format: text

text:
# Sampling Strategies for Mining in Data-Scarce Domains

## 1 Introduction

A number of important scientific and engineering applications, such as fluid dynamics simulation and aircraft design, require analysis of spatially-distributed data from expensive experiments and/or complex simulations demanding days, weeks, or even years on petaflops-class computing systems. For example, consider the conceptual design of a high-speed civil transport (HSCT), which involves the disciplines of aerodynamics, structures, controls (mission-related), and propulsion. 80% of the aircraft lifecycle cost is determined at this stage. Fig. 1 shows a cross-section of the design space for such a problem involving 29 design variables with 68 constraints . Frequently, the engineer will change some aspect of a nominal design point, and run a simulation to see how the change affects the objective function and various constraints dealing with aircraft geometry and performance/aerodynamics. Or the design process is made configurable, so the engineer can concentrate on accurately modeling some aspect (e.g., the interaction between the wing root and the fuselage) while replacing the remainder of the design with fixed boundary conditions surrounding the focal area. Both these approaches are inadequate for exploring such large high-dimensional design spaces, even at low fidelity. Ideally, the design engineer would like a high-level mining system to identify the pockets that contain good designs and which merit further consideration; traditional tools from optimization and approximation theory can then be applied to fine-tune such preliminary analyses.

Three important characteristics distinguish such applications. First, they are characterized not by an abundance of data, but rather by a scarcity of data (owing to the cost and time involved in conducting simulations). Second, the computational scientist has complete control over the data acquisition process (e.g. regions of the design space where data can be collected), especially via computer simulations. And finally, there exists significant domain knowledge in the form of physical properties such as continuity, correspondence, and locality. It is natural therefore to use such information to focus data collection for data mining. In this paper, we are interested in the question: ‘Given a simulation code, knowledge of physical properties, and a data mining goal, at what points should data be collected?’

By suitably formulating an objective function and constraints around this question, we can pose it as a problem of minimizing the number of samples needed for data mining. Such a combination of {data-scarcity + control over data collection + need to exploit domain knowledge} characterizes many important computational science applications. Data mining is now recognized as a key solution approach for such applications, supporting analysis, visualization, and design tasks . It serves a primary role in many domains (e.g., microarray bioinformatics) and a complementary role in others, by augmenting traditional techniques from numerical analysis, statistics, and machine learning.

The goal of this paper is to describe focused sampling strategies for mining scientific data. Our approach is based on the spatial aggregation language (SAL) , which supports construction of data interpretation and control design applications for spatially-distributed physical systems. Used as a basis for describing data mining algorithms, SAL programs also help exploit knowledge of physical properties such as continuity and locality in data fields. They work in a bottom-up manner to uncover regions of uniformity in spatially distributed data. In conjunction with this process, we introduce a top-down sampling strategy that focuses data collection in only those regions that are deemed most important to support a data mining objective. Together, they help define a methodology for mining in data-scarce domains. We describe this methodology at a high-level and devote the major part of the paper to two applications that employ it.

## 2 A Methodology for Mining in Data-Scarce Domains

It is possible to study the problem of sampling for targeted data mining activities, such as clustering, finding association rules, and decision tree construction . This is the approach taken by work such as . In this paper, however, we are interested in a general framework or language to express data mining operations on datasets and which can be used to study the design of data collection and sampling strategies. The spatial aggregation language (SAL)  is such a framework.

### 2.1 SAL: The Spatial Aggregation Language

As a data mining framework, SAL is based on successive manipulations of data fields by a uniform vocabulary of aggregation, classification, and abstraction operators. Programming in SAL follows a philosophy of building a multi-layer hierarchy of aggregations of data. These increasingly abstract descriptions of data are built using explicit representations of physical knowledge, expressed as metrics, adjacency relations, and equivalence predicates. This allows a SAL program to uncover and exploit structures in physical data.

SAL programs employ what has been called an imagistic reasoning style . They employ vision-like routines to manipulate multi-layer geometric and topological structures in spatially distributed data. SAL adopts a field ontology, in which the input is a field mapping from one continuum to another (e.g. 2-D temperature field: $`^2^1`$; 3-D fluid flow field: $`^3^3`$). Multi-layer structures arise from continuities in fields at multiple scales. Due to continuity, fields exhibit regions of uniformity, and these regions of uniformity can be abstracted as higher-level structures which in turn exhibit their own continuities. Task-specific domain knowledge specifies how to uncover such regions of uniformity, defining metrics for closeness of both field objects and their features. For example, isothermal contours are connected curves of nearby points with equal (or similar enough) temperature.

The identification of structures in a field is a form of data reduction: a relatively information-rich field representation is abstracted into a more concise structural representation (e.g. pressure data points into isobar curves or pressure cells; isobar curve segments into troughs). Navigating the mapping from field to abstract description through multiple layers rather than in one giant step allows the construction of more modular programs with more manageable pieces that can use similar processing techniques at different levels of abstraction. The multi-level mapping also allows higher-level layers to use global properties of lower-level objects as local properties of the higher-level objects. For example, the average temperature in a region is a global property when considered with respect to the temperature data points, but a local property when considered with respect to a more abstract region description. As this paper demonstrates, analysis of higher-level structures in such a hierarchy can guide interpretation of lower-level data.

SAL supports structure discovery through a small set of generic operators, parameterized with domain-specific knowledge, on uniform data types. These operators and data types mediate increasingly abstract descriptions of the input data (see Fig. 2) to form higher-level abstractions and mine patterns. The primitives in SAL are contiguous regions of space called spatial objects; the compounds are (possibly structured) collections of spatial objects; the abstraction mechanisms connect collections at one level of abstraction with single objects at a higher level.

SAL is currently available as a C++ library111The SAL implementation can be downloaded from http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/insight/sal-code.html. providing access to a large set of data type implementations and operations. In addition, an interpreted, interaction environment layered over the library supports rapid prototyping of data mining applications. It allows users to inspect data and structures, test the effects of different predicates, and graphically interact with representations of the structures.

To illustrate SAL programming style, consider the task of bundling vectors in a given vector field (e.g. wind velocity or temperature gradient) into a set of streamlines (paths through the field following the vector directions). This process can be depicted as shown in Fig. 3 and the corresponding SAL data mining program is shown in Fig. 4. The steps in this program are as follows: (a) Establish a field mapping points (locations) to points (vector directions, assumed here to be normalized). (b) Localize computation with a neighborhood graph, so that only spatially proximate points are compared. (c)–(f) Use a series of local computations on this representation to find equivalence classes of neighboring vectors with respect to vector direction (systematically eliminate all edges but those whose directions best match the vector direction at both endpoints). (g) Redescribe equivalence classes of vectors into more abstract streamline curves. (h) Aggregate and classify these curves into groups with similar flow behavior, using the exact same operators but with different metrics (code not shown). As this example illustrates, SAL provides a vocabulary for expressing the knowledge required (e.g., distance metrics and similarity metrics) for uncovering multi-level structures in spatial datasets. It has been applied to applications ranging from decentralized control design  to analysis of diffusion-reaction morphogenesis .

### 2.2 Data Collection and Sampling

The above example illustrated the use of SAL in a data-rich domain. The exploitation of physical properties is a central tenet of SAL since it drives the computation of multi-level spatial aggregates. Many important physical properties can be expressed as SAL computations by suitably defining adjacency relations and aggregation metrics. To extend the use of SAL to data-scarce settings, we present the sampling methodology outlined in Fig. 5.

Once again, it is easy to understand the methodology in the context of the vector-field bundling application (Fig. 3). Assume that we apply the SAL data mining program of Fig. 4 with a small dataset and have navigated upto the highest level of the hierarchy (streamlines bundled with convergent flows). The SAL program computes different streamline aggregations from a neighborhood graph and chooses one based on how well its curvature matches the direction of the vectors it aggregates. If data is scarce, it is likely that some of these classification decisions will be ambiguous, i.e., there may exist multiple streamline aggregations. In such a case, we would like to choose a new data sample that reduces the ambiguity and clarifies what the correct classification should be.

This is the essence of our sampling methodology: using SAL aggregates, we identify an information-theoretic measure (here, ambiguity) that can be used to drive stages of future data collection. For instance, the ambiguous streamline classifications can be summarized as a 2D ambiguity distribution that has a spike for every location where an ambiguity was detected. Reduction of ambiguity can be posed as the problem of minimization of (or maximization, as the case may be) a functional involving the (computed) ambiguity. The functional could be the entropy in the underlying data field, as revealed by the ambiguity distribution. Such a minimization will lead us to selecting a data point(s) that clarifies the distribution of streamlines, and hence makes more effective use of data for data mining purposes. The net effect of this methodology is that we are able to capture the desirability of a particular design (data layout) in terms of computations involving SAL aggregates. Thus, sampling is conducted for the express purpose of improving the quality and efficacy of data mining. The dataset is updated with the newly collected value and the process is repeated till a desired stopping criteria is met. For instance, we could terminate if the functional is within accepted bounds, or when there is no improvement in confidence of data mining results between successive rounds of data collection. In our case, when there is no further ambiguity.

This idea of sampling to satisfy particular design criteria has been studied in various contexts, especially spatial statistics . Many of these approaches (including ours) rely on capturing properties of a desirable design in terms of a novel objective function. The distinguishing feature of our work is that it uses spatial information gleaned from a higher level of abstraction to focus data collection at the field/simulation code layer. The applications presented here are also novel in that they span and connect arbitrary levels of abstraction, thus suggesting new ways to integrate qualitative and quantitative simulation .

We present concrete realizations of the above methodology in the next section. But before we proceed, it is pertinent to note an optional step in our methodology. The newly collected data value can be used to improve a surrogate model which then generates a dense data field for mining. A surrogate function is something that is used in lieu of the real data source, so as to generate sufficient data for mining purposes. This is often more advantageous than working directly with sparse data. Surrogate models are widely used in engineering design, optimization, and in response surface approximations .

Together, SAL and our focused sampling methodology address the main issues raised in the beginning of the paper: SAL’s uniform use of fields and abstraction operators allows us to exploit prior knowledge in a bottom-up manner. Discrepancies as suggested by our knowledge of physical properties (e.g., ambiguities) are used in a top-down manner by the sampling methodology. Continuing these two stages alternatively leads to a closed-loop data mining solution for data-scarce domains.

## 3 Example Applications

### 3.1 Mining Pockets in Spatial Data

Our first application is motivated by the aircraft design problem and is meant to illustrate the basic idea of our methodology. Here, we are given a spatial vector field and we wish to identify pockets underlying the gradient. In a weather map, this might mean identifying pressure troughs, for instance. The question is: ‘where should data be collected so that we are able to mine the pockets with high confidence?’ We begin by presenting a mathematical function that gives rise to pockets in spatial fields. This function will be used to validate and test our data mining and sampling methodology.

#### de Boor’s function

Carl de Boor invented a pocket function that exploits containment properties of the $`n`$-sphere of radius 1 centered at the origin ($`\mathrm{\Sigma }x_{i}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}1`$) with respect to the $`n`$-dimensional hypercube defined by $`x_i[1,1],i=1\mathrm{}n`$. Even though the sphere is embedded inside the cube, notice that the ratio of the volume of the cube ($`2^n`$) to that of the sphere ($`\pi ^{n/2}/(n/2)!`$) grows unboundedly with $`n`$. This means that the volume of a high-dimensional cube is concentrated in its corners (a counterintuitive notion at first). de Boor exploited this property to design a difficult-to-optimize function which assumes a pocket in each corner of the cube (Fig. 6), that is just outside the sphere. Formally, it can be defined as:

$`\alpha (𝐗)`$ $`=`$ $`cos\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}2^i\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{x_i}{x_i}}\right)\right)2`$ (1)
$`\delta (𝐗)`$ $`=`$ $`𝐗0.5𝐈`$ (2)
$`p(𝐗)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (𝐗)(1\delta ^2(𝐗)(32\delta (𝐗)))+1`$ (3)
where $`𝐗`$ is the n-dimensional point $`(x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ at which the pocket function $`p`$ is evaluated, $`𝐈`$ is the identity n-vector, and $``$ is the $`L_2`$ norm.

It is easily seen that $`p`$ has $`2^n`$ pockets (local minima); if $`n`$ is large (say, 30, which means it will take more than half a million points to just represent the corners of the $`n`$-cube!), naive global optimization algorithms will require an unreasonable number of function evaluations to find the pockets. Our goal for data mining here is to obtain a qualitative indication of the existence, number, and locations of pockets, using low-fidelity models and/or as few data points as possible. The results can then be used to seed higher-fidelity calculations. This is also fundamentally different from DACE , polynomial response surface approximations , and other approaches in geo-statistics where the goal is accuracy of functional prediction at untested data points. Here, accuracy of estimation is traded for the ability to mine pockets.

#### Surrogate Function

In this study, we use the SAL vector-field bundling code presented earlier along with a surrogate model as the basis for generating a dense field of data. Surrogate theory is an established area in engineering optimization and there are several ways in which we can build a surrogate. However, the local nature of SAL computations means that we can be selective about our choice of surrogate representation. For example, global, least-squares type approximations are inappropriate since measurements at all locations are equally considered to uncover trends and patterns in a particular region. We advocate the use of kriging-type interpolators , which are local modeling methods with roots in Bayesian statistics. Kriging can handle situations with multiple local extrema (for example, in weather data, remote sensing data, etc.) and can easily exploit anisotropies and trends. Given $`k`$ observations, the interpolated model gives exact responses at these $`k`$ sites and estimates values at other sites by minimizing the mean squared error (MSE), assuming a random data process with zero mean and a known covariance function.

Formally (for two dimensions), the true function $`p`$ is assumed to be the realization of a random process such as:

$$p(x,y)=\beta +Z(x,y)$$
(4)
where $`\beta `$ is typically a uniform random variate, estimated based on the known $`k`$ values of $`p`$, and $`Z`$ is a correlation function. Kriging then estimates a model $`p^{}`$ of the same form, based on the $`k`$ observations:

$$p^{}(x_i,y_i)=E(p(x_i,y_i)|p(x_1,y_1),\mathrm{},p(x_k,y_k))$$
(5)
and minimizing mean squared error between $`p^{}`$ and $`p`$:

$$MSE=E(p^{}(x,y)p(x,y))^2$$
(6)
A typical choice for $`Z`$ in $`p^{}`$ is $`\sigma ^2R`$, where scalar $`\sigma ^2`$ is the estimated variance, and correlation matrix $`R`$ encodes domain-specific constraints and reflects the current fidelity of data. We use an exponential function for entries in $`R`$, with two parameters $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$:

$$R_{ij}=e^{C_1|x_ix_j|^2C_2|y_iy_j|^2}$$
(7)
Intuitively, values at closer points should be more highly correlated.

The estimator minimizing mean squared error is then obtained by multi-dimensional optimization (the derivation from Eqs. 6 and 7 is beyond the scope of this paper):

$$\underset{C}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{k}{2}(\mathrm{ln}\sigma ^2+\mathrm{ln}|R|)$$
(8)
This expression satisfies the conditions that there is no error between the model and the true values at the chosen $`k`$ sites, and that all variability in the model arises from the design of $`Z`$. The multi-dimensional optimization is often performed by gradient descent or pattern search methods. More details are available in , which demonstrates this methodology in the context of the design and analysis of computer experiments.

#### Data Mining and Sampling Methodology

The bottom-up computation of SAL aggregates from the surrogate model’s outputs will possibly lead to some ambiguous streamline classifications, as discussed earlier. Ambiguity can reflect the desirability of acquiring data at or near a specified point, to clarify the correct classification and to serve as a mathematical criterion of information content. There are several ways in which we can use information about ambiguity to drive data collection. In this study, we express the ambiguities as a distribution describing the number of possible good neighbors (for a streamline). This ambiguity distribution provides a novel mechanism to include qualitative information — streamlines that agree will generally contribute less to data mining, for information purposes. The information-theoretic measure $`M`$ (ref. Fig. 5) was thus defined to be the ambiguity distribution $`\mathrm{}`$.

The functional was defined as the posterior entropy $`E(\mathrm{log}d)`$, where $`d`$ is the conditional density of $`\mathrm{}`$ over the design space not covered by the current data values. By a reduction argument, minimizing this posterior entropy can be shown to be maximizing the prior entropy over the unsampled design space . In turn, this means that the amount of information obtained from an experiment (additional data collection) is maximized. In addition, we also incorporated $`\mathrm{}`$ as an indicator covariance term in our surrogate model (this is a conventional method for including qualitative information in an interpolatory model ).

#### Experimental Results

The initial experimental configuration used a face-centered design ($`4`$ points in the 2D case). A surrogate model by kriging interpolation then generated data on a $`41^n`$-point grid. de Boor’s function was used as the source for data values; we also employed pseudorandom perturbations of it that shift the pockets from the corners in a somewhat unpredictable way (see  for details). In total, we experimented with 100 perturbed variations (each) of the 2D and 3D pocket functions. For each of these cases, data collection was organized in rounds of one extra sample each (that minimizes the above functional). The number of samples needed to mine all the pockets by SAL was recorded. We also compared our results with those obtained from a pure DACE/kriging approach (i.e., where sampling was directed at improving accuracy of function estimation). In other words, we used the DACE methodology to suggest new locations for data collection and determined how these choices fared with respect to mining the pockets.

Fig. 7 shows the distributions of total number of data samples required to mine the four pockets for the 2D case. We were thus able to mine the 2D pockets using 3 to 11 additional samples, whereas the conventional kriging approach required 13 to 19 additional samples. The results were were more striking in the 3D case: at most 42 additional samples for focused sampling and upto 151 points for conventional kriging. This shows that our focused sampling methodology performs 40-75% better than sampling by conventional kriging.

Fig. 8 (left) describes a 2D design involving only $`7`$ total data points that is able to mine the four pockets. Counterintuitively, no additional sample is required in the lower left quadrant! While this will lead to a highly sub-optimal design (from the traditional viewpoint of minimizing variance in predicted values), it is nevertheless an appropriate design for data mining purposes. In particular, this means that neighborhood calculations involving the other three quadrants are enough to uncover the pocket in the fourth quadrant. Since the kriging interpolator uses local modeling and since pockets in 2D effectively occupy the quadrants, obtaining measurements at ambiguous locations serves to capture the relatively narrow regime of each dip, which in turn helps to distinguish the pocket in the neighboring quadrant. This effect is hard to achieve without exploiting knowledge of physical properties, in this case, locality of the dips.

### 3.2 Qualitative Jordan Form Determination

In our second application, we use our methodology to identify the most probable Jordan form of a given matrix. This is a good application for data mining since the direct computation of the Jordan form leads to a numerically unstable algorithm.

#### Jordan forms

A matrix $`𝒜`$ (real or complex) that has $`r`$ independent eigenvectors has a Jordan form that consists of $`r`$ blocks. Each of these blocks is an upper triangular matrix that is associated with one of the eigenvectors of $`𝒜`$ and whose size describes the multiplicity of the corresponding eigenvalue. For the given matrix $`𝒜`$, the diagonalization thus posits a nonsingular matrix $``$ such that:

$$^1𝒜=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}𝒥_1& & & \\ & 𝒥_2& & \\ & & & \\ & & & 𝒥_r\end{array}\right]$$
(9)
where

$$𝒥_i=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}\lambda _i& 1& & \\ & & 1& \\ & & & 1\\ & & & \lambda _i\end{array}\right]$$
(10)
and $`\lambda _i`$ is the eigenvalue revealed by the $`i`$th Jordan block ($`𝒥_i`$). The Jordan form is most easily explained by looking at how eigenvectors are distributed for a given eigenvalue. Consider, for example, the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \hfill 1& \hfill 1\\ 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 2\\ 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 3\end{array}\right]$$

that has eigenvalues at 1, 1, and 2. This matrix has only two eigenvectors, as revealed by the two-block structure of its Jordan form:

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ & & \\ 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 2\end{array}\right]$$

The Jordan form is unique modulo shufflings of the blocks and, in this case, shows that there is one eigenvalue ($`1`$) of multiplicity $`2`$ and one eigenvalue ($`2`$) of multiplicty $`1`$. We say that the matrix has the Jordan structure given by $`(1)^2(2)^1`$. In contrast, the matrix

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 2& \hfill 0\\ 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right]$$

has the same eigenvalues but a three-block Jordan structure:

$$\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ & & \\ 0& \hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ & & \\ 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 2\end{array}\right]$$

This is because there are three independent eigenvectors (the unit vectors, actually). The diagonalizing matrix is thus the identity matrix and the Jordan form has three permutations. The Jordan structure is therefore given by $`(1)^1(1)^1(2)^1`$. These two examples show that a given eigenvalue’s multiplicity could be distributed across one, many, or all Jordan blocks. Correlating the eigenvalue with the block structure is an important problem in numerical analysis.

The typical approach to computing the Jordan form is to ‘follow the staircase’ pattern of the structure and perform rank determinations in conjunction with ascertaining the eigenvalues. One of the more serious caveats with such an approach involves mistaking an eigenvalue of multiplicity $`>1`$ for multiple eigenvalues . In the first example matrix above, this might lead to inferring that the Jordan form has three blocks. The extra care needed to safeguard staircase algorithms usually involves more complexity than the original computation to be performed! The ill-conditioned nature of this computation has thus traditionally prompted numerical analysts to favor other, more stable, decompositions.

#### Qualitative assessment of Jordan forms

A recent development has been the acceptance of a qualitative approach to Jordan structure determination, proposed by Chaitin-Chatelin and Frayssé . This approach does not employ the staircase idea and, instead, exploits a semantics of eigenvalue perturbations to infer multiplicity. This leads to a geometrically intuitive algorithm that can be implemented using SAL.

Consider a matrix that has eigenvalues $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\mathrm{},\lambda _n`$ with multiplicities $`\rho _1,\rho _2,\mathrm{},\rho _n`$ (resp). Any attempt at finding the eigenvalues (e.g., determining the roots of the characteristic polynomial) is intrinsically subject to the numerical analysis dogma: the problem being solved will actually be a perturbed version of the original problem. This allows the expression of the computed eigenvalues in terms of perturbations on the actual eigenvalues. It can be easily seen that the computed eigenvalue corresponding to any $`\lambda _k`$ will be distributed on the complex plane as:

$$\lambda _k+|\mathrm{\Delta }|^{\frac{1}{\rho _k}}e^{\frac{i\varphi }{\rho _k}}$$

where the phase $`\varphi `$ of the perturbation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ranges over {$`2\pi ,4\pi ,\mathrm{},2\rho _k\pi `$} if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is positive and over {$`3\pi ,5\pi ,\mathrm{},2(\rho _k+1)\pi `$} if $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is negative. The insight in  is to superimpose numerous such perturbed calculations graphically so that the aggregate picture reveals the $`\rho _k`$ of the eigenvalue $`\lambda _k`$. Notice that the phase variations imply that the computed eigenvalues will be lying on the vertices of a regular polygon centered on the actual eigenvalue and where the number of sides is two times the multiplicity of the considered eigenvalue (this takes into account both positive and negative $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$). Since the diameter of the polygon is influenced by $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, iterating this process over many $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ will lead to a ‘sticks’ depiction of the Jordan form.

To illustrate, we choose a matrix whose computations will be more prone to finite precision errors. Perturbations on the 8-by-8 Brunet matrix  with Jordan structure $`(1)^1(2)^1(7)^3(7)^3`$ induce the superimposed structures shown in Fig. 9. The left part of Fig. 9 depicts normwise relative perturbations in the scale of $`[2^{50},2^{40}]`$. The six sticks around the eigenvalue at 7 clearly reveal that its Jordan block is of size 3. The other Jordan block, also centered at 7, is revealed if we conduct our exploration at a finer perturbation level. Fig. 9 reveals the second Jordan block using perturbations in the range $`[2^{53},2^{50}]`$. The noise in both pictures is a consequence of (i) having two Jordan blocks with the same size, and (ii) a ‘ring’ phenomenon studied in ; we do not attempt to capture these effects in this paper.

#### Data Mining and Sampling Methodology

For this study, we collect data by random normwise perturbations in a given region and a SAL program determines multiplicity by detecting symmetry correspondence in the samples. The first aggregation level collects the samples for a given perturbation into triangles. The second aggregation level finds congruent triangles via geometric hashing , and uses congruence to establish an analogy relation among triangle vertices. This relation is then abstracted into a rotation about a point (the eigenvalue), and evaluated for whether each point rotates onto another and whether matches define regular polygons. A third level then compares rotations across different perturbations, re-visiting perturbations or choosing new perturbations in order to disambiguate (see Fig. 10). The end result of this analysis is a confidence measure on models of possible Jordan forms. Each model is defined by its estimate of $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ (notice that we are working only within one region at a time). The measure $`M`$ was defined to be the joint probability distribution over the space of $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$.

#### Experimental Results

Since our Jordan form computation treats multiple perturbations (irresp. of level) as independent estimates of eigenstructure, the idea of sampling here is not ‘where to collect,’ but ‘how much to collect.’ The goal of data mining is hence to improve our confidence in model evaluation. We organized data collection into rounds of 6-8 samples each, varied a tolerance parameter for triangle congruence from 0.1 to 0.5 (effectively increasing the number of models posited), and determined the number of rounds needed to determine the Jordan form. As test cases, we used the set of matrices studied in . On average, our focused sampling approach required 1 round of data collection at a tolerance of 0.1 and up to 2.7 rounds at 0.5. Even with a large number of models posited, additional data quickly weeded out bad models. Fig. 10 demonstrates this mechanism on the Brunet matrix discussed above for two sets of sample points. To the best of our knowledge, this is the only known known focused sampling methodology for this domain; we hence are unable to present any comparisons. However, it is clear that by harnessing domain knowledge about correspondences, we have arrived at an intelligent sampling methodology that resembles what a human would obtain by visual inspection.

## 4 Discussion

The presented methodology for mining in data-scarce domains has several intrinsic benefits. First, it is based on a uniform vocabulary of operators that can be exploited for a rich diversity of applications. Second, it demonstrates a novel factorization to the problem of mining when data is scarce, namely, formulating an experiment design methodology to clarify, disambiguate, and improve confidences in higher-level aggregates of data. This allows us to bridge qualitative and quantitative information in a unified framework. SAL programs thus uncover bottom-up structures in data systematically and use difficulties encountered in this process (ambiguities, lack of correspondences) to guide top-down selection of additional data samples. By using knowledge of physical properties explicitly, our approach can provide more holistic and explainable results than off-the-shelf data mining algorithms. Third, our methodology can co-exist with more traditional approaches to problem solving (numerical analysis, optimization) and is not meant to be a replacement or a contrasting approach. This is amply demonstrated in each of the two applications above, where connections with various traditional methodologies have been carefully established.

The methodology makes several intrinsic assumptions which we only briefly mention here. All of our applications have been such that the cause, formation, and effect of the relevant physical properties are well understood. This is precisely what allows us to act decisively based on higher-level information from SAL aggregates, through the measure $`M`$. It also assumes that the problems that will be encountered by the mining algorithm are the same as the problems for which it was designed. This is an inheritance from Bayesian inductive inference and leads to fundamental limitations on what can be done in such a setting. For instance, if new data does not help clarify an ambiguity, does the fault lie with the model (SAL higher-level aggregate) or with the data? We can summarize this problem by saying that the approach requires strong a priori information about what is possible and what is not.

Nevertheless, by advocating targeted use of domain specific knowledge and aiding qualitative model selection, our methodology is more efficient at determining high level models from empirical data. Together, SAL and our information-theoretic measure $`M`$ encapsulate knowledge about physical properties and this is what makes our methodology a viable one for data mining purposes. In future we aim to characterize more formally the particular forms of domain knowledge that help overcome sparsity and noise in scientific datasets.

It should be mentioned that while the two studies formulate their sampling objectives differently, they are naturally supported by the SAL framework:

* (pockets) Where should I collect data in order to mine the pockets with high confidence?
* (Jordan forms) How much data should I collect in order to determine the right Jordan form with high confidence?

One could imagine extending our framework to also take into account the expense of data samples. If the cost of data collection is non-uniform across the domain, then including this in the design of our functional will allow us to tradeoff the cost of gathering information with the expected improvement in problem solving performance. This area of data mining is referred to as active learning.

Data mining can sometimes be a controversial term in a discipline that is used to mathematical rigor; this is because it often used synonymously with ‘lack of a hypothesis or theory.’ We hope to have convinced the reader that this need not be the case and that data mining can indeed be sensitive to knowledge about the domain, especially physical properties of the kind we have harnessed here. As data mining applications become more prevalent in science, the need to incorporate a priori domain knowledge will only become more important.


text:
# Untitled Document

KCL-MTH-02-08

hep-th//0204207

Massive IIA Supergravity as a Non-linear Realisation

Igor Schnakenburg and Peter West

Department of Mathematics

King’s College, London, UK

Abstract

A description of the bosonic sector of massive IIA supergravity as a non-linear realisation is given. An essential feature of this construction is that the momentum generators have non-trivial commutation relations with the generators associated with the gauge fields.

Igor Schnakenburg is financially supported by DAAD (D/00/09914).

email: schnake, pwest@mth.kcl.ac.uk

0. Introduction  Long ago Nahm  pointed out that supergravity theories could only exist in eleven and less space-time dimensions and that the maximum number of supersymmetries they could possess were contained in spinors that had in total no more than 32 real components. The supergravity theories with 32 components are called maximal supergravity theories. There is a unique such theory in eleven dimensions which was constructed  as an application of the Noether method that was used to construct the first supergravity theory, the $`N=1`$, $`D=4`$ supergravity theory. However, in ten dimensions there are two such maximal supergravity theories called IIA and IIB. These two theories possess different supersymmetries which when decomposed in terms of Majorana-Weyl spinors are of opposite and the same chirality respectively. While the construction of the IIA theory  was found by dimensional reduction of the eleven dimensional supergravity theory, the construction of the IIB theory  required new techniques. There is a modification of the IIA theory that preserves the number of supersymmetries, but introduces a dimensionfull parameter . This theory is called massive IIA supergravity and it possesses a cosmological constant.

One of the most remarkable features of supergravity theories is that the scalars in the supergravity multiplets always occur in a coset structure . While this can be viewed as a consequence of supersymmetry, the groups that occur in these cosets are rather mysterious . It has been conjectured  that the symmetries found in these cosets are symmetries of the associated non-perturbative string theory.

The coset construction for the description of the scalars was extended to include the gauge fields for the maximal supergravity theories . In this construction all gauge fields and scalars were introduced along with their duals. The advantage of this approach is that the equations of motion can be reduced to first order equations in form of a generalised self-duality condition. This method was subsequently applied to massive IIA . However, in these papers the vector indices on the gauge fields did not arise from the underlying group, but were introduced by hand. As such, it is difficult to see how this construction could be extended to include the other degrees of freedom of the theory, namely the graviton and the fermions.

Recently, it was shown that the entire bosonic sectors, including gravity, of the eleven dimensional supergravity theory and the ten dimensional IIA  and IIB supergravity theories , could be formulated as a non-linear realisation. It was also conjectured, that when suitably formulated eleven dimensional supergravity would be invariant under a Kac-Moody algebra . Although, this conjecture was not proved in  some evidence was given and the Kac-Moody algebra was identified. It had rank eleven and was denoted $`E_{11}`$ . A similar analysis found that $`E_{11}`$ was also the Kac-Moody algebra that would underlie the ten dimensional IIA and IIB theories . As has been pointed out by one of the authors (PCW) in a number of seminars it could be that $`E_{11}`$ is part of an even larger underlying algebra that is a Borcherds algebra.

This is consistent with the general belief that all these theories are part of a larger theory which has been called M theory . It was conjectured  that $`E_{11}`$ over an appropriate field was a symmetry of M theory. However, as seen from this perspective M theory does not necessarily live in eleven dimensions, but rather has its dimension undetermined. A particular theory results from a choice of ”vacuum” in M theory and the dimension of the resulting theory is a consequence of the Lorentz group that is contained in the subgroup of $`E_{11}`$ that is preserved by the ”vacuum” under consideration.

In this paper we extend some of these considerations to the massive IIA theory and as a first step show that its entire bosonic sector can be described as a non-linear realisation.

1. Massive IIA Supergravity The bosonic sector of massive IIA supergravity was originally  described in terms of the same fields as in the ten-dimensional chiral theory without the cosmological constant. These fields were the graviton, $`h_a^b`$, the scalar $`A`$ (dilaton) and the $`p`$-forms $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ for $`p=1,2,3`$. However, the massive theory also contains a constant which is related to the cosmological constant. The bosonic part of the original Lagrangian given by Romans in  was

$$e^1L=R\frac{1}{2}_\mu A^\mu A\frac{1}{12}e^{1/2A}F^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{1}{3}e^AG^{\mu \nu \rho }G_{\mu \nu \rho }m^2e^{3/2A}B^{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }$$

$$\frac{1}{2}m^2e^{5/2A}+\frac{e^1}{648}(ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma \mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _6}(16_\mu A_{\nu \rho \sigma }^{}_{\mu _1}A_{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}^{}B_{\mu _5\mu _6}$$

$$+16m_\mu A_{\nu \rho \sigma }B_{\mu _1\mu _2}B_{\mu _3\mu _4}B_{\mu 5\mu _6}+\frac{36}{5}m^2B_{\mu \nu }B_{\rho \sigma }B_{\mu _1\mu _2}B_{\mu _3\mu _4}B_{\mu _5\mu _6}),$$
$`(1.1)`$
where

$$G_{\mu \nu \rho }=3_{[\mu }B_{\nu \rho ]},\mathrm{and}F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=4(_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}^{}+6mB_{[\mu \nu }B_{\rho \sigma ]}).$$
$`(1.2)`$
By redefining the fields according to

$$B_{\mu \nu }=A_{\mu \nu }+\frac{2}{m}_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}A_{\mu \nu \rho }^{}=A_{\mu \nu \rho }6A_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho ]}\frac{6}{m}A_{[\mu }_\mu A_{\rho ]},$$
$`(1.3)`$
as explained in , it can be rewritten in the form

$$e^1L=R\frac{1}{2}_\mu A^\mu A\frac{1}{12}e^{1/2A}F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }F^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\frac{1}{3}e^AG_{\mu \nu \rho }G^{\mu \nu \rho }e^{3/2A}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }$$

$$\frac{1}{2}m^2e^{5/2A}+\frac{e^1}{18}ϵ^{\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _{10}}(_{\mu _1}A_{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}_{\mu _5}A_{\mu _6\mu _7\mu _8}A_{\mu _9\mu _{10}}+m_{\mu _1}A_{\mu _2\mu _3\mu _4}A_{\mu _5\mu _6}A_{\mu _7\mu _8}A_{\mu _9\mu _{10}}$$

$$+\frac{9}{20}m^2A_{\mu _1\mu _2}A_{\mu _3\mu _4}A_{\mu _5\mu _6}A_{\mu _7\mu _8}A_{\mu _9\mu _{10}}+18m_{\mu _1}A_{\mu _2\mathrm{}\mu _{10}}),$$
$`(1.4)`$
where the gauge invariant field strengths are now given by

$$F_{\mu \nu }=2(_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}+\frac{1}{2}mA_{\mu \nu }),\mathrm{and}G_{\mu \nu \rho }=3_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho ]},$$
$`(1.5)`$
$$F_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=4(_{[\mu }A_{\nu \rho \sigma ]}+6A_{[\mu }_\nu A_{\rho \sigma ]}+\frac{3}{2}mA_{[\mu \nu }A_{\rho \sigma ]}).$$
$`(1.6)`$
The terms containing negative powers of $`m`$ form a total divergence and can be dropped. In this second formulation the one form gauge field, which had been absorbed in the two form gauge field to make it massive in the former formulation, appears explicity and one can take $`m0`$ to find the Lagrangian of massless IIA supergravity in a straightforward way.

Following , in this formulation we may treat $`m`$ as a dynamical field. The field equation for the new nine form gauge fields states that $`_\mu m=0`$ i.e. $`m`$ is a constant. While the field equation for $`m`$ sets the field strength of the nine form gauge plus a combination of other forms in the theory equal to the epsilon symbol. We note that unlike for the other gauge fields these equations are first order. In  it was argued that one can derive the field equations for the purely bosonic sector of massive IIA supergravity from a Lagrangian which does not contain the mass parameter $`m`$ at all. To obtain this formulation the field equation for $`m`$ was plugged back into the Lagrangian (1.4). The advantage of this approach, as was explained in  is that this theory then naturally couples to an eight brane.

References  and  introduced duals of all the original gauge fields. As a result, the field equations for the gauge potentials could be reduced to first order. In the case of massive IIA supergravity  the dual of the nine form gauge field was taken to be a “minus one form” whose field strength was then dual to the ten form field strength of the nine form gauge field. We have noted in the last paragraph that the field equation for the nine form gauge potential is necessarily first order. We therefore do not introduce a dual of the nine form potential. In this paper we will introduce dual gauge fields for all the original gauge field, namely $`A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_q}`$ for $`q=5,6,7,8`$, but not for the nine form gauge field. We will find that the momentum operator plays an important role in place of the generator associated with the minus one form. Although to see the full symmetry one will have to introduce “duals of gravity” we will not do this here. The complete bosonic field content we require is thus given by:

$$h_a{}_{}{}^{b},A,A_c,A_{c_1c_2},A_{c_1c_2c_3},A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_5},A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_6},A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_7},A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_8},A_{c_1\mathrm{}c_9}.$$
$`(1.7)`$
In a non-linear realisation these fields are considered as the Goldstone bosons. We therefore introduce the corresponding generators

$$K^a{}_{b}{}^{},R,R^c,R^{c_1c_2},R^{c_1c_2c_3},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_5},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_6},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_7},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_8},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_9}.$$
$`(1.8)`$
The generators $`K^a_b`$ satisfy the commutation relations of $`GL(10,𝐑)`$ and the non-zero commutation relations between all generators mentioned above are given by

$$[K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{},K_{}^{c}{}_{d}{}^{}]=\delta _b^cK_{}^{a}{}_{d}{}^{}\delta _d^aK_{}^{c}{}_{b}{}^{},[K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{},P_c]=\delta _c^aP_b,[K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_p}]=\delta _b^{c_1}R^{ac_2\mathrm{}c_p}+\mathrm{},$$

$$[R,R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_p}]=c_pR^{c_1\mathrm{}c_p},[R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_p},R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_q}]=c_{p,q}R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_{p+q}},$$
$`(1.9)`$
where $`+\mathrm{}`$ means the appropriate anti-symmetrisations. We also include the momentum generator $`P_a`$ in the symmetry algebra and its non-trivial relations with the other generators are given by

$$[P_a,R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_p}]=mb_p(\delta _a^{c_1}R^{c_2\mathrm{}c_p}+\mathrm{}),[P_a,R]=mb_0P_a.$$
$`(1.10)`$
In what follows it will often be useful to denote $`c_1=mb_0`$, since in this way one can view the last commutator of equation (1.10) as an extension of those of equation (1.9).

If the coefficients are taken to be

$$c_3=c_5=\frac{1}{4},c_2=c_6=\frac{1}{2},c_1=c_7=\frac{3}{4},c_9=c_1=\frac{5}{4},$$

$$c_{1,2}=c_{2,3}=c_{3,3}=c_{1,5}=c_{2,5}=2,c_{3,5}=1,c_{2,6}=2,c_{1,7}=3,$$

$$c_{2,7}=4,b_2=\frac{1}{2},b_7=\frac{1}{2},b_9=\frac{5}{8},$$
$`(1.11)`$
(all not mentioned coefficients are equal to zero) then we can verify that all Jacobi identities are satisfied. For example, the generators corresponding to the gauge fields (all $`c`$’s) fulfill the condition

$$c_{q,r}c_{p,q+r}=c_{p,q}c_{p+q,r}+c_{p,r}c_{q,p+r}$$
$`(1.12)`$
where $`q,p`$ and $`r`$ indicate the rank of the generators. The Jacobi identities which involve $`b_0`$ obey the above relation provided we take $`mb_0=c_1`$ where appropriate. The Jacobi identities that involve the $`b_p,p0`$ structure constants in the new commutators of equation (1.10) obey the relation

$$b_{p+q}c_{p,q}=b_pc_{p1,q}+b_qc_{p,q1}.$$
$`(1.13)`$
One such example is given by the Jacobi identity involving $`R^{ab}`$, $`R^{c_1\mathrm{}c_7}`$ and $`P_d`$ which is satisfied provided $`c_{2,7}b_9=c_{2,6}b_7+b_2c_{1,7}`$.

The relations of equations (1.9) are the same as the algebra denoted $`G_{IIA}`$  relevant to the IIA supergravity theory except that they also include the rank nine generator. For the IIA theory the commutators of equation (1.10) vanish. Since the above mentioned commutation relations include those of IIA supergravity , we call the modified group which is generated by the above generators $`G_{mIIA}`$.

We can write a general group element of the corresponding group as

$$g=exp(x^\mu P_\mu )exp(h_a{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{})g_Ag_xg_hg_A,$$

where

$$g_A=e^{(1/9!)A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_9}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_9}}e^{(1/8!)A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_8}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_8}}e^{(1/7!)A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_7}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_7}}\times $$

$$e^{(1/6!)A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}}e^{(1/5!)A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_5}}e^{(1/3!)A_{a_1a_2a_3}R^{a_1a_2a_3}}e^{(1/2!)A_{a_1a_2}R^{a_1a_2}}e^{A_{a_1}R^{a_1}}e^{AR}.$$
$`(1.14)`$
Of course, we could have chosen any other representation, but the calculations turn out to be simplest in this particular exponential representation.

We now construct a non-linear realisation of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ algebra taking the local sub-algebra to be the Lorentz group. As such, we demand that the theory is invariant under

$$gg_0gh^1,$$
$`(1.15)`$
where $`g_0`$ is a rigid element from the whole group $`G_{mIIA}`$ and $`h`$ is a local Lorentz transformation. We calculate the Maurer-Cartan form

$$𝒱=g^1dg\omega $$
$`(1.16)`$
in the presence of the Lorentz connection $`\omega =\frac{1}{2}dx^\mu \omega _{\mu b}{}_{}{}^{a}J_{}^{b}_a`$, which transforms as

$$\omega h\omega h^1+hdh^1.$$
$`(1.17)`$
As a result, $`𝒱`$ transforms as

$$𝒱h𝒱h^1.$$
$`(1.18)`$
We split the Cartan form in gravity and gauge field parts according to

$$𝒱=(g_h^1dg_h\omega )+(g_A^1dg_A+g_A^1(g_h^1dg_h)g_Ag_h^1dg_h),$$
$`(1.19)`$
and set the result to be equal to

$$𝒱dx^\mu (\widehat{e}_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}P_{a}^{}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu a}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}K_{}^{a}{}_{b}{}^{})+dx^\mu (\underset{p=1,p4}{\overset{9}{}}\frac{1}{p!}e^{c_{p1}A}\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}R^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}),$$
$`(1.20)`$
where

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}(\widehat{e}^1)_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\left((e^1_\mu e)_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\omega _{\mu b}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}\right),$$
$`(1.21)`$
and

$$\widehat{e}_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}=e^{5/4A}(e^h)_\mu {}_{}{}^{a},e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}=(e^h)_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}.$$
$`(1.22)`$
We see that the object in front of the momentum generator gets altered with respect to IIA (where it was $`e_\mu ^a`$) due to the non-vanishing commutator in equation (1.10). We also see that the vielbeins in the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mu b}^c`$ equation (1.21) are the unhatted vielbeins. The additional factor of $`e^{5/4A}`$ just multiplies the usual expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ab}^c`$ from the massless case . As we will see in chapter 2, the physical vielbein therefore remains unchanged. The objects $`\stackrel{~}{D}_\mu A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ defined in (1.20) will be explicitly stated below.

Massive IIA supergravity is the non-linear realisation of the group that is the closure of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ algebra given above and the conformal group in ten dimensions. We therefore take only those combinations of the Cartan forms of $`G_{mIIA}`$ that can be rewritten as Cartan forms of the conformal group (see section 2). Lorentz covariant objects which are also covariant under the full non-linear realisation of the closure of the conformal and the $`G_{mIIA}`$ algebra are then for example the completely anti-symmetrised derivatives

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}=pe^{5/4A}e^{c_{p1}A}\stackrel{~}{D}_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_p]},$$
$`(1.23)`$
where we have to use $`\stackrel{~}{D}_a=\widehat{e}_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu }^{}`$ to convert the curved index to a flat index group-covariantly. As the physical vielbein is the unhatted one, we gain an additional factor $`e^{5/4A}`$ in front of every field strength in comparison with the IIA case. A discussion of the closure with the conformal group is postponed to the second section. We now give the explicit form of the field strengths. They are given for the scalar by:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_a=e^{5/4A}D_aA,$$
$`(1.24)`$
for the 1-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1a_2}=2e^{5/4A}e^{(3/4)A}\stackrel{~}{D}_{[a_1}A_{a_2]}=2e^{5/4A}e^{(3/4)A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2]}+\frac{1}{2}mA_{a_1a_2}),$$
$`(1.25)`$
for the 2-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1a_2a_3}=3e^{5/4A}e^{(1/2)A}D_{[a_1}A_{a_2a_3]}$$
$`(1.26)`$
for the 3-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_4}=4e^{5/4A}e^{(1/4)A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_4]}+6A_{[a_1}D_{a_2}A_{a_3a_4]}+\frac{3}{2}mA_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4]})$$
$`(1.27)`$
for the 5-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_6}=6e^{5/4A}e^{(1/4)A}\left(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_6]}+20(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_4}+\frac{1}{2}mA_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4})A_{a_5a_6]}\right)$$
$`(1.28)`$
for the 6-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_7}=7e^{5/4A}e^{(1/2)A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_7]}+\frac{1}{7}mA_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_7}20A_{[a_1a_2a_3}D_{a_4}A_{a_5a_6a_7]}+$$

$$+12A_{[a_1}(D_{[a_2}A_{a_3\mathrm{}a_7]}+20A_{a_2a_3}(D_{[a_4}A_{a_5a_6a_7]}+\frac{1}{2}mA_{a_4a_5}A_{a_6a_7]})))$$
$`(1.29)`$
for the 7-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_8}=8e^{5/4A}e^{(3/4)A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_8]}42A_{[a_1a_2}(D_{a_3}A_{a_4\mathrm{}a_8]}+10D_{a_3}A_{a_4a_5a_6}A_{a_7a_8]}+$$

$$+\frac{5}{2}mA_{a_3a_4}A_{a_5a_6}A_{a_7a_8]}))$$
$`(1.30)`$
for the 8-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_9}=9e^{5/4A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_9]}24A_{[a_1}D_{a_2}A_{a_3\mathrm{}a_9]}+56A_{[a_1a_2}D_{a_3}A_{a_4\mathrm{}a_9]}$$

$$56A_{[a_1a_2a_3}D_{a_4}A_{a_5\mathrm{}a_9]}+1008A_{[a_1}A_{a_2a_3}D_{a_4}A_{a_5\mathrm{}a_9]}+8mA_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3\mathrm{}a_9]}+$$

$$+\frac{7!}{2}mA_{[a_1}A_{a_2a_3}A_{a_4a_5}A_{a_6a_7}A_{a_8a_9]}+\frac{8!}{4}A_{[a_1}A_{a_2a_3}A_{a_4a_5}D_{a_6}A_{a_7a_8a_9]}$$

$$1120A_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4a_5}\stackrel{~}{D}_{a_6}A_{a_7a_8a_9]}\frac{5}{36}mA_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_9})$$
$`(1.31)`$
and finally for the 9-form:

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{10}}=10e^{5/4A}e^{(5/4)A}(D_{[a_1}A_{a_2\mathrm{}a_{10}]}144A_{[a_1a_2}D_{a_3}A_{a_4\mathrm{}a_{10}]}+$$

$$+3024A_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4}D_{a_5}A_{a_6\mathrm{}a_{10}]}+\frac{9!}{18}A_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4}A_{a_5a_6}D_{a_7}A_{a_8a_9a_{10}]}+$$

$$+3024mA_{[a_1a_2}A_{a_3a_4}A_{a_5a_6}A_{a_7a_8}A_{a_9a_{10}]}),$$
$`(1.32)`$
where $`D_a`$ is the covariant derivative

$$D_aA_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}=e_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }(_\mu A_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}+(e^1_\mu e)_{a_1}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{ca_2\mathrm{}a_p}^{}+\mathrm{})$$
$`(1.33)`$
and $`\mathrm{}`$ indicates the terms where $`(e^1_\mu e)`$ acts on the other indices of the gauge field. Also, we have written the exponential $`e^{5/4A}`$ separately in front of every field strengths to indicate that it is common to all of them.

Using the Cartan forms which transform only under the local Lorentz group in a manner that their indices suggest we must write down a set of invariant equations. If we ask that they be first order in derivatives they can only be given by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}=\frac{1}{(10p)!}ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{10}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_{p+1}\mathrm{}a_{10}},p=1,2,3,4.$$
$`(1.34)`$
Here we see that the common exponential factor $`e^{5/4A}`$ indeed peels off each equation. The nine form gauge field does not possess a dual field, however, its ten form field strength can be taken to be a constant $`m`$ times the epsilon symbol

$$m=e^{5/4A}\frac{1}{10!}ϵ^{a_1\mathrm{}a_{10}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{10}}.$$
$`(1.35)`$
All the above equations of motion and the Einstein equation are equivalent to those one can derive from the Lagrangian formulation given at the beginning of this chapter. We can see that the simple field strengths of equations (1.5),(1.6) indeed match with those given in our group approach of equations (1.25)-(1.27) and one can indeed verify that the above equations of motion for the gauge sector (1.34) and (1.35) are the same as those one can derive from the Lagrangian (1.4) once we take $`m`$ to be a dynamical field.

To recover the massless case, we simply switch off the commutators with the momentum generator by setting $`m=0`$. However, because $`c_1=mb_0`$ we also have $`c_1=0`$. Then using the Jacobi relation

$$c_1=c_9$$
$`(1.36)`$
we deduce $`c_9=0`$, and then as

$$c_{2,7}c_9=c_{2,7}(c_2+c_7),$$
$`(1.37)`$
we also need $`c_{2,7}=0`$. Thereby the nine form is made redundant ($`\stackrel{~}{F}_{(10)}=dA_{(9)}`$) and we are indeed left with the massless case.

2. Closure with the Conformal Group The massive IIA supergravity theory is the non-linear realisation of the group that is the closure of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ group given above with the ten-dimensional conformal group. The closure of these two groups is an infinite dimensional group, but rather than working with this group we can perform a simultaneous realisation of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ and the conformal group. What this actually means is that we construct the equations of motion only from combinations of the Cartan forms of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ group, given above, that can be rewritten in terms of the Cartan or other covariant forms of the conformal group. In doing this one gains invariance under both conformal group and $`G_{mIIA}`$, and so necessarily we find invariance under the group which is the closure of $`G_{mIIA}`$ and the conformal group. This is discussed at length in reference , but here we briefly discuss the novel features that arise in this procedure when applied to the massive IIA theory.

The two groups only have one Goldstone boson in common namely the trace of $`h_a^b`$ which is related to the conformal field $`\sigma `$. In fact we have to identify these two fields via $`e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}(e^h)_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}=(e^{\overline{h}+\delta \sigma })_\mu ^a`$ (as in ). All the other fields that occur as Goldstone bosons in the $`G_{mIIA}`$ algebra are viewed as matter fields from the conformal group viewpoint. The conformal covariant derivative of a field $`B`$ transforming under a representation $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of the Lorentz group is:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu B=e^\sigma (_\mu +^\nu \sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu })B.$$
$`(2.1)`$
In contrast, the $`G_{mIIA}`$ covariant derivative of a matter field is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_aB=(e^1)_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }(_\mu +\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu b}{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{b}{}_{c}{}^{})B.$$
$`(2.2)`$
multiplied by a suitable exponential of $`A`$. As the latter is a Lorentz scalar it plays no part for the discussion of the closure with the conformal group given in this section. Solving (2.1) for $`_\mu B`$ and plugging the result into (2.2), we get

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_aB=(e^1)_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }(e^\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu B^\nu \sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }B+\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu b}{}_{}{}^{c}\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}^{b}{}_{c}{}^{}B).$$
$`(2.3)`$
If we demand that the whole $`\sigma `$ dependence be through the conformal covariant derivative, then we learn from this equation that $`\omega _{\mu b}^c`$ must be solved for by a $`G_{mIIA}`$ invariant condition on the Cartan forms in such a way as to cancel the derivatives of $`\sigma `$ on the right hand side. This is carried out below and we find that the usual expression of the spin connection in terms of the vielbein (stated below in (2.8)) has precisely the right form to do the job.

We now illustrate the procedure of taking the closure of the conformal and the $`G_{mIIA}`$ group by considering the vector field $`A_a`$ instead of a general matter field $`B`$. The other gauge fields are treated in a very similar way. The conformal covariant derivative of a vector (2.1) is given by (see also )

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu A_a=e^\sigma (_\mu A_a+\eta _{\mu a}^c\sigma A_c_a\sigma \delta _\mu ^cA_c).$$
$`(2.4)`$
Using this equation we may rewrite the $`G_{mIIA}`$ covariant derivative of $`A_a`$ given in equation (1.25), respecting (1.33) as

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{a_1}A_{a_2}=$$
$`(2.5)`$
$$\overline{e}_{a_1}{}_{}{}^{\mu }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu A_{a_2}e^\sigma (\eta _{\mu a_2}^c\sigma A_c_{a_2}\sigma \delta _\mu ^cA_c_\mu \sigma A_{a_2}(\overline{e}^1_\mu \overline{e})_{a_2}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{c}^{}\frac{1}{2}mA_{\mu a_2})),$$

where the vielbein with the overbar stands for the traceless part $`e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}=e^{\overline{h}_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}+\delta _\mu ^a\sigma }=(\overline{e}e^\sigma )_\mu ^a`$. We realise that only if we take the combination $`\stackrel{~}{D}_{[a}A_{b]}`$ does the $`\sigma `$ dependence only appear through the conformal covariant derivative alone, as then the 3 $`\sigma `$-dependent terms in the second bracket vanish since they are symmetric in $`\mu `$ and $`a_2`$. If we want to use expressions covariant under both the conformal group and $`G_{mIIA}`$, then we have to demand that all $`\sigma `$ dependence be implicitly through the conformal derivative alone. As such we conclude that only the totally antisymmetrised object $`2e^{3/4A}\widehat{e}_{[a|}{}_{}{}^{\mu }\stackrel{~}{D}_{\mu }^{}A_{|b]}\stackrel{~}{F}_{ab}`$ is covariant under both groups.

We know that the closure of the $`G_{mIIA}`$ group and the conformal group generates gauge transformations and general coordinate transformations and so the above object should be covariant under these transformations. We observe that

$$\stackrel{~}{D}_{[a}A_{b]}=2(_{[a}A_{b]}+(e^1_{[a}e)_{b]}{}_{}{}^{c}A_{c}^{}+mb_2A_{ab})=2e_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }e_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }(_{[\mu }A_{\nu ]}+mb_2A_{\mu \nu }),$$
$`(2.6)`$
making it clear that it is covariant under gauge and general coordinate transformations. The $`G_{mIIA}`$ covariant derivatives of IIA supergravity only differ from those of massive IIA supergravity by terms containing $`m`$, and the nine form potential. However, as these new terms do not contain derivatives the closure with the conformal group is not spoilt by the presence of these terms.

We now turn to the gravity sector of the theory. Clearly, the constraint

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,[bc]}\mathrm{\Omega }_{b,(ac)}+\mathrm{\Omega }_{c,(ab)}=0.$$
$`(2.7)`$
is $`G_{mIIA}`$ covariant, but one can show in much the same way as for the IIA and the eleven dimensional supergravity cases  that it is also conformally covariant. Examining the definition of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{a,bc}`$ in equation (1.21), we see that it involves an undifferentiated factor of $`\widehat{e}_a{}_{}{}^{\mu }=e^{5/4A}e_a^\mu `$. The factor of $`e^{5/4A}`$ can then be removed and we find that it is exactly the same constraint as in the other cases (eleven dimensional supergravity, IIA and IIB supergravity) and therefore results in the usual expression for the spin connection in terms of the vielbein, namely

$$\omega _{\mu bc}=\frac{1}{2}(e_b{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\mu }^{}e_{\rho c}e_c{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\mu }^{}e_{\rho b})\frac{1}{2}(e_b{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\rho }^{}e_{\mu c}e_c{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\rho }^{}e_{\mu b})\frac{1}{2}(e_b{}_{}{}^{\lambda }e_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\lambda }^{}e_{\rho a}e_c{}_{}{}^{\lambda }e_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{\rho }_{\lambda }^{}e_{\rho a})e_\mu {}_{}{}^{a}.$$
$`(2.8)`$
We conclude that the physical vielbein of general relativity is just $`e_\mu ^a`$.

The upshot of this discussion is that the simultaneously covariant objects that transform covariantly under the group $`G_{mIIA}`$ and the conformal group are the $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{a_1\mathrm{}a_p}`$ for $`p=1,\mathrm{},10`$ (except 5) defined in (1.24)-(1.32) and the Riemann tensor

$$R_{\mu \nu b}{}_{}{}^{c}_\mu \omega _{\nu b}{}_{}{}^{c}+\omega _{\mu b}{}_{}{}^{d}\omega _{\nu d}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}(\mu \nu ).$$
$`(2.9)`$
The invariant field equations for all the fields except that of gravity are given in equations (1.34) and (1.35), while that for gravity must be of the form

$$R_{\mu \nu b}{}_{}{}^{c}e_{c}^{}{}_{}{}^{\nu }e_{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu }=\frac{1}{16}m^2e^{5/2A}\eta _{ab}+\frac{1}{2}_aA_bA+e^A(F_a^{(3)}{}_{}{}^{cd}F_{bcd}^{(3)}\frac{1}{12}\eta _{ab}F^{(3)cdf}F_{cdf}^{(3)})$$

$$+2me^{3/2A}(F_a^{(2)}{}_{}{}^{c}F_{bc}^{(2)}\frac{1}{16}\eta _{ab}F^{(2)cd}F_{cd}^{(2)})+\frac{1}{3}e^{1/2A}(F_a^{(4)}{}_{}{}^{cdf}F_{bcdf}^{(4)}\frac{3}{32}\eta _{ab}F^{(4)cdfg}F_{cdfg}^{(4)}).$$
$`(2.10)`$
This equation does not look $`G_{mIIA}`$ covariant as we seem to have used the unhatted vielbeins only. However, the same factor of $`e^{5/2A}`$ turns up in every single term and can therefore again be dropped. We note that, one cannot know the factor in front of each term on the right-hand side. These factors can only be determined if we additionally use information from supersymmetry or the Kac-Moody algebra. We have just put in the correct values for those constants.

3. Discussion We have shown that like all the other maximal supergravity theories the entire bosonic sector of massive IIA supergravity can also be described as a non-linear realisation. Apart from introducing dual fields for all the gauge fields of the original formulation  of the massive IIA theory we also have included, following , a nine form gauge which is associated with the introduction of the cosmological constant. The correct theory requires that the momentum generator has non-trivial commutation relations with the generators associated with the gauge fields as given in equation (1.10). This is natural as the nine form is associated with the cosmological constant and so with gravity.

This is in contrast to the work of reference  which takes a different approach and does not include gravity, but does introduce a dual form for the nine form gauge field which was called a “minus one form”. The properties of this minus one form are not very explicitly spelt out. In effect we find in this paper that the momentum generator plays the role of the generator associated with the “minus one form” of reference .

It would be interesting to examine if the non-linear realisation could be extended, in ways explained in reference , to be invariant under a Kac-Moody, or Borcherds algebra, and to conjecture what this algebra is. In the previous non-linear realisation of the maximal supergravities the momentum generator has not played a central part in the Kac-Moody algebra that has been identified. However, the non-trivial relations of equations (1.10) imply that this generator must occur in a non-trivial way in the corresponding algebra. Progress in this direction may also shed light on the place that the massive IIA theory has in M theory.

Acknowledgements: IS would like to thank André Miemiec, who has given support when calculating the equations of motion for various SUGRAs. IS is also supported by DAAD (D/00/09914).

References

 W. Nahm, ”Supersymmetries and their representations”, Nucl. Phys. B135 (1978), p.149

 E. Cremmer, B. Julia, and J. Scherk, “Supergravity theory in 11 dimensions”, Phys. Lett. B76 (1978) 409–412.

 I. C. G. Campbell and P. C. West, “N=2 d = 10 nonchiral supergravity and its spontaneous compactification”, Nucl. Phys. B243 (1984) 112.; M. Huq and M. Namazie, “Kaluza–Klein supergravity in ten dimensions”, Class. Q. Grav. 2 (1985).; F. Giani and M. Pernici, $`N=2`$ supergravity in ten dimensions”, Phys. Rev. D30 (1984) 325.

 J. H. Schwarz and P. C. West, “Symmetries and transformations of chiral N=2,D = 10 supergravity,” Phys. Lett. B126 (1983) 301.

 J. H. Schwarz, “Covariant field equations of chiral N=2 D = 10 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B226 (1983) 269.

 P. S. Howe and P. C. West, “The complete N=2, d = 10 supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B238 (1984) 181.

 L. J. Romans, “Massive N=2a Supergravity in Ten Dimensions,” Phys. Lett B169 (1986) 374.

 S. Ferrara, J. Scherk and B. Zumino, “Algebraic Properties of Extended Supersymmetry”, Nucl. Phys. B121 (1977) 393; E. Cremmer, J. Scherk and S. Ferrara, “SU(4) Invariant Supergravity Theory”, Phys. Lett. B74 (1978) 61.

 E. Cremmer and B. Julia, “The $`N=8`$ supergravity theory. I. The Lagrangian”, Phys. Lett. B80 (1978) 48

 B. Julia, “Group Disintegrations”, in Superspace & Supergravity, p. 331, eds. S.W. Hawking and M. Roček, Cambridge University Press (1981).

 H. Nicolai, Phys. Lett. B187 (1987) 316.

 C. M. Hull, P. K. Townsend, “Unity of Superstring Dualities,” Nucl. Phys. B438 (1995), 109, hep-th/9410167 .

 E. Cremmer, B. Julia, H. Lü, and C. N. Pope, “Dualisation of dualities. I & II: Twisted self-duality of doubled fields and superdualities, ” Nucl. Phys. B535 (1998) 242, hep-th/9806106

 I. V. Lavrinenko, H. Lü, C. N. Pope, K. Stelle, “Superdualities, Brane Tensions and Massive IIA/IIB Duality,” Nucl.Phys. B555 (1999) 201, hep-th/9903057

 P. C. West, “Hidden superconformal symmetry in M theory ”, JHEP 08 (2000) 007, hep-th/0005270

 I. Schnakenburg, P. West, “Kac-Moody Symmetries of IIB Supergravity,”, Phys. Lett. B517 (2001) 421, hep-th/0107181

 P. West, “E(11) and M theory, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 18 (2001) 4443, hep-th/0104081

 E. Witten, String theory dynamics in various dimensions, Nucl. Phys. B443 (1995) 85, hep-th 9503124

 E. Bergshoeff, M. de Roo, M. B. Green, G. Papadopoulos, P. K. Townsend “Duality of Type II 7-branes and 8-branes,” Nucl. Phys. B470 (1996) 113, 9601150


text:
# Electron-electron Bound States in Parity-Preserving QED3

## I Introduction

In the latest 10 years, Planar Quantum Electrodynamics - QED$`{}_{3}{}^{}`$ has shown to be an appropriate theoretical framework for discussing the low-energy limit of some Condensed Matter systems. Recent applications of this theory to underdoped high-Tc superconductors  has again caught attention for its theoretical possibilities. The history of the relation between QED3 and superconductivity goes back to the final 80´s, when the anyonic model was established by the works of Laughlin , and others . Despite its initial success, it was afterwards demonstrated that anyonic model supports the superconducting phase only at zero temperature . An alternative approach, also based on the QED3 framework, began to be adopted by Kogan  to explain the formation of electron-electron bound states. Into the domain of the QED$`_3,`$ there exits the necessity of yielding a mass to the gauge field in order to circumvent the appearance of a confining potential associated to the long-range Coulombian interaction. The Maxwell-Chern-Simons (MCS) term  is then introduced as the generator of (topological) mass for the photon, implying a screening on the Coulomb interaction. This MCS-QED3 model was used by some authors ,  as basic tool for evaluation of the Möller scattering amplitude at tree-level, whose Fourier transform (in the Born approximation) yields the $`e^{}e^{}`$ interaction potential. In a general way, these works furnish the same result: the $`e^{}e^{}`$ interaction comes out attractive when the topological mass $`\left(\vartheta \right)`$ surpasses the electronic mass $`\left(m_e\right)`$, that is, $`\vartheta >m_e`$. This condition prevents the applicability of the MCS model to solid-state systems, since the existence of a physical excitation with so large energy in the domain of a Condensed Matter system is entirely unlikely. It is possible to argue that the introduction of the Higgs mechanism in the context of the MCS electrodynamics ,  brings out a negative contribution to the scattering potential that will make feasible a global attractive potential regardless the condition $`\vartheta >m_e`$.

Some preliminary elucidations on the general character of this paper are noteworthy. In spite of dealing with electron-electron condensation (a mechanism that takes place in the realm Condensed Matter Physics), the approach adopted here does not follow the usual procedure of Solid State Physics, where one usually extracts information from the crystal lattice about the interactions of the system. Indeed, our intention is not to follow a solid-state approach, but to show instead that, starting from a quantum-field theoretical framework, one may obtain (in the non-relativistic limit) an attractive interaction that could be able to favour the electronic pairing. In this way, we really develop a typical field-theoretical approach, namely: one starts with a relativistic parity-preserving QED3 Lagrangian (without MCS term) , ,  containing fermions, scalar and vector bosons, and endowed with spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB). After the SSB, a Higgs boson and a massive photon appear in the spectrum in the broken phase. These two particles mediate the Möller scattering, whose amplitude leads to a Bessel-$`K_o`$ interaction potential, that can be attractive (independent of the electron polarization) whenever the negative contribution stemming from the Higgs scalar interchange dominates over the repulsive gauge interaction. It is also important to stress that the explicit use of the Higgs-scalar interaction (generated from the SSB) as an active mediator in the Möller scattering is the key factor for the attainment of an attractive potential. Relying on the nonrelativistic approximation, the $`K_o`$ potential is inserted into the Schrödinger equation. Its numerical solution provides us with values of the $`e^{}e^{}`$ pairing energy, which are exhibited in Table I.

This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II, we present the parity-preserving QED3 model, explore some of its properties, and realize the SSB. We then follow a field-theoretical development that leads to the $`e^{}e^{}`$ interaction potential (derived in the non-relativistic limit). In Sec. III, we accomplish a numerical procedure in order to obtain numerical values for the binding energy of $`e^{}e^{}`$ pairs. In this sense, we implement the $`K_o`$-potential into the Schrödinger equation and solve it. The numerical data are then displayed in Table I. In Sec. IV, we present our Final Remarks.

## II Parity-Preserving QED3 With Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking

We start with a parity-preserving QED3 action (with SSB) ,, built up by two polarized fermionic fields ($`\psi _+,\psi _{}`$) ,, a gauge potential $`\left(A_\mu \right)`$ and a complex scalar field $`\left(\phi \right)`$:

$$S=d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{4}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+\overline{\psi }_+(i/Dm_e)\psi _++\overline{\psi }_{}(i/D+m_e)\psi _{}y(\overline{\psi }_+\psi _+\overline{\psi }_{}\psi _{})\phi ^{}\phi +D^\mu \phi ^{}D_\mu \phi V(\phi ^{}\phi )\right\},$$
(1)
with the scalar self-interaction potential, $`V`$, responsible for the SSB, taken as: $`V(\phi ^{}\phi )=\mu ^2\phi ^{}\phi +\frac{\zeta }{2}(\phi ^{}\phi )^2+\frac{\lambda }{3}(\phi ^{}\phi )^3`$. This sixth-order potential is the most general one renormalizable in $`1+2`$ dimensions . The mass dimensions of the parameters $`\mu `$, $`\zeta `$, $`\lambda `$, $`y`$ are respectively $`1`$, $`1`$, $`0`$, $`0`$, and the covariant derivatives, $`/D\psi _\pm (/+ie_3/A)\psi _\pm ,`$ $`D_\mu \phi (_\mu +ie_3A_\mu )\phi `$, state the minimal coupling between $`\psi _\pm ,A_\mu ,`$ and $`\phi `$. It is important to point out that the $`U(1)`$symmetry coupling constant in $`(1+2)`$-dimensions, $`e__3`$, has dimension of (mass)$`^{\frac{1}{2}}`$, a relevant fact that must to be properly considered at the moment one needs to attribute numerical values to it. We are interested only on a stable vacuum, for which the following conditions on the potential parameters have to be fulfilled: $`\lambda >0,\zeta <0,`$ $`\mu ^2\frac{3}{16}\frac{\zeta ^2}{\lambda }.`$ After the breakdown, the scalar field acquires a non null vacuum expectation value (v.e.v.), $`\phi =v,`$ one readily gets: $`\phi ^{}\phi =v^2\zeta /2\lambda +\sqrt{\left(\zeta /2\lambda \right)^2\mu ^2/\lambda }`$. On the other hand, the condition for a minimum reads as: $`\mu ^2+\zeta v^2+\lambda v^4=0.`$ In the broken phase, the complex scalar field is parametrized by $`\phi =v+H+i\theta `$, where $`\theta `$ is the would-be Goldstone boson and $`H`$ is the Higgs scalar, both with vanishing v.e.v.’s $`(H=\theta =0).`$ By replacing this parametrization relation into the action (1), adopting the ’t Hooft gauge  ($`S_{\mathrm{gf}}=d^3x\left\{\frac{1}{2\xi }(^mA_m\sqrt{2}\xi M_A\chi )^2\right\}`$), and finally taking only the bilinear and Yukawa interaction terms, one has:

$`S^{\mathrm{SSB}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^3x\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M_A^2A^\mu A_\mu +\overline{\psi }_+(i/m_{\mathrm{eff}})\psi _++\overline{\psi }_{}(i/+m_{\mathrm{eff}})\psi _{}+^\mu H_\mu HM_H^2H^2+`$ (3)
$`+^\mu \theta _\mu \theta M_\theta ^2\theta ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\xi }}(^\mu A_\mu )^22yv(\overline{\psi }_+\psi _+\overline{\psi }_{}\psi _{})He_3(\overline{\psi }_+/A\psi _++\overline{\psi }_{}/A\psi _{})\},`$
where $`\xi `$ is a dimensionless gauge parameter and the mass generated by the SSB are: $`M_A^2=2v^2e_3^2`$(Proca mass), $`M_H^2=2v^2(\zeta +2\lambda v^2)`$(Higgs mass), $`m_{\mathrm{eff}}=m_e+yv^2`$(effective electron mass), and $`M_\theta ^2=\xi M_A^2`$. The latter corresponds to non-physical poles in the gauge and $`\theta `$-field propagator. Their effects are mutually canceled as already known from the study of the unitarity in the ’t Hooft gauge .

At this point, it is instructive to highlight that from now on our relevant “physical” action is the one obtained in the broken phase, that is, $`S^{SSB}`$. Based on this broken action, one derives the essential results of this paper. In this tree-level broken action, no register of $`V,`$ the scalar potential, remains. In fact, we can assert that the main role of the sixth-order potential is basically to determine the occurrence of the spontaneous symmetry breaking in a planar theory, where one uses to require renormalisation. On physical grounds, one can say that the sixth-power potential can be replaced by a fourth-power form $`\left(\lambda \phi ^4\text{-type}\right)`$, also able to induce the SSB and the phase transition, without effectively changing the features of the broken phase. The reason to use a sixth-power scalar self-interacting potential is exclusively that it is the most general renormalizable potential in Planar Quantum Electrodynamics (a quantum field theory reason). Written at tree-level, the action (3) exhibits no vertex with more than three legs, which in turn contribute to loop diagrams. So, at this level of approximation, loop contributions are excluded from the physical model. One knows these loop diagrams correct the classical theory, but in a pertubation perspective, their contribution may not be enough to modify the essence of a result constructed at tree-level. This fact justifies the omission of the scalar interaction terms of higher order ($`H^2,H^3,H^4,`$…) at this level. Although, these higher-order terms need to be considered when one desires to analyze radiative corrections or one tries to pass from this microscopic theory to a phenomenological model where the fermions and gauge fields are integrated out.

In the low-energy limit (Born approximation), the two-particle interaction potential is given by the Fourier transform of the two-particle scattering amplitude . It is important to stress that in the case of the non-relativistic Möller scattering, one should consider only the t-channel (direct scattering)  even for distinguishable electrons, since in this limit they recover the classical notion of trajectory. From the action (1), there follow the Feynman rules for the interaction vertices: $`V_{\pm H\pm }=\pm 2ivy;V_{\psi A\psi }=ie_3\gamma ^\mu `$, so that the $`e^{}e^{}`$ scattering are written as bellow:

$`i_{\pm H\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\pm (p_1^{^{}})(\pm 2ivy)u_\pm (p_1)\left[HH\right]\overline{u}_\pm (p_2^{^{}})(\pm 2ivy)u_\pm (p_2);`$ (4)
$`i_{\pm H}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\pm (p_1^{^{}})(\pm 2ivy)u_\pm (p_1)\left[HH\right]\overline{u}_{}(p_2^{^{}})(2ivy)u_{}(p_2);`$ (5)
$`i_{\pm A\pm }`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\pm (p_1^{^{}})(ie_3\gamma ^\mu )u_\pm (p_1)\left[A_\mu A_\nu \right]\overline{u}_\pm (p_2^{^{}})(ie_3\gamma ^\nu )u_\pm (p_2);`$ (6)
$`i_{\pm A}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{u}_\pm (p_1^{^{}})(ie_3\gamma ^\mu )u_\pm (p_1)\left[A_\mu A_\nu \right]\overline{u}_{}(p_2^{^{}})(ie_3\gamma ^\nu )u_{}(p_2);`$ (7)
where $`HH`$ and $`A_\mu A_\nu `$ are the Higgs and massive photon propagators. Expressions (4) and (5) represent the scattering amplitudes for electrons of equal and opposite polarizations mediated by the Higgs particle, whereas Eqs. (6) and (7) correspond to the massive photon as mediator.

The spinors $`u_\pm (p)`$ stand for the positive-energy solution of the Dirac equation $`(/pm)u_\pm (p)=0`$. We adopt the following conventions $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=(+,,),`$ $`[\gamma ^\mu ,\gamma ^\nu ]=2iϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha }\gamma _\alpha `$, $`\gamma ^\mu =(\sigma _z,i\sigma _x,i\sigma _y),`$ whence one obtains

$$u_+(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left[\begin{array}{c}E+m\\ ip_xp_y\end{array}\right],\text{ }u_{}(p)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}\left[\begin{array}{c}ip_xp_y\\ E+m\end{array}\right],$$
(8)
with $`N=2m(E+m)`$ being the normalization constant that assures $`\overline{u}_\pm (p)u_\pm (p)=\pm 1`$. Working in the center-of-mass frame , , the scattering amplitudes $`_{higgs}=2v^2y^2\left(\stackrel{}{k}^2+M_H^2\right)^1,`$ $`_{gauge}=+e_3^2\left(\stackrel{}{k}^2+M_A^2\right)^1`$ reveal to be independent of the spin polarization. Evaluating now the Fourier transform of the total amplitude scattering ($`_{total}=_{higgs}+_{gauge}`$), the following interaction potential comes out:

$$V^{CM}(r)=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[2v^2y^2K_o(M_Hr)e_3^2K_o(M_Ar)\right].$$
(9)
Considering equal Higgs and Proca masses $`\left(M_H=M_Ae_3^2=\zeta +2\lambda v^2\right)`$, the potential (9) takes the form

$$V^{CM}(r)=CK_o(M_Ar),\text{ with: }C=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left[2v^2y^2e_3^2\right].$$
(10)
It becomes attractive whenever $`C<0`$, that is, $`2v^2y^2>e_3^2`$. Now, it is necessary to point out that this result is independent of the spin-polarization of the scattered electrons, whereas the potential enclosed in Ref. , derived at the same physical conditions, shows an erroneously inversion of sign (for the gauge interaction between antiparallel-spin electrons). A spin dependence will arise in the low-energy $`e^{}e^{}`$ potential only when one considers the presence of the Chern-Simons term, resulting in a Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca model .

## III Wavefunction properties and Numerical Analysis

Having determined the interaction potential, one must now look for the numerical evaluation of the binding energy associated to the $`e^{}e^{}`$ pairs. In the non-relativistic limit, the complete two-dimensional Schrödinger equation (supplemented by the Bessel-$`K_0`$ potential)

$$\frac{^2\phi (r)}{r^2}+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\phi (r)}{r}\frac{l^2}{r^2}\phi (r)+2\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}[ECK_o(M_Ar)]\phi (r)=0$$
(11)
yields the energy of the two interacting particles. Here, $`\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}=\frac{1}{2}m_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ $`\phi (r)`$ is the effective reduced mass of the $`e^{}e^{}`$ system and $`\phi `$ represents the (relative) spatial part of the complete antisymmetric 2-electron wavefunction:$`\mathrm{\Psi }(r_1,s_{1,}r_2,s_2)=\psi (𝐑)\phi (𝐫)\chi (s_1,s_2),`$while $`\psi (𝐑)`$, $`\chi (s_1,s_2)`$ stand for the center-of-mass and the spin wave functions.

For a numerical solution of the Schrödinger equation, we employ the variational method. In this respect, we take as starting point the choice of a wave function that stands for the generic features of the $`e^{}e^{}`$ state: the trial function, whose definition must observe some conditions, such as the asymptotic behavior at infinity, the analysis of its free version and its behavior at the origin. With the help of the transformation $`\phi (r)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{r}}g(r)`$, Eq.(11) is transformed into

$$\frac{^2g(r)}{r^2}\frac{l^2\frac{1}{4}}{r^2}g(r)+2\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}[ECK_o(M_Ar)]g(r)=0,$$
(12)
whose free version $`\left(V(r)=0\right)`$ for zero angular momentum ($`l=0`$) state simplifies to

$$\left[\frac{^2}{r^2}+\frac{1}{4r^2}+k^2\right]u(r)=0.$$
(13)
Its general solution is given by $`u(r)=B_1\sqrt{r}J_0(kr)+B_2\sqrt{r}Y_0(kr)`$, with $`B_1`$ and $`B_2`$ being arbitrary constants and $`k=\sqrt{2\mu _{\mathrm{eff}}E}`$. In the $`r0`$ limit, the solution to Eq.(13) approaches $`u(r)\sqrt{r}+\lambda \sqrt{r}\mathrm{ln}r.`$ Since the second term in Eq.(13) behaves like an attractive potential, $`1/4r^2`$, this implies the unphysical possibility of obtaining a bound state ($`E<0`$) even for $`V(r)=0`$ . Among the infinite number of self-adjoint extensions of the differential operator $`d^2/dr^21/4r^2`$, the only physical choice corresponds to the Friedrichs extension ($`B_2=0`$), which behaves like $`\sqrt{r}`$ at the origin, indicating this same behavior for $`u(r)`$. The complete equation, $`V(r)0`$, will preserve the self-adjointness of free Hamiltonian, if the potential is “weak” in the sense of the Kato condition: $`_0^{\mathrm{}}r(1+|\mathrm{ln}(r)|)|V(r)|𝑑r<\mathrm{}.`$ This condition also sets up a finite number of bound states (discrete spectrum) and the semi-boundness of the complete Hamiltonian. Provided that the Bessel-$`K_0`$ potential, given by Eq. (10), satisfies the Kato condition, the self-adjointness of the total Hamiltonian is assured and the existence of bound states is allowed. On the other hand, at infinity, the trial function must vanish asymptotically in order to fulfill square integrability. Therefore, a good and suitable trial function (for $`l=0`$) could be taken by

$$g(r)=\sqrt{r}\mathrm{exp}(\beta r),$$
(14)
where $`\beta `$ is a free spanning parameter to be numerically fixed in order to minimize the binding energy.

Once the trial function is already known, it still lacks a discussion on the physical parameters $`(\nu ^2,e_3^2,y^2)`$ that compose the proportionality constant, $`C`$, of the Bessel potential, in such a way that numerical values may be attributed to them. The vacuum expectation value, $`v^2,`$ indicates the energy scale of the spontaneous breakdown of the $`U(1)`$local symmetry. This is a free parameter, being usually determined by some experimental data associated to the phenomenology of the model under investigation, as occurs in the electroweak Weinberg-Salam model, for example. On the other hand, the $`y`$ parameter measures the coupling between the fermions and the Higgs scalar, working in fact as an effective constant that embodies contributions of all possible mechanisms of electronic interaction via Higgs-type (scalar) excitations, as the spinless bosonic interaction mechanisms: phonons, plasmons, and other collective excitations. This theoretical similarity suggests an identification of the field theory parameter with an effective electron-scalar coupling (instead of an electron-phonon one): $`y\lambda _{\mathrm{es}}`$. Specifically, in QED3, the electromagnetic coupling constant squared, $`e_3^2`$, has dimension of mass, rather than the dimensionless character of the usual four-dimensional QED4 coupling constant. This fact might be understood as a memory of the third dimension that appears (into the coupling constant) when one tries to work with a theory intrinsically defined in three space-time dimensions. This dimensional peculiarity could be better implemented through the definition of a new coupling constant in three space-time dimensions ,: $`ee_3=e/\sqrt{l_{}}`$, where $`l_{}`$ represents a length orthogonal to the planar dimension. The smaller is $`l_{}`$, smaller is the remnant of the frozen dimension, larger is the planar character of the model and the coupling constant $`e_3`$, what reveals its effective nature. In this sense, it is instructive to notice that the effective value of $`e_3^2`$ is always larger than $`e^2=1/137`$ whenever $`l_{}`$ $`<1973.23`$ Å, since 1 (Å)$`{}_{}{}^{1}=1973.26`$ $`eV`$. This particularity broadens the repulsive interaction for small $`l_{}`$ and requires an even stronger Higgs contribution to account for a total attractive interaction.

The following Table, constructed for zero angular momentum state $`\left(l=0\right)`$, has as input data the three parameters $`(\nu ^2,l_{},y),`$ while the output parameters are: $`\beta `$ the minimization parameter, $`E_{e^{}e^{}}`$ the $`e^{}e^{}`$ binding energy, and $`r`$ the average-length of the wavefunction.

## IV Final Remarks

The numerical data of Table I show that the attractive Bessel potential, derived for a non-relativistic regime, may effectively promote the formation of $`e^{}e^{}`$ bound states. The procedure here carried out puts in evidence that, by properly fitting the free parameters of the model, one can obtain bound states of the order of $`10100`$ $`meV`$ and wavefunction average-length in the range $`1030`$ Å, which may reveal the suitability of the framework here adopted to address the issue of electron-electron condensation in the realm of parity-preserving planar systems. Finally, we can assert that the photon Proca mass, generated by the SSB, plays the same role of the topological mass $`\left(\vartheta \right)`$ in that it determines the Coulomb interaction screening and the Meissner effect, without breaking parity-symmetry. The data exhibited in Table I concern an s-wave state: $`l=0`$ and spin singlet ($`,S=0`$). According to the results of this paper, we conclude by stressing the fundamental role played by the Higgs mechanism in QED3 as essential for the appearance of an attractive $`e^{}e^{}`$ potential.

Final comments on the general procedure here employed are still necessary. We conceive this paper as the first part of a two-stage project, described as follows. At the first stage, we have a microscopic model, where the presence of all degrees of freedom (relative to fermions, vector and scalar bosons) is necessary. In this moment, our purpose is to exhibit a microscopic mechanism, at tree level, able to yield the electronic pairing. Since we are bound to the tree-approximation, higher powers in $`H`$ need not be considered whenever computing the transition amplitude from which we read off the inter-particle potential. This is exactly what we have done here. In a second stage of development, still to be performed, one should take into account the high-order terms in $`H`$ (stemming from the Higgs potential and from the electronic coupling). A functional integration on the fermions and vector bosons must be carried out, yielding an effective functional with dependence only on the Higgs-scalar field. We think this functional may exhibit a Ginzburg-Landau-like form, if the sixth-order potential is replaced by a quartic-order potential. To our mind, the Higgs field, which represents the scalar excitations (relative to the vacuum expectation value), will play (after the functional integration) the same role as the order parameter plays in the G-L model: that of a fluctuation field in the context of a mean-field theory.

J.A. Helayel-Neto expresses his gratitude to CNPq for the financial help.