}_1& z_2\\ \overline{z}_2& z_1\end{array}\right),x=\left(\begin{array}{cc}z_1& z_2\\ \overline{z}_2& \overline{z}_1\end{array}\right)`$ (2.14)
Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ has $`N`$ more rows than columns, it has an $`N`$ dimensional null space. We put independent null vectors of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ in an $`(N+2k)\times N`$ dimensional matrix $`U(x)`$, i.e.,

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{[2k]\times [N+2k]}U_{[N+2k]\times [N]}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.15)
$`\overline{U}_{[N]\times [N+2k]}\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (2.16)
with the normalization condition,

$`\overline{U}_{[N]\times [N+2k]}U_{[N+2k]\times [N]}=1_{[N]\times [N]}.`$ (2.17)
Then the gauge potential in this ansatz will be derived from $`U`$ as follows,

$`A_{\mu [N]\times [N]}=\overline{U}_{[N]\times [N+2k]}_\mu U_{[N+2k]\times [N]}`$ (2.18)
To have an ASD or SD $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ for non-zero $`k`$, we need two additional conditions.

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{[2k]\times [N+2k]}\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}=1_{[2]\times [2]}f_{[k]\times [k]}^1`$ (2.19)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}f_{[k]\times [k]}\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}_{[2k]\times [N+2k]}+U_{[N+2k]\times [N]}\overline{U}_{[N]\times [N+2k]}=1_{[N+2k]\times [N+2k]}`$ (2.20)
where $`f`$ is an arbitrary $`x`$-dependent $`k\times k`$ matrix. Using the above relations, it is easy to write the instanton field strength as,

$`F_{\mu \nu }^{ASD}`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{U}b\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }f\overline{b}U`$ (2.21)
$`F_{\mu \nu }^{SD}`$ $`=`$ $`4\overline{U}b\sigma _{\mu \nu }f\overline{b}U`$ (2.22)
where

$`\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\overline{\eta }_{\mu \nu }^a\tau ^a\mathrm{and}\sigma _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}i\eta _{\mu \nu }^a\tau ^a`$ (2.23)
with $`\eta _{\mu \nu }^a`$’s the standard ’tHooft symbols and $`\tau ^a`$ the Pauli matrices. The anti-selfduality (selfduality) of $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ comes simply from anti-selfduality (selfduality) of $`\overline{\sigma }_{\mu \nu }(\sigma _{\mu \nu })`$, respectively.

The above construction is valid for non-commutative case too. In the non-commutative case we must care about the coordinates which are operators. To be more specific, we convert $`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ to the following matrix form,

$`\overline{\mathrm{\Delta }}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}I& B_1^{}\overline{z}_1& B_2+z_2\\ J^{}& B_2^{}\overline{z}_2& B_1z_1\end{array}\right)`$ (2.24)
where $`I_{[k]\times [N+k]}`$, $`J_{[N+k]\times [k]}`$ and $`B_{[k]\times [k]}`$ are constant matrices including in the matrix $`a_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$ in (2). Then the condition (2.19) is equivalent to the following equations known as ADHM equations in the non-commutative space ,

$`[B_1,B_1^{}]+[B_2,B_2^{}]+II^{}J^{}J=[z_1,\overline{z}_1]+[z_2,\overline{z}_2]=\zeta `$ (2.25)
$`[B_1,B_2^{}]+IJ^{}=0`$ (2.26)
2.3 $`k=1`$ Instantons

The main subject in the ADHM ansatz is to construct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`U`$ such that the conditions (2.19) and (2.20) are satisfied. Even in the commutative case, it is difficult to solve the problem for an arbitrary $`k`$. Here we recall the final solution for one instanton ($`k=1`$) in the commutative $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$:

$`F^{\mu \nu }=4\eta _{\mu \nu }^a{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^2}{[(xa)^2+\rho ^2]^2}}`$ (2.27)
$`\mathrm{Tr}_NF^2=96{\displaystyle \frac{\rho ^4}{[(xa)^2+\rho ^2]^4}}`$ (2.28)
where $`\rho `$ and $`a^\mu `$ are the instanton size and location, respectively. These parameters are usually encoded in the matrix $`a_{[N+2k]\times [2k]}`$.

For the non-commutative $`𝐑_{\mathrm{𝐍𝐂}}^\mathrm{𝟒}`$ and $`k=1`$, we look at the ASD instanton in the SD non-commutative backgroundThe moduli of ASD instantons on ASD background is equivalent to the commutative case, since the instanton equations in both commutative cases and non-commutative cases are the same by the Seiberg-Witten map . and according to  (see also ) the result will be as follows,

$`\mathrm{Tr}_NF^2=S_1p+S_2`$ (2.29)
where the instanton is located at the origin and

$`S_1`$ $`:=`$ $`4\left((C_1^2+C_4^2)z^2(z^2+\zeta )+2C_2^2(z^2{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2}})z^2\right)`$
$`S_2`$ $`:=`$ $`8C_3^2(z^2+\zeta )(z^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3\zeta }{2}}).`$ (2.30)
with

$`C_1`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(\rho ^2+\zeta )}{z^2(z^2+\rho ^2+\frac{\zeta }{2})(z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta )}}`$
$`C_2`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho \sqrt{\rho ^2+\zeta }}{z^2(z^2+\rho ^2+\frac{\zeta }{2})(z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta }{z^2+\rho ^2}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`C_3`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho \sqrt{\rho ^2+\zeta }}{(z^2+\zeta )(z^2+\rho ^2+\frac{3\zeta }{2})(z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta )}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta }{z^2+\rho ^2+2\zeta }}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`C_4`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\rho ^2}{(z^2+\zeta )(z^2+\rho ^2+\frac{3\zeta }{2})(z^2+\rho ^2+\zeta )}}`$
$`z^2`$ $`:=`$ $`z_1\overline{z}_1+z_2\overline{z}_2`$
and $`p`$ is a projection operator which excludes $`|0,0`$ state. The matrix representation of $`F^2`$ in $`|n_1,n_2`$ basis is obtained simply by replacing $`z^2`$ with $`\zeta n/2\zeta /2(n_1+n_2)`$ and it will be diagonal as expected from the radial symmetry of $`F^2`$ in four dimensional space $`𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}`$.

It can be shown that the instanton charge for this case is indeed exactly $`1`$, ,

$`Q={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4z\mathrm{Tr}_NF^2(z^2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{}}n_1,n_2|\mathrm{Tr}_N\widehat{F}^2|n_1,n_2`$ (2.31)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{64}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(n+1)F^2(\zeta n/2)=1`$
where $`F^2(\zeta n/2)`$ is the matrix element of $`\mathrm{Tr}_N\widehat{F}^2`$.

## 3 The Information Metric

As stated in the introduction, the Information Metric is an alternative to construct the geometry of the instantons moduli space. It can be defined in terms of the field density as follows,

$`G_{AB}`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4zF^2_A\mathrm{log}F^2_B\mathrm{log}F^2}`$ (3.2)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle d^4z\frac{_AF^2_BF^2}{F^2}}`$
where $`F^2\mathrm{Tr}_NF^2`$ and $`_A/y^A`$ in which $`y^A`$ are the moduli space parameters and correspond to the location and size of instantons, $`y^A=(a^\mu ,\rho )`$.

Firstly, let us quote from , the resulting metric for the commutative single instanton (2.27),

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\left(d\stackrel{}{a}^2+d\rho ^2\right)`$ (3.3)
The above metric is the well-known Euclidean $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$ metric. This result shows that the moduli space of YM-Instanton equipped with the Information Metric has exactly the bulk geometry in the AdS/CFT context. This is the most direct correspondence between YM-Instantons and D-Instantons. In the following, we consider possible definitions of the Information Metric for the NC YM-Instantons to explore this correspondence more.

The natural extension of the Information Metric to a non-commutative instanton, is to replace the commutative $`F^2`$ in (3.2) by its operator version in non-commutative case (2.29). The integration is also replaced by a Trace over Hilbert Space of non-commutative space. So, we start with the following definition:

$`G_{AB}:={\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2\mathrm{Tr}_{}\widehat{F}^2_A\mathrm{log}\widehat{F}^2_B\mathrm{log}\widehat{F}^2`$ (3.4)
or

$`G_{AB}:={\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2\mathrm{Tr}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{F}^2}}_A\widehat{F}^2_B\widehat{F}^2.`$ (3.5)
The first difficulty arises here with the ambiguity in ordering of the terms. We can use the symmetry between the indices $`A`$ and $`B`$ in the metric to fix the position of $`_AF^2`$ and $`_BF^2`$ by symmetrizing them. The position of $`\frac{1}{F^2}`$ is still ambiguous, and we can consider either of two cases bellow,

$`G_{AB}^{(1)}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2\mathrm{Tr}_{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{F}^2}}_{\{A}\widehat{F}^2_{B\}}\widehat{F}^2`$ (3.6)
$`G_{AB}^{(2)}`$ $`:=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2\mathrm{Tr}_{}_{\{A}\widehat{F}^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{F}^2}}_{B\}}\widehat{F}^2.`$ (3.7)
However, it can be shown that for the radially symmetric class of solutions (including (2.29)), both $`G_{AB}^{(1)}`$ and $`G_{AB}^{(2)}`$ have the same result. Moreover, the Information Metric is diagonal in this case.

To calculate the Information Metric, firstly, we need the derivatives of $`F^2`$. Here, we put the instanton at the point with complex coordinates $`(a_i,\overline{a}_i)`$, now taking

$`z_i`$ $`=`$ $`x_ia_i`$
$`\overline{z}_i`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{x}_i\overline{a}_i.`$
Note that the non-commutative algebra (2.5) is valid for both $`z`$ and $`x`$ coordinates. Then we have the following derivatives involved in the Information Metric:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{a_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{z_i}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}[\overline{z}_i,\widehat{F}^2]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\overline{a}_i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\overline{z}_i}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}[z_i,\widehat{F}^2]`$ (3.8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\rho }}`$ .
We use the harmonic oscillator basis to find the matrix elements of terms in (3.5) as follows,

$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{F}^2}}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F^2(\zeta n/2)}}\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{n}}`$
$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\rho }}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{F^2(\zeta n/2)}{\rho }}\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{n}}`$
$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{a_1}}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}}\left(W(n1)\sqrt{n_1}\delta _{m_1+1,n_1}\delta _{m_2n_2}S_1(0)\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}0}\delta _{n_11}\delta _{n_20}\right)`$
$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{a_2}}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}}\left(W(n1)\sqrt{n_2}\delta _{m_2+1,n_2}\delta _{m_1n_1}S_1(0)\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}0}\delta _{n_21}\delta _{n_10}\right)`$
$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\overline{a}_1}}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}}\left(W(n)\sqrt{n_1+1}\delta _{m_11,n_1}\delta _{m_2n_2}S_1(0)\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}0}\delta _{n_11}\delta _{n_20}\right)`$
$`m_1,m_2|{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{F}^2}{\overline{a}_2}}|n_1,n_2`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}}\left(W(n)\sqrt{n_2+1}\delta _{m_21,n_2}\delta _{m_1n_1}S_1(0)\delta _{\stackrel{}{m}0}\delta _{n_10}\delta _{n_21}\right)`$
where $`W(n)S_1(\zeta n/2)+S_2(\zeta n/2)`$ and $`n=n_1+n_2`$.

Now, one can write the Information Metric as follows,§§§As mentioned before, we know that in the end of calculation we will have $`G_{AB}^{(1)}=G_{AB}^{(2)}G_{AB}`$.

$`G_{AB}={\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta \pi }{2}})^2{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{n},\stackrel{}{m},\stackrel{}{k}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\stackrel{}{n}|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F^2}}|\stackrel{}{m}\stackrel{}{m}|_{\{A}F^2|\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{k}|_{B\}}F^2|\stackrel{}{n}`$ (3.10)
The sums over two indices, say $`m`$ and $`k`$, can be done easily by the help of Kronecker delta functions in (3) and the non-vanishing components will be as follows,

$`G_{\rho \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2(0,0)}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(W(n)/\rho )^2}{W(n)}}+H_0\right)`$ (3.11)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1){\displaystyle \frac{(W(n)/\rho )^2}{W(n)}}+H_0\right)`$
$`G_{a_i\overline{a}_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2(0,0)}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{n_i(T(n1))^2+(n_i+1)(T(n))^2}{2W(n)}}+G_0\right)`$ (3.12)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1){\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle \frac{n(T(n1))^2+(n+2)(T(n))^2}{4W(n)}}+G_0\right)`$
where,

$`H_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(S_2(0)/\rho )^2}{S_2(0)}}`$ (3.13)
$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(S_1(0))^22T(0)S_1(0)}{2W(1)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(T(0)S_1(0))^2}{2S_2(0)}}\right)`$ (3.14)
and $`T(n)=W(n)W(n+1)`$. We have also used the following identities for summations over $`n_1`$ and $`n_2`$,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g(n)n_1={\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g(n)n_2={\displaystyle \underset{n_1,n_2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}g(n)n/2={\displaystyle \underset{n}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)g(n)n/2`$
In contrast to (2.31), the resulting sum over $`n`$ for the Information Metric is too complicated to have an interesting interpretation. Here, we consider small non-commutativity approximation. Firstly , for the limit $`\zeta 0`$, the sums over $`n`$ go to an integral. It can be seen for a continuous function $`g`$ as follows,

$`\underset{\zeta 0}{lim}{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(n+1)g(n\zeta /2)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle _{\zeta /2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t({\displaystyle \frac{2t}{\zeta }}+1)g(t)+𝒪(\zeta ^2)`$ (3.15)
This approximation is valid up to the first order in $`\zeta `$. To check this limit, we apply it to the instanton charge formula (2.31),

$`Q`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{64}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(n+1)F^2(\zeta n/2)={\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{64}}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle _{\zeta /2}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑t({\displaystyle \frac{2t}{\zeta }}+1)F^2(t)+𝒪(\zeta ^2)`$ (3.16)
$`=`$ $`1+𝒪(\zeta ^2)`$
After converting the series in (3.11) and (3.12) to integrals, the components of the Information Metric can be obtained by expanding the integrands in a power series of $`\zeta `$ (while fixing $`t`$). The results are in the following,

$`G_{\rho \rho }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle _{\zeta /2}^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1536(\rho ^3\rho t)^2}{(\rho ^2+t)^6}}{\displaystyle \frac{9216(\rho ^3\rho t)^2\zeta }{(\rho ^2+t)^7}}+𝒪(\zeta ^2)\right)({\displaystyle \frac{2t}{\zeta }}+1)𝑑t+H_0\right)`$ (3.17)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\rho ^4}})\right)`$
$`G_{a_i\overline{a}_i}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\zeta }}{\displaystyle _{\zeta /2}^{\mathrm{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{192t\rho ^4}{(\rho ^2+t)^6}}+{\displaystyle \frac{96(2t^2\rho ^29t\rho ^4+\rho ^6)\zeta }{(\rho ^2+t)^7}}+𝒪(\zeta ^2)\right)({\displaystyle \frac{2t}{\zeta }}+1)𝑑t+G_0\right)`$ (3.18)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\rho ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{2\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{45\zeta }{64\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\rho ^4}})\right)`$
where the third term in the last equation is the contribution of $`G_0`$.The contribution of $`H_0`$ in (3.17) is in the second order of $`\zeta `$. Finally, we have the following metric,

$`ds^2=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{13\zeta }{64\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\rho ^4}})\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{a}^2}{\rho ^2}}+\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta ^2}{\rho ^4}})\right){\displaystyle \frac{d\rho ^2}{\rho ^2}}`$ (3.19)
Unfortunately, this metric does not agree with the expected results in Supergravity side. Actually, if we neglect the contribution of $`G_0`$, it will be in agreement with the SUGRA result (see section 4). This means excluding the ground state $`|0,0`$ from $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}`$ in the definitions of Information Metric. In the coherent states language, the $`\mathrm{Tr}_{}`$ is replaced by integral over $`z`$ coordinates and the exclusion of $`|0,0`$ state is equivalent to excluding the origin from the integration region. So we can use the following expression as Modified Information Metric,

$`\stackrel{~}{G}_{AB}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{^{}}}d^4zz|{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{F}^2}}_{\{A}\widehat{F}^2_{B\}}\widehat{F}^2|\overline{z}`$ (3.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{5}{256\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle _{^{}}}d^4z\stackrel{~}{({\displaystyle \frac{1}{F^2}})}\stackrel{~}{_{\{A}F^2}\stackrel{~}{_{B\}}F^2}`$
where $`^{}=𝐑^\mathrm{𝟒}𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}(\eta \zeta /2)`$ and $`𝐁^\mathrm{𝟎}(\eta \zeta /2)`$ is a ball centered at the origin with radius $`\eta \zeta /2`$. $`\stackrel{~}{F}^2`$ shows the representation of $`\widehat{F}^2`$ in the coherent state formalism (see equation (2.9)). Using approximation in the first order of $`\zeta `$, the resulting metric will be as follows,Note that the cut-off $`\eta `$ will not appear in the first order of $`\zeta `$.

$`\stackrel{~}{ds^2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}})^2\right)d\stackrel{}{a}^2`$ (3.21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}})^2\right)d\rho ^2`$
In the following section we will discussed the above metric as a good candidate for the instanton metric which can be matched with the Supergravity.

## 4 The AdS/CFT Correspondence

In the context of String Theory, the non-commutativity can be traced in a background which contains anti-symmetric $`B`$ field. Here, we consider an Anti-Selfdual $`B`$ field extended in four directions and the following solution will be derived from the Supergravity equations in Euclidean Space-Time,

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}R^2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\left[(f(u))^{1/2}(dx_0^2+\mathrm{}+dx_3^2)+(f(u))^{1/2}(du^2+u^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2)\right]`$ (4.1)
$`B_{01}`$ $`=`$ $`B_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{i\alpha ^{}a^2R^2}{\widehat{g}}}(f(u))^1`$ (4.2)
where $`R`$ is the radius of $`\mathrm{AdS}_5`$, $`\widehat{g}`$ is the normalized String coupling and

$`f(u)=a^4+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u^4}}.`$ (4.3)
The non-commutativity can be introduced as the parameter $`a^2`$ which is the inverse of $`B`$ in the limit $`u\mathrm{}`$. So we take $`a^2=\lambda \zeta `$, where $`\lambda `$ is a constant to control the $`B`$ field and $`\zeta `$ independently. Firstly, let us change the coordinate $`u`$ to $`w=1/u`$ which the latter has the length dimension,

$`ds^2={\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}R^2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}\left[(1+a^4w^4)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{}{x}^2}{w^2}}+(1+a^4w^4)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{dw^2}{w^2}}\right]`$ (4.4)
On the other hand, to compare our Informations Metrics (3.19) and (3.21) in the previous section with the metric (4.4), we consider the following change of variables,

$`w=\beta \rho \left(1+\beta _1{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+\beta _2({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}})^2+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (4.5)
where $`\beta `$ and $`\beta _i`$’s are arbitrary constants. Substituting (4.5) in the metric (4.4) will give the following result:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}R^2}{\sqrt{\widehat{g}}}}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta ^2\rho ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{2\beta _1\zeta }{\rho ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(6\beta _1^2+4\beta _2+\lambda ^2)\zeta ^2}{2\rho ^4}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}})^3)d\stackrel{}{x}^2`$ (4.6)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho ^2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{4\beta _1\zeta }{\rho ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{(16\beta _1^216\beta _2+\lambda ^2)\zeta ^2}{2\rho ^4}}+𝒪({\displaystyle \frac{\zeta }{\rho ^2}})^3)d\rho ^2]`$
Note that $`\lambda `$ does not appear in the first order of $`\zeta `$. Indeed, up to the first order term in $`\zeta /\rho ^2`$, choosing the following parameter will map both metrics (4.1) and (3.3) to the metric (3.21) resulting from Information Metric on the Instanton Moduli Space:

$`a^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{x^\mu }{\beta }}\beta _1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (4.7)
However, note that in this way, it is impossible to map the metric (3.19) to the metric in (4.4). So, it seems that only the modified metric in (3.21) is compatible with Supergravity at least, up to first order in $`\zeta `$.

## 5 Summary and Conclusion

In the commutative background a map between YM-Instantons and gravity D-Instantons Moduli can be obtained directly by the Information Metric on the YM-Instanton Moduli . We investigated a possible extension of the Information Metric to the non-commutative instantons. Firstly, we defined the Metric by simply replacing the instanton density by its operator version in the NC theory. This Metric can be calculated perturbatively in the non-commutativity parameter, $`\zeta `$. In the first order of $`\zeta `$, the naive definition of the metric is not in agreement with the Supergravity result.

We modified the definition by putting a cut-off around the location of instanton. This cut-off is a ball around the instanton with radius in order of $`\zeta `$. Now the modified Information Metric is compatible with the Maldacena-Russo type solutions in the supergravity , at least in the first order of $`\zeta `$.

The issue of higher order matching can shed more light on this idea that the (NC) YM-Instanton moduli space is isomorphic to the bulk space in the context of Gauge/Gravity correspondence. Note that this correspondence is different from the ordinary AdS/CFT since a) we are not using the conventional $`L^2`$ metric in the field configuration space, even in the commutative case, and b) this correspondence works for small rank and small instanton number.

The next important issue can be the multi-instanton moduli space. It can be restricted to the simple situation of dilute gas of instantons e. g. two separated instantons or very close two instantons for the latter case the commutative moduli is singular but the non-commutative moduli space can be considered as a resolution of the singularity and the Information Metric may have an interesting interpretation.

## Acknowledgment

The author is very grateful to Gautum Mandal and Spenta Wadia for very fruitful discussions and reading the manuscript. Thanks also to Anindya k. Biswas, Avinash Dhar, Rajesh Gopakumar and Sandip Trivedi for useful comments and discussions. This work was partially supported by a travel grant from the Institute for Studies in Theoretical Physics and Mathematics, Tehran, Iran.