format: text

text:
# ESI, a new Keck Observatory echellette spectrograph and imager

## 1 Overview

The Echellette Spectrograph and Imager (ESI) is a recently commissioned instrument available for use at the Keck II telescope of the W.M. Keck Observatory. ESI was built by the Instrument Development Laboratory of UCO/Lick Observatory at the University of California, Santa Cruz campus. The ESI instrument has three modes. The 160-mm diameter collimated beam can be sent directly into the camera for direct imaging, through a prism disperser for low resolution spectroscopy, or to an echellette grating with prism cross-dispersion for moderate-resolution, large-wavelength-coverage spectroscopy.

An all-refracting ten-element all-spherical camera and a single ($`2K\times 4`$K by 15-micron) CCD detector are used without modification for all three modes. The direct-imaging mode has a ($`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$) field of view (f.o.v.) with 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$15 pixels. The low-dispersion prism-only mode (LDP) has a reciprocal dispersion of 50 to 300 km/sec/pixel, depending on wavelength. This mode can be used with an 8$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0-long slit or in a multi-slit mode with user-made slitmasks. The higher-dispersion echellette mode gives the entire spectrum from 0.39 to 1.09 microns with a 20$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 slit length, in a single exposure. The reciprocal dispersion in echellette mode varies from 9.6 km/sec/pixel to 12.8 km/sec/pixel. Three five-bay filter wheels provide locations for up to eight different full-field filters, three multi-object slit masks and the standard complement of five echellette slits in a single bay. Each wheel also contains a single open bay.

The instrument was delivered to Keck II in July of 1999 and saw first light on August 29, 1999. In its first two years of operation it has been scheduled for an average of 111 nights per year with instrument-reliability losses accounting for less than 2% of this time. In the imaging mode, ESI routinely delivers remarkable image quality. Long exposures with FWHM values $`<0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}45`$ have been commonly obtained.

The Principal Investigator (PI) of the project was Joe Miller, Director of Lick Observatory. ESI also had three Co-PI’s; Michael Bolte, Puragra Guhathakurta, and Dennis Zaritsky. The optical designers were Brian Sutin and Harland Epps. David Cowley was the project manager. Initially (11/95 - 7/97), Bruce Bigelow was the project scientist. After Bigelow left for Carnegie Observatory and for the remainder of the project, the project scientist responsibilities were split between project engineers Matt Radovan and Andrew Sheinis.

The principal niche envisioned for ESI was very high-throughput moderate-resolution optical spectroscopy with wide wavelength coverage in a single exposure. Examples of the science programs which drove the choice of resolution are kinematic and abundance studies of distance galaxies, detailed abundance determinations for stars as faint as V$`=22`$ (which includes the bright giants in Local Group galaxies) and absorption-line studies along the lines-of-sight to QSOs. The low-dispersion/multi-object and direct-imaging capabilities were added after the echellette design was conceptualized. In the low-dispersion mode, ESI is likely the most powerful spectrograph in operation for obtaining low-resolution spectra of extremely faint objects. Redshift determinations and spectral energy distribution measurements for very faint galaxies or low-luminosity stars in the Galaxy are possible to V$`25`$. Examples of first-light science can be seen in Becker et al. (2000) and Prochaska et al. (2001).

This paper serves as a comprehensive overview of the instrument. For details about the individual subsystems, the reader is directed to the other articles in the literature describing various aspects of ESI: Kibrick et al. (2000); Sheinis et al. (1999a); Sheinis et al. (1999b); Radovan et al. (1998); Sheinis et al. (1998); Epps (1998); Epps & Miller (1998); Sutin (1997); Bigelow & Nelson (1998); Sheinis et al. (2000). For observers planning to use ESI, the Keck Observatory WWW site for the instrument http://www2.keck.hawaii.edu:3636/realpublic/inst/esi/esi.html contains detailed specifications and descriptions of operational procedures.

The wavelength range for ESI was chosen to lie between 0.39 microns where the best glasses for the visual range become acceptably transparent, up to 1.1 microns where the efficiency of silicon CCD detectors approaches zero. The f.o.v. imaged by ESI is a rectangle located 5$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 off-axis from the telescope axis. It is 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 wide in the radial direction by 8$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 long. With this f.o.v., an on-axis (nearly) parabolic collimator, imaging an off-axis field was required to minimize off-axis aberrations. The 2286.0-mm focal length of the collimator was chosen to be the longest that would fit into the Cassegrain module envelope, giving a 160.0-mm diameter beam. After the collimator, the optical elements used in the instrument are: Two flat fold mirrors; Two prisms; A grating; The camera and shutter assembly; The Dewar.

The requirements for the spectrograph optical layout are:

* The echellette spectral format must fill the CCD chip efficiently;
* The orders must not overlap when a 20$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 slit is used;
* The individual slit images must be quasi-parallel over the entire detector;
* The incoming beams should have minimum vignetting at the camera mouth.

Mode 1: Echellette in near-Littrow configuration
The primary mode of the spectrograph uses a catalogue echellette grating (Spectronics $`204\times 204`$ mm, 175 lines/mm, 32.3-degree blaze angle), to achieve a spectral resolution of 13,000 at the minimum two pixel slit-width = $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$. This mode disperses the light from the $`20\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ slit into 10 orders, from order-6 in the red to order-15 in the blue. The minimum order separation is $`22\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$. Table LABEL:table:orders shows diffraction orders, wavelength ranges, reciprocal dispersions and rms image diameters for the echellette mode. The rms image diameters were calculated as a function of wavelength for all of the echellette orders. The calculation includes aberrations from the entire optical train. The diameters were calculated by apodizing the irregularly-shaped Keck II primary mirror and by assuming perfect seeing.

Figure 1 shows the physical layout of the spectrograph in echellette mode. The collimated light from the slit is pre-cross-dispersed by the first prism before it reaches the echellette grating, which is used nearly in Littrow for high efficiency. Although the spectrograph was designed specifically for this grating, other gratings could be manually installed. The grating-dispersed light is once again cross-dispersed by a second pass through the aforementioned prism. It then passes through the second prism before being imaged onto the detector by the underfilled f/1.07 camera.

Figure 2 shows an unprocessed echellette spectrum of a reference star. The entire spectral range from 0.39 to 1.09 microns is imaged without gaps. Orders run from 6 at the top to 15 at the bottom with red to the right. Note the two significant cosmetic defects in the lower-right quadrant. A glowing pixel at row 85 of column 3895 contaminates a (10 by 10) pixel area, while 18 adjacent bad rows on the rightmost $`\frac{1}{3}`$ of the device affect order 14 from 4460 to 4565 Å. However those wavelengths are available outside of the free spectral range in order 13.

The echellette orders are curved primarily by the anamorphic distortion in the prisms. They show a reasonably constant wavelength solution as a function of slit height. These wavelength solutions were used to calculate the residual tilts of the slit images. These tilts range from $`0.8\pm 0.2`$ in order 6 to $`1.3\pm 0.7`$ in order 15. Detailed plots of slit tilt with wavelength are available in Sutin (1997).

Figure 3 shows the reciprocal dispersion as a function of wavelength for each order in the echellette mode. The average reciprocal dispersion is about 11.4 km/sec/pixel.

Mode 2: High-efficiency, low-dispersion configuration
The high-efficiency, low-dispersion mode is achieved by modifying the optical path in the echellette mode (Figure 1). This is done by inserting a flat-silvered mirror in front of the echellette grating such that the beam will bypass the grating and be dispersed exclusively by the two prisms. The slit direction is then rotated by 90 degrees to accommodate the new dispersion direction. The main strength of this mode is the high throughput, as the silvered mirror has higher efficiency than the aluminized grating.

Since the exit pupil of the collimator is near the prisms, f.o.v. in this mode is not significantly restricted by vignetting at the prisms. Thus an $`8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ long slit may be used. This maximum slit length is where the images begin to get “soft.” With a field this long, up to 50 slitlets could be cut into a slit mask within the $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ viewing area.

Figure 4 shows the spectrum of a reference star taken in this mode with ESI. This image has been processed using the Information data language (IDL) so as to align the apparent dispersion direction approximately with a single row. Note the curved sky lines due to the prismatic anamorphic distortion.

Mode 3: Direct imaging configuration
The direct imaging mode is achieved by modifying the optical path in the echellette mode (Figure 1). This is done by translating the large post-dispersing prism out of the beam and replacing it with a flat silvered mirror such that the beam will bypass all the dispersing elements and be sent directly to the camera, producing a $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ f.o.v.. The slit-wheel is generally turned to the open position, while the standard filter options, Johnson (B), Johnson (V), Spinrad (R), Gunn (I) are available only in a $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ format. The third filter wheel is available for user-supplied filters up to the $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ format.

## 2  Opto-Mechanical Subsystems

The design of ESI was divided into several natural opto-mechanical subsystems, namely: The collimator; The prisms; The optical flats including the grating; The camera assembly; The detector and controller; The slit and filter wheel assembly; The calibration system; The guider assembly. We now briefly discuss each of those subsystems. References are listed for readers interested in more detail.

### 2.1 Collimator

ESI uses a novel collimator system design, which is pictured in Figure 5, and is actively articulated in piston, tip and tilt to provide the focus and the flexure control for the instrument. The details of this system are described in Radovan et al. (1998). The collimator mirror is 580 mm in diameter to accommodate the $`2\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 8\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ f.o.v.. It has a focal length of 2286 mm. The range of focus was selected to be $`\pm 25`$ mm which gives out-of-focus star-image diameters of 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$4. The collimator mirror is optimally constrained by a space-frame structure. The flexure compensation is accomplished by applying calibrated active correction for system gravity flexure in an open-loop fashion, to the collimator.

The flexural requirement for any two-hour observation was that the spectra should remain stable on the detector to within $`\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}04`$ (peak-to-valley) with (open-loop) flexure compensation. At the final imaging scale of $`0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}153`$ per pixel, this requirement corresponds to $`\pm \frac{1}{4}`$ pixel. In order to achieve the required flexure compensation precision, collimator tilt increments must be controlled in 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$01 units upon the sky, corresponding to collimator tilts of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$327. With actuator separations of 1200 mm, that corresponds to actuator motions of 1.65 $`\mu `$. In order to achieve the desired correction precision, hysteresis and slip levels were maintained below this value.

### 2.2  Cross-Dispersion Prisms

ESI uses two large (25 kg), $`50.0^{}`$-angle prisms for cross-dispersion. The optical requirements for the prisms were high transmission, small index inhomogeneity, a large ratio of red dispersion relative to blue dispersion while maintaining as high an index as possible. Fused silica was considered, however its relatively low index would have required $`55.0^{}`$-prisms which would have complicated the optical and coating designs. Ohara BSL7Y was selected for the prisms as its optical properties provide an optimal combination of the requirements listed above.

Various index-inhomogeneity models for the prisms were computed and ray traced. The results of this modeling suggested that the index homogeneity must be constant to approximately $`\pm 10^5`$. Our contract with the vendor did not guarantee this level of precision. However, we were able to request fabrication on a “best effort” basis. Interferograms of the finished prisms taken in transmission, along with the final image quality tests, show that the fabricated prisms are homogeneous to approximately $`\pm 2`$ x $`10^6`$.

The prisms are mounted within the spectrograph using determinate structures. These structures are extremely rigid for their weight because mount material is used in compression or tension only. The mounts are designed such that no moments can be imparted at the mount-to-glass interfaces, thereby insuring that the glass is isolated from any mechanical stresses developed inside the instrument structure. The prisms and their associated mounting mechanisms are described in Sheinis et al. (1998).

### 2.3 Kinematic mirror mechanisms

ESI uses two moderate weight (10kg) translating fold mirrors to switch between modes. The scientific requirements for the spectrograph are such that the spectra may move by no more than $`\pm 0\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}04`$ on the sky ($`\frac{1}{4}`$ pixel) in switching between modes and back again, so as to accommodate the use of a single set of standard reference spectra and flat-field data between different exposures. This places a $`\pm 1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}3`$ allowable tip and tilt repeatability on the mirrors. A novel locating mechanism design was developed to achieve the repeatability needed for these mirrors. This mechanism is described in detail in Sheinis et al. (1999a).

### 2.4 Camera Subsystem

The camera optical design is shown in Figure 6. It consists of ten lens elements in five lens groups. The camera has an effective focal length of 308 mm. It has an entrance aperture diameter of 287 mm and a final plate scale of 97.7 microns/arcsec on the sky. The collimated beam diameter is approximately 160 mm. The camera’s effective f/ratio in imaging mode is thus f/1.93 and slightly faster in spectroscopic modes due to anamorphism.

The camera design is all-spherical and it includes three large CaF2 lenses. Group #1 is a doublet, group #2 is a CaF2 singlet, groups #3 and #4 are triplets while group #5 is the field flattener/Dewar window. The elements in groups #1 and #3 are optically coupled with a fluid (Cargille laser liquid Type 5610 $`n_D=1.5000`$) to minimize internal reflections. The elements in group #4 are greased together with Dow Corning Q2-3067 optical couplant. The six larger elements were fabricated by TORC (Tucson, AZ) and the 4 smaller elements were fabricated by Cosmo Optics Inc., (Middletown, NY). Broad-passband AR coatings were applied by Coherent Auburn Division (Auburn, CA).

The ESI optical design is complicated by the fact that a wide variety of pupil anamorphic factors and effective entrance pupil distances is presented to the camera’s entrance aperture by the three operating modes. (In practice, the camera design was slightly compromised in the imaging and LDP modes so as to favor the echellette mode). Nevertheless, the echellette mode remains the most severe test of system image quality.

In order to produce detailed sensitivity analysis, individual lens elements were perturbed axially, radially, and in tip/tilt within the computer model. The perturbed camera model was ray traced within the ESI spectrograph numerical model in echellette mode at 50 different wavelengths, covering all 10 orders. The perturbed system was compared to the unperturbed system, in order to determine the sensitivity coefficients of the camera. The worst centroid location change and worst increase in the rms spot-size diameter (Drms) were noted. A similar analysis was performed for the lens groups. After moving entire groups, we calculated the resulting centroid motion and change in Drms.

These sensitivities were used to estimate manufacturing and assembly tolerances for the mechanical components such that the expected summation of image errors (added in quadrature) was comparable to the residual aberrations in the optical design. In addition, the sensitivity data allowed setting of a lens-motion tolerance in terms of the total allowable image motion for the different gravity orientations.

#### 2.4.1 Camera Opto-Mechanical Design

The camera mechanical system (CMS) for ESI was designed by J. Alan Schier Co., ( La Crescenta, CA) and fabricated by Danco Machine, DPMS Inc., (Santa Clara, CA). The CMS is shown in Figure 7 . It consists of four cells supported within a single large barrel. The mass of the entire camera assembly, consisting of the CMS and the lens elements, is approximately 125 kg. The individual cells with their respective lens elements have masses ranging from 5 to 30 kg. The cells locate radially against locating surfaces (lands) on the barrel inner wall and axially against athermalizing spacers. Each cell consists of an aluminum housing, radial athermalizing spacers and a compressive preload spring. Each of the two oil-coupled cells also contains an oil-sealing and oil-reservoir system. The lens element spacings within the oil-coupled cells are maintained by 0.10-mm Mylar spacers, placed between the lens elements at their edges.

To accommodate the optical coupling fluid, cells #1 and #3 contain an o-ring seal at each glass-aluminum interface. The o-rings are compressed to the minimum nominal-dynamic-seal specification (8%). The o-rings are compressed such that the optic locates directly against the aluminum land and the o-ring carries most of the load, while providing a seal.

A polyurethane bladder is used to accommodate volumetric changes of the coupling fluid within each cell. Possible reactivity of the optical coupling fluid with polyurethane and other substances was tested by Hilyard et al. (1999). They found no reactivity with the polyurethane bladder material.

The major features of the opto-mechanical design and the assembly of the camera are detailed in Sheinis et al. (1999b).

#### 2.4.2 Camera Bench Testing and Performance Analysis

After assembly of the camera, numerous optical performance tests, including interferometric testing, polychromatic-point-spread function measurements and back-focal-distance measurements were carried out. The results of these tests compared well with the predictions from the lens design. For example, the polychromatic (Wratten 54) rms spot diameter on-axis was measured to be 13.7 microns, as compared to a predicted rms spot diameter of 12.5 microns. These tests are discussed in detail in Sheinis et al. (1999b).

### 2.5 Detector and Controller

The ESI detector (device W62C2) is a MIT/Lincoln Labs CCID20 high-resistivity CCD . For details see Burke et al. (2000). It uses readout amplifiers at both ends of the serial register. Measured deviations from flatness are 18 microns peak to valley at the normal operating temperature of $`120^{}.0`$ C. At that temperature, the on-chip amplifier read noise as measured in the laboratory is 2.3 electrons for one amplifier and 2.6 electrons for the other. When the CCD Dewar is mounted in ESI, the ESI instrument is mounted on the Keck II telescope, all of the motorized stages within ESI are powered up and operating and the telescope is tracking, the measured readout noise for each amplifier increases by 0.3 electrons.

Operating at $`120^{}.0`$ C, the dark current is 2.1 electrons/pixel/hour in non-MPP mode. At that temperature, the various wavelength-dependent specifications for the CCD are shown in Table LABEL:table:fringing. Note, these MIT/LL devices are not capable of MPP mode operation.

The CCD controller for ESI is a San Diego Sate University second-generation device (SDSU2) developed by Leach et al. (1998). It provides both a low-gain and a high-gain mode of operation. While the pixel full-well of this CCD is 105,000 electrons, the achievable full-well is limited by the 16-bit resolution of the analog to digital conversion. Table LABEL:table:full-well shows the achievable full-well as a function of the selected gain.

The controller also provides a software-selectable choice of three different readout speeds. However nearly all observations are performed using the fastest of the three speeds. Table LABEL:table:pixel\_timing provides the details of the per-pixel timing for the fastest and slowest speeds while Table LABEL:table:CTE shows the serial charge transfer efficiency for this CCD as a function of the selected readout speed. Note that the parallel charge transfer efficiency for this device is 0.9999999 (virtually perfect) at $`120^{}.0`$ C for all readout speeds and the readout noise is the same at all readout speeds. While the slow speed readout mode is seldom used, it does provide for nearly perfect serial charge transfer efficiency at the cost of significantly increased readout time.

The controller provides software-selection of single-amplifier mode readout from either of the two on-chip amplifiers, or dual-amplifier readout using both amplifiers. In normal operation, dual-amplifier readout is used. Table LABEL:table:readout provides the readout times for various operating modes.

While the controller supports both horizontal and vertical on-chip binning, it should be noted that on these MIT/LL CCDs, the full-well capacity of the pixels in the serial register and in the summing well is not significantly larger than the full-well of the pixels in the imaging area. Unfortunately, the limited well depth of the serial register pixels and the summing well significantly constrain the exposure levels that can be utilized when using on-chip binning.

#### 2.5.1 CCD Dewar

The Dewar holds approximately 4 liters of liquid nitrogen which is available to cool the CCD to $`120^{}.0`$ C. The hold-time for the half-full vessel is approximately 20 hours. The CCD is supported in the Dewar housing by a hexapod structure. This structure provides a very rigid support and thermal stand-off for the CCD. The flexure of the cryogenic container is isolated from the CCD by a flexible copper braid that connects the chip to the cold-finger. The vacuum housing with cyro-container is kinematically mounted to the back flange of the camera. The kinematic mount has three adjustable screws to tip, tilt and piston the CCD for alignment to the focal plane. The Dewar can be removed from the camera and re-attached to the kinematic mount without disturbing the Dewar alignment. The alignment of the spectra on the chip is also adjustable by means of a cam which rotates the Dewar about the optical axis. Like the piston and tip/tilt adjustment, this is a one-time only adjustment that is preserved if the Dewar is removed.

### 2.6 TV Guider

The guider system design is pictured in Figure 8. The guider system combines a 200-mm Canon lens, a Photometrics PXL camera with a 1K by 1K (24-micron pixels) detector and a Melles Griot shutter to produce a $`4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0\times 4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ f.o.v. on the sky. The guider f.o.v. includes a $`1\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}5\times 4\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$ portion of the instrument f.o.v., with the remainder of the guider field being located on a fixed mirror adjacent to the slit masks. The guider system also has an eight-position filter which can accommodate 50-mm square filters (1-mm to 10-mm thicknesses).

In addition to the f.o.v. requirements and the functional requirements (which included the provision of a remotely controlled focus and filter wheel assembly), the TV system needed to meet a strict flexure specification. This was because the system guides by centroiding on an offset image. Due to mechanical constraints imposed by the position of the spectrograph optics, the chosen guider field is more off-axis than the scientific field. The echellette slit-plate is tilted away from the focal surface so as to allow the TV-guider system to be moved out of the incoming beam, while leaving the entire slit plate within the depth of focus of the spectrograph. This configuration requires that the guide stars in the TV mirror do not come to focus on the surface of the mirror. Therefore, they cannot benefit from reference marks on the mirror surface. For this configuration, any flexure in the TV system optical path will introduce a gravity-dependent error in the telescope pointing.

### 2.7 Calibration Source

Each of the two ESI calibration systems consists of one or more source lamps, condensing/relay optics, a fiber-optic light guide, a projecting optic and a diffusing panel common to both systems. The first system contains lamps for neon, argon, mercury-neon and a quartz-continuum source. The second contains a low pressure copper-argon line lamp. Both systems may be used simultaneously which allows for independent selection of any combination of source lamps. The lamps are physically separated and thermally isolated from the primary optical path of the spectrograph in order to limit internal lamp-induced seeing. The fiber-optic light guide delivers light of appropriate wavelengths to a diffusive reflecting panel located on the back of the spectrograph entrance hatch. The light is then relayed through the spectrograph to the CCD.

## 3 Structure

### 3.1 Requirements

The design of the ESI instrument structure was constrained by weight, center of gravity, volume, and stiffness requirements, as well as budget and schedule considerations. Cassegrain-mounted instruments for Keck must attach to an instrument module, which serves as a carriage for loading the instrument on the telescope and as a storage cart when the instrument is not in use. The Cassegrain module also provides a bearing for field de-rotation as well as mechanical, electronic and data interfaces between the telescope and the instrument.

The external requirements for the instrument include: (1) A mass limit of 2425 kg for the instrument$`+`$module unit; (2) The instrument+module center of gravity must be located at the center of the Cassegrain module rotation bearing; (3) The instrument must stay within a space envelope which is roughly cylindrical in shape, 2.0 meters in diameter and 2.5 meters long.

The structural stiffness requirements are crucial to the performance of the instrument. A detailed sensitivity analysis of image size and motion, as functions of translations and rotations of the individual the optical components, was used to set the allowable deflections and rotations in the structure. The dynamic response of the structure (first resonant frequency) was assigned a minimum value of 30 Hz.

Based on experience with the Keck Low-resolution Imaging Spectrograph (LRIS) (Oke et al., 1994), it was known that significant deformations of the Cassegrain module and rotator bearing were due to forces passed though the module mounting points by deflection of the Keck primary mirror cell. Given the over-constrained connection between the telescope and module, the decision was made to use a determinate space frame for the ESI instrument structure and to attach it kinematically to the Cassegrain module. This determinate space-frame isolates the optical structures in the instrument from almost all the torques introduced by the bearing. In keeping with the instrument budget and schedule constraints, steel was chosen as the frame material.

### 3.2 Structure Overview

The center of the ESI structure is a triangular mainframe which provides the foundation for the sub-structurals and the connections to the rotator bearing. Extending below the mainframe is the collimator structure which supports the tip/tilt and piston actuators carrying the collimator mirror. Details of the support and drive of the collimator mirror flexure-control are described in Section 4. The optics support structure (OSS) and the slit area stages are located above the mainframe. The OSS is mounted to the mainframe via a determinate structure. The slit area stages are mounted via an over-determined structure. After preliminary conceptual designs for the structure and links were completed, finite element modeling, using the ANSYS program, was used to examine the static and dynamic response of the structure.

The primary concern about the static response of the structure was to maintain the global tilts of the collimator below the allowable values prescribed by the error budget. Hence, analyses were carried out for the three orthogonal gravity orientations (X, Y, and Z). Tilts of the plane containing the three collimator support point were calculated from the resulting structural deflections. The worst-case tilts of the collimator-support triangle were well within the error-budget specification. Peak deflections of the collimator mounting points occurred with gravity parallel to the optic axis, and had a peak value of 136 microns. The deflections in this orientation corresponded to a “unscrewing” of the structure relative to the mounting points on the rotator bearing. These deflections had little effect on the optical performance as the motion of the collimator is primarily rotation about its parent axis.

The primary goal for the dynamic response of the structure was that its first resonance be significantly higher than the lowest resonant frequencies in the telescope structure which are of order 10 Hz. As mentioned above, the maximum static deflection in the structure was calculated to be 136 microns. Assuming the well-known spring-mass equivalent system, the first resonant frequency of the structure can be calculated directly from this deflection. This first resonant frequency was 42 Hz, well above that for the telescope.

### 3.3 Optical Sub-Structure

The Optical Sub-Structure (OSS) was designed as a bolted box to which the grating, fixed prism, moving prism, imaging mirror, low-dispersion mirror and the camera attach. The decision to use this approach rather than a pure space-frame approach was driven by the complications imposed by a three-mode instrument. The large moving masses (prism and two mirror assemblies) coupled with the tightly packaged and folded optical path made the box solution very appealing. All optical assemblies were designed to attach to the OSS in quasi-kinematic ways to insure that deformations of the box (OSS) would only cause free-body motion of the sub-assemblies rather then deformations. Two methods of attachment were used depending on the optic.

The two fixed optics, one prism and the camera where attached to the OSS by hexapods. The connection points (nodes) were chosen to be at the intersection of three plates so that reaction force in the OSS structure could be provided by the vector sum of sheer forces in the plates. Stated in different terms, the OSS was designed in a manner that insured that the plates could not react in any bending mode.

The OSS’s main performance requirement was the instrument flexure specification. Because it held all spectrograph optics except the collimator, any differential rotation of the OSS’s optical axis relative to the collimator would result in large image motion at the CCD. To complicate matters, this assembly is very massive and it produces the largest component of the instrument flexure. Thus the most significant reduction in total flexure was accomplished by minimizing the OSS flexure. For this reason a hexapod structure was used to attach the OSS to the mainframe. It addition to its inherent large stiffness, the hexapod structure also provided an easily alignable support for the OSS.

### 3.4 Filter and Slit Wheels

ESI uses a triple-wheel filter/slit assembly located near the Cassegrain focus to hold a variety of removable slit and filter components. Each wheel has five bays which can accommodate as many as three 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 by 2$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$0 filters each. Only the top-most wheel is at the telescope focus. It can hold as many as four different long-slits and/or multi-slit plates, as well as the full complement of echellette slits. In practice one bay is left empty to allow for direct imaging. Each wheel the triple-wheel assembly consists of a dc gear-motor, mechanically coupled to an optical encoder system; and metal-belt-driven wheel with a second optical encoder to provide a dual-closed-loop control system for angular wheel positioning.

## 4 Flexure Minimization

The predicted mechanical performance of ESI is based on the combination of a detailed set of optical sensitivities from the optical design analysis and a finite element analysis of a slightly simplified structure model.

The flexure compensation system is a passive mathematical representation of previously observed image motions, used to predict the expected image position for any altitude and azimuth location of the telescope. The flexure compensation is provided open-loop by actively tilting the collimator mirror, so as to compensate for the combined motions of all the other optics in the optical train. We report on the details of this modeling and the results of the flexure testing in the laboratory and at the telescope with and without flexure compensation.

### 4.1 Passive Flexure Performance

Because most of the structures of the instrument are determinant space-frames, it is possible to model the instrument with a relatively simple finite element model (FEM). The goal of this analysis was to use predicted motions of all the optical components as a function of gravitational orientation so as to predict the resulting image motion. To accomplish this task, we calculated the optical sensitivity of the final image location to motions of each optic individually in all six of its degrees of freedom. We then combined the FEM predictions of the optic motions for various gravity orientations with these signed sensitivities to get the resultant image motion at the detector for any orientation of ESI. This FEM was then used to optimize the structure for minimum image motion at the detector during the design process.

#### 4.1.1 Requirements

The passive flexure goal was set at $`\pm `$ 1/2 pixel for any two-hour observation. Predictions of the real-world performance of ESI based on the FEM and laboratory tests were not easily and directly compared to this specification. We modeled and measured flexure in an orthogonal coordinate system, (altitude and instrument position angle) but transforming that into what one can reasonably expect during the worst-case observation would require searching through all possible two-hour integration paths on the sky. This would need to be repeated for every change in the FEM. For simplicity, we chose to minimize the overall flexure with respect to our orthogonal coordinate system, rather than in terms of image trajectories on the sky (altitude and azimuth).

#### 4.1.2 FEA Model

We used a finite element analysis (FEA) model to predict the total image motion in a spectrograph as a function of the gravity vector. The philosophy we chose was to formulate a relatively simple macro-structure model of the instrument while doing our best to design optical mounts that had stiffness well beyond the expected stiffness of this instrument macro-structure. The optical mounts were analyzed analytically and with FEA, then optimized for flexure independently of the macro-structure. This allowed us to ignore the details of the optical mounts in the FEA macro-structure model. The predicted motion of each of the optics from the FEA was entered into a spreadsheet and multiplied by the signed image-motion sensitivities to predict the total instrument flexure. These predictions were instrumental in locating and remedying several weaknesses in the design.

#### 4.1.3 Analysis and Testing

To confirm the image motion predictions in the laboratory, ESI was assembled and installed into a test fixture which produced the variations in position angle and elevation that the instrument would see in the telescope. By iterating between the laboratory testing and the FEA modelling, we were able to identify and remedy one major and several minor problems which helped to reduce the instrument flexure to a final rms value (with active compensation on) of approximately $`\pm `$ 0.25 pixels, in each mode for all orientations. The overall flexural performance is described in the next section.

### 4.2 Active Flexure Compensation

#### 4.2.1 Overview

The ESI flexure compensation system (FCS) utilizes a mathematical model of gravitationally-induced flexure to periodically compute and apply flexure corrections by commanding the corresponding tip and tilt motions to the collimator. For details see Kibrick et al. (2000). Separate flexure models are used for each of the three spectrograph modes (echellette, low-dispersion, and imaging.) Although the flexure model is recalculated at a 1 Hz. rate, corrections are not applied until the accumulated image motion reaches 0.1 pixel in magnitude so as to avoid unnecessary use of the collimator actuators. All three actuators are updated in parallel to minimize response time and mechanical stress on the collimator mechanism.

The ESI FCS only compensates for those errors which can be modeled in terms of gravity-driven flexure. Non-modeled errors include those that result from changes in temperature across the instrument structure, from lost motion in optical stages, and from small zero-point shifts that are observed whenever the instrument is removed from and the re-inserted into the telescope. In addition, there is out-of-roundness or runout between the instrument and the rotator module. While the determinate structure that attaches ESI to the rotator module isolates most of the bearing stresses from the instrument, a small amount of residual stress contributes to the observed hysteresis and image motion. Image motions induced by such stresses are neither modeled nor corrected by our model of gravitationally-induced flexure.

The first operational test of the FCS system took place during instrument commissioning at the Mauna Kea summit in September 1999. The flexure model was refined during subsequent engineering runs in October and November. The system became operational for science observing at the end of 1999 and is now in routine use. Image motion due to flexure has been reduced from the uncompensated state by approximately a factor of ten to a few tenths of a pixel (or about 0.”04 on the sky) for a typical flexure-compensated exposure.

#### 4.2.2 Modeling

Measurements of image motion versus collimator motion were obtained in all three instrument modes to determine the relevant transformations and to verify that the system operated linearly. The plate-scale varies as a function of position on the detector due to the anamorphic distortion in the prisms. In order to simplify the control algorithm, a specific image feature near the center of the detector was selected as the central reference for each instrument mode. The gains (image motion vs. collimator tilt) for each actuator were then determined for each instrument mode using their respective reference features. These same reference features were later used when measuring the image motions induced by spectrograph flexure. These measurements were obtained with the instrument and rotator module installed in the Keck II Telescope.

Given the space-frame structures used for ESI, a linear elasticity model of gravitational flexure was used for fitting the image motion versus spectrograph position data. The equations for this gravitational flexure model are as follows:

$$\text{X(}\varphi \text{}\theta \text{)}=a_0+a_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta +a_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta +a_3\mathrm{sin}\varphi $$
(1)
$$\text{Y(}\varphi \text{}\theta \text{)}=b_0+b_1\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{cos}\theta +b_2\mathrm{cos}\varphi \mathrm{sin}\theta +b_3\mathrm{sin}\varphi $$
(2)
where X corresponds to the predicted position of the reference feature in the X (or column) axis of the CCD, Y the predicted position in the Y (row) axis, $`\varphi `$ the telescope elevation angle, $`\theta `$ the rotator physical angle, and the $`a_i`$ and $`b_i`$the corresponding coefficients obtained from a least square fit of the data to the model. Each instrument mode is fit separately.

The gravitational flexure model provided a relatively good fit to the observed data for all three modes. The worst-case residuals (vector magnitude of X and Y residuals) in each mode were: imaging mode, 0.63 pixels; low resolution mode, 0.66 pixels; echellette mode, 0.64 pixels. The corresponding rms residual errors were: imaging mode, 0.29 pixels; low resolution mode, 0.25 pixels; echellette mode, 0.25 pixels. These residuals are not unreasonable given the non-modeled image motions observed at zenith plus the several tenths of a pixel hysteresis observed at all positions. Since one pixel corresponds to 0.153 arc-seconds on the sky, worst-case residuals were about 0.1 arc-seconds and rms residuals were about 0.04 arc-seconds.

#### 4.2.3 Initial Results

Measurements of image motion induced by spectrograph flexure were obtained with the instrument and rotator module installed in the Keck II telescope. Calibration spectra were obtained in the two spectroscopic modes by illuminating a pinhole adjacent to the echellette slit with the various line lamps. Images of this pinhole were also obtained in imaging mode. The telescope was stepped in elevation between 0, 30, 60, and 90 degrees. At each of these four elevations, calibration data were obtained at 17 different rotator position angles, sampling two full revolutions (one clockwise, one counterclockwise) in increments of 45 degrees of rotation. All flexure measurements were made using the same central reference features for each mode as were used to calibrate the actuator gains.

The results of the flexure measurements obtained during the October 1999 engineering run are shown for the echellette mode in Figures 9 and 10. The results for the other two modes are similar. Note that in echellette mode the dispersion direction is parallel to the columns (or Y axis).

#### 4.2.4 Long Term Results

The long term stability of the FCS calibration has been measured by comparing the echellette mode flexure models that were derived from flexure calibrations performed in October and November 1999 with those obtained from a pair of calibrations conducted on the same night in March 2001. While some large zero point shifts (the $`a_0`$ and $`b_0`$ terms) were observed when comparing the 2001 calibrations to those performed in 1999 (see TableLABEL:table:coeffs), these were most likely the result of an adjustment to the Dewar position performed in January 2000. However, the zero point stability over the course of one night is about 0.15 pixel. Thus, one can compensate for any longer-term zero point shifts by taking a single calibration exposure at the start of the night and adjusting the FCS operational zero point accordingly.

While the values of the angularly dependent model coefficients (a1, a2, a3 and b1, b2, b3) varied by as much as 20% from one calibration model to the next, the models they represent agree quite closely, once the respective zero points are aligned. Predicted image positions from each of the four models produced by these calibrations were compared. The worst-case differences observed between corresponding positions were 0.43 pixel in X and 0.24 pixel in Y. The rms errors across positions predicted by all four models were 0.11 pixels in X and 0.07 pixels in Y.

Based on these results, and assuming that no significant mechanical or optical modifications are made to the instrument, a given flexure calibration model can be expected to provide acceptable FCS performance for at least one year. Thus, aside from nightly checks of the FCS zero point, frequent recalibration of the flexure model is not needed to maintain FCS performance.

## 5 Optical Performance

In the following section we report on the optical performance of the spectrograph. We compare predicted results from a detailed end-to-end optical model of the instrument to optical tests performed in the laboratory at Santa Cruz and on Mauna Kea, and on the sky.

### 5.1 Direct-Imaging and Spectral-Imaging Performance

#### 5.1.1 Predicted System Performance

The system performance reported here was calculated using an in-house lens analysis code written by one of the authors (B.S.). This code was used to model the entire spectrograph including the final as-built camera. Orders 6 in the infra-red through 15 in the blue were ray traced at five wavelengths uniformly spaced over each free-spectral range, without refocus. The rms spot-size diameter, Drms was calculated for each image. Averaging these image diameters over all wavelengths and all orders the Ave(rms) = 19.0 +/- 3.3 microns. The corresponding 80% encircled ray diameter average is Ave(80%) = 22.5 +/- 4.2 microns, while Ave(90%) = 28.4 +/- 5.6 microns. The rms spot diameters at the center of each order are shown for all orders in Table LABEL:table:medianspots.

#### 5.1.2 Measured System Performance

After assembly and integration into the Keck II telescope, a series of optical tests was performed to assess the optical performance of the instrument. In the imaging mode, optical performance was analyzed by imaging an array of pinholes placed in the slit mask location. In the LDP mode a linear array of pinholes was used and in the echellette mode a single pinhole was used. The pinholes are 125 microns in diameter, which projects to 16.8 microns at the detector apart from anamorphic factors (compared to 15-micron pixels). Thus they contribute slightly to measured spot sizes. The pinholes were illuminated by either the dome floodlamps or by the internal quartz-halogen flat lamp. The case of dome illumination most accurately mimics the star illumination as the Keck II pupil is imaged into ESI. In the case of internal flat-field lamps, internal baffles become the system stop. These apertures are larger than the Keck pupil and not hexagonal. Thus the artificial source tests overestimate the image sizes due to overfilling of the camera pupil. For the case of imaging mode the standard filter set provided with ESI (Johnson B & V, Spinrad R and Gunn I) and no-filter were used. In all cases, a series of images was taken at a range of focus settings.

Image quality was determined by fitting each spot to a two-dimensional azimuthally-averaged Gaussian distribution using the Interactive Data Language (IDL). The radial profiling routine returns the standard deviation for each fitted Gaussian. These were converted to the two dimensional rms spot diameters (Drms) by multiplying the standard deviation by 2.828. Drms was determined for a variety of wavelengths as a function of focal position in the two spectroscopic modes. In the imaging mode Drms was determined for a variety of field positions as a function of focal position. These Drms values were computed as the median over location on the chip of the Drms values as a function of camera focal position. These data are plotted in Sheinis et al. (2000).

The Drms at best focus is compared to that predicted for the design in Table LABEL:table:medianspots. The data in Table LABEL:table:medianspots show a discrepancy between design prediction and measured Drms. This discrepancy is due in part to the fabrication and assembly errors, included in the error budget and due to a small additional error ascribed the improper illumination in the testing, as mentioned above. This assertion is based on the results of the globular cluster tests below and the initial camera testing, which imply better performance than this artificial star test.

Testing on the sky was done by observing several globular clusters in BVRI, under good seeing conditions. The FWHM was calculated for each image using the IRAF image reduction package. This was done by fitting the azimuthally averaged images to Gaussian energy distributions. The quality of the fit and the FWHM of the fitted images are displayed in Figure 11 and Figure 12.

The average I band images show a FWHM of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$34 . This is consistent with a measured instrumental FWHM of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$23 (Sheinis et al., 2000) convolved with an inferred FWHM seeing disk of 0$`\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}`$25 assuming no guiding errors. These are the best non-AO optical images at Keck to date.

### 5.2 Efficiency

#### 5.2.1 Instrument Efficiency in Echellette Mode

Observations of the spectrophotometric standard Wolf 1348 were made through a $`6\stackrel{}{\mathrm{.}}0`$-wide slit during the September 1999 commissioning run. The observations were corrected for an airmass of 1.04 using the mean extinction curve for Mauna Kea downloaded from the Canada-France-Hawaii WWW site. The values for flux/wavelength for Wolf 1348 were taken from the tables Massey et al. (1988), Massey & Gronwall (1990) and converted into photons per second per $`\AA `$ngstrom using the relation:

$`N_\lambda =\frac{4.275X10^{12}}{\lambda }10^{\frac{(m_\lambda +A_\lambda X)}{2.5}}`$

Here $`m_\lambda `$ is the magnitude from the Massey et al. (1988) tables, $`A_\lambda `$ is the extinction in magnitudes per airmass at $`\lambda `$, X is the airmass of the observation and $`\lambda `$ is the wavelength in $`\AA `$.

Figure 13 shows the ratio of the number of photons predicted for Wolf 1348 to the number detected (corrected to the top of the atmosphere) for the echellette mode including the detector and telescope losses. The solid line connecting open squares is the measured efficiency for each order after removing the effects of atmospheric extinction. The five-pointed stars show the total instrument efficiency at the peak of each order after backing out the effects of two reflections off of aluminum surfaces. The aluminum efficiency curve for the secondary assumed ‘fresh’ aluminum. This was reduced by 5% for the primary which was known to have been degraded by at least that amount by the time of the observation. The plot shows efficiencies calculated order by order (that is, not summing the flux at a given wavelength that is detected in more than one order). For the bluer orders, adding flux from adjacent orders at common wavelengths would increase the overall throughput at some wavelengths by as much as a factor of 1.6.

#### 5.2.2 Instrument Efficiency in LDP Mode:

Figure 14 shows the the ratio of the number of photons predicted for Wolf 1348 to the number detected (corrected to the top of the atmosphere) for the prismatic (LDP) mode including the detector and telescope losse. The solid line is the measured efficiency after removing the effects of atmospheric extinction.

The peak efficiency in LDP mode has been measured to be at least a factor of 1.4 better than in the echellette mode. The greater efficiency in LDP mode is due primarily to the greater reflectivity of the LDP fold mirror as compared with the grating. The beam in LDP mode shares a common path with the echellette mode except for this fold mirror, which replaces the grating in LDP mode.

## 6 Conclusions and Acknowledgments

We have discussed the design, the engineering development, the construction and the implementation of the ESI spectrograph. We have given an overview of all of the major subsystems together with the most important of the design criteria. Performance has been analyzed in terms of throughput, image diameters, and residual flexure. Imaging studies of globular clusters have produced the best non-AO visible images to date at Keck Observatory. Throughput of the telescope and the instrument (including the CCD detector) in echellette mode has been observed to be as high as 28%in echellette mode and has been observed to be greater than 41% in LDP mode.

The authors wish to thank the entire technical staff at Lick Observatory, including (in no particular order): in the Electronics laboratory ; Barry Alcott, Ted Cantrall, Carol Harper and Jim Burrous (deceased); in the Instrument Laboratory; Jeff Lewis, Dick Kanto, Terry Pfister, Jim Ward and Gary Dorst; in the Optical Laboratory; David Hilyard; in the Engineering department; David Cowley, Carol Osborne, Jack Osborne, Vern Wallace, Chris Wright, Mary Poteete and Heather Mietz; in the Software Development Laboratory; De Clark, Steve Allen and Dean Tucker; in the Detector Development Laboratory; Richard Stover, Mingzhi Wei, Kirk Gilmore, Bill Brown, and Lloyd Robinson; and in the business office; Maureen McLean, Marlene Couture and Edna Sandberg.

The authors also wish to thank Jerry Nelson and Terry Mast for their many insightful comments and suggestions. We would especially like to thank Bob Goodrich and the staff at Keck Observatory for their help with the assembly, testing and data acquisition for this instrument.


text:
# Bosonization and Duality in Arbitrary Dimensions: New Results.

## 1 Introduction

This paper has a two-fold purpose: to establish both bosonic first-order (gauge non-invariant) and fermionic Thirring-like formulations for very general topologically massive theories  in arbitrary dimensions. We show these correspondences by extending the techniques typically used for duality and bosonization in three-dimensional models via the doublet-formalism , which appear insensitive to the space-time dimensionality.

Duality has a fundamental importance in our understanding of various non-perturbative aspects of point-particle and string theories.

Some years ago , Deser and Jackiw developed the concept of parent action approach  and showed duality between the so-called self-dual theory (SD) in three dimensions and the topologically massive gauge theory, referred to as Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS). Furthermore, it was shown  that the SD model is connected, via the so-called bosonization technique, to the Thirring model,

$$S^{(ferm)}(\psi ,\overline{\psi })d^3x(\overline{\psi }(i/m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2}j^\mu j_\mu ),j^\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi .$$
(1)
Bosonization is the mapping of a quantum field theory for interacting fermions onto an equivalent theory for interacting bosons .

Recently, Tripathy and Khare  considered a modification of this model by replacing the Maxwell term by $`\sqrt{1F^2}`$, the Born-Infeld Lagrangian . Bosonization and dual-correspondences of its topologically massive version, the Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons theory , have recently been studied motivated by the fact that these theories naturally appear in the context of Dp-branes  whose dynamics is described by Born-Infeld-Chern-Simmons-actions in $`d=(p+1)`$ dimensions. In particular, the D2-brane is described by the 3d-Born-Infeld-Chern-Simmons model. This result is one of the main motivatons for the study carried out in our paper, whose purpose is precisely the extension of the above result to a general dimension $`d`$. Despite the notion of self-duality in arbitrary dimensions introduced in Ref. , which has proven to be a crucial hint in order to establish dual correspondences , this extension is not set in a straightforward way. This becomes clearer mainly in Section 4, where non-conventional fermionic currents must be introduced in order to describe topologically massive models as purely fermionic theories. Indeed, we succeed in setting up fermionic representations for the topologically massive Cremmer-Scherk-Kalb-Ramond model in four space-time dimensions and also for more general gauge models, for instance involving a Born-Infeld theory topologically coupled to a Kalb-Ramond field (This theory shall be referred to as Born-Infeld-Kalb-Ramond). Some interesting technical particularities also appear when the bosonization procedure, initially thought for $`d=3`$ , is reproduced for $`d=4`$.

The main goal of this paper is thus to focus all these issues in a more general context.

We shall to construct this generalized framework by investigating two principal types of extension for this structure: to consider arbitrary ($`d`$) dimensions and more general non-linearities (arbitrary functions of the squared field-strength).

This work is organized as explained below. In Section 2, we briefly review the bosonization of the Thirring model in three dimensions into a SD-model and the SD-MCS duality. In Section 3, we generalize this to arbitrary non-linearities in the Maxwell term: we show that this is always equivalent to a SD-model in a generalized sense and find to a formula to relate the theories of this correspondence. Afterwards, we use a direct procedure to bosonize a generic Thirring model with an arbitrary current-current coupling and connect it to the non-linearity of its bosonic representations.

Generalization of this structure to higher dimensions is the matter of Section 4. We shall show in this section (for the particular case $`d=4`$, but indicating the way for generalizing to higher dimensions elsewhere), that bosonization may be implemented in the same way as in 3d, via the recently introduced doublet formalism, resulting in an alternative formulation of the bosonization technique in four dimensions . Such as in the $`3`$-d case, fermionic models bosonize to topologically massive ones; in particular, we concentrate our discussion in specially interesting topologically massive gauge theories in four dimensions: Born-Infeld-Kalb-Ramond and Cremmer-Scherk-Kalb-Ramond .

Finally, in Section 5, we draw our general conclusions and emphasize on the aspects that concern generalization to arbitrary dimensions.

## 2 A Short Introductory Review.

Let us briefly review how the low-energy sector of a theory of massive, electrically-charged, self-interacting fermions (the massive Thirring Model) in (2 + 1)-dimensions may be bosonized into a gauge theory, the Maxwell-Chern-Simons gauge theory .

SD-MCS duality:

In 2+1-dimensions, one currently defines the Hodge-Duality operation by,

$$^{}a_\mu =\frac{1}{m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu a^\lambda ,$$
(2)
where $`m`$ is a parameter that renders the $`^{}`$-operation dimensionless.

We refer to self(anti-self)-duality whenever the relations $`^{}a=+a,a`$, are respectively satisfied. Throughout this paper, we shall introduce a parameter $`\chi =\pm 1`$ to express this self/anti-self-duality.

The so-called Self-Dual Model (Townsend, Pilch and van Nieuwenhuizen ) is described by the following action,

$$S_{SD}(a)=d^3x\left(\frac{\chi }{2m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }a^\mu ^\nu a^\lambda \frac{1}{2}a_\mu a^\mu \right).$$
(3)
The equation of motion is the self-duality relation:

$$a_\mu =\frac{\chi }{m}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu a^\lambda .$$
(4)
This model is claimed to be chiral, and the chirality results defined precisely by this self-duality.

On the other hand, the gauge-invariant combination of a Chern-Simons and a Maxwell term:

$$S_{MCS}[A]=d^3x\left(\frac{1}{4m^2}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }\frac{\chi }{2m}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda \right),$$
(5)
is the topologically massive theory, which is known to be equivalent  to the self-dual model (3). $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ is the usual Maxwell field strength,

$$F_{\mu \nu }[A]_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu =2_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}.$$
(6)
This equivalence may be verified with the parent action approach . We write down the general parent action proposed by Deser and Jackiw in , which proves this equivalence:

$$𝒮_{Parent}[A,a]=\chi 𝒮_{CS}[A]d^3x\left[ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A]a_\mu +ma_\mu a^\mu \right],$$
(7)
where

$$𝒮_{CS}[A]d^3xϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }\left(A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda \right),$$
(8)
is the Chern-Simons action 111In fact, vaying this action with respect to $`f`$, and eliminating this in the action from the equation of motion, one get $`S_{SD}(a^\mu )`$. Varying $`𝒮_{Parent}`$ with respect to $`a`$, we obtain
$$a^\mu =\frac{1}{2m}ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A];$$
(9) plugging this back into (7), and using
$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }=2\delta _\lambda ^\alpha ,$$
(10) we recover the MCS-action, Eq. (5)..

Bosonization and Thirring-MCS correspondence:

On the other hand, the (Euclidean) fermionic partition function for the three-dimensional massive Thirring reads as below:

$$Z^{(ferm)}=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2}j^\mu j_\mu )d^3x},$$
(11)
with the coupling constant $`g^2`$ having dimensions of inverse mass and $`m`$ is the fermion mass.

It is well-known that this model can be bosonized to the self-dual model ,

$$Z^{(ferm)}Z^{SD},$$
(12)
in the low-energy limit.

Thus, thanks to the equivalence between (3) and (5), one can establish the following bosonization identity:

$$Z^{(ferm)}Z^{MCS}.$$
(13)
This equation, together with (12) , both connected by SD-MCS duality (7) , constitutes the kernel of this work: our main purpose is to actually study the generalizations of this structure along two independent lines:

* for Thirring-like models with an arbitrary current-current coupling: correspondence rule with self-dual and non-linear topologically massive theories.
* for arbitrary dimensions: fermionic Thirring-like models in general dimensions correspond to topologically massive theories, such as in 3d 222In general dimensions, the Abelian gauge field generalizes to a pair of field forms..

Clearly, both generalizations are suitable to be connected to one another.

## 3 Duality between Non-Linear Self-Dual and Topologically Massive Models in Three Dimensions.

In this section, we shall generalize the correspondence SD-MCS to account for arbitrary non-linearities. We will show here that the TM model with non-linearity described by a function $`U(F^2)`$333When $`U`$ is linear the theory is commonly referred to as MCS.,

$$S_{U(F^2)}[A]=d^3x\left(U(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })\chi ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda \right),$$
(14)
corresponds to the also general Non-Linear Self-Dual model, with non-linearity given by a potential $`V(a^2)`$:

$$𝒮_{V(a^2)}[a]=d^3xV\left(a_\mu a^\mu \right)\chi 𝒮_{CS}[a],$$
(15)
which is the non-linear version of the self-dual action introduced in . We shall refer to this theory as Non-Linear Self-Dual Model.

It is useful to briefly clarify why the property of self-duality can be attributed to this model. The equations of motion derived from Eq.(42) are given by

$$a_\mu =\frac{\chi }{2V^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu a^\lambda ,$$
(16)
where the prime denotes a derivative with respect to the argument. This non-linear SD model possesses a well-defined self-dual property in the same manner as its linear counterpart. This can be seen as follows. Define a field, $`{}_{}{}^{}a_{\mu }^{}`$, dual to $`a_\mu `$ as

$${}_{}{}^{}a_{\mu }^{}\frac{1}{2V^{}}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu a^\lambda ,$$
(17)
and repeat this dual operation to find that, as consequence of the equations of motion (16),

$${}_{}{}^{}\left({}_{}{}^{}a_{\mu }^{}\right)=a_\mu .$$
(18)
Dual correspondences for this type of non-linear systems have recently been studied in the particular case of Born-Infeld  and also in other specific cases in Ref.  (for instance, a power law $`U(z)=z^r,rϵQ`$); which use a method recently proposed  based on the traditional idea of a local lifting of a global symmetry that may be realized by iterative embedding Noether counter-terms.

These approaches treat the non-linearities by introducing auxiliary fields. In this section, we are going to confirm the previous results by adopting the parent action approach and generalize them further without introducing auxiliary fields; of course, this enforces the evidence in favour of this so-called gauging Noether method  as a useful dualization procedure.

To derive our results, we consider the following non-linear generalization of the Deser-Jackiw Parent Action :

$$𝒮_{Parent}[A,a]=\chi 𝒮_{CS}[A]d^3x\left[ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A]a_\mu +V(a_\mu a^\mu )\right].$$
(19)
Varying it with respect to $`A`$,

$$ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }^\nu [A^\lambda a^\lambda ]=0,$$
(20)
we write its solution as

$$A^\lambda =a^\lambda +\mathrm{\Delta }^\lambda ,$$
(21)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^\lambda =^\lambda \mathrm{\Delta }`$ is pure gauge. Putting this back into (19), we recover $`S_{V(a^2)}[a]`$, equation (15).

Now, strictly following the standard program of the master action approach , we must vary the parent action with respect to $`A`$, and use the resulting equation to solve $`A`$ in terms of the other field, $`a`$. Finally, one shall eliminate $`A`$ from the parent action.

Varying $`𝒮_{Parent}`$ with respect to $`a`$, we obtain

$$2V^{}(a^2)a^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A],$$
(22)
from which it follows that

$$2a^2V^{}(a^2)=a_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A]$$
(23)
and

$$ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }F_{\nu \lambda }[A]ϵ_{\mu \rho \alpha }F_{\rho \alpha }[A]=2F^2=4a^2[V^{}(a^2)]^2;$$
(24)
Formally, one can solve this for $`a^2`$ in terms of $`F^2[A]`$, and put the result back into (19) to express this action in terms of the field $`A`$, which results to be a TM-theory . Defining a function $`W`$ trough its inverse (whenever it exists),

$$W^1(v)2v(V^{}(v))^2,vϵIR,$$
(25)
and substituting in the parent action by eq. (23), we recover the generalized non-linear topologically massive theory; the gauge invariant combination of a Chern-Simons with a non-linear Maxwell term

$$S_{MCS}[A]=d^3x\left(U(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })\chi ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }A_\mu _\nu A_\lambda \right),$$
(26)
where the functional $`U`$ is related to $`V`$ (that characterizes the non-linearity of the self-dual model) by the formula:

$$U(q)=2W(q)V^{}(W(q))+V(W(q)),$$
(27)
with $`qϵIR^+`$.

At the end of the next section, we shall mention some more relevant examples of solutions to this equation.

### 3.1  Bosonisation of Thirring models with arbitrary (current-current) coupling in $`d=3`$.

In this section, we are going to find bosonization identities for the most general Thirring (fermionic) model, i.e. with an arbitrary dependence on the current-current coupling; this remarkably corresponds to a version of the MCS with the same dependence on the square of the field strength . We use a direct procedure such as in the traditional case (Eq. (11)).

The particular case of Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons has already been studied in ; clearly, these results are contained in the scheme presented here.

In fact, consider a generalization of the Thirring model to have a term depending arbitrarily on $`j^\mu `$. By relativistic invariance, the only possibility is the generalized non-linear model:

$$Z_{T(j^2)}^{(ferm)}=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(8\pi \overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi T(\frac{j^\mu j_\mu }{2}))d^3x},$$
(28)
where the function $`T`$ is analytic and real-valued.

Next, we eliminate the non-linear interaction by introducing a vector field, $`a^\mu `$, and using the identity:

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^3xT({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{j^\mu j_\mu }{2}})}}=𝒟a_\mu e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^3xtr(V(a^\mu a_\mu )+j^\mu a_\mu )}},$$
(29)
where $`V`$ is related to $`T`$. We shall find this relation varying the exponent of the RHS with respect to $`a`$ to obtain:

$$2V^{}(a^\nu a_\nu )a^\mu =j^\mu ;$$
(30)
from which there follow the relations,

$$2a^2V^{}(a^2)=a_\mu j^\mu ,$$
(31)
and

$$j^\mu j_\mu =4a^2V^{}(a^2).$$
(32)
In principle, one can solve for $`a`$ (or $`a^2`$) from (32) in terms of $`j^2`$, and put the result back into (29) to express this action in terms of the current $`j`$, and recover the non-linear Thirring model . Let us define again the function $`W`$ trough its inverse, assuming it to be:

$$W^1(v)=2v[V^{}(v)]^2;$$
(33)
therefore, $`W(q)=v`$. Plugging these equations back into (29), we recover the generalized non-linear Thirring Model, eq. (28), where $`T`$ is given by

$$T(q)=2W(q)V^{}(W(q))+V(W(q)),$$
(34)
Notice that, by virtue of (33), eq. (34) coincides with (27); then, one obtains:

$$T(q)=U(q),qϵIR^+,$$
(35)
in agreement with the formal correspondence rule , $`j^{}F`$ 444$`()^{}`$ is the usual Hodge’s operation. This shall provide us with a general correspondence bosonization identity for very general Thirring-like models and topologically massive gauge theories.

So, thanks to these results, one can represent the Thirring model as:

$$𝒵_{T(j^2/2)}=𝒟a_\mu det(i/+m+a/)e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^3xV\left(a^\mu a_\mu \right)}},$$
(36)
Now, we proceed in the same way as in the typical case ($`T(j^2/2)`$, linear) to evaluate the determinant. The determinant of the Dirac operator is an unbounded operator and requires regularization.

For $`d=3`$, the actual computation of this determinant will give parity-breaking and parity-preserving terms that are computed in powers of the inverse mass,

$$\mathrm{ln}det(i/+m+a/)=\frac{\chi }{16\pi }𝒮_{CS}[a]+I_{PC}[a]+O(^2/m^2).$$
(37)
Here, $`𝒮_{CS}`$ is given by

$$𝒮_{CS}[a]=d^3xiϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }(F_{\mu \nu }a_\lambda );$$
(38)
it is the Abelian Chern-Simons action, and the parity-preserving contributions, to first-order, lead to the Maxwell action

$$I_{PC}[a]=\frac{1}{24\pi m}trd^3xF^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }.$$
(39)
In the low-energy regime, only the Chern-Simons action survives yielding a closed expression for the determinant:

$$\mathrm{ln}det(i/+m+a/)=\frac{\chi }{16\pi }𝒮_{CS}[a]+o(m^1)$$
(40)
Using this result, we may write:

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}𝒵_{T(j^2)/2}^{(ferm)}=𝒟a_\mu \mathrm{exp}(𝒮_{V(a^2)}[a]),$$
(41)
where $`𝒮_{V(a^2)}`$ is the non-linear version of the self-dual action introduced in ,

$$𝒮_{V(a^2)}[a]=d^3xV\left(a_\mu a^\mu \right)\chi 𝒮_{CS}[a]$$
(42)
Therefore, to the leading order in $`1/m`$, we have established the identification with the Non-Linear Self-Dual theory:

$$𝒵_{T(j^2)/2}^{(ferm)}𝒵_{V(a^2)}.$$
(43)
Finally, recalling that the model with dynamics defined by the non-linear self-dual action ($`𝒮_{V(a^2)}`$) is equivalent to a non-linear Maxwell-Chern-Simons theory ($`𝒮_{U(F[a]^2)}`$), we use the relation (35) to establish the Bosonization identity of the non-linear massive Thirring model with the topologically massive theory along with the remarkable identification of the potentials, as

$$𝒵_{U(j^2/2)}^{(ferm)}𝒵_{U(F^2)}.$$
(44)
In some cases, it is relatively simple to solve the equation (33) (or, by virtue of (35), eq. (27)). Let us illustrate this by mentioning some relevant examples: Taking a Thirring model with current-current interaction described by a function $`T(j^2)(j^\mu j_\mu )^k`$, then, it is equivalent to a self-dual model with non-linearity described by another power law: $`V(a^2)(a^\mu a_\mu )^{\frac{k}{(2k1)}}`$, and by virtue of (35), the corresponding model has a Maxwell term substituted by $`U(F^2)(F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu })^k`$. A simple inspection shows that this result agrees with the one obtained in , which enforces the validity of the method proposed there.

The Born-Infeld-Chern-Simons example sets a special case since, as it can be directly verified from eq. (27), the functional forms of the three models, coincide  ; i.e $`T(q)=U(q)V(q)\sqrt{1(constq^2)}`$, for all $`qϵIR`$.

## 4 General dimensions: Born-Infeld-Kalb-Ramond and Cremmer-Scherk-Kalb-Ramond gauge theories.

In this section, by considering doublets of field-forms, we show how the structure described above may also be established in $`d`$ dimensions.

For general dimensions, it is possible to define self (and anti-self)-duality for pairs (doublets) of form-fields with different ranks , close in spirit to the self-duality in $`(2+1)`$-dimensions due to Townsend, Pilch and van Nieuwenhuizen . Remarkably, as it has been shown in ref , the actions which describe this doublet-self-duality, result to be dual-equivalent to topologically massive theories in $`d`$ dimensions, which involve BF-terms (topological coupling between different Abelian gauge forms  ); in the same way that the SD-MCS duality (in $`(2+1)`$).

In this work, this parallel shall be enforced and generalized with novel consequences on bosonization in high dimensions; besides, new dualities between theories shall be established.

Let us consider a $`d`$-dimensional space-time with signature $`s`$ 555i.e, this is the number of minuses occurring in the metric: we consider the tensor doublet,

$$:=(f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p},g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}),$$
(45)
where $`f`$ is a $`p(<d)`$-form ( a totally antisymmetric tensor type $`(0;p)`$ ) , and $`g`$ is a $`(dp1)`$-form. $``$ is an element of the space $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p\mathrm{\Lambda }_p\times \mathrm{\Lambda }_{d[p+1]}`$ 666A more detailed discussion on this construction and its motivations may be found in Refs. ; however, the notion presented here is sufficient to make this paper self-contained. .

There is a well defined notion of self (and anti-self)-duality for the objects in this space based on the standard Hodge s operation, $`()^{}`$ 777For a generic $`q`$-form, $`A`$, the Hodge dual is defined by
$$(^{}A)^{\mu _{q+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}=\frac{1}{q!}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _d}A_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _q}.$$
(46)  in a fashion extremely similar to the $`(2+1)`$-dimensional case described above. Consider the action with topological coupling:

$$S_{DSD}[]𝑑x^d\left[\frac{1}{m}g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _d}_{\mu _{dp}}f_{\mu _{dp+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}+\rho ()\right],$$
(47)
where $`\rho ()`$ collects the explicit mass terms as,

$$\rho ()\frac{1}{2}([p+1]!g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}g^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}+(1)^s[dp]!f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}f^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p}).$$
(48)
For a more concise notation, in terms of forms, consider the following definitions: $`d(f,g)(df,dg)`$, and

$$^{}(df,dg)(^{}dg,(1)^{p+1}S_{p+1}^{}df),$$
(49)
where $`S_q`$ is a number defined by the double dualisation operation, for a $`q`$-form $`A`$: $`^{}(^{}A)=S_qA,`$ this depends on the signature ($`s`$) and dimension of the space time in the form $`S_q=(1)^{s+q[dq]}`$.

Notice that $`^{}`$ applied to doublets is defined such that its components are interchanged with a supplementary change of sign for the second component.

In so doing, the equations of motion derived from the action (47) read as

$$=\frac{1}{m}^{}d,$$
(50)
where $`m`$ is a mass parameter introduced for dimensional reasons. It may trivially be verified that these equations require that $``$ satisfies a Proca equation with mass $`m`$.

Notice that the equation (50) looks like (4). In that sense, we state that $`S_{DSD}`$ describes doublet-self-duality.

In the previous section, we considered non-linear generalizations of SD models; in the same sense, we may replace $`\rho `$ by $`V(\rho )`$ in the action (47) and obtain non-linear generalizations of the model. Below, we are going to prove that these theories are dual equivalent to also non-linear topologically massive ones. The form of this correspondence shall result the same as to the $`3d`$ case (Eq. (27)), which constitutes an additional motivation to interpretate (47) as a Self-Dual system.

Consider the doublet of gauge fields $`𝒜(a_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p},b_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}})`$ in addition to $`=(f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p},g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}})`$; we now propose the following parent action:

$`𝒮_P[𝒜,]=𝒮_{BF}[𝒜]{\displaystyle 𝑑x^dϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _d}\left[b_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}_{\mu _{dp}}f_{\mu _{dp+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}+g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}_{\mu _{dp}}a_{\mu _{dp+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}\right]}+`$
$`+V(\rho ())],`$ (51)
where

$$𝒮_{BF}[𝒜]𝑑x^d\left[b_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _d}_{\mu _{dp}}a_{\mu _{dp+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}\right]$$
(52)
is the BF-action.

Varying $`𝒮_P`$ with respect to $``$, we obtain

$$=\frac{1}{V^{}(\rho )}^{}d𝒜;$$
(53)
which looks like non-linear self-duality, equation (16). Plugging this ralation back into (51), we recover the generalized (non-linear) topologically massive action:

$$𝒮_{TM}[𝒜]=𝒮_{BF}[𝒜]d^dxU(\theta ),$$
(54)
where $`\theta `$ encodes the Maxwell-type terms:

$$\theta \frac{1}{2}\left((1)^s[dp1]!(_{[\mu }a_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _p]})^2+[p+1]!(_{[\mu }b_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}]})^2\right).$$
(55)
Thus, the same algebraic manipulations that in 3d-case lead to relate $`U`$ and $`V`$ again in terms of $`V`$ by Eq. (27),

We shall observe that this is invariant under the gauge transformations; $`𝒜𝒜+d𝒟`$, where $`d𝒟`$ is a pure gauge doublet, i.e, it is a pair of exact differentials of $`(p1,dp2)`$-forms.

Now, we vary $`𝒮_P`$ with respect to $`𝒜`$ and obtain:

$$^{}d(𝒜)=0;$$
(56)
or in components,

$`^{}d(af)`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`^{}d(bg)`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (57)
This implies that the differences $`af`$ and $`bg`$ may locally be written as exact forms; therefore, one it is possible to express the solution to these equations as

$$𝒜=+d𝒟.$$
(58)
Putting this back into the action (51) , we recover the generalized SD theory up to topological terms:

$$S_{DSD}[]𝑑x^d\left[\frac{1}{m}g_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{dp1}}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _d}_{\mu _{dp}}f_{\mu _{dp+1}\mathrm{}\mu _d}+V(\rho ())\right].$$
(59)
Whenever $`V`$ (or $`U`$) is linear, we get the so-called Cremmer-Scherk-Kalb-Ramond-type models, and the present result reproduces the dual correspondence obtained by Harikumar et al in the recent work of Ref.  for $`d=3+1`$, recently generalized, in , to arbitrary dimensions and all possible tensorial ranks.

### 4.1 More general non-linearities.

It is not a general fact that $`V=V(\rho ())`$. Besides the requirement of Lorentz invariance, one may also require that the two gauge forms which compose the doublet do not interact with one another, apart from the interaction due to the BF-term.

Consider $`(f_1,f_2)`$ and $`𝒜(a_1,a_2)`$, both in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$, and the non-linearity given by

$$V=V_1(N_2(f_1)^2)+(1)^sV_2(N_1(f_2)^2);$$
(60)
where $`N_i\frac{[p_i+1]!}{2}`$, $`i=1,2`$ and $`p_i`$ denotes the rank of $`f_i`$ ($`p_1+p_2+1=d`$) 888 $`(f_i)^2`$ denotes $`f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p_i}}f_{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{p_i}}`$..

Then, the variation of (51) with respect to $``$ yields:

$$(V_1^{}(N_2(f_1)^2)f_1;V_2^{}(N_1(f_2)^2)f_2)=^{}d𝒜.$$
(61)
Thus, by repeating the previous calculations, we can readily check the duality between

$$𝒮_{V_1,V_2}[]=𝒮_{BF}[]+d^dx\left(V_1(N_2(f_1)^2)+V_2(N_1(f_2)^2)\right),$$
(62)
and

$$𝒮_{U_1,U_2}[𝒜]=𝒮_{BF}[𝒜]d^dx\left(U_1(p_2!(da_1)^2)+U_2(p_2!(da_2)^2)\right).$$
(63)
Thus, we come to the known relation:

$$U_i(q)=2W_i(q)V_i^{}(W_i(q))+V_i(W_i(q)),qϵR^+;$$
(64)
where, the functions $`W_i`$ are again defined by

$$W_i^1(v)2v[V_i^{}(v)]^2vϵR^+.$$
(65)
In $`d=3+1`$, an interesting duality can be established by applying this result to a topologically massive combination of a Born-Infeld with a (rank two) Kalb-Ramond field.

The Born-Infeld-Kalb-Ramond theory 999Here, Born-Infeld means that the free action is proportional to $`\sqrt{1const.F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}`$.

$$S_{BIKR}(𝒜)=d^4x\left(\beta ^2\sqrt{[1\frac{2}{\beta ^2}_{[\rho }A_{\mu ]}^{[\rho }A^{\mu ]}]}_{[\rho }B_{\mu \nu ]}^{[\rho }B^{\mu \nu ]}+mB_{\mu \nu }ϵ^{\rho \mu \nu \sigma }_\rho A_\sigma \right),$$
(66)
for the doublet of gauge fields $`𝒜=(A_\mu ,B_{\mu \nu })`$ 101010$`\beta `$ is a parameter introduced for dimensional reasons. , is dual-equivalent to the first-order model:

$$S_{DSD}(\stackrel{~}{𝒜}(\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma ,\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }))=d^4x\left(\beta ^2\sqrt{[1+\frac{1}{\beta ^2}\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma \stackrel{~}{A}^\sigma ]}+\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{B}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{m}\stackrel{~}{A}_\sigma ϵ^{\sigma \rho \mu \nu }_{[\rho }\stackrel{~}{B}_{\mu \nu ]}\right),$$
(67)
which is a gauge non-invariant theory, also associated to a non-linear doublet-self-duality constraint.

### 4.2 Bosonization in (3+1)-d

Here, we present a novel approach to bosonization in $`d=3+1`$, valid for length scales long compared with the Compton wavelength of the fermion.

In a four dimensional massive fermionic model with $`U(1)`$ charge; just like in the 3d-case, one defines a current: $`j^\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$, where $`\psi `$ are $`N_f`$ four-component Dirac spinors 111111In this calculation, $`N_f`$ will be simply considered as a parameter..

However, one can also define a rank-two current, $`j^{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }\gamma _5[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]\psi `$; let us now define the doublet-current:

$$𝒥=(j^\mu ,j^{\mu \nu }).$$
(68)
The appearance of the $`\gamma _5`$-matrix in $`j^{\mu \nu }`$ follows from requiring that $`j^{\mu \nu }`$ as well as $`j^\mu `$ are both odd under charge conjugation: $`\overline{\psi }\gamma _5[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]\psi =\overline{\psi ^C}\gamma _5[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]\psi ^C`$. Notice that $`𝒥`$ is a well-formed doublet $`(𝒥ϵ\mathrm{\Delta }_p)`$.

Now, we can write a non-conventional (Euclidean)121212In an Euclidean space-time, $`j^{\mu \nu }`$ is purely imaginary; thus, in order to render it real, we may redefine this bilinear by multiplying it by an $`i`$. massive Thirring model in a similar fashion to the 3d-case:

$$𝒵^{(ferm)}𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2N_fm}[2j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }j_\mu j^\mu ])d^4x},$$
(69)
where $`m`$ is the fermion mass and $`g`$ a coupling constant of the model, such that $`g^2`$ have dimensions of inverse mas.

We are going to show that this bosonizes into the CSKR-model, a gauge, topologically massive theory.

Such as in the 3d-case, we get the identity,

$$e^{\frac{g^2}{2N_fm}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x[2j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }j_\mu j^\mu ]}}=𝒟𝒜e^{{\scriptscriptstyle d^4xtr({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{\mu \nu }b^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a^\mu ]+{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{g}{\sqrt{mN_f}}}[b_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }a_\mu j^\mu ])}},$$
(70)
which introduces the doublet of bosonic fields $`𝒜(a_\mu ,b_{\mu \nu })`$.

Defining the doublet-slash by

$$𝒜/\gamma ^\mu a_\mu +\gamma _5[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]b_{\mu \nu },$$
(71)
the partition function reduces to:

$$𝒵^{(ferm)}=𝒟𝒜det(i/+m+𝒜/)e^{\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{\mu \nu }b^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a^\mu ]}}.$$
(72)
Next, we must evaluate this determinant.

A straightforward perturbative expansion yields

$$S_{eff}[𝒜/,m]=N_ftr[\mathrm{ln}(/+m)]+N_f\frac{g}{\sqrt{N_fm}}tr(\frac{1}{/+m}𝒜/)+\frac{N_f}{2}\left(\frac{g^2}{N_fm}\right)tr(\frac{1}{/+m}𝒜/\frac{1}{/+m}𝒜/)+\mathrm{}$$
(73)
The first term is just the free $`(A=0)`$ case, which is subtracted, while the second term are simply two tadpoles accommodated in the doublet. Thus, we draw our attention to the quadratic term (in the bosonic fields $`𝒜`$) in the effective action. In momentum space, this reads

$$S_{eff}^{quad}[A,m]=\frac{g^2}{2m}tr\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[𝒜/(p)\frac{ip/+ik/m}{(p+k)^2+m^2}𝒜/(p)\frac{ik/m}{k^2+m^2}\right].$$
(74)
Terms of the form $`𝒜/(p)k/𝒜/(p)k/`$ and $`𝒜/(p)p/𝒜/(p)k/`$ in the numerator of the integrand will contribute at most to second order in $`p_\mu `$ 131313They also cancel the terms $`tr[m^2𝒜/(p)𝒜/(p)]`$ that appear in the numerator.. Since we are seeking for the low energy limit, like in the 3d-case, we can approximate this by

$$S_{eff}^{quad}[A,m]i\frac{g^2}{2m}tr\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\left[𝒜/(p)\frac{(p/+k/)𝒜/(p)𝒜/(p)k/}{[(p+k)^2+m^2][k^2+m^2]}\right],$$
(75)
using also the fact that the trace of an odd number of gamma-matrices is zero. We obtain only a topological contribution:

$$S_{eff}^{quad}[A,m]\frac{g^2}{2}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}\left[a_\mu (p)\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p)b_{\nu \alpha }(p)\right],$$
(76)
where, by virtue of the special property of the gamma matrices (here, Euclidean) in $`(3+1)`$-d ,

$$tr(\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu \gamma _5[\gamma ^\rho ,\gamma ^\alpha ])=8ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \alpha },$$
(77)
the kernel takes the form:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,m)=ϵ^{\mu \rho \nu \alpha }p_\rho \mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,m),$$
(78)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,m)`$ is the contribution corresponding to the one-fermion-loop self-energy diagram. For the sake of computing the loop integral and factoring out the divergent part, we go over to $`d=4ϵ`$-dimensions, following the procedure of dimensional regularization (see ref. ):

$`\mathrm{\Pi }(p^2,m)`$ $`=`$ $`(\mu )^ϵ{\displaystyle \frac{d^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[(p+k)^2+m^2][k^2+m^2]}}`$ (79)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{2}{ϵ}}\gamma ln{\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{\mu ^2}}I({\displaystyle \frac{p^2}{m^2}})\right]+o(ϵ),`$
$`\mu `$ is a parameter and the finite part reads as below:

$$I\left(\frac{p^2}{m^2}\right)=alna(a1)ln(a1)+bln|b|+(1b)ln(1b)2,$$
(80)
where

$`a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1\pm \sqrt{1+4{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p^2}}}\right],`$
$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[1\pm \sqrt{14{\displaystyle \frac{m^2}{p^2}}}\right].`$ (81)
In the long wavelength ($`p0`$) and large mass ($`m\mathrm{}`$) limit, $`a\mathrm{},b\mathrm{}`$; thus, it is easily verifiable that $`I2`$. Therefore, we find the finite part of the kernel:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mu \nu \alpha }(p,m)\frac{2}{(4\pi )^2}ϵ^{\mu \rho \nu \alpha }p_\rho $$
(82)
Inserting the leading term into the quadratic effective action (76) and going back to configuration space (Lorentzian), we find an induced BF-term

$$S_{eff}=8\frac{g^2}{(4\pi )^2}d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \alpha }a_\mu _\nu b_{\rho \alpha }=8\frac{g^2}{(4\pi )^2}𝒮_{BF}(𝒜).$$
(83)
Putting this result back into (36), we obtain:

$$𝒵^{(ferm)}𝒟𝒜e^{𝒮_{BF}(𝒜)+\frac{1}{2}{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x[{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{\mu \nu }b^{\mu \nu }a_\mu a^\mu ]}},$$
(84)
which, via the correspondence proven before, is equivalent to the gauge invariant Cremer-Sherk-Kalb-Ramond model which describes a massive spin-one (bosonic) particle. The boson mass is given by the inverse of the factor in front of $`𝒮_{BF}`$ in the eq. (83), $`m_{boson}^1\frac{g^2}{2\pi ^2}`$.

Notice also that, if one rescale the doublet current as $`(j^\mu ,j^{\mu \nu })(sj^\mu ,tj^{\mu \nu })`$, the single effect of this that the boson mass results rescaled as, $`m_{boson}m_{boson}/(st)`$.

Finally, a fermionic representation for the CSKR model is given by the partition function:

$$𝒵^{(ferm)}=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2N_fm}[2j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }+j_\mu j^\mu ])d^3x}𝒵_{CSKR}.$$
(85)
Now, by repeating the calculations of the previaous subsections, one may to study non-linear generalizations of the fermionic model (69). In fact, substituting $`j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }+j_\mu j^\mu U_1(j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu })+U_2(j_\mu j^\mu )`$ in the expression (69), one can bosonize this into a non-linear SD theory given by (62) 141414For simplicity, we are discussing on the case $`d=4`$ and doublets in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$., whose non-linearities are related to $`U_{1/2}`$ by the expressions (64). And once more, for composing this with the duality proven in the subsection 4.1 , this corresponds to a topologically massive gauge theory (so as in the Thirring-MCS correspondence) given by the action (63).

In particular, we can write down the fermionic counterpart of the Born-Infeld-Kalb-Ramond gauge theory. This may be cast as

$$𝒵_{BIKR}𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi e^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2N_fm}[2j_{\mu \nu }j^{\mu \nu }+\beta ^2\sqrt{1\frac{j_\mu j^\mu }{\beta ^2})}])d^3x}.$$
(86)
Let us conclude this section by mentioning that the operator correspondence underlying this structure reads as

$$𝒥^{}d𝒜.$$
(87)
## 5 Final Remarks.

We have presented here a new approach to study the bosonization of a model of interacting fermions in terms of topologically massive models, similar to what happens in $`d=3`$. In general, this involves two gauge fields with different tensorial ranks (BF-type theories). We have actually discussed this point for $`d=4`$, but we showed the road to reproduce this construction in higher dimensions (one simply should build up the currents as elements in some $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$). These results have been emphasized for theories which appear to be very important in field theory and/or dynamics of $`Dp`$-branes (CSKR and BIKR theories).

A comment is in order that regrads the two-form current, $`j^{\mu \nu }`$, appearing in the Thirring model. It may look somewhat artificial, since it is not necessarily conserved. Nevertheless, we try here to show that it is actually a natural piece of the formalism, since it is related to topologically massive gauge invariant models: it is crucial for the attainment of a bosonic topologically massive theory in the large fermionic mass limit. Bosonization in the case of non-conserved fermionic currents has already been contemplated by other authors .

We conclude this paper by stressing a motivation for the proposed generalization of the self-duality to $`d>3`$, via doublets . It appears to be appropriate to highlight such a point, since, despite the use of the doublet procedure proposed here to bosonize a $`3d`$-Thirring model, one recovers the well-known results in $`3d`$, i.e; the doublet disappears and reduces to a single dynamic self-dual field. In fact, for a Thirring model in $`3d`$, with a $`U(1)`$-interaction, we can only construct a current doublet in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, $`𝒥=(j^\mu ,j^\mu )`$, where $`j^\mu \overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu \psi `$. After introducing, as usual, a bosonic doublet $`𝒜=(a_\mu ,b_\mu )`$, the partition function may be cast as

$$𝒵_{(ferm)}𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi 𝒟a𝒟be^{{\scriptscriptstyle }(\overline{\psi }(/+m)\psi \frac{g^2}{2}j^\mu [a_\mu +b_\mu ](a^2+b^2)/2)d^4x}.$$
(88)
By changing coordinates to $`c_\mu ^\pm \frac{a_\mu \pm b_\mu }{2}`$, the field $`c_\mu ^+`$ appears decoupled from $`c_\mu ^{}`$ (the latter without dynamics), whose action, induced by the fermionic model, is precisely given by a self-dual model (eq. (3)), as expected. This fact seems to be an additional motivation to think of the (current) doublets as more general objects.

Aknowledgements: The authors express their gratitude to CNPq, for the invaluable financial help.