text:
# An HST study of three very faint GRB host galaxies Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope, obtained from the data archive at the Space Telescope Institute. STScI is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc. under the NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the La Silla or Paranal Observatories under programme ID 60.A-0552. Based on observations made with the Nordic Optical Telescope, operated on the island of La Palma jointly by Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, in the Spanish Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos of the Instituto de Astrofiscia de Canarias

## 1 Introduction

There are two, possibly fundamentally different, classes of gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) – short and long duration bursts (being shorter and longer than $`1`$ second respectively). So far every GRB with an identified optical afterglow (OA) belongs to the class of long duration bursts, with the possible exception of GRB 000301C (Jensen et al., 2001). There are two general types of models for producing GRBs, the first involves the merging of binary compact stars (Paczyǹski, 1986), the second is related to the death of very massive stars (Woosley, 1993; MacFadyen & Woosley, 1999; Vietri & Stella, 1998). The observations of SN bumps, Fe K-line and OA localizations close to star-forming regions favour the latter type of models. Due to the relatively short lifetime of such massive stars, one expects them to exist in or very close to star-forming regions where they are born. Thanks to the extensive observational efforts in pursuing GRB events at various wavelengths there are now several examples where such positional correlations between the GRB OA and star forming regions in the host are seen, for instance Fynbo et al. (2000) (GRB 980425), Holland & Hjorth (1999) (GRB 990123), Hjorth et al. (2002) (GRB 980613), Bloom et al. (2001), Chary et al. (2002) and Frail et al. (2002) (GRB 010222). There are, however, a few cases in which the GRB does not seem to originate from intense star-forming regions (SFRs), eg. and GRB 990705 (Andersen et al., 2002).

In this paper we present localisations and host candidates of three OAs based on ground data and Hubble Space Telescope (HST) STIS imaging data from the Cycle 9 program GO-8640 “A Survey of the Host Galaxies of Gamma-Ray Bursts” (Holland et al., 2000) (data and further information available at http://www.ifa.au.dk/~hst/grb\_hosts/index.html). In Section 2 we describe the image processing applied to the data, in Section 3 the astrometry resulting in the OA STIS-image localisations is described. In Sections 46 we indentify the hosts, present photometry and discuss the host environment. Finally, in Section 7 we discuss the implications of our localisations and host identifications. Specifically, we re-compute using our host identifications, the probability computed in Bloom et al. (2002) that none of the host identifications in that sample are random galaxies. Finally, we summarize our own results.

## 2 Data

Using the STIS-instrument onboard the HST the GRB-systems were observed using a four-point dithering pattern with shifts of 2.5 pixels ($``$ 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$127) between exposures. The data was pre-processed using the standard STIS pipeline and combined using the DITHER (v2.0) software (Fruchter & Hook, 2002) as implemented in IRAF111Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF), a software system distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO). (v2.11.3) and STSDAS (v2.3). The STIS images were drizzled using ’pixfrac=0.6’ and ’scale=0.5’ (giving a pixel size of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$0254). Note that drizzling introduces correlated noise between neighbouring pixels. All GRB-systems were observed using the STIS 50CCD (hereafter CL) passband with pivotal wavelength PivW$`=5851.5`$Å. GRB 980329 was also observed using the STIS F28X50LP (hereafter LP) passband, PivW$`=7228.5`$ Å.

The photometry was performed in circular or elliptical apertures, as appropriate, according to the morphology of the host. The size of the apertures was selected so as to measure the total flux, by first choosing a plausible shape and then increasing the size until no gain in flux could be achieved. The sky was measured in an annulus with corresponding shape to the object aperture and with inner and outer annulus 1.5 and 4 times the object aperture. For the STIS zero-points, we adopted the values found by Gardner et al. (2000) for the HDF-south. The zero-points used were therefore ZP$`{}_{CL}{}^{}=26.387`$ and ZP$`{}_{LP}{}^{}=25.291`$. Foreground (Galaxy) extinction estimates were computed using the on-line NED extinction calculator222http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/ based on the dust maps provided by Schlegel et al. (1998).

Signal-to-noise (S/N) estimates of the host detections were computed as the ratio between the measured counts in a circular aperture centered on the object and the sky variance as measured from 10 similar apertures at random positions (on the sky). The (circular) aperture diameter used was 19, 19, and 9 for GRB 980329, GRB 980519 and GRB 990308, respectively. Note that the errors on the photometry is computed as in IRAF DAOPHOT/APPHOT and does not necessarily correspond to the S/N estimates.

The host pixel positions were determined by using the IRAF/APPHOT CENTER task and the ’centroid’ algorithm therein. The ’centroid’ algorithm computes the intensity weighted means of the marginal profiles in x and y. The results are given in Table 1.

Throughout this paper we use the following cosmological parameters; $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.7`$, $`H_0=70`$ km s-1 Mpc-1.

## 3 Astrometry

The procedure used for relative astrometry from ground-based images of the afterglow to the STIS data depends on the available ground-based data, but for all three objects least squares affine transformations were used. An affine transformation is the simplest possible transformation which allows for deviations from square pixels in reference and target images. It is known that some of our ground-based reference data were obtained with CCDs which have slightly non-square pixels. As we were not able to establish any clear correlation between position and astrometric residuals, it is justified to keep all transformations strictly linear, as is also preferred with a limited number of tie objects. The accuracy by which the position of a (point) source in a well sampled image can be determined is dependent on the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) with which the source is detected, and the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of the point spread function (PSF). For low S/N the astrometric standard error per axis can be approximated with $`\sigma _{\mathrm{pos}}=\sigma _{\mathrm{PSF}}/(S/N)`$, where $`\sigma _{\mathrm{PSF}}`$ is the standard deviation of the Gaussian approximating the PSF, which formally equals FWHM/2.35. For high S/N, accuracy is limited by errors in the detector pixel geometry, usually at the level of 1/20 of a pixel or less. If the S/N is significantly above 20 or the FWHM is sampled by less than about 3 pixels, this approximation of the astrometric error is not valid. Whenever several individual images of the afterglow is available, a transformation to the STIS reference frame is established for each image. As the error in the transformed afterglow position in the STIS image is always completely dominated by the astrometric error in the ground-based image, the errors of individual transformed afterglow positions are in practice independent. The standard deviation of the transformed positions is therefore an estimate of the actual astrometric error.

## 4 GRB 980329

GRB 980329 was detected by the BeppoSAX satellite on 1998 March 29.16 UT. The radio and optical counterparts were discovered by Taylor et al. (1998) and Djorgovski et al. (1998), respectively. The latter claimed the detection of the host galaxy at an apparent magnitude of R $`25.7`$. Palazzi et al. (1998),Gorosabel et al. (1999),Reichart et al. (1999) presented optical and near infrared detections of the OA and found it to decay at a rate typical for most detected OAs ($`\alpha _O1.2`$). This decay slope is in good agreement with that found in X-rays, where $`\alpha _X=1.35\pm 0.03`$ (in ’t Zand et al., 1998). The maximum measured (early) brightness of the OA was I $`=20.8`$ and R$`=23.6`$, leading to an extremely red colour R$``$I $`=2.8\pm 0.4`$ (Reichart et al., 1999). Near-infrared (NIR) observations, on the other hand, showed that the NIR colours are approximately flat. These measurements led Fruchter (1999) to argue that the red colour could be caused by the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest if the redshift was z $`5`$. This claim was subsequently challenged by the apparent non-detection of a Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest in Keck II spectra (Djorgovski et al., 2001). Recently, Yost et al. (2002) presented supplementary multi-wavelength broad-band photometry of this burst and claim to rule out z $`5`$ based on an afterglow model fit to the data. The NIR photometry shows that the HST/NICMOS October 1998 data (GO-7863, PI: A. Fruchter) contains a significant contribution from the OA and therefore it is not suited for host photometry. The GRB has also been found to be heavily extincted by dust (see Lamb et al., 1999; Bloom et al., 2002; Yost et al., 2002).

We retrieved NTT/EMMI R-band images of GRB 980329 from the ESO archive, obtained on March 29.99 and 30.99 (Palazzi et al., 1998). As the afterglow was detected at low signal-to-noise in the late-time images, the astrometry was in this case derived from the combined image. Seven tie objects were used for the astrometric solution. The astrometric error, as estimated from the residual of the tie object fit, is estimated to be about 1.25 drizzled STIS pixels, or 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$03, which should be compared with an expected error of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$02, as estimated from the S/N of the OA image. The error in the transformation from STIS CL to the STIS LP image is a small fraction of a drizzled STIS pixel and can therefore be ignored. The best fit localisation in the CL image is given in Table 1.

An excerpt of the STIS CL and LP images are shown in Fig.1 centered on the host and indicating the OA position. In the CL image several unresolved knots are seen on top of a low surface brightness area within an aperture of 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$5. The measured ABMAG in the CL-band within this aperture is $`27.5\pm 0.2`$. In the LP image an extended object is seen, but the knots seen in the CL-band are not detected. We find $`26.6\pm 0.2`$ within the same aperture in the LP-band. Foreground extinction corrected photometry and detection signficance estimates are given in Table 2. Photometry of the three brightest knots yields a total magnitude of $`28.1\pm 0.1`$ in the CL-band and $`27.7\pm 0.2`$ in LP. The flux in the LP measurement stems primarily from the underlying galaxy complex. Within an arc-second of the OA position at least two fainter extended objects or structures are seen to the North and North-East in the CL-band. Their distance relative to the OA position is approximately 1 and 0.6 arc-second and photometry measurements yield $`28.5\pm 0.2`$ and $`29.5\pm 0.5`$, respectively.

The STIS CL and LP measurements in addition to the Keck/ESI R $`=26.53\pm 0.22`$, I $`=26.28\pm 0.27`$ (Bloom et al., 2002; Yost et al., 2002) and NIRC K $`=23.04\pm 0.42`$ measurements (Yost et al., 2002) provide an excellent opportunity to estimate the photometric redshift of the host. Using the Bayesian photometric redshift (BPZ) estimation software of Benitez (2000) and restricting z $`>1`$ (due to absence of expected emission lines in spectra of the host, see Yost et al., 2002) we find z $`3.6`$ with the best fitting SED corresponding to an Im galaxy type. Redshifts of z $`<1.2`$ and z $`>4.2`$ are excluded at the 95% confidence level (z $`>5`$ excluded at 99.99% level). These redshift estimates are consistent with the constraint z $`<3.9`$ based on the non-detection of the Ly-$`\alpha `$ forest in a Keck II spectrum of the host galaxy (Djorgovski et al., 2001) and a far-ultraviolet extinction curve constraint giving $`3<`$ z $`<5`$ (Lamb et al., 1999).

It is puzzling that the CL-band shows a clear multi-component nature, with at least three unresolved knots within 0.5″, whereas the LP-band does not. We find an upper limit colour for the knots of CL-LP $``$ 0.25, while for the integrated colour of the host complex, we measure CL-LP $``$ 0.8. The compact knots does therefore appear very blue, implying that Ly-$`\alpha `$ may be present in the CL-band. Our best estimate of the redshift is therefore z $`3.5`$. Taking the measured E$`{}_{\gamma }{}^{}=5.5\times 10^5`$ erg cm2 (in ’t Zand et al., 1998) we find an isotropic gamma-ray energy of E$`{}_{iso}{}^{}=1.4\times 10^{54}`$ erg. Assuming a total average energy for GRBs of $`5\times 10^{50}`$ erg (Frail et al., 2001) we estimate a jet opening angle of $`\theta _0=1.5\mathrm{deg}`$, indicating a highly collimated beam.

## 5 GRB 980519

GRB 980519 was detected by GRO/BATSE (Muller, 1998) on 1998 May 19.51 UT and subsequent BeppoSAX WFI localisation (Piro, 1998) enabled the detection of the OA (Jaunsen et al., 1998). Jaunsen et al. (2001) presented a homogeneous optical data sample obtained at the Nordic Optical Telescope (NOT) and found that the light-curve breaks at around t$`{}_{0}{}^{}+0.5`$ days, with a pre- and post-break power law of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{O1}}=1.73`$ and $`\alpha _{\mathrm{O2}}=2.22`$, respectively. The X-ray (pre-break) power law was approximately, $`\alpha _\mathrm{X}=1.6`$ though this estimate is somewhat uncertain as it is based on combining the BeppoSAX WFC and NFI measurements. The maximum measured flux of the OA was I$`=`$18.4 and R$`=`$19.8 at t$`{}_{0}{}^{}+0.346`$ and t$`{}_{0}{}^{}+0.536`$ days, respectively. Correcting for the decline, the approximate R$``$I colour was $`0.6`$.

We used the NOT observations of the OA (Jaunsen et al., 2001) to derive an accurate position of the burst in the STIS image. As the GRB 980519 afterglow was discovered and followed up at very high airmass, differential color refraction (DCR) affects the astrometry significantly. Following Monet et al. (1992) we correct for DCR by a term which is proportional to $`\mathrm{sec}(\mathrm{Zdist})`$ and depends on the color of each individual object. Since the colors of the tie objects and the afterglow cover a narrow range, the color dependence was approximated with a linear relation. The afterglow was observed in the R and the I bands, so two different DCR corrections must be applied. To minimize the number of free parameters, we choose to derive a theoretical estimate of the relative amplitude of the DCR correction in the R and I bands. From the different refraction across the filter bandwidth it is found that DCR in R is about 2.65 times DCR in I. By using this factor, only the amplitude of DCR as function of color for the complete data set of six images has to be determined. This is done by minimizing the standard deviation of the six independent localisations. For each localisation between 7 and 10 tie objects were used. The difference between the final averaged positions with and without DCR correction is of the order of 0.7 drizzled STIS pixels, comparable to the 1-$`\sigma `$ astrometric error. In effect, by applying the DCR correction, the average of the three R-band positions coincide with the average of the three I-band positions. The OA localisation result is given in Table 1.

At the OA position we detect two extended objects, clearly visible in Fig. 2. The photometry yields CL ABMAGs of $`27.1\pm 0.1`$ and $`27.9\pm 0.1`$ for the southern and northern component, respectively. The OA is located in the very outskirts of the northern component (S/N$``$9), where a faint blob coinciding with the position of the OA is detected (see also Table 2). A host detection was reported by Sokolov et al. (1998) and Bloom et al. (1998) at an estimated Cousins R VEGAMAG of $`26.1\pm 0.3`$. This detection, however, consisted of the smeared sum of both objects. By using a larger aperture of 1$`\stackrel{}{.}`$88 (enclosing both objects) we find $`26.45\pm 0.10`$. Assuming a flat spectrum and using the STSDAS SYNPHOT/CALCPHOT we converted the CL ABMAGs to Cousins R VEGAMAG, giving $`26.0`$, in agreement with the earlier combined detections. It is also worth noting that the combined flux of the two objects amounts to $`26.7`$ (ABMAG) as compared to $`26.45`$ for the large aperture. The difference in flux can be attributed to the very low surface brightness ($`>29`$) regions in the vicinity of the two major components. Assuming a redshift larger than 0.5, which is reasonable given the redshift distribution of other GRB hosts and the faintness of the host, we note that the average angular scale of 1 arc-second is $`7\pm 2`$ kpc for our assumed cosmology. Given this angular scale and the disk-like morphology it is most likely that the two detected objects are galaxies which are in the process of merging. This is supported by the low ($`<0.003`$) integrated probability (Gardner et al., 2000) of having two objects of this brightness within $`2`$ sq. arc-seconds. The faint neighboring patches are therefore likely to be smaller galaxy fragments belonging to the merging system.

## 6 GRB 990308

GRB 990308 was detected by GRO/BATSE on 1999 March 8.21 UT, on the RXTE All-Sky monitor and also weakly by the Ulysses GRB detector. An OA was detected using the QUEST camera on a 1.0 m Schmidt telescope in Venezuela (Schaefer et al., 1999). These optical measurements give a power law of $`\alpha =2\pm 2`$ (Schaefer et al., 1999), and are the only data in which the OA is detected. Early non-detections by LOTIS and Super-LOTIS suggest $`\alpha <1.3`$, while later non-detections by the WIYN and Keck telescopes set the constraint $`\alpha >1.1`$. Taking all constraints into consideration, Schaefer et al. (1999) found a best fitting constant power-law, $`\alpha =1.2\pm 0.1`$.

We used the original QUEST data (Schaefer et al., 1999) to transform the OT position to the STIS clear image coordinate system via an intermediate transformation to a combined NOT image due to the lack of common tie objects between the QUEST and STIS images. The NOT/ALFOSC image was combined using standard tools based on 7 R-band images obtained specifically for this purpose on 29-30 March 2001 with a total integration time of 6000s. The final STIS position is the average of the three individually transformed positions, based on the three useful QUEST images. The error is estimated from the scatter of the individual positions and including a contribution from the NOT to STIS transformation, with the latter being small. In total 11 tie objects were used in the transformation to the STIS image. The final error is consistent with the signal-to-noise of the OT detections in the QUEST images and the equation introduced in Sec. 3. The final STIS position and error estimate is given in Table 1. At the locus of the OA we marginally detect a very faint point-like object (see Fig. 2) which we measure to have a STIS CL magnitude of $`30.1\pm 0.4`$ with a detection significance of S/N $`5`$ (foreground extinction corrected photometry given in Table 2). Including the faint extended emission north of this object gives $`29.9\pm 0.4`$. We also detect an extended object 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$3 to the south with an estimated magnitude of $`29.8\pm 0.4`$ (S/N $`3`$) and 0$`\stackrel{}{.}`$8 to the North a much larger disk-like object with a magnitude of $`27.7\pm 0.1`$. Using the galaxy counts of Gardner et al. (2000) we find a relatively low probability ($`0.02`$ within a radius of 1″of the OA position) that the three objects are projected neighbors.

Could the point-like component coincident with the OA location in fact be the OA itself? Assuming a constant power-law one can deduce the decay slope by interpolating the brightness at the time of the first V-band QUEST observation and the measured brightness in the STIS observations 468 days after the burst. This gives a power-law exponent of $`\alpha 1.35`$, consistent with the best estimate of the power-law slope, $`\alpha 1.2`$ (based on all available data). If correct, this would be the latest trace to date of an OA, at t$`{}_{0}{}^{}+468`$ days. Another possibility is that the point-like component is caused by some re-brightening mechanism, such as eg. dust echoing.

In summary, we identify the object coincident with the OA localisation as the possible remnant OA (point-like) or the host (extended). If the point-like object turns out to be non-variable and therefore not the OA, then it must have been fainter than $`30`$ mag. This implies that the late time decay slope must have been larger than 1.35. This scenario and the constraints from the early data could be explained by introducing a break in the light-curve. Specifically, an early $`\alpha 1.3`$ slope (as supported by the early LOTIS data) followed by a steeper slope fits this scenario well. A revisit of this field with HST+ACS is required to disentangle these ambiguities.

## 7 Summary

We have localised the three OAs to high precision in the STIS images and identify the host as the nearest detected object of the OA position. The GRB 980329 host galaxy redshift is estimated to be z $``$ 3.5. For all three candidate hosts we detect faint extended structures within a radius of $`1\mathrm{}`$ ($`7`$ proper kpc for z $`>0.5`$). This scale is similar to that seen between tidally interacting and merging galaxies (eg. Borne et al., 2000). The hosts show signs of sub-structure (possibly star-forming and/or merging elements); 3-4 blue knots in the GRB 980329 host, a knot in the northern edge of the GRB 980519 host and a point-source within the 3–$`\sigma `$ localisation error of GRB 990308. The faintness of these hosts suggests that, regardless of the host luminosity, GRBs seem to be associated with star formation (SF). This correlation may allow GRBs to be used as a powerful tracer of star formation, provided the link between GRBs and SF is correct. It also implies that a significant amount of star formation is located in (optically) very faint galaxies. Their faintness may be due to dust extinction or a very steep faint-end slope of the galaxy luminosity function. The SF/GRB correlation may therefore be the basis of a unique and new way of finding star-forming galaxies at high redshifts (independent of the otherwise unavoidable surface-brightness bias).

Bloom et al. (2002) present a comprehensive study of 20 GRB hosts, including the three reported here, based on the same HST data and mainly Keck imaging. For GRB 980329 they found an OA position more centered on the main host complex compared to our localisation. For GRB 980519 their OA localisation error is similar to ours but they do not identify the northern object as the host center. The reason for this is not entirely clear, but from their thumbnail image (their Fig. 2) it seems the northern object is much less significant than in our image and likewise the northern most blob/knot, which is practically coincident with the OA location. For GRB 990308 Bloom et al. (2002) obtain an OA localisation with significantly larger errors than ours, and identify a large galaxy in the outskirts of their error circle (indicated in Fig. 2). Our host/OA localisation corresponds to the object(s) seen left of the center of the error circle in their image. In summary, we identify different host candidates in two out of the three faint hosts investigated. These three hosts are also among the four most extreme outliers (the ones with the largest OA to host-center offset) in the Bloom et al. sample. Adopting our host identifications and OA localisations, the sample does not have obvious outliers. This is quantified by re-computing P(n$`{}_{\mathrm{chance}}{}^{}=0`$), defined in Bloom et al. (2002), representing the probability that none of the host identifications of the Bloom et al. sample are randomn galaxies (unrelated to the GRB). Bloom et al. (2002) found P(n$`{}_{\mathrm{chance}}{}^{}=0)=0.483`$, but by using our OA localisations and host identifications we find P(n$`{}_{\mathrm{chance}}{}^{}=0)=0.78`$. This means that by using our results it is unlikely that any of the 20 hosts in the Bloom et al. sample are false identifications.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Danish Natural Science Research Council (SNF). STH acknowledges support from the NASA LTSA grant NAG5–9364. JG acknowledges the receipt of a Marie Curie Grant from the European Commission. MIA acknowledges the Astrophysics group of the Department of Physical Sciences of University of Oulu for support of his work.


format: text

text:
# Noether’s variational theorem II and the BV formalism

## 1. Introduction

Lagrangian physics derives ‘equations of motion’ from a variational principle of least action. Here an action refers to an integral

$$S(\varphi )=_ML((j^n\varphi )(x))vol_M$$

over some manifold $`M`$ where $`\varphi `$ is a (possibly vector valued) function on $`M`$ or section of a bundle $`E`$ over $`M`$ and $`L`$ is a ‘local function’ on $`E`$, meaning a function on some finite jet space $`J^nE.`$

The Euler-Lagrange equations describe the critical points of $`S`$ with respect to variations in $`\varphi .`$ The action may have symmetries, i.e. variations in $`\varphi `$ which do not change the value of $`S`$ and hence are physically irrelevant in the sense that $`\varphi `$ and its

transformed value encode the same physical information. Noether’s second variational theorem establishes a correspondence between symmetries and differential algebraic relations among the Euler-Lagrange equations.

These symmetries create difficulties for quantization of such physical theories. The method of Batalin and Vilkovisky  was invented to handle these difficulties, but turns out to also be of interest in a classical context. Their method extends the BRST cohomological approach by introducing anti-fields (independently and previously due to Zinn-Justin ) dual to the original fields and anti-ghosts which correspond to the Noether relations and are dual to the ghosts which generate the BRST complex. A key ingredient in their approach is to use the duality to give an anti- bracket (independently due to Zinn-Justin  and also known as an odd Poisson or Gerstenhaber bracket) in their construction.

The relevance of Noether’s theorem is not emphasized in most of the literature using the BV approach. One aim of the present paper is to restore such an emphasis: Part of the BV complex is the Koszul-Tate resolution of the differential ideal generated by Euler-Lagrange equations. The anti-fields generate the Koszul complex, which is not a resolution; the anti-ghosts provide the next level of generators as described by Tate corresponding to the relations among the Euler-Lagrange equations. Rather than carrying out this analysis in the abstract, we illustrate it explicitly in terms of the Poisson sigma models of Cattaneo and Felder.

The higher order terms in the BV differential in these examples can be related to parts of an $`L_{\mathrm{}}`$-algebra structure, as we will explain elsewhere.

In Section 2, we review the basics of the Lagrangian approach and establish the notation we will use. Section 3 is devoted to Noether’s Second Theorem with a slight modernization of language and notation. In Section 4, we present the Cattaneo-Felder sigma model and work out the Noether identities. In Section 5, we begin the description of the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism, pointing out the initial Chevalley-Eilenberg (or BRST) part of the differential and especially the Koszul-Tate part. The latter shows explicitly how the anti-ghosts encode the Noether identities. We also recall how to extend the gauge symmetries to act on the anti-fields and anti-ghosts. To combine the Koszul-Tate and Chevalley-Eilenberg differentials into a total differential of square zero requires ‘terms of higher order’, which are created via the Batalin-Vilkovisky anti-bracket as worked out in Section 6.

## 2. Preliminaries

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an $`s`$-dimensional manifold and $`\pi :E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ a vector bundle of fiber dimension $`k`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ denote the infinite jet bundle of $`E`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\pi _E^{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}EE`$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the canonical projections. The vector space of smooth sections of $`E`$ with compact support will be denoted $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E`$. For each section $`\varphi `$ of $`E`$, let $`j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi `$ denote the induced section of the infinite jet bundle $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$. We will consider ‘local’ functions defined on a finite jet space (see below), but refer to $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ to avoid specifying some finite jet.

The restriction of the infinite jet bundle over an appropriate open $`U\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is trivial with fibre an infinite dimensional vector space $`V^{\mathrm{}}`$. The bundle

(1) $`\pi ^{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}E_U=U\times V^{\mathrm{}}U`$
then has induced coordinates given by

(2) $`(x^i,u^a,u_i^a,u_{i_1i_2}^a,\mathrm{},).`$
We use multi-index notation and the summation convention throughout the paper. If $`j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi `$ is the section of $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ induced by a section $`\varphi `$ of the bundle $`E`$, then $`u^aj^{\mathrm{}}\varphi =u^a\varphi `$ and

$$u_I^aj^{\mathrm{}}\varphi =(_{i_1}_{i_2}\mathrm{}_{i_r})(u^aj^{\mathrm{}}\varphi )$$

where $`r`$ is the order of the symmetric multi-index $`I=\{i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_r\}`$,with the convention that, for $`r=0`$, there are no derivatives.

###### Definition 1.

We say that a real-valued function on the jet space $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ is a local function if it is the composite of the projection from $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ onto $`J^kE`$ and a smooth real-valued function on $`J^kE`$ for some k. Thus such functions are pull-backs of functions in $`C^{\mathrm{}}(J^kE)`$ under the projection $`\pi _k^{\mathrm{}}:J^{\mathrm{}}EJ^kE.`$

Let

(3) $`D_i={\displaystyle \frac{}{x^i}}+u_{iJ}^a{\displaystyle \frac{}{u_J^a}}`$
be the total differential operator acting on the space $`Loc_E`$ of local functions defined on the jet space $`J^{\mathrm{}}E.`$

More generally, total differential operators are mappings from $`Loc_E`$ into $`Loc_E`$ defined in local coordinates by $`Z=Z^ID_I`$ where $`Z^ILoc_E`$ and and $`D_I=D_{i_1}\mathrm{}D_{i_r}`$ for each symmetric multi-index $`I.`$

It can be shown that the complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(J^{\mathrm{}}E,d)`$ of differential forms splits as a bicomplex (though the finite level complexes $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(J^pE)`$ do not). The bigrading is described by writing a differential $`p`$-form $`\alpha =\alpha _{IA}^𝐉(\theta _𝐉^Adx^I)`$ as an element of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{r,t}(J^{\mathrm{}}E)`$, with $`p=r+t,`$ where

(4) $`dx^I=dx^{i_1}\mathrm{}dx^{i_r},\theta _𝐉^A=\theta _{J_1}^{a_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{J_t}^{a_t}`$
and

$$\theta _J^a=du_J^au_{J\mu }^adx^\mu .$$

We restrict the complex $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ by requiring that the functions $`\alpha _{IA}^𝐉`$ be local functions. In this context, the horizontal differential is obtained by noting that $`d\alpha `$ is in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{r+1,t}\mathrm{\Omega }^{r,t+1}`$ and then denoting the two pieces by, respectively, $`d_H\alpha `$ and $`d_V\alpha `$.

We will work exclusively with the $`d_H`$ subcomplex, the algebra of horizontal forms $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{,0}`$, which is the exterior algebra in the $`dx^i`$ with coefficients that are local functions. In this case we often use Olver’s notation $`D`$ for the horizontal differential $`d_H=dx^iD_i`$ where $`D_i`$ is the total derivative defined above. It is well-known that in this language, the Poincaré lemma asserts that on an appropriate open subset of $`J^{\mathrm{}}E,`$ $`d_H\alpha =0`$ for $`\alpha \mathrm{\Omega }^{s,0}`$ iff

$$\alpha =_\mu j^\mu (dx^1\mathrm{}dx^s)$$

for some choice of local functions $`\{j^\mu \}.`$

###### Definition 2.

A local functional is a function $`S`$ from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E`$ into the reals such that, for each section $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }E,`$ we have

(5) $`S(\varphi )={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}L(x,\varphi ^{(p)}(x))𝑑vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi )^{}L(x,u^{(p)})𝑑vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
is the integral over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the pull-back $`(j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi ^{})L`$of some local function $`L`$ on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E.`$ Recall that the elements of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }E`$ have compact support so that the integral is well-defined .

These definitions reflect the fact that we identify the fields $`\varphi `$ of a physical theory with sections of an appropriate vector bundle $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ With this identification, the Lagrangian $`L`$ of the theory is a local function on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E.`$ We work on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ for convenience but the Lagrangian, being local, only depends on finitely many derivatives of the fields. Finally,

the action $`S`$ corresponding to the Lagrangian is simply the local functional defined by $`L`$ as in the definition above.

###### Definition 3.

The Euler-Lagrange operator: For $`1ak`$, let $`E_a`$ denote the $`a`$-th component of the Euler-Lagrange operator defined for $`FLoc_E`$ by

(6) $`E_a(F)={\displaystyle \frac{F}{u^a}}_i{\displaystyle \frac{F}{u_i^a}}+_i_j{\displaystyle \frac{F}{u_{ij}^a}}\mathrm{}=(D)_I({\displaystyle \frac{F}{u_I^a}}).`$
We say that $`Q`$ is an evolutionary vector field on E if it is a mapping from $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ into the vertical vector fields on $`E.`$ In local coordinates $`Q=Q^a\frac{}{u^a}`$ where the functions $`Q^a`$ are local functions on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E.`$ For every evolutionary vector field $`Q`$ on $`E`$, there exists its prolongation,denoted $`pr(Q),`$the unique vector field on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ such that $`(d\pi _E^{\mathrm{}})(pr(Q))=Q`$ and $`_{pr(Q)}(C)C.`$ Here $`_{pr(Q)}`$ denotes the Lie derivative operator with respect to the vector field $`pr(Q).`$ The ideal $`C`$ is the ideal of forms on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ generated by the contact forms $`\{\theta _J^a\}`$ used above in the definition of the bicomplex.

In local adapted coordinates, the prolongation of an evolutionary vector field $`Q=Q^a/u^a`$ assumes the form $`pr(Q)=(D_JQ^a)/u_J^a`$.

Given a total differential operator $`Z,`$ define a new total differential operator $`Z^+`$ called the (formal) adjoint of $`Z`$ by

(7) $`{\displaystyle _M}(j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi )^{}(FZ(G))𝑑vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(j^{\mathrm{}}\varphi )^{}(Z^+(F)G)𝑑vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
for all sections $`\varphi \mathrm{\Gamma }E`$ and all $`F,GLoc_E`$. It follows that

(8) $`FZ(G)dvol_\mathrm{\Sigma }=Z^+(F)Gdvol_\mathrm{\Sigma }+d_H\zeta `$
for some $`\zeta \mathrm{\Omega }^{n1,0}(E)`$. If $`Z=Z^JD_J`$ in local coordinates, then $`Z^+(F)=(D)_J(Z^JF)`$. This follows from an integration by parts in (8) and the fact that (8) must hold for all $`G.`$

## 3. Gauge symmetries and Noether identities

Recall that if a Lie group G acts as automorphisms of a vector bundle $`E\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (over the identity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$) in such a way that it leaves the action S of a Lagrangian $`L:J^{\mathrm{}}E𝐑`$ invariant, then the group action induces a vertical vector field $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ on E, for each element $`\eta `$ of the Lie algebra of G, such that the prolongation $`pr(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ to $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ has the property that $`dL(pr(\stackrel{~}{\eta }))vol_M`$ is $`d_H`$ exact. Here $`vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes both a volume on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and its pullback to $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ via the projection $`J^{\mathrm{}}E\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ An evolutionary vector field $`Q_E`$ on E is called a variational symmetry of a Lagrangian L iff it has the property that $`dL(pr(Q_E))vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }=pr(Q_E)(L)vol_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is $`d_H`$ exact. In local coordinates, $`Q_E`$ is a variational symmetry iff

(9)
$$pr(Q_E)(L):=D_K(Q_E^a)\frac{L}{u_K^a}$$

is a divergence, i.e., iff it is equal to $`D_\mu j^\mu `$ for some set $`\{j^\mu \}`$ of local functions defined on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E.`$ “Integrating by parts” shows that this condition is equivalent to requiring that $`Q_E^a(D)_K(\frac{L}{u_K^a}))`$ be a divergence. But the Euler Lagrange operator $`E_a`$ acting on the Lagrangian $`L`$ is defined by the equation $`E_a(L)=(D)_K(\frac{L}{u_K^a}).`$ Thus an evolutionary vector field $`Q_E`$ is a variational symmetry of a Lagrangian $`L`$ iff $`Q_E^aE_a(L)`$ is a divergence.

Finally, a gauge symmetry of a Lagrangian $`L`$ is defined when there is a linear mapping from $`Loc_E`$ into the variational symmetries. To be more precise, there must exist local functions $`R^{aI}:J^{\mathrm{}}E𝐑`$ such that $`R^{aI}(D_Iϵ)\frac{}{u^a}`$ is a variational symmetry of $`L`$ for each local function $`ϵ:J^{\mathrm{}}E𝐑.`$ Notice that the coefficients of the vector field depend linearly on both $`ϵ`$ and its derivatives. It follows that being a gauge symmetry is equivalent to requiring that $`R^{aI}(D_Iϵ)E_a(L)`$ be a divergence for each $`ϵ.`$ This in turn is equivalent to saying that $`ϵ(R^{aI}D_I)^+(E_a(L))`$ is a divergence for each $`ϵ.`$ Here $`(R^{aI}D_I)^+`$ is the formal adjoint of the differential operator $`R^{aI}D_I`$ which was defined in Section 2. The adjoint of a differential operator is also a differential operator and consequently there exist local functions $`R^{+aI}:J^{\mathrm{}}E𝐑`$ such that $`(R^{aI}D_I)^+=R^{+aI}D_I.`$ These functions are found by working out the iterated total derivatives $`(D)_I(R^{aI}F).`$

In many cases it is easier to use an “integration by parts” procedure to obtain the coefficients $`\{R^{+aI}\}.`$ This is what we do for the Poisson $`\sigma `$-model below.

It follows easily that $`ϵR^{aI}(D_Iϵ)\frac{}{u^a}`$ defines a gauge symmetry iff $`ϵR^{+aI}D_I(E_a(L))`$ is a divergence for each $`ϵ.`$ Finally, this condition is equivalent to saying that $`R^{+aI}D_I(E_a(L))`$ is identically zero on the jet bundle. Such identities are called Noether identities or dependencies in the translation of Noether’s original term. One thus has a one-one correspondence between gauge symmetries of a Lagrangian and Noether identities.

The original version of Noether in ‘Invariant variation problems’ , was written in terms of an infinite continuous group, $`G_\mathrm{}\rho ,`$ ‘understood to be a group whose most general transformations depend on $`\rho `$ essential arbitrary functions and their derivatives’. Noether’s Theorem II refers to an integral $`I`$ ($`=S`$ in our notation) and reads:

> If the integral I is invariant with respect to a $`G_\mathrm{}\rho `$ in which the arbitrary functions occur up to the $`\sigma `$-th derivative, there there subsist $`\rho `$ identity relationships between the Lagrange expressions and their derivatives up to the $`\sigma `$-th order. $`\mathrm{}`$ the converse holds.

Later in that paper these relations are called dependencies. To recast and summarize in our notation and terminology, we have: THEOREM (Noether) For a given Lagrangian $`L`$ defined on the jet bundle $`J^{\mathrm{}}E`$ and for local real-valued functions $`\{R^{aI}\}`$ defined on $`J^{\mathrm{}}E,`$ the following statements are equivalent:
(1) The functions $`\{R^{aI}\}`$ define a gauge symmetry of $`L,`$ i.e., $`R^{aI}(D_Iϵ)\frac{}{u^a}`$ is a variational symmetry of $`L`$ for each local function $`ϵ:J^{\mathrm{}}E𝐑.`$
(2) $`R^{aI}(D_Iϵ)E_a(L)`$ is a divergence for each $`ϵ.`$
(3) The functions $`\{R^{aI}\}`$ define Noether identities of $`L,`$ i.e., $`R^{+aI}D_I(E_a(L))`$ is identically zero on the jet bundle.

## 4. The Poisson sigma model

To provide a specific example of this correspondence and how it relates to the Batalin-Vilkovisky machinery, we turn to a Poisson sigma model of Cattaneo and Felder .

The fields of this Poisson $`\sigma `$-model are ordered pairs $`(X,\eta )`$ such that $`X`$ is a mapping from a 2-dimensional manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into a

Poisson manifold $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ is a section of the bundle $`Hom(T\mathrm{\Sigma },X^{}T^{}M)\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ These fields are subject to boundary conditions, namely they should satisfy the conditions: $`X(u)=0`$ and $`\eta (u)(v)=0`$ for arbitrary $`u`$ in the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and for $`v`$ tangent to the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`u.`$ Observe that for each $`u\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ we can regard $`\eta (u)`$ as a linear mapping from $`T_u\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`T_{X(u)}^{}M.`$ In local coordinates $`\{u^\mu \}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\{x^i\}`$ on $`M,`$ we write $`dX=(dX^j)\frac{}{x^j}`$ and $`\eta (\frac{}{u^\mu })=\eta _{i,\mu }dx^i.`$ The Poisson structure is given by a Poisson tensor which is a skew-symmetric tensor on $`M`$

(10)
$$\alpha =\alpha ^{ij}(\frac{}{x^i}\frac{}{x^j})$$

which satisfies a Jacobi condition:

(11)
$$\alpha ^{il}_l\alpha ^{jk}+\alpha ^{jl}_l\alpha ^{ki}+\alpha ^{kl}_l\alpha ^{ij}=0,$$

The action $`S`$ of the model is defined in such local coordinates by

(12)
$$S(X,\eta )=_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\eta _idX^i)+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^{ij}X)(\eta _i\eta _j).$$

To understand this action in a more invariant notation, recall that for each $`u\mathrm{\Sigma },`$ $`dX`$ is a linear mapping from $`T_u\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`T_{X(u)}M`$ and so one may define a two-form $`\eta dX`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by

(13)
$$(\eta dX)(v_1,v_2)=\eta (v_1)(dX(v_2))\eta (v_2)(dX(v_1))$$

for $`v_1,v_2T\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ We may also define a two-form $`\alpha _X(\eta \eta )`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by

(14)
$$\alpha _X(\eta \eta )(v_1,v_2)=(\alpha X)(\eta (v_1),\eta (v_2)).$$

Using the coordinates defined above, we see that:

(15) $`\eta dX=\eta _idX^i`$
(16) $`\alpha _X(\eta \eta )=(\alpha X)(\eta \eta )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha _X^{ij}(\eta _i\eta _j).`$
For the remainder of the paper, we will restrict to $`M=𝐑^k`$ to avoid inserting ‘in local coordinates’ repeatedly.

According to the variational principle, we obtain extrema of $`S`$ as those fields $`(X,\eta )`$ which satisfy the Euler-Lagrange equations:

(17)
$$E_{X^i}:=d\eta _i+\frac{1}{2}_i\alpha ^{jk}(\eta _j\eta _k)=0$$

and

(18)
$$E_{\eta _i}:=dX^i\alpha ^{ij}\eta _j=0.$$

In terms of the components of the fields, we write

(19)
$$E_{X^i}=(_\mu \eta _{i,\nu }+\frac{1}{2}_i\alpha ^{jk}\eta _{j,\mu }\eta _{k,\nu })ϵ^{\mu \nu }$$

and

(20)
$$E_{\eta _{i,\nu }}=(_\mu X^i+\alpha ^{ij}\eta _{j,\mu })ϵ^{\mu \nu }.$$

The gauge symmetries of the action are parameterized by all sections $`\beta `$ of the bundle $`X^{}T^{}M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which vanish on the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$ For each such $`\beta ,`$ define $`\delta _\beta `$ acting on the fields by

(21)
$$(\delta _\beta X)^i=(\alpha X)(dx^i,\beta )$$

(22)
$$(\delta _\beta \eta )(WX)=(d\beta )(WX)((_W\alpha )X)(\eta ,\beta )$$

where $`W`$ is a vector field on $`M,`$ and $`_W\alpha `$ is the Lie derivative of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`W.`$ Observe that $`\delta _\beta X`$ and $`\delta _\beta \eta `$ are indeed again fields since $`\delta _\beta X`$ is a mapping from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to $`M`$ and $`\delta _\beta \eta `$ is a section of the bundle $`Hom(T\mathrm{\Sigma },X^{}T^{}M)\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$

If we regard $`X^i`$ and $`\eta _{i,\nu }`$ as jet coordinates on an appropriate jet bundle, we may write $`\delta _\beta `$ as a variational symmetry

(23)
$$\delta _\beta =(\alpha _X^{ij}\beta _j)\frac{}{X^i}(_\mu \beta _i+((_i\alpha ^{jk})X)\eta _{j,\mu }\beta _k)\frac{}{\eta _{i,\mu }}.$$

For notational convenience, we will not show the explicit $`X`$ dependence throughout the remainder of this section except when it is misleading to fail to do so.

It follows from Noether’s theorem that

(24)
$$(\alpha ^{ij}\beta _j)E_{X^i}(_\mu \beta _i+_i\alpha ^{jk}\eta _{j,\mu }\beta _k)E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}$$

is a divergence. To find the corresponding Noether identity, we must be able to factor out the gauge parameters $`\beta _k,`$ so we transform the term $`(_\mu \beta _i)E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}`$ via the identity

(25)
$$(_\mu \beta _i)E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}=_\mu (\beta _iE_{\eta _{i,\mu }})\beta _i_\mu E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}=div\beta _i_\mu E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}.$$

If $`N^k:=\alpha ^{ik}E_{X^i}+_\mu E_{\eta _{k,\mu }}_i\alpha ^{jk}\eta _{j,\mu }E_{\eta _{i,\mu }},`$ then

(26)
$$N^k\beta _k=(\alpha ^{ik}E_{X^i}+_\mu E_{\eta _{k,\mu }}_i\alpha ^{jk}\eta _{j,\mu }E_{\eta _{i,\mu }})\beta _k$$

is a divergence for every $`\beta _k.`$ It follows that the integral of $`N^k\beta _k`$ vanishes for all $`\beta _k`$ and consequently $`N^k=0`$ for each k. From this, we see that the equations

(27)
$$\alpha ^{ik}E_{X^i}+_\mu E_{\eta _{k,\mu }}_i\alpha ^{jk}\eta _{j,\mu }E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}=0$$

are the Noether identities corresponding to the gauge symmetry $`\delta _\beta `$ defined above.

To write this identity in differential form notation, multiply the last equation by $`du^1du^2`$ and use the identity $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }(du^1du^2)=du^\mu du^\nu `$ to get

$$\alpha ^{ij}(_\mu \eta _{i,\nu }+\frac{1}{2}_i\alpha ^{rs}\eta _{r,\mu }\eta _{s,\nu })(du^\mu du^\nu )_i\alpha ^{kj}\eta _{k,\mu }(_\nu X^i+\alpha ^{ir}\eta _{r,\nu })(du^\mu du^\nu )$$

$$+_\mu (_\nu X^j+\alpha ^{jr}\eta _{r,\nu })(du^\mu du^\nu )=0,$$

which in turn implies that

(28)
$$\alpha ^{ij}[d\eta _i+\frac{1}{2}_i\alpha ^{rs}(\eta _r\eta _s)]_i\alpha ^{kj}[\eta _k(dX^i+\alpha ^{ir}\eta _r)]+d[dX^j+\alpha ^{ji}\eta _i]=0.$$

Now utilize the formulas (17) and (18) for $`E_{X^i}`$ and $`E_{\eta _{i,\mu }}`$ above to obtain the Noether identities in the form

(29)
$$\alpha ^{ij}E_{X^i}+_i\alpha ^{kj}(\eta _kE_{\eta _i})dE_{\eta _j}=0.$$

## 5. First steps of the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism

Rather than review the Batalin-Vilkovisky formalism in general as in , we illustrate it by example: the Poisson sigma model we have been considering. Batalin and Vilkovisky first construct a graded commutative algebra over $`Loc_E`$ with generators $`X_i^+`$ and $`\eta ^{+i}`$, called ‘anti-fields’, $`\gamma _i`$ called ‘ghosts’ and $`\gamma ^{+i}`$, called ‘anti-ghosts. (If only the ghosts were used as generators, this would be a BRST algebra.)

These generators are bigraded, as indicated in the following table where the form degree is displayed as the top row and the ghost degree as the first column. The graded commutativity is with respect to the sum of the ghost degree and the form degree (which we call the total degree).

The assignments of degree (from left to right) and ghost number (from top to bottom) are given by

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& 0& 1& 2\\ \hfill 2& & & \gamma ^{+i}\\ \hfill 1& & \eta ^{+i}& X_i^+\\ \hfill 0& X^i& \eta _i& \\ \hfill 1& \gamma _i& & \end{array}$$

Ultimately, this algebra is given a differential $`D`$ which is a derivation with respect to the ghost degree, but initially has just two such derivations which need not square to zero.

One of the derivations $`\delta `$ looks like the Chevalley-Eilenberg differential for Lie algebra cohomology, even though Batalin and Vilkovisky need not have a Lie algebra, and is often called a BRST operator. It is defined initially by

(30) $`\delta X^i`$ $`=\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma _j,`$
$`\delta \eta _i`$ $`=d\gamma _i_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\eta _j\gamma _k,`$
$`\delta \gamma _i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\gamma _j\gamma _k.`$
The other derivation, $`d_{KT},`$ does square to zero. It is the Koszul-Tate differential for the differential ideal generated by the Euler-Lagrange equations. The Koszul complex is graded by the ghost number. This means the anti-fields generate the Koszul complex with

(31) $`d_{KT}X_i^+`$ $`=d\eta _i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta _k\eta _l=E_{X^i}`$
$`d_{KT}\eta ^{+i}`$ $`=dX^i\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _j=E_{\eta _i}.`$
Because of the Noether identities, the Koszul complex has non-trivial cohomology in ghost degree $`1`$, namely the classes given by the formulas for the identities with $`E_{X^i}`$ and $`E_{\eta _i}`$ replaced by $`X_i^+`$ and $`\eta ^{+i}:`$

(32)
$$\alpha ^{ij}(X)X_j^+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _j\eta ^{+k}d\eta ^{+i}.$$

These classes can be killed by adjoining the anti-ghosts $`\gamma ^{+i}`$ and defining

(33)
$$d_{KT}\gamma ^{+i}=\alpha ^{ij}(X)X_j^+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _j\eta ^{+k}d\eta ^{+i}.$$

Thus the anti-ghosts occur precisely because of the identities identified by Noether.

The pairing between symmetries and identities is now expressed as the pairing between ghosts and anti-ghosts, which plays a crucial role in the Batalin-Vilkovisky anti-bracket, but first the anti-fields and anti-ghosts are themselves subject to symmetries corresponding to $`\delta _\beta `$ as follows:

(34) $`\delta X_i^+`$ $`=_i\alpha ^{kj}(X)X_k^+\gamma _j`$
$`\delta \eta ^{+i}`$ $`=_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta ^{+k}\gamma _j`$
$`\delta \gamma ^{+i}`$ $`=_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma ^{+k}\gamma _j.`$
## 6. The Batalin-Vilkovisky anti-bracket and total differential

The hoped for total differential $`D`$ will be obtained by adding ‘terms of higher order’ to $`d_{KT}+\delta ,`$ which does not square to zero. To do this in general, Batalin and Vilkovisky introduce an ‘anti-bracket’ $`(,)`$ which is defined in terms of distributional derivatives of functionals of the fields and anti-fields.

Before we define the anti-bracket, it is convenient to first consider the definition of the derivative of a functional $`A`$ of fields and antifields which are denoted collectively as $`(\psi _\alpha ).`$ The derivative $`\frac{A}{\psi ^\alpha }`$ is the distribution whose value at test forms $`(\rho ^\alpha )`$ (of the same degree and ghost number as $`(\psi ^\alpha )`$) is given by

$$\frac{d}{dt}A(\psi +t\rho )|_{t=0}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\rho ^\alpha \frac{A}{\psi ^\alpha }.$$

Consider the functional $`A`$ defined by

$$A(\varphi ,\varphi ^+)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\varphi \varphi ^+)$$

then we see that up to signs $`\frac{A}{\varphi }`$ is in some sense identified with $`\varphi ^+`$ while $`\frac{A}{\varphi ^+}`$ is identified with $`\varphi .`$ In this way we see that $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^+`$ are “canonically conjuguate”.

Thus we have a canonical distributional pairing of each field or ghost with its ‘anti’:

(35) $`(X^i,`$ $`X_j^+)=\delta ^i_j`$
$`(\eta _j,`$ $`\eta _+^i)=\delta ^i_j`$
$`(\gamma _j,`$ $`\gamma _+^i)=\delta ^i_j.`$
The BV anti-bracket extends this as a graded biderivation with repect to ghost degree and in this example can be written as $`(A,B)=`$

(36) $`{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}(1)^{|\varphi _\alpha |(|\varphi _\alpha |+|A|)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{A}{\varphi ^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\varphi _\alpha ^+}}(1)^{(deg(\varphi _\alpha )+|A|+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{A}{\varphi _\alpha ^+}}{\displaystyle \frac{B}{\varphi ^\alpha }}\right)`$
where $`|C|=gh(C)+deg(C)`$ denotes the Grassman parity of $`C`$ ($`C`$ is either a field or a function of fields). Note that physicists prefer to use both left and right derivatives and hence exhibit a different set of signs.

The antibracket obeys the graded commutativity relation

$$(A,B)=(1)^{(\mathrm{gh}(A)1)(\mathrm{gh}(B)1)}(B,A)$$

and the Leibnitz rule

(37)
$$(A,BC)=(A,B)C+(1)^{(\mathrm{gh}(A)1)\mathrm{gh}(B)}B(A,C),$$

which emphasizes the resemblance to a Poisson bracket. The only difference from a graded Poisson bracket is that the bracket shifts the degree by 1 and the several identities (skew-commutativity, Jacobi and Leibniz) inherit certain signs. Such an ‘odd’ Poisson bracket is also known as a Gerstenhaber bracket .

Now it is possible to express $`d_{KT}+\delta `$ in the form $`(S^0+S^1,)`$ where

$$S^0=(X,\eta )=_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\eta _idX^i)+\frac{1}{2}(\alpha ^{ij}X)(\eta _i\eta _j),$$

our original action, and $`S^1`$ is

(38) $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}X_i^+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma _j\eta ^{+i}(d\gamma _i+_i\alpha ^{kj}(X)\eta _k\gamma _j){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma ^{+i}_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\gamma _j\gamma _k.`$
Corresponding to the fact that $`(d_{KT}+\delta )^20,`$ we have

$$(S^0+S^1,S^0+S^1)0.$$

The additional terms in the differential $`D`$ we seek will be found by extending $`S^0+S^1`$ by terms of higher order to achieve the full BV action $`S_{BV}.`$. First, let us analyze the derivation $`(S^0,).`$

Notice that $`(,X_i^+)`$ is effectively (up to sign) $`_{X^i}`$ and similarly for the other anti’s, while $`(,X^i)`$ is effectively $`_{X_i^+},`$ etc. More precisely, for any of our basic variables, denoted collectively as $`\varphi ^a`$ and their anti’s denoted $`\varphi _a^+`$, we have

(39) $`(S,\varphi ^a)`$ $`=(1)^{gh(\varphi ^a)}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\varphi _a^+}}`$
(40) $`(S,\varphi _a^+)`$ $`=(1)^{gh(\varphi ^a)+deg(\varphi ^a)}{\displaystyle \frac{S}{\varphi ^a}}`$
whenever the parity of $`S(\varphi ^\alpha ,\varphi _\alpha ^+)`$ is even. The parities of $`S^0,S^1,S^2`$ are all 2. Recall that the parity was defined above to be the total degree.

Since $`S^0`$ has no anti’s, $`(S^0,S^0)=0,`$ in fact,

$$(S^0,X^i)=0,(S^0,\eta _i)=0\mathrm{and}(S^0,\gamma _i)=0.$$

However, $`(S^0,)`$ does act non-tivially on some of the anti’s:

(41) $`(S^0,X_i^+)`$ $`=d\eta _i+1/2_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta _k\eta _j`$
$`(S^0,\eta ^{+i})`$ $`=dX^i\alpha ^{ij}\eta _j,`$
which reproduces part of $`d_{KT}`$, cf. (5), while $`(S^0,\gamma ^{+i})=0.`$

Now consider $`(S^1,):`$

(42) $`(S^1,X^i)`$ $`=\alpha ^{ij}\gamma _j`$
$`(S^1,\eta _i)`$ $`=(d\gamma _i+_i\alpha ^{jk}(X))\eta _j\gamma _k`$
$`(S^1,\gamma _i)`$ $`=1/2_i\alpha ^{jk}(X))\gamma _j\gamma _k`$
$`(S^1,X_i^+)`$ $`=_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)X_k^+\gamma _l_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta ^{+j}\eta _k\gamma _l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\gamma ^{+j}\gamma _k\gamma _l`$
$`(S^1,\eta ^{+i})`$ $`=\eta ^{+k}_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma _j`$
$`(S^1,\gamma ^{+i})`$ $`=\alpha ^{ij}X_i^+d\eta ^{+i}+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta ^{+k}\eta _j+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma ^{+k}\gamma _j,`$
reproducing (5) and (5).

Batalin and Vilkovisky show that, in much more general situations, one can add terms $`S^i`$ of ghost degree $`i>1`$ to achieve a total $`S_{BV}`$ such that

$$(S_{BV},S_{BV})=0.$$

The reason for this is that the $`d_{KT}`$ homology vanishes in appropriate degrees.

In the Cattaneo-Felder model, only one more term is needed:

(43) $`S^2={\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta ^{+i}\eta ^{+j}_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\gamma _k\gamma _l.`$
Thus the total Batalin-Vilkovisky generator is

$`S_{BV}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}\eta _idX^i+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _i\eta _j`$
$`+X_i^+\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma _j\eta ^{+i}(d\gamma _i+_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta _k\gamma _l){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\gamma _+^i_i\alpha ^{jk}(X)\gamma _j\gamma _k`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\eta ^{+i}\eta ^{+j}_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\gamma _k\gamma _l.`$
## 7. Summary

We hope to have called deserving attention to Noether’s second variational theorem and how it accounts for the anti-ghosts which are an essential part of the Batalin-Vilkovisky method. Beyond that, we are now able to show how the terms $`S^i`$ in the total $`S_{BV}`$ of the Catanneo-Felder sigma model correspond to the Koszul-Tate, Chevalley-Eilenberg and other parts of the total differential in the BV differential graded algebra. Consider the total differential as found in Cattaneo and Felder:

(45) $`\delta X^i`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma _j,`$
(46) $`\delta \eta ^{+i}`$ $`=`$ $`dX^i\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta _j+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta ^{+k}\gamma _j,`$
(48) $`\delta \gamma ^{+i}`$ $`=`$ $`d\eta ^{+i}\alpha ^{ij}(X)X_j^++{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_k_l\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta ^{+k}\eta ^{+l}\gamma _j`$
$`+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\eta ^{+k}\eta _j+_k\alpha ^{ij}(X)\gamma ^{+k}\gamma _j.`$
and

(49) $`\delta \gamma _i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\gamma _k\gamma _l,`$
(50) $`\delta \eta _i`$ $`=`$ $`d\gamma _i_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta _k\gamma _l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta ^{+j}\gamma _k\gamma _l,`$
(51) $`\delta X_i^+`$ $`=`$ $`d\eta _i+_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)X_k^+\gamma _l_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta ^{+j}\eta _k\gamma _l+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta _k\eta _l`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_i_j_p\alpha ^{kl}(X)\eta ^{+j}\eta ^{+p}\gamma _k\gamma _l{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_i_j\alpha ^{kl}(X)\gamma ^{+j}\gamma _k\gamma _l.`$
These individual terms can be identified as coming from a particular $`S^i.`$ For example, $`\delta X^i`$ comes from $`S^1`$, the first two terms of $`\delta \eta ^{+i}`$ come from $`S^0`$ and the third from $`S^1`$, as do all the terms of $`\delta \gamma ^{+i}`$ except for the middle term which comes from $`S^2.`$ Similarly, $`\delta \gamma _i`$ comes from $`S^1`$, the first two terms of $`\delta \eta _i`$ come from $`S^1`$ and the third from $`S^2`$, while the five terms of $`\delta X_i^+`$ come from $`S^i`$ with $`i`$ respectively $`0,1,1,0,2,1.`$

In contrast, if we identify terms as coming from $`d_{KT}`$ or $`d_{CE}`$ we find $`\delta X^i`$ comes from $`d_{CE}`$, the first two terms of $`\delta \eta ^{+i}`$ come from $`d_{KT}`$ and the third from $`d_{CE}`$, while the first, second and fourth terms of $`\delta \gamma ^{+i}`$ come from $`d_{KT}`$, the fifth from $`d_{CE}`$ and the third term is of neither origin. Similarly, $`\delta \gamma _i`$ comes from $`d_{CE}`$, as do the first two terms of $`\delta \eta _i`$ and the third is of neither origin. The first and fourth terms of $`\delta X_i^+`$ come from $`d_{KT},`$ the second term comes $`d_{CE},`$ and the remaining terms come from neither $`d_{CE}`$ nor $`d_{KT}.`$


text:
# Electron-Phonon Interactions in Polyacene Organic Transistors

\[

## Abstract

We present a simple model for the electron-phonon interactions between the energy subbands in polyacene field-effect transistors and the vibrations of the crystal. We introduce a generalized Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model, arguing that the strongest electron-phonon interactions in these systems originate from the dependence of inter-molecule hopping amplitudes on collective molecular motion. We compute the electron-phonon spectral function $`\alpha ^2F(\omega )`$ as a function of two-dimensional hole density and the coupling strength constant. Our results are in agreement with the sharp onset of superconductivity near half-filling discovered in recent experiments by Schön et al.  and predict an increase of $`T_c`$ with pressure. We further speculate on the implications that the observation of the quantum Hall effect in these systems has on the effective band mass in the low carrier density regime.

\]

Present studies  of high-mobility organic transistors by Batlogg and collaborators have shown an immense richness of tunnability of their electronic properties with gate voltage of in a single device. New possibilities for studying the physics of coherent band quasiparticle transport in organic semiconductors have been open by the high quality of these organic single crystals and of their interfaces with AlO3 dialectics. To date, however, the analysis of organic field-effect-transistor electronic systems has been hampered by the absence of simple and reliable models for their electronic quasiparticles and for the interactions of these quasiparticles with each other and with vibrations of the host lattice. Indeed the discovery of coherent band quasiparticle properties and of the quantum Hall effect in these systems, which are usually thought of as being complex and relatively disordered, has been one of the major surprises that has emerged from recent materials quality advances.

At temperatures above $`20K`$ the transport electronic properties of polyacene semiconductors are well described by small polaron theory. However, this small polaron theory is based on localized molecular orbitals and is therefore unable to describe the low-temperature band quasiparticle behavior seen in Battlogg et al.’s samples. Schubnikov-de Haas transport measurements in these samples demonstrate a quasiparticle mean-free-paths in excess of 1000 lattice constants, demonstrating that the low-temperature regime can be described only by starting at the opposite limit and building a theory based on delocalized band quasiparticles states. Nevertheless, the interactions of quasiparticles with lattice vibrations remain strong, and are presumably responsible for superconductivity. We propose a simple tight-binding model for the quasiparticle bands originating from the $`\pi `$-molecular orbitals and for the interaction of these bands with the host crystal vibrational excitations. Our theory is parameter free once the band mass has been specified .

We focus, for simplicity, on the polyacene compound anthracene, which is monoclinic ($`P2_{1/a}`$) with two basis molecules whose orientations are related by a gliding plane symmetry. We start by considering the field-induced energy bands obtained neglecting electron-phonon interactions. The key question we need to address is the number of 2D subbands that are occupied at a particular 2D density, $`n_{2D}`$. We find that all carriers reside in a single subband up to much higher density in these transistors than in their inorganic counterparts, principally because of the relatively small dialectic constants ($`ϵ3.5`$) and the large effective in plane band mass ($`m_{}=1.5m_e`$) and in spite of the rather large c-direction effective band mass $`m_z3m_e`$ . Our conclusion is based partially on envelope-function density-functional calculations for which the local-density-approximation (LDA) can be used to estimate many-body effects that favor a single subband. In our LDA calculations we find that the second subband is first populated at $`n_{2D}57\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, a density just larger than the highest achieved in experimental systems. Since the experimental signatures of second subband occupation would be unambiguous and no anomalies in 2D density dependence have been reported, we conclude that a single 2D subband is occupied up to the highest densities and that the lowest subband is strongly localized in the top layer for $`n_{2D}`$ larger than $`10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$.

Because Huckel model intra-molecular hopping parameters have no linear dependence on low energy intra-molecular vibration normal coordinates, our model Hamiltonian includes only inter-molecular hopping parameters . Then to model the electron-phonon interaction, we expand each $`ab`$ plane hopping parameter to first order in the twelve coordinates that describe rigid rotations and displacements of neighboring polyacene molecules (as it is usually done in the Su-Schrieffer-Heeger model ):

$`t`$ $`=`$ $`t_0+{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{6}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mu }{}}\stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{\mu ,m}\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mu ,m}`$ (1)
where $`\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mu ,m}`$ is the generalized displacement coordinate, $`\mu =1,2`$ is the molecular basis index, $`m=1,2,3`$ denote displacements of the molecular center of mass along $`\widehat{x}`$,$`\widehat{y}`$ and $`\widehat{z}`$ directions, and $`m=4,5,6`$ denote angular displacements around the $`1,2,3`$ principal axes angular displacements around the $`1,2,3`$ principal axes of each molecule. The electron-phonon interaction parameters $`\stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{\mu ,m}t/\stackrel{~}{u}_{\mu ,m}`$ are calculated based on the assumption of proportionality between hopping integrals and overlap integrals between HOMO or LUMO orbitals on adjacent molecules. These are calculated using standard Hückel approximation HOMO $`\pi `$ orbitals and hence appropriate to the hole systems on which we focus.

We next present expressions for the interactions terms in the Hamiltonian between phonons of the host crystal and the 2D band quasiparticles. The phonon frequencies and polarization vectors are obtained by solving the standard secular equation involving the dynamical matrix. These eigenmodes are in general a mixture of displacements and rotations. We compute the dynamical matrix following the procedure outlined in Ref. . The phonon density-of-states and dispersion curves that emerge from these calculations have been reported elsewhere and are omitted here for the sake of brevity. The rigid-molecule vibration approximation used here is a convenient but inessential approximation that can be complemented if necessary by including coupling to important isolated molecule vibrations; it is however reasonably accurate for low-frequency vibrations of anthracene becoming less reliable for larger polyacenes.

Combining these ingredients we finally write the Hamiltonian (ignoring the Coulomb interaction term) as $`=_{2\mathrm{D}}^0+_{2\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{vib}}+_{\mathrm{vib}}`$, where

$`_{2\mathrm{D}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{vib}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤\mathrm{BZ}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\nu \alpha \beta ,i,j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐐\mathrm{BZ}}{}}g_{i,\alpha ;j,\beta }(𝐤,𝐐,\nu )\times `$ (3)
$`[\widehat{a}_{𝐐,\nu }+\widehat{a}_{𝐐,\nu }^{}]\widehat{c}_{}^{}{}_{i,\alpha [𝐤+𝐪]}{}^{}\widehat{c}_{j,\beta 𝐤}`$
and

$`g_{i,\alpha ;j,\beta }(𝐤,𝐪,q_z,\nu )=(1)^i{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_z)}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{\stackrel{}{\delta }^{},\mu ,m}{}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{2\stackrel{~}{M}_{\mu ,m}\omega _\nu (𝐐)}}}`$ (4)
$`\times \stackrel{~}{𝐭}_{\mu m}(\stackrel{}{\delta }^{})ϵ_{\mu m}(𝐐,\nu )e^{i𝐪\stackrel{}{\delta }_\mu }(e^{i\stackrel{}{\delta }^{}[𝐤+𝐪]}+(1)^{(ij)}e^{i\stackrel{}{\delta }^{}𝐤}).`$ (5)
In Eq. 5 $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha ,\beta }(q_z)=_{z_l}a_l^\alpha a_l^\beta e^{iq_zz_l}`$ is the form factor of the subband (indexed by $`i,j`$) tight-binding wave function and the brackets indicate reduction to the 2D BZ. In our calculations we use the strict 2D limit ($`\stackrel{~}{f}_{\alpha ,\alpha }(q_z)=1`$) because of the strong quantum confinement found in LDA and Hartree calculations.

We next define the electron-phonon interaction spectral function as

$`\alpha `$ $`{}_{}{}^{2}F(\omega ){\displaystyle \frac{1}{Ng(\mu )}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐤,𝐤^{},i}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{q_z,\nu }{}}|g_{i,1;i,1}(𝐤,[𝐤^{}𝐤],q_z,\nu )|^2`$ (7)
$`\times \delta (ϵ_i(𝐤)\mu )\delta (ϵ_i(𝐤^{})\mu )\delta (\omega \omega _\nu ([𝐤^{}𝐤],q_z)`$
where $`g(\mu )=_𝐤\delta (ϵ_i(𝐤)\mu )`$ is the electronic density of states, and $`[𝐤^{}𝐤]`$ denotes the projection of the $`𝐐=(𝐤^{}𝐤,q_z)`$ vector into the three dimensional BZ. The results of these calculations for densities $`n_{2\mathrm{d}}=4.0\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, $`n_{2\mathrm{D}}=1.4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and $`n_{2\mathrm{D}}=6.7\times 10^{13}\mathrm{cm}^2`$ are shown in Fig. 1. The peak locations in the low-frequency rigid molecule vibration regime agree with those observed in infrared absorption and tunneling data in pentacene crystals . The mass enhancement factor $`\lambda `$, obtained from the integration of $`2F\alpha ^2(\omega )/\omega `$, close to half filling is $`0.25`$. Its sharp decay away from half-filling (driven by the density of states) helps explain the sharp superconductivity onset observed in the experiments, and as a consequence we expect a suppresion of superconductivity beyond half-filling from this simple theory. We estimate the superconducting critical temperature by the \[dimension independent\] BCS expression $`k_BT_c\mathrm{}\omega _D\mathrm{exp}[1/\lambda ]`$. Such expression, using $`\mathrm{}\omega _D/k_B150K`$ from Ref. , yields $`3K`$in agreement with the experiments. We note that the inclusion of the second-nearest-neighbour hopping tends to push the density of states peak to higher energies (densities). Adding a finite life time of the quasiparticles, will broaden these peaks, hence creating a plateau in the n2D-dependence of $`T_c`$ shifted to the right of half filling as observed in the experiments . This last effect would lower also the $`T_c`$ calculated at $`n=4.00\times 10^{12}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, worsening experimental agreement. However, given that $`E_F`$ does not satisfy $`E_F>>\mathrm{}\omega _{max}`$, such estimates of $`T_c`$ from $`\lambda `$ must be considered qualitative.

In summary we have presented a theory of the low-temperature quasiparticle bands in polyacene field effect transistors, and of the electron-phonon coupling with the host molecular crystal. Our calculations indicate that the quasiparticles lie in a single 2D tight-binding band up to the highest densities that have been achieved experimentally at present and that the most important electron-phonon interactions arise from the influence of approximately rigid molecular translations and rotations on hopping between HOMO and LUMO orbitals on adjacent molecules. This picture implies a dependence of superconducting critical temperature on molecular lattice constant which contrasts with the case of doped fullerene superconductors. For the fullerenes, the important electron-phonon interactions are intra-molecular so that $`T_c`$ depends on inter-molecular hopping only through the density-of-states. Decreasing the lattice constant, increases hopping, and hence decreases the density-of-states and $`T_c`$. Here decreasing the lattice constant will also strengthen the important electron-phonon interactions. According to our theory, the latter effect dominates and $`T_c`$ will increase with decreasing lattice constant. We find that phonon-mediated electron-electron interactions in polyacene molecular crystals are strong only when the 2D tight-binding band is close to half-filling and its density of states is relatively large. This occurs for 2D densities comparable to $`4\times 10^{14}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, where superconductivity turns on relatively abruptly. At lower carrier densities, $`\lambda 1`$ and electron-electron interactions are dominated by repulsive Coulomb interactions, consistent with the occurrence of the fractional quantum Hall effect. We also note that the simple fact that the fractional quantum Hall effect is observed points to the distinct possibility that the band mass can be highly reduced at those lower carrier densities since, otherwise, from rough estimates of the known experimental values at higher carrier densities, the $`r_s`$ value would be too large to allow anything but a Wigner crystal ground state.

The authors acknowledge helpful discussions with P. Barbara, B. Batlogg, A. Dodabalapur, Y. Joglekar, T. Jungwirth, and P. Rossky. This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeischaft, by the Welch Foundation and the by the National Science Foundation under grant DMR0115947.


text:
# TableTrans, MultiTrans, InterTrans and TreeTrans: Diverse Tools Built on the Annotation Graph Toolkit

## 1. Introduction

Annotation graphs provide an efficient and expressive data model for linguistic annotations of time-series data. We have developed a complete open-source software infrastructure supporting the rapid development of tools for transcribing and annotating time-series data, the Annotation Graph Toolkit (AGTK). This general-purpose infrastructure uses annotation graphs as the underlying model and allows developers to quickly create special-purpose annotation tools using common components. An application programming interface, an input/output library supporting a variety of annotation file formats, and several graphical user interfaces have been developed.

This paper describes four annotation tools based on AGTK which have been developed at the Linguistic Data Consortium. TableTrans is for observational coding, using a spreadsheet whose rows are aligned to a signal. MultiTrans is for transcribing multi-party communicative interactions recorded using multi-channel signals. InterTrans is for creating interlinear text aligned to audio. TreeTrans is for creating and manipulating syntactic trees. The toolkit and tools are distributed under an open source software license.

## 2. The Annotation Graph Toolkit (AGTK)

An annotation graph \[Bird and Liberman, 2001\] is a directed acyclic graph where edges are labeled with fielded records, and nodes are (optionally) labeled with time offsets. The annotation graph model, a generalization of the Tipster model used in text retrieval \[Grishman, 1997\], is capable of representing virtually all types of linguistic annotation (e.g. phonetic, orthographic, part-of-speech, syntactic, discourse, intonational). This development has opened up an interesting range of new possibilities for creation, maintenance and search, and has lead to new annotation tools with applicability across the text, audio and video modalities.

The Annotation Graph Toolkit (AGTK) is a collection of software for the development of annotation tools, instantiating the annotation graph model. AGTK includes application programming interfaces (APIs) for manipulating annotation graph data and importing data from other formats, wrappers for scripting languages, graphical user interface (GUI) components specialized for annotation tasks, and demonstration applications.

?) describes the toolkit in detail. ?) describes collaborative annotation using a shared database server.

## 3. Use of Third-party Software

AGTK depends on a variety of third-party software, as detailed below.

### 3.1. Scripting languages: Python and Tcl

AGTK provides interfaces to its libraries for both Tcl and Python. Tcl is a scripting language with a native GUI toolkit called Tk. Python is a newer object-oriented scripting language. The early AGTK applications were developed using Tcl, but more recent applications have been developed in Python. Both sets of applications depend on the Tk GUI library.

### 3.2. Audio waveform display: WaveSurfer

WaveSurfer \[Sjölander and Beskow, 2000\] is open source software for displaying and manipulating audio data, developed by Kåre Sjölander and Jonas Beskow of KTH. WaveSurfer requires Snack, also developed by Sjölander. WaveSurfer is written in Tcl/Tk and its widget, called *wsurf*, can be embedded in any Tcl/Tk application. There is a Python/Tkinter interface for wsurf that permits it to be embedded in a Python/Tkinter application.

### 3.3. Video display: QuickTime

QuickTime Tcl \[http://hem.fyristorg.com/matben/qt/\] can be embedded in a Tcl/Tk application. We have written a simple wrapper in order to embed QuickTime Tcl in a Python/Tkinter application. QuickTime Tcl requires the QuickTime player distributed by Apple Corporation. \[http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/\].

## 4. TableTrans

TableTrans is a spreadsheet-based annotation tool for audio signals. It was primarily intended for linguistic annotations, but it can be used for many kinds of observational coding, such as widely practiced in ethology. The tool allows users to annotate regions of signal with arbitrary features, such as speaker identifiers, utterance identifiers and transcriptions. Each row of the spreadsheet corresponds to a region of the signal. Each column corresponds to a user-defined feature, and has a user-defined width. For example, one could define the width of 5 characters for the speaker identifier, and the width of 40 for the transcription. One could also choose to define ten or more columns as shown below, and use it for more structured coding.

Figure 1 shows TableTrans with a waveform display based on WaveSurfer. Figure 2 shows TableTrans with a video module based on QuickTime and QuickTimeTcl.

#### Setting Current Region

Swiping a region in the waveform display while holding down the left-mouse button highlights the region. This region is called the *current region*. In the video version of TableTrans, the current region can be set with two operations: pressing *control-s* at the beginning of the region, and pressing *control-e* at the end of the region.

#### Create Annotation

Pressing the *Return* key inserts a blank annotation row in the spreadsheet. If the current region of the waveform is chosen, the start and end times of the current region are inserted.

#### Delete Current Annotation

Pressing *Control-d* deletes the currently highlighted annotation (the *current annotation*).

#### Update Current Region

Pressing *Control-g* updates the start and end times of the current annotation using the current region in the waveform.

#### Navigate in Spreadsheet

The *Tab* key moves the cursor one cell to the right, if possible. The right, left, up, and down arrows move to the neighboring cells in the corresponding directions.

#### Navigate Within Current Cell

The *Shift-Right* and *Shift-Left* keys move the insertion point within the current cell.

#### Toggle Play and Stop

The *F1* key toggles playback and pausing of the recording. If the current region is chosen, it plays the current region. If a single point is selected in the waveform, *F1* starts playback from the point, and annotations corresponding to the audio cursor are highlighted (aligned playback).

#### Sort Annotations

Double-clicking the left mouse button on a feature name (a column heading) of the spreadsheet sorts the annotations according to the values in the column. For example, double clicking on the cell titled ’f1’ will sort all the annotations according to the values in the column. Sorting according to start and end times can also be done from the menu items, Trans-\>Sort-\>Sort Annotations by Start Time and Trans-\>Sort-\>Sort Annotations by End Time.

#### Find

The menu item Trans-\>Find or the *Control-f* key combination brings up a dialog window to search a string in the spreadsheet. If a matching string is found in the cell it is highlighted and the annotation row becomes the current annotation.

#### Control View of Annotations

The menu item Trans-\>View-\>Show Select Rows lets the user specify a feature and a value so that only the annotations having this value as the feature will be displayed. The other menu items in Trans-\>View are for displaying all annotations and hiding all annotations in the spreadsheet.

#### Open Sound/Movie File

The menu item File-\>Open Sound File loads a sound file into the waveform panel. It automatically adjusts the number of waveforms according to the number of channels in the sound file. All sound file formats supported by WaveSurfer are supported. In the video version of TableTrans, the File-\>Open Movie File will open a movie file.

#### Open Annotation File

The menu item File-\>Open Annotation File provides the users with options to load an annotation file in the following formats: XML (AIF), Table Format (csv, etc.) and LCF (the LDC Callhome Format).

The application opens appropriate dialog windows for each format. First, the user is prompted for the file. Then, for a Table format, a window for specifying names of features and a delimiter is opened. The names specified here are used as feature names and column headers.

#### Save Annotations in File

If a file name and a format type have been already chosen, the menu item File-\>Save will save all the annotations in the file. If they have not be chosen, the user needs to use one of the File-\>Save Annotations As menu items.

#### Save Current Sound Region in File

The menu item Sound-\>Save Current Region in File lets the user save the current region of the sound data into a file.

#### Column configurations

Column headers and width may be changed interactively, or may be specified in a configuration file.

#### Database support

TableTrans supports access to the database component of AGTK. Figure 3 shows the dialog window for entering a ODBC connect string. Table 1 shows some of the parameters used in a connect string. For a complete list, please see \[http://www.mysql.com/doc/M/y/MyODBC\_connect\_parameters.html\].

## 5. MultiTrans

MultiTrans is a transcription tool for transcribing multi-party conversations in multi-channel audio signals. The user interface is similar to Transcriber \[Barras et al., 2001\], but MultiTrans has one transcription panel corresponding to each channel in the signal.

Figure 4 contains a screenshot of MultiTrans with a two-channel audio signal. The left transcription panel corresponds to the first channel in the audio signal, and the right transcription panel corresponds to the second channel. The boxes labeled from A to E in the figure illustrates the following points.

* The text panel for speaker 2. The channel associated with speaker 2 is the current channel.
* This is the second annotation for speaker 2. It is also the current annotation, and is highlighted.
* A segment for speaker 1. This shows some of the transcript for this annotation and the associated region of the waveform.
* The highlighted region of the waveform for the second annotation. This is the current annotation and its entire waveform region is highlighted.
* The hollow play button. This button will play the current channel only, muting other speech channels.

There are two ways to create an annotation, both are explained below. All annotations are inserted into the text panel, sorted by their starting position.

#### Create Annotation (Specific)

The first way to create an annotation is to explicitly highlight a region in the waveform and press the *Return* key. This will create a bullet in the appropriate text panel that designates the created annotation. Also, a region is created below the waveform itself to designate the created annotation. Only once an annotation is created can the transcription of that region begin.

#### Create Annotation (Non-Specific)

Another way to create an annotation is during speech playback. When the playback of speech is begun the user may press the *Return* key to insert an anchor in the current channel. When *Return* is pressed a small black bar will appear below the waveform. This designates the starting position of the current annotation. When *Return* is pressed a second time the end anchor for the annotation is inserted and the annotation is created. Ending speech playback destroys any start anchors that do not yet have an associated end anchor.

#### Delete Current Annotation

An annotation can be deleted using *Control-d*. To delete an annotation one must first select the annotation to be deleted. The current annotation can easily be distinguished from others because its transcription and waveform regions are highlighted. When an annotation is deleted its transcription and its association with the waveform region are also deleted.

#### Change Current Annotation

Once an annotation is created its region in the waveform can be changed without deleting the entire annotation. This is done by selecting the desired annotation (with a click in the text panel or segment below the waveform), and moving either the end point or start point of the annotation and pressing the *Return* key to register the change.

#### Split Current Annotation

Large annotations can be split into smaller annotations using the split current annotation command. First, the area in the text transcription where the split is to occur is selected. Next, the area in the waveform where the split is to occur is selected. Finally, the *Return* key is pressed and the old annotation is split into two new annotations, each associated with a different waveform region.

#### Join Current Annotation

Joining an annotation is the opposite of splitting an annotation. This is done by selecting an annotation and pressing the *Shift-BackSpace* key combination. This will merge the currently selected annotation region and transcription with the one that occurs immediately before it.

#### Squeeze Current Annotation

When an annotation is squeezed its starting boundary is pushed to the ending boundary of the previous annotation. This is used when annotations are desired to be separate, but one is to begin as soon as the other ends. This is done by selecting an annotation and pressing the *Control-Shift-BackSpace* key combination.

#### Toggle Speech Playback

There are several ways to begin speech playback. Pressing the *Tab* key will toggle speech playback of the current annotation, or the entire speech file if there is not a current annotation. Playback can also be initiated by pressing the solid play button in the waveform panel. Either of these commands will play all channels in the speech file. Pressing the hollow play button located in the waveform panel will play the current channel only, muting all other channels. This is useful when there are several channels that make speaker distinction difficult.

## 6. InterTrans

InterTrans is an interlinear text editor. Interlinear text is a kind of text in which each word is annotated with some combination of phonological, morphological and syntactic information (displayed under the word) and each sentence is annotated with a free translation. For an extended discussion of interlinear text, and how to model it using annotation graphs, see \[Maeda and Bird, 2000\].

InterTrans permits interlinear transcription aligned to a primary audio signal, for greater convenience, accuracy and accountability. Whole words and sub-parts of words can be easily aligned with the audio. Clicking on any part of the annotation causes the corresponding extent of audio signal to be highlighted. As an extended recording is played back, annotated sections are highlighted (both waveform and interlinear text displays). Figure 5 contains a screenshot of InterTrans.

The linguistic levels of information such as *Free Translation (FT)*, *Word* (WD) and *Morphome* (MP) are called *types*. The relationships among types are defined in a configuration file. For example, if the type WD is defined to *dominate* the type MP, operations described in this section, such as split and join, on any cell of the type WD will cause corresponding cell of the type MP to split or join as well. It is also possible to define two or more types as in an equivalent class. In the implementation, this is done by using multi-attribute labels of arcs. For example, if the types *Morpheme* and (MP) and *Morphemic Gloss* (MP-GLOSS) are to be used, these can be defined as types of an equivalent class. Then, operations, such as *Split* on any of the cells of the type MP will cause the corresponding cell of the type MP-GLOSS to split as well.

#### Insert New Cell

A new cell can be inserted after the current cell by clicking on the *Insert New Cell* button. A normal procedure for creating interlinear text is to use this function first, and then split the sub cells as necessary.

#### Delete Cell

Deleting a cell can be done in one of the following ways after selecting the current cell; use the *Control-d* key combination, or click on the *Delete Cell* button.

#### Split Cell

Splitting a cell in InterTrans can be done in a similar manner to MultiTrans. First, the current cell should be selected. Optionally, the splitting point in the waveform can be chosen if the current cell is associated with a region in the waveform. Pressing the *Return* key, or clicking on the *Split Cell* button will split the current cell.111We plan to modify the program so that key bindings can be assigned by the user.

#### Join Cell

Joining two adjoining cells is simple. First, the current cell should be chosen. Then clicking on the *Join Sub Cell* button or pressing the *Control-j* key combination will join the current cell and its preceding cell.

#### Alignment with Audio Waveform

A partial or complete set of cells can be aligned with the audio signal displayed in the waveform panel. This can be done by selecting the current cell in the interlinear transcription panel, and selecting the corresponding region in the waveform panel. The alignment can be changed later.

## 7. TreeTrans

TreeTrans is a tool for displaying and annotating tree structures.222 For a discussion of how to model trees using annotation graphs, see \[Bird and Liberman, 2001, Cotton and Bird, 2002\]. Basic annotation functions are provided, and functions can be easily added or changed for specific annotation projects. Trees can be displayed in three forms: bottom-up, top-down, and vertical. Two views of trees in TreeTrans are shown in Figure 6. Every node of the displayed tree has one of three types: syn, a syntactic or internal node; pos, a part-of-speech node; or wrd, a node containing original text.

To change a displayed tree, users highlight the appropriate node(s) then choose a function from the list of buttons. All the tree manipulation functions preserve the surface order of the word string.

#### Input/Output

TreeTrans can input either Penn Treebank-style bracketed trees or annotation graphs. Likewise, it can store annotated trees in either of these formats.

#### InsertInternalNode

If one node is highlighted, this function adds an internal node as the parent of the highlighted node. If two nodes are highlighted, this function adds an internal node as the parent of the the two highlighted nodes and any intervening material. If the branches of the new internal node would cross any existing branches of the tree, the insertion is not performed.

#### Delete

This deletes the highlighted node. If the highlighted node has type pos, its corresponding wrd node is also deleted. If the deletion would cause an internal node to have no leaves, the deletion is not performed.

#### MoveNode

When two nodes are highlighted, this moves the first highlighted node and its subtree to become a child of the second highlighted node. When three nodes are highlighted, the first two nodes and any intervening material are moved to become children of the third highlighted node. The move is not performed if it would cause word order to be changed, or if it would result in an internal node with no leaves.

#### Adjoin

This is a syntactic adjoin, which creates a clone of the second highlighted node, then moves the first highlighted node to become a child of the clone.

#### SynWrdBefore/After

This function adds a pair of nodes, one of type syn, and one of type wrd. It is used for adding traces to the text. The new syn node is a previous or following sibling of the highlighted node.

#### ChangeLabel

This changes the label of the highlighted node.

#### CoRef

This gives two highlighted nodes the same trace number.

#### BuildDefaultTree

This builds a basic tree structure using the input sentence as the terminals of the tree.

## 8. Obtaining the tools

All of the annotation tools described in this paper are distributed under an open source license, and available from \[http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/AG/\].