text:
# Quantum search by measurement

## I Introduction

In the conventional circuit model of quantum computation, a program for a quantum computer consists of a discrete sequence of unitary gates chosen from a fixed set. The memory of the quantum computer is a collection of qubits initially prepared in some definite state. After a sequence of unitary gates is applied, the qubits are measured in the computational basis to give the result of the computation, a classical bit string.

This description of a quantum computer has been used to formulate quantum algorithms that outperform classical methods, notably Shor’s factoring algorithm Sho94  and Grover’s algorithm for unstructured search Gro97 . Subsequent development of quantum algorithms has focused primarily on variations of the techniques introduced by Shor and Grover. One way to motivate new algorithmic ideas is to consider alternative (but in general, equivalent) descriptions of the way a quantum computer operates. For example, the technique of quantum computation by adiabatic evolution FGGS00  is most easily described by a quantum computer that evolves continuously according to a time-varying Hamiltonian.

Another model of quantum computation allows measurement at intermediate stages. Indeed, recent work has shown that measurement alone is universal for quantum computation: one can efficiently implement a universal set of quantum gates using only measurements (and classical processing) Nie01 ; FZ01 ; Leu01 ; RB00 . In this paper, we describe an algorithm for solving combinatorial search problems that consists only of a sequence of measurements. Using a straightforward variant of the quantum Zeno effect (see for example Neu32 ; AV80 ; SRM93 ), we show how to keep the quantum computer in the ground state of a smoothly varying Hamiltonian $`H(s)`$. This process can be used to solve a computational problem by encoding the solution to the problem in the ground state of the final Hamiltonian.

The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section II, we present the algorithm in detail and describe how measurement of $`H(s)`$ can be performed on a digital quantum computer. In Section III, we estimate the running time of the algorithm in terms of spectral properties of $`H(s)`$. Then, in Section IV, we discuss how the algorithm performs on Grover’s unstructured search problem and show that by a suitable modification, Grover’s quadratic speedup can be achieved by the measurement algorithm. Finally, in Section V, we discuss the relationship between the measurement algorithm and quantum computation by adiabatic evolution.

## II The measurement algorithm

Our algorithm is conceptually similar to quantum computation by adiabatic evolution FGGS00 , a general method for solving combinatorial search problems using a quantum computer. Both algorithms operate by remaining in the ground state of a smoothly varying Hamiltonian $`H(s)`$ whose initial ground state is easy to construct and whose final ground state encodes the solution to the problem. However, whereas adiabatic quantum computation uses Schrödinger evolution under $`H(s)`$ to remain in the ground state, the present algorithm uses only measurement of $`H(s)`$.

In general, we are interested in searching for the minimum of a function $`h(z)`$ that maps $`n`$-bit strings to positive real numbers. Many computational problems can be cast as minimization of such a function; for specific examples and their relationship to adiabatic quantum computation, see FGGS00 ; CFGG01 . Typically, we can restrict our attention to the case where the global minimum of $`h(z)`$ is unique. Associated with this function, we can define a problem Hamiltonian $`H_P`$ through its action on computational basis states:

$$H_P|z=h(z)|z.$$
(1)
Finding the global minimum of $`h(z)`$ is equivalent to finding the ground state of $`H_P`$. If the global minimum is unique, then this ground state is nondegenerate.

To reach the ground state of $`H_P`$, we begin with the quantum computer prepared in the ground state of some other Hamiltonian $`H_B`$, the beginning Hamiltonian. Then we consider a one-parameter family of Hamiltonians $`H(s)`$ that interpolates smoothly from $`H_B`$ to $`H_P`$ for $`s[0,1]`$. In other words, $`H(0)=H_B`$ and $`H(1)=H_P`$, and the intermediate $`H(s)`$ is a smooth function of $`s`$. One possible choice is linear interpolation,

$$H(s)=(1s)H_B+sH_P.$$
(2)
Now we divide the interval $`[0,1]`$ into $`M`$ subintervals of width $`\delta =1/M`$. So long as the interpolating Hamiltonian $`H(s)`$ is smoothly varying and $`\delta `$ is small, the ground state of $`H(s)`$ will be close to the ground state of $`H(s+\delta )`$. Thus, if the system is in the ground state of $`H(s)`$ and we measure $`H(s+\delta )`$, the post-measurement state is very likely to be the ground state of $`H(s+\delta )`$. If we begin in the ground state of $`H(0)`$ and successively measure $`H(\delta ),H(2\delta ),\mathrm{},H((M1)\delta ),H(1)`$, then the final state will be the ground state of $`H(1)`$ with high probability, assuming $`\delta `$ is sufficiently small.

To complete our description of the quantum algorithm, we must explain how to measure the operator $`H(s)`$. The technique we use is motivated by von Neumann’s description of the measurement process Neu32 . In this description, measurement is performed by coupling the system of interest to an ancillary system, which we call the pointer. Suppose that the pointer is a one-dimensional free particle and that the system-pointer interaction Hamiltonian is $`H(s)p`$, where $`p`$ is the momentum of the particle. Furthermore, suppose that the mass of the particle is sufficiently large that we can neglect the kinetic term. Then the resulting evolution is

$$e^{itH(s)p}=\underset{a}{}\left[|E_a(s)E_a(s)|e^{itE_a(s)p}\right],$$
(3)
where $`|E_a(s)`$ are the eigenstates of $`H(s)`$ with eigenvalues $`E_a(s)`$, and we have set $`\mathrm{}=1`$. Suppose we prepare the pointer in the state $`|x=0`$, a narrow wave packet centered at $`x=0`$. Since the momentum operator generates translations in position, the above evolution performs the transformation

$$|E_a(s)|x=0|E_a(s)|x=tE_a(s).$$
(4)
If we can measure the position of the pointer with sufficiently high precision that all relevant spacings $`x_{ab}=t|E_a(s)E_b(s)|`$ can be resolved, then measurement of the position of the pointer — a fixed, easy-to-measure observable, independent of $`H(s)`$ — effects a measurement of $`H(s)`$.

Von Neumann’s measurement protocol makes use of a continuous variable, the position of the pointer. To turn it into an algorithm that can be implemented on a fully digital quantum computer, we can approximate the evolution (3) using $`r`$ quantum bits to represent the pointer Wie96 ; Zal98 . The full Hilbert space is thus a tensor product of a $`2^n`$-dimensional space for the system and a $`2^r`$-dimensional space for the pointer. We let the computational basis of the pointer, with basis states $`\{|z\}`$, represent the basis of momentum eigenstates. The label $`z`$ is an integer between $`0`$ and $`2^r1`$, and the $`r`$ bits of the binary representation of $`z`$ specify the states of the $`r`$ qubits. In this basis, the digital representation of $`p`$ is

$$p=\underset{j=1}{\overset{r}{}}2^j\frac{1\sigma _z^{(j)}}{2},$$
(5)
a sum of diagonal operators, each of which acts on only a single qubit. Here $`\sigma _z^{(j)}`$ is the Pauli $`z`$ operator on the $`j`$th qubit. As we will discuss in the next section, we have chosen to normalize $`p`$ so that

$$p|z=\frac{z}{2^r}|z,$$
(6)
which gives $`p1`$. If $`H(s)`$ is a sum of terms, each of which acts on at most $`k`$ qubits, then $`H(s)p`$ is a sum of terms, each of which acts on at most $`k+1`$ qubits. As long as $`k`$ is a fixed constant independent of the problem size $`n`$, such a Hamiltonian can be simulated efficiently on a quantum computer Llo96 . Expanded in the momentum eigenbasis, the initial state of the pointer is

$$|x=0=\frac{1}{2^{r/2}}\underset{z=0}{\overset{2^r1}{}}|z.$$
(7)
The measurement is performed by evolving under $`H(s)p`$ for a total time $`\tau `$. We discuss how to choose $`\tau `$ in the next section. After this evolution, the position of the simulated pointer could be measured by measuring the qubits that represent it in the $`x`$ basis, i.e., the Fourier transform of the computational basis. However, note that our algorithm only makes use of the post-measurement state of the system, not of the measured value of $`H(s)`$. In other words, only the reduced density matrix of the system is relevant. Thus it is not actually necessary to perform a Fourier transform before measuring the pointer, or even to measure the pointer at all. When the system-pointer evolution is finished, one can either re-prepare the pointer in its initial state $`|x=0`$ or discard it and use a new pointer, and immediately begin the next measurement.

As an aside, note that the von Neumann measurement procedure described above is identical to the well-known phase estimation algorithm for measuring the eigenvalues of a unitary operator Kit95 ; CEMM98 , which can also be used to produce eigenvalues and eigenvectors of a Hamiltonian AL99 . This connection has been noted previously in Zal98 , and it has been pointed out that the measurement is a non-demolition measurement in TMR02 . In the phase estimation problem, we are given an eigenvector $`|\psi `$ of a unitary operator $`U`$ and asked to determine its eigenvalue $`e^{i\varphi }`$. The algorithm uses two registers, one that initially stores $`|\psi `$ and one that will store an approximation of the phase $`\varphi `$. The first and last steps of the algorithm are Fourier transforms on the phase register. The intervening step is to perform the transformation

$$|\psi |zU^z|\psi |z,$$
(8)
where $`|z`$ is a computational basis state. If we take $`|z`$ to be a momentum eigenstate with eigenvalue $`z`$ (i.e., if we choose a different normalization than in (6)) and let $`U=e^{iHt}`$, this is exactly the transformation induced by $`e^{i(Hp)t}`$. Thus we see that the phase estimation algorithm for a unitary operator $`U`$ is exactly von Neumann’s prescription for measuring $`i\mathrm{ln}U`$.

## III Running time

The running time of the measurement algorithm is the product of $`M`$, the number of measurements, and $`\tau `$, the time per measurement. Even if we assume perfect projective measurements, the algorithm is guaranteed to keep the computer in the ground state of $`H(s)`$ only in the limit $`M\mathrm{}`$, so that $`\delta =1/M0`$. Given a finite running time, the probability of finding the ground state of $`H_P`$ with the last measurement will be less than 1. To understand the efficiency of the algorithm, we need to determine how long we must run as a function of $`n`$, the number of bits on which the function $`h`$ is defined, so that the probability of success is not too small. In general, if the time required to achieve a success probability greater than some fixed constant (e.g., $`\frac{1}{2}`$) is $`poly(n)`$, we say the algorithm is efficient, whereas if the running time grows exponentially, we say it is not.

To determine the running time of the algorithm, we consider the effect of the measurement process on the reduced density matrix of the system. Here, we simply motivate the main result; for a detailed analysis, see Appendix A.

Let $`\rho ^{(j)}`$ denote the reduced density matrix of the system after the $`j`$th measurement; its matrix elements are

$$\rho _{ab}^{(j)}=E_a(j\delta )|\rho ^{(j)}|E_b(j\delta ).$$
(9)
The interaction with the digitized pointer effects the transformation

$$|E_a(s)|ze^{iE_a(s)zt/2^r}|E_a(s)|z.$$
(10)
Starting with the pointer in the state (7), evolving according to (10), and tracing over the pointer, the quantum operation induced on the system is

$$\rho _{ab}^{(j+1)}=\kappa _{ab}^{(j+1)}\underset{c,d}{}U_{ac}^{(j)}\rho _{cd}^{(j)}U_{bd}^{(j)},$$
(11)
where the unitary transformation relating the energy eigenbases at $`s=j\delta `$ and $`s=(j+1)\delta `$ is

$$U_{ab}^{(j)}=E_a((j+1)\delta )|E_b(j\delta )$$
(12)
and

$$\kappa _{ab}^{(j)}=\frac{1}{2^r}\underset{z=0}{\overset{2^r1}{}}e^{i[E_b(j\delta )E_a(j\delta )]zt/2^r}.$$
(13)
Summing this geometric series, we find

$$\left|\kappa _{ab}^{(j)}\right|^2=\left|\kappa ([E_b(j\delta )E_a(j\delta )]t/2)\right|^2,$$
(14)
where

$$|\kappa (x)|^2=\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2x}{4^r\mathrm{sin}^2(x/2^r)}.$$
(15)
This function is shown in Fig. 1 for the case $`r=4`$. It has a sharp peak of unit height and width of order 1 at the origin, and identical peaks at integer multiples of $`2^r\pi `$.

If the above procedure were a perfect projective measurement, then we would have $`\kappa _{ab}=0`$ whenever $`E_aE_b`$. Assuming (temporarily) that this is the case, we find

$$\rho _{00}^{(j+1)}\left|U_{00}^{(j)}\right|^2\rho _{00}^{(j)}$$
(16)
with the initial condition $`\rho _{00}^{(0)}=1`$ and $`\rho _{ab}^{(0)}=0`$ otherwise. Perturbation theory gives

$`\left|U_{00}^{(j)}\right|^2`$ $`=`$ $`1\delta ^2{\displaystyle \underset{a0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|E_a(s)|\frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}s}|E_0(s)|^2}{(E_0(s)E_a(s))^2}}|_{s=j\delta }`$ (17)
$`+O(\delta ^3)`$
$``$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(j\delta )^2\delta ^2}{g(j\delta )^2}}+O(\delta ^3),`$ (18)
where

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)^2=E_0(s)|(\frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}s})^2|E_0(s)E_0(s)|\frac{\mathrm{d}H}{\mathrm{d}s}|E_0(s)^2$$
(19)
and

$$g(s)=E_1(s)E_0(s)$$
(20)
is the energy gap between the ground and first excited states. If we let

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{max}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(s)`$ (21)
$`g`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{s[0,1]}{\mathrm{min}}g(s),`$ (22)
then according to (16), the probability of being in the ground state after the last measurement is at least

$`\rho _{00}^{(M)}`$ $``$ $`\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{M^2g^2}}+O(M^3)\right]^M`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{Mg^2}}\right)+O(M^2).`$ (24)
The probability of success is close to 1 provided

$$M\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{g^2}.$$
(25)
When $`H_B`$ and $`H_P`$ are both sums of $`poly(n)`$ terms, each of which acts nontrivially on at most a constant number of qubits, it is easy to choose an interpolation such as (2) so that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is only $`poly(n)`$. Thus we are mainly interested in the behavior of $`g`$, the minimum gap between the ground and first excited states. We see that for the algorithm to be successful, the total number of measurements must be much larger than $`1/g^2`$.

In fact, the simulated von Neumann procedure is not a perfect projective measurement. We must determine how long the system and pointer should interact so that the measurement is sufficiently good. The analysis in Appendix A shows that $`|\kappa _{01}^{(j)}|^2`$ should be bounded below 1 by a constant for all $`j`$. In other words, to sufficiently resolve the difference between the ground and first excited states, we must decrease the coherence between them by a fixed fraction per measurement. The width of the central peak in Fig. 1 is of order 1, so it is straightforward to show that to have $`|\kappa (x)|^2`$ less than, say, $`1/2`$, we must have $`xO(1)`$. This places a lower bound on the system-pointer interaction time of

$$\tau \frac{O(1)}{g}$$
(26)
independent of $`r`$, the number of pointer qubits. (Note that the same bound also holds in the case of a continuous pointer with a fixed resolution length.)

Putting these results together, we find that the measurement algorithm is successful if the total running time, $`T=M\tau `$, satisfies

$$T\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{g^3}\text{(measurement)}.$$
(27)
This result can be compared to the corresponding expression for quantum computation by adiabatic evolution,

$$T\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{g^2}\text{(adiabatic)}.$$
(28)
Note that the same quantity appears in the numerator of both expressions; in both cases, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ accounts for the possibility of transitions to all possible excited states.

The adiabatic and measurement algorithms have qualitatively similar behavior: if the gap is exponentially small, neither algorithm is efficient, whereas if the gap is only polynomially small, both algorithms are efficient. However, the measurement algorithm is slightly slower: whereas adiabatic evolution runs in a time that grows like $`1/g^2`$, the measurement algorithm runs in a time that grows like $`1/g^3`$. To see that this comparison is fair, recall that we have defined the momentum in (5) so that $`p1`$, which gives $`H(s)H(s)p`$. Alternatively, we can compare the number $`\eta `$ of few-qubit unitary gates needed to simulate the two algorithms on a conventional quantum computer. Using the Lie product formula

$$e^{A+B}(e^{A/m}e^{B/m})^m,$$
(29)
which is valid provided $`mA^2+B^2`$, we find $`\eta =O(1/g^4)`$ for adiabatic evolution and $`\eta =O(1/g^6)`$ for the measurement algorithm, in agreement with the previous comparison.

The argument we have used to motivate (27) is explained in greater detail in Appendix A. There, we also consider the number of qubits, $`r`$, that must be used to represent the pointer. We show that if the gap is only polynomially small in $`n`$, it is always sufficient to take $`r=O(\mathrm{log}n)`$. However, we argue that generally a single qubit will suffice.

## IV The Grover problem

The unstructured search problem considered by Grover is to find a particular unknown $`n`$-bit string $`w`$ (the marked state, or the winner) using only queries of the form “is $`z`$ the same as $`w`$?” Gro97 . In other words, one is trying to minimize a function

$$h_w(z)=\{\begin{array}{c}0,z=w\\ 1,zw\end{array}.$$
(30)
Since there are $`2^n`$ possible values for $`w`$, the best possible classical algorithm uses $`\mathrm{\Theta }(2^n)`$ queries. However, Grover’s algorithm requires only $`\mathrm{\Theta }(2^{n/2})`$ queries, providing a (provably optimal BBBV97 ) quadratic speedup. In Grover’s algorithm, the winner is specified by an oracle $`U_w`$ with

$$U_w|z=(1)^{h_w(z)}|z.$$
(31)
This oracle is treated as a black box that one can use during the computation. One call to this black box is considered to be a single query of the oracle.

In addition to Grover’s original algorithm, quadratic speedup can also be achieved in a time-independent Hamiltonian formulation FG98a  or by adiabatic quantum computation RC01 ; DMV01 . In either of these formulations, the winner is specified by an “oracle Hamiltonian”

$$H_w=1|ww|$$
(32)
whose ground state is $`|w`$ and that treats all orthogonal states (the non-winners) equivalently. One is provided with a black box that implements $`H_w`$, where $`w`$ is unknown, and is asked to find $`w`$. Instead of counting queries, the efficiency of the algorithm is quantified in terms of the total time for which one applies the oracle Hamiltonian.

Here, we show that if we are given a slightly different black box, we can achieve quadratic speedup using the measurement algorithm. We let the problem Hamiltonian be $`H_P=H_w`$ and we consider a one-parameter family of Hamiltonians $`H(s)`$ given by (2) for some $`H_B`$. Because we would like to measure this Hamiltonian, it is not sufficient to be given a black box that allows one to evolve the system according to $`H_w`$. Instead, we will use a black box that evolves the system and a pointer according to $`H_wp`$, where $`p`$ is the momentum of the pointer. This oracle is compared to the previous two in Fig. 2. By repeatedly alternating between applying this black box and evolving according to $`H_Bp`$, each for small time, we can produce an overall evolution according to the Hamiltonian $`[sH_B+(1s)H_P]p`$, and thus measure the operator $`H(s)`$ for any $`s`$.

Now consider the beginning Hamiltonian

$$H_B=\underset{j}{}\frac{1\sigma _x^{(j)}}{2},$$
(33)
where $`\sigma _x^{(j)}`$ is the Pauli $`x`$ operator acting on the $`j`$th qubit. This beginning Hamiltonian is a sum of local terms, and has the easy-to-prepare ground state $`|E_0(0)=2^{n/2}_z|z`$, the uniform superposition of all possible bit strings in the computational basis. If we consider the interpolation (2), then one can show FGGS00  that the minimum gap occurs at

$$s^{}=1\frac{2}{n}+O(n^2),$$
(34)
where the gap takes the value

$$g(s^{})=2^{1n/2}[1+O(n^1)].$$
(35)
Naively applying (27) gives a running time $`T=O(2^{3n/2})`$, which is even worse than the classical algorithm.

However, since we know the value of $`s^{}`$ independent of $`w`$, we can improve on this approach by making fewer measurements. We observe that in the limit of large $`n`$, the ground state of $`H(s)`$ is close to the ground state $`|E_0(0)`$ of $`H_B`$ for $`ss^{}`$ and is close to the ground state $`|E_0(1)=|w`$ of $`H_P`$ for $`ss^{}`$, switching rapidly from one state to the other in the vicinity of $`s=s^{}`$. In Appendix B, we show that up to terms of order $`1/n`$, the ground state $`|\psi _+`$ and the first excited state $`|\psi _{}`$ of $`H(s^{})`$ are the equal superpositions

$$|\psi _\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|E_0(0)\pm |E_0(1))$$
(36)
of the initial and final ground states (which are nearly orthogonal for large $`n`$). If we prepare the system in the state $`|E_0(0)`$ and make a perfect measurement of $`H(s^{})`$ followed by a perfect measurement of $`H(1)`$, we find the result $`w`$ with probability $`\frac{1}{2}`$. The same effect can be achieved with an imperfect measurement, even if the pointer consists of just a single qubit. First consider the measurement of $`H(s^{})`$ in the state $`|E_0(0)`$. After the system and pointer have interacted for a time $`t`$ according to (10) with $`r=1`$, the reduced density matrix of the system in the $`\{|\psi _+,|\psi _{}\}`$ basis is approximately

$$\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& e^{ig(s^{})t/4}\mathrm{cos}[g(s^{})t/4]\\ e^{ig(s^{})t/4}\mathrm{cos}[g(s^{})t/4]& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(37)
If we then measure $`H(1)`$ (i.e., measure in the computational basis), the probability of finding $`w`$ is approximately

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{sin}^2[g(s^{})t/4].$$
(38)
To get an appreciable probability of finding $`w`$, we choose $`t=\mathrm{\Theta }(2^{n/2})`$.

This approach is similar to the way one can achieve quadratic speedup with the adiabatic algorithm. Schrödinger time evolution governed by (2) does not yield quadratic speedup. However, because $`s^{}`$ is independent of $`w`$, we can change the Hamiltonian quickly when the gap is big and more slowly when the gap is small. Since the gap is only of size $`2^{n/2}`$ for a region of width $`2^{n/2}`$, the total oracle time with this modified schedule need only be $`O(2^{n/2})`$. This has been demonstrated explicitly by solving for the optimal schedule using a different beginning Hamiltonian $`H_B^{}`$ that is not a sum of local terms RC01 ; DMV01 , but it also holds using the beginning Hamiltonian (33).

Note that measuring $`H(s^{})`$ is not the only way to solve the Grover problem by measurement. More generally, we can start in some $`w`$-independent state, measure the operator

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=H_w+K$$
(39)
where $`K`$ is also independent of $`w`$, and then measure in the computational basis. For example, suppose we choose

$$K=1|\psi \psi |,$$
(40)
where $`|\psi `$ is a $`w`$-independent state with the property $`|w|\psi |2^{n/2}`$ for all $`w`$. (If we are only interested in the time for which we use the black box shown in Fig. 2(c), i.e., if we are only interested in the oracle query complexity, then we need not restrict $`K`$ to be a sum of local terms.) In (40), the coefficient of $`1`$ in front of $`|\psi \psi |`$ has been fine-tuned so that $`|\psi +|w`$ is the ground state of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ (choosing the phase of $`|w`$ so that $`w|\psi `$ is real and positive). If the initial state has a large overlap with $`|\psi `$, then the measurement procedure solves the Grover problem. However, the excited state $`|\psi |w`$ is also an eigenstate of $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, with an energy higher by of order $`2^{n/2}`$. Thus the time to perform the measurement must be $`\mathrm{\Omega }(2^{n/2})`$.

The measurement procedures described above saturate the well-known lower bound on the time required to solve the Grover problem. Using an oracle like the one shown in Fig. 2(a), Bennett et al. showed that the Grover problem cannot be solved on a quantum computer using fewer than of order $`2^{n/2}`$ oracle queries BBBV97 . By a straightforward modification of their argument, an equivalent result applies using the oracle shown in Fig. 2(c). Thus every possible $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ as in (39) that can be measured to find $`w`$ must have a gap between the energies of the relevant eigenstates of order $`2^{n/2}`$ or smaller.

## V Discussion

We have described a way to solve combinatorial search problems on a quantum computer using only a sequence of measurements to keep the computer near the ground state of a smoothly varying Hamiltonian. The basic principle of this algorithm is similar to quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, and the running times of the two methods are closely related. Because of this close connection, many results on adiabatic quantum computation can be directly imported to the measurement algorithm — for example, its similarities and differences with classical simulated annealing FGG02 . We have also shown that the measurement algorithm can achieve quadratic speedup for the Grover problem using knowledge of the place where the gap is smallest, as in adiabatic quantum computation.

One of the advantages of adiabatic quantum computation is its inherent robustness against error CFP02 . In adiabatic computation, the particular path from $`H_B`$ to $`H_P`$ is unimportant as long as the initial and final Hamiltonians are correct, the path is smoothly varying, and the minimum gap along the path is not too small. Exactly the same considerations apply to the measurement algorithm. However, the adiabatic algorithm also enjoys robustness against thermal transitions out of the ground state: if the temperature of the environment is much smaller than the gap, then such transitions are suppressed. The measurement algorithm might not possess this kind of robustness, since the Hamiltonian of the quantum computer during the measurement procedure is not simply $`H(s)`$.

Although it does not provide a computational advantage over quantum computation by adiabatic evolution, the measurement algorithm is an alternative way to solve general combinatorial search problems on a quantum computer. The algorithm can be simply understood in terms of measurements of a set of operators, without reference to unitary time evolution. Nevertheless, we have seen that to understand the running time of the algorithm, it is important to understand the dynamical process by which these measurements are realized.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by the Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818, by the National Science Foundation under grant EIA-0086038, and by the National Security Agency and Advanced Research and Development Activity under Army Research Office contract DAAD19-01-1-0656. AMC received support from the Fannie and John Hertz Foundation, and ED received support from the Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (Italy).

## Appendix A The measurement process

In Section III, we discussed the running time of the measurement algorithm by examining the measurement process. In this Appendix, we present the analysis in greater detail. First, we derive the bound on the running time by demonstrating (25) and (26). We show rigorously that these bounds are sufficient as long as the gap is only polynomially small and the number of qubits used to represent the pointer is $`r=O(\mathrm{log}n)`$. Finally, we argue that $`r=1`$ qubit should be sufficient in general.

Our goal is to find a bound on the final success probability of the measurement algorithm. We consider the effect of the measurements on the reduced density matrix of the system, which can be written as the block matrix

$$\rho =\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mu & \nu ^{}\\ \nu & \chi \end{array}\right)$$
(41)
where $`\mu =\rho _{00}`$, $`\nu _a=\rho _{a0}`$ for $`a0`$, and $`\chi _{ab}=\rho _{ab}`$ for $`a,b0`$. Since $`tr\rho =1`$, $`\mu =1tr\chi `$. For ease of notation, we suppress $`j`$, the index of the iteration, except where necessary. The unitary transformation (12) may also be written as a block matrix. Define $`ϵ=\mathrm{\Gamma }\delta /g`$. Using perturbation theory and the unitarity constraint, we can write

$$U=\left(\begin{array}{cc}u& w^{}V+O(ϵ^3)\\ w& V+O(ϵ^2)\end{array}\right),$$
(42)
where $`|u|^21ϵ^2+O(ϵ^3)`$, $`w^2ϵ^2+O(ϵ^3)`$, and $`V`$ is a unitary matrix. We let $``$ denote the $`l_2`$ vector or matrix norm as appropriate. Furthermore, let

$$\kappa =\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& k^{}\\ k& J\end{array}\right).$$
(43)
From (11), the effect of a single measurement may be written

$$\rho ^{}=(U\rho U^{})\kappa ,$$
(44)
where $``$ denotes the element-wise (Hadamard) product. If we assume $`\nu =O(ϵ)`$, we find

$`\mu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`|u|^2\mu w^{}V\nu \nu ^{}V^{}w+O(ϵ^3)`$ (45)
$`\nu ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`[V\nu +\mu wV\chi V^{}w+O(ϵ^2)]k.`$ (46)
Now we use induction to show that our assumption always remains valid. Initially, $`\nu ^{(0)}=0`$. Using the triangle inequality in (46), we find

$$\nu ^{}[\nu +ϵ+O(ϵ^2)]\stackrel{~}{k},$$
(47)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{k}=\underset{j,a}{\mathrm{max}}\left|k_a^{(j)}\right|.$$
(48)
So long as $`\stackrel{~}{k}<1`$, we can sum a geometric series, extending the limits to go from $`0`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, to find

$$\nu ^{(j)}\frac{ϵ}{1\stackrel{~}{k}}+O(ϵ^2)$$
(49)
for all $`j`$. In other words, $`\nu =O(ϵ)`$ so long as $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is bounded below 1 by a constant.

Finally, we put a bound on the final success probability $`\mu ^{(M)}`$. Using the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality in (45) gives

$$\mu ^{}(1ϵ^2)\mu \frac{2ϵ^2}{1\stackrel{~}{k}}+O(ϵ^3).$$
(50)
Iterating this bound $`M`$ times with the initial condition $`\mu ^{(0)}=1`$, we find

$$\mu ^{(M)}1\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }^2}{Mg^2}\left(1+\frac{2}{1\stackrel{~}{k}}\right)+O(Mϵ^3).$$
(51)
If $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ is bounded below 1 by a constant (independent of $`n`$), we find the condition (25) as claimed in Section III.

The requirement on $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ gives the bound (26) on the measurement time $`\tau `$, and also gives a condition on the number of pointer qubits $`r`$. To see this, we must investigate properties of the function $`|\kappa (x)|^2`$ defined in (15) and shown in Fig. 1. It is straightforward to show that $`|\kappa (x)|^21/2`$ for $`\pi /2x\pi (2^r1/2)`$. Thus, if we want $`\stackrel{~}{k}`$ to be bounded below 1 by a constant, we require

$$\pi /2[E_a(s)E_0(s)]t/2\pi (2^r1/2)$$
(52)
for all $`s`$ and for all $`a0`$. The left hand bound with $`a=1`$ gives $`t\pi /g`$, which is (26). Requiring the right hand bound to hold for the largest energy difference gives the additional condition $`2^r(E_{2^n1}E_0)/g`$. Since we only consider Hamiltonians $`H(s)`$ that are sums of $`poly(n)`$ terms of bounded size, the largest possible energy difference must be bounded by a polynomial in $`n`$. If we further suppose that $`g`$ is only polynomially small, this condition is satisfied by taking

$$r=O(\mathrm{log}n),$$
(53)
as claimed at the end of Section III. Thus we see that the storage requirements for the pointer are rather modest.

However, the pointer need not comprise even this many qubits. Since the goal of the measurement algorithm is to keep the system close to its ground state, it would be surprising if the energies of highly excited states were relevant. Suppose we take $`r=1`$; then $`|\kappa (x)|^2=\mathrm{cos}^2(x/2)`$. As before, (26) suffices to make $`|\kappa _{01}|^2`$ sufficiently small. However, we must also consider terms involving $`|\kappa _{0a}|^2`$ for $`a>1`$. The algorithm will fail if the term $`\mu wk`$ in (46) accumulates to be $`O(1)`$ over $`M`$ iterations. This will only happen if, for $`O(M)`$ iterations, most of $`w`$ comes from components $`w_a`$ with $`(E_aE_0)t`$ close to an integer multiple of $`2\pi `$. In such a special case, changing $`t`$ will avoid the problem. An alternative strategy would be to choose $`t`$ from a random distribution independently at each iteration.

## Appendix B Eigenstates in the Grover problem

Here, we show that the ground state of $`H(s^{})`$ for the Grover problem is close to (36). Our analysis follows Section 4.2 of FGGS00 .

Since the Grover problem is invariant under the choice of $`w`$, we consider the case $`w=0`$ without loss of generality. In this case, the problem can be analyzed in terms of the total spin operators

$$S_a=\frac{1}{2}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\sigma _a^{(j)},$$
(54)
where $`a=x,y,z`$ and $`\sigma _a^{(j)}`$ is the Pauli $`a`$ operator acting on the $`j`$th qubit. The Hamiltonian commutes with $`\stackrel{}{S}^2=S_x^2+S_y^2+S_z^2`$, and the initial state has $`\stackrel{}{S}^2=\frac{n}{2}(\frac{n}{2}+1)`$, so we can restrict our attention to the $`(n+1)`$-dimensional subspace of states with this value of $`\stackrel{}{S}^2`$. In this subspace, the eigenstates of the total spin operators satisfy

$$S_a|m_a=m=m|m_a=m$$
(55)
for $`m=\frac{n}{2},\frac{n}{2}+1,\mathrm{},\frac{n}{2}`$. Written in terms of the total spin operators and eigenstates, the Hamiltonian is

$`H(s)`$ $`=`$ $`(1s)\left({\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}S_x\right)`$ (56)
$`+s\left(1|m_z={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}m_z={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}|\right).`$
The initial and final ground states are given by $`|E_0(0)=|m_x=\frac{n}{2}`$ and $`|E_0(1)=|m_z=\frac{n}{2}`$, respectively.

Projecting the equation $`H(s)|\psi =E|\psi `$ onto the eigenbasis of $`S_x`$, we find

$$m_x=\frac{n}{2}r|\psi =\frac{s}{1s}\frac{\sqrt{P_r}}{r\lambda }m_z=\frac{n}{2}|\psi ,$$
(57)
where we have defined $`\lambda =(Es)/(1s)`$ and $`P_r=2^n\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{r}\right)`$. Now focus on the ground state $`|\psi _+`$ and the first excited state $`|\psi _{}`$ of $`H(s^{})`$. By equation (4.39) of FGGS00 , these states have $`\lambda _\pm =\frac{n}{2}2^{n/2}(1+O(1/n))`$. Putting $`r=0`$ in (57) and taking $`s=s^{}`$ from (34), we find

$$m_x=\frac{n}{2}|\psi _\pm =\pm m_z=\frac{n}{2}|\psi _\pm (1+O(1/n)).$$
(58)
For $`r0`$, we have

$`m_x={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}r|\psi _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{P_r}}{r}}m_z={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}|\psi _\pm `$ (59)
$`\times (1+O(1/n)).`$
Requiring that $`|\psi _\pm `$ be normalized, we find

$`1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{r=0}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|m_x={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}r|\psi _\pm \right|^2`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`\left|m_z={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}|\psi _\pm \right|^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{r=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{P_r}{r^2}}\right)`$
$`\times (1+O(1/n))`$
$`=`$ $`\left|m_z={\displaystyle \frac{n}{2}}|\psi _\pm \right|^2(2+O(1/n)),`$ (62)
which implies $`|m_z=\frac{n}{2}|\psi _\pm |^2=\frac{1}{2}+O(1/n)`$. From (58), we also have $`|m_x=\frac{n}{2}|\psi _\pm |^2=\frac{1}{2}+O(1/n)`$. Thus we find

$$|\psi _\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(|m_x=\frac{n}{2}\pm |m_z=\frac{n}{2}\right)$$
(63)
up to terms of order $`1/n`$, which is (36).


format: text

text:
# References

See-Saw Realization of the Texture Zeros

in the Neutrino Mass Matrix

Atsushi Kageyama 111E-mail address: atsushi@muse.hep.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp, Satoru Kaneko 222E-mail address: kaneko@muse.hep.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp

Noriyuki Shimoyama 333E-mail address: simoyama@muse.hep.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp, Morimitsu Tanimoto 444E-mail address: tanimoto@muse.hep.sc.niigata-u.ac.jp

Department of Physics, Niigata University, Ikarashi 2-8050, 950-2181 Niigata, JAPAN

ABSTRACT

We study the see-saw realization of seven textures of the neutrino mass matrix, which were presented by Frampton, Glashow and Marfatia. Two of them ($`\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_2`$) are not realized in the see-saw mechanism without fine-tuning of parameters. We present some specific textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino one. In order to test these textures, we discuss the effect on the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$. We also study the $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_X^{}`$ flavor symmetry, in which $`U(1)_X`$ is anomalous and $`U(1)_X^{}`$ is non-anomolous, to reproduce texture zeros. We present examples of U(1) charges for two textures ($`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$) .

The Super-Kamiokande has almost confirmed the neutrino oscillation in the atmospheric neutrinos, which favors the $`\nu _\mu \nu _\tau `$ process . For the solar neutrinos , the recent data of the Super-Kamiokande and the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory also favor strongly the neutrino oscillation $`\nu _e\nu _{\mu ,\tau }`$ with the large mixing angle(LMA) MSW solution . These results indicate the neutrino masses and mixings, especially, the bi-large flavor mixing. It is therefore important to investigate how the textures of lepton mass matrices can link up with the observables of the flavor mixing .

Recently, Frampton, Glashow and Marfatia  found seven acceptable textures of the neutrino mass matrix with two independent vanishing entries in the basis with the diagonal charged lepton masses. The further study of these textures was presented by Xing . Another insight has been also given focusing on texture zeros .

Since these textures are given for the light effective neutrino mass matrix, one needs to find the see-saw realization  of these textures from the standpoint of the model building. In this paper we have examined the see-saw realization of those seven textures. It is found that two of them are not given by the see-saw mechanism without fine tunings between parameters of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino one. Some specific textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino one are presented. These textures are discussed in terms of the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ in order to test them experimentally. The $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_X^{}`$ flavor symmetry, in which $`U(1)_X`$ is anomalous and $`U(1)_X^{}`$ is non-anomolous, is discussed to reproduce texture zeros. In this symmetry, zeros in the mass matrix are derived from SYSY zeros, which are due to holomorphy of the superpotential.

There are seven acceptable textures with two independent zeros for the effective neutrino mass matrix as shown in Table 1. The cases $`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ correspond to the hierarchical neutrino mass spectrum while $`\mathrm{B}_1\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$ correspond to the degenerate neutrino mass spectrum. Generally these textures are realized in the see-saw mechanism. However, as far as we exclude the possibility that these zeros are originated from accidental cancellations in the see-saw mechanism, the see-saw realization of these seven textures are not trivial. Then, these zeros should come from zeros of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana mass matrix. Therefore it is significant to study the see-saw realization of these seven textures.

In terms of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix $`𝐦_𝐃`$ and the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix $`𝐌_𝐑`$, the effective neutrino mass matrix $`𝐌^\nu `$ is given as

$$𝐌^\nu =𝐦_𝐃𝐌_𝐑^1𝐦_𝐃^\mathrm{T}.$$
(1)
Therefore, each entry of the effective neutrino mass matrix $`𝐌^\nu `$ is given in terms of $`m_{ij}`$, which is the component of $`𝐦_𝐃`$, and $`M_{ij}`$, which is the component of $`𝐌_𝐑`$. Zeros in $`m_{ij}`$ and $`M_{ij}`$ provide texture zeros in the effective neutrino mass matrix since we do not consider accidental cancellations between $`m_{ij}`$ and $`M_{ij}`$. The components of the effective neutrino mass matrix are written as

$$M_{ij}^\nu =\underset{k,\mathrm{}=1}{\overset{3}{}}m_{ik}m_j\mathrm{}(𝐌_𝐑^1)_k\mathrm{},$$
(2)
where

$$𝐌_𝐑^1=\frac{1}{D}\left(\begin{array}{ccc}M_{22}M_{33}M_{23}^2& M_{13}M_{23}M_{12}M_{33}& M_{12}M_{23}M_{13}M_{22}\\ M_{13}M_{23}M_{12}M_{33}& M_{11}M_{33}M_{13}^2& M_{12}M_{13}M_{11}M_{23}\\ M_{12}M_{23}M_{13}M_{22}& M_{12}M_{13}M_{11}M_{23}& M_{11}M_{22}M_{12}^2\end{array}\right),$$
(3)
where $`D`$ denotes the determinant of $`𝐌_𝐑`$. In order to answer the question where zeros come from, we try to find textures with zeros for the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix by solving $`M_{ij}^\nu =0`$ without cancellations among terms in eq.(2). This has been done by both analytic search and computer search.

At first, we present three remarks, in which the texture zeros are not obtained by the see-saw mechanism.

Remark 1 : There is no see-saw realization in the cases of $`\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_2`$.

For the case $`\mathrm{B}_1`$, putting constraints $`M_{13}^\nu =M_{31}^\nu =M_{22}^\nu =0`$ with other non-zero components, we have searched textures with zeros of the Dirac and the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices without fine tuning of the parameters. It is concluded that there is no solution to reproduce the case $`\mathrm{B}_1`$. There is also no solution for $`\mathrm{B}_2`$. Thus, $`\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_2`$ are unfavored for the model building with the see-saw mechanism. Therefore, the following studies focus on the five textures $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3,\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$.

Remark 2 : There is no see-saw realization for the five textures unless both Dirac neutrino mass matrix and right-handed Majorana neutrino one have zeros. In other words, the texture of $`𝐦_𝐃`$ or $`𝐌_𝐑`$ without zeros does not lead to desired five textures $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3,\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$.

Remark 3 : There is no see-saw realization for the five textures if the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix is diagonal. This remark is important one since there are many discussions taking the diagonal basis for the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix.

These remarks are useful guides to build models of the neutrino mass matrix.

If the Dirac neutrino mass matrix is specified, we can find possible textures of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos. In order to see the situation, we consider the Fritzsch texture in the Dirac neutrino mass matrix  for simplicity. In this case, there are three textures of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos only for the type $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ as follows:

$$𝐦_𝐃=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \end{array}\right);𝐌_𝐑=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),$$
(4)
where $`\times `$ denotes non-zero entry. For other four textures $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{B}_3,\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$, there is no solution. Thus, the type of $`𝐌^\nu `$ and the texture of the right-handed Majorana neutrinos is selected once the texture of the Dirac neutrinos is specified.

Another simple example is the diagonal texture for the Dirac neutrino mass matrix. Then, the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices are shown in Table 1. There are only two textures for $`\mathrm{A}_1`$, $`\mathrm{A}_2`$, $`\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$, respectively, but nothing for $`\mathrm{C}`$.

Now, let us fix the right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrix. The first attempt is the simplest texture, which is parametrized by two parameters. This case corresponds to at least two degenerate right-handed Majorana neutrino masses. There are three types $`\mathrm{a}_0`$, $`\mathrm{b}_0`$, $`\mathrm{c}_0`$ as follows:

$$𝐌_𝐑;\mathrm{a}_0:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{b}_0:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{c}_0:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).$$
(5)
It is helpful to comment on the symmetry of these texture. The textures $`\mathrm{b}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{c}_0`$ are derived through the permutation of flavors of the right-handed neutrinos in the texture $`\mathrm{a}_0`$. The permutation of $`23`$ and the cyclic permutation $`3213`$ in $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ give $`\mathrm{b}_0`$, while the $`12`$ and the cyclic permutation $`1231`$ in $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ give $`\mathrm{c}_0`$.

For $`\mathrm{a}_0`$, $`\mathrm{b}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{c}_0`$ of $`𝐌_𝐑`$, there are ten textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix in $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$, respectively while only two textures in $`\mathrm{C}`$. In Tables 2 - 6, we present typical textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix for $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ and $`\mathrm{b}_0`$. As seen in the tables, textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix for $`\mathrm{b}_0`$ are obtained by the permutation $`23`$ in the right-handed sector (columuns in the Dirac neutrino mass matrix). The cyclic permutation $`3213`$ also leads to another texture of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix, which is not presented in the tables.

Let us discuss about the ten textures of the Dirac neutrinos for cases $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$. Two of them have three independent zeros, six of them have four zeros and remained two textures have five zeros. For $`\mathrm{C}`$, there are only two textures with four zeros. We show these textures taking $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ for the right-handed Majorana neutrino in the case of $`\mathrm{A}_1`$:

$$𝐦_𝐃=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \times & \times \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \times & \times \end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
and other five textures are obtained by the symmetry such as:

$$𝐦_𝐃^{}=𝐦_𝐃𝐏,\mathrm{with}𝐏=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Since the case $`\mathrm{c}_0`$ is also obtained from $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ by the permutation $`12`$ and the cyclic permutation $`1231`$ in the right-handed sector, we have omitted results of $`\mathrm{c}_0`$ in the tables.

The right-handed Majorana neutrino mass matrices in eq.(5) are modified by adding a new parameter. Since these have three independent zeros, the mass eigenvalues are not degenerate in general. The texture $`\mathrm{a}_0`$ is modified as follow:

$$𝐌_𝐑;\mathrm{a}_1:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{a}_2:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{a}_3:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{a}_4:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).$$
(8)
For the texture $`\mathrm{b}_0`$, we have

$$𝐌_𝐑;\mathrm{b}_1:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{b}_2:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{b}_3:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{b}_4:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \end{array}\right),$$
(9)
and for the texture $`\mathrm{c}_0`$, we have

$$𝐌_𝐑;\mathrm{c}_1:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{c}_2:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right),\mathrm{c}_3:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \times & \times \end{array}\right),\mathrm{c}_4:\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\times & \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \times \\ \times & \times & \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).$$
(10)
For textures of $`𝐌_𝐑`$ with one zero in the diagonal entries ($`\mathrm{a}_1,\mathrm{a}_3,\mathrm{b}_1,\mathrm{b}_3`$), there are 6 textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix to reproduce $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$. For textures of $`𝐌_𝐑`$ with two zeros in the diagonal entries ($`\mathrm{a}_2,\mathrm{a}_4,\mathrm{b}_2,\mathrm{b}_4`$), there are 8 textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix for $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2,\mathrm{B}_3`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_4`$. It is remarked that there is no texture of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix to reproduce $`\mathrm{C}`$. We show the typical textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix in Tables 2 - 6. Since the $`\mathrm{b}_\mathrm{i}(\mathrm{i}=14)`$ are also derived by the permutation $`23`$ in $`\mathrm{a}_\mathrm{i}`$, the textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix correspond to the permutation $`23`$ in their columuns. The cyclic permutation $`3213`$ also leads to another texture of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix. We have also omitted the case of $`\mathrm{c}_\mathrm{i}`$ in tables.

What kind of experiments can test these textures? It is well known that the Yukawa coupling of the neutrino contributes to the lepton flavor violation (LFV). Many authors have studied the LFV in the minimal supersymmetric standard model (MSSM) with right-handed neutrinos assuming the relevant neutrino mass matrix . In the MSSM with soft breaking terms, there exist lepton flavor violating terms such as off-diagonal elements of slepton mass matrices and trilinear couplings (A-term). It is noticed that large neutrino Yukawa couplings and large lepton mixings generate the large LFV in the left-handed slepton masses. For example, the decay rate of $`\mu e\gamma `$ can be approximated as follows:

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mu e\gamma ){\displaystyle \frac{e^2}{16\pi }}m_\mu ^5F\left|{\displaystyle \frac{(6+2a_0^2)m_0^2}{16\pi ^2}}(𝐘_\nu 𝐘_\nu ^{})_{21}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{M_X}{M_R}}\right|^2,`$ (11)
where the neutrino Yukawa coupling matrix $`𝐘_\nu `$ is given as $`𝐘_\nu =𝐦_𝐃/v_2`$ ($`v_2`$ is a VEV of Higgs) at the right-handed mass scale $`M_R`$, and $`F`$ is a function of masses and mixings for SUSY particles. In eq.(11), we assume the universal scalar mass $`(m_0)`$ for all scalars and the universal A-term $`(A_f=a_0m_0Y_f)`$ at the GUT scale $`M_X`$. Therefore the branching ratio $`\mu e\gamma `$ depends considerably on the texture of the Dirac neutrino .

Let us investigate $`𝐦_𝐃𝐦_𝐃^{}`$ focusing on the process $`\mu e\gamma `$. Zeros in the Dirac neutrino mass matrix may suppress the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay. There are many textures, which lead to $`(𝐦_𝐃𝐦_𝐃^{})_{21}=0`$ as seen in eq.(6). Since the contribution of the neutrino Yukawa couplings on $`\mu e\gamma `$ is tiny in these textures, the branching ratio is safely predicted to be below the present experimental upper bound $`1.2\times 10^{11}`$ . We call these textures as type II and other textures as type I, which can contribute considerably to the branching ratio. We present typical textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and those numbers by classifying the type I and type II in Tables 2, 3, 4 and 5. The type I and II will be tested in the future experiments of the $`\mu e\gamma `$ decay.

Thus, we find a lot of sets which lead to five textures $`\mathrm{A}_1,\mathrm{A}_2`$, $`\mathrm{B}_3,\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$ through the see-saw mechanism without fine-tuning. The important problem is the origin of zeros. An interesting origin of zeros is the holomorphic zeros in the supersymmetry with the anomalous U(1) flavor symmetry , which are called SUSY zeros. Although one can impose SUSY zeros in the neutrino mass matrix by assigning the relavant U(1) charges, one cannot choose the diagonal basis in the charged lepton mass matrix. In other words, it is impossible to impose zeros of these textures keeping the diagonal charged lepton mass matrix in the case of the U(1) flavor symmetry.

A simple way to avoid this difficulty is to have one anomalous $`U(1)_X`$ and another non-anomolous $`U(1)_X^{}`$, which are broken by two scalar fields $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ having the flavor charges $`(1,1)`$ and $`(0,1)`$ . Since the D-term potential guarantees $`\varphi _1=\varphi _2`$ in this model, the effective interactions of the relevant sector are given as

$$L_i\overline{\mathrm{}}_jH_1ł^{x_i+y_jx_i^{}y_j^{}}ł^{x_i+y_j}+\frac{1}{M_R}L_iL_jH_2H_2ł^{x_i+x_jx_i^{}x_j^{}}ł^{x_i+x_j},$$
(12)
where

$$ł\frac{\varphi _1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\varphi _2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }},$$
(13)
and $`(x_i,x_i^{})`$ are flavor charges of left-handed lepton doublets $`L_i`$, and $`(y_j,y_j^{})`$ are flavor charges of right-handed lepton singlets $`\mathrm{}_j`$ for $`U(1)_X`$ and $`U(1)_X^{}`$, respectively. If the power of $`ł`$ in eq.(12) is negative, the interaction is forbidden. Then, the texture zero, which is SUSY zero, is reproduced in the mass matrix.

We find U(1) charges to realize the patterns of $`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$ as follows:

$`\mathrm{A}_1:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(3,2,4),(x_1^{},x_2^{},x_3^{})=(11,0,4),`$ (14)
$`(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(3,0,4),(y_1^{},y_2^{},y_3^{})=(6,2,4),`$
which give

$$𝐌^\nu \mathrm{ł}^8\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathbf{ł}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),𝐌^𝐞\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$
(15)
and

$`\mathrm{A}_2:`$ $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(3,4,2),(x_1^{},x_2^{},x_3^{})=(11,4,0),`$ (16)
$`(y_1,y_2,y_3)=(3,4,2),(y_1^{},y_2^{},y_3^{})=(6,6,0),`$
which give

$$𝐌^\nu \mathrm{ł}^8\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathbf{ł}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),𝐌^𝐞\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟐}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}\end{array}\right),$$
(17)
where U(1) charges of Higgs scalars are taken to be zero, and $`ł0.22`$ is supposed. Since the magnitude of each entry has been estimated numerically by Xing , we can compare eqs.(14) and (16) with his numerical results. We have found that our results are completely consistent with them. Since the degenerate mass spectrum is unlikely realized in the U(1) flavor symmetry, we do not discuss the U(1) charges in the pattern of $`\mathrm{B}_3,\mathrm{B}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{C}`$.

In order to present the see-saw realization of the U(1) symmetry, we show two examples including the U(1) charges of right-handed neutrinos. For $`\mathrm{A}_1`$, U(1) charges of right-handed neutrinos $`N_i`$ and $`N_i^{}`$ are taken as

$$(N_1,N_2,N_3)=(3,3,0),(N_1^{},N_2^{},N_3^{})=(6,6,5),$$
(18)
which with eq.(14) give

$$𝐌_𝐑\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^{\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}}\end{array}\right),𝐦_𝐃\mathrm{ł}^4\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{ł}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}\end{array}\right).$$
(19)
For $`\mathrm{A}_2`$, we take

$$(N_1,N_2,N_3)=(3,3,0),(N_1^{},N_2^{},N_3^{})=(4,4,1),$$
(20)
which with eq.(16) give

$$𝐌_𝐑\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟑}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟑}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟐}\end{array}\right),𝐦_𝐃\mathrm{ł}^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟓}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟎}\\ \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟑}\\ \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟒}& \mathrm{𝟎}& \mathbf{ł}^\mathrm{𝟑}\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
Thus, the $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_X^{}`$ flavor symmetry gives the neutrino mass matrix which is consistent with the experimental data.

The summary is given as follows. We have studied the see-saw realization of seven textures of the neutrino mass matrix, which were presented by Frampton, Glashow and Marfatia. Two of them ($`\mathrm{B}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{B}_2`$) are not realized in the see-saw mechanism without fine-tuning of parameters. Some specific textures of the Dirac neutrino mass matrix and the right-handed Majorana neutrino one have been presented. In order to test these textures experimentally, the branching ratio of $`\mu e\gamma `$ has been discussed.

The $`U(1)_X\times U(1)_X^{}`$ flavor symmetry, in which one $`U(1)_X`$ is anomalous and $`U(1)_X^{}`$ is non-anomolous, has been studied to reproduce the texture zeros. An example of U(1) charges has been found for $`\mathrm{A}_1`$ and $`\mathrm{A}_2`$, respectively, which give hierarchical neutrino masses. Other approaches are also necessary in the model building of two-zeros textures .

It is expected that the texture of the neutrino mass matrix is more constrained by the further comming experiments. Therefore, the systematic study becomes also available in the framework of the see-saw mechanism in the near future.

We would like to thank Dr. S.K. Kang for useful discussions. This research is supported by the Grant-in-Aid for Science Research, Ministry of Education, Science and Culture, Japan(No.12047220).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Two kinds of cubic open string field theories, Witten’s cubic string field theory and vacuum string field theory, have been recently investigated. These are considered as two descriptions of one theory covering both perturbative and nonperturbative vacua. Although it is expected that these two theories are related to each other by some (singular) string field redefinition, derivation of one theory from the other has not been succeeded. Now we are at a stage of collecting evidences of the equivalence of these theories.

In Witten’s string field theory, which describes open strings on D25-branes, the nonperturbative vacuum state was constructed by the level truncation method, and the difference of the energy densities between perturbative and nonperturbative vacua was computed numerically with high precision agreement with the expected D25-brane tension. This result was confirmed analytically in the framework of boundary string field theory. Numerical studies of the BRS cohomology at the nonperturbative vacuum suggested the decoupling of the physical modes.

On the other hand, in vacuum string field theory, D-branes are represented as non-trivial solutions of the equation of motion. The action of vacuum string field theory is

$$S[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{1}{g_\mathrm{v}}\left(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }Q\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{1}{3}\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi })\right),$$
(1)
where $`Q`$ is a pure ghost operator and $`g_\mathrm{v}`$ is a coupling constant. The explicit forms of solutions representing D$`p`$-branes $`\mathrm{\Xi }_p`$ with arbitrary dimensions $`p`$ are known. By substituting these solutions to the action (1) we can obtain their energy densities $`_p`$. Numerical and analytical computations of the ratio $`_p/_{p+1}`$ showed that it coincides with the expected result $`T_p/T_{p+1}=2\pi `$.

An attempt to determine the overall factor of the D25-brane energy density was first done by Hata and Kawano. They first constructed a string field solution representing the tachyon field on a D-brane as a fluctuation mode of the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$, and computed the three tachyon vertex to fix the ratio between $`g_\mathrm{v}`$ in the action (1) and the perturbative coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{str}}`$. Disappointingly, the ratio $`_{25}/T_{25}=(2\pi )^{25}g_{\mathrm{str}}_{25}`$ did not coincide with the expected result $`1`$. Although the numerical computation was improved in , the result is close to $`2`$ rather than $`1`$. This unwelcome result was later confirmed analitically.222After this work was finished a paper  appeared where some progress in this popic is made.

Hata and Kawano also constructed the massless vector field on a D25-brane. In this paper, we study gauge transformations of this Hata-Kawano (HK) vector state. The HK vector state includes a polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ with a Lorentz index $`\mu `$ and a level index $`m`$. Due to the level index $`m`$, this has too many components to represent a vector field. We will show that, for each spacetime direction, only one of infinite number of components corresponds to the $`U(1)`$ vector field on a D-brane and all the others are gauge degrees of freedom. Furthermore, we present a string field gauge transformation reproducing a gauge transformation of the constant modes of the gauge field (Wilson lines). This gauge transformation can be used to fix the normalization of the gauge field.

Our original motivation was to extract the coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{str}}`$ from the kinetic term of the normalized vector field and to check the coincidence between the energy density of the sliver state and the expected D25-brane tension. However, due to a certain problem, we could not obtain any information of the coupling constant $`g_{\mathrm{str}}`$. We will discuss this problem in the last section.

We should notice that our arguments in this paper completely rely on the factorization ansatz of gauge transformations as will be mentioned in the next section. At this point, however, we have not shown the existence of such gauge transformations. If gauge transformations could not be factorized, our arguments given below might be spoiled.

Before ending this section, we define several matrices and vectors used in this paper. In the oscillator formalism, the $`3`$-string vertex is given by

$`|V_3_{\mathrm{mat}}=e^E|p_1|p_2|p_3,`$ (2)
$`E={\displaystyle \underset{r,s=0}{\overset{3}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }a_m^{r\mu }V_{mn}^{rs}a_n^{s\nu }\eta _{\mu \nu }p^{r\mu }V_{0n}^{rs}a_n^{s\nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{\mu \nu }V_{00}p^{r\mu }p^{r\nu }\right).`$ (3)
The coefficient matrices $`V^{rs}`$ is called Neumann coefficients. We define the following matrices and vectors.

$$M_{mn}=(CV^{rr})_{mn},(M_+)_{mn}=(CV^{rr+1})_{mn},(M_{})_{mn}=(CV^{rr1})_{mn},$$
(4)
$$v_n=V_{0n}^{rr},(v_+)_n=V_{0n}^{rr+1},(v_{})_n=V_{0n}^{rr1},(n1).$$
(5)
$$v_1=v_+v_{},v_{\pm 0}=v_\pm v.$$
(6)
where $`C_{mn}=\delta _{mn}(1)^n`$ is the twist matrix. The Lorentz metric $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$ and level indices $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ are often suppressed.

## 2 Factorization ansatz of gauge transformations

In vacuum string field theory, D-branes are represented as classical solutions of an equation of motion. The equation of motion obtained from the action (1) is

$$Q\mathrm{\Phi }+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }=0.$$
(7)
Because operator $`Q`$ is pure ghost there exist solutions factored into matter part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}`$ and ghost part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}.$$
(8)
In this paper, we always assume this factorization. $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ satisfy the following equations.

$`Q\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}+\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}=0,`$ (9)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}.`$ (10)
Although there are several known solutions for the ghost part $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$, we will not specify $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ and concentrate on the matter part.

The action (1) is invariant under the following gauge transformation.

$$\delta \mathrm{\Phi }=Q\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(11)
For our purpose, ‘finite’ gauge transformations are also convenient.

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=U^1QU+U^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{}U.$$
(12)
We ignore the topological term $`\delta S(U^1QU)^3`$ because we consider only gauge transformations generated by infinitesimal ones. The proof of the gauge invariance under (12) is analogous to that of three dimensional Chern-Simons theories. However, in string field theory, we need additional assumption, which is trivial in the Chern-Simons theories. We have to assume the existence of a string field $``$ satisfying

$$Q=0,\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi }=\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(13)
for an arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, and $`U^1`$ have to be defined from $`U`$ by $`UU^1=`$. We are now assuming the factorization (8). If we require the gauge transformation not to break this factorization, we need to assume that $``$ also factorizes into matter part $`^{\mathrm{mat}}`$ and ghost part $`^{\mathrm{gh}}`$. We can identify $`^{\mathrm{mat}}`$ as the matter identity $`I^{\mathrm{mat}}`$. The ghost part $`^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ has to satisfy

$$Q^{\mathrm{gh}}=0,^{\mathrm{gh}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}^{\mathrm{gh}}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}},$$
(14)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ is the ghost part of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (13). Naively, the ghost identity $`I^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ satisfies the second equation in (14). It is known that $`QI^{\mathrm{gh}}=0`$ if we use $`\zeta `$ function regularization. Even with other regularization, $`QI^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ is null state, which has vanishing product with any string field. However, precisely speaking, there is no identity field satisfying $`I^{\mathrm{gh}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}I^{\mathrm{gh}}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ for any string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$. Even the ghost identity defined in  does not satisfy this condition. Because of the universality of the ghost factor this identity condition may unnecessarily be tight. For our argument below $`^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ does not have to satisfy (14) for arbitrary $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$. It is sufficient for $`^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ to satisfy (14) only for the particular $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ adopted as a universal ghost factor satisfying (9). In this paper, we simply assume the existence of the state $`^{\mathrm{gh}}`$ satisfying these conditions.

Let us discuss gauge transformations in the form $`U=U^{\mathrm{mat}}^{\mathrm{gh}}`$. In this case, the transformation (12) is reduced into

$$\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}=(U^{\mathrm{mat}})^1\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mathrm{mat}}U^{\mathrm{mat}}.$$
(15)
We will later show that in vacuum string field theory the gauge transformations of Wilson lines are reproduced by the transformation (15) of the sliver state. This is different from Witten’s string field theory, in which $`U(1)`$ gauge transformations are induced by the first term in (12) with $`Q`$ replaced by the BRS charge $`Q_B`$.

## 3 Global gauge transformations of Wilson lines

From now on, we concentrate only on the matter part of string fields and we drop the symbol ‘mat’.

In vacuum string field theory, D-brane is represented by the sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. It is represented as a squeezed state in oscillator formalizm.

$$\mathrm{\Xi }𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }e^{\frac{1}{2}a^\mu CTa^\mu }|0.$$
(16)
The matrix $`T`$ is given by

$$T=\frac{1}{2M}\left(M+1\sqrt{(1M)(1+3M)}\right).$$
(17)
The normalization constant $`𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is

$$𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }=[det(1M)(1+T)]^{D/2},$$
(18)
where $`D`$ denotes the spacetime dimension $`26`$.

Now, we suggest the following state as one representing a D-brane with Wilson line.

$$|\mathrm{\Xi }_f=𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }(f)e^{f_m^\mu a_m^\mu }|\mathrm{\Xi }.$$
(19)
$`f_m^\mu `$ is a vector representing the amount of the Wilson line and $`𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }(f)`$ is a normalization factor depending on $`f_m^\mu `$. Due to the reality condition, $`f_m^\mu `$ satisfies $`f^\mu =Cf^\mu `$. The fluctuation part of this state reproduces the zero-momentum limit of the HK vector state. We can easily show that this is indeed a projector if we take the following normalization.

$$𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }(f)=𝒩_\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2}f^\mu \frac{1}{1T}Cf^\mu \right).$$
(20)
The HK vector state involves a polarization vector with infinite number of components. Similarly, our Wilson line state is parameterized by the vector $`f_m^\mu `$. Because of the level index $`m`$ this vector has infinite number of components. Of cause only one spacetime vector component of $`f_m^\mu `$ should be identified with the Wilson line. Others must be unphysical gauge degrees of freedom. In this section, we show that we can gauge away all the degrees of freedom of $`f_m^\mu `$ except one spacetime vector component. Let us consider the following gauge transformation specified by a vector $`g_m`$.

$$U=I_g=𝒩_I(g)e^{\frac{1}{2}a^\mu Ca^\mu g^\mu a^\mu }|0,$$
(21)
where $`𝒩_I(g)`$ is a normalization factor depending on the vector $`g_m^\mu `$. $`g_m^\mu `$ is subject to the reality condition $`g^\mu =Cg^\mu `$. By demanding $`I_0=I_gI_g`$ and $`𝒩(g)=𝒩(g)`$, the normalization factor is uniquely determined as

$$𝒩_I(g)=det(1M)^{D/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{4}g^\mu Cg^\mu \right).$$
(22)
$`I_g`$ normalized in this way satisfies

$$I_{g_1}I_{g_2}=e^{g_1\times g_2}I_{g_1+g_2},$$
(23)
where $`g_1\times g_2`$ is an antisymmetric product of two vectors $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ defined by

$$g_1^\mu \times g_2^\mu =g_1^\mu C\frac{M_+M_{}}{2(1M)}g_2^\mu .$$
(24)
$`I_0`$ is the matter identity. If we put $`g_1^\mu =t_1g^\mu `$ and $`g_2^\mu =t_2g^\mu `$ with some vector $`g^\mu `$ and real numbers $`t_1`$ and $`t_2`$, (23) reduces to $`I_{t_1g}I_{t_2g}=I_{(t_1+t_2)g}`$. This implies that $`I_g`$ is represented as $`I_g=\mathrm{exp}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{dI_{tg}}{dt}|_{t=0}=g^\mu a^\mu |I.$$
(25)
Products of $`\mathrm{\Xi }_f`$ and $`I_g`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_fI_g=e^{A(f,g)}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f+g(1+T)\rho _R},I_g\mathrm{\Xi }_f=e^{A(f,g)}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f+g(1+T)\rho _L},$$
(26)
where

$$A(f,g)=f^\mu \frac{1}{1T}Cg^\mu \frac{1}{4}g^\mu \frac{1+T}{1T}Cg^\mu .$$
(27)
The matrices $`\rho _L`$ and $`\rho _R`$ in (27) are the half string projection matrices defined by

$$\rho _L=\frac{M_{}+TM_+}{(1M)(1+T)},\rho _R=\frac{M_++TM_{}}{(1M)(1+T)}.$$
(28)
These satisfy the following equations.

$$\rho _L+\rho _R=1,\rho _L^2=\rho _L,\rho _R^2=\rho _R,C\rho _LC=\rho _R.$$
(29)
Using (26), the gauge transformation of the Wilson line state $`\mathrm{\Xi }_f`$ by the deformed identity $`I_g`$ is given as

$$I_g\mathrm{\Xi }_fI_g=\mathrm{\Xi }_f^{},$$
(30)
where new vector $`f_m^\mu `$ after the transformation is

$$f^{}=f+g(1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L).$$
(31)
Because this is global transformation without momentum, this does not change the $`U(1)`$ gauge field on a D-brane. By this global gauge transformation, we can gauge away almost degrees of freedom of the vector $`f_m^\mu `$. Only components within the kernel of the matrix $`(1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L)`$ are invariant under the transformation. In fact, the matrix has one dimensional kernel. This can be seen by moving to a basis diagonalizing the matrices $`M`$ and $`M_\pm `$. In , diagonalized form of the Neumann matrices and an associated complete system of eigenvectors $`v_m(\kappa )`$ labeled by a real number $`\kappa `$ are given. We can expand the vector $`f_m^\mu `$ by this complete basis as

$$f_m^\mu =f^\mu (\kappa )v_m(\kappa )𝑑\kappa .$$
(32)
Using explicit form of the diagonalized Neumann matrices, we can rewrite the transformation law (31) as

$$f^\mu (\kappa )=f^\mu (\kappa )+\frac{2\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \kappa /2)}{1+e^{\pi |\kappa |/2}}g^\mu (\kappa ).$$
(33)
Therefore, the kernel is generated by $`\kappa =0`$ eigenvector $`v_m(0)`$ and the Wilson line is identified to $`f^\mu (\kappa =0)`$ up to the normalization. This vector is twist odd. This is consistent with the fact that the vector field on a D-brane is twist odd.

## 4 Local gauge transformations of Wilson lines

We have shown that only one spacetime vector degree of freedom of $`f_m^\mu `$ survives from the global gauge transformation (21). In this section, we show that this mode is actually transformed in a way that $`U(1)`$ gauge field is transformed under local gauge transformations. We consider following string field with non-zero momentum $`k^\mu `$ as a local gauge transformation.

$$I_{g,k}=e^{ik^\mu \widehat{x}^\mu }I_g.$$
(34)
The product of two different string fields of this kind is

$$I_{f_1,p_1}I_{f_2,p_2}=e^{(f_1,p_1)\times (f_2,p_2)}I_{f_1+f_2,p_1+p_2}.$$
(35)
where the anti-symmetric product involving momenta is defined by

$$(f_1^\mu ,p_1^\mu )\times (f_2^\mu ,p_2^\mu )=f_1^\mu \times f_2^\mu v_1\frac{1}{1M}(p_1^\mu f_2^\mu p_2^\mu f_1^\mu ).$$
(36)
We also define non-zero momentum states $`\mathrm{\Xi }_{f,p}`$ by

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{f,p}=e^{ip^\mu \widehat{x}^\mu }\mathrm{\Xi }_f.$$
(37)
To compute local gauge transformations generated by $`I_{g,k}`$, we use the following formulae:

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{f,p}I_{g,k}=e^{A(f,p,g,k)}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f^{},p+k},I_{Cg,k}\mathrm{\Xi }_{Cf,p}=e^{A(f,p,g,k)}\mathrm{\Xi }_{Cf^{},p+k},$$
(38)
where $`A(f,p,g,k)`$ and $`f^\mu `$ is given by

$$A(f,p,g,k)=A(f,g)(p^\mu +k^\mu )v_1\frac{1}{1M}g^\mu ,f^\mu =f^\mu k^\mu v_1\frac{1T}{1M}+g^\mu (1+T)\rho _R.$$
(39)
Combining two equations in (38), we easily obtain the transformation law of Wilson line state as $`I_{g,k}\mathrm{\Xi }_fI_{g,k}=\mathrm{\Xi }_f^{}`$ with the transformed vector $`f_m^\mu `$ given by

$$f^\mu =f^\mu +g^\mu (1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L)2k^\mu v_1\frac{1T}{1M}.$$
(40)
The second term on the right hand side in (40) is a contribution of global gauge transformation specified by the parameter $`g_m^\mu `$ and this is the same with (31). What is important here is the third term proportional to the momentum $`k^\mu `$. This term is rewritten in the following form in the diagonalized basis:

$$\delta f^\mu (\kappa )=4\sqrt{2}k^\mu \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\pi \kappa /2)}{\kappa (1+\mathrm{exp}(\pi |\kappa |/2))}.$$
(41)
In contrast to the global transformation (33), this transformation changes the zero-mode $`f^\mu (\kappa =0)`$. Thus, we can identify this transformation to the ordinary gauge transformation of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field on a D-brane. For example, we can define a vector $`A_\mu `$ by

$$A_\mu =\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}\pi }f_\mu (\kappa =0).$$
(42)
$`A_\mu `$ represents the constant modes of the $`U(1)`$ gauge field on a D-brane. Then, the gauge transformation $`U=I_{g,k}`$ reproduces the following gauge transformation of $`A_\mu `$.

$$A_\mu ^{}=A_\mu k_\mu .$$
(43)
Note that this gauge transformation fixes the normalization of the gauge field $`A_\mu `$. The corresponding normalized zero-momentum HK vector state is given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=d_m^\mu \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Xi }_f}{\delta f_m^\mu }|_{f=0}.$$
(44)
with the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ satisfying $`d^\mu (\kappa =0)=\sqrt{2}\pi A^\mu `$. (We use $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to represent the fluctuation part of the string field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$.)

As a more evidence for our Wilson line state indeed to represent Wilson lines, we can check the shift of the Kaluza-Klein momenta due to Wilson lines. To obtain a non-trivial result, we should extend the gauge group to higher rank one. One way to have higher rank gauge group is to introduce a Chan-Paton factor by hand. Let us introduce $`U(N)`$ Chan-Paton factor indices for each string field. We suppose the D-brane solution is diagonal

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{ij}=\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_i}\delta _{ij},$$
(45)
where the vector $`(f_i)_m^\mu `$ is related to the Wilson line $`A_\mu ^i`$ for $`i`$-th $`U(1)`$ of the Cartan subgroup via (42). Let us consider a local gauge transformation in the Cartan subgroup. The string field representing such a gauge transformation is

$$U_{ij}=\delta _{ij}I_{0,p_i}.$$
(46)
This transforms the Wilson lines on D-branes as

$$A_\mu ^iA_\mu ^ip_\mu ^i.$$
(47)
By this transformation, non-diagonal components of the fluctuation part of a string field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}`$ is transformed as

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}I_{0,p_i}\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}I_{0,p_j}.$$
(48)
Due to the momentum conservation, momentum of $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{ij}`$ is shifted by $`p_jp_i`$. This represents the momentum shift due to the Wilson lines.

## 5 Non-zero momentum modes

Up to now we have considered only constant modes of the vector field on a D-brane. In this section, we discuss the gauge field with non-zero momentum. The HK vector state with a momentum $`p^\mu `$ and a polarization vector $`d_\mu ^m`$ is

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=d_m^\mu a_m^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_{pt,p}.$$
(49)
where $`t_m`$ is the following vector defined in .

$$t=3v(1+3M)^1(1+T).$$
(50)
The vector state (49) is a solution of the linearized equation of motion:

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi }=0.$$
(51)
In the following we discuss gauge transformation of this mode. We show that we can again gauge away extra degrees of freedom of polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ and specify components corresponding to the physical $`U(1)`$ gauge field.

Let us consider infinitesimal gauge transformations with a parameter $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ given by

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=h_m^\mu \frac{\delta I_{g,k}}{\delta g_m^\mu }|_{g=g_0}.$$
(52)
This is non-zero momentum version of the transformation (25). The variation of a fluctuation part $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is given by

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }+𝒪(\mathrm{\Psi }).$$
(53)
We consider only the leading term proportional to the background sliver state $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and neglect the small contribution from $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ on the right hand side in (53). To compute this variation, we define

$$X_{g,k}=\mathrm{\Xi }I_{g,k}I_{g,k}\mathrm{\Xi }=e^{A_2}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_2,k}e^{A_1}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_1,k},$$
(54)
where

$$f_1^\mu =kv_1\frac{1T}{1M}+g^\mu (1+T)\rho _L,f_2^\mu =kv_1\frac{1T}{1M}+g^\mu (1+T)\rho _R,$$
(55)
$$A_1=\frac{1}{4}g^\mu \frac{1+T}{1T}Cg^\mu +k^\mu v_1\frac{1}{1M}g^\mu ,A_2=\frac{1}{4}g^\mu \frac{1+T}{1T}Cg^\mu k^\mu v_1\frac{1}{1M}g^\mu .$$
(56)
To obtain the last expression in (54) we used formulae (38). The variation $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ is obtained from this $`X_{g,k}`$ by

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=h_m^\mu \frac{\delta X_{g,k}}{\delta g_m^\mu }|_{g=g_0}.$$
(57)
General gauge transformations in the form of (52) do not keep the wave function in the form of (49). Therefore, we consider special gauge transformations which keep the form of (49). In order for the two terms in (53) to be added to one term and to give the variation in the form of (49), both $`f_1^\mu `$ and $`f_2^\mu `$ should coincide with $`k^\mu t`$ when $`g^\mu `$ is set to $`g_0^\mu `$. In fact, by only requiring $`f_1^\mu =f_2^\mu `$ we can show that they automatically coincide with $`k^\mu t`$. The condition $`f_1^\mu =f_2^\mu `$ requires the vector $`g_0^\mu `$ to satisfy

$$g_0^\mu (1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L)=2k^\mu v_1\frac{1T}{1M}.$$
(58)
Formally, this equation can be solved by multiplying $`(\rho _R\rho _L)/(1+T)`$ on the both sides and we obtain a solution

$$g_0^\mu =2k^\mu v_1\frac{1T}{1M}\frac{\rho _R\rho _L}{1+T}.$$
(59)
This, however, is a dangerous manipulation because $`1+T`$ has zero eigenvalue. We will return to this problem later and we now adopt the (singular) solution (59) temporally. Substituting this solution into (55), we see that $`f_1^\mu `$ and $`f_2^\mu `$ actually coincide with $`k^\mu t`$.

$$f_1^\mu =f_2^\mu =\frac{1}{2}g_0^\mu (1+T)=k^\mu v_1\frac{1T}{1M}(\rho _R\rho _L)=k^\mu t.$$
(60)
By substituting (54) and (59) into (57), we obtain

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=[k^\mu t(\rho _R\rho _L)h^\mu +h^\mu (1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L)a^\mu ]\mathrm{\Xi }_{kt,k}$$
(61)
Because only the twist odd part of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ can include the $`U(1)`$ vector modes, let us assume the parameter $`h_m^\mu `$ of the gauge transformation to be twist even. Then a transformation low of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$, which is identical to that for constant modes, is obtained.

$$\delta d^\mu =h^\mu (1+T)(\rho _R\rho _L).$$
(62)
Therefore, just as the constant modes, we claim that the physical vector modes are the $`\kappa =0`$ components of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$.

Now, let us return to the problem about the dangerous manipulation used in obtaining $`g_0^\mu `$ in (59). One way to regularize this singularity is to use regularized $`g_0^\mu `$. We denote the regularized version of $`g_0^\mu `$ as $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$. We take $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$ such that its $`\kappa `$ expansion $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu (\kappa )`$ does not diverge at $`\kappa =0`$. This regularization influents the gauge transformation of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. Especially, the two vectors $`f_1^\mu `$ and $`f_2^\mu `$ do not coincide with each other. The gauge transformation obtained from $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$ is

$$\delta \mathrm{\Psi }=h^\mu (1+T)\left[\rho _Ra^\mu e^{A_2}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_2,k}\rho _La^\mu e^{A_1}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_1,k}\right],$$
(63)
where $`f_1^\mu `$, $`f_2^\mu `$, $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ are those in (55) and (56) with $`g^\mu `$ replaced by $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$. (To make the computation simpler, we assumed the orthogonality $`h^\mu k^\mu =0`$ and the parallelness $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu k^\mu `$.) This variation cannot be regarded as a gauge transformation of polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ in (49). Instead, it can be regarded as a variation of a polarization vector of a ‘regularized’ wave function $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{reg}}`$.

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{reg}}=d^\mu \rho _Ra^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_{f_2,k}+d^\mu \rho _La^\mu \mathrm{\Xi }_{f_1,k}.$$
(64)
Two vectors $`f_1^\mu `$ and $`f_2^\mu `$ in (64) are those in (55) defined with $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$, and this wave function coincides with the original HK vector state (49) after taking the limit $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu g_0^\mu `$. For this regularized HK vector state, the gauge transformation (63) induces the transformation (62) for the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ of the reguralized state. (To obtain this simple expression, we assumed that $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu `$ and $`h^\mu `$ are twist even and $`d^\mu `$ is twist odd. Then $`A_1`$ is equal to $`A_2`$ and we can drop the factors $`e^{A_1}`$ and $`e^{A_2}`$ by rescaling the gauge transformation parameter $`h^\mu `$.) Therefore, we can again claim that only $`\kappa =0`$ modes of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ is physical degrees of freedom.

## 6 Discussions

Based on the factorization ansatz of gauge transformations, we have shown that only the $`\kappa =0`$ components of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$ are physical degrees of freedom and all the other components are gauge degrees of freedom. This implies that if we substitute the wave function (49) into the string field action we must obtain an action depending only on the $`\kappa =0`$ components of the polarization vector $`d_m^\mu `$. When the gauge field is normalized such that the gauge transformation does not depend on the coupling constant as (43), the coupling constant appears as an overall factor of the action of the gauge field. Therefore, if we obtain the kinetic term of the vector field we can determine the gauge coupling constant as a coefficient of the kinetic term. Unfortunately, however, we cannot obtain the gauge invariant action nor the gauge coupling constant because of a difficulty we will mention below.

Instead of computing the action of the vector field, let us consider the linearized equation of motion because the quadratic part of the action is represented as a BPZ inner product of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ and the left hand side of the equation of motion (51). We can easily show that the equation of motion is gauge invariant:

$`\delta (\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi })`$ (65)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi })(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi })\mathrm{\Xi }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi })\mathrm{\Lambda }+(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Lambda })\mathrm{\Xi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi })`$
$`=`$ $`0.`$
We used associativity of $``$-product between the second expression and the third one in (65). On the other hand, if we substitute the solution (49) into the equation of motion, we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Xi }=(1e^{Gp^2/2})\mathrm{\Psi },G=\mathrm{log}2.$$
(66)
This is evidently not gauge invariant and depend on all the components of $`d_m^\mu `$. This implies that the above ‘proof’ of the gauge invariance in (65) is not correct.

In the last section we mentioned that we should regularize the wave function when we consider the gauge transformation of non-zero momentum modes. Namely, more reliable way to compute the gauge invariant equation of motion and the action is to use the regularized wave function (64) and to take the limit $`g_{0\mathrm{r}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{g}}^\mu g_0^\mu `$ after all the computation. However, this regularization does not change the situation. The problem is more serious.

To obtain the gauge transformation $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$, we need to compute $``$-product of the sliver $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ and the deformed identity state $`I_{g,k}`$. $`\delta \mathrm{\Psi }`$ is obtained as a derivative of this product. Furthermore, to obtain the variation of the equation of motion, we need to compute $`\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi }I_{g,k}`$ and similar products in different order. We need the associativity in these products to show the gauge invariance of the equation of motion. However, we can easily show that the associativity is broken in this kind of product.

$$(\mathrm{\Xi }\mathrm{\Xi })I_{g,k}\mathrm{\Xi }(\mathrm{\Xi }I_{g,k}).$$
(67)
This is the reason why we failed to obtain a gauge invariant equation of motion. To obtain the coupling constant correctly as a coefficient of the gauge invariant action, we should resolve this problem. At this point, however, we do not have any reliable way to handle associativity anomaly.

Finally, let discuss other questions which may be interesting. In the last section, we introduce Chan-Paton factor by hand to discuss the momentum shift due to the Wilson lines. More interesting way to construct multiple D-brane is to use higher rank projector. In , construction of higher rank projector as a sum of different rank one projectors is discussed. They use “$``$-rotation” to make projectors orthogonal to each other. Similarly, our Wilson line solution may be used to make higher rank projector. The BPZ inner product and $``$-product of two different Wilson line states is

$$\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_1}|\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_2}=e^{D(f_1f_2)}\mathrm{\Xi }|\mathrm{\Xi },\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_1}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f_2}=e^{D(f_1f_2)}\mathrm{\Xi }_{f\rho _L+g\rho _R},$$
(68)
where $`D(f)`$ is the following function.

$$D(f)=\frac{1}{2}f^\mu \frac{1}{1T^2}Cf^\mu .$$
(69)
$`1T^2`$ has one zero eigenvalue at $`\kappa =0`$ and all the other eigenvalues are positive. We can regularize $`D(f)`$ by replacing $`1T^2`$ by $`1T^2+ϵ`$ with a positive number $`ϵ`$. In the limit $`ϵ+0`$, the exponent $`D(f)`$ of coefficient of right hand side of (68) diverges to minus infinity. Therefore, if two D-brane have different Wilson lines, these state are orthogonal to each other. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Xi }_f+\mathrm{\Xi }_g`$ is a projection operator representing two D-brane solution.

It may be also interesting to study T-duality between Wilson lines on D-branes and positions of lump solutions. The explicit form of the lump solution is known and we can construct a solution of a lump at an arbitrary position by using the shift operator $`e^{ia\widehat{p}}`$. One may think that the Wilson line solution studied here would be obtained from the lump solution by T-duality. However, the T-duality between them is highly non-trivial. The gauge fields on D-branes and scalar fluctuation modes of D-branes have opposite sign of twist. Thus, T-duality may be represented as an isomorphy of the $``$-algebra exchanging twist even modes $`\{a_{2n}\}`$ and twist odd modes $`\{a_{2n+1}\}`$.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank H. Hata, I. Kishimoto, S. Moriyama and K. Ohmori for valuable discussions.