text:
# The Grothendieck ring of varieties is not a domain

## 1. The Grothendieck ring of varieties

Let $`k`$ be a field. By a $`k`$-variety we mean a geometrically reduced, separated scheme of finite type over $`k`$. Let $`𝒱_k`$ denote the category of $`k`$-varieties. Let $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ denote the free abelian group generated by the isomorphism classes of $`k`$-varieties, modulo all relations of the form $`[XY]=[X][Y]`$ where $`Y`$ is a closed $`k`$-subvariety of a $`k`$-variety $`X`$. Here, and from now on, $`[X]`$ denotes the class of $`X`$ in $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$. The operation $`[X][Y]:=[X\times _kY]`$ is well-defined, and makes $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ a commutative ring with $`1`$. It is known as the Grothendieck ring of $`k`$-varieties. A completed localization of $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ is needed for the theory of motivic integration, which has many applications: see \[Loo00\] for a survey.

Our main result is the following.

###### Theorem 1.

Suppose that $`k`$ is a field of characteristic zero. Then $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$ is not a domain.

###### Remark .

We conjecture that the result holds also for fields $`k`$ of characteristic $`p`$. But we use a result whose proof relies on resolution of singularities and weak factorization of birational maps, which are known only in characteristic zero.

## 2. Abelian varieties of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type

If $`A`$ is an abelian variety over a field $`k_0`$, and $`k`$ is a field extension of $`k_0`$, then $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$ denotes the endomorphism ring of the base extension $`A_k:=A\times _{k_0}k`$, that is, the ring of endomorphisms defined over $`k`$.

###### Lemma 2.

Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero, and let $`\overline{k}`$ denote an algebraic closure. There exists an abelian variety $`A`$ over $`k`$ such that $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)=\mathrm{End}_{\overline{k}}(A)𝒪`$, where $`𝒪`$ is the ring of integers of a number field of class number $`2`$.

Let us precede the proof of Lemma 2 with a few paragraphs of motivation. Our strategy will be to find a single abelian variety $`A`$ over $``$ such that the base extension $`A_k`$ works over $`k`$.

Suppose that $`A`$ is a nonzero abelian variety over $``$. Let $`\mathrm{Lie}A`$ be its Lie algebra, which is a $``$-vector space of dimension $`dimA`$. If $`\mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$ is an order in a number field $`F`$, then the $`𝒪`$-action makes $`\mathrm{Lie}A`$ a vector space over $`𝒪=F`$; hence $`[F:]dim_{}\mathrm{Lie}A=dimA`$. If moreover equality holds, then $`A`$ is said to be of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type. (The terminology is due to the following: If $`A`$ is of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type, then the action of the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/)`$ on a Tate module $`T_{\mathrm{}}A`$ can be viewed as a representation $`\rho _{\mathrm{}}:\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{}/)\mathrm{GL}_2(𝒪_{}_{\mathrm{}})`$.)

Because $``$ has class number $`1`$, we must take $`[F:]2`$ to find an $`A`$ over $``$ as in Lemma 2. The inequality $`[F:]dimA`$ then forces $`dimA2`$. Moreover, if we want $`dimA=2`$, then $`A`$ must be of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type.

Abelian varieties of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type are closely connected to modular forms. For each $`N1`$, let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ denote the classical modular group, let $`X_1(N)`$ denote the corresponding modular curve over $``$, and let $`J_1(N)`$ be the Jacobian of $`X_1(N)`$. G. Shimura \[Shi71, Theorem 7.14\], \[Shi73\] attached to each weight-2 newform $`f`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(N)`$ an abelian variety quotient $`A_f`$ of $`J_1(N)`$. It is known that $`dimA_f=[F:]`$, where $`F`$ is the number field generated over $``$ by the Fourier coefficients of $`f`$. These coefficients can also be identified with the endomorphisms of $`A_f`$ induced by the Hecke correspondences on $`X_1(N)`$; hence $`A_f`$ is $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type. Conversely, it is conjectured that each abelian variety of $`\mathrm{GL}_2`$-type is $``$-isogenous to some $`A_f`$. See \[Rib92\] for more details. The $`dimA=1`$ case of this conjecture is the statement that elliptic curves over $``$ are modular, which is known \[BCDT01\].

Therefore we are led to consider $`A_f`$ of dimension $`2`$, where $`f`$ is a newform as above.

###### Proof of Lemma 2.

Tables \[Ste\] show that there exists a weight-2 newform $`f=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}a_nq^n`$ on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_0(276)`$ (hence also on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(276)`$) such that $`(\{a_n:n1\})=(\sqrt{10})`$, $`a_{17}=4\sqrt{10}`$, and $`a_{19}=2+\sqrt{10}`$. Let $`A=A_f`$ be the corresponding abelian variety over $``$. Then $`dimA=[(\sqrt{10}):]=2`$. Also, $`\mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$ is an order of $`(\sqrt{10})`$ containing $`4\sqrt{10}`$, so $`\mathrm{End}_{}(A)`$ is the maximal order $`[\sqrt{10}]`$ of $`(\sqrt{10})`$. The class number of $`(\sqrt{10})`$ is $`2`$.

It remains to show that $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)=[\sqrt{10}]`$ for any field extension $`k`$ of $``$. For any place of $`k`$ at which $`A`$ has good reduction, $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$ injects into the endomorphism ring of the reduction. We will use this to bound $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$. The abelian variety $`A`$ has good reduction at all primes not dividing $`276`$, so in particular it has good reduction at $`17`$ and $`19`$. Let $`A_{17}`$ and $`A_{19}`$ denote the resulting abelian varieties over $`𝔽_{17}`$ and $`𝔽_{19}`$. The places $`17`$ and $`19`$ of $``$ extend to places of $`k`$ taking values in $`\overline{𝔽}_{17}`$ and $`\overline{𝔽}_{19}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$ injects into $`\mathrm{End}_{\overline{𝔽}_{17}}(A_{17})`$ and $`\mathrm{End}_{\overline{𝔽}_{19}}(A_{19})`$.

By the work of Eichler and Shimura (see Theorem 4 in D. Rohrlich’s article in \[CSS97\]), the characteristic polynomial $`P_{17}(x)`$ of Frobenius on $`A_{17}`$ equals

$$N_{(\sqrt{10})/}(x^2a_{17}x+17)=x^48x^3+40x^2136x+289.$$

This is irreducible over $``$, and its middle coefficient is prime to $`17`$, so $`A_{17}`$ is a simple ordinary abelian surface. Checking the criterion in \[HZ02\] (see especially Theorem 6 and the last paragraph of Section 2), we find that $`\mathrm{End}_{\overline{𝔽}_{17}}(A_{17})[x]/(P_{17}(x))`$. Similarly, $`\mathrm{End}_{\overline{𝔽}_{19}}(A_{19})[x]/(P_{19}(x))`$. The ratio of the discriminants of $`P_{17}(x)`$ and $`P_{19}(x)`$ is not a square in $``$, so $`[x]/(P_{17}(x))`$ and $`[x]/(P_{19}(x))`$ are distinct number fields of degree 4. But $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$ embeds into both, so $`dim_{}(\mathrm{End}_k(A))2`$. On the other hand, $`[\sqrt{10}]\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$, so $`\mathrm{End}_k(A)=[\sqrt{10}]`$. ∎

###### Remark .

The case $`k=`$ of Lemma 2 has an easy proof: let $`A`$ be an elliptic curve over $``$ with complex multiplication by $`[\sqrt{5}]`$.

## 3. Abelian varieties and projective modules

Let $`A`$ be an abelian variety over a field $`k`$, and let $`𝒪=\mathrm{End}_k(A)`$. Given a finite-rank projective right $`𝒪`$-module $`M`$, we define an abelian variety $`M_𝒪A`$ as follows: choose a finite presentation $`𝒪^m𝒪^nM0`$, and let $`M_𝒪A`$ be the cokernel of the homomorphism $`A^mA^n`$ defined by the matrix that gives $`𝒪^m𝒪^n`$. It is straightforward to check that this is independent of the presentation, and that $`M(M_𝒪A)`$ defines a fully faithful functor $`T`$ from the category of finite-rank projective right $`𝒪`$-modules to the category of abelian varieties over $`k`$. (Essentially the same construction is discussed in the appendix by J.-P. Serre in \[Lau01\].)

###### Lemma 3.

Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero. There exist abelian varieties $`A`$ and $`B`$ over $`k`$ such that $`A\times AB\times B`$ but $`A_{\overline{k}}\simeq ̸B_{\overline{k}}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A`$ and $`𝒪`$ be as in Lemma 2. Let $`I`$ be a nonprincipal ideal of $`𝒪`$. Since $`𝒪`$ is a Dedekind domain, the isomorphism type of a direct sum of fractional ideals $`I_1\mathrm{}I_n`$ is determined exactly by the nonnegative integer $`n`$ and the product of the classes of the $`I_i`$ in the class group $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪)`$. Since $`\mathrm{Pic}(𝒪)/2`$, we have $`𝒪𝒪II`$ as $`𝒪`$-modules. Applying the functor $`T`$ yields $`A\times AB\times B`$, where $`B:=I_𝒪A`$. Since $`\mathrm{End}_{\overline{k}}(A)`$ also equals $`𝒪`$, we have $`B_{\overline{k}}=I_𝒪A_{\overline{k}}`$. Since $`T`$ for $`\overline{k}`$ is fully faithful, $`A_{\overline{k}}\simeq ̸B_{\overline{k}}`$. ∎

## 4. Rings related to the Grothendieck ring of varieties

For any extension of fields $`kk^{}`$, there is a ring homomorphism $`K_0(𝒱_k)K_0(𝒱_k^{})`$ mapping $`[X]`$ to $`[X_k^{}]`$.

Let $`k`$ be a field of characteristic zero. Smooth, projective, geometrically integral $`k`$-varieties $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are called stably birational if $`X\times ^m`$ is birational to $`Y\times ^n`$ for some integers $`m,n0`$. The set $`\mathrm{SB}_k`$ of equivalence classes of this relation is a monoid under product of varieties over $`k`$. Let $`[\mathrm{SB}_k]`$ denote the corresponding monoid ring.

When $`k=`$, there is a unique ring homomorphism $`K_0(𝒱_k)[\mathrm{SB}_k]`$ mapping the class of any smooth projective integral variety to its stable birational class \[LL01\]. (In fact, this homomorphism is surjective, and its kernel is the ideal generated by $`𝕃:=[𝔸^1]`$.) The proof in \[LL01\] requires resolution of singularities and weak factorization of birational maps \[AKMW00, Theorem 0.1.1\], \[Wło01, Conjecture 0.0.1\]. The same proof works over any algebraically closed field of characteristic zero.

The set $`\mathrm{AV}_k`$ of isomorphism classes of abelian varieties over $`k`$ is a monoid. The Albanese functor mapping a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety to its Albanese variety induces a homomorphism of monoids $`\mathrm{SB}_k\mathrm{AV}_k`$, since the Albanese variety is a birational invariant, since formation of the Albanese variety commutes with products, and since the Albanese variety of $`^n`$ is trivial. Therefore we obtain a ring homomorphism $`[\mathrm{SB}_k][\mathrm{AV}_k]`$.

## 5. Zerodivisors

###### Proof of Theorem 1.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be as in Lemma 3. Then $`([A]+[B])([A][B])=0`$ in $`K_0(𝒱_k)`$. On the other hand, $`[A]+[B]`$ and $`[A][B]`$ are nonzero, because their images under the composition

$$K_0(𝒱_k)K_0(𝒱_{\overline{k}})[\mathrm{SB}_{\overline{k}}][\mathrm{AV}_{\overline{k}}]$$

are nonzero. (The Albanese variety of an abelian variety is itself.) ∎

## Acknowledgements

I thank Eduard Looijenga and Arthur Ogus for discussions. The package GP-PARI was used to perform the calculations in the last paragraph of the proof of Lemma 2.


format: text

text:
# Transport equation and hard thermal loops in noncommutative Yang-Mills theory

## I Introduction

In recent years, there has been a lot of interest in the study of the dynamics of hot plasma in non-Abelian gauge theories. It is known now that the $`n`$-point gluon functions in such a theory, when evaluated at temperatures which are large compared with all momenta $`p`$ of the external gauge fields, are gauge invariant and have a leading behavior proportional to $`T^2`$. Here, $`T`$ represents the temperature of the plasma. In order to account for all the leading order contributions consistently as well as to obtain a meaningful gauge invariant result for physical quantities, it is necessary to perform a resummation of hard thermal loop contributions Braaten:1990it . The hard thermal loops are defined by the relation

$$pkT$$
(1)
where $`p`$ represents a characteristic external momentum while $`k`$ denotes the internal loop momentum. In conventional QCD, such a procedure, although very insightful, is technically quite involved. However, it has also been noted that it is possible to use a classical transport equation in a more direct and transparent way, in order to derive the effective action which includes all the contributions associated with the hard thermal loops Heinz:1985yq ; Blaizot:1994be ; kelly:1994ig ; Litim:2001db . In this approach, which has been successfully applied to a variety of gauge theories, one pictures the constituents of the plasma as classical charged particles interacting in a self-consistent manner. The main reason why such a classical description works in yielding a quantum effective action is that, for soft gauge fields, the occupation number per unit mode, in a hot plasma, is quite high due to the Bose-Einstein enhancement.

In more recent years, developments in string theory have renewed interest in noncommutative field theories Seiberg:1999vs ; Fischler:2000fv ; Arcioni:1999hw ; Landsteiner:2000bw ; Szabo:2001kg ; Douglas:2001ba . These are theories defined on a noncommutative manifold satisfying

$$[x^\mu ,x^\nu ]=i\theta ^{\mu \nu }$$
(2)
where $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ is assumed to be a constant anti-symmetric tensor. Furthermore, to avoid problems with unitarity, one also assumes that $`\theta ^{0\mu }=0`$, namely, only the spatial coordinates do not commute. Note that, by definition, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ has the dimensions of the square of a length. Quantum field theories defined on such a manifold – noncommutative field theories – exhibit some very interesting features and there are continued attempts at understanding better the structures of such theories, in particular, those of noncommutative gauge theories.

In the paper Brandt:2002aa , the structure of the two- and three-gluon amplitudes, incorporating the hard thermal loop contributions, were calculated in the pure noncommutative $`U(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory at high temperature and the results were quite interesting. We note that while (1) defines the hard thermal loops, in the presence of independent dimensional parameters, such as $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, we can also have regimes satisfying $`\theta <\frac{1}{T^2}`$ or $`\theta >\frac{1}{T^2}`$, in addition to Eq. (1). Here, $`\theta `$ can be thought of as the magnitude of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ (or, in more physical terms as the largest or the smallest eigenvalues of $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ for the first and the second inequalities respectively). In the presence of a characteristic momentum scale, $`p`$, one can also have regimes satisfying $`\theta pT<1`$ or $`\theta pT>1`$. In fact, it was shown in Brandt:2002aa  that the calculation of hard thermal loops simplifies enormously in the two limits $`\theta pT1`$ and $`\theta pT1`$. We note that, in the presence of a dimensional parameter, such as $`\theta `$, the hard thermal loop condition, Eq. (1), can be written as

$$\theta p^2\theta pT\theta T^2$$
(3)
The actual hard thermal loop calculations Brandt:2002aa  show that, the leading $`T^2`$ contributions from the $`U(1)`$ sector of the $`U(N)`$ theory become suppressed by powers of $`\theta pT`$ when $`\theta pT1`$, while, in the limit $`\theta pT1`$, the amplitudes are all proportional to $`N`$ as would be the case for a large $`N`$ theory.

It is worth noting that a similar behavior (at zero temperature) is present in the case of a noncommutative supersymmetric $`U(N)`$ gauge theory Chu:2001fe . Namely, it was shown there that the $`U(1)`$ sector of the theory behaves differently for $`p<\theta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ and $`p>\theta ^{\frac{1}{2}}`$ such that in the low energy limit, the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory behaves like an ordinary $`SU(N)`$ theory (We prefer “ordinary” to “commutative” for obvious reasons.). As is the case in Chu:2001fe , here, too, we will like to emphasize that the behavior of the theory in the hard thermal loop approximation should not be taken to imply that temperature somehow breaks the $`U(N)`$ symmetry. In fact, in connection with the work of Chu:2001fe , gauge invariant completions of the action involving open Wilson lines have already been proposed in VanRaamsdonk:2001jd ; Armoni:2001uw . Physically, the results of Brandt:2002aa , in both the limits, may be understood as follows. The limit, $`\theta pT1`$, can clearly be thought of as corresponding to weak non-commutativity, in which case, the self couplings of the $`U(1)`$ sector is negligible compared to that of the $`SU(N)`$ sector. Therefore, the theory, to the leading order, behaves like an ordinary $`SU(N)`$ theory with the effects of non-commutativity leading to small corrections. In the limit $`\theta pT1`$, on the other hand, we can think of the non-commutativity as strong and it is well known Minwalla:1999px  that in the limit of maximal non-commutativity, a noncommutative theory has a stringy behavior. (Intuitively, this is seen as follows. If the noncommutative theories are supposed to describe dipoles Sheikh-Jabbari:1999vm ; Bigatti:1999iz , then, for distances much much smaller than the dipole length, $`\frac{1}{T}\theta p`$, the string nature would become manifest.) In particular, in the case of a noncommutative gauge theory, this would correspond to having dominant planar diagrams. (The non-planar diagrams oscillate rapidly at high temperature and yield only subleading contributions.)

It is an interesting question to ask whether a classical transport equation can be written for such theories which can determine the effective action in the hard thermal loop approximation in a simple manner, as is the case for “ordinary” theories. Of course, as we have mentioned earlier, there are two limits, $`\theta pT1`$ and $`\theta pT1`$, in which one can analyze the effective action. Since the region $`\theta pT1`$ corresponds to a weaker non-commutativity, in this paper, we restrict ourselves to the region where $`\theta pT1`$ and which genuinely exhibits noncommutative hard thermal loop effects. We will present a classical transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ gauge theory which leads, in a simple way, to the leading order terms of the two and three gluon amplitudes in the hard thermal loop approximation, calculated in Brandt:2002aa . The color current, defined as

$$J_\mu ^C(x,A)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]}{\delta A_\mu ^C(x)}$$
(4)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]`$ represents the effective action in the hard thermal loop approximation, can be derived from the classical transport equation. Here, $`A_\mu ^C`$ is the gluon field and $`J_\mu ^C`$ consists of an infinite set of graphs. The above equation can be integrated and leads to the gauge invariant effective action which incorporates all the hard thermal loop contributions.

The paper is organized as follows. In section II, we derive the transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ theory in two alternate ways. The first is through the conventional use of the dynamical equations for a relativistic particle in a noncommutative manifold. The second is through the use of the conservation equations for the current as well as the stress tensor. Both these methods yield the same transport equation which reduces, in the $`\theta 0`$ limit, to the conventional transport equation for QED. In the limit $`\theta pT1`$, we show how this transport equation can be used to derive, in a simple manner, the two and the three point functions for the $`U(1)`$ gauge boson, which agrees with the diagrammatic calculations in Brandt:2002aa . The derivation of the transport equation for the $`U(N)`$ case is rather involved for various technical reasons. We do not fully understand a first principle derivation in this case. In section III, we discuss some of the challenges that one faces in the $`U(N)`$ case and with guidance from the $`U(1)`$ case, propose a transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory. This equation reduces to that for the conventional $`SU(N)`$ theory in the limit $`\theta 0`$. However, in the limit $`\theta pT1`$, it leads to genuine noncommutative hard thermal loop effects (which have a stringy character). We evaluate the two and three point gluon functions from the transport equation and these agree with the explicit diagrammatic calculations in Brandt:2002aa . In section IV, we derive from the transport equation an all order expression for the color current \[Eq. (53)\], which is manifestly covariantly conserved. With the help of this result, we obtain a gauge invariant form for the effective action \[Eq. (55)\] which includes all the hard thermal loop effects in noncommutative Yang-Mills theory.

## II Transport equation for noncommutative $`U(1)`$ theory

In this section, we consider the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theory without any matter fields. As is well known, such a theory is self-interacting much like the conventional Yang-Mills theories. In this case, the field strength is defined to be

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ig[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_\mathrm{M}$$
(5)
where

$$[A_\mu ,A_\nu ]_\mathrm{M}=A_\mu A_\nu A_\nu A_\mu $$
(6)
defines the Moyal commutator and the star product that introduces self-interactions into the system is given by

$$A_\mu (x)A_\nu (x)=\left[\mathrm{e}^{\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha ^{(\xi )}_\beta ^{(\eta )}}A_\mu (x+\xi )A_\nu (x+\eta )\right]_{\xi =\eta =0}$$
(7)
The Euler-Lagrange equation, in this case, is obtained to be

$$^\mu F_{\mu \nu }ig[A^\mu ,F_{\mu \nu }]_\mathrm{M}𝒟^\mu F_{\mu \nu }=J_\nu .$$
(8)
where $`J_\mu (x)`$ represents the source for the gauge fields and $`𝒟_\mu `$ denotes the Moyal covariant derivative. It follows from Eq. (8) that the current $`J_\mu `$ is covariantly conserved. This property ensures that the effective action, which leads to the current through a functional derivation, namely,

$$J^\mu (x,A)=\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left[A\right]}{\delta A_\mu (x)},$$
(9)
is gauge invariant. This follows since, under an infinitesimal noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge transformation,

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left[A\right]}{\delta \omega (x)}=𝑑y\frac{\delta A_\mu (y)}{\delta \omega (x)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left[A\right]}{\delta A_\mu (y)}=𝒟_\mu J^\mu (x)=0.$$
(10)
Here, $`\omega (x)`$ represents the infinitesimal parameter of gauge transformation. Let us note that the covariant conservation of the current is a consequence (as well as a reflection) of the fact that, in the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ theory, the current transforms in the adjoint representation under a star gauge transformation,

$$J_\mu (x)U(x)J_\mu (x)U^1(x)$$
(11)
This has to be contrasted with the behavior of the current in an “ordinary” $`U(1)`$ theory.

There are several ways one can derive the transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(1)`$ theory. Following the conventional method, we define the current, $`J^\mu (x)`$, in terms of the statistical distribution functions, $`f(x,k)`$, as

$$J_\mu (x)=g𝑑Kk_\mu f(x,k),$$
(12)
where the sum is over contributions from all particle species and helicities. Let us note that, unlike in conventional $`U(1)`$ theory, in the noncommutative case, charge neutral particles belong to the adjoint representation of the group and contribute to the current as well. In fact, in the present case, where we are investigating a pure $`U(1)`$ gauge theory (noncommutative), there is no charged matter present and the gauge field is charge neutral so that the classical particle that we are considering also is charge neutral (nonetheless has a nontrivial current). Furthermore, the integration measure for momentum is defined to be

$$dK\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^3}2\theta (k_0)\delta (k^2m^2)$$
(13)
which guarantees positivity of the energy as well as the on-shell evolution of the thermal excitations. Let us note next from Eqs. (11) and the definition of the current in (12) that, in this case, the distribution function $`f(x,k)`$ transforms covariantly under a star gauge transformation much like the current, namely

$$f(x,k)U(x)f(x,k)U^1(x).$$
(14)
Once again, this behavior has to be contrasted with the conventional case and we note that when $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$ and the star product reduces to ordinary products, we recover the conventional behavior for the distribution function.

In the case of a collisionless plasma, the distribution function $`f(x,k)`$ may be determined from a classical collisionless transport equation, which can be derived in a simple manner as follows. Since $`f(x,k)`$ transforms in the adjoint representation, Eq. (14), much like the current, it follows that the distribution function must also be covariantly constant along the trajectory of the particle, namely,

$$𝒟_\tau f(x,k)=\frac{df}{d\tau }ig\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }[A_\mu ,f]_\mathrm{M}=0,$$
(15)
Here $`\tau `$ is the proper time which parameterizes the trajectory and $`𝒟_\tau `$ is the Moyal covariant derivative along the trajectory of the particle. Furthermore, using the equations of motion

$$m\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=k^\mu ;m\frac{dk^\mu }{d\tau }=gF^{\mu \nu }k_\nu $$
(16)
which hold unchanged in the noncommutative theory, Eq. (15) leads to the transport equation,

$$m\frac{df}{d\tau }=\left(k\right)fgk_\mu F^{\mu \nu }\frac{f}{k^\nu }=ig[kA,f]_\mathrm{M},$$
(17)
This may also be written in the simpler form,

$$\left(k𝒟\right)f(x,k)=gk_\mu F^{\mu \nu }\frac{f}{k^\nu }$$
(18)
This equation, which generalizes the Boltzmann equation for the “ordinary” $`U(1)`$ gauge theory, has the correct covariance properties under star gauge transformations, which characterize the noncommutative theory.

The transport equation can also be derived alternatively without using directly the equations of motion of the particle. For example, we have already noted that the current can be written in terms of the statistical distribution function. Similarly, generalizing the conventional ideas, we also observe that the stress tensor for the theory can also be described in terms of the function $`f(x,k)`$ as

$`J_\mu (x)`$ $`=`$ $`g{\displaystyle 𝑑Kk_\mu f(x,k)}`$
$`T_{\mu \nu }(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle 𝑑Kk_\mu k_\nu f(x,k)}`$ (19)
It can be easily checked that requiring the conservation equations for the current and the stress tensor to hold, namely,

$`𝒟_\mu J^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (20)
$`𝒟_\mu T^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`F^{\mu \nu }J_\mu `$ (21)
also leads to the transport equation (18). We note that, unlike in the conventional $`U(1)`$ theory, here the stress tensor transforms in the adjoint representation which is the reason for the (Moyal) covariant derivative in Eq. (21). It is worth pointing out that, in the limit $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }0`$, we recognize Eq. (18) to correspond to the transport equation for conventional QED. In the present case of a pure gauge theory, the self-interactions of the gauge bosons go to zero in this limit so that we do not expect hard thermal loop corrections in the absence of charged particles in Eq. (19). That this follows from the transport equation as well, is seen easily from the fact that since we are considering a charge neutral particle (which belongs to the adjoint representation of the star gauge group), in the vanishing $`\theta `$ limit, the current associated with it also vanishes and the transport equation, (18) becomes trivial.

As an example of the convenience of this method in the evaluation of the hard thermal loop contributions, we will derive next the leading order contributions to the two- and three-point functions in the hard thermal loop approximation, using the transport equation. Let us expand the distribution function in a power series in $`g`$

$$f=f^{(0)}+gf^{(1)}+g^2f^{(2)}+\mathrm{},$$
(22)
where $`f^{(0)}`$ is the equilibrium Bose-Einstein distribution function

$$f^{(0)}(k_0)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{|k_0|/T}1}.$$
(23)
On the other hand, $`f^{(1)}`$ and $`f^{(2)}`$ represent the leading order corrections to this function, which can be determined order by order from the transport equation, Eq. (18), to be

$$f^{(1)}(x,k)=\frac{1}{k}\left(kA^\nu ^\nu kA\right)\frac{f^{(0)}}{k^\nu }$$
(24)
and

$`f^{(2)}(x,k)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k}}\left([kA,f^{(1)}]_\mathrm{M}[kA,A^\nu ]_\mathrm{M}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(0)}}{k^\nu }}i(kA^\nu ^\nu kA){\displaystyle \frac{f^{(1)}}{k^\nu }}\right)`$ (25)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{k}}\left([kA,f^{(1)}]_\mathrm{M}[kA,A^\nu ]_\mathrm{M}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(0)}}{k^\nu }}+\mathrm{}\right),`$
where $`\mathrm{}`$ represent the third term which we have neglected since it leads to a subleading contribution at high temperature.

Substituting these into the definition of the current in (12), we obtain the current as a series in powers of the gauge field. Transforming to the momentum space and using the definition in Eq. (9), we obtain the two point function as

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[A\right]}{\delta A^\mu (p)\delta A^\nu (p)}|=\frac{\delta J_\mu (p)}{\delta A^\nu (p)}|=\frac{2g^2}{(2\pi )^3}\frac{d^3k}{|\stackrel{}{k}|}\frac{1}{\mathrm{e}^{|\stackrel{}{k}|/T}1}(\frac{p^2k_\mu k_\nu }{(kp)^2}\frac{p_\mu k_\nu +p_\nu k_\mu }{kp}+\eta _{\mu \nu }),$$
(26)
where $`k_\mu =|\stackrel{}{k}|(1,\widehat{k})|\stackrel{}{k}|\widehat{k}_\mu `$ denotes the on-shell 4-momenta of the thermal particle in the plasma. Here, the restriction on the functional derivatives stands for setting all the fields to zero after differentiation. We note that the expression inside the parenthesis in (26) is a homogeneous function of $`k_\mu `$ of degree zero, so that it is actually independent of the magnitude $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$. This fact allows us to do the integration over $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ in (26) leaving us with an angular integral, which at high temperatures has the form

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{g^2T^2}{24\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }\left(\frac{p^2\widehat{k}_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu }{(\widehat{k}p)^2}\frac{p_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu +p_\nu \widehat{k}_\mu }{\widehat{k}p}+\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)\frac{g^2T^2}{24\pi }𝑑\mathrm{\Omega }G_{\mu \nu }(p,\widehat{k}),$$
(27)
where $`d\mathrm{\Omega }`$ denotes integration over all angular directions of the unit vector $`\widehat{k}`$ and we have, for simplicity, defined

$$G_{\mu \nu }(p,\widehat{k})=\left(\frac{p^2\widehat{k}_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu }{(\widehat{k}p)^2}\frac{p_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu +p_\nu \widehat{k}_\mu }{\widehat{k}p}+\eta _{\mu \nu }\right)$$
(28)
As expected, the two point function is independent of the parameter of non-commutativity, $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$, and is manifestly transverse. Furthermore, this result agrees completely with the results from the explicit perturbative calculations in Brandt:2002aa  for the case $`\theta pT1`$.

Proceeding along similar lines, we can also obtain the three-point function which, to leading order, has the form

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\theta =\frac{\delta ^2J_\mu (p_1)}{\delta A_\nu (p_2)\delta A_\lambda (p_3=(p_1+p_2))}|=\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_{1\alpha }\theta ^{\alpha \beta }p_{2\beta }}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)$$
(29)
where $`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ is the parameter of non-commutativity and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)=\frac{ig^3T^2}{24\pi }d\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{1}{\widehat{k}p_3}[G_{\mu \nu }(p_2,\widehat{k})\widehat{k}_\lambda +\widehat{k}_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu H_\lambda (p_2,p_3,\widehat{k})(p_1p_2)].$$
(30)
$`G_{\mu \nu }`$ was already given in Eq. (28) and we have defined the vector

$$H_\lambda (p_2,p_3,\widehat{k})=\frac{1}{\widehat{k}p_2}\left(\frac{p_2p_3}{\widehat{k}p_3}\widehat{k}_\lambda p_{2}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}\right)$$
(31)
As expected, the parameters $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }`$ are explicitly present in the three point function reflecting the star product in the interaction terms. With the help of some simple algebraic identities, the expression (30) can also be written in a manifestly Bose symmetric form as follows

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)={\displaystyle \frac{ig^3T^2}{24\pi }}{\displaystyle }d\mathrm{\Omega }[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2}{(\widehat{k}p_1)^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{k}p_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\widehat{k}p_3}})\widehat{k}_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu \widehat{k}_\lambda `$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{p_{1}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}}{\widehat{k}p_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_{2}^{}{}_{\lambda }{}^{}}{\widehat{k}p_2}}){\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{k}_\mu \widehat{k}_\nu }{\widehat{k}p_3}}+\mathrm{two}\mathrm{cyclic}\mathrm{permutations}]`$ (32)
The above form for the three-point function is in complete agreement with the hard thermal loop results Brandt:2002aa  obtained by standard Feynman diagrammatic calculations in the region $`\theta pT1`$. The expression (II) is the same as the one which occurs in the momentum dependent part of the corresponding quantity in commutative QCD (where the “$`\mathrm{sin}`$” in (29) is replaced by the structure constants). Throughout this paper, we assume that none of the denominators like $`\widehat{k}p_i`$ vanish for any value of the light like vector $`\widehat{k}`$ (so that the inverses $`1/\widehat{k}p_i`$ are well defined).

## III Transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory

In contrast to the $`U(1)`$ case, the derivation of the transport equation, in the case of noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory, presents a few challenges some of which we discuss below. To appreciate the difficulties, let us recapitulate very briefly how the derivation of the transport equation in a conventional $`SU(N)`$ theory is carried out. In this case, the standard equations for the motion of a relativistic particle carrying a color charge and interacting with an external Yang-Mills field have the forms

$$m\frac{dx^\mu }{d\tau }=k^\mu ;m\frac{dk^\mu }{d\tau }=gQ^aF^{\mu \nu a}k_\nu ;a=1,2,\mathrm{},N^21,$$
(33)
where $`\tau `$ is the proper time of the particle and $`Q^a`$’s are the non-Abelian color charges. To derive the transport equation, one needs to supplement these with the evolution equation for the color charges,

$$m\frac{dQ^a}{d\tau }=gf^{abc}(kA^b)Q^c$$
(34)
which can be obtained from a quantum field theory in a mean-field theoretic manner Brown:1979bv  and is consistent with the constraint on the charges

$$Q^aQ^a=q_2=\mathrm{constant}$$
(35)
where $`q_2`$ represents the second Casimir of the group $`SU(N)`$.

Together, Eqs. (33) and (34) are known as Wong’s equations wong:1970fu  and lead, in the commutative $`\mathrm{SU}(N)`$case, to the transport equation in a straightforward manner. In going to a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory, first of all, we have to generalize the symmetry group to $`U(N)`$ which is straightforward. Generalizing equations (33) also poses no particular problem. However, since in a noncommutative Yang-Mills theory only a few representations of the gauge group are allowed Chaichian:2001mu , a classical color charge is not conceptually meaningful (There are, of course, also difficulties associated with finding a sufficiently localized state to carry out a mean field calculation, but we will not go into these.). Even if one formally assumes the existence of such a classical charge, there are still difficulties associated with the measure in the color space in the following way. It is known that it is impossible to find local, gauge invariant observables in a noncommutative gauge theory. Then, a constraint such as (35) is no longer gauge invariant and, therefore, is not meaningful. As a result, the definition of the integration measure in the color space, in such a classical theory, is unclear at the present. Furthermore, in the presence of a constraint involving the third Casimir (which involves the symmetric structure constants of the group, as would be the case in the $`U(N)`$ theory), the surface terms arising from integration by parts are non-trivial and technically much harder to calculate.

Thus, we do not fully understand a first principle derivation of the transport equation, in the case of the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ gauge theory, starting from the analog of Wong’s equations and this question is presently under study. However, motivated by the discussions in the case of the $`U(1)`$ theory and taking guidance from the actual perturbative calculations in Brandt:2002aa , we propose a transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory which has the correct limiting behavior and reproduces the perturbative results of Brandt:2002aa . To discuss the transport equation, let us generalize the conventional definition of the current to this case

$$J_\mu ^C(x)=g𝑑K𝑑QQ^Ck_\mu f(x,k,Q),$$
(36)
where $`f(x,k,Q)`$ is the appropriate distribution function and we are assuming that the measure for the integration over the color charges is understood. Here, $`C=0,1,2,\mathrm{},N^21`$ represents the $`U(N)`$ indices. We use the notations and conventions in Bonora:2000ga . Similarly, the stress tensor for the particles can be written as

$$T^{\mu \nu }(x)=𝑑K𝑑Qk^\mu k^\nu f(x,k,Q).$$
(37)
It is clear now that, for these to reduce to the current and the stress tensor studied in the last section for $`N=1`$, both $`f`$ and $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ must transform under the adjoint representation of the $`U(1)`$ subgroup of the $`U(N)`$ group. Thus, we have,

$$D_\mu f=_\mu f\frac{ig}{2}d^{BCC}(A_\mu ^BffA_\mu ^B)=_\mu f\frac{ig}{2}d^{BCC}[A_\mu ^B,f]_\mathrm{M}$$
(38)
so that the conservation equation for the stress tensor can be written as

$$D_\mu T^{\mu \nu }=_\mu T^{\mu \nu }\frac{ig}{2}d^{BCC}[A_\mu ^B,T^{\mu \nu }]_\mathrm{M}=F^{\mu \nu B}J_\mu ^B,$$
(39)
Here, $`d^{ABC}`$ represent the completely symmetric structure constants of the gauge group $`U(N)`$ (see Bonora:2000ga  for details). Note that the above form of (39) reduces to Eq. (21) when $`N=1`$ and to the conventional equation in the commutative limit, $`\theta 0`$, when the Moyal bracket vanishes, in which case $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is manifestly gauge invariant. The current, on the other hand, has to satisfy the standard covariant conservation law

$$D_\mu ^{AC}J^{\mu C}=_\mu J^{\mu A}\frac{ig}{2}d^{ABC}[A_\mu ^B,J^{\mu C}]_\mathrm{M}+\frac{g}{2}f^{ABC}\{A_\mu ^B,J^{\mu C}\}_\mathrm{M}=0$$
(40)
where $`f^{ABC}`$ represent the anti-symmetric structure constants of $`U(N)`$ and we have defined $`\{A,B\}_\mathrm{M}=AB+BA`$.

Using the above properties of the current and the stress tensor, we propose the following collisionless transport equation for the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory, which generalizes Eq. (18).

$$(k𝒟)f(x,k,Q)=gQ^Ak^\mu F_{\mu \nu }^A\frac{f(x,k,Q)}{k_\nu },$$
(41)
where $`𝒟_\mu `$ is given by

$$𝒟_\mu f=_\mu f+\frac{ig}{2}d^{ABC}Q^A[A_\mu ^B,\frac{f}{Q^C}]_\mathrm{M}+\frac{g}{2}f^{ABC}Q^A\{A_\mu ^B,\frac{f}{Q^C}\}_\mathrm{M}.$$
(42)
We observe that the above expression reduces, in the limit $`\theta 0`$, to the expected classical transport equation for the conventional non-Abelian $`SU(N)`$ Yang-Mills theory. However, as we have mentioned, our main interest here is concerned with the hard thermal effects in the region $`\theta pT1`$.

An iterative solution of the transport equation (41) allows us to evaluate in an efficient way the hard thermal loop contributions. For example, in order to derive the high temperature behavior of the two and three-gluon functions, we find recursively the leading order corrections to the Bose-Einstein distribution $`f^{(0)}`$ which are given by

$$f^{(1)}(x,k,Q)=\frac{1}{k}Q^B\left(kA_\mu ^B_\mu kA^B\right)\frac{f^{(0)}}{k_\mu }$$
(43)
$`f^{(2)}(x,k,Q)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{iQ^A}{2k}}\{d^{ABC}[kA^B,{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(1)}}{Q^C}}]_\mathrm{M}+if^{ABC}\{kA^B,{\displaystyle \frac{f^{(1)}}{Q^C}}\}_\mathrm{M}`$ (44)
$``$ $`(d^{ABC}[kA^B,A_\nu ^C]_\mathrm{M}+if^{ABC}\{kA^B,A_\nu ^C\}_\mathrm{M}){\displaystyle \frac{f^{(0)}}{k_\nu }}2i(kA^{\nu A}^\nu kA^A){\displaystyle \frac{f^{(1)}}{k^\nu }}\}`$
Once again, it can be checked that the last term in (44) leads to a subleading contribution at high temperature. So, we neglect this term. Proceeding as in the previous case, and using the normalization

$$𝑑QQ^AQ^B=N\delta ^{AB},$$
(45)
one arrives in a straightforward manner, at the following hard thermal amplitudes

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)=N\delta ^{AB}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }(p),$$
(46)
where the gluon self-energy $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }`$ is given in Eq. (27), and

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=N\left[f^{ABC}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1^\alpha \theta _{\alpha \beta }p_2^\beta }{2}\right)+d^{ABC}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1^\alpha \theta _{\alpha \beta }p_2^\beta }{2}\right)\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)$$
(47)
where the three point function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }(p_1,p_2,p_3)`$ is given in Eq. (II). Note that the above results reduce to the ones in the $`U(1)`$ case, when we set $`f^{ABC}=0`$ and $`d^{ABC}`$ equal to $`1`$.

The above hard thermal amplitudes, which are proportional to $`T^2`$, are gauge invariant and satisfy simple Ward identities. For example, one can easily verify the transversality property

$$p^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{AB}(p)=0,$$
(48)
as well as the Ward identity which relates the two and three point gluon functions

$$p_3^\lambda \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \nu \lambda }^{ABC}(p_1,p_2,p_3)=ig\left[f^{ABE}\mathrm{cos}\left(\frac{p_1^\alpha \theta _{\alpha \beta }p_2^\beta }{2}\right)+d^{ABE}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{p_1^\alpha \theta _{\alpha \beta }p_2^\beta }{2}\right)\right]\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{\mu \nu }^{EC}(p_1)\mathrm{\Pi }_{\nu \mu }^{CE}(p_2)\right]$$
(49)
## IV The effective action for hard thermal loops

In order to determine the effective action which generates the hard thermal amplitudes, we will first derive a manifestly covariantly conserved expression for the current. To this end, it is convenient to write the current in Eq. (36) in a form where the only remaining integration to be performed is that over the angular directions of the unit vector $`\widehat{k}`$, namely

$$J_\mu ^C(x)=\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k}),$$
(50)
The quantity $`j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k})`$ may be evaluated from Eq. (36) as

$$j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k})=2\frac{g}{\pi ^2}|\stackrel{}{k}|^2d|\stackrel{}{k}|𝑑k_0\theta (k_0)\delta (k^2)k_\mu 𝑑QQ^Cf(x,k,Q),$$
(51)
where we have considered massless particles with two helicities.

Using the transport equation (41), it may be verified that, as far as the leading thermal contributions are concerned, $`j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k})`$ effectively satisfies the constraint

$$\left(\widehat{k}𝒟\right)j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k})=2\frac{Ng^2}{\pi ^2}\widehat{k}_\mu |\stackrel{}{k}|^2d|\stackrel{}{k}|𝑑k_0\theta (k_0)\delta (k^2)F_{\alpha \beta }^Ck^\alpha \frac{f^{(0)}}{k_\beta },$$
(52)
where $`𝒟`$ is the Moyal covariant derivative given by Eq. (42). This relation may be solved for $`j_\mu ^C(x,\widehat{k})`$ and the result substituted into Eq. (50). Then, after performing an integration by parts and doing the $`|\stackrel{}{k}|`$ and $`k_0`$ integrations, one arrives at the following form for the current

$$𝐉_\mu =\frac{g^2T^2}{6}N\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\left(𝐈\eta _{\mu \beta }\widehat{k}_\mu \frac{1}{\widehat{k}𝐃}𝐃_\beta \right)\frac{1}{\widehat{k}𝐃}\widehat{k}_\alpha 𝐅^{\alpha \beta },$$
(53)
where we have used the matrix notation: $`𝐉_\mu =t^CJ_\mu ^C`$, $`𝐀_\mu =t^CA_\mu ^C`$, $`𝐅_{\mu \nu }=t^CF_{\mu \nu }^C`$ ($`t^C`$ are the generators of the $`U(N)`$ gauge group in the fundamental representation and $`𝐈`$ is the identity matrix). This current is manifestly covariantly conserved

$$𝐃^\mu 𝐉_\mu =^\mu 𝐉_\mu ig[𝐀^\mu ,𝐉_\mu ]_M=0.$$
(54)
As we have seen, this property is crucial to ensure the gauge invariance of the effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]`$ which generates the hard thermal amplitudes. From an examination of these amplitudes \[see, for example, Eqs. (46-49)\], one notices the following properties of the angular integrands:

* The non-localities, in configuration space, have the form of products of operators $`(k)^1`$.
* They have a Lorentz covariant structure, which involves homogeneous functions of $`k`$ of degree zero.
* They are gauge invariant and satisfy simple Ward identities, similar to those of the tree amplitudes.

Using analogous arguments to those given in references taylor:1990ia ; frenkel:1991ts ; brandt:1993mj , one can show that these properties, together with the results for the lowest order amplitudes, are sufficient to fix uniquely the effective action, which is expected to be

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]=\frac{g^2T^2}{6}N\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\frac{\widehat{k}^\alpha }{\widehat{k}𝐃}𝐅_{\mu \alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{k}_\beta }{\widehat{k}𝐃}𝐅^{\mu \beta }\right)\right].$$
(55)
Here, $`\mathrm{Tr}`$ stands for the trace over color matrices as well as for the appropriate space-time integrations and the operator $`1/\widehat{k}𝐃`$ may be represented perturbatively as a series of nested Moyal commutators. The above form is manifestly gauge invariant. A straightforward calculation shows that it generates the same two- and three-point functions as the one obtained from the current. Given the uniqueness of the action, this is sufficient to ensure that Eq. (55) should represent the correct generating functional of hard thermal loops in the noncommutative $`U(N)`$ theory.

The result (55) for the effective action can also be obtained in a more direct way. To this end, we need to show that the current (53) which satisfies the equation

$$𝐉_\mu =t^C\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]}{\delta A_\mu ^C}$$
(56)
is derivable from the action

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[𝐀\right]=\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\gamma (\widehat{k})\frac{g^2T^2}{6}N\frac{d\mathrm{\Omega }}{4\pi }\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(\frac{\widehat{k}^\alpha }{\widehat{k}𝐃}𝐅_{\mu \alpha }\right)\left(\frac{\widehat{k}_\beta }{\widehat{k}𝐃}𝐅^{\mu \beta }\right)\right].$$
(57)
In order to verify the above property, we note that under a variation $`\delta 𝐀_\mu `$ of the gauge field, one must have the relation

$$\delta \gamma (\widehat{k})=\mathrm{Tr}\left[𝐣^\mu (x,\widehat{k})\delta 𝐀_\mu (x)\right].$$
(58)
To check this equation, we take advantage of the fact that it is gauge invariant, and compute each side in a gauge in which

$$k^\mu 𝐀_\mu =0.$$
(59)
Evaluating the left and right hand side of Eq. (58), respectively from the relations (57) and (53), we find that in this gauge both sides are equal to

$$\frac{g^2T^2}{3}N\mathrm{Tr}\left[\left(𝐀^\mu k^\mu _{\mathrm{}}^0𝑑u^\nu 𝐀_\nu (x+ku)\right)\delta 𝐀_\mu \right].$$
(60)
Since Eq. (58) is gauge invariant and holds in the gauge (59), it must be true in any gauge.

Thus, Eq. (55) gives the correct expression which describes the effective action for hard thermal loops in the strong noncommutative regime $`\theta pT1`$. On the other hand, in the limit $`\theta 0`$, the form (55) also reduces to the expected effective action in the commutative theory Braaten:1990it . This result may be considered as a first step towards the construction of an effective action for the noncommutative Yang-Mills theory at finite temperature, which may be of interest for a further understanding of noncommutative QCD.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported in part by US DOE Grant number DE-FG 02-91ER40685, by CNPq and by FAPESP. D. G. C. M. would like to thank the Universidade de São Paulo for its hospitality.


text:
# Recent Advances in Large-Scale Structure and Galaxy Formation Studies

## 1 INTRODUCTION

It is a particularly fortunate moment to review the field of large-scale structure111Review to appear in Topics in Astroparticle and Underground Physics - TAUP2001, (LNGS, September 2001), Nucl.Phys. B, A. Bettini et al. eds., Elsevier, in the light of the impressive series of results that appeared during the last year or so, as a consequence of the (entire or partial) completion of large surveys of galaxies and clusters of galaxies. The enthusiasm for the new large-scale structure measurements has been further animated by the immediate possibility to compare them to the recent fundamental results obtained by microwave background experiments, which measured with unprecedented precision the power spectrum of anisotropies over scales finally overlapping those probed by galaxy surveys (see De Bernardis, this volume). In this brief non-specialist review I have tried and assess this enthusiasm, in the spirit of providing a general, though clearly incomplete, guide to what seem to me the most promising recent results on large-scale structure in the local Universe. Some emphasis is placed on the importance of understanding the “bias”, i.e. the relation between the distribution of the objects under study and the matter whose gravity governs the overall evolution of clustering. Finally, prospects for studying such evolution through deep surveys of galaxies are quickly touched in the last section.

The recent flow of results makes it even more difficult for such a brief review to be complete, or at least balanced. I therefore apologize to those colleagues whose work was inadvertently overlooked. The time scale is tuned to September 2001, but I have added a few references until January 2002 which seemed helpful for a clearer picture.

## 2 COSMOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

Let us set the basic scene for interpreting the observations we shall discuss here. It will be interesting, at the end, to verify whether the assumed framework is corroborated by the latest results.

The current “standard” model for the origin and evolution of structure in the expanding Universe is the Cold Dark Matter (CDM) model , whose global features provide a framework which is remarkably consistent with a large number of observations. The “Cosmology 2000” version of the model, which takes into account the independent evidences for a flat geometry (from the angular power spectrum of anisotropies in the Cosmic Microwave Background ) and an accelerated expansion (from the luminosity-distance relation of distant supernovae, used as “standard candles” ) is one where CDM, in the form of some kind of weakly-interacting non-relativistic particles (see pertinent articles in this volume), contributes about 30% of the total density, with the remaining 70% provided by a “dark energy” associated to a Cosmological Constant. I will comment at the end of this review on how comfortable we should feel in front of the number of “unseen” ingredients of this model. Here we shall use the model as it is, in fact “just a model”, i.e. a physically motivated machinery which works remarkably well when confronted with a variety of observations.

Choosing CDM (or any other model) means specifying a Transfer Function $`T(k)`$. This can be thought of as describing a linear amplifier222$`k`$ is the Fourier wavenumber, i.e. the inverse of a 3D spatial scale $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$, measured in $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, with $`h`$ being the Hubble constant in units of $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. Most recent determinations indicate $`h0.7`$ with about 10% error, see W. Freedman contribution to this volume. which filters the primordial spectrum of fluctuations (possibly of the scale-invariant form $`P_o(k)k`$ generally predicted by inflation) to produce the shape of power spectrum we can still observe today on large \[$`k<\text{ }2\pi /(10h^1\mathrm{Mpc})`$\] scales, $`P(k)=|T(k)|^2P_o(k)`$ . One of the nice features of the CDM spectral shape in any of its variants is to naturally lead to a hierarchical growth of structures, where larger entities are continuously formed from the assembly of smaller ones . Within the gravitational instability picture, the formation of galaxies and larger structures is completely driven by the gravitational field of the dark matter, with our familiar baryonic matter representing only a tiny bit of the mass ($`2\%`$ of the total energy density). The lighting-up of galaxies and other luminous objects depends then on how the baryons cool within the dark matter haloes and form stars, ending up as the only directly visible peaks of a much larger, invisible structure.

This increasing complexity in the physics involved is reflected by the limits in the predicting power of current detailed models of galaxy formation. Predictions from purely gravitational n-body experiments concerning the overall clustering of the dark mass can be regarded as fairly robust . More complex semi-analytical calculations addressing the history of galaxy formation have seen exciting progress during the last few years , but they clearly still depend on a large number of physically reasonable but “tunable” parameters.

Direct measurements of large-scale structure are a classical test-bench for CDM models and they have, for example, been the reason for rejecting the original Einstein-DeSitter ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Matter}=1`$) version of the model, whose transfer function is inconsistent with the observed balance of large- to small-scale power . The main problem in this game is that most observations of large-scale structure necessarily need to use radiating objects as tracers of the mass distribution, and thus need to go through the uncertainties mentioned above to allow meaningful comparison to model predictions .

## 3 PROGRESS IN LARGE-SCALE STRUCTURE STUDIES

### 3.1 Galaxy Redshift Surveys

Since the 1970’s, redshift surveys of galaxies are the primary way to reconstruct the 3D topology of the Universe . Last year has seen the completion and public release  of the first 100,000 galaxy redshift measurements by the Anglo-Australian 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey333http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/2dFGRS, the largest complete sample of galaxies with measured distances to date . This survey includes all galaxies with blue magnitude $`b_J`$ brighter than $`19.5`$, mainly over two areas covering $`2000`$ square degrees in total, to an effective depth of about $`600h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ ($`z0.2`$). The immediate precursors of this survey  reached a similar depth, but over much smaller areas: for comparison, the Las Campanas Redshift Survey (LCRS ), completed in 1996, measured a total of 16,000 redshifts, compared to the 250,000 that will eventually form the full 2dF survey. A plot of the galaxy distribution within the two main sky regions of this survey is shown in Fig.1. Here one can appreciate in detail the wealth of structures typical of the distribution of galaxies: clusters, superclusters (filamentary or perhaps sheet-like) and regions of very low density, the voids . A number of important results have been published in 2001 and are continuing to appear from the first completed part of the survey. I will discuss some of them in more detail in the following sections (see also  for an overview).

In a parallel effort, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)444http://www.sdss.org/ is on its way covering a large fraction of the Northern sky with a CCD survey in five photometric bands ($`u^{}`$, $`g^{}`$, $`r^{}`$, $`i^{}`$, $`z^{}`$), while in parallel measuring redshifts for one million galaxies over the same area . The SDSS photometric survey reaches a typical red magnitude $`r^{}23`$, with the galaxy redshift survey being limited to $`r^{}=17.7`$. The SDSS has also released an early fraction of its data (http://archive.stsci.edu/sdss/), including photometry and spectroscopy over 462 square degrees. There is no doubt that this represents the largest and most comprehensive galaxy survey work ever conceived. The multi-band photometric survey is going to be of immense value for a number of studies, as estimating photometric redshifts  to much larger depth than the direct spectroscopic survey, or select sub-samples of objects with well-defined colour/morphology properties. One relevant example of such colour selections has been the discovery of several high-redshift ($`z>5`$) quasars, including the $`z=6.28`$ case for which the first possible detection of the long-sought Gunn-Peterson effect, essentially the fingerprint of the “dark-ages”, has been recently reported . Another important application will be the selection of about $`10^5`$ “red luminous” galaxies with $`r^{}<19.5`$, that will be observed spectroscopically providing a nearly volume-limited homogeneous sample of “old” galaxies out to a redshift $`z0.5`$, by which to study the clustering power spectrum on extremely large scales and its evolution . A detailed progress report on the SDSS has been presented at the meeting by Josh Freeman and the reader is addressed to the corresponding contribution for references to the first general analyses from the survey.

Both the 2dF and SDSS redshift surveys rely upon the large multiplexing performances of fiber-fed spectrographs, that allow the light from several hundred galaxies over a field of view of 1-2 degrees to be conveyed into the same slit on the spectrograph. This specific technology, in various forms, has been the key to the explosion of the redshift survey industry in the 1990’s, bringing the efficiency from the $`10`$ redshifts/night for galaxies brighter than blue magnitude $`b14`$ of the 1970’s, to the current $`2500`$ redshifts/night to $`b19.5`$ (see e.g.  for a more accurate account).

### 3.2 Surveys of X-ray Clusters of Galaxies

Clusters of galaxies have a honourable history as a complementary tracer of large-scale structure (see e.g. ). Especially before the current era, when $`N>100,000`$ galaxy redshifts are becoming available over comparable volumes, groups and clusters have represented the most efficient alternative to map very large volumes of the Universe, exploring in this way the gross structure and its statistical properties in the weak clustering regime.

X-ray selection represents currently the most physical way by which to identify and homogeneously select large numbers of clusters of galaxies555A notable powerful alternative, so far limited by technical development, is represented by radio surveys using the Sunyaev-Zel’dovic effect. In this case one measures, in the radio domain, the CMB spectral distortions produced in the direction of a cluster by the Inverse Compton scattering of the CMB photons over the energetic electrons of the intracluster plasma (see e.g.  for a review).  (see also discussion in ). Clusters shine in the X-ray sky thanks to the bremsstrahlung emission produced by a hot plasma ($`kT110`$ KeV) trapped within their potential wells. The bolometric emissivity (i.e., the energy released per unit time and volume) of this thin gas is proportional to its density squared and to $`T^{1/2}`$. Such dependence on $`n^2`$ makes clusters stand out more in the X-rays than in the optical light (i.e. galaxy) distribution ($`n`$).

Under the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium, the intracluster gas temperature, measured through the X-ray spectrum, is a direct probe of the cluster mass: $`kT\mu m_p\sigma _v^2G\mu m_pM_{vir}/(3r)`$ (where $`m_p`$ is the proton mass, $`\mu 0.6`$ the gas mean molecular weight, $`\sigma _v`$ the galaxy 1D velocity dispersion and $`M_{vir}`$ the cluster virial mass). X-ray luminosity, a more directly observable quantity with current instrumentation, shows a good correlation with temperature, $`L_XT^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha 3`$ and a scatter $`<\text{ }30\%`$. The practical implication, even only on a phenomenological basis, is that clusters selected by X-ray luminosity are in practice mass-selected, with an error $`<\text{ }35`$ % (see e.g.  and references therein for a more critical discussion). Last, but not least, the selection function of an X-ray cluster survey can be determined to high accuracy, knowing the properties of the X-ray telescope used, in a similar way to what is usually done with magnitude-limited samples of galaxies . This is of fundamental importance if one wants to compute statistical quantities and test cosmological predictions as, e.g., the mean density or the clustering of clusters above a given mass threshold .

Fig. 2 plots the large-scale distribution of X-ray clusters from the REFLEX (ROSAT-ESO Flux Limited X-ray) cluster survey, the largest redshift survey of X-ray clusters with homogeneous selection function to date . This data set, completed in 2000 and publicly released at the beginning of 2002, is based on the X-ray all-sky survey performed by the ROSAT satellite in the early 1990’s (see e.g.  for a comprehensive summary). REFLEX includes 452 clusters over the southern celestial hemisphere and is more than 90% complete to a flux limit of $`3\times 10^{12}`$ erg s-1 cm-2 (in the ROSAT energy band, 0.1-2.4 keV). The volume explored is larger than that of the 2dF survey and comparable to the volume that will be filled by the SDSS 1-million-galaxy redshift survey666The SDSS will then probe a much larger volume using a uniform sample of old (“Luminous Red”) galaxies selected through their colours out to $`z0.5`$ .. In the cluster distribution the fine structure visible in Fig. 1 is obviously lost; however, a number of cluster agglomerates and filamentary structures with large sizes ($`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$) are clearly evident, showing that clustering is still strong on such very large scales.

## 4 STATISTICAL RESULTS ON LARGE-SCALE CLUSTERING

### 4.1 The Power Spectrum of Fluctuations

We have seen that large-scale structure models as CDM are specified in terms of a specific shape for the power spectrum of density fluctuations $`P(k)`$ . Analogously to standard signal theory, the power spectrum describes the squared modulus of the amplitudes $`\delta _k`$ (at different spatial wavelengths $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$) of the Fourier components of the fluctuation field $`\delta =\delta \rho /\rho `$ . Studying the power spectrum of the distribution of luminous objects on sufficiently large scales, where the growth of clustering is still independent of $`k`$, we hope to recover a relatively undistorted information to test the models. The uncertainties in relating the observed $`P(k)`$ of, e.g., galaxies to that from the theory are due to (a) nonlinear effects that modify the linear shape below some scale; (b) the relation between the luminous tracers for which we are measuring $`P(k)`$ and the mass distribution, that is what the models predict. While the first problem can be circumvented by pushing redshift surveys to larger and larger scales (and/or following nonlinear evolution through numerical simulations), the second one involves knowing the so-called bias factor (or function). This can be defined as the ratio between the variances in galaxy counts and in the mass, $`\left(\delta n(r)/n\right)_{rms}=b\left(\delta \rho (r)/\rho \right)_{rms}`$. A significant amount of work has been dedicated to the problem of galaxy biasing during the last fifteen years, both theoretically (e.g. ) and observationally (e.g. establishing that for “normal” optically selected galaxies we have $`b11.5`$ over a fair range of scales ). However, understanding the physical origin of the bias involves comprehending the details of how the (mainly dark matter) mass of a galaxy governs the visible stellar light we use to select it for our surveys. Despite the great advances of the last few years in our knowledge of the early phases of galaxy formation , we are still relatively ignorant about the details of these processes at early epochs.

As a consequence $`b`$ remains normally a free parameter when comparing galaxy clustering to the models. As I shall discuss shortly, the situation can be more favourable when measuring $`P(k)`$ using X-ray selected clusters.

The 2dF and REFLEX surveys have produced the best estimates to date of the power spectrum of galaxies and X-ray clusters, respectively. Fig. 3 compares these data sets directly. One can notice the remarkable similarity of the shape of $`P(k)`$ between galaxies and clusters. Such simple proportionality is here seen so clearly thanks to the size and the quality of these two surveys. This provides a direct confirmation of the bias scenario, where clusters form at the high, rare peaks of the mass density distribution  and for this reason display a stronger clustering amplitude. In the same figure I have also plotted the predictions for the power spectrum of the mass from two variants of the CDM family, computed as described in . What we defined as the “standard” model in the beginning ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$, $`h=0.7`$) provides in general an excellent fit to the 2dF power spectrum, with a bias factor (i.e. normalization) close to unity777In fact, once we fix the primordial spectrum $`P_o`$, in a pure CDM Universe the observed shape depends only on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, not on $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ (which on the other hand influences the normalization). In the literature, this is often parameterized through a shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }_Mhf(\mathrm{\Omega }_b)`$, where $`f(\mathrm{\Omega }_b)1`$ in case of negligible baryon fraction. Our fiducial “Cosmology 2000” model, therefore, has $`\mathrm{\Gamma }0.2`$.. The upper solid curve, on the other hand, is the same model re-normalized as

$$P_{clus}(k)=b_{eff}^2P_{CDM}(k),$$
(1)
where the effective bias factor $`b_{eff}`$ has been computed taking into account the effective mass range of the cluster sample, using a relatively straightforward theory  (see  for more details). It is for these computations that a well-understood mass selection function of our clustering tracers is crucial. The general result (an additional step with respect to galaxies), is that our fiducial low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ CDM model is capable to match very well both the shape and amplitude of the cluster $`P(k)`$ .

This shape agrees well (yet with a different, unknown bias) also with the power spectrum of the distribution of QSO’s from the 2QZ survey, a large redshift survey of colour-selected quasars, also based on the 2dF spectrograph at the Anglo-Australian Telescope .

As can be seen from fig. 3, the low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ CDM model predicts a maximum for $`P(k)`$ around $`k=0.02\mathrm{h}\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$. One important meaning of this turnover (which is an imprint of the horizon size at the epoch of matter-radiation equality ) is that of an “homogeneity scale”, above which (smaller $`k`$’s) the variance drops below the Poissonian value. In a pure fractal Universe, for example, $`P(k)`$ would continue to rise when moving to smaller and smaller $`k`$’s . In fact, at least visually the data of Fig. 3 do not really show a convincing indication for a maximum. In addition, on such extremely large scales ($`\lambda >500h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$), the effect of the survey geometry on the measured power can be very significant, resulting in an effective survey window function in Fourier space which is convolved with the true underlying spectrum (e.g. ). For highly asymmetric geometries, the plane-wave approximation intrinsic in the Fourier decomposition fails, and the convolution with the window function easily mimics a turnover in a spectrum with whatever shape (e.g ). The best solution in such cases is to resort to survey- and clustering- specific eigenfunctions as those provided by the Karhunen-Loeve (KL) transform . An application of this technique to the REFLEX data  seems to confirm the reality of a turnover at $`k0.023\mathrm{h}\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, consistent with a CDM shape parameter $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.14_{0.07}^{+0.13}`$, essentially the same that best describes the current 2dF and CMB data , corresponding to an $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.2`$ CDM model.

The SDSS will provide unique information around the scale of the expected peak of $`P(k)`$, in particular through the Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) sample. A first application of the KL transform to very early SDSS angular data is presented in , where it is shown that even from only 222 square degrees, the survey is able to sample the peak of the power spectrum. A parallel analysis using a different technique  finds a best-fitting CDM spectral shape $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=0.14_{0.06}^{+0.11}`$, i.e. virtually the same as measured by 2dF and REFLEX, again indicating an impressive convergence of independent observations towards the same low-$`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ CDM model.

The SDSS LRG sample will also be useful to verify the presence of baryonic features, in $`P(k)`$, due to oscillations in the baryonic component within the last-scattering surface . A possible detection has been claimed in an analysis of some cluster and galaxy samples previous to 2dF and REFLEX . These features are expected to be of very low amplitude888Remember, however, that these considerations are strictly valid for the matter power spectrum, not for the biased field represented by galaxies or clusters for which, in principle, one could speculate that such features might be non-linearly amplified., unless the baryon density is much higher than currently established. In fact, similar wiggles seen in the 2dF power spectrum are interpreted as an artifact of the survey window function , while the REFLEX data do not show convincing evidence so far.

### 4.2 The Two-Point Correlation Function

In fact, the simplest statistics one can compute from the data and also that for which the selection function is more directly corrigible, is not the power spectrum, but rather its Fourier transform, the two-point correlation function $`\xi (r)`$, which measures the excess probability over random to find a galaxy at a separation $`r`$ from a given one . Fig. 4 shows the correlation function measured in redshift space, $`\xi (s)`$ (see next section for definitions), from the 2dF and SDSS current data sets , compared to the previous LCRS . Also shown (dotted lines) is $`\xi (r)`$ reconstructed from the APM angular survey .

The figure shows that, especially for the two newest surveys, the shape of $`\xi (s)`$ is extremely well described between 0.1 and $`50h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, by a power-law form $`(s/s_o)^\gamma `$, with a correlation length $`s_o8h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. The overall difference with the $`\xi (r)`$ from the APM survey (which is in real space, being based on a deprojection of angular clustering), is mostly due to redshift-space effects, that I will address in detail in the next section. Note how $`\xi (s)`$ maintains a low-amplitude, positive value out to separations of more than $`50h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, with the 2dF and SDSS data possibly implying a zero-crossing scale approaching $`100h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$. This comparison shows explicitly why large-size galaxy surveys are so important, given the weakness of the clustering signal at these separations999There is quite a bit of confusion in technical papers on the term “scale” when comparing results from power spectra and correlation function analyses. A practical “rule of thumb” which works about right with well-behaved spectra is that a scale $`k`$ in the power spectrum, corresponding to a spatial wavelength $`\lambda =2\pi /k`$, relates approximately to $`r\lambda /4`$ in $`\xi (r)`$..

### 4.3 Velocity Distortions in the Redshift-Space Pattern

The separation $`s`$ between two galaxies computed using their observed redshifts is not a true distance: the red-shift observed in the galaxy spectrum is in fact the quantity $`cz=cz_{\mathrm{cosmological}}+v_{\mathrm{pec}_{||}}`$, where $`v_{\mathrm{pec}_{||}}`$ is the component of the galaxy peculiar velocity along the line of sight. This contribution is typically of the order of $`100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ for galaxies in the general field, but can rise above $`1000\mathrm{km}\mathrm{s}^1`$ within high-density regions as rich clusters of galaxies. Fig. 4 shows explicitly the consequence of such redshift-space distortion for the correlation function: $`\xi (s)`$ (all points) is flatter than its real-space counterpart (dotted lines). This is the result of two concurrent effects: on small scales ($`r<\text{ }2h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$), clustering is suppressed by high velocities in clusters of galaxies, that spread close pairs along the line of sight producing what in redshift maps are sometimes called “Fingers of God”. Some of these are perhaps recognisable in Fig. 1 as thin radial structures. On the other hand, large-scale coherent streaming flows of galaxies towards high-density structures enhance the apparent contrast of these, when seen perpendicularly to the line of sight. This effect, on the contrary, amplifies $`\xi (s)`$ above $`35h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$, as evident in Fig. 4.

Such peculiar velocity contribution can be disentangled by computing the two-dimensional correlation function $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$, where the separation vector $`s`$ between a pair of galaxies is decomposed into two components, $`\pi `$ and $`r_p`$, parallel and perpendicular to the line of sight respectively (see  for details). The result is a bidimensional map, whose iso-correlation contours look as in Fig. 5, where $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$ computed for the 2dF survey is plotted .

Redshift-space distortions might seem only an annoying feature, as they hide the true clustering pattern from direct investigation. In fact, they contain important information as galaxy motions are a direct dynamical probe of the mass distribution . Non-linear distortions are a measure of the “temperature” of the galaxy soup on small scales, and they are in principle related to $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$ through a Cosmic Virial Theorem , which however has been shown to be difficult to apply in practice to real data . Linear distortions produced by infall provide a way to measure the parameter $`\beta =\mathrm{\Omega }_M^{0.6}/b`$, i.e. essentially the mass density of the Universe modulo the bias factor. As thoroughly explained in the excellent review by Andrew Hamilton , this can be achieved by measuring the oblate compression of the contours of $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$ along $`\pi `$. One way to do this is to expand $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$ in spherical harmonics. In linear perturbation theory, only the monopole $`\xi _0(s)`$, quadrupole $`\xi _2(s)`$ and hexadecapole $`\xi _4(s)`$ are non-zero, and $`\beta `$ can in principle be derived directly through the following ratio, which should be independent of $`s`$

$$\frac{\xi _2(s)}{\xi _0(s)\overline{\xi }_0(s)}=\frac{\frac{4}{3}\beta +\frac{4}{7}\beta ^2}{1+\frac{2}{3}\beta +\frac{1}{5}\beta ^2},$$
(2)
where $`\overline{\xi }_0(s)=3s^3_0^s\xi _0(x)x^2𝑑x`$ is the averaged correlation function within the radius $`s`$. In practice, linear and non-linear effects are interlaced out to fairly large scales ($`20`$ h-1 Mpc), and require a careful modeling. This has been done, using a simple but effective phenomenological approach, for the 2dF correlation function of Fig. 5, producing one of the most remarkable results of past year ; the 2dF quadrupole-to-monopole ratio is best reproduced101010Since the conference, a more sophisticated error analysis was applied to the 100,000 redshift public release , obtaining essentially the same value of $`\beta `$, but with a 1-$`\sigma `$ error of $`\pm 0.16`$. by a model with $`\beta =0.43\pm 0.07`$. If 2dF galaxies are unbiased ($`b1`$), this would imply $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M0.25`$.

Clusters of galaxies clearly also partake in the overall motion of masses produced by cosmological inhomogeneities. Line-of-sight spurious effects (as projections in optically-selected cluster catalogues  or large redshift errors) and limited statistics, prevented so far the detection of true velocity anisotropies in cluster $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$ maps. Fig. 6 plots $`\xi (r_p,\pi )`$ for the REFLEX survey. Here we have a clear indication of compression of the contours along the line of sight, of the kind expected by the linear infall of clusters towards superstructures. The statistical signature of cluster motions seems therefore to have been detected, and at the time of writing accurate experiments using large mock realisations of the REFLEX survey are under way, to quantify precisely the confidence level at which $`\beta `$ can be estimated from this map .

## 5 STRUCTURE AT HIGH REDSHIFTS AND GALAXY FORMATION

The final part of my talk was dedicated to a quick overview of the status of large-scale structure studies at $`z>\text{ }1`$ and its intimate connection with the formation of galaxies themselves. It is practically impossible with the limited space available here to give a fair account of the fervent activity in the field of galaxy formation and evolution. For this, the reader is addressed to other more specific reviews available in the literature (e.g. the excellent lectures by Ellis in ). Here I will limit the discussion to some specific points concerning the possibility to trace the evolution of structure back in time using galaxy redshift surveys.

### 5.1 Evolution of Clustering

Ideally, studying the evolution of structure through deep ($`z>0.5`$) redshift surveys would provide a further powerful way to constrain models and in particular to measure cosmological parameters as $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$, which governs the growth rate of structures. This ideal dream is in practice hampered by two factors. First, in a classical magnitude-limited survey the k-correction111111That is, the fraction of light lost because of the red-shifting and stretching of the spectrum at larger and larger distances depends on the spectral type, thus making the relative percentage of morphological types be a function of redshift. For example, when observing in a blue band the k-correction for elliptical galaxies (which have a red spectrum) grows much more rapidly than for young blue galaxies as spirals or irregulars. Since we know that locally red galaxies are more clustered than blue galaxies (e.g. , just because of this effect one would measure a fainter clustering at high z, independent of the growth rate of structure. Secondly, and additionally, galaxies do evolve and at large redshifts even a population selected, e.g., with the same rest-frame colour and luminosity range as locally (i.e. properly k-corrected) would include galaxies which are very probably not the progenitors of a local survey like 2dF and SDSS. Also in this case, we would not be looking at the same tracers at different redshifts, and so the observed evolution of the correlation function or power spectrum would be impossible to connect to the growth rate of fluctuations. This introduces a profound difference with “local” surveys, where the look-back time is small compared to Hubble time: deep galaxy redshift surveys trace at the same time the growth of the mass skeleton of the Universe and the formation and evolution of the stellar population in the galaxies themselves.

These difficulties are reflected by the lack of a consistent trend in the evolution of the correlation length measured from available deep surveys, that show values scattered between 1.8 and 5 $`h^1\mathrm{Mpc}`$ for redshifts in the range  (see Table 1 in  for a review). The large variance among different samples reflects the problems outlined above, as the use of different spectral bands (e.g. red-selected or blue-selected surveys), exacerbated by the limited size of surveyed areas ($`100`$ arcmin), due to the time needed to collect a spectrum for $`z1`$ galaxies. It is probably for these reasons that most progress in the area of the evolution of clustering has come during the last few years from 2D surveys, measuring angular clustering over fairly large angles thanks to wide-angle CCD cameras (see e.g.  and references therein).

This situation is therefore yet another example in the long list of “cosmological probes” which rather than cosmology turned out to be testing evolution of a particular class of objects (were they either radio galaxies, first-ranked cluster galaxies, or generic galaxies). This shifts the attention in deep surveys from just using galaxies as “test particles” to understanding the way their baryonic component was assembled and evolved as to shape today’s colours and morphologies . There are therefore good reasons for going deeper with redshift surveys: the picture becomes probably more complicated to interpret cosmologically, but certainly richer in astrophysical details. “Big” questions that need investigation at high $`z`$ are, for example, (1) do we see evidence of continuous merging, as expected in the “standard” hierarchical model? (2) Can we reconcile with this scenario the observation of a consistent fraction of old massive elliptical galaxies at $`z>1`$? (3) How the assembly of galaxy masses translates into the star formation history of the Universe? (4) How do we connect this to the ionization history of the Universe? (5) How did galaxy morphologies (and their relation with local density) originate?

### 5.2 Clustering at $`z>1`$: High-bias Objects

The best current flux-limited deep surveys reach $`z1`$ . However, if the goal is to select samples at very large redshift, moving the flux (magnitude) limit to even fainter values is not the most efficient option (although it guarantees a higher level of control over selection effects). Alternatively, an important advance of the last few years has been the ability to select through photometric means (i.e. using CCD images in different filters), almost volume-limited samples of galaxies with mean redshifts $`z3`$ and $`4`$ . This is an efficient alternative to pure flux-limited samples, which even at very faint magnitude limits are dominated by a bulk of faint $`z<0.5`$ objects. The technique is based on the detection of specific features (“breaks”) in galaxy spectra using multi-band imaging through appropriate sets of filters. The most notable of such features is the Lyman break at 912 Å which is prominent in star-forming galaxies. At $`z=3`$, the break is redshifted to 3650 Å, thus falling between the so-called $`U`$ and $`B`$ filters. For this reason, a star-forming $`z3`$ galaxy will be detected in $`B`$, but will be almost invisible in $`U`$ (see Fig. 7). A similar reasoning can be applied to hunt for $`z4`$ galaxies, using instead the $`B`$ and $`V`$ filters. A fairly large sample ($`1000`$ galaxies) at $`z=3`$ has been constructed in this way during the 1990’s by Steidel and collaborators, spectroscopically confirmed through intense use of the Keck 10-m telescopes .

Ly-break galaxies turn out to be highly biased objects. In fact, they show a very strong clustering, with a correlation length comparable to that of normal galaxies at the present epoch . This implies that they cannot be representative of the mass clustering at that epoch. A consistent explanation is that they are the progenitors of massive elliptical galaxies that today populate rich clusters of galaxies, undergoing their most active phase of star formation .

### 5.3 Future Deep Redshift Surveys

Although custom-selected samples of high-redshift objects as Lyman-break galaxies are certainly fundamental for understanding specific scientific issues, it is difficult to use them to trace the evolution of the overall population. To make a further major step in our understanding of how structure and galaxies formed and evolved, we need new surveys which: (1) Are based on multi-band photometric information, such that selection effects can be understood as finely as possible and specific morphologies and rest-frame colours can be traced back in time over a sensible range; (2) Cover areas which are wide enough to reduce “cosmic variance”; (3) Provide, a combination of depth, volume and statistics (number of objects) comparable to local ongoing surveys as 2dF and SDSS.

There are currently two ambitious projects which are due to start during 2002 and that are expected to be close to these desiderata. One is the DEEP2 survey , that will collect spectra for $``$60,000 galaxies between $`z0.71.5`$, over four $`2^{}`$ by $`0.5^{}`$ strips of sky using the Keck 10 m telescope. The other is the VIRMOS survey, that will similarly observe $``$150,000 galaxy spectra using mainly the new VIMOS spectrograph at the VLT 8 m telescope, splitted into a “wide” survey over $`16`$ deg2 to a red magnitude $`I_{AB}=22.5`$ ($`100,000`$ redshifts), plus a “deep” survey over $`1`$ deg2 to $`I_{AB}=24`$ ($`50,000`$ redshifts), in addition to one or more “ultra-deep” probes to $`I_{AB}=25`$ over some arcminute-sided fields, using an Integral Field Unit .

## 6 SUMMARY

In conclusion, I hope to have passed the sensation that we do live in a glorius time for cosmology, which has finally become a mature science, not anymore an entertaining playground for almost pure speculation. In fact, we never had such a wealth of data at our disposal, by which we are pinning down the values of cosmological parameters to high accuracy (e.g. ), while at the same time being able to study galaxy formation almost in the act, thanks to new powerful telescopes. The few observational facts we have reviewed here contribute to further reinforce the remarkable convergence of different observables (CMB, large-scale structure, distant Supernovae, cluster evolution, to mention a few) towards what we called in the introduction the current standard model, i.e. one with a flat geometry ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{total}=1`$), apparently guaranteed by the combination of a dominating Cold Dark Matter component ($`\mathrm{\Omega }_{CDM}0.3`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{baryon}0.02`$) and a Dark Energy of unknown nature (the cosmological constant, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ ). Several interesting talks at the TAUP2001 meeting were devoted to the detection of baryonic and non-baryonic dark matter. I invite the reader to look at the corresponding contributions in this volume, however, and test whether he/she is not left with some uneasiness as our wonderful “standard” cosmological model seems in fact to be so far essentially based on a) a Dark Matter we do not detect; b) a Dark Energy we do not understand; c) a fraction of Baryons we cannot completely find! Yet everything seems to work: isn’t this reminiscent of epicycles?

Acknowledgments. I thank the organizers of TAUP2001 for inviting me to give this review, and in particular Alessandra Di Chiarico for her patience in waiting for this contribution. I am grateful to all my collaborators without whom many of the results discussed here would not be reality, in particular P. Schuecker, C. Collins and H. Böhringer, and to A. Fernandez-Soto for a careful reading of the manuscript and useful discusssions. I thank I. Zehavi and E. Hawkins for providing their clustering results in electronic form.