text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Solutions $`R(u)`$ of the Yang-Baxter equation

$`R_{12}(uv)R_{13}(u)R_{23}(v)=R_{23}(v)R_{13}(u)R_{12}(uv)`$ (1.1)
play a central role in the study of bulk integrable quantum field theories and solvable lattice models (see, e.g., -). For simplicity we restrict our attention in this paper to the XXZ case, which is related to the affine Lie algebra $`A_1^{(1)}`$. Although early investigations focused on the fundamental (spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$) representation

$`R^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\mathrm{sinh}(u+\eta )& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}u& \mathrm{sinh}\eta & 0\\ 0& \mathrm{sinh}\eta & \mathrm{sinh}u& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{sinh}(u+\eta )\end{array}\right)`$ (1.6)
(where $`\eta `$ is the so-called anisotropy parameter), attention soon turned also to higher-dimensional representations. The spin $`1`$ $`R`$ matrix was obtained  by direct solution of the Yang-Baxter equation (1.1). A “fusion” procedure for $`R`$ matrices was subsequently developed in . However, it was not until a quantum group approach was formulated by Kulish and Reshetikhin  that explicit formulas for $`R`$ matrices of arbitrary spin became available. The key feature of this approach is that it linearizes the problem of finding solutions of the Yang-Baxter equations. This work initiated the study of quantum groups (see, e.g., ), and seeded important developments in integrable quantum field theory (see, e.g., ).

Solutions $`K(u)`$ of the boundary Yang-Baxter equation

$`R_{12}(uv)K_1(u)R_{12}(u+v)K_2(v)=K_2(v)R_{12}(u+v)K_1(u)R_{12}(uv)`$ (1.7)
play a corresponding role for quantum integrable models with boundary . The (nondiagonal) fundamental representation

$`K^{(\frac{1}{2})}(u)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u)& \kappa \mathrm{sinh}2u\\ \kappa \mathrm{sinh}2u& \mathrm{sinh}(\xi u)\end{array}\right)`$ (1.10)
(where $`\xi `$ and $`\kappa `$ are boundary parameters) was found  by direct solution of (1.7), as was the spin $`1`$ result . A fusion procedure for $`K`$ matrices was developed in . However, the problem of finding explicit formulas for $`K`$ matrices of arbitrary spin has so far remained unsolved. Some partial results include work on the so-called reflection algebra  and on Liouville theory for open strings .

We present here some further progress on this problem. Namely, we obtain recursion formulas which determine the matrix elements of $`K^{(j)}(u)`$ for any spin $`j`$. Our approach, generalizing the one used to solve the corresponding bulk problem , is based on “boundary quantum groups” . One application of this result is to determine certain coefficients appearing in the Bethe Ansatz solution  of the open XXZ quantum spin chain with nondiagonal boundary terms at roots of unity.

In Section 2 we review the construction of the quantum group generators which commute with the $`R`$ matrix (1.6) and its higher-spin generalization. In Section 3 we first recall  the combinations of these quantum group generators which commute with the $`K`$ matrix (1.10). By demanding that these same combinations of generators also commute with $`K^{(j)}(u)`$, we obtain a set of linear relations, which we then solve for the matrix elements $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ . In Section 4 we apply these results to the problem of the open XXZ quantum spin chain with nondiagonal boundary terms at roots of unity. We end with a brief discussion in Section 5.

## 2 The bulk case

In this Section, we review the construction  of the quantum group generators which commute with the $`R`$ matrix (1.6) and its higher-spin generalization. To this end, it is convenient to introduce the two-component Faddeev-Zamolodchikov “particle-creation operators”

$`A(u)=\left(\begin{array}{c}A_+(u)\hfill \\ A_{}(u)\hfill \end{array}\right),`$ (2.3)
in terms of which the $`R`$ matrix $`R^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(u)`$ can be defined by

$`A(u_1)A(u_2)=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(u)A(u_2)A(u_1),`$ (2.4)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}=𝒫R^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$, $`𝒫`$ is the permutation matrix, and $`u=u_1u_2`$. Associativity of the products in $`A(u_1)A(u_2)A(u_3)`$ then leads  to the Yang-Baxter equation (1.1).

Let us assume the following commutation relations of the quantum group generators $`Q_\pm `$, $`\overline{Q}_\pm `$ and $`T`$ with the particle-creation operators

$`Q_\pm A(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\pm \sigma _3}A(u)Q_\pm +e^u\sigma _{}A(u),`$
$`\overline{Q}_\pm A(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\sigma _3}A(u)\overline{Q}_\pm +e^u\sigma _{}A(u),`$
$`TA(u)`$ $`=`$ $`A(u)T+\sigma _3A(u),`$ (2.5)
where

$`q=e^\eta ,`$ (2.6)
and $`\sigma _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(\sigma _1\pm i\sigma _2)`$. Associativity of the products in $`QA(u_1)A(u_2)|0`$ and invariance of the vacuum $`Q|0=0`$ (where $`Q=Q_\pm ,T`$ or $`Q=\overline{Q}_\pm ,T`$ ); or, equivalently,

$`[\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}(u),\mathrm{\Delta }(Q)]=0`$ (2.7)
(where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the comultiplication) leads to the $`R`$ matrix (1.6).

This construction generalizes to arbitrary spin $`j\{\frac{1}{2},1,\frac{3}{2},\mathrm{}\}`$. We introduce the $`(2j+1)`$-component particle-creation operators $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$, in terms of which the $`R`$ matrix $`R^{(\frac{1}{2},j)}(u)`$ can be defined by

$`A(u_1)\stackrel{~}{A}(u_2)=\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{(\frac{1}{2},j)}(u)\stackrel{~}{A}(u_2)A(u_1).`$ (2.8)
where $`\stackrel{ˇ}{R}^{(\frac{1}{2},j)}=R^{(\frac{1}{2},j)}P`$, and $`P`$ is a $`2(2j+1)\times 2(2j+1)`$ matrix which satisfies

$`P\left(\stackrel{~}{M}N\right)P^1=N\stackrel{~}{M},`$ (2.9)
where $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ and $`N`$ are arbitrary $`(2j+1)\times (2j+1)`$ and $`2\times 2`$ matrices, respectively.

We assume the commutation relations

$`Q_\pm \stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{\pm 2H}\stackrel{~}{A}(u)Q_\pm +e^{u+\frac{\eta }{2}}q^{\pm H}E_{}\stackrel{~}{A}(u),`$
$`\overline{Q}_\pm \stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`q^{2H}\stackrel{~}{A}(u)\overline{Q}_\pm +e^{u\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_{}\stackrel{~}{A}(u),`$
$`T\stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)T+2H\stackrel{~}{A}(u),`$ (2.10)
where the matrices $`H`$ and $`E_\pm `$ have matrix elements

$`(H)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`(j+1n)\delta _{m,n},m,n=1,2,\mathrm{},2j+1,`$
$`(E_+)_{mn}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _m\delta _{m,n1},(E_{})_{mn}=\omega _n\delta _{m1,n},\omega _n=\sqrt{[n]_q[2j+1n]_q},`$ (2.11)
and

$`[x]_q={\displaystyle \frac{q^xq^x}{qq^1}}.`$ (2.12)
These matrices form a $`(2j+1)`$-dimensional representation of the $`U_q(su(2))`$ algebra

$`[H,E_\pm ]=\pm E_\pm ,[E_+,E_{}]=[2H]_q.`$ (2.13)
For $`j=\frac{1}{2}`$, the relations (2.10) reduce to (2.5). Associativity of the products in $`QA(u_1)\stackrel{~}{A}(u_2)|0`$ and invariance of the vacuum $`Q|0=0`$ (where $`Q=Q_\pm ,T`$ or $`Q=\overline{Q}_\pm ,T`$ ) leads to the $`R`$ matrix

$`R^{(\frac{1}{2},j)}(u)=\mathrm{sinh}(\eta )\left(\sigma _+E_{}+\sigma _{}E_+\right)+\mathrm{sinh}\left(u+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+\sigma _3H\right)\eta \right).`$ (2.14)
## 3 The boundary case

Having reviewed the construction of the quantum group generators which commute with the $`R`$ matrix, we now turn to the boundary case. The matrix $`K^{(\frac{1}{2})}(u)`$ can be defined by

$`A(u)|0_B=K^{(\frac{1}{2})}(u)A(u)|0_B,`$ (3.1)
where $`|0_B`$ is the vacuum (ground state) in the boundary case. Associativity of the products in $`A(u_1)A(u_2)|0_B`$ then leads  to the boundary Yang-Baxter equation (1.7).

Following , we consider the combinations of quantum group generators

$`\widehat{Q}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_++Q_{}{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^T,`$
$`\widehat{Q}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{Q}_{}+Q_++{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^T,`$ (3.2)
which generate the boundary quantum group. Indeed, associativity of the products in $`\widehat{Q}A(u)|0_B`$ and $`\widehat{Q}^{}A(u)|0_B`$, together with invariance of the vacuum $`Q_\pm |0_B=\overline{Q}_\pm |0_B=T|0_B=0`$, imply (using the commutation relations (2.5)) the $`K`$ matrix (1.10).

The spin $`j`$ matrix $`K^{(j)}(u)`$ can similarly be defined by

$`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)|0_B=K^{(j)}(u)\stackrel{~}{A}(u)|0_B.`$ (3.3)
Associativity of the products in $`\widehat{Q}\stackrel{~}{A}(u)|0_B`$ and $`\widehat{Q}^{}\stackrel{~}{A}(u)|0_B`$ and invariance of the vacuum imply (using the commutation relations (2.10))

$`\left(e^{u\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_{}+e^{u+\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^{2H}\right)K^{(j)}(u)`$ (3.4)
$`=`$ $`K^{(j)}(u)\left(e^{u\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_{}+e^{u+\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^{2H}\right)`$
and

$`\left(e^{u\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_++e^{u+\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^{2H}\right)K^{(j)}(u)`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`K^{(j)}(u)\left(e^{u\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_++e^{u+\frac{\eta }{2}}q^HE_{}+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}q^{2H}\right),`$
respectively. Making use of the explicit expressions (2.11) for the matrix elements of $`H`$ and $`E_\pm `$, we obtain the relations

$`e^{u\eta (j+\frac{3}{2}m)}\omega _{m1}K_{m1,n}^{(j)}(u)+e^{u\eta (j+\frac{1}{2}m)}\omega _mK_{m+1,n}^{(j)}(u){\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}e^{2\eta (j+1m)}K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{u\eta (j+\frac{1}{2}n)}\omega _nK_{m,n+1}^{(j)}(u)+e^{u\eta (j+\frac{3}{2}n)}\omega _{n1}K_{m,n1}^{(j)}(u){\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}e^{2\eta (j+1n)}K_{mn}^{(j)}(u),`$
and

$`e^{u+\eta (j+\frac{1}{2}m)}\omega _mK_{m+1,n}^{(j)}(u)+e^{u+\eta (j+\frac{3}{2}m)}\omega _{m1}K_{m1,n}^{(j)}(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}e^{2\eta (j+1m)}K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{u+\eta (j+\frac{3}{2}n)}\omega _{n1}K_{m,n1}^{(j)}(u)+e^{u+\eta (j+\frac{1}{2}n)}\omega _nK_{m,n+1}^{(j)}(u)+{\displaystyle \frac{e^\xi }{2\kappa \mathrm{sinh}\eta }}e^{2\eta (j+1n)}K_{mn}^{(j)}(u),`$
where $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ denotes the $`(m,n)`$ matrix element of $`K^{(j)}(u)`$. It is understood that these matrix elements vanish for index values outside the range $`[1,2j+1]`$.

The relations (LABEL:rel1) and (LABEL:rel2) determine the matrix $`K^{(j)}(u)`$, up to an overall unitarization factor which does not concern us here. Indeed, we find that this matrix is symmetric $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)=K_{nm}^{(j)}(u)`$, and 111Due to the presence of the square root (which originates from the factors $`\omega _n`$ (2.11)), we expect that for $`mn`$ this result is strictly valid only for $`\eta `$ real. For $`\eta `$ imaginary, some phase factors may appear.

$`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`\kappa ^{nm}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{nm1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((2jm+1l)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}((n1l)\eta )}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m2}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((n1l)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}((m1l)\eta )}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{nm1}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(2ul\eta )`$ (3.8)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{2jn}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u+(lj+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta ){\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{m2}{}}}\mathrm{sinh}(\xi u(lj+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta )J_{mn}^{(j)}(u),`$
$`m,n=1,2,\mathrm{},2j+1,nm,`$
where the quantities $`J_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ are given by

$`J_{mn}^{(j)}(u)={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\left[\frac{2j+mn}{2}\right]}{}}}\kappa ^{2k}J_{mn}^{(j,k)}(u),J_{mn}^{(j,0)}(u)=1.`$ (3.9)
Finally, let us describe the quantities $`J_{mn}^{(j,k)}(u)`$ for $`k1`$: for $`m=1`$, they are given by

$`J_{1,n}^{(j,k)}(u)={\displaystyle \underset{l_1=0}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=l_1+2}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_k=l_{k1}+2}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}F_{l_1}(u,j;n)F_{l_2}(u,j;n)\mathrm{}F_{l_k}(u,j;n),`$ (3.10)
where

$`F_l(u,j;n)={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2u(n+l)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}((2jnl)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u+(j+\frac{1}{2}nl)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u+(j\frac{1}{2}nl)\eta )}}.`$ (3.11)
For $`m2`$, these quantities are determined (in terms of the quantities with $`m=1`$ (3.10)) by the recursion relations

$`J_{mn}^{(j,k)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`a_{mn}^{(j)}(u)J_{m1,n1}^{(j,k)}(u)+b_{mn}^{(j)}(u)J_{m1,n}^{(j,k)}(u)+c_{mn}^{(j)}(u)J_{m2,n}^{(j,k1)}(u),`$ (3.12)
$`m=2,3,\mathrm{},2j+1,`$
where

$`a_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u+(jn+\frac{3}{2})\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(2u+\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}((nm+1)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\xi u+(jm+\frac{3}{2})\eta )}},`$
$`b_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u+(jm+\frac{5}{2})\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(2u(nm)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}((nm+1)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\xi u+(jm+\frac{3}{2})\eta )}},`$
$`c_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((m2)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}((2jm+3)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}((nm+2)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}^2((nm+1)\eta )}}`$
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2u+(nm+2)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(2u(nm+1)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(2u(nm)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi u+(jm+\frac{5}{2})\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\xi u+(jm+\frac{3}{2})\eta )}}.`$
The recursion relation (3.12) is satisfied for $`k=0`$ by virtue of the identity

$`1=a_{mn}^{(j)}(u)+b_{mn}^{(j)}(u).`$ (3.14)
The recursion relations (LABEL:rel1),(LABEL:rel2) and the expressions (3.8)-(3) for the matrix elements of $`K^{(j)}(u)`$ constitute the main results of this paper. We have explicitly verified for values of spin up to $`j=2`$ that these results agree with those obtained by fusion , up to a shift of the spectral parameter and an overall factor.

It is easy to see from Eq. (3.8) that $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(0)`$ vanishes for $`mn`$; and, in fact, is proportional to $`\delta _{mn}`$, as follows from also Eqs. (3.12), (3). Furthermore, the dependence of $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ on the boundary parameter $`\kappa `$ is given by $`\kappa ^{|nm|}`$, plus terms that are higher-order in $`\kappa `$. Hence, for $`\kappa =0`$, $`K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ is diagonal, and is entirely given by Eq. (3.8) – no recursion relation is then needed, since the quantities $`J_{mn}^{(j,k)}(u)`$ do not depend on $`\kappa `$. We also remark that the symmetry $`K_{nm}^{(j)}(u)=K_{mn}^{(j)}(u)`$ follows from the symmetry of the equations (LABEL:rel1),(LABEL:rel2) under transposition of $`K`$ and simultaneous relabeling $`nm`$. As already observed in , one can break this symmetry and introduce a third parameter $`\alpha `$ into the K-matrix by performing a change of basis $`\stackrel{~}{A}(u)e^{i\alpha H}\stackrel{~}{A}(u)`$. While this leaves the R-matrix unchanged, it transforms the entries of the K-matrix as $`K_{mn}e^{i\alpha (mn)}K_{mn}`$.

It is tempting to conjecture that there exist generalizations of the formulas (3.10), (3.11) which are valid not just for $`m=1`$, but for all values of $`m`$. Indeed, we have found that an expression of the form

$`J_{mn}^{(j,k)}(u)={\displaystyle \underset{l_1=1m}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=l_1+2}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_k=l_{k1}+2}{\overset{2j1n}{}}}F_{l_1}(u,j;m,n)F_{l_2}(u,j;m,n)\mathrm{}F_{l_k}(u,j;m,n)`$ (3.15)
holds for values of $`m`$ up to at least $`m=4`$. However, we have not yet succeeded to find general formulas for the corresponding functions $`F_l(u,j;m,n)`$.

## 4 An application

One immediate application of our result is to determine certain coefficients appearing in the Bethe Ansatz solution of the open XXZ quantum spin chain with nondiagonal boundary terms, defined by the Hamiltonian

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{N1}{}}}(\sigma _n^x\sigma _{n+1}^x+\sigma _n^y\sigma _{n+1}^y+\mathrm{cosh}\eta \sigma _n^z\sigma _{n+1}^z)`$ (4.1)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{sinh}\eta (\mathrm{coth}\xi _{}\sigma _1^z+{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _{}}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi _{}}}\sigma _1^x\mathrm{coth}\xi _+\sigma _N^z{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa _+}{\mathrm{sinh}\xi _+}}\sigma _N^x)\}.`$
We recall  that for bulk anisotropy value

$`\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{i\pi }{p+1}},p=1,2,\mathrm{},`$ (4.2)
(and hence $`q=e^\eta `$ is a root of unity, satisfying $`q^{p+1}=1`$), the spin-$`\frac{p+1}{2}`$ transfer matrix can be expressed in terms of a lower-spin transfer matrix, resulting in the truncation of the fusion hierarchy. In order to obtain this crucial “truncation identity” (which in turn leads to a functional relation for the fundamental transfer matrix, and then finally to a set of Bethe-Ansatz-like equations for the transfer-matrix eigenvalues), one needs some knowledge of the matrix $`K^{(j)}(u)`$ with $`j=\frac{p+1}{2}`$. In particular, for the $`(1,1)`$ matrix element, it was conjectured in  that

$`K_{11previous}^{(\frac{p+1}{2})}(u)`$ $``$ $`n(u;\xi ,\kappa )=\mathrm{sinh}\left((p+1)(\xi +u)\right)`$ (4.3)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\left[\frac{p+1}{2}\right]}{}}}c_{p,k}\kappa ^{2k}\mathrm{sinh}\left((p+1)u+(p+12k)\xi \right),`$
where $`c_{p,k}`$ are some unknown coefficients. These coefficients were explicitly computed in  for values of $`p`$ up to $`p=5`$, and they were found to be consistent with the formulas

$`c_{p,1}`$ $`=`$ $`p+1,`$
$`c_{p,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}p(p1)1.`$ (4.4)
We have designated by “previous” the $`K`$ matrix appearing in , in order not to confuse it with the $`K`$ matrix used here, from which it differs by a shift of spectral parameter and an overall factor,

$`K_{previous}^{(j)}(u)K^{(j)}(u+(j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta ).`$ (4.5)
Using our results (3.8)-(3.11) for $`m=n=1`$, we obtain

$`K_{11previous}^{(\frac{p+1}{2})}(u)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{sinh}((p+1)(\xi +u))\{1`$ (4.6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\left[\frac{p+1}{2}\right]}{}}}\kappa ^{2k}{\displaystyle \underset{l_1=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=l_1+2}{\overset{p1}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_k=l_{k1}+2}{\overset{p1}{}}}f_{l_1}(u;p)f_{l_2}(u;p)\mathrm{}f_{l_k}(u;p)\},`$
where

$`f_l(u;p)`$ $`=`$ $`F_l(u+(j{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})\eta ,j;1)|_{\eta =\frac{i\pi }{p+1},j=\frac{p+1}{2}}`$ (4.7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(2u(l+2)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}((l+1)\eta )}{\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u(l+2)\eta )\mathrm{sinh}(\xi +u(l+1)\eta )}}|_{\eta =\frac{i\pi }{p+1}}.`$
Using the identity

$`{\displaystyle \underset{l_1=0}{\overset{p1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{l_2=l_1+2}{\overset{p1}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{l_k=l_{k1}+2}{\overset{p1}{}}}f_{l_1}(u;p)f_{l_2}(u;p)\mathrm{}f_{l_k}(u;p)`$ (4.8)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)}{k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k2}{}}}(pkl)\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}((p+1)u+(p+12k)\xi )}{\mathrm{sinh}((p+1)(\xi +u))}},`$
and comparing (4.6) and (4.8) with (4.3), we conclude that the coefficients $`c_{p,k}`$ are given by

$`c_{p,k}={\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)}{k!}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=0}{\overset{k2}{}}}(pkl)={\displaystyle \frac{p+1}{k}}\left(\begin{array}{c}pk\\ k1\end{array}\right).`$ (4.11)
This result is evidently consistent with (4.4).

With these coefficients in hand, the Bethe-Ansatz equations can be written down from  for all the $`\eta `$ values (4.2). In particular, its becomes possible to study the $`p\mathrm{}`$ limit, for which $`c_{p,k}\frac{p^k}{k!}`$.

## 5 Discussion

We have found expressions (3.8)-(3) for the matrix elements of $`K^{(j)}(u)`$, for arbitrary spin $`j`$. Since the $`K`$ matrix depends on two boundary parameters $`\xi `$ and $`\kappa `$ as well as the bulk anisotropy parameter $`\eta `$, one should a priori expect the expression for the $`K`$ matrix to be more complicated than that of the $`R`$ matrix (2.14). Our result certainly bears this out. Nevertheless, we expect that it may be possible to simplify our result, perhaps along the lines of (3.15). Indeed, a better understanding of the boundary quantum group symmetry may lead to a better choice of variables with which to express the $`K`$ matrix.

## Acknowledgments

One of us (RN) is grateful to P. Kulish for helpful correspondence, and to members of the Mathematics Department of the University of York for their warm hospitality. GWD thanks the EPSRC for an Advanced Fellowship. The work of RN was supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants PHY-9870101 and PHY-0098088.


format: text

text:
# Zorn’s Matrices and finite index subloops11footnote 12000 Mathematics Subject Classification:Primary 20N05, 20H05; Secondary 17D05. This research was supported by CNPq, Brasil.

## 1 Introduction

Let $`R`$ be a commutative ring with unit 1, $`I`$ an ideal of $`R`$ and $`SL(n,R)`$ the $`n\times n`$ special linear group over $`R.`$ The principal congruence group of level $`I`$ in $`SL(n,R)`$ is a set of matrices congruent to the identity modulo the ideal $`I.`$ It said that $`SL(n,R)`$ satisfies the congruence subgroups property if every finite index subgroup contains a principal congruence group.

In the last decades the congruence groups achieved own relevance, different from the traditional application in the geometric field about the classification of elliptic curves over $``$ and the study of modular forms. This relevance is due to the works of Mennicke, Serre, Lazard, Bass, Vaseršteǐn, Newman and some others. Mennicke  proved that $`SL(n,)`$ with $`n3`$ satisfies the congruence subgroups property. In addition Bass, Milnor, Serre  proved that $`SL(n,R)`$ satisfies that property for $`n3`$ for an ample variety of rings (in particular for any ring o algebraic numbers). For $`n=2`$, Wohlfahrt (See ) showed a criterion of determing when a finite index subgroup is a congruence group, and used this criterion to show that in $`SL(2,)`$ exists finite index subgroups that is not congruence subgroup. In general,

###### Theorem 1.1 (Serre )

Let $`R`$ be an algebraic integer domain that contains an infinite order unit. Then $`SL(2,R)`$ satisfies the congruence subgroups property.

In that article, Serre also proved that if $`R`$ is an algebraic integer ring $`𝒪_d`$ of the field $`(\sqrt{d})`$ with $`d^{}`$, then the group $`SL(2,𝒪_d)`$ does not have the congruence subgroups property.

In addition, Varseršteǐn showed a relationship between congruence subgroup and groups generates by elementary matrices when $`R`$ is a Dedekind algebraic domain that contains infinitely many units.

###### Theorem 1.2 (Varseršteǐn )

Let $`R`$ be a Dedekind algebraic numbers domain that contains infinitely many units, $`𝔮`$ an ideal of $`R`$ and $`E(𝔮)`$ the subgruop generates by the matrices $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& a\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)`$, $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ a& 1\end{array}\right)`$ with $`a𝔮`$. Then the group $`E(𝔮)`$ has finite index in $`SL(2,R)`$, in particular $`E(R)=SL(2,R)`$.

On the other side, Zorn’s algebra $`(R)`$ contains Moufang loops analogous to the groups $`GL(2,R)`$ and $`SL(2,R)`$. In fact, denote by $`R^3`$ the three dimensional vector space over $`R`$. Zorn’s Algebra $`(R)`$ over $`R`$ is the set of $`2\times 2`$ matrices

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& x\\ y& b\end{array}\right]a,bRx,yR^3,$$

with the binary operations sum and product, where the sum is defined by the natural form, component to component, and the product is given by the rule

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_1& x_1\\ y_1& b_1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_2& x_2\\ y_2& b_2\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a_1a_2+x_1y_2& a_1x_2+b_2x_1y_1\times y_2\\ a_2y_1+b_1y_2+x_1\times x_2& b_1b_2+y_1x_2\end{array}\right]$$

where $``$ and $`\times `$ denote the dot and cross vectorial product in $`R^3`$.

The determinant function $`det:(R)R`$ defined by $`det(A)=abxy`$, where $`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& x\\ y& b\end{array}\right]`$, is a multiplicative function . Thus, an element $`A`$ is invertible if and only if $`det(A)R^{}`$ and then $`A^1=\frac{1}{detA}\left[\begin{array}{cc}b& x\\ y& a\end{array}\right]`$. Zorn’s Algebra is alternative, it follows that the invertible elements set is a Moufang Loop. This set is called a general linear loop and it is denoted by

$$\mathrm{GLL}(2,R)=\{A(R)|det(A)R^{}\}.$$

Similarly, we define the special linear loop as follows

$$\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{SLL}(2,R)=\{A\mathrm{GLL}(2,R)|detA=1\}.$$

We are going to developed for loops an analogue theory to the congruences groups theory, where $`R`$ is a Dedekind algebraic numbers domain. In particular, if $`R`$ contains an infinite order unit, we will prove an analogous Serre’s Theorem for these loop. In addition, if $`R=`$, we find a family of finite index subloops that are not congruence loops.

## 2 Congruence subloop and finite index subloop

Let $`𝔮`$ be an ideal of $`R`$. We define a principal congruence subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of level $`𝔮`$ as a set of all matrices $`A`$ of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that

$$AI(mod𝔮),$$

where the congruence is component by component. This loop is denoted by $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$. In particular, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(R)=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. A subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is called a congruence subloop if it contains a principal congruence subloop $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$ for some ideal $`𝔮`$ of $`R`$.

In the follow, $`R`$ denote a Dedekind domain, and for each $`𝔮`$ non zero ideal of $`R`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)`$ denotes the smallest normal subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that contains every matrix of the form $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& x\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$, $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ y& 1\end{array}\right]`$ where $`x,y𝔮^3.`$

###### Definition 2.1

Let $``$ be a subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and suppose that the set

$$S=\{𝔮R|\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)\}$$

is not empty. Define the level of $``$ as the maximal element of $`S`$.

###### Lemma 2.1

Let $`𝔮`$ be an non zero ideal of $`R`$ and $`A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$. If $`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& v\\ u& b\end{array}\right]`$, then $`A`$ can be written as product of the matrices $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& ae_j\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ ae_j& 1\end{array}\right]`$, where $`a𝔮`$, $`e_1=(1,0,0)`$, $`e_2=(0,1,0)`$ and $`e_3=(0,0,1)`$.

Proof. First, suppose $`A`$ has the form $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,0,0)\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& 1\end{array}\right]`$ then define $`B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,0,0))\\ (0,u_2,u_3)& 1\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$, thus

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill A& =& B+\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ u_1e_1& 0\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =& B\left(I+B^1\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ u_1e_1& 0\end{array}\right]\right)=B\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,u_1u_3,u_1u_2)\\ (u_1,0,0)& 1\end{array}\right]\hfill \\ & =& B\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ (u_1,0,0)& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,u_1u_3,u_1u_2)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\right)\hfill \end{array}$$

By the same procedure, we obtain that

$$B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_3e_3& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& u_2u_3e_1\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_2e_2& 1\end{array}\right]\right)$$

and

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,u_1u_3,u_1u_2)\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& u_1u_2e_3\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ u_1^2u_2u_3e_1& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& u_1u_3e_2\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\right)$$

In the general case, if $`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& b\end{array}\right]`$, we have $`A=(((CA_3)A_2)A_1`$ where $`A_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& v_je_j\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and $`C=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,0,0)\\ (u_1+v_3v_2,u_2v_3v_1,u_3+v_2v_1)& 1\end{array}\right].`$ The result follows from the first case.$`\mathrm{}`$

Let $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}(𝔮)`$ denote a subloop

$$\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left(j\right)}\left(𝔮\right):=\left\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& be_j\\ ce_j& d\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }\right|\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right]I\left(mod𝔮\right)\}\text{and}GA_{\left(j\right)}:=GA_{\left(j\right)}\left(R\right).$$

We are going to show that these three subloops generate the loop $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$, but before we need a result from commutative ring theory. Let $`R`$ be a commutative ring with unit 1, and $`M`$ be a $`R`$-module. $`R`$ is called a local ring if there is an unique local maximal ideal, and when there are a finite number of maximal ideals, it is called semilocal. An element $`xM`$ is called unimodular if there is a linear form $`L:MR`$ such that $`L(x)=1`$.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`x=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_m)`$ be an unimodular element of $`R^m`$. If $`R`$ is a semilocal noetherian ring, then there are $`y_2,\mathrm{},y_mR`$ such that

$$x_1+y_2x_2+\mathrm{}+y_mx_m$$

is invertible in $`R`$.

Proof. See  page 386.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.1

Let $`R`$ be a Dedekind domain. For every $`𝔮`$ non zero ideal of $`R`$, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(𝔮)`$, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(2)}(𝔮)`$ and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(3)}(𝔮)`$.

Proof. Let $`=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(𝔮),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(2)}(𝔮),\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(3)}(𝔮)`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$, thus, we only need to show $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$. Let $`A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮),`$ i.e., $`A`$ is a matrix of the form $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1,u_2,u_3)\\ (v_1,v_2,v_3)& b\end{array}\right]`$ with $`ab(v_1u_1+v_2u_2+v_3u_3)=1`$ and $`a`$ and $`b`$ congruent to 1 modulo $`q`$, in particular, $`a0`$. If $`𝔮=R`$ and $`a=0`$ , since $`ab(v_1u_1+v_2u_2+v_3u_3)=1`$, there is $`j`$ such that $`v_ju_j0`$. It follows that it is sufficient to prove

$$T_jA=\left[\begin{array}{cc}e_ju& be_j+e_j\times u\\ ae_j+e_j\times v& e_jv\end{array}\right]$$

is in $``$, and therefore we can suppose, in this case too, that $`a0`$.

Since $`R`$ is Dedekind, $`\frac{R}{(a)}`$ is a semilocal ring and $`(v_1)u_1+(u_2)v_2+(u_3)v_31(moda)`$, thus $`(u_1,v_2,v_3)`$ is unimodular in $`\left(\frac{R}{(a)}\right)^3`$. Therefore from the lemma 2.2, exist $`t`$ and $`s`$ such that $`u_1+v_2t+v_3s=u_1^{}`$ is invertible in $`\frac{R}{(a)}`$ and it follows that $`a`$ and $`u_1^{}`$ are relative primes. Define

$$u_2^{}=v_1t+u_2\text{and}u_3^{}=v_1s+u_3.$$

It is easy to prove that $`B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1^{},u_2^{},u_3^{})\\ (v_1,v_2,v_3)& b\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$ and

$$A=B\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& b(u_1u_1^{},u_2u_2^{},u_3u_3^{})\\ (u_2^{}u_3u_3^{}u_2,u_3^{}u_1u_1^{}u_3,u_1^{}u_2u_2^{}u_1)& 1\end{array}\right].$$

It follows from lemma 2.1 that we only need to prove that $`B`$. Let $`q`$ be an arbitrary element of $`𝔮^{}`$. Since $`(a,qu_1^{})=1`$, there are $`x,y`$ integer numbers such that $`ax+qu_1^{}y=1`$. But $`a1(mod𝔮)`$, therefore $`x1(mod𝔮)`$ and $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1^{},0,0)\\ (qy,0,0)& x\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(𝔮)`$. Thus

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1^{},u_2^{},u_3^{})\\ (v_1,v_2,v_3)& b\end{array}\right]=\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,au_2^{}v_3qy,au_3^{}+v_2qy)\\ (xv_1+bqy,xv_2u_3^{}u_1^{},xv_3+u_2^{}u_1^{})& bav_1u_1^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1^{},0,0)\\ (qy,0,0)& x\end{array}\right]\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Finally, lemma 2.1 shows that $`B`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.1

Let $`R`$ be a Dedekind algebraic domain that contains infinitely many units. Then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is generated by the matrices $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& ae_j\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ ae_j& 1\end{array}\right]`$ where $`aR`$ and $`j=1,2,3`$.

Proof. It follows from Vaseršteǐn theorem.$`\mathrm{}`$

The following theorem is a generalization of Wohlfahrt’s criterion to $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }.`$

###### Theorem 2.2

Let $`𝔮_1,𝔮_2`$ be ideals of the Dedekind domain $`R`$. Then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮_2)`$.

Proof. This proof is similar to the proof of Wohlfahrt’s theorem made by Mason and Stothers (see ). Let $`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& b\end{array}\right]`$ be an arbitrary element of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮_1)`$, we need to find $`B\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)`$ such that $`AB(mod𝔮_2)`$, and therefore $`A=B(B^1A)`$ where $`B^1A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮_2)`$.

Case 1: If $`a1(mod𝔮_2)`$, then it is sufficient to take $`B=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& ab\end{array}\right]`$, because lemma 2.1 shows that $`B\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1).`$ In addition,

$`B^1A`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}a^2b(u_1v_1+u_2v_2+u_3v_3)& (abb)(v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (1a)(u_1,u_2,u_3)& b(u_1v_1+u_2v_2+u_3v_3)\end{array}\right]`$
$`=`$ $`I+(a1)\left[\begin{array}{cc}ab& b(v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& b\end{array}\right]I(mod𝔮_2).`$
Thus $`A\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮_2).`$

Case 2: If $`(a,𝔮_2)=1`$, then the congruence $`ax1(mod𝔮_2)`$ has solution. Let $`a^{}`$ be a solution, $`c=gcd(v_1,v_2,v_3)`$, $`v_j^{}=\frac{v_j}{c}`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$ and $`X=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& a^{}(1ac)(v_1^{},v_2^{},v_3^{})\\ (0,0,0)& 1\end{array}\right]`$. Notice that $`a^{}(1ac)`$ is in $`𝔮_1`$ since $`1a𝔮_1`$ and $`c𝔮_1`$, thus $`X\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1).`$ In addition,

$$AX\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (1a)(v_1^{},v_2^{},v_3^{})\\ (u_1,u_2,u_3)& b+a^{}(1ac)(\frac{ab1}{c})\end{array}\right](mod𝔮_2).$$

Define $`T_1=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,0,0)\\ (t_1,t_2,t_3)& 1\end{array}\right]`$ where $`v_1^{}t_1+v_2^{}t_2+v_2^{}t_2=1`$. We have

$$T_1^1(AX)T_1\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& \\ & \end{array}\right](mod𝔮_2).$$

It follows from Case 1 that $`T_1^1(AX)T_1B(mod𝔮_2)`$ for some $`B\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)`$, therefore $`A(T_1BT_1^1)X^1(mod𝔮_2)`$, with $`(T_1BT_1^1)X^1\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)`$.

Case 3: In the general case, denoting $`d=(u_1v_1+u_2v_2+u_3v_3)`$, we have $`abd=1`$. Then $`(a,d)`$ seen as an element of $`\left(\frac{R}{𝔮_2}\right)^2`$ is unimodular, and since $`\frac{R}{𝔮_2}`$ is semilocal ring, from lemma 2.2, exists $`t`$ such that $`atd`$ is invertible in $`\frac{R}{𝔮_2}`$. Define $`T=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& (0,0,0)\\ t(u_1,u_2,u_3)& 1\end{array}\right]`$, then

$$T^1AT=\left[\begin{array}{cc}atd& (v_1,v_2,v_3)\\ (at1+bt+t^2d)(u_1,u_2,u_3)& b+td\end{array}\right],$$

where $`(a+td,𝔮_2)=1`$, and from Case 2, $`T^1ATB(mod𝔮_2)`$ for some $`B\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)`$. Therefore $`ATBT^1(mod𝔮_2)`$, with $`TBT^1\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮_1)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $``$ be a congruence subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of level $`𝔮`$. Then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$.

Proof. Since $``$ is a congruence subloop, then there is an ideal $`𝔮^{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮^{})`$, furthermore $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)`$, then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮^{})`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

To show a generalization of Serre’s Theorem to $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we need the following fact about Loop Theory

###### Definition 2.2

Let $``$ be a loop with the inverse property and $``$ a subloop of $``$. We said that $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$, if $``$ and $``$ satisfy one of the following equivalent conditions (see  page 52)

1. $`xy\mathrm{}`$, $`x,y`$ if and only if $`x=y`$.
2. $`(hx)=x`$ for all $`x`$ and $`h`$

We said that $``$ has the weak Lagrange property relative to $``$, if there exists $``$, finite index subloop of $``$, such that $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$.

Observe that if $``$ is normal subloop of $``$, then $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$, and there exist subloops, such that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ have not the Lagrange property relative to these subloops. For instance,

$$\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& e_1+e_2\\ e_2+e_3& 0\end{array}\right]\left\{\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& (a,b,c)\\ (0,d,e)& c\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }\right\}$$

and

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& e_1\\ e_1& 2\end{array}\right]\left(\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ e_1& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& e_1+e_2\\ e_2+e_3& 0\end{array}\right]\right)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& (2,3,2)\\ (0,3,4)& 3\end{array}\right]\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\left(1\right)}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& e_1+e_2\\ e_2+e_3& 0\end{array}\right],$$

thus $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has not the Lagrange property relative to $`GA_{(1)}`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has not the Lagrange property relative to $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$, for all $`n2`$. In addition, when $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$, there exists a subset $`T`$ of $``$ called a transversal of $``$ such that

$$=\underset{xT}{}x\text{with}xy=\mathrm{}\text{ for }x,yT.$$

###### Lemma 2.3

Let $``$ be a loop with the inverse property and suppose that $``$ is a finite index subloop of $``$ such that $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$. Let $``$ be a subloop of $``$. Then $``$ is a finite index subloop of $``$ and $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$.

Proof. For all $`a`$ and $`f,`$ we have

$$()(af)=(af)(af)=ff=(H)f,$$

thus $``$ has the Lagrange property relative to $`H`$. Let $`n=[:]`$ and $`T=\{t_1,\mathrm{}t_n\}`$ a transversal of $``$. We can suppose that $`t_j\mathrm{}`$ if and only if $`jm`$ for some $`mn`$, thus $`=_{j=1}^mt_j.`$ Let $`s_j`$ be an arbitrary element of $`t_j`$. We claim that $`()s_j=t_j`$. In fact, since $`s_j=ht_j`$ for some $`h`$, then

$$()s_j=(ht_j)s_j=t_j,\text{thus}[:]=m.\text{ }\mathrm{}$$

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`R`$ be a Dedekind algebraic integer domain, and suppose that $`R`$ contains an infinite order unit. If $``$ is a finite index subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the weak Lagrange property, then $``$ is a congruence subloop.

Proof. Let $``$ be a finite index subloop of $``$, such that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has the Lagrange property relative to $``$. From lemma 2.3 follows

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}][\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:][\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:][:]<\mathrm{}.$$

Then from Serre’s Theorem follows that there are ideals $`𝔮_j`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$, such that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}(𝔮_j)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}`$. Define $`𝔮=𝔮_1𝔮_2𝔮_3`$, then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}(𝔮)`$ for $`j=1,2,3`$, and from theorem 2.1 follows that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`R`$ be a Dedekind algebraic integer domain with an infinite order unit and $`𝔮`$ an ideal of $`R`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$.

Proof. From Varserštaǐn theorem $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}`$ is a finite index subgroup of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}`$, then from Serre’s Theorem there are $`𝔮_j`$ ideals such that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}(𝔮_j)\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)`$. Thus, from theorem 2.1 follows that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)`$ where $`𝔮^{}=𝔮_1𝔮_2𝔮_3`$. Finally, from corollary 2.2 follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(𝔮)=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔮)`$.$`\mathrm{}`$

## 3 The Loop $`SLL(2,)`$

In this section, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the loop $`\mathrm{SLL}(2,)`$. For each $`n1`$ $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is a principal congruence subloop of level $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)`$ is a subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ generated by the associators and commutators, i.e., the smallest loop that contains any element of the form

$$[A,B]=ABA^1B^1\text{and}[A,B,C]=((AB)C)(A(BC))^1,$$

with $`A,B`$ and $`C\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$. For $`j=1,2,3,`$ we denote

$$T_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& e_j\\ e_j& 0\end{array}\right]S_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& e_j\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\text{and}U_j=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& e_j\\ e_j& 1\end{array}\right]$$

Observe that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}SL(2,)`$ for each $`j=1,2,3`$. Specially, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}`$ is generated by two of the following matrices $`T_j`$, $`S_j`$ and $`U_j`$ (See  pag 139).

###### Proposition 3.1

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ has minimal set of generators $`\{S_1,S_2,U_3\}`$. In general, for every positive integer $`n`$, $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is finitely generated.

Proof. Since $`T_1`$, $`T_2`$, $`S_3`$ and $`T_3`$ can be written as a product of $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$ and $`U_3`$ (see  pag 190) and $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is dissociative, it follows that this is a minimal set of generator. For every $`n>1`$, each $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(j)}(n)`$ are finitely generated free groups. The proposition follows as a trivial consequences of theorem 2.1.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 3.1

From proof of theorem 2.1, we can observe that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ can be generated by the generators of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)`$ and the matrices $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& ne_j\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]`$ and $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ ne_j& 1\end{array}\right]`$ for $`j=2,3`$. Thus $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`p`$ be a prime number and $`k.`$ Then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^k)`$ is a normal subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and it has index $`p^{7k}\left(1\frac{1}{p^4}\right)`$.

Proof. Consider a loop homomorphism from $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ onto $`\mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p^k})`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }& & \mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p^k})\hfill \\ \hfill A& & A(modp^k)\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to prove that $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^k)`$. Then

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(p^k)]=\text{cardinality of }\mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p^k}).$$

Now to obtain the cardinality of $`\mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p^k})`$, let us take an arbitrary element $`A=\left[\begin{array}{cc}a& (u_1,u_2,u_3)\\ (v_1,v_2,v_3)& b\end{array}\right]`$, such that

$$detA=abv_1u_1v_2u_2v_3u_31(modp^k).$$

Observe that $`(a,v_1,v_2,v_3)`$ can assume any value different from $`p(n_1,n_2,n_3,n_4)`$, i.e. this vector can assume $`p^{4k}p^{4(k1)}`$ different values. Fixing this vector, we know that there is a coordinate non-divisible by $`p`$. Without loss of generality, suppose that $`a`$ is not divisible by $`p`$ (In the case $`a`$ is divisible by $`p`$ there is some $`v_j`$ that is not divisible by $`p`$ and the argument follows similarly). Then, when we fix the values $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$, $`u_3`$ the congruence

$$ab1+v_1u_1+v_2u_2+v_3u_3(modp^k)$$

has an unique solution $`b`$ modulo $`p^k`$, i.e., $`u_1`$, $`u_2`$ and $`u_3`$ determine exactly one value of $`b`$ modulo $`p^k`$ and thus $`(b,u_1,u_2,u_3)`$ can assume $`p^{3k}`$ values. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 3.1

$`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is a normal subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ with index $`n^7{\displaystyle \underset{p|n}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{p^4}}\right).`$

Proof. Suppose $`n=p_1^{k_1}\mathrm{}p_l^{k_l}`$. Consider the surjective loops homomorphism

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }& & \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p_j^{k_j}})\hfill \\ \hfill A& & \underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}A(modp_j^{k_j})\hfill \end{array}$$

It is easy to prove that $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Theta })=\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ and then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is a normal subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, in addition

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)]=\text{number of elements of }\underset{j=1}{\overset{l}{}}\mathrm{SLL}(2,_{p_j^{k_j}}).$$

Then the theorem follows from the proposition before.$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $``$ be a normal subloop $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`m`$ and $`n`$ positive integers such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }(m)`$. If $`d=(n,m)`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(d)`$.

Proof. Since $`d=tn+sm`$ where $`t,s`$, then lemma follows from

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& dx\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& nx\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]^t\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& mx\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]^s\text{and}\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ dx& 1\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ nx& 1\end{array}\right]^t\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ mx& 1\end{array}\right]^s$$

for every $`x^3`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

It is known that $`\mathrm{I}\mathcal{\Gamma }^{}(n)`$ is a normal subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ (ver  pág. 56). Let $`𝔾(n)`$ denote the group $`\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)}`$. From proposition 3.1 follows that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$ is finitely generated, and thus $`𝔾(n)`$ is a finite generated abelian group.

###### Lemma 3.2

For $`n>5`$, $`𝔾(n)`$ is infinite.

Proof. For each $`A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$, from observation 3.1 we know that $`A=BC`$ where $`B\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)`$ and $`C\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Theta }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(n)}`$ defined by the rule $`\mathrm{\Theta }(A)=B\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(n)`$. To show that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is well defined, suppose that $`A=B_1C_1=B_2C_2`$ where $`B_1,B_2\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)`$ and $`C_1,C_2\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$ is normal,

$$B_1\mathrm{\Delta }(n)=(B_1C_1)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)=(B_2C_2)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)=B_2\mathrm{\Delta }(n),$$

thus $`B_1^1B_2\mathrm{\Delta }(n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(n)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a loop homomorphism with kernel $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)`$. It follows that

$$\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(n)}.$$

Now, from the second and third homomorphism theorems for loops, we have

$$\frac{\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}}{\left(\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}\right)^{}}\frac{\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}}{\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)}{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}}\frac{\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}}{\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}}\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)}{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)}.$$

Let $`C(n)`$ denote the group $`\frac{\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{(1)}(n)}{\mathrm{\Delta }_{(1)}(n)}`$. In  it proved that profinite cohomology group

$$H^1(\underset{}{lim}C(n),/)=Hom(\frac{C(n)}{(C(n))^{}},/)=0$$

and

$$H^1(\underset{}{lim}C(n),/)=Hom(\frac{C(n)}{(C(n))^{}},)$$

is infinity, thus $`\frac{C(n)}{(C(n))^{}}`$ is a abelian torsion-free group for all $`n1`$. Since $`C(n)`$ is an infinite group for $`n>5`$ (see  pag 145), it follows that $`[C(n):(C(n))^{}]`$ is infinite for $`n>5`$ and

$$|𝔾(n)|=[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)][\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)\mathrm{\Delta }(n)]=[C(n):(C(n))^{}]=\mathrm{}.\text{ }\mathrm{}$$

Denote $`𝔾_s(n)`$ the subgroup of $`𝔾(n)`$ generated by the $`s`$-th powers, i.e. $`𝔾_s(n)=A^s|A𝔾(n)`$, then $`𝔾(n)/𝔾_s(n)`$ is finite, in fact, $`[𝔾(n):𝔾_s(n)]s^k`$ where $`k`$ is the number of generators of $`𝔾(n)`$. Observe that the homomorphisms

$$\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\stackrel{\pi }{}𝔾(n)\stackrel{\psi }{}\frac{𝔾(n)}{𝔾_s(n)}$$

are well defined and surjective. Denote $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)=\mathrm{ker}(\psi \pi )=\pi ^1(𝔾_s(n))`$. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ is generated by the commutators, associators and the set $`\{A^s|A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\}`$.

###### Theorem 3.2

Let $`n>5`$ and $`s`$ be an odd integer such that $`(n,s)=1`$. Then $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ is a finite index subloop of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ that is not a congruence subloop.

Proof. Since

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)]=[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)][\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)],$$

from theorem 3.1, the definition of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ and the homomorphisms theorem we have

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)]=n^7\underset{p|n}{}(1\frac{1}{p^4})\text{and}[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)]=[𝔾(n):𝔾_s(n)]$$

thus $`[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }:\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)]`$ is finite. In addition, since $`𝔾(n)`$ is a finite generated abelian group and for $`n>5`$ is infinite, it follows that $`𝔾(n)`$ has a factor isomorphic to $``$, and thus

$$[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)]=[𝔾(n):𝔾_s(n)]s>1,$$

in particular $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$. Now, suppose $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ is a congruence subloop, since $`A_{jn}^{2n},B_{jn}^{2n}\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)`$ for every $`j=1,2,3`$, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(2n^2)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}(n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s).$$

In the same way, from the definition of $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$, we have that $`A^s\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ for every $`A\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)`$, in particular $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& nx\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]^s,\left[\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ nx& 1\end{array}\right]^s\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ for every $`x^3`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(ns)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$. Now, $`(ns,2n^2)=n`$, then from lemma 3.1, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ and, finally from corollary 2.2, it follows that

$$\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n),$$

but this is impossible. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`s>120`$ is even, the theorem above is also true. In fact, since $`(ns,2n^2)=2n`$, from lemma 3.1 we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(2n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$, it follows that $`\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)`$ and

$$s[\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n,s)][\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(n):\mathrm{I}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2n)]=120,$$

but this is a contradiction, since $`s>120`$.

Acknowledgmet

The authors are grateful to Guilherme Leal for suggesting the problem and helpful conversations.


text:
# IFUP-TH 2002/7 Deconfining phase transition in the 3D Georgi-Glashow model with finite Higgs-boson mass

## 1 Introduction

Although the confining properties of the (2+1)D Georgi-Glashow model are known since the second half of the seventies , its finite-temperature properties were addressed only recently, in refs. -. In ref. , it has been shown that at the temperature equal to $`g^2/2\pi `$, where $`g`$ stands for the electric coupling constant, the monopole plasma undergoes the Berezinsky-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) phase transition  to the molecular phase. In refs. , the relevance of the charged W-plasma to the dynamics of the deconfining phase transition in the Georgi-Glashow model has been pointed out. In particular, in ref. , it has been shown that the phase transition is associated with the deconfinement of W-bosons, belongs to the 2D-Ising universality class and occurs at the temperature approximately equal to $`g^2/4\pi `$. Further, in ref. , various physical aspects of this phase transition, as well as of the analogous transition in the $`SU(N)`$-generalization of the Georgi-Glashow model with $`N>2`$ have been studied. In ref. , the monopole BKT phase transition has been explored in the presence of dynamical massless fundamental quarks. In this way, it has been shown that the presence of one quark flavour makes the critical temperature of this phase transition equal to $`g^2/4\pi `$, while in the presence of more than one flavour, the respective critical temperature becomes exponentially small.

In ref. , the influence of the Higgs field to the dynamics of the Georgi-Glashow model has been studied both at zero and nonzero temperature. In particular, it has been found that the finiteness of the Higgs-boson mass does not change the value of the critical temperature of the monopole BKT phase transition. However, in ref.  the effects of W-bosons have been disregarded, that makes the performed analysis incomplete. The aim of the present letter is to explore the influence of the Higgs-mediated interaction of monopoles to the deconfining phase transition with the account for W-bosons. The phase transition occurs when the density of monopoles becomes equal to the one of W-bosons. Up to inessential subleading corrections, this takes place when the exponent of the monopole fugacity is equal to that of the fugacity of W-bosons . \[Another way to understand why the phase transition occurs when the two fugacities are equal to each other is to notice that once this happens, the thickness of the string confining two W’s (which is proportional to $`(\mathrm{monopole}\mathrm{fugacity})^{1/2}`$) becomes equal to the average distance between the W’s (proportional to (fugacity of W’s$`)^{1/2}`$). This qualitative result was also confirmed by the RG analysis performed in ref. .\] On the other hand, the average over the Higgs field in the dimensionally-reduced theory (one works with at finite temperatures) changes the monopole fugacity. Owing to this effect, the critical temperature of the deconfining phase transition changes as well. Moreover, we shall see that the average over the Higgs field makes the monopole fugacity temperature-dependent. Due to that, comparison of the exponents of two fugacities yields no more a single value of the critical temperature, but rather a quadratic equation for this temperature. Consequently, in general, one gets two distinct critical temperatures. We shall discuss possible ranges of these temperatures and also the modification of the RG behaviour of the model due to the existence of two phase transitions instead of one. Besides that, we shall see that the requirement of convergence of the cumulant expansion, one should demand in the course of the average over the Higgs field, leads to a certain upper bound for the parameter of the weak-coupling approximation.

The organization of the letter is the following. In the next Section, we shall consider the dual theory describing the (2+1)D Georgi-Glashow model at finite temperature and the peculiarities of the average over the Higgs field in that theory. In Section 3, there will be discussed the deconfining phase transition and the RG properties of the model. The main results of the letter will then be summarized in the Conclusions. In the Appendix A, some technical details necessary for the evaluation of a certain integral will be outlined.

## 2 3D Georgi-Glashow model at finite temperature beyond the compact-QED limit

The Euclidean action of the (2+1)D Georgi-Glashow model reads

$$S=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{4g^2}\left(F_{\mu \nu }^a\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a\right)^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}\left(\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^a\right)^2\eta ^2\right)^2\right].$$
(1)
Here, the Higgs field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^a`$ transforms by the adjoint representation, $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^a+\epsilon ^{abc}A_\mu ^b\mathrm{\Phi }^c`$. Next, $`\lambda `$ is the Higgs coupling constant of dimensionality \[mass\], $`\eta `$ is the Higgs v.e.v. of dimensionality $`[\mathrm{mass}]^{1/2}`$, and $`g`$ is the electric coupling constant of the same dimensionality.

At the one-loop level, the sector of the theory (1) containing dual photons and Higgs bosons is represented by the following partition function :

$$𝒵=1+\underset{N=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\zeta ^N}{N!}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}d^3z_i\underset{q_i=\pm 1}{}\right)\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{g_m^2}{8\pi }\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{a,b=1}{ab}}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\frac{q_aq_b}{|𝐳_a𝐳_b|}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{m_H|𝐳_a𝐳_b|}}{|𝐳_a𝐳_b|}\right)\right]𝒟\chi 𝒟\psi \mathrm{e}^S,$$
(2)
where

$$S=d^3x\left[\frac{1}{2}(\chi )^2+\frac{1}{2}(\psi )^2+\frac{m_H^2}{2}\psi ^22\zeta \mathrm{e}^{g_m\psi }\mathrm{cos}(g_m\chi )\right]d^3x[\chi ,\psi |g_m,\zeta ].$$
(3)
Clearly, this partition function describes the grand canonical ensemble of monopoles with the account for their Higgs-mediated interaction. In eqs. (2) and (3), $`\chi `$ is the dual-photon field, and the field $`\psi `$ accounts for the Higgs field, whose mass reads $`m_H=\eta \sqrt{2\lambda }`$. Note that from eq. (2) it is straightforward to deduce that when $`m_H`$ formally tends to infinity, one arrives at the conventional sine-Gordon theory of the dual-photon field  describing the compact-QED limit of the model. Next, in the above equations, $`g_m`$ stands for the magnetic coupling constant related to the electric one as $`g_mg=4\pi `$, and the monopole fugacity $`\zeta `$ has the form: $`\zeta =\frac{m_W^{7/2}}{g}\delta \left(\frac{\lambda }{g^2}\right)\mathrm{e}^{4\pi m_Wϵ/g^2}`$. In this formula, $`m_W=g\eta `$ is the W-boson mass, and $`ϵ=ϵ(\lambda /g^2)`$ is a certain monotonic, slowly varying function, $`ϵ1`$, $`ϵ(0)=1`$ , $`ϵ(\mathrm{})1.787`$ . As far as the function $`\delta `$ is concerned, it is determined by the loop corrections. It is known  that this function grows in the vicinity of the origin \[i.e., in the Bogomolny-Prasad-Sommerfield (BPS) limit \]. However, the speed of this growth is so that it does not spoil the exponential smallness of $`\zeta `$ in the standard weak-coupling regime $`g^2m_W`$ which we shall imply throughout this letter.

At finite temperature $`T1/\beta `$, one should supply the fields $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$ with the periodic boundary conditions in the temporal direction, with the period equal to $`\beta `$. Owing to that, the lines of the magnetic field emitted by a monopole cannot cross the boundary of the one-period region and consequently, at the distances larger than $`\beta `$, should go almost parallel to this boundary, approaching it. Therefore, monopoles separated by such distances interact via the 2D Coulomb potential, rather than the 3D one. Since the average distance between monopoles in the plasma is of the order of $`\zeta ^{1/3}`$, we see that at $`T\zeta ^{1/3}`$, the monopole ensemble becomes two-dimensional. Owing to the fact that $`\zeta `$ is exponentially small in the weak-coupling regime under discussion, the idea of dimensional reduction is perfectly applicable at the temperatures of the order of $`g^2`$, i.e., the critical ones (cf. the Introduction). The factor $`\beta `$ at the action of the dimensionally-reduced theory, $`S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}=\beta d^2x[\chi ,\psi |g_m,\zeta ]`$, can be removed \[and this action can be cast to the original form of eq. (3) with the substitution $`d^3xd^2x`$\] by the obvious rescaling: $`S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}=d^2x[\chi ^{\mathrm{new}},\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}|\sqrt{T}g_m,\beta \zeta ]`$. Here, $`\chi ^{\mathrm{new}}=\sqrt{\beta }\chi `$, $`\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}=\sqrt{\beta }\psi `$, and in what follows we shall denote for brevity $`\chi ^{\mathrm{new}}`$ and $`\psi ^{\mathrm{new}}`$ simply as $`\chi `$ and $`\psi `$, respectively. Averaging then over the field $`\psi `$ with the use of the cumulant expansion we arrive at the following action:

$$S_{\mathrm{d}.\mathrm{r}.}d^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}(\chi )^22\xi \mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\sqrt{T}\chi \right)\right]$$

$$2\xi ^2d^2xd^2y\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\sqrt{T}\chi (𝐱)\right)𝒦(𝐱𝐲)\mathrm{cos}\left(g_m\sqrt{T}\chi (𝐲)\right).$$
(4)
In this expression, we have disregarded all the cumulants higher than the quadratic one, and the limits of applicability of this so-called bilocal approximation will be discussed below. In eq. (4), $`𝒦(𝐱)\mathrm{e}^{g_m^2TD_{m_H}(𝐱)}1`$ with $`D_{m_H}(𝐱)K_0(m_H|𝐱|)/2\pi `$ being the 2D Yukawa propagator ($`K_0`$ here is the modified Bessel function), and $`\xi \beta \zeta \mathrm{e}^{\frac{g_m^2T}{2}D_{m_H}(0)}`$ denotes the monopole fugacity modified by the interaction of monopoles via the Higgs field. Clearly, in the compact-QED limit (when $`m_H`$ formally tends to infinity) $`D_{m_H}(0)`$, being equal to $`\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{p^2+m_H^2}`$, vanishes already before doing the integration, and $`\xi \zeta `$, as it should be. In the general case, when the mass of the Higgs field is moderate and does not exceed $`m_W`$, which in the weak-coupling regime plays the rôle of the UV cutoff, $`\xi \mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\left(m_Wϵ+T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)\right)\right]`$. Here, we have introduced the notation $`cm_H/m_W`$, $`c<1`$, and $`\gamma 0.577`$ is the Euler constant, so that $`\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}0.890<1`$. We see that the modified fugacity remains exponentially small, provided that

$$T<\frac{m_Wϵ}{\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)}.$$
(5)
This constraint should be updated by another one, which would provide the convergence of the cumulant expansion applied in the course of the average over $`\psi `$. In order to get this new constraint, notice that the parameter of the cumulant expansion reads $`\xi I`$, where $`Id^2x𝒦(𝐱)`$. The integral $`I`$ is evaluated in the Appendix A and has the following form:

$$I\frac{2\pi }{m_H^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(c^21+\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }\right)^{\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}\frac{1c^{2\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}}{1\frac{4\pi T}{g^2}}\right)+\mathrm{e}^{a/\mathrm{e}}1+\frac{a}{\mathrm{e}}\right].$$
(6)
(Note that at $`Tg^2/4\pi `$, $`\frac{1c^{2\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}}{1\frac{4\pi T}{g^2}}2\mathrm{ln}c`$, i.e., $`I`$ remains finite.) In the derivation of this expression, the parameter $`a4\pi \sqrt{2\pi }T/g^2`$ was assumed to be of the order of unity. That is because the critical temperature of the deconfining phase transition, we are interested with, cannot exceed the critical temperature of the monopole BKT phase transition, $`g^2/2\pi `$. In fact, above the point of the BKT phase transition, the monopole ensemble passes to the molecular phase and loses its confining properties (in particular, with respect to W’s) 111In another words, $`\xi `$ vanishes together with $`\zeta `$ above the BKT critical temperature. This is another reflection of the fact that confining strings disappear (i.e., become infinitely thick) in that phase, since their thickness is proportional to $`\xi ^{1/2}`$..

Due to the exponential term in eq. (6), the violation of the cumulant expansion may occur at high enough temperatures \[that parallels the above-obtained constraint (5)\]. The most essential, exponential, part of the parameter of the cumulant expansion thus reads

$$\xi I\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{4\pi }{g^2}\left(m_Wϵ+T\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)T\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\right)\right].$$

Therefore, the cumulant expansion converges at the temperatures obeying the inequality

$$T<\frac{m_Wϵ}{\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)},$$

which updates the inequality (5). Since, as it has been just discussed in the preceding paragraph, the temperatures we are working with do not exceed $`g^2/2\pi `$, it is enough to demand the following upper bound on the parameter of the weak-coupling approximation, $`g^2/m_W`$:

$$\frac{g^2}{m_W}<\frac{2\pi ϵ}{\frac{\sqrt{2\pi }}{\mathrm{e}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)}.$$

Note that although this inequality is satisfied automatically at $`\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c1`$, since it then takes the form $`\frac{g^2}{m_W}<\sqrt{2\pi }\mathrm{e}ϵ`$, this is not so for the BPS limit, $`c1`$. Indeed, in such a case, we have $`\frac{g^2}{m_W}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{2}{c\mathrm{e}^\gamma }\right)<2\pi ϵ`$, that owing to the logarithm is however quite feasible.

## 3 Critical temperatures of the deconfining phase transition

We are now in the position to explore the influence of the Higgs-mediated interaction of monopoles to the critical temperature of the deconfining phase transition. As it has already been discussed in the Introduction, this phase transition occurs when the density of monopoles, approximately equal to $`2\xi `$, becomes of the same order of magnitude as the density of W-bosons . The latter can be evaluated as follows (see e.g. ref. ):

$$\rho _W=\frac{}{\overline{\mu }}\left[6T\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(1\mathrm{e}^{\beta (\overline{\mu }\epsilon (𝐩))}\right)\right]|_{\overline{\mu }=0}=6\frac{d^2p}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{\beta \epsilon (𝐩)}1}=$$

$$=\frac{3m_W^2}{\pi }\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{dzz}{\mathrm{e}^{m_W\beta z}1}\frac{3m_W^2}{\pi }\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑zz\mathrm{e}^{m_W\beta z}=\frac{3m_WT}{\pi }\left(1+\frac{T}{m_W}\right)\mathrm{e}^{m_W\beta }.$$

Here, $`\overline{\mu }`$ stands for the chemical potential, $`\epsilon (𝐩)=\sqrt{𝐩^2+m_W^2}`$, and the factor ”6” represents the total number of spin states of $`W^+`$\- and $`W^{}`$-bosons. We have also denoted $`z\epsilon (𝐩)/m_W`$ and took into account that the temperatures of our interest are much smaller than $`m_W`$ in the weak-coupling regime, since they should not exceed $`g^2/2\pi `$.

Also, as it has been mentioned in the Introduction, in the evaluation of the critical temperature(s), it is enough to compare the exponents of $`\xi `$ and $`\rho _W`$, since the preexponential factors yield only the subleading corrections. Then, in the compact-QED limit, $`\xi \zeta `$ (cf. the preceding Section), and $`T_c=\frac{g^2}{4\pi ϵ(\mathrm{})}`$ . In the general case under discussion, $`c<1`$, we obtain the two following distinct values of critical temperatures:

$$T_{1,2}=g^2ϵ\frac{1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{b}{\pi ϵ^2}}}{2b}.$$
(7)
Here, $`b\frac{g^2}{m_W}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}c\right)`$, $`b>0`$, and the indices 1,2 refer to the smaller and the larger temperatures, respectively. The degenerate situation $`T_1=T_2=g^2/2\pi ϵ`$ then corresponds to $`b=\pi ϵ^2`$, and, since $`ϵ1`$, $`T_{1,2}g^2/2\pi `$ in this case, as it should be. In particular, in the BPS limit, $`ϵ=1`$, and the deconfining phase transition takes place together with the monopole BKT one. Obviously, at any other $`b<\pi ϵ^2`$, $`T_1T_2`$, i.e., there exist two separate phase transitions. (Note that the existence of the upper bound for $`b`$ is quite natural, since in the weak-coupling regime and aside from the BPS limit, $`b`$ is definitely bounded from above.) The existence of two phase transitions means that at $`T=T_1`$, molecules of W-bosons start dissociating, while at $`T=T_2`$, this process is completed. In another words, accounting for the interaction of monopoles via the Higgs field opens a possibility for the existence of a new (metastable) phase at $`T(T_1,T_2)`$. This is the phase, where both the gas of W-molecules and W-plasma are present.

An elementary analysis shows that for $`\pi (2ϵ1)<b\pi ϵ^2`$, $`T_2<g^2/2\pi `$ \[and $`T_2=g^2/2\pi `$ at $`b=\pi (2ϵ1)`$\]. At the values of $`b`$ lying in this interval, the phase transition corresponding to the critical temperature $`T_2`$ thus may occur. In the BPS limit, $`T_2`$ can only be equal to $`g^2/2\pi `$, that corresponds to the above-discussed case when both critical temperatures coincide with the one of the monopole BKT phase transition. In the same way, for any $`b\pi ϵ^2`$, $`T_1g^2/2\pi `$, and, in particular, $`T_1=g^2/2\pi `$ only in the BPS limit, when $`ϵ=1`$. Therefore, the phase transition corresponding to the temperature $`T_1`$ always takes place. Also an elementary analysis shows that for any $`ϵ>0`$ (and, in particular, for the realistic values $`ϵ1`$) and $`b<\pi ϵ^2`$, $`T_1>g^2/4\pi ϵ`$ (and consequently $`T_2>g^2/4\pi ϵ`$ as well). Since $`ϵ<ϵ(\mathrm{})`$, we conclude that both phase transitions always occur at the temperatures which are larger than that of the phase transition in the compact-QED limit.

Obviously, the RG analysis, performed in ref.  for the compact-QED limit remains valid, but with the replacement $`\zeta \xi `$. In particular, the deconfining phase transition corresponds again to the IR unstable fixed point, where the exponent of the W-fugacity, $`\mu \rho _W`$, is equal to the exponent of $`\xi `$ \[that yields the above-obtained critical temperatures (7)\]. One can further see that the initial condition $`\mu _{\mathrm{in}}<\xi _{\mathrm{in}}`$ takes place, provided that the initial temperature, $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, is either smaller than $`T_1`$ or lies between $`T_2`$ and $`g^2/2\pi `$. For these ranges of $`T_{\mathrm{in}}`$, the temperature starts decreasing according to the RG equation $`dt/d\lambda =\pi ^2\overline{a}^4\left(\mu ^2t^2\xi ^2\right)`$. In this equation, $`t=4\pi T/g^2`$, $`\lambda `$ is the evolution parameter, $`\overline{a}`$ is some parameter of the dimensionality \[length\], and for the comparison of $`\mu `$ and $`\xi `$ the preexponent $`t^2`$ is again immaterial. Then, in the case $`T_{\mathrm{in}}<T_1`$, the situation is identical to the one discussed in ref. , namely $`\mu `$ becomes irrelevant and decreases to zero. Indeed, from the evolution equation for $`\mu `$ there follows the equation for $`d\mu /dt`$, by virtue of which one can determine the sign of this quantity. It reads

$$\frac{d\mu }{dt}=\frac{\mu \left(2\frac{1}{t}\right)}{\pi ^2\overline{a}^4\left(\mu ^2t^2\xi ^2\right)}.$$

One can see from this equation that if the evolution starts at $`T_{\mathrm{in}}(g^2/8\pi ,T_1)`$, $`\mu `$ temporaly increases until the temperature is not equal to $`g^2/8\pi `$, but then nevertheless starts vanishing together with the temperature. However, by virtue of the same evolution equations we see that at $`T_{\mathrm{in}}(T_2,g^2/2\pi )`$, the situation is now different. Indeed, in that case, $`\mu `$ is not decreasing, but rather increasing with the decrease of the temperature (since $`d\mu /dt<0`$ at $`T>T_2`$), until it reaches some value $`\mu _{}\mathrm{e}^{m_W/T_2}`$. Once the temperature becomes smaller than $`T_2`$, the temperature starts increasing again, that together with the change of the sign of $`d\mu /dt`$ causes the increase of $`\mu `$, and so on. Thus, we see that $`\mu _{}`$ is the stable local maximum of $`\mu `$ for such initial conditions.

## 4 Conclusions

In this letter, we have explored the consequences of accounting for the Higgs field to the deconfining phase transition in the finite-temperature (2+1)D Georgi-Glashow model. To this end, this field was not supposed to be infinitely heavy, as it takes place in the compact-QED limit of the model. Owing to that, the Higgs field starts propagating and, in particular, causes the additional interaction of monopoles in the plasma. This effect modifies the monopole fugacity, making it temperature-dependent, and leads to the appearance of the novel terms in the action of the dual-photon field. The cumulant expansion applied in the course of the average over the Higgs field is checked to be convergent, provided that the weak-coupling approximation is implied in a certain sense. Namely, the parameter of the weak-coupling approximation should be bounded from above by a certain function of masses of the monopole, W-boson, and the Higgs field.

It has been demonstrated that although in the compact-QED limit there exists only one critical temperature of the phase transition, in general there exist two distinct critical temperatures. We have discussed the dependence of these temperatures on the parameters of the Georgi-Glashow model. In particular, both critical temperatures turn out to be larger than the one of the phase transition in the compact-QED limit. Besides that, it has been demonstrated that the smaller of the two critical temperatures always does not exceed the critical temperature of the monopole BKT phase transition. As far as the larger critical temperature is concerned, there has been found the range of parameters of the Georgi-Glashow model, where it also does not exceed the monopole one. The situation when there exist two phase transitions implies that at the smaller of the two critical temperatures, W-molecules start dissociating, while at the larger one all of them are dissociated completely. This means that in the region of temperatures between the critical ones, the gas of W-molecules coexists with the W-plasma.

From the RG equations, it follows that the presence of the second (larger) critical temperature leads to the appearance of a novel stable value of the W-fugacity. This value is reached if one starts the evolution in the region where the temperature is larger than the above-mentioned critical one, and the density of W’s is smaller than the one of monopoles. The resulting stable value is nonvanishing (i.e., W’s at that point are still of some importance), that is the opposite to the standard situation, which takes place if the evolution starts at the temperatures smaller than the first critical one.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The author is greatful to Prof. A. Di Giacomo for useful discussions and cordial hospitality and to Prof. I.I. Kogan for a stimulating discussion and correspondence. This work has been supported by INFN and partially by the INTAS grant Open Call 2000, Project No. 110. And last but not least, the author is greatful to the whole staff of the Physics Department of the University of Pisa for kind hospitality.

## Appendix A. Evaluation of the integral $`d^2x𝒦(𝐱)`$.

The desired integral can be written as follows:

$$I=\frac{2\pi }{m_H^2}\underset{c}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}K_0(x)\right)1\right]$$

$$\frac{2\pi }{m_H^2}\left\{\underset{c}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑xx\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }{2}x\right)\right)1\right]+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑xx\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(a\frac{\mathrm{e}^x}{\sqrt{x}}\right)1\right]\right\}$$

$$\frac{2\pi }{m_H^2}\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(c^21+\left(\frac{2}{\mathrm{e}^\gamma }\right)^{\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}\frac{1c^{2\frac{8\pi T}{g^2}}}{1\frac{4\pi T}{g^2}}\right)+J\right],$$
$`(A.1)`$
where the notations $`a`$ and $`c`$ were introduced in the main text. The integral $`J`$ here can further be evaluated as

$$J=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a^n}{n!}\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑x\mathrm{e}^{nx}x^{1\frac{n}{2}}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a^n}{n!}n^{\frac{n}{2}2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\frac{n}{2},n)\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{a^n}{nn!}\mathrm{e}^n.$$
$`(A.2)`$
Here, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a,x)=\underset{x}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^tt^{a1}`$ is the incomplete Gamma-function, and we have used its asymptotics $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(a,x)x^{a1}\mathrm{e}^x`$ at $`x1`$. One can further evaluate the sum (A.2) as follows:

$$(A.2)=\underset{0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a^n\frac{\mathrm{e}^{(1+t)n}}{n!}\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑t\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a^n\frac{\mathrm{e}^n}{n!}+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a^n\frac{\mathrm{e}^{tn}}{n!}=\mathrm{e}^{a/\mathrm{e}}1+\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\left[\mathrm{exp}\left(a\mathrm{e}^t\right)1\right]$$

$$\mathrm{e}^{a/\mathrm{e}}1+a\underset{1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}𝑑t\mathrm{e}^t=\mathrm{e}^{a/\mathrm{e}}1+\frac{a}{\mathrm{e}}.$$

Inserting this expression into eq. (A.1) we arrive at eq. (6) of the main text.


text:
# References

A recent analysis  of quasar absorption spectra at redshift $`z0.5`$$`3.5`$ indicates that the fine structure constant $`\alpha `$ is changing with time:

$$\frac{\alpha _{\mathrm{now}}\alpha _{\mathrm{past}}}{\alpha _{\mathrm{now}}}\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }=(.71\pm .18)\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^5.$$
(1)
While theorists have considered the possibility that the fundamental constants are time-dependent for a long time (starting with Dirac ), it is not clear how the result (1) fits into the current field-theoretic picture of elementary particle physics. In the Standard Model (SM), all the coupling constants run with energy. Since the temperature of the Universe changes with time, this implies that the effective values of the couplings are also changing. This effect, however, cannot be used to explain the data, since $`\alpha `$ does not run at energies below the electron mass $`m_e500`$ keV, corresponding to redshifts of order $`10^7`$. Thus, it appears that the time variation of $`\alpha `$ reported in  cannot be explained without appealing to physics beyond the Standard Model.

A priori, string theory should be well suited to accommodate this data. Indeed, it is well known that in string theory any coupling constant is promoted to a vacuum expectation value (vev) of a scalar field such as the dilaton or some other modulus. If this scalar field is extremely light, $`m10^{33}`$ eV, its expectation value could be still evolving in the recent past (or even today.) However, it is not clear how such a low scalar mass can be stabilized against radiative corrections. Moreover, the superlight scalar will mediate a long-range, isotope-dependent force. Such forces are subject to severe constraints from accurate tests of the equivalence principle (for a recent review, see ) and other fifth force experiments . Finally, it has been pointed out  that the energy density associated with the rolling scalar field is large enough to overclose the Universe if the parameters of the model are chosen to accommodate the result (1). (This problem seems to be tightly connected with the usual cosmological constant problem, and may become a non-issue once that problem is resolved .)

In this paper we propose an alternative explanation of the time variation of the fine structure constant that is potentially experimentally distinguishable from the slowly rolling dilaton scenario. Our framework is based on the observation that the experiments  measure the value of the fine structure constant at the very low energy scale (about 10 eV) set by atomic physics. This infrared value of the constant, which we will denote by $`\alpha \alpha (0)`$, is related to its ultraviolet value $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ by the renormalization group equation:

$$\frac{1}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })}+\frac{1}{2\pi }\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}b_{i+1}\mathrm{ln}\frac{m_{i+1}}{m_i},$$
(2)
where $`m_0<m_1<m_2<\mathrm{}<m_N`$ are the masses of all electrically charged particles, commonly referred to as “thresholds” ($`m_0=m_e`$, $`m_1=m_\mu `$, etc.) and $`b_i`$ is the one–loop beta function between the scale $`m_{i1}`$ and $`m_i`$. For notational convenience, we have identified $`m_{N+1}`$ with the cutoff of the theory $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ With our conventions, $`b<0`$ for an asymptotically free theory. It is clear from (2) that the low-energy value of $`\alpha `$ can change even if its fundamental, short-distance value $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ remains fixed, provided that some of the thresholds move. It is this possibility that we would like to investigate in this paper.

A change in $`\alpha `$ induced by a small variation of thresholds is easily obtained from (2):

$$\frac{\delta \alpha }{\alpha }=\frac{\alpha }{2\pi }\underset{i=0}{\overset{N}{}}(b_ib_{i+1})\frac{\delta m_i}{m_i}.$$
(3)
In QED, $`b_ib_{i+1}=q_i^2n_i<0`$, where $`q_i`$ is the electric charge of the particle that decouples at $`m_i`$, and $`n_i`$ is its degeneracy. To induce the change of $`\alpha `$ at $`10^5`$ level, we need

$$\underset{i}{}\frac{\delta m_i}{m_i}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}10}^2.$$
(4)
Notice that the masses have to increase ($`m_{\mathrm{now}}m_{\mathrm{past}}>0`$) in order to reproduce the correct sign in the evolution observed by Ref. . The requirement (4) is not in obvious contradiction with other observations. While the bounds on the variation of electron and proton masses at $`z23`$ are rather tight , there are no constraints on the masses of other charged particles (e.g. muon or $`\tau `$) at these redshifts.

What physical mechanism could lead to a change in the mass of a charged particle? In many theories masses of charged fermions are determined by vacuum expectation values of electrically neutral scalar fields. (For example, lepton and quark masses in the Standard Model are proportional to the Higgs vev.) In the expanding Universe, scalar vevs can be time-dependent. In particular, we will consider models in which in the early Universe the vev of a certain scalar $`S`$ vanishes due to thermal effects. As the Universe cools down, a phase transition occurs, during which the scalar acquires a vev. As a result, the masses of electrically charged states coupled to $`S`$ will change, leading to a change in the low-energy value of $`\alpha `$ according to (3).

Let us determine the features of the zero-temperature scalar field potential $`V(S)`$ which are necessary to explain the data . We assume that in the early Universe $`S=0`$. It is easy to see that $`V^{}(0)`$ has to vanish; however, $`S=0`$ could be either a minimum or a (local) maximum of $`V(S)`$. In the latter case, the vacuum can still be stable, provided that a thermal mass term is generated by interactions of the $`S`$ field with the surrounding plasma :

$$V_{\mathrm{therm}}T^2S^2.$$
(5)
For the moment, we will simply assume that such a mass term is generated; we will later comment on the conditions under which this is the case. As the temperature drops to its critical value, characterized by

$$T_c^2V^{\prime \prime }(0),$$
(6)
the vacuum at $`S=0`$ becomes unstable, and the system undergoes a phase transition. In this transition, the field changes its vev until it reaches the nearest minimum of $`V(S)`$, which we will denote by $`S_1`$. We require that the phase transition occurs at $`z13`$, when the temperature of the Universe $`T`$ is of order $`10^3`$ eV. Eq. (6) then implies that the mass parameter of the $`S`$ field in the zero-temperature lagrangian is of the same order, $`10^3`$ eV. In a generic non-supersymmetric theory, such a low mass scale is unstable against radiative corrections, and extreme fine tuning would be required to explain it. In supersymmetric theories, however, this scale can be radiatively stable, provided that the supersymmetry breaking scale $`\sqrt{F}`$ is at or below about 10 TeV and the breaking is only communicated to $`S`$ via Planck suppressed contact operators111The fact that the energy scale corresponding to the current critical density of the Universe could arise naturally in supersymmetric theories was emphasized in Ref. .. Such a low value of $`\sqrt{F}`$ is phenomenologically viable if the breaking is communicated to the visible sector fields (that is, the Standard Model fields and their superpartners) by gauge mediation . Thus, we have identified a large class of models in which a phase transition could occur at low redshifts, without any fine-tuning.

The phase transition will not result in a change of the fine structure constant unless $`S`$ is coupled to at least one electrically charged field. On the other hand, radiative stability of the $`S`$ mass parameter would be destroyed by any direct renormalizable coupling of $`S`$ to the Standard Model fields or their superpartners. To avoid this problem, we introduce an additional vectorlike chiral superfield $`Q`$, which is charged under $`U(1)_{\mathrm{em}}`$ (and possibly other SM gauge groups.) This field is coupled to $`S`$ via

$$=d^2\theta (M+yS)Q\overline{Q},$$
(7)
where $`M`$ is a mass for the $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ fields, and $`y1`$ is a Yukawa coupling. It is easy to see that three-loop diagrams involving $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ renormalize the $`S`$ mass parameter by an amount

$$(\delta m)^2\left(\frac{y^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)\left(\frac{e^2}{16\pi ^2}\right)^2\frac{F^2}{M^2}.$$
(8)
These corrections do not destroy radiative stability provided that $`M\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{16}`$ GeV. Note that Eqs. (4) and (7) imply that $`S_1/M10^2`$ is necessary to accommodate the data, so the vev of the $`S`$ field after the transition is required to be very large, $`S_1\begin{array}{c}>\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{14}`$ GeV. The huge hierarchy between the vev of the field and its mass is radiatively stable because of supersymmetry and implies that $`S`$ is a modulus.

Let us return to the question of whether a thermal mass term of the form (5) is actually generated at high temperatures. Since the couplings of $`S`$ to the visible sector fields are non-renormalizable, they cannot generate such a term. Moreover, since $`S`$ is a modulus, its self-interactions are extremely weak: the quartic coupling can be estimated as $`\lambda m^2/S_1^210^{52}`$. The thermal mass term generated by these interactions is proportional to $`\lambda `$ and is therefore negligible. To generate a thermal mass of the right order of magnitude, $`S`$ needs to have substantial couplings to some other light fields $`Y`$. These couplings will not destabilize the $`10^3`$ eV mass scale, provided that the fields $`Y`$, like $`S`$ itself, are only sensitive to supersymmetry violating effects through Planck suppressed operators. (Together with $`S`$, these fields form a “hidden sector” of the theory.) Although the fields of the hidden sector decouple from the visible sector fields very early on, they can maintain thermal equilibrium among themselves, at a temperature which is identical (up to order one factors related to the multiplicity of states at decoupling) to the visible sector temperature. The interactions of $`S`$ with this “hidden” thermal plasma are responsible for generating the mass term (5).

The natural value of the energy density difference before and after the phase transition is given by

$$\mathrm{\Delta }VV(0)V(S_1)|V^{\prime \prime }(0)|S_1^2$$
(9)
and given the above constraint we obtain $`\mathrm{\Delta }V>10^{40}`$ eV4. Naively, such a huge energy density seems to lead to two severe problems, which would make our scenario incompatible with standard cosmology. First, one could argue that the cosmological constant cannot be tuned away both before and after the phase transition, and rapid inflationary expansion should occur in at least one of these two periods. Second, during the phase transition the field $`S`$ is expected to undergo coherent oscillations, slowly decaying due to Hubble expansion. With our parameters, the energy density in these oscillations is large enough to overclose the Universe. Requiring that our scenario without any additional ingredients be consistent with standard cosmology leads to a bound on the variation of $`\alpha `$ similar to the one found in Ref. : $`\delta \alpha /\alpha \begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}10^{31}`$, well below the values reported in .

A simple way to restore the consistency of our scenario with standard cosmology is to simply fine-tune the shape of the potential. Such fine tuning can be used to get rid of the large contribution to the vacuum energy before the phase transition, Eq. (9). Once this is done, the energy of coherent oscillations is automatically low enough to avoid overclosure. The amount of fine tuning involoved is similar to what is required in the conventional models with a rolling dilaton field .

It is tempting, however, to speculate that the difficulties of our scenario could be avoided without any fine tuning once the cosmological constant problem is resolved. Indeed, from the effective field theory point of view, it is reasonable to expect that the mechanism that solves the cosmological constant problem will guarantee the absence of inflation regardless of the (constant) vacuum energy density222This point of view was advocated, for example, in Ref. .. During a phase transition, such a mechanism would adjust itself to cancel the new value of the energy density. Any mechanism which has this feature would resolve the first of the two problems confronting our scenario. Furthermore, the energy in the coherent oscillations of the modulus field is related to the difference in the vacuum energies before and after the transition. It is the large value of this difference that leads to the second problem of our scenario. If the large difference in vacuum energies is cancelled by the adjustment mechanism, conservation of energy implies that the amount of energy in the coherent oscillations will be sufficiently small to avoid overclosure. Of course, we emphasize that no explicit example of an adjustment mechanism for the cosmological constant problem is currently known, and therefore the above discussion is necessarily rather speculative. If such a mechanism is proposed in the future, the question of whether our scenario is viabile without fine tuning should be reexamined within a more concrete framework.

In the context of a grand unified theory a change in $`\alpha `$ would seem to require a variation of the QCD confinement scale. This, in turn, would result in a shift of the hadron masses. In fact, if the observed variation of $`\alpha `$ is attributed to the change of the short-distance unified coupling $`\alpha _{\mathrm{GUT}}`$, the fractional change in the proton mass can be predicted  (see also  for an estimate in the change of the deuteron binding energy) and turns out to be about 40 times larger than the fractional change in $`\alpha `$. This result is in mild contradiction with the bound obtained from measuring the value of $`\mu =m_e/m_p`$  in the same range of redshifts, $`z23.`$ In our framework, however, it is straightforward to evade this prediction. This possibility is perfectly compatible with grand unification. For example, consider a supersymmetric SO(10) grand unified theory in which doublet-triplet splitting is achieved using an adjoint field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with block diagonal vacuum expectation value $`(0,0,0,\tau _2,\tau _2)`$ where $`\tau `$s are the Pauli matrices . This pattern of vevs breaks SO(10) down to SU(4) $`\times `$ SU$`(2)_L\times `$ U(1$`)_{I3R}`$, where the U(1) is the diagonal generator of SU(2$`)_R`$. The superpotential of the theory necessarily contains a Planck suppressed operator of the form $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }Q\overline{Q}/M_{Planck}`$, where $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are in the fundamental of SO(10), and $`S`$ is a singlet. Because of the pattern of vevs of the field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the singlet $`S`$ acquires Yukawa couplings of the form (7) to the doublets in $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ but not the triplets. When $`S`$ goes through a phase transition, the low energy values of the SU(2$`)_L`$ and U(1$`)_Y`$ gauge couplings are affected, but the SU(3) gauge coupling (and therefore the QCD confinement scale) remains unaffected at one loop order, and the resulting change in the proton mass will therefore be suppressed. However, there will be changes in both the electron mass and the proton mass arising from radiative corrections to these quantities involving electromagnetic and weak interactions. Moreover, since supersymmetry breaking is mediated to the visible sector fields through gauge interactions, the Higgs mass and therefore its vacuum expectation value will be altered by the change in the values of the SU(2) and U(1) gauge couplings. Both these effects will in turn give rise to a change in $`\mu `$ of order $`\delta \mu /\mu \delta \alpha /\alpha `$. Although this is below the current experimental bound, it may be possible to detect this effect in future experiments.

The observational predictions of our model depend on the time $`T`$ it takes to complete the phase transition. Since the dynamics of the transition is necessarily strongly influenced by the unknown adjustment mechanism for cosmological constant, it is not possible to estimate $`T`$ reliably. Let us consider two cases. In the first case, $`T`$ is smaller than the age of the Universe at the time when the transition began, so that the transition is a sharp event on cosmological time scales. Then, the low-energy value of the fine structure constant should be time-independent for $`z\begin{array}{c}<\hfill \\ \hfill \end{array}1`$. This prediction is consistent with the null results from the laboratory search  for the time variation of $`\alpha `$, as well as the geological bound  from the Oklo natural nuclear reactor. Moreover, in this case we would expect improved measurements of $`\alpha (z)`$ to show a sharp feature (a “step”) in the $`z13`$ region. The other possibility is that the time $`T`$ is so large that the transition is still not completed today. In this case, it is much harder to distinguish our scenario from the more conventional picture of a slowly rolling dilaton field.

Apart from the quasar absorption spectra measurements, the only currently available bound on the variation of $`\alpha `$ on cosmological time scales comes from nucleosynthesis ; our model easily satisfies this constraint ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha |/\alpha <10^210^4`$). The expected precision  in the cosmic microwave background measurements ($`|\mathrm{\Delta }\alpha |/\alpha <10^210^3`$) will not be enough to rule out our scenario.

An observational consequence of the rolling dilaton mechanism of changing $`\alpha `$ is the existence of a new, isotope-dependent long-range force . In our scenario, the modulus $`S`$ (in the true vacuum) has a mass of about $`10^3`$ eV and mediates a Yukawa force with a range of order 0.1 mm. Since there are no renormalizable couplings between $`S`$ and any of the Standard Model fields, this force is of (approximately) gravitational strength. Currently, the strongest bounds on such forces come from tabletop precision tests of the Newton’s law at submillimeter distances . These experiments require that the range of the extra force be less than about 0.2 - 0.3 mm. Clearly, this bound can be satisfied in our model without significant fine tuning. If our scenario is indeed realized in nature, improved precision gravitational tests should observe isotope-dependent deviations from the Newton’s law in the near future.

Above, we have assumed that $`S=0`$ is a local maximum of the zero-temperature potential $`V(S)`$, and the phase transition is second order. It is also possible that $`S=0`$ is a local minimum of the potential. If there is another minimum with lower energy, at $`S=S_1`$, a first order phase transition could occur. During this phase transition, bubbles of the true vacuum nucleate and start growing rapidly. Eventually, the bubbles coalesce and the transition is complete. A classic calculation (neglecting the effects of the expansion of the Universe) of the lifetime of a false vacuum  yields

$$\tau \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{27\pi ^2}{8}\frac{S_0^4}{(\mathrm{\Delta }V)^3}\right)$$
(10)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the natural scale of the potential $`V(S)`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }V=V(0)V(S_1)`$ is the energy splitting between the true and false vacua, and

$$S_0=_0^{S_1}𝑑S\sqrt{V(S)}S_1\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }V}.$$
(11)
The phenomenological constraints on this scenario are somewhat different from the case of a second order transition discussed above. According to (10), the lifetime of the false vacuum can be much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ without major fine tuning. Thus, it is possible for a late phase transition to occur even if all the scales in $`V(S)`$ are of order TeV or higher. This in turn allows direct couplings of $`S`$ to the (electrically charged) visible sector fields. Note, however, that the absence of rapid inflationary expansion before (or after) the phase transition would naively require $`\mathrm{\Delta }V<(10^3`$ eV$`)^4`$. This bound would not only necessitate fine tuning of the energy splitting itself, but also lead to unacceptable large values of $`\tau `$ (much larger than the age of the Universe today) unless the entire shape of $`V(S)`$ is finely tuned. On the other hand, just like in the case of second order phase transition discussed earlier, this bound could be nullified once the physics responsible for solving the cosmological constant is taken into account.

To summarize, we have suggested that the apparent time variation of the low energy fine structure constant reported in  is a result of a late phase transition involving changing the vacuum expectation value of a light modulus. We have shown that such a late phase transition can occur in a large class of supersymmetric models without any fine tuning. This is in marked contrast with a more conventional rolling dilaton mechanism of changing $`\alpha `$, which requires superlight (Hubble-scale) moduli whose mass is generally not radiatively stable even in the absence of gravity. Just like in the rolling dilaton picture, producing a change in $`\alpha `$ large enough to explain the data  in our scenario is challenging, and naively seems incompatible with cosmological observations. In both pictures, this problem could be avoided by fine tuning the potential of the scalar field. We have speculated that our scenario could be compatible with standard cosmology without fine tuning, provided that the cosmological constant problem is resolved by an adjustment mechanism. Clearly, this question would have to be reexamined if an explicit adjustment mechanism is proposed in the future. While we are not able to reliably describe the dynamics of the phase transition, we emphasize that the transition could be a sharp event on cosmological time scales. In this case, improved measurements of the redshift dependence of $`\alpha `$ will discover a well-defined step-like feature, distinguishing this scenario from the rolling dilaton picture. Another prediction is the isotope-dependent deviation from Newtonian gravity at sub-millimeter scales. Finally, we have found that in our framework the relation between the change in $`\alpha `$ and the corresponding change in the QCD confinement scale is highly model dependent. In particular, even in supersymmetric grand unified theories it is straightforward to construct models which are consistent with current bounds on the variation of the ratio of the electron mass to the proton mass at $`z23`$.

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Csáki, E. Dudas, N. Kaloper, M. A. Luty, H. Murayama, A. E. Nelson and J.P. Uzan for fruitful discussions. M.P. wishes to acknowledge the hospitality of Service de Physique Théorique, CEA–Saclay, where this work was initiated. Z.C. and M.P. are supported by the Director, Office of Science, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, of the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.