text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The debate on double-slit interference experiments, with photons or matter particles, and on the possibility of detecting, as proposed by Einstein, ”which-way” individual particles are taking, helped to shape the basic concept of complementarity in quantum mechanics. According to this early discussion, Young interference experiments were showing the wave nature of both radiation and matter and any attempt to exhibit their, complementary, particle nature, by detecting which path each an individual quantum was travelling, was regarded as implying a disturbance capable of destroying the interference pattern. ***For an analysis of the Bohr-Einstein dialogue and reprints of the relevant papers see  It was, however, much later noticed that ”in Einstein’s version of the double-slit experiment, one can retain a surprisingly strong interference pattern by not insisting on a 100% reliable determination of the slit through which each photon passes”.

More recently this problem has been thoroughly investigated both from a theoretical and an experimental point of view, by proposing gedanken-experiments or actually performing them, in which the quantum unitary evolution of both the system and the detector is completely under control. In many cases care is taken of having the detectors acting on internal degrees of freedom, so that they do not disturb directly the centre of mass motion.

As it is well known the partial loss of contrast of the interference fringes, their modification or total disappearance, find a complete quantum mechanical description in terms of the entanglement between the interfering particles and the detectors. To be more precise, the unitary evolution describing the interaction of the system with the detectors leads to the entangled state

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }(t)>=|\psi _1(t)>|\chi _1>+|\psi _2(t)>|\chi _2>,$$
(1.1)
where $`|\psi _i>`$ $`i=1,2`$, denote the states of the beams going through slits $`1`$ and $`2`$, respectively, while $`|\chi _i>`$, $`i=1,2`$ are the (normalized) detector final states, and $`t`$ is any time after the system has left the detection region. The structure of the interference fringes may be read off the probability density on the screen:

$$|<x|\mathrm{\Psi }(t_1)>|^2=|<x|\psi _1(t_1)>|^2+|<x|\psi _2(t_1)>|^2+2Re\{<\psi _1(t_1)|x><x|\psi _2(t_1)><\chi _1|\chi _2>\}.$$
(1.2)
Depending on the value of $`<\chi _1|\chi _2>`$ there is a continuum between the extreme cases of no which-way detection ($`|\chi _1>=|\chi _2>`$), where the wave nature is exhibited by interference fringes with maximum contrast, and perfect which-way detection ($`<\chi _1|\chi _2>=0`$), where the interference fringes disappear. For example, in the experimental realization  of Feynman’s gedanken-experiment , the states $`|\chi _i>`$ describe the scattered photon needed to detect whether the atom (rather than the electron, as in the original discussion) has passed through slit $`1`$ or $`2`$ and the quantity $`<\chi _1|\chi _2>`$ can be varied by changing the spatial separation between the interfering paths at the point of scattering. In the experimental setup proposed in  the which-way detection is performed by micro-maser cavities inserted on the beams of previously exited atoms. Atomic decay in one of the cavities provides a which-way information whose predictability depends on the initial state of the cavities. However we should point out that the detector needs not be a separate physical system: the which-way information may indeed be stored in some internal degrees of freedom of the interfering particles, as it happens in neutron interference experiments , where the spin of the neutron in one of the beams is rotated with respect to the original common direction. Notice that, in each of these examples, the structure of the interference fringes, as it is clear from Eq. (1.2), depends on the entanglement of the system with the apparatus, from which a ”which-way” information may be eventually recovered by means of an appropriate measurement, and not on the fact of actually performing it. Eq. (1.1) describes only a premeasurement. Therefore the actual measurement relative to the ”which-way” information may be arbitrarily delayed. As Schrödinger puts it, in his ”general confession” , motivated by the appearance of the Einstein, Podolsky, Rosen paper , ”entanglement of predictions” goes ”back to the fact that the two bodies at some earlier time formed in a true sense one system, that is were interacting, and have left behind traces on each other”.

Furthermore, it should be stressed that, apart from the extreme case in which $`<\chi _1|\chi _2>=0`$, no measurement can provide full information on the way that an individual quantum has taken. One is actually dealing with a problem in quantum detection theory, that is, in statistical decision theory. In order to decide what measurement should be carried out to extract the best possible which-way information, it is necessary to spell out a strategy in which an a priori evaluation criterion is given.

In the pioneering work of Wootters and Zurek, , Shannon’s definition of information entropy  was taken as a quantitative measure of the gain in ”which-way” information obtained by actually performing a measurement on the detector state. In this framework evidence was produced that ”the more clearly we wish to observe the wave nature …the most information we must give up about its particle properties”. Following this suggestion, Englert , by using a different criterion for evaluating the available information, was able to establish, for equally populated beams, a complementarity relationship between the distinguishability, that gives a quantitative estimate of the ways, and the visibility that measures the quality of the interference fringes:

$$𝒟^2+𝒱^21,$$
(1.3)
with equality sign holding if the detector is prepared in a pure state. As usual $`𝒱`$ is defined in terms of the maximum and minimum intensity of the fringes ($`I_M`$ and $`I_m`$), $`𝒱=(I_MI_m)/(I_M+I_m)`$. $`𝒟`$ is simply related to the optimum average Bayes’s cost $`\overline{C}_{opt}`$, traditionally used in decision theory, by the relation $`𝒟=12\overline{C}_{opt}`$ In Ref.  the distinguishability is expressed in terms of the optimum likelihood $`_{opt}`$ for ”guessing the way right”. This optimum likelihood is one minus the optimum average Bayes cost $`\overline{C}_{opt}`$.

New problems arise in going from the case of two beams to a multibeams interference process. As shown by Dürr , the complementarity relationship \[Eq. (1.3)\] still holds when the visibility and the distinguishability are taken to be, the first as the, properly normalized, deviation of the fringes intensity from its mean value, and the second, following an alternative notion of entropy introduced in Ref. , as the maximum average rms spread of the a posteriori probabilities for the different paths (see Sec. 2).

The purpose of this paper is to examine an interesting physical aspect of the problem, that seems to have been overlooked, so far, and it is the following: once a specific criterion to measure the which-way information is chosen, what is the actual measurement that has to be performed on the detectors, in order to extract the optimum information? The usual attitude to address this question, is to consider the set $`𝒜_D`$ of all observables $`A`$, relative to the detector, and to search, among them, for the observable that delivers most information. However, it is known from quantum detection theory , that the amount of information that can be obtained in this way does not represent, in general, the absolute maximum. Sometimes, it is possible to do a better job by introducing, in addition to the detector, an ancilla, namely an auxiliary quantum system, neither interacting with the detector, nor having any correlation with it. Despite the fact that the detector and the ancilla are, under all respects, independent systems, it may happen that a larger amount of information can be obtained, by measuring an observable relative to the combined system. In connection with this issue, we point out that, even if the quantity $`𝒟`$ appearing in Eq. (1.3) is usually defined in relation with $`𝒜_D`$, the proofs leading to Eq. (1.3), say in Refs. , remain valid if one includes the observables for the system formed by the detector and the ancilla together. It follows that the quantity $`𝒟`$ really refers to all possible detector+ancilla systems.

Since the need for an ancilla seems to us a source of undesirable complication for the read out apparatus, it would be interesting to know under what circumstances the ancilla is really required. In particular, it would be interesting to know if there exist criteria to measure the which-way information, such that the optimal measurement turns out to be an ordinary observable relative to the detector, and the inclusion of an ancilla does not lead to any improvement. We show that, in the case of two-beams interference experiments, with either one of the two proposed measures of information, the optimal measurement does not involve an ancilla. On the contrary, in the case of multibeam experiments, it is only with the criterion introduced in Ref.  that the ancilla is unnecessary, while it is required for the other two criteria, in general. It is interesting to notice that the criterion for which ordinary measurements are good enough is the one that leads to the complementarity relation given by Eq. (1.3). Finally, let us notice that, while inspired by the problem of complementarity in interference experiments, our work is a contribution to the difficult problem of optimization in quantum decision theory.

The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. 2 the quantum detection problem for non-mutually orthogonal detector states is presented and the notion of ancilla is introduced. We review a fundamental theorem by Neumark, stating that measurements involving an ancilla in the enlarged detector-ancilla Hilbert space, can be equivalently described by means of positive operator-valued measures (POVM) on the detectors’s Hilbert space, generalizing the ordinary projection-valued measures (PVM), that describe measurements not involving the ancilla. We then list the conditions that must be satisfied by any function, for it to be a good measure of the amount of information provided by a POVM. The different choices present in the literature for such a function are considered, and the resulting optimization problems are studied in Sec. 3, for the case of two beams, and in Sec. 4 for multibeam interferometers. Some of the proofs are postponed to an Appendix. Final remarks and a discussion of perspectives close the paper.

## 2 The quantum decision problem.

We consider a $`n`$-beam interference experiment: a single beam of identical microscopic systems, like photons, electrons, neutrons, atoms etc. (generically referred to as particles), is divided into $`n`$ spatially separated beams by some sort of beam-splitter, like a screen with $`n`$ slits. The $`n`$ beams are then recombined on a screen, and the interference figure is observed. It is assumed that the intensity of the beam is adjusted so that only one particle at a time passes trough the interferometer, and that the populations $`\zeta _i`$ of each of the $`n`$ beams can be adjusted at will. We imagine now that a detector, designed to provide which-way information on individual particles passing through the interferometer, is placed along the trajectories of the beams. It is assumed that the detector also can be treated as a quantum system, and that the system-detector interaction gives rise to some unitary process. The detector will serve as which-way detector if, once prepared in some fixed state $`|\chi _0>`$, it is brought by the interaction with the particles into a new state, that depends on the beam occupied by the particle. In formulae, this amounts to requiring that, after the interaction, the state of the particle-detector system is the following entangled state, generalizing \[Eq. (1.1)\]:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}c_i|\psi _i>|\chi _i>.$$
(2.1)
Here, $`|\psi _i>`$ denote the normalized particles wave-functions for the individual beams, while $`|\chi _i>`$ are $`n`$ normalized (but not necessarily orthogonal !) states of the which-way detectors. We define the detector’s Hilbert space $`_D`$ as the linear span of the states $`|\chi _i>`$:

$$_D:=\mathrm{span}\{|\chi _i>,i=1,\mathrm{}n\}.$$
(2.2)
(Of course, it may very well happen that the set of all possible states of the detector, as a physical system, is actually larger than $`_D`$.) In concrete experiments $`|\chi _i>`$ may in fact be internal states of the particles themselves, in which case $`|\psi _i>`$ denotes the space-part of the particles wavefunction. We assume that the amplitudes $`c_i`$ are known in advance, such that the weights $`\zeta _i=|c_i|^2`$ give the a priori probabilities for a particle to pass through the $`i`$-th slit. The state \[Eq. (2.1)\] describes a situation in which there is complete correlation between the beams and the internal states of the detector, such that, if the detector is found to be in the state $`|\chi _i>`$, one can tell with certainty that the particle passed through the $`i`$-th slit. Thus the problem of determining the trajectory of the particle reduces to the following one: after the passage of each particle, is there a way to decide in which of the $`n`$ states $`|\chi _i>`$ the detector was left? If the states $`|\chi _i>`$ are orthogonal to each other, the answer is obviously yes. Indeed, if we let $`𝒜_D`$ the set of all hermitean operators in $`_D`$, we can surely find in $`𝒜_D`$ an observable $`A`$ , such that:

$$A|\chi _i>=\lambda _i|\chi _i>,\lambda _i\lambda _j\mathrm{for}ij.$$
(2.3)
If $`A`$ is measured, and the result $`\lambda _i`$ is found, one can infer with certainty that the detector was in the state $`|\chi _i>`$. If, however, the states $`|\chi _i>`$ are not orthogonal to each other, for no choices of $`A`$ one can fulfil Eq. (2.3): whichever $`A`$ one picks, there will be at least one eigenvector of $`A`$, having a non-zero projection onto more than one state $`|\chi _i>`$. Therefore, when the corresponding eigenvalue is obtained as the result of a measurement, no unique detector-state can be inferred, and only probabilistic judgments can be made. Under such circumstances, the best one can do is to select the observable that provides as much information as possible, $`\mathrm{𝑜𝑛}\mathrm{𝑡ℎ𝑒}\mathrm{𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒}`$, namely after many repetitions of the experiment. Of course, this presupposes the choice a definite criterion to measure the average amount $`\overline{F}(A)`$ of which-way information delivered by a certain observable $`A`$ (the properties of $`\overline{F}(A)`$, and the various choices proposed so far for this quantity are discussed later in this Section). After this choice is made, the distinguishability $`𝒟`$ of the trajectories is usually related to the supremum, $`F_D`$, of $`\overline{F}(A)`$, over $`𝒜_D`$.

It may now come as a surprise to notice, as pointed out in the Introduction, that the quantity $`F_D`$ does not always represent the absolute maximum information that is actually available. Indeed, it is an intriguing feature of the quantum detection problem, for non orthogonal states, that a larger amount of information on the state of the detector can be obtained by considering the detector in combination with an auxiliary quantum system, called ancilla . The ancilla does not interact with the detector, and is prepared in a fixed known state $`|\varphi _0>_{aux}`$, such that the combined system is in one of the $`n`$ uncorrelated states $`|\chi _i>|\varphi _0>`$, belonging to the total Hilbert space $`_{tot}=_D_{aux}`$. Let now $`𝒜_{tot}`$ the set of all hermitean operators in $`_{tot}`$ and $`F_{tot}`$ the supremum of $`\overline{F}(A)`$ over $`𝒜_{tot}`$ . Surprisingly enough, even if the detector and the ancilla are uncorrelated, it may happen that $`F_{tot}>F_D`$, showing that the inclusion of an ancilla may improve the amount of which-way information that can be read-out from the detectors.

Since the state of the ancilla is fixed once and for all, it is possible though to express the probabilities of the possible outcomes resulting from the measurement of any observable $`A_{tot}`$ in $`_{tot}`$, in terms of quantities defined directly in $`_D`$. We let $`P_\mu ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N`$ the orthogonal decomposition of the identity in $`_{tot}`$, relative to $`A_{tot}`$ (we consider for simplicity an observable with a finite number $`N`$ of distinct outcomes). Then, the probability $`P_{i\mu }`$ that the outcome $`\mu `$ is observed, in the state $`|\chi _i>|\varphi _0>`$ is given by the well known formula:

$$P_{i\mu }=\mathrm{Tr}[P_\mu (\rho _i\rho _{aux})]$$
(2.4)
where $`\rho _i=|\chi _i><\chi _i|`$ and $`\rho _{aux}=|\varphi _o><\varphi _0|`$. If the trace is performed in two steps, first on the ancillary Hilbert space and then on $`_D`$, we can rewrite the above expression as

$$P_{i\mu }=\mathrm{Tr}[A_\mu \rho _i],$$
(2.5)
where

$$A_\mu =Tr_{aux}[P_\mu (1\rho _{aux})],$$
(2.6)
and $`Tr_{aux}`$ denotes the partial trace over the ancilla Hilbert space. The hermitean operators $`A_\mu `$ belong to $`𝒜_D`$, and it is easy to check that they are positive definite, and that they provide a decomposition of the identity on $`_D`$:

$$\underset{\mu }{}A_\mu =1,\mathrm{on}_D$$
(2.7)
However, in general, they are not projection operators, neither they commute with each other. We point out also that the number $`N`$ of different outcomes needs not be the same as neither the number $`n`$ of detector-states, nor the dimensionality of $`_D`$. The collection $`\{A_\mu \}`$ of operators constitutes an example of a positive operator-valued measure (POVM) in $`_D`$. More generally , a POVM is a map that associates to every (Borel) subset $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the real line $`R`$, a non-negative (self-adjoint) operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })`$, such that:
i) the empty set $`\mathrm{}`$ is mapped to zero;
ii) the entire real line is mapped to the identity operator:
iii) the union of any number of disjoint sets is mapped to the sum of the corresponding operators.
The probability $`P(\mathrm{\Delta })`$ for the outcome to be in the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is given by the following expression, generalizing equation (2.5):

$$P(\mathrm{\Delta })=Tr[\rho \mathrm{\Pi }(\mathrm{\Delta })].$$
(2.8)
The axioms i), ii) and iii) listed above ensure the consistency of the above probabilistic interpretation. POVM’s thus represent a generalization of the projection-valued measures (PVM), usually considered in Quantum Mechanics, and it is a theorem due to Neumark , that all POVM’s on $`_D`$ can be realized by means of an appropriate ancillary system, in the way sketched above. Since any quantum system not interacting with the detector can play the rôle of the ancilla, this theorem implies that every POVM can be realized by an experimental procedure falling within the usual framework of Quantum Mechanics. Thus, in order to determine what is the maximum amount of which-way information that can obtained by observing the detector, we should maximize $`\overline{F}`$ over the set of all POVM’s in $`_D`$, and not just over the set of all PVM’s.
It is time now to define precisely the average which-way information $`\overline{F}`$ delivered by a POVM. For any POVM $`\{A_\mu ,\mu =1,\mathrm{},N\}`$ (we shall always consider POVM with a finite number $`N`$ of different outcomes, in what follows), consider the a posteriori probabilities $`Q_{i\mu }`$ for observing the $`\mu `$th outcome, when the detector is in the state $`|\chi _i>`$. According to Bayes’ formula:

$$Q_{i\mu }=\frac{\zeta _iP_{i\mu }}{q_\mu },$$
(2.9)
where $`q_\mu `$ is the a priori probability for the occurrence of the outcome $`\mu `$:

$$q_\mu =\underset{i}{}\zeta _iP_{i\mu }.$$
(2.10)
In order to measure the amount of which-way information, that is gained if the $`\mu `$-th outcome is observed, we consider the quantity $`F_\mu =F(\stackrel{}{Q}_\mu )`$, where $`\stackrel{}{Q}_\mu =(Q_{1\mu }\mathrm{},Q_{n\mu })`$ and $`F`$ is some function. It is reasonable to require from $`F`$ the following properties:

(1) $`F`$ should be invariant under any permutation of its $`n`$ arguments.

(2) $`F`$ should reach its absolute minimum when its $`N`$ arguments are all equal to $`1/N`$ (which corresponds to complete lack of information on the detector state);

(3) $`F`$ should reach its absolute maximum when any of its arguments is equal to one, while all the others are equal to zero (which on the contrary corresponds to certain knowledge of the detector state);

(4) $`F`$ should be convex, i.e. for any $`\lambda [0,1]`$ it should hold: $`F`$ is said to be strictly convex, if the equality sign in Eq. (2.11) holds if and only if the vectors $`\stackrel{}{Q}_\mu ^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Q}_\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ coincide.

$$F(\lambda \stackrel{}{Q}^{}+(1\lambda )\stackrel{}{Q}^{\prime \prime })\lambda F(\stackrel{}{Q}^{})+(1\lambda )F(\stackrel{}{Q}^{\prime \prime }).$$
(2.11)
The intuitive meaning of this condition is clear if we interpret $`\stackrel{}{Q}^{}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{Q}^{\prime \prime }`$ as giving the a posteriori probabilities of $`n`$ alternative hypothesis, for two distinct tests $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$. For any $`\lambda [0,1]`$, we can consider the combination $`A_\lambda `$ of the tests $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, which consists in performing randomly either $`A^{}`$ or $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, with relative probabilities $`\lambda `$ and $`1\lambda `$, respectively. Equation (2.11) than states that the test $`A_\lambda `$ cannot carry more information than the weighted sum of the informations obtained from $`A^{}`$ and $`A^{\prime \prime }`$, separately.

The overall average information delivered by the POVM is defined as the average $`\overline{F}`$ of the numbers $`F_\mu `$, over all possible outcomes, weighted with the a priori probabilities $`q_\mu `$:

$$\overline{F}:=\underset{\mu }{}q_\mu F_\mu .$$
(2.12)
The optimization problem consists in searching for the POVM which maximizes $`\overline{F}`$. Notice that, among the unknowns, we have to consider also the number $`N`$ of elements of the POVM. Of course, the solution depends on the choice of the function $`F`$, above. Over the past years, several different choices have been adopted. For example, as we said in the Introduction, the authors of Refs.  consider the negative of Shannon’s entropy  $`H`$, which corresponds to taking:

$$F_\mu =H_\mu :=\underset{i}{}Q_{i\mu }\mathrm{log}Q_{i\mu }.$$
(2.13)
References  use the negative of Bayes’ cost function $`C`$:

$$F_\mu =C_\mu :=\underset{ij(\mu )}{}Q_{i\mu }=Q_{j(\mu )\mu }1,$$
(2.14)
where, for each $`\mu `$, $`j(\mu )`$ is any index such that $`Q_{j(\mu )\mu }=`$ Max$`\{Q_{1\mu },\mathrm{},Q_{n\mu }\}`$. Finally, more recently, Dürr  considered the normalized rms spread $`K`$:

$$F_\mu =K_\mu :=\left[\frac{n}{n1}\underset{i}{}\left(Q_{i\mu }\frac{1}{n}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}.$$
(2.15)
When $`n=2`$, it is easy to check that $`K_\mu =12C_\mu `$, and thus the two criteria (2.14) and (2.15) are inequivalent only for more than two beams. Notice also that, while Shannon’s entropy and the rms spread are strictly convex, the Bayes cost function is only convex.

Solving the optimization problem is a difficult task, and so far no general solution is known. However, partial results are available. For POVM’s consisting of a finite number of elements, by using the convexity of the function $`F`$, it is easy to show  that the optimal POVM can be chosen to consist of rank one operators, namely:

$$A_\mu =|\varphi _\mu ><\varphi _\mu |,$$
(2.16)
where $`\varphi _\mu 1`$. Moreover, if $`_D`$ is finite dimensional and $`d`$ is its dimension, it has been shown  that the number $`N`$ of elements of the optimal POVM can be taken to satisfy:

$$dNd^2.$$
(2.17)
## 3 Two-beam interferometers.

In this short Section, we consider a two-beam interferometer. For such a case, as pointed out in the previous Section, the criterion using the Bayes cost function \[Eq. (2.14)\] turns out to be equivalent to that based on the rms spreads \[Eq. (2.15)\]. The quantum detection problem, with the Bayes cost function as measure of information, is studied at length in Ref.. There, it is shown that, for any number $`n`$ of linearly independent states $`|\chi _i>`$ and arbitrary a priori probabilities $`\zeta _i`$, the optimal measurement is always a PVM. Since, in two-beam interferometers, the detector states $`|\chi _1>`$ and $`|\chi _2>`$ must be distinct, for any path discrimination to be possible, they are necessarily linearly independent and thus it follows, from the quoted result, that the optimal measurement is a PVM.

To our knowledge, there is no published proof that the optimal measurement is a PVM, even when one uses Shannon’s entropy, as a measure of the which-way information. We have proven it, in the special case of equally populated beams, $`\zeta _i=1/2`$. The rather elaborate proof can be found in the Appendix. When the populations $`\zeta _i`$ are different, we have not been able to work out an analytical proof, but a number of numerical simulations performed for various choices of the populations, seem to indicate that the optimal measurement is a PVM also in this general case.

In conclusion, it appears that for two-beam interferometers, both with Bayes’s cost or with Shannon’s information as measures of which-way information, ordinary PVM’s can read out the maximum which-way information from the detectors, and recourse to ancillas is superfluous. In fact, it turns out that the optimal PVM is the same, for both criteria (see Eq. (7.12) in the Appendix).

## 4 Multi-beams interferometers.

In this Section we study the case of multi-beam interferometers, with $`n>2`$ beams. We make the simplifying assumption that $`_D`$ is two-dimensional. This case is actually realized in experiments using beams of spin-half particles or photons, if the path information is stored in the internal states of the interfering particles. A further simplifying assumption that we make is that the beams are equally populated: $`\zeta _i=1/n`$.

$`_D`$ is isomorphic to $`C^2`$, the set of all pairs of complex numbers. As it is well known, rays of $`C^2`$ can be put in one-to-one correspondence with unit three-vectors $`\widehat{n}=(n^x,n^y,n^z)`$, via the map:

$$\frac{1+\widehat{n}\stackrel{}{\sigma }}{2}|\chi >=|\chi >,$$
(4.1)
where $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }=(\sigma _x,\sigma _y,\sigma _z)`$ is a set of Pauli matrices. Thus, assigning $`n`$ pure states $`|\chi _i>`$ amounts to picking $`n`$ unit vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$ in $`R^3`$. Whether the optimal test is a PVM or rather a POVM, now depends on the choice of the function $`F`$. Below, we consider in detail the three choices for $`F`$, Eqs. (2.13), (2.14) and (2.15), so far considered in the literature.

a) $`F`$ is the negative of Shannon’s entropy $`H`$ \[Eq. (2.13)\]. For three or more beams, it is known that the optimal test, in general, is not a PVM but rather a POVM. For example, for three states $`\widehat{n}_1`$, $`\widehat{n}_2`$ and $`\widehat{n}_3`$ forming angles of $`120^{}`$ with each other and such that $`_{i=1}^3\widehat{n}_i=0`$, it has been shown  that the optimal test is provided by the following POVM with three elements:

$$A_i=\frac{1}{3}(1\widehat{n}_i\stackrel{}{\sigma })$$
(4.2)
b) $`F`$ is the negative of Bayes’ cost function $`C`$ \[Eq. (2.14)\]. Here too, the optimal test is not a PVM, but a POVM. An example is again provided by the set of three symmetric pure states considered under case (a) above. It is shown in  that the optimal POVM is given this time by the following POVM with three elements:

$$A_i=\frac{1}{3}(1+\widehat{n}_i\stackrel{}{\sigma }).$$
(4.3)
Notice that the above POVM is not the same as \[Eq. (4.2)\], which is an example of the fact that the solution of the optimization problem depends on the choice of $`F`$.

c) $`F`$ is given by the rms spread $`K`$ \[Eq. (2.15)\]. Remarkably enough, we can show that, for any number $`n`$ of equally populated beams, the optimal test is always a PVM. This is in sharp contrast with what happens for the two other choices of $`F`$ previously considered. To prove this claim, consider an optimal POVM, $`A=\{A_\mu ;\mu =1,\mathrm{}N\}`$. We know, from Sec. 2, that the operators $`A_\mu `$ must be of the form (2.16). Using Eq. (4.1), we can write:

$$A_\mu =\alpha _\mu (1+\widehat{m}_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma }),$$
(4.4)
where $`\widehat{m}_\mu `$ are $`N`$ unit three-vectors, and $`\alpha _\mu `$ are $`N`$ positive numbers. The condition for a POVM, $`_\mu A_\mu =1`$, is then equivalent to:

$$\underset{\mu }{}\alpha _\mu =1,\underset{\mu }{}\alpha _\mu \widehat{m}_\mu =0.$$
(4.5)
In view of Eq. (4.4), we find:

$$P_{i\mu }:=<\chi _i|A_\mu |\chi _i>=\alpha _\mu (1+\widehat{m}_\mu \widehat{n}_i).$$
(4.6)
Using this equation, we compute Eq. (2.10) as:

$$q_\mu =\alpha _\mu (1+\widehat{m}_\mu \underset{i}{}\zeta _i\widehat{n}_i).$$
(4.7)
In order to evaluate the average information $`\overline{F}(A)`$ of $`A`$, it is convenient to rewrite the quantities $`q_\mu K_\mu `$ as

$$q_\mu K_\mu =\left[\frac{n}{n1}\left(\frac{q_\mu ^2}{n}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\zeta _i^2P_{i\mu }^2\right)\right]^{1/2}.$$
(4.8)
Upon using Eqs. (4.6) and (4.7) into the above formula, we obtain, after a little algebra:

$$q_\mu K_\mu =\alpha _\mu \sqrt{\frac{n}{n1}}\left\{\frac{1}{n}[1+(\widehat{m}_\mu \underset{i}{}\zeta _i\widehat{n}_i)^2]+\underset{i}{}\zeta _i^2[1+(\widehat{m}_\mu \widehat{n}_i)^2]+2\widehat{m}_\mu \underset{i}{}\zeta _i\left(\zeta _i\frac{1}{n}\right)\widehat{n}_i\right\}^{1/2}.$$
(4.9)
We observe now that, for equally populated beams, $`\zeta _i=1/n`$, the last sum in the above equation vanishes, and the expression for $`q_\mu K_\mu `$ becomes invariant under the exchange of $`\widehat{m}_\mu `$ with $`\widehat{m}_\mu `$. Consider now the POVM $`B=\{B_\mu ^+,B_\mu ^{};\mu =1,\mathrm{},N\}`$, consisting of $`2N`$ elements, such that:

$$B_\mu ^+=\frac{1}{2}A_\mu ,B_\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _\mu (1\widehat{m}_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma })$$
(4.10)
Of course, $`q_\mu ^{(+)}K_\mu ^{(+)}=q_\mu K_\mu /2`$, while the invariance of $`q_\mu K_\mu `$ implies $`q_\mu ^{()}K_\mu ^{()}=q_\mu ^{(+)}K_\mu ^{(+)}`$. It follows that the average informations for $`A`$ and $`B`$ are equal to each other, $`\overline{F}(A)=\overline{F}(B)`$. Now, for each value of $`\mu `$, the pair of operators $`B_\mu ^\pm /\alpha _\mu =(1\pm \widehat{m}_\mu \stackrel{}{\sigma })/2`$ constitutes a PVM, and thus the POVM $`B`$ can be regarded as a collection of $`N`$ PVM’s, each taken with a non-negative weight $`\alpha _\mu `$. But then $`\overline{F}(B)`$, being equal to the average of the amounts of information provided by $`N`$ PVM’s, cannot be higher than the maximum information $`F_D`$ delivered by a PVM. Therefore, we have proven that $`F(A)=F(B)F_D`$, which shows that the optimum measurement can always be effected by a means of PVM.

We then see that, in the multibeam case, only with Dürr’s measure of information one can dispose of the ancilla, at least for equally populated beams.

## 5 Conclusions

When, in an interference experiment, the which-way detector states are not mutually orthogonal, one has an incomplete knowledge of the path followed by the interfering particles. One is then faced with the problem of reading out, in an optimum way, the information stored in the detectors. The best measurement to be performed depends, in a crucial way, on the criterion used to measure the information. This is a problem in quantum decision theory, and our paper is a contribution to the task of identifying the optimum quantum test, for which no general solution is known so far.

We have shown that for the two beams case, both by using Shannon entropy or Bayes cost function as measures of information, the best test to be performed is given by an ordinary projection valued measurement in the detector’s Hilbert space. Actually, it turns out that both criteria identify the same measurement. In the multibeam case only Dürr’s normalized rms spread criterion leads to a PVM, while the other two lead to a POVM. Notice that in the case of three coplanar symmetric beam states one ends up with two different POVM’s: the one relative to Bayes cost \[Eq. (4.3)\], allows every time to pick one beam as the most probable one, while the POVM determined by Shannon entropy, allows to exclude one of the three beams as impossible.

We see, then, that in the multibeam case Dürr’s criterion seems to be favoured for two different reason. First of all, it allows to derive a quantitative complementarity relation, as the one given by Eq. (1.3). Second, it allows to work with ordinary quantum mechanical measurements, and to ignore generalized POVM’s, involving an ancillary system. A possible relationship of these two features seams worth studying. This may be related to the fact that, as has been recently shown , there are problems in extending the mathematical definition of complementarity to a POVM.

Our results are of limited generality in two respects: first, in the multibeam case they refer to two-state detectors, second, we always considered equally populated beams. For what concern the latter problem, we may add that we have gathered substantial numerical evidence that our results may extend to arbitrarily populated beams. However we lack at the moment an analytic proof. The former limitation seems more difficult to overcome. Fortunately, however, the case we have treated is physically interesting, for it includes many experimental setups in which the ”which-way” detection exploits some two-states internal degrees of freedom of the interfering particles.

## 6 Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge an interesting discussion with Prof. G. Marmo and Prof. E.C.G. Sudarshan. The work of G.B. was partially supported by the PRIN S.Inte.Si.. The work of R.M. was partially supported by EC program HPRN-EC-2000-00131, and by the PRIN ”Teoria dei campi, superstringhe e gravità”.

## 7 Appendix

In this Appendix, we prove the following

Theorem: for a two-beams interferometer with equally populated beams, when one uses the negative of Shannon’s entropy to measure the which-way information, the optimal measurement is provided by a PVM (precisely described in Eq. (7.12) below).

More precisely, let $`|\chi _+>`$ and $`|\chi _{}>`$ be the detector states, for the two beams. We exclude the trivial case, when $`|\chi _+>`$ and $`|\chi _{}>`$ are proportional, because then no path-reconstruction would be possible. Therefore, $`_D`$ is two-dimensional and we can represent vectors in $`_D`$ by unit three vectors, according to Eq. (4.1). We loose no generality if we assume that the unit vectors $`\widehat{n}_+`$ and $`\widehat{n}_{}`$, associated to $`|\chi _+>`$ and $`|\chi _{}>`$ respectively, have the expressions:

$$\stackrel{}{n}_+=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{cos}\theta ),\stackrel{}{n}_{}=(\mathrm{sin}\theta ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}0},\mathrm{cos}\theta ),$$
(7.11)
With this parametrization for the states $`|\chi _+>`$ and $`|\chi _{}>`$, our theorem states that, if the which-way information is measured by the negative of Shannon’s entropy $`H`$, the optimal measurement is provided by the PVM $`A`$ with elements:

$$A_+=\frac{1}{2}(1+\sigma _x),A_{}=\frac{1}{2}(1\sigma _x).$$
(7.12)
Before giving the proof of this Theorem, it is useful to prove first the following

Lemma: consider, in $`C^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, $`n`$ states $`|\chi _i>`$, with coplanar vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$, and arbitrary populations $`\zeta _i`$. Then, the optimal POVM has elements $`A_\mu `$ of the form \[Eq. (4.4)\], with all the vectors $`\widehat{m}_\mu `$ lying in the same plane containing the vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$.

The proof of the lemma is as follows. Let $`B`$ be an optimal POVM. Then we know, from the theorems quoted in Sec. 2, that its elements must have rank-one and so are of the form given in Eq. (4.4). Moreover, they must satisfy the POVM conditions given by Eqs. (4.5). Suppose now that some of the vectors $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{(B)}`$ do not belong to the plane containing the vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$, which we assume to be the $`xz`$ plane. We show below how to construct a new POVM $`A\{A_\nu ,\nu =1,\mathrm{}N+p\}`$, providing not less information than $`B`$, and such that the vectors $`\widehat{m}_\nu ^{(A)}`$ all belong to the $`xz`$ plane. The first step in the construction of $`A`$ consists in symmetrizing $`B`$ with respect to the $`xz`$ plane. The symmetrization is done by replacing each element $`B_\mu `$ of $`B`$, not lying in the $`xz`$ plane, by the pair $`(B_\mu ^{},B_\mu ^{\prime \prime })`$, where $`B_\mu ^{}=B_\mu /2`$, and $`B_\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ has the same weight as $`B_\mu ^{}`$, while its vector $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{(B)\prime \prime }`$ is the symmetric of $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{(B)}`$ with respect to the $`xz`$ plane. It is easy to verify that the symmetrization preserves the conditions for a POVM \[Eqs. (4.5)\]. Since all the vectors $`\widehat{n}_i`$ belong by assumption to the $`xz`$ plane, we see, from Eq. (4.6), that the probabilities $`P_{i\mu }`$ actually depend only on the projections of the vectors $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{(B)}`$ in the plane $`xz`$. This implies, at is easy to check, that symmetrization with respect to the $`xz`$ plane does not change the information $`\overline{F}`$. We assume therefore that $`B`$ has been preliminarily symmetrized in this way. Now we show that we can replace, one after the other, each pair of symmetric elements $`(B_\mu ^{},B_\mu ^{\prime \prime })`$ by another pair of operators, whose vectors lie in the $`xz`$ plane, without reducing the information provided by the POVM. Consider for example the pair $`(B_p^{},B_p^{\prime \prime })`$. We construct the unique pair of unit vectors $`\widehat{u}_p`$ and $`\widehat{v}_p`$, lying the $`xz`$ plane, and such that:

$$\widehat{u}_p+\widehat{v}_p=2(m_p^{(B)x}\widehat{i}+m_p^{(B)z}\widehat{k}),$$
(7.13)
where $`\widehat{i}`$ and $`\widehat{j}`$ are the directions of the $`x`$ and $`z`$ axis, respectively. Notice that $`\widehat{u}_p\widehat{v}_p`$. Consider now the collection of operators obtained by replacing the pair $`(B_p^{},B_p^{\prime \prime })`$ with the pair $`(A_p^{},A_p^{\prime \prime })`$ such that:

$$A_p^{}=\alpha _p^{(B)}(1+\widehat{u}_p\stackrel{}{\sigma }),A_p^{\prime \prime }=\alpha _p^{(B)}(1+\widehat{v}_p\stackrel{}{\sigma }).$$
(7.14)
It is clear, in view of Eqs. (7.13), that the new collection of $`N+p`$ operators still forms a resolution of the identity, and thus represents a POVM. Equations (7.13) also imply:

$$P_{ip}^{(B)}=P_{ip}^{(B)\prime \prime }=\alpha _p(1+m_p^{(B)x}n_i^x+m_p^{(B)z}n_i^z)=$$

$$=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _p(1+u_p^xn_i^x+u_p^zn_i^z)+\frac{1}{2}\alpha _p(1+v_p^xn_i^x+v_p^zn_i^z)=\frac{1}{2}(P_{ip}^{(A)}+P_{ip}^{(A)\prime \prime }),$$
(7.15)
Now, define $`\lambda _p^{}:=q_p^{(A)}/(2q_p^{(B)})`$, and $`\lambda _p^{\prime \prime }:=q_p^{(A)\prime \prime }/(2q_p^{(B)})`$, where $`q_p^{(B)}:=q_p^{(B)}=q_p^{\prime \prime (B)}`$. Since $`q_p^{(A)}+q_p^{(A)\prime \prime }=2q_p^{(B)}`$, we have $`\lambda _p^{}+\lambda _p^{\prime \prime }=1`$. It is easy to verify, using Eqs. (2.9) and (2.10), that:

$$Q_{ip}^{(B)}=Q_{ip}^{(B)\prime \prime }=\lambda _p^{}Q_{ip}^{(A)}+\lambda _\mu ^{(A)\prime \prime }Q_{ip}^{(A)\prime \prime },$$
(7.16)
But then, the convexity of $`F`$ implies:

$$q_p^{(B)}F^{(B)}(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(B)})+q_p^{\prime \prime (B)}F^{(B)}(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{\prime \prime (B)})=2q_p^{(B)}F^{(B)}(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(B)})=$$

$$=2q_p^{(B)}F(\lambda _p^{}\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(A)}+\lambda _\mu ^{(A)\prime \prime }\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(A)\prime \prime })2q_p^{(B)}[\lambda _p^{}F(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(A)})+\lambda _p^{\prime \prime }F(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(A)\prime \prime })]=$$

$$=q_p^{(A)}F^{(A)}(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{(A)})+q_p^{\prime \prime (A)}F^{(A)}(\stackrel{}{Q}_p^{\prime \prime (A)}).$$
(7.17)
It follows that the new POVM is no worse than $`B`$. By repeating this construction $`p`$ times, we can obviously eliminate from $`B`$ all the $`p`$ pairs of elements not lying in the $`xz`$ plane, until we get a POVM $`A`$, which provides not less information than $`B`$, whose elements all lie in the $`xz`$ plane. This concludes the proof of the lemma.

We can turn now to the proof of the Theorem, stated at the beginning of this Appendix. The proof consists in showing that the PVM $`A`$ in \[Eq. (7.12)\] provides not less information than any other POVM, $`C`$, consisting of more than two elements. By virtue of the lemma just proven, we loose no generality if we assume that the $`N>2`$ vectors $`m_\mu ^{(C)}`$ of $`C`$ lie in the $`xz`$ plane. Our first move is to symmetrize $`C`$ with respect to $`z`$ axis, by introducing a POVM $`B`$, consisting of $`N`$ pairs of elements $`(B_\mu ^{},B_\mu ^{\prime \prime })`$, having equal weights, and vectors $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{}`$ and $`\widehat{m}_\mu ^{\prime \prime }`$ that are symmetric with respect to the $`z`$ axis:

$$B_\mu ^{}=\frac{1}{2}C_\mu ,B_\mu ^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{2}\alpha _\mu ^{(C)}(1\widehat{m}_\mu ^x\sigma _x+\widehat{m}_\mu ^z\sigma _z),\mu =1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(7.18)
$`B`$ provides as much information as $`C`$. Indeed, in view of Eq. (4.6), we find

$$P_{\pm \mu }^{(C)}=2P_{\pm \mu }^{(B)}=2P_\mu ^{(B)\prime \prime },\mu =1,\mathrm{},N.$$
(7.19)
The invariance of $`F`$ with respect to permutations of its arguments, then ensures that $`\overline{F}(B)=\overline{F}(C)`$. Thus, we loose no information if we consider a POVM $`B`$, that is symmetric with respect to the $`z`$ axis. Now we describe a procedure of reduction that, applied to a symmetric POVM like $`B`$, gives rise to another symmetric POVM $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, which contains two elements less than $`B`$, but nevertheless gives no less information than $`B`$. The procedure works as follows: we pick at will two pairs of elements of $`B`$, say $`(B_N^{},B_N^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(B_{N1}^{},B_{N1}^{\prime \prime })`$ and consider the unique pair of symmetric unit vectors $`\widehat{u}_\pm =\pm u^x\widehat{i}+u^z\widehat{k}`$ such that:

$$u^z=\frac{1}{\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}}(\alpha _N^{(B)}m_N^{(B)z}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}m_{N1}^{(B)z}).$$
(7.20)
Consider the symmetric collection $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, obtained from $`B`$ after replacing the four elements $`(B_N^{},B_N^{\prime \prime },B_{N1}^{},B_{N1}^{\prime \prime })`$ by the pair $`(\stackrel{~}{B}_{N1}^{},\stackrel{~}{B}_{N1}^{\prime \prime })`$ such that:

$$\stackrel{~}{B}_{N1}^{}=(\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)})(1+\widehat{u}_+\stackrel{}{\sigma }),\stackrel{~}{B}_{N1}^{\prime \prime }=(\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)})(1+\widehat{u}_{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }).$$
(7.21)
$`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is still a POVM, as it is easy to verify. Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ provides not less information than $`B`$, as we now show. Indeed, after some algebra, one finds:

$$\frac{\overline{F}(\stackrel{~}{B})\overline{F}(B)}{\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}}=g(u^z)\frac{\alpha _N^{(B)}}{\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}}g(m_N^{(B)z})\frac{\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}}{\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)}}g(m_{N1}^{(B)z}),$$
(7.22)
where the function $`g(x)`$ has the expression:

$$g(x)=(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta )\mathrm{log}(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta )+$$

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta +(1x^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta +(1x^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta )\right]+$$

$$\frac{1}{2}(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta (1x^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta )\mathrm{log}\left[\frac{1}{2}(1+x\mathrm{cos}\theta (1x^2)^{1/2}\mathrm{sin}\theta )\right].$$
(7.23)
In view of Eq. (7.20), the r.h.s. of Eq. (7.22) is of the form

$$g(\lambda x_1+(1\lambda )x_2)\lambda g(x_1)(1\lambda )g(x_2),$$
(7.24)
where $`\lambda =\alpha _N^{(B)}/(\alpha _N^{(B)}+\alpha _{N1}^{(B)})`$, while $`x_1=m_N^{(B)z}`$ and $`x_2=m_{N1}^{(B)z}`$. It may be checked that, for all values of $`\theta `$, $`g(x)`$ is concave, for $`x[1,1]`$, and so the r.h.s. of Eq. (7.24) is non-negative for any value of $`\lambda [0,1]`$. This implies that the r.h.s. of Eq. (7.22) is non-negative as well, and so $`\overline{F}(\stackrel{~}{B})\overline{F}(B)`$. After $`N1`$ iterations of this procedure, we end up with a symmetric POVM consisting of two pairs of elements $`(B_1^{},B_1^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(B_2^{},B_2^{\prime \prime })`$. But then, the conditions for a POVM, Eqs. (4.5), imply that the quantity between the brackets on the r.h.s. of Eq. (7.20) vanishes, and so Eq. (7.20) gives $`u^z=0`$. This means that the last iteration gives rise precisely to the PVM $`A`$ in \[Eq. (7.12)\]. By putting everything together, we have shown that $`\overline{F}(C)=\overline{F}(B)\overline{F}(\stackrel{~}{B})\mathrm{}\overline{F}(A)`$, and this is the required result.


format: text

text:
# 1 BPS wall solution ϕ̃(𝑦̃) and 𝐴(𝑦̃) connecting ϕ̃=-𝜋/2 to ϕ̃=𝜋/2.

TIT/HEP–482

UTP-02-45

hep-th/0208127

August, 2002

Exactly solved BPS wall and winding number
in $`𝒩=1`$ Supergravity

Minoru Eto a 111e-mail address: meto@th.phys.titech.ac.jp , Nobuhito Maru b 222e-mail address: maru@hep-th.phys.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp , Norisuke Sakai a 333e-mail address: nsakai@th.phys.titech.ac.jp , and Tsuyoshi Sakata a 444e-mail address: sakata@th.phys.titech.ac.jp

aDepartment of Physics, Tokyo Institute of Technology
Tokyo 152-8551, JAPAN
and
bDepartment of Physics, University of Tokyo 113-0033, JAPAN

Abstract
A BPS exact wall solution is found in $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions. The model uses chiral scalar field with a periodic superpotential admitting winding numbers. Maintaining the periodicity in supergravity requires a gravitational correction to superpotential which allows the exact solution. By introducing boundary cosmological constants, we construct non-BPS multi-wall solutions for which a systematic analytic approximation is worked out for small gravitational coupling.

Introduction

Supersymmetry (SUSY) has been most promising for unified theories beyond the standard model . Recently new possibilities have been added by the “Brane World” scenario, where our four-dimensional spacetime is realized on topological defects such as walls embedded in a higher dimensional spacetime . More intriguing model has also been proposed by using the so-called warped metric in a bulk AdS spacetime of higher dimensional gravity together with an orbifold $`S^1/Z_2`$ with a boundary cosmological constant finely tuned with the bulk cosmological constant . The warped spacetime has provided an attractive notion of localized graviton on the wall . Much efforts have been devoted to implement supergravity in orbifolds , work out solutions in gravity with a scalar field to replace the orbifold by a smooth wall configuration in four dimensions  and in higher dimensions . It has been noted that the set of second order differential equations for coupled scalar and gravity theories can be reduced to a set of first order differential equations using a potential similar to the superpotential even for nonsupersymmetric case .

In SUSY theories, single wall can preserve half of the SUSY, and is called a BPS state . Properties of topological defects such as walls have been extensively studied in SUSY theories - and exact solutions have been useful as illustrated by a $`1/4`$-BPS junction of walls . Coexistence of BPS walls conserving different supercharges can break SUSY completely . When SUSY is broken, the stability of the multi-wall system is no longer guaranteed. We have found that topological quantum number such as winding number can stabilize the non-BPS multi-wall configurations. In an $`𝒩=1`$ globally SUSY sine-Gordon model, we have constructed an exact non-BPS multi-wall solution with a nonvanishing winding number which has no tachyon and is stable in a compact base space with the radius $`R`$ . We have also found an example of a stable non-BPS bound state of BPS walls in an extended model . Since the compact space radius $`R`$ becomes a dynamical quantity in gravity theories, we are led to ask if the stabilization mechanism due to the winding number still works in supergravity. To study properties of walls in supergravity theories, we first need to find solutions of BPS and non-BPS walls.

The purpose of our paper is to present an exact BPS solution of the SUSY sine-Gordon model embedded into $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions and a systematic analytic approximation for non-BPS multi-wall configurations in powers of gravitational coupling. We find that a gravitational correction to the superpotential is needed to maintain the periodicity of our SUSY sine-Gordon model as an isometry realized by a Kähler transformation. This allows us to obtain an exact BPS wall solution in the $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity. Since equations of motion for matter and gravity are simultaneously satisfied, our solution requires no artificial fine-tuning of parameters such as boundary and bulk cosmological constants contrary to the original orbifold model . We discuss classification and global properties of non-BPS solutions using the first order differential equations of Ref., and succeed in constructing multi-wall configurations with and without winding number using scalar field. We show that multi-wall configurations require negative energy density. We introduce a negative energy density as a boundary cosmological constant similarly to . The scalar field satisfies the equation of motion without any external sources and is smooth everywhere. We also obtain a systematic analytic approximation in powers of gravitational coupling and express necessary boundary cosmological constant in terms of elliptic integrals, for instance. To this end, we identify a set of first order differential equations for walls with single scalar field corresponding to the no gravity limit of the method of . We analyze the region of large gravitational coupling numerically and find qualitatively similar results.

Exact BPS Wall Solutions with a Periodic Potential

To avoid inessential complications, we will consider three-dimensional walls in four-dimensional theory to obtain BPS and non-BPS solutions except stated otherwise. Previously we used a simple model admitting the winding number in $`𝒩=1`$ SUSY theory, the SUSY sine-Gordon model  with the Kähler potential $`K`$ for the minimal kinetic term and the periodic superpotential $`P`$ for a chiral scalar superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }=(\varphi ,\psi ,F)`$

$$K(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi },P_{\mathrm{global}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{g^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right).$$
(1)
The model is invariant under

$$\varphi \varphi +\frac{2n\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{g},n𝐙$$
(2)
Coupling the model with the minimal kinetic term to $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity  gives a Lagrangian whose bosonic part is given in terms of the superpotential $`P(\varphi )`$ with scalar field $`\varphi `$ replacing the superfield $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$

$$(\sqrt{g})^1=\frac{M_\mathrm{P}^2}{2}Rg^{mn}_m\varphi _n\varphi ^{}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_P^2}}\left[\left|\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{}{\varphi }\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}P\right)\right|^2\frac{3}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}|P|^2\right],$$
(3)
where $`g_{mn}`$ is a metric of the spacetime, $`g=\mathrm{det}g_{mn}`$, $`R`$ is the scalar curvature, and $`M_\mathrm{P}`$ is the Planck mass111We follow the convention of Ref. except that the Einstein indices are denoted by $`m,n,\mathrm{}`$ in four dimensions, and by $`\mu ,\nu ,\mathrm{}`$ in three dimensions.  .

Since we wish to study the winding number of $`\varphi `$, the periodicity under (2) should be maintained. The Kähler potential transforms under (2) as

$$K(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi })K(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi })+\frac{2n\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{g}\left(\mathrm{\Phi }^{}+\mathrm{\Phi }\right)+\left(\frac{2n\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }}{g}\right)^2.$$
(4)
The Lagrangian is invariant under such Kähler transformations in the globally SUSY theory. In supergravity, however, it has been known that the superpotential should transform in a definite way under Kähler transformations to make the theory invariant . We find the necessary gravitational corrections to the superpotential which realizes the desired periodicity (2) as

$$K(\mathrm{\Phi }^{},\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi },P(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}P_{\mathrm{global}}(\mathrm{\Phi })=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{g^2}\mathrm{sin}\left(\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\mathrm{\Phi }\right).$$
(5)
This gravitational correction is crucial to obtain exact periodicity and also an exact solution of BPS walls.

We find that the SUSY vacuum condition in supergravity gives precisely the same SUSY vacua as in the globally SUSY case, $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }g\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{\pi }{2}+n\pi ,n𝐙`$

$$0=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{}{\varphi }\left[\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}P(\varphi )\right]=\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\varphi ^2}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g}\left[\mathrm{cos}\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi +\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ^{}\varphi )}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}\frac{1}{g}\mathrm{sin}\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi \right].$$
(6)
No other vacua are allowed in spite of nontrivial dependence on $`M_\mathrm{P}`$. By requiring half of the SUSY to be conserved, one obtains the BPS equations in $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity. We assume the following warped metric Ansatz

$$ds^2=g_{mn}dx^mdx^n=e^{2A(y)}\eta _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu +dy^2,(\mu ,\nu =0,1,3)$$
(7)
where $`A(y)`$ is the warp factor, $`\eta _{\mu \nu }=\text{diag}.(,+,+)`$, and the extra dimension is denoted as $`x^2=y`$. Parametrizing the conserved SUSY parameter as $`\zeta (y)=\mathrm{e}^{i\theta (y)}\sigma ^2\overline{\zeta }(y)`$, the half SUSY condition for gravitino gives the BPS equation for the Killing spinor $`\zeta _\alpha `$ and the warp factor $`A`$

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\theta }{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\left(\varphi ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dy}}\varphi {\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi ^{}}{dy}}\right),{\displaystyle \frac{d|\zeta _\alpha |}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dy}}|\zeta _\alpha |,`$ (8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dy}}`$ $`=`$ $`i\mathrm{e}^{i\theta }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}P(\varphi ).`$ (9)
The BPS equation for the scalar field reads

$$\frac{d\varphi }{dy}=i\mathrm{e}^{i\theta }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{}{\varphi ^{}}\left(\mathrm{e}^{\frac{|\varphi |^2}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}}P^{}\right)=i\mathrm{e}^{i\theta }\mathrm{e}^{\frac{\varphi ^{}(\varphi \varphi ^{})}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g}\left[\mathrm{cos}\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^{}+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi \varphi ^{})}{gM_\mathrm{P}^2}\mathrm{sin}\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ^{}\right].$$
(10)
Let us solve these BPS equations from $`y=\mathrm{}`$ choosing a SUSY vacuum $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2`$ and $`\theta =\pi /2`$ as the initial condition at $`y=\mathrm{}`$. We observe that the right-hand side of the BPS equation for the imaginary part $`(\varphi \varphi ^{})/2i`$ is proportional to the imaginary part itself if $`\theta =\pi /2`$. Then the right-hand side of the BPS equation (10) for the imaginary part $`(\varphi \varphi ^{})/2i`$ vanishes at $`y=\mathrm{}`$. Similarly the right-hand side of (9) for the phase $`\theta (y)`$ vanishes at $`y=\mathrm{}`$. Therefore these first order differential equations dictate vanishing imaginary part of $`\varphi `$ and the constant phase of $`\zeta _\alpha `$ for any $`y`$ : $`\theta (y)=\pi /2,\varphi (y)=\varphi (y)^{}`$. Then equation (8) can be integrated to give the Killing spinor $`\zeta _\alpha =\zeta _\alpha ^{}=ie^{\frac{1}{2}A}.`$ The remaining BPS equation for $`\varphi =\varphi ^{}`$ becomes identical to the globally SUSY case and that for $`A`$ becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\varphi }{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g}}\mathrm{cos}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\varphi ,{\displaystyle \frac{dA}{dy}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{g^2M_\mathrm{P}^2}}\mathrm{sin}{\displaystyle \frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}\varphi .`$ (11)
Anti-BPS equation conserving the opposite SUSY charges is given by $`\theta =\pi /2`$. We find solutions for a wall localized at $`y_0`$ connecting from $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2+n\pi `$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2+n\pi `$ at $`y=\mathrm{}`$ for any $`n𝐙`$ as (anti-)BPS solution for $`n=`$ even (odd) as shown in Fig.1

$`\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{g}}\left[(1)^n\left(2\mathrm{tan}^1\mathrm{e}^{(1)^n\mathrm{\Lambda }(yy_0)}{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\right)+n\pi \right],\mathrm{e}^{2A(y)}=\left[\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }(yy_0)\right]^{\frac{1}{g^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_\mathrm{P}}\right)^2}`$ (12)
where we suppressed an integration constant for $`A`$ which amounts to an irrelevant normalization constant of metric. The Killing spinor is given with the normalization $`N`$ $`\zeta _\alpha =iN\left[\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }(yy_0)\right]^{\mathrm{\Lambda }^2/(2g^2M_\mathrm{P}^2)}`$. We have verified that these BPS solutions indeed satisfy the equations of motion. The energy density of the scalar field of the (anti-)BPS wall is given by $`4T^34\mathrm{\Lambda }^3/g^2`$.

Let us examine the thin-wall limit . By fixing the energy density $`4T^3`$ and taking a limit $`g\mathrm{}`$, we recover the Randall-Sundrum model . The kinetic energy of the scalar field $`|d\varphi /dy|^2`$ reduces to the half of the boundary cosmological constant $`\lambda _{\text{boundary}}=4T^3=4\mathrm{\Lambda }^3/g^2`$, and the remaining half comes from the first term of the scalar potential in Eq.(3) containing derivative of the superpotential. The bulk cosmological constant $`\lambda _{\text{bulk}}=3T^6/M_\mathrm{P}^2`$ comes from the last term $`3\mathrm{e}^{|\varphi |^2/M_\mathrm{P}^2}|P|^2/M_\mathrm{P}^2`$ of the scalar potential in Eq.(3). These cosmological constants automatically satisfy the relation $`\lambda _{\text{boundary}}=4M_\mathrm{P}\sqrt{\lambda _{\text{bulk}}/3}`$ which was implemented as a fine-tuning in the orbifold model . Our solutions (12) replace the boundary cosmological constant at a fixed point of the orbifold by a smooth physical wall configuration of the scalar field completely. The existence of the thin wall limit suggests that the $`𝒩=1`$ supergravity in four dimensions is consistent even on the orbifold, although we do not know if this point has been demonstrated similarly to the five-dimensional case .

We can use the “effective supergravity” to extend our model to arbitrary spacetime dimensions $`D`$ . Assuming the periodic potential $`W(\varphi )=(\mathrm{\Lambda }^{D1}/g^2)\mathrm{sin}(g\varphi /\mathrm{\Lambda }^{(D2)/2})`$ can be used, we obtain the $`D`$ dimensional BPS wall solution connecting from $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2`$

$$\varphi =\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\frac{D2}{2}}}{g}\left(2\mathrm{tan}^1e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(yy_0)}\frac{\pi }{2}\right),\mathrm{e}^{2A(y)}=\left[\mathrm{cosh}\mathrm{\Lambda }(yy_0)\right]^{\frac{4}{(D2)g^2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{M_D}\right)^{D2}},$$
(13)
with $`M_D`$ as the Planck mass in $`D`$ dimensions. A BPS wall different from ours has been obtained in a similar model in five-dimensional supergravity .

Classification and global properties of Non-BPS Solutions

In order to study possible multi-wall configurations, especially non-BPS configurations, we need to solve the equations of motion which are second order differential equations. It has been shown that these second order equations are equivalent to a set of first order differential equations which resemble the BPS equations provided there is only single scalar field forming walls .

Let us assume that initial conditions for complex scalar $`\varphi (y),d\varphi (y)/dy`$ and the warp factor $`A(y),dA(y)/dy`$ are real at some $`y`$, say $`y=\mathrm{}`$. The equations of motion for $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$ in our model then dictate that both $`\varphi `$ and $`A`$ are real for any $`y`$. Therefore we can ignore the imaginary part of the complex scalar field as long as we are interested in classical solutions. The bosonic part of the Lagrangian is given by

$$(\sqrt{g})^1=\frac{M_\mathrm{P}^2}{2}R\left(\frac{d\varphi }{dy}\right)^2V(\varphi ),V(\varphi )=\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}{g^2}\left(\mathrm{cos}^2\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi \frac{3\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g^2M_\mathrm{P}^2}\mathrm{sin}^2\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi \right).$$
(14)
We can now apply the method of Ref. to our model taking $`\varphi `$ as a real scalar field. Given the scalar potential (14), we should find a real function $`W(\varphi )`$ by solving the following first order nonlinear differential equaiton

$$V(\varphi )=\left(\frac{dW(\varphi )}{d\varphi }\right)^2\frac{3}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}W^2(\varphi ).$$
(15)
Then $`\varphi (y)`$ and $`A(y)`$ are obtained by solving the following two first order differential equations

$$\frac{d\varphi (y)}{dy}=\frac{dW(\varphi )}{d\varphi },\frac{dA(y)}{dy}=\frac{1}{M_\mathrm{P}^2}W(\varphi ).$$
(16)
It has been shown that these equations are equivalent to the equations of motion .

It is convenient to rewrite these equations in terms of dimensionless variables

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\frac{g}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\varphi ,\stackrel{~}{W}\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}W,\stackrel{~}{V}\frac{g^2}{\mathrm{\Lambda }^4}V,\stackrel{~}{y}\mathrm{\Lambda }y,\alpha \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{gM_\mathrm{P}},$$
(17)
$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{W}}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\pm \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+3\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })^2},\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=\mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }3\alpha ^2\mathrm{sin}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }$$
(18)
$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }},\frac{dA}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }).$$
(19)
To obtain a real solution, the right-hand side of Eq.(18) has to be real : $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+3\alpha ^2\stackrel{~}{W}^20`$. The shaded region in Fig.2 shows the forbidden region in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ plane. It is easy to see that the exact (anti-)BPS solutions are those lines whose starting and ending points are both tangent at the top or bottom of these forbidden regions as shown in Fig.2. Any solution is represented by a curve in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ plane. Since the first order differential equation (18) determines the solution uniquely once a value of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ is specified at some $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ as an initial condition, we observe: 1) No solution curves can intersect. Entire allowed region is covered by the curves once. 2) Curves can end only at the boundary of forbidden region or at infinity.

Taking the positive sign for $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ in Eq.(18), the asymptotic behavior of solution curves are given by $`\stackrel{~}{W}\pm \mathrm{exp}(\pm \sqrt{3}\alpha \stackrel{~}{\varphi })\pm \mathrm{}`$. As illustrated in Fig.2, there are two different types of curves except the BPS solution curve :

1. Starting at the boundary of forbidden region and ending at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{W}\mathrm{}`$.
2. Ending at the boundary of forbidden region and starting at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{W}\mathrm{}`$.

Since the asymptotic behavior $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{W}\pm \mathrm{}`$ gives singularities ,  at finite $`y`$ ($`yy_\pm \mathrm{}\mathrm{e}^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}/(3\alpha ^2)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\pm \mathrm{}`$), we conclude that BPS wall solution (12) is the only solution which are regular in the entire region of $`y`$ if we do not allow any external sources for scalar $`\varphi `$ as well as gravity, such as a boundary cosmological constant. If one looks into $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi },\stackrel{~}{W}`$ plane only, $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ may appear a multi-wall winding solution. However, wall solution should be considered as a function of our base space $`\mathrm{}<y<\mathrm{}`$. The solution curve approaches to the top or bottom of the forbidden region only at $`y\pm \mathrm{}`$. Therefore only a segment of $`\stackrel{~}{W}=\mathrm{sin}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ between the top and the bottom of the forbidden region constitutes a wall solution which is a single wall. The non-existence of multi-wall BPS solutions is perhaps a peculiarity of our model which is in interesting contrast to the monopole or instanton case.

We now wish to find a non-BPS solution by allowing a source due to a boundary cosmological constant $`\lambda _i\delta (yy_i)`$ at appropriate points $`y=y_i`$ in the extra dimension into the Lagrangian (14) similarly to the orbifold model . We require that the equation of motion for the scalar field is satisfied without any external sources. Then only the equation of motion for the warp factor is modified to give the boundary condition

$$\frac{dA}{dy}(y_i+\epsilon )\frac{dA}{dy}(y_i\epsilon )=\frac{1}{2M_\mathrm{P}^2}\lambda _i.$$
(20)
The boundary condition combined with Eq.(16) relates the boundary cosmological constant $`\lambda _i`$ at the connection point $`\varphi =\varphi _i`$ to a discontinuity of $`W`$ at $`\varphi =\varphi _i`$

$$\lambda _i=2\left(W(\varphi _i+ϵ)W(\varphi _iϵ)\right).$$
(21)
Equation of motion for $`\varphi `$ without external sources requires both $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/d\stackrel{~}{y}=d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ to be continuous across $`y_i`$.

Let us denote the solution of Eq.(18) specified by the initial condition $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0)`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{W}_\pm (\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))`$ with the suffix $`+()`$ corresponding to the sign of $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Symmetry of Eq.(18) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{W}_\pm (\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))=\stackrel{~}{W}_\pm (\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\pi ;(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0+\pi ,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))=\stackrel{~}{W}_\pm (\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0)),$$
(22)
$$\stackrel{~}{W}_+(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))=\stackrel{~}{W}_{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))$$
(23)
As a simple solution to satisfy the requirement of continuity of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ and $`d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/d\stackrel{~}{y}=d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$, we can choose to switch solution curves at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi `$ from $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0>0))`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(2\pi ,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))`$ and then at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=2\pi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(2\pi ,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))`$. As shown in Fig.3 this solution is periodic in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ with the periodicity $`2\pi `$, and has a unit winding number and the symmetry $`S^1/Z_2`$ which is consistent with the orbifold compactification as in Refs., . We see that we cannot avoid negative cosmological constant (negative energy density). For small $`\stackrel{~}{W}_0`$, the solution consists of a BPS wall and an anti-BPS wall at fixed points $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi `$ of the orbifold supplemented by a small positive cosmological constant at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$ and a large negative cosmological constant at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi `$. We can similarly construct solutions with arbitrary winding number with or without the orbifold symmetry by connecting solution curves at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=n\pi `$ with arbitrary integer $`n`$. These solutions may be regarded natural in the sense that fixed points occur where the scalar field is localized as walls.

If we allow the fixed points of orbifold at the mid point between two walls, we can connect solution curves at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=n\pi +\pi /2`$. For instance we can switch solution curves at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi /2`$ from $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(0,\stackrel{~}{W}_0>0))`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\pi ,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))`$ and then at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi `$ to $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };(\pi ,\stackrel{~}{W}_0))`$. This configuration has a periodicity $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+\pi `$ and has a symmetry of $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ orbifold as shown in Fig.4. In the limit of small $`\stackrel{~}{W}_0`$, this solution can be regarded as a model essentially replacing the positive cosmological constant by a smooth physical wall configuration of scalar field whereas the negative cosmological constant remains almost the same as in the original model , . Actually we can also connect solution curves at arbitrary points in $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ by switching to the curve with the same derivative at the same $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$.

Another possibility to connect different solution curves is to switch to curves with opposite sign $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. This is possible only at the boundary of the forbidden region where $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$. If we connect solutions at the boundary of the forbidden region, we can do without putting boundary cosmological constant by switching to the curve starting from the same value of $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ with the opposite sign for $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. A typical example with no winding is shown in Fig.5(a). This solution also has the orbifold symmetry $`S^1/Z_2`$.

If we allow boundary cosmological constants at the boundary of the forbidden region, we can connect solutions by switching to the curve starting from the $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ as well as $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ of opposite sign at the boundary of forbidden region. We illustrate the simplest of such solution in Fig.5(b). This solution has the symmetry $`S^1/(Z_2\times Z_2)`$ and has no winding number. If we relax our principle and allow the boundary action to contain a source term for the scalar field $`\varphi `$, we have more varieties of solutions. For instance we can even use the BPS solution to construct a solution, simplest of which is illustrated in Fig.5(c). It has the orbifold symmetry $`S^1/Z_2`$ but without any cosmological constant at one of the fixed point where the scalar field energy density is localized. This is a model replacing the positive cosmological constant of the original model  completely by a smooth thick wall configuration of scalar field at the cost of having a boundary source term for the scalar field in the other fixed point. We can also construct more complicated solutions with or without the orbifold symmetry by combining these various types of boundary cosmological constants.

The precise amount of the cosmological constants and the distance between the walls are determined by Eqs.(18) and (20). We will give a systematic analytic approximation valid for small gravitational coupling below.

A systematic approximation for weak gravity

To establish the limit of no gravity ($`\alpha 0`$) for the first order differential equations (18) and (19), let us first examine the equation of motion for scalar field $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ without gravity using the scalar potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };\alpha =0)`$ in the absence of gravity

$$\frac{d\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };\alpha =0)}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=2\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{d\stackrel{~}{y}^2}.$$
(24)
By multiplying $`d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/d\stackrel{~}{y}`$, we can integrate it once with an integration constant $`w_0`$

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi };\alpha =0)=\left(\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}\right)^23w_0^2.$$
(25)
This first order differential equation can be identified as the no gravity limit of Eq.(18), if a function $`\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })`$ is defined by $`d\stackrel{~}{W}/d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }/d\stackrel{~}{y}`$. Because of Eq.(18), Eq.(19) dictates that the limit of vanishing gravitational coupling is given by

$$\alpha 0,\alpha \stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0)w_0\mathrm{fixed}.$$
(26)
Eqs.(19) and (18) show that $`w_0=0`$ corresponds to the BPS solution.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{W}_0\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0)1/\alpha \mathrm{}`$, we define a function $`\overline{W}`$ more appropriate for an expansion in powers of gravitational coupling $`\alpha `$

$$\overline{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\stackrel{~}{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\frac{w_0}{\alpha }=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\overline{W}^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),\stackrel{~}{\varphi }(\stackrel{~}{y})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{y}),A(\stackrel{~}{y})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}A^{(n)}(\stackrel{~}{y}).$$
(27)
The first order differential equations appropriate for an expansion in powers of $`\alpha `$ is

$$\frac{d\overline{W}}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\pm \sqrt{\stackrel{~}{V}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })+3\left(w_0+\alpha \overline{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })\right)^2},\frac{dA}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\alpha w_0\alpha ^2\overline{W}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }).$$
(28)
It is interesting to note that the first correction is of order $`\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }/(gM_\mathrm{P})`$ rather than the usual $`\alpha ^2`$. For our specific model of gravitationally corrected periodic potential, we obtain

$$\frac{d\overline{W}^{(0)}}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(0)}}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+3w_0^2},\frac{d\overline{W}^{(1)}}{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}=\frac{d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(1)}}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\frac{3\alpha w_0\overline{W}^{(0)}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{cos}^2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+3w_0^2}},\mathrm{}$$
(29)
$$\frac{dA^{(0)}}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=0,\frac{dA^{(1)}}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\alpha w_0,\frac{dA^{(2)}}{d\stackrel{~}{y}}=\alpha ^2\overline{W}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }),\mathrm{}.$$
(30)
The zero-th order equation for $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(0)}(y)`$ in (29) gives precisely our exact non-BPS solution which was obtained in the case of global SUSY

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{y})=\mathrm{am}(\frac{\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{y}_0}{k},k),k\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+3w_0^2}},$$
(31)
$$\overline{W}^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=\frac{1}{k}_0^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}𝑑\theta \sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }=\frac{1}{k}E(\stackrel{~}{\varphi },k),$$
(32)
where am is the amplitude function and $`E`$ is the elliptic integral of the second kind. The warp factor to the zero-th order is given by an irrelevant normalization $`A^{(0)}(\stackrel{~}{y})=`$ constant.

Using Eq.(21), we can now determine to the lowest order in weak gravitational coupling the boundary cosmological constant needed to satisfy the boundary condition (20). For instance, the unit winding solution in Fig.3 requires the boundary cosmological constants $`\lambda _0`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=0`$ and $`\lambda _1`$ at $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\pi `$

$$\lambda _0=4\frac{M_\mathrm{P}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g}w_0,\lambda _1=4\frac{M_\mathrm{P}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2}{g}w_08\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }^3}{g^2k}E(k),$$
(33)
where $`E(k)`$ is the complete elliptic integral of the second kind $`E(k)E(\pi /2,k)`$. Similarly other situations can also be expressed in terms of elliptic integrals.

A systematic approximation in powers of gravitational coupling is given by Eq.(29). For instance the first order correction is given by integrating the second of Eq.(29)

$$\stackrel{~}{y}\stackrel{~}{y}_0=_0^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }^{(1)}}𝑑\theta \frac{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }}{3\alpha w_0E(\theta ,k)},$$
(34)
$$\overline{W}^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi })=_0^{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}𝑑\theta \frac{3\alpha w_0E(\theta ,k)}{\sqrt{1k^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }},A^{(1)}(\stackrel{~}{y})=\alpha w_0\stackrel{~}{y}.$$
(35)
We can obtain gravitational corrections to any desired order with increasing complexity. We stress that SUSY is not needed for our method to work similarly to Ref.. Therefore it should be useful to obtain solutions for theories with or without gravity irrespective of presence or absence of SUSY.

Let us also examine the situation with stronger gravitational coupling. The curve stays almost the same for $`\alpha 0.01`$. We see in Fig.6 that the larger values $`\alpha >0.4`$ reveal an early emergence of singularities even for relatively smaller values of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. However, qualitative features remain quite similar for small values of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. Therefore we expect non-BPS multi-wall configurations are still possible for medium gravitational coupling. It is interesting to note that our BPS solution exists even with strong gravitational couplings at least classically.

Finally we wish to note that the existence of the global SUSY limit (31), (32) implies that we are sure that there is a mass gap for fluctuation modes of the scalar fields. There is a possibility for our wall scalar field $`\varphi `$ to serve as a Goldberger-Wise type stabilizer . We will settle the issue of stability by analyzing the possible new modes associated with the gravity supermultiplet in a subsequent report.

Acknowledgements

One of the authors (N.S.) thanks useful discussion with M. Fukuma, D. Ida, T. Kugo, N. Sasakura, T. Shiromizu, M. Siino, T. Tanaka, Y. Tanii, and A. Van Proeyen. Two of the authors (N.M.,N.S.) are indebted to Y. Sakamura and R. Sugisaka for a collaboration in an early stage. This work is supported in part by Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science and Culture 13640269. N.M. is supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science for Young Scientists (No.08557).


text:
# Scalar Glueball Decay Into Pions In Effective Theory

## Abstract

We discuss the mixing between the sigma meson $`\sigma `$ and the ”pure” glueball field $`H`$ and study the decays of the scalar glueball candidates $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ (a linear combination of $`\sigma `$ and $`H`$) into two pions in an effective linear sigma model.

PACS numbers 13.25.Hw 12.28.Lg

Quantum Chromo Dynamics (QCD), as the fundamental theory of the strong interaction predicts the existence of exotic mesons made of gluons. Observations of these gluonium will provide a direct confirmation on the special feature of non-abelian gauge theory.

Lattice QCD and various phenomenological models, such as the potential models flux tube all predict the lowest-lying glueball is $`0^{++}`$ state, whose mass is around 1.6GeV. However it is very difficult to identify glueballs experimentally and distinquish them from the normal $`\overline{q}q`$ states. So far five isoscalar states, $`\sigma (4001200)`$, $`f_0(980)`$, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$, $`f_0(1710)`$ confirmed experimentally as $`0^{++}`$ states in the region 1000GeV-1700GeV. It is beyond the accomodation of the naive quark model if there is only one nonet in this energy region. The excited states are generally expected to be much heavier. Recently, some new approaches have been proposed, which tried to include these states into two nonets. These models should be confirmed further by the experiemnts. Now let us consider these states in more detail.

The identification of the sigma particle $`\sigma `$ is highly controversial. It is listed in the Particle Data Tables as a very broad meson with mass around $`4001200`$ MeV and full width $`6001200`$ MeV. This particle, needed in the linear sigma model, has been argued to play an important role in nuclear physics and in the study on the chiral phase transition. Recently, experiments on $`D3\pi `$ in E791 and $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ in BES provide strong evidences on the existence of $`\sigma (4001200)`$. And the theoretical studies on these processes show that the linear $`\sigma `$ model gives rise to a reasonable description of the $`\sigma `$ decay into $`\pi `$’s.

It should be pointed out that the authors of Refs. take $`\sigma (4001200)`$ as a glueball, because $`\sigma (4001200)`$ does not appear in $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi `$. Pennington later pointed out that the gauge invariance requires a mass-dependent fit in $`\gamma \gamma \pi \pi `$, then the appearance of $`\sigma (400600)`$ is still possible. Törnqvist used linear sigma model to give a very good fit to the light meson spectrum. The most recently, Pennington et. al. showed that $`\sigma `$ has a large content of $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ by the finite energy QCD sum rule approach. Therefore, in this paper we take $`\sigma (4001200)`$ as a lightest $`0^{++}`$ $`\overline{q}q`$ meson. $`f_0(980)`$ is often interpreted as a multiquark state,i.e. $`\overline{K}K`$ bound state or $`\overline{q}q`$, because it strongly couples to $`\overline{K}K`$. $`f_0(1370)`$ has a very broad decay width and is generally considered as a $`\overline{q}q`$ state, however, a recent fit indicated that it has a large gluon content. Therefore, we will take it as a glueball candidate in this paper. $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ are the most possible candidates for the glueballs up to now, not only because their masses are very close to the predictions of Lattice QCD, but also because they have very narrow widths and couple to photons weakly. Besides, $`f_0(1500)`$ also has enhanced production rate at low transverse momentum transfer in central collisions. Regarding the role of the sigma particle in the glueball physics, BES and MKIII data on $`B(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma f_0(1500)\gamma 4\pi )`$ and $`B(J/\mathrm{\Psi }\gamma f_0(1710)\gamma 4\pi )`$ , Crystal Barrel data on $`\overline{p}p\pi ^0f_0(1500)\pi ^0(2\pi ,\overline{K}K,2\eta ,\eta ^{}\eta ,4\pi )`$ show $`f_0(1500)`$ decays into $`4\pi `$ dominantly through sigma channel(S partial wave), and also hints it strongly couples to $`2\sigma `$.

In this paper we take an effective lagrangian approach and discuss the glueball decay into two-pion final states. Particularly we will pay attention to the mixing between the glueball and the sigma meson. The mixing angle is correlated with the decay width of the glueball into two pions. On the other hand, by using the low energy theorem and QCD Sum Rule, we can estimate the mixing angle. Then, some very useful informations for those candidates can be obtained.

To begin with, we consider, for simplicity, the linear sigma model for two flavors. As usual we introduce the field

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\sigma \frac{\tau ^0}{2}+i\stackrel{}{\pi }\frac{\stackrel{}{\tau }}{2},$$
(1)
where $`\tau ^0`$ is unity matrix and $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ the Pauli matrices with normalization condition $`Tr\tau ^a\tau ^b=2\delta ^{ab}`$. Under a $`SU_L(2)SU_R(2)`$ chiral transformation, $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ transforms as

$$\mathrm{\Phi }L^{}\mathrm{\Phi }R.$$
(2)
A renormalizable lagrangian of linear sigma model is given now by

$`L_{\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }}=Tr\{_\mu \mathrm{\Phi }^{}^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\}\lambda [Tr\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{2}}]^2,`$ (3)
where $`f_\pi `$ is the vacuum expectation value of the sigma field and $`\lambda `$ the self coupling constant.

Let’s now add the $`O^{++}`$ ”pure” glueball state H on the lagrangian. Given that the H is made of gluons and singlet under the chiral symmetry, there are only two terms which give rise to the interaction among H, the sigma and pions,

$`L_{H\mathrm{\Phi }}=g_1f_\pi H[Tr\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{2}}]+g_2H^2[Tr\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{}\mathrm{\Phi }\}{\displaystyle \frac{f_\pi ^2}{2}}],`$ (4)
where two free parameters, $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are introduced to describe the strength of couplings of one and two H to the sigma or pions.

For the self interaction of glueballs, the lagrangian is given by

$`L_{HH}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu H^\mu H+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_H^2H^2+f_3H^3+f_4H^4,`$ (5)
where $`m_H^2`$ is the mass of glueball, $`f_3,f_4`$ the self coupling constants.

After the chiral symmetry is broken by non-vanishing vacuum expectation value of the sigma field, lagrangian in (4) generates not only the interaction for glueball decay, but also a mixing between the glueball H and the sigma field $`\sigma `$. The mass matrix for $`(H,\sigma )`$ is

$$m^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_H^2& g_1f_\pi ^2\\ g_1f_\pi ^2& m_\sigma ^2\end{array}\right),$$
(6)
where $`m_\sigma ^2=2\lambda f_\pi ^2`$.

To diagonalize the mass matrix, we introduce an unitary matrix

$$V=\left(\begin{array}{cc}cos\theta & sin\theta \\ sin\theta & cos\theta \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta \\ \theta & 1\end{array}\right).$$
(7)
Then the mass eigen-states are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}H^{}\\ \sigma ^{}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& \theta \\ \theta & 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}H\\ \sigma \end{array}\right),$$
(8)
with $`\theta =g_1f_\pi ^2/(m_H^2m_\sigma ^2)`$.

Substituting (8) into (4) and (5), we obtain the lagrangian for $`H^{}`$ decay

$$L_H^{}=H^{}\theta \{\frac{m_H^{}^2}{2f_\pi }\pi ^2+(\frac{m_H^{}^2+2m_\sigma ^{}^2}{2f_\pi }2g_2f_\pi )\sigma _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+O(\theta ^2)\}.$$
(9)
In (9), the couplings of the glueball to sigma and the pions are proportional to the mixing angle $`\theta `$. This could be understood that the mixing between $`H`$ and $`\sigma `$ is of the same order as that for $`H^{}`$ to decay into light hadrons (see figure 1). Furthermore, under the assumption of vector meson dominance, $`\rho `$ meson can be introduced by replacing $`^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }`$ in (3) by $`D^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }ig(\rho ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Phi }\rho ^\mu )`$. We found that the direct coupling of $`H^{}`$ and $`\rho \rho `$ vanishes at the tree level.

Identifying the glueball state $`H^{}`$ with the candidates, the phenomenologies of our model can be summarized as follows:

i) Glueball decay into two pions: The decay width of the glueball into two pions is given by

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(H^{}2\pi )=\frac{3\theta ^2}{32\pi }(\frac{m_H^{}}{f_\pi })^2\sqrt{m_H^{}^24m_\pi ^2}.$$
(10)
Experimentally, the data of $`f_0(1370)`$ are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=200500MeV\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}=0.26\pm 0.09$$
(11)
Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \pi )`$ 100MeV. from (10), we obtain $`\theta `$ 0.16.

For $`f_0(1500)`$, different groups present controversial results. Let us use Crystal Barrel Group data. $`Br(f_0(1500)2\pi ):Br(f_0(1500)4\pi )=4.39\pm 0.16:14.9\pm 3.2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{total}=120\pm 20MeV`$. Assuming that $`Br(f_0(1500)4\pi )`$ is about $`50\%`$ one has that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\pi )=17.5\pm 6\pm 3MeV`$. Using this value, we obtain $`\theta 0.058`$.

For $`f_0(1710)`$, the data are

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}=125MeV,\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\pi \pi )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{tot}}=0.039_{0.024}^{+0.002}.$$
(12)
Then, $`\theta 0.025`$.

ii)Glueball decay into four pions: the decay of the glueball into four pions is through the intermediate two sigma states. In Figure 2, we plot the ratio of glueball decay into $`2\sigma `$ to $`2\pi `$ as function of $`g_2`$. This measurement can be used to determine the parameter $`g_2`$.

For item i), an interesting application is to correlate it with the estimate of the mixing angle $`\theta `$ by using QCD sum rule.

The low energy theorem states that

$$i𝑑x<|TO(x)𝒪|>=d_O<|O(0)|>,$$
(13)
where $`d_O`$ is the mass dimension of operator $`O`$, $`𝒪`$ is the trace of the energy momentum tensor

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu =\frac{\beta (\alpha _s)}{4\alpha _s}G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }\frac{b\alpha _s}{8\pi }G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu },$$

($`\beta (\alpha _s)`$ is Gell-Mann-Low function, b=11 for pure Yang-Mills QCD) which vanishes in classical level. To obtain the mixing angle $`\theta `$, let us firstly choose operator $`O`$ to be $`O_\sigma =(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)/\sqrt{2}`$. Assuming that the lowest-lying $`0^{++}`$ $`\overline{q}q`$ state, i.e. $`\sigma `$ and the lowest-lying $`0^{++}`$ glueball saturate the correlation function we obtain

$$|O_\sigma (0)|\sigma \frac{1}{m_\sigma ^2}\sigma |𝒪|+|O_\sigma (0)|H\frac{1}{m_H^2}H|𝒪|=d_\sigma |O_\sigma (0)|.$$
(14)
Similarly, taking now the operator $`O`$ to be $`𝒪`$, we have

$$|𝒪(0)|H\frac{1}{m_H^2}H|𝒪|+=d_G|𝒪(0)|.$$
(15)
In deriving (15), we have also assumed that the ground state of $`0^{++}`$ glueball saturates the l.h.s of (15). Defining $`|𝒪|H=f_H`$, $`|O_\sigma |\sigma =f_\sigma `$, we can roughly define the effective field of the ”pure” glueball $``$ as

$$=\frac{1}{f_H}𝒪\frac{1}{f_H}|𝒪|..$$
(16)
Therefore,

$$\sigma |𝒪|\theta f_H.$$
(17)
Similar,

$$H|O_\sigma |\theta f_\sigma .$$
(18)
From eqs (14)-(18), we get the mixing angle

$$\theta =\frac{3m_\sigma ^2m_H^2}{f_\sigma f_H(m_H^2m_\sigma ^2)}|O_\sigma |=\frac{3m_\sigma ^2m_H}{2f_\sigma (m_H^2m_\sigma ^2)\sqrt{|𝒪|}}|O_\sigma |.$$
(19)
Note that the mixing angle $`\theta `$ is proportional to the quark’s condense. The parameter $`f_\sigma `$ in (19) can be estimated again by the QCD sum rule. Following, we have

$$\begin{array}{cc}f_\sigma ^2=\hfill & \frac{6}{16\pi }M^4(1+\frac{13}{3}\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }+\frac{8\pi ^2}{M^4}|m\overline{q}q|\hfill \\ & +\frac{\pi ^2}{3M^4}|\frac{\alpha _s}{\pi }G^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }|\frac{1408}{81}\frac{\pi ^3\alpha _s}{M^6}|\overline{q}q|)e^{m_\sigma ^2/M^2},\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
where $`M`$ is a parameter with mass dimension in Borel transformation.

For the quark and gluon condensate, we take the standard values

$$\begin{array}{c}|m\overline{q}q|=(0.1GeV)^4,\hfill \\ |\overline{q}q|=|\overline{u}u|=|\overline{d}d|=(0.25GeV)^3,\hfill \\ |\alpha _sG^{\mu \nu }G_{\mu \nu }|=0.06\pm 0.02GeV^4.\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
The mass prediction of sigma is in the region 700MeV-1000MeV, where when M=500MeV, $`m_\sigma =750`$MeV and M=1000MeV, $`m_\sigma =1000`$MeV. This is consistent with the particle data book. We also note that some recently experimental fits give a lower sigma mass. However, N.A. Törnqvist gave a sigma mass $`m_\sigma `$=860MeV by using the sigma model. Therefore, in our case QCD sum rule’s prediction is not bad. Let us take our discussion at $`m_\sigma `$=860MeV. (19) gives

$$\begin{array}{cc}\theta =0.10,\hfill & m_H=1.37GeV,\hfill \\ \theta =0.086,\hfill & m_H=1.5GeV,\hfill \\ \theta =0.068,\hfill & m_H=1.71GeV\hfill \end{array}$$
(22)
In general QCD sum rule’s calculation is reliable within 30 percent uncertainty. Comparing the values in (22) and the mixing angles obtained by Eq.(10) in i), we will be able to exclude $`f_0(1710)`$ as a glueball. It looks more like a $`\overline{s}s`$ meson. Both $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1370)`$ are possible glueball states, but we incline to $`f_0(1500)`$ is a glueball, because there is still large uncertainty in its experimental data. It is interesting to compare our result with other approaches. In reference, authors analyzed states $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ by combining the various experimental data and obtained a mixing pattern in terms of pure glueball and other pure quark bound states to be

$`\begin{array}{cccc}& f_{i1}^{G_s}\hfill & f_{i2}^S\hfill & f_{3i}^{(N)}\hfill \\ f_0(1710)\hfill & 0.39\pm 0.03\hfill & 0.91\pm 0.02\hfill & 0.15\pm 0.02\hfill \\ f_0(1500)\hfill & 0.65\pm 0.04\hfill & 0.33\pm 0.04\hfill & 0.70\pm 0.07\hfill \\ f_0(1370)\hfill & 0.69\pm 0.07\hfill & 0.15\pm 0.01\hfill & 0.70\pm 0.07\hfill \end{array}`$ (27)
One can find our result by a simple approach is quite consistent with their analysis. In a more recent paper, it was pointed out that $`f_0(1500)`$ is a gluonium state and $`f_0(1710)`$ is a $`\overline{s}s`$ state because it is absent in $`\overline{p}p`$ annihilation. Meanwhile, $`f_0(1710)`$’s $`\overline{s}s`$ dominance is consistent with $`\gamma \gamma `$ data since only few decay branching ratios have been measured for this state.

Before concluding our paper, we make two remarks:

1) In the chiral limit which we work on in this paper, the mixing of glueball with sigma is a consequence of the spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. However, when including the explicit symmetry breaking effects by the quark mass, especially when extending the lagrangian for two flavors to three flavors, there would be one term proportional to the explicit symmetry breaking which also generates mixing of the glueball with the sigma meson as shown in Fig. 3;

2) Other $`\overline{q}q`$ scalar mesons are possibly included in our Lagrangian. There will be the mixing between the ”pure” glueball with these states. If these new scalar mesons are $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ mesons, the decay of glueball into two pions can be via these states, therefore the mixing angle between the glueball and sigma determined by (10) will be reduced. On the other hand, in (14) we also need insert these states into the correlator, then mixing angle between the glueball and sigma estimated by the low energy theorem is also reduced. We cannot say these two effects cancel each other completely, however, since we assume that sigma is the lightest $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ meson, the glueball’s decay inclines to via the $`\sigma `$ channel. The more interesting result is that, the glueball’s decay width can be reasonable with a small mixing with $`\overline{q}q`$ meson. That hints the glueball is still probably ”pure”. The mixing between the glueball and $`\overline{s}s`$ is not relevant to the decay of glueball into pions, it can be included in SU(3) model.

In conclusion, we have studied the decay of the scalar glueball into pions and its mixing with the sigma particle in effective theory. We fit our model to the experimental data on the decay of glueball candidates, $`f_0(1370)`$, $`f_0(1500)`$ and $`f_0(1710)`$ into two pions and obtain the corresponding mixing angle of glueball with sigma. By using our estimation for the mixing angle based on low energy theorem and QCD sum rule, we conclude that $`f_0(1710)`$ is not a glueball and the most possible glueball candidate is $`f_0(1500)`$. We also show that a glueball decays into four pions through 2 $`\sigma `$ intermediate states. The $`\rho `$ can contribute to the four-pion decay mode at one-loop level with branch ratio

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\rho )}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\sigma )}0.01.$$
(28)
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported in part by the national natural science foundation of China.

Figure Captions
Fig.1 (a) Illustration of glueball decay into $`2\sigma `$ or $`2\pi `$; (b)Illustration of glueball mixing with $`\sigma `$ induced by the quark condense.
Fig.2 Ratio of $`f_0(1500)`$ decay into $`2\sigma `$ to $`2\pi `$ as function of $`g_2`$. In the numerical calculation, we take $`m_\sigma =500GeV`$
Fig.3 Illustration of glueball mixing with $`\sigma `$ induced by the quark masses.