text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum gravity on de Sitter space-time attracts much interest owing to not only conceptual problems  (see also  and references therein) but also recent astronomical observations . Recently it was proposed that the gravity with a positive cosmological constant has a dual description by the Euclidean conformal field theory on the infinitely past or future boundary  (see also ). Since de Sitter space-time has no everywhere time-like Killing vector, constructions of quantum field theories on that space could be non-trivial. And it is known that the quantum field theories on de Sitter space has some peculiar features, e.g., the existence of various possible vacua . To deeply understand this correspondence, proper investigations of quantum theories of de Sitter gravity are needed because one has no well-defined stringy example of de Sitter space-time. Since in three dimensions a gauge theoretical description of the gravity is known , it seems that we can analyze the gravity at the quantum level111From the viewpoint of the dS/CFT correspondence, the Chern-Simons gravity on three-dimensional de Sitter space-time is also studied in . In more general settings including the de Sitter gravity case, a correspondence between the three-dimensional Chern-Simons theory with boundary and a conformal field theory was earlier discussed in  as a generalization of the AdS/CFT correspondence by using the Dirac’s canonical method..

Our aim in this paper is to construct concretely a quantum theory of the three-dimensional gravity with a positive cosmological constant. For this end, we use the similar procedures to those used in Ref. to investigate a quantum anti-de Sitter gravity. We first construct the phase space of this system by using the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons description of the three-dimensional gravity . The phase space consists of solutions of the equations of motion under the boundary conditions that the space-time should approach to de Sitter space in the asymptotically past . It includes the Kerr-de Sitter geometries  as particular solutions. The Virasoro algebras which are reduced symmetries of the gauge symmetry act on this space by their coadjoint forms and their central charges are given by a well-known value $`c=\frac{3l}{2G}`$. Each geometry corresponding to an element on the phase space can be represented as a non-compact region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1) and its metric is induced from the Killing metric of SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1). The actions of the Virasoro algebras on the phase space can be interpreted as deformations of that region. The family which consists of geometries connected with each other by the Virasoro deformations is identified with a product of the coadjoint orbits of the conformal groups labeled by mass and angular momentum of the Kerr-de Sitter geometry. Since the conformal group is not globally well-defined, our discussion of the coadjoint orbit would be formal. Thus we mainly concentrate on the infinitesimal deformations of the Kerr-de Sitter geometries and neighborhood of the elements corresponding to those Kerr-de Sitter geometries on the orbits.

In Section 3 we consider a quantization of the Virasoro deformations which are degrees of freedom of the gravitational system analyzed here. In Ref. it was shown that the Virasoro algebras with imaginary central charges were acquired as algebras of the conserved charges by a quantization of the corresponding Chern-Simons theory. In the appendix B, we provide some descriptions which state that the Virasoro algebra with an imaginary central charge are also obtained by a different manner of quantization. We would like to show that the unitary irreducible representations of the Virasoro algebra with a real central charge can be obtained by geometric quantization of the coadjoint orbit prescribed by an appropriate symplectic form on the orbit. Here strict analyses will be restricted within the perturbative level under the condition $`c1`$. We consider the unitary representations of the Virasoro algebra adopting the unitarity conditions $`L_m^{}=L_m`$ for the Virasoro generators which are usually used in conformal field theories. Then we discuss the perturbative stability of vacua by regarding $`L_0`$ as the energy function. The unitarity and the stability of vacua require that the conformal weights of the primary states should be real and positive. It means in the sense of the three-dimensional gravity that only the point particle geometries, i.e., without angular momenta, and their Virasoro deformations can provide the unitary and stable quantum theory. The geometries with excess angles are forbidden.

It is known that the Chern-Simons theory on a manifold with boundaries reduces to the chiral WZNW theories on the boundaries . In the case of the Chern-Simons gravity with (negative) positive cosmological constant, it is shown that the chiral WZNW theories furthermore reduce to the Liouville field theory under the asymptotic (anti-)de Sitter boundary condition . In Section 4 we see the explicit correspondence between three-dimensional geometries and solutions of the Liouville theory. The relationship of infinitesimal Virasoro deformations of the Kerr-de Sitter geometries and those of the Liouville theory are provided. At the quantum level, the direct product of the primary states with appropriate conformal weights in the Liouville theory is identified with the state of the Kerr-de Sitter space-time. The states corresponding to the deformed geometries are identified with the excited states which are obtained by acting the Virasoro generators on the primary state.

Finally we provide some discussions in Section 5.

## 2 Three-Dimensional Geometry with Positive Constant Curvature

Solutions of the Einstein equation with a positive cosmological constant $`1/l^2`$ are geometries with a positive constant scalar curvature $`6/l^2`$. All solutions are locally equivalent to each other because the three-dimensional gravity has no local degrees of freedom. In this section, we would like to clarify what characterizes each solution. And we provide a phase space of this system under the boundary conditions being asymptotically de Sitter space-time from the perspective of Chern-Simons gravity.

### 2.1 On the Kerr-de Sitter Solution

The Kerr-de Sitter solution is characterized by its ADM-like mass $`M=\frac{\mu }{8G}`$ and angular momentum $`J`$. In the Schwarzschild coordinates $`(t,r,\varphi )`$, its metric $`ds_{(\mu ,J)}^2`$ is given by

$`ds_{(\mu ,J)}^2=N^2(dt)^2+N^2(dr)^2+r^2\left(d\varphi +N^\varphi dt\right)^2,`$ (2.1)
where

$$N^2=\mu \frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{16G^2J^2}{r^2},N^\varphi =\frac{4GJ}{r^2}.$$
(2.2)
The space-time has the cosmological horizon at $`r=r_+`$,

$$r_+=\frac{l}{2}\left(\sqrt{\mu +i\frac{8GJ}{l}}+\sqrt{\mu i\frac{8GJ}{l}}\right),$$
(2.3)
if $`\mu `$ for $`J0`$ or $`\mu _0`$ for $`J=0`$. In the case $`J=0`$, this metric represents a point particle sitting at $`r=0`$ ,

$$ds_{(\mu ,0)}^2=\left(1\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{l^2}\right)\left(d\stackrel{~}{t}\right)^2+\frac{\left(d\stackrel{~}{r}\right)^2}{1\frac{\stackrel{~}{r}^2}{l^2}}+\stackrel{~}{r}^2\left(d\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\right)^2,$$
(2.4)
where we transformed the coordinates as follows,

$$\stackrel{~}{t}=\sqrt{\mu }t,\stackrel{~}{r}=\frac{r}{\sqrt{\mu }},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }=\sqrt{\mu }\varphi .$$
(2.5)
We have to make the identification $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }+2\pi \sqrt{\mu }`$ because $`\varphi \varphi +2\pi `$. Thus this geometry has a conical singularity at $`r=0`$ with a deficit angle $`2\pi \left(1\sqrt{\mu }\right)`$ if $`0<\mu <1`$. On the other hand, we do not have any physical interpretation for space-time for $`\mu >1`$ which has an excess angle $`2\pi \left(\sqrt{\mu }1\right)`$. In the case of $`J=0`$ and $`\mu <0`$, $`N^2`$ becomes negative in the coordinate system used in the eq.(2.1). Thus we will omit this case in the most part in this paper unless explicitly mentioned, although this metric can be rewritten in the form of de Sitter metric locally by an appropriate coordinate transformation. 222 In fact, although one can transform it into de Sitter metric like (2.4), time-like coordinate becomes periodic in the resulting coordinate system.

We will mainly use another coordinate system $`(\tau ,z,\overline{z})`$ which is defined below. By the coordinate transformations,

$`\tau `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{t}{l}}+f(r){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{b_0\overline{b}_0}}{c/6}},`$
$`z`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{t}{l}+g(r)+i\varphi },`$ (2.6)
$`\overline{z}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{\frac{t}{l}+\overline{g}(r)i\varphi },`$
the Kerr-de Sitter metric $`ds_{(\mu ,J)}^2`$ is written in the following form,

$$ds_{(b_0,\overline{b}_0)}^2=l^2\left[d\tau ^2+\frac{b_0}{c/6}\frac{dz^2}{z^2}+\frac{\overline{b}_0}{c/6}\frac{d\overline{z}^2}{\overline{z}^2}+\left(e^{2\tau }+\frac{b_0\overline{b}_0}{(c/6)^2z^2\overline{z}^2}e^{2\tau }\right)dzd\overline{z}\right],$$
(2.7)
where $`c\frac{3l}{2G}`$, and $`b_0`$, $`\overline{b}_0`$ are defined by

$$b_0\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )\frac{i}{2}J,\overline{b}_0\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )+\frac{i}{2}J.$$
(2.8)
And $`f(r),g(r)`$ and $`\overline{g}(r)`$ are obtained by solving the following first order differential equations,

$$l\frac{d}{dr}f(r)=\frac{\sqrt{1N^2}}{N^2},l\frac{d}{dr}g(r)=\frac{\frac{r^2}{l^2}+\frac{b_0\overline{b}_0}{c/6}}{\frac{r^2}{l^2}N^2\sqrt{1N^2}},l\frac{d}{dr}\overline{g}(r)=\frac{\frac{r^2}{l^2}\frac{b_0\overline{b}_0}{c/6}}{\frac{r^2}{l^2}N^2\sqrt{1N^2}}.$$
(2.9)
For these coordinate transformations to be well-defined, the range of $`r`$ is restricted in

$`0<r<l\sqrt{\mu },`$ $`\text{for}0\mu 1,J=0`$
$`l\sqrt{\mu 1}<r<l\sqrt{\mu },`$ $`\text{for}1<\mu ,J=0`$ (2.10)
$`l\left|\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{c/6}}}\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{b}_0}{c/6}}}\right|<r<r_+.`$ $`\text{for}\mu ,J0`$
Therefore we will consider the region of the Kerr-de Sitter space-time defined by $`\mathrm{}<t<\mathrm{}`$, $`0\varphi <2\pi `$ and the above range of $`r`$.

These geometries can be represented in the coset space SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1).333 SL(2;$``$) generators we use in this paper are    $`J^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i}{2}& 0\\ 0& \frac{i}{2}\end{array}\right),J^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{1}{2}\\ \frac{1}{2}& 0\end{array}\right),J^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{i}{2}\\ \frac{i}{2}& 0\end{array}\right).`$   These satisfy $`[J^a,J^b]=ϵ^{abc}J_c`$, where $`ϵ^{abc}`$ is a totally anti-symmetric tensor $`ϵ^{012}=+1`$ and sl(2;$``$) indices are lowered (or raised) by $`\eta _{ab}\text{diag.}(1,1,1)`$ (or $`\eta ^{ab}`$, the inverse matrix of $`\eta _{ab}`$). And $`\left(J^a\right)^{}=J_a`$.  Let us consider a non-compact region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1) consisting of the elements

$`𝒢_0\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{a+1}{2\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a1}{2}}& \frac{i}{\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a+1}{2}}\\ \frac{i(a1)}{2\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a+1}{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a1}{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\tau & 0\\ 0& e^\tau \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\overline{a}+1}{2\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}1}{2}}& \frac{i(\overline{a}1)}{2\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}+1}{2}}\\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}+1}{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}1}{2}}\end{array}\right),`$ (2.18)
where $`a=\sqrt{1\frac{b_0}{c/24}}`$ and $`\overline{a}=\sqrt{1\frac{\overline{b}_0}{c/24}}`$ which coincide with $`\sqrt{\mu }`$ for $`J=0`$. $`𝒢_0`$ is characterized by the relation $`𝒢_0=ϵ𝒢_0^{}ϵ^1`$ where $`ϵ2J^0`$. The metric on this region induced from the Killing metric of SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1) coincides with the Kerr-de Sitter metric (2.7),

$$ds_{(b_0,\overline{b}_0)}^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\text{Tr}\left(𝒢_0^1d𝒢_0\right)^2.$$
(2.19)
Therefore we can make the following interpretation: $`𝒢_0`$ gives a mapping from the parameter space $`(\tau ,z,\overline{z})`$ to SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1). Then the Kerr-de Sitter space-time is realized as a region defined by $`𝒢_0`$ in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1). Thus each solution is characterized by its region. And its metric is induced from the Killing metric of SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1).

### 2.2 SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons Gauge Theory

It is well-known that the Chern-Simons gauge theory with an appropriate gauge group is on-shell equivalent to the three-dimensional gravity.444 Of course, this equivalence holds only under some assumptions, e.g. the reversibility of the dreibein.  Therefore we can provide a quantum theory of the gravity by quantizing a classical phase space of the Chern-Simons theory. In particular, the gravity with a positive cosmological constant can be described by taking SL(2;$``$) as the gauge group.

The Einstein-Hilbert action is written by using the Chern-Simons action as follows,

$`S_{EH}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}\left(AdA+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^3\right){\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}\left(\overline{A}d\overline{A}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\overline{A}^3\right)`$ (2.20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k}{\pi l}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}\left[e\left(d\omega +\omega ^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3l^2}}e^3\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2\pi l}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}e\omega `$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle _M}d^3x\sqrt{g}\left(R{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}e\omega ,`$
where $`k=\frac{l}{4G}`$ and we decomposed SL(2;$``$) connections $`A,\overline{A}`$ to dreibein $`e^a`$ and spin connection $`\omega ^a`$,

$$A=\frac{i}{l}e+\omega ,\overline{A}=\frac{i}{l}e+\omega .$$
(2.21)
The three-dimensional space $`M`$ is parametrized by $`\tau ,z,`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. In this paper we consider a two-dimensional boundary of $`M`$ at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ which is parametrized by $`z`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. In the above form (2.20), the gravitational action has a boundary contribution. We note the fact that this boundary term has a well-known form for solutions of the equations of motion,

$$\frac{1}{8\pi G}_M\text{Tr}e\omega =\frac{i}{8\pi G}_M𝑑zd\overline{z}\frac{\sqrt{h}}{l},$$
(2.22)
where $`h`$ is the determinant of an induced metric on $`M`$. The equations of motion of the Chern-Simons theory are the flat connection conditions which are interpreted as the torsion-free condition and the Einstein equation with a positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=1/l^2`$ in terms of dreibein and spin connection. The flat SL(2;$``$) connections can be solved as

$$A=G^1dG,\overline{A}=\overline{G}^1d\overline{G}.$$
(2.23)
For the equations (2.21) to hold, $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ must satisfy the following relation

$$\overline{G}=ϵ^1\left(G^1\right)^{}ϵ,$$
(2.24)
where the relation $`ϵ^1J^aϵ=J_a=\left(J^a\right)^{}`$ is useful. That is, only if this condition is satisfied, the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons theory can be regarded as a gravity.

The correspondence between SL(2;$``$) flat connections and the Kerr-de Sitter geometries can be made by the following ways: first we define a mapping, SL(2;$``$)$`\times `$SL(2;$``$) $``$SL(2;$``$) by

$$(G,\overline{G})𝒢=G\overline{G}^1,$$
(2.25)
where it is assumed that $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ satisfy (2.24). Thus $`𝒢`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝒢}=𝒢^1\text{or equivalently}𝒢=ϵ𝒢^{}ϵ^1.$$
(2.26)
$`𝒢`$ is invariant under the right diagonal SU(1,1) transformation which preserves the relation (2.24),

$$GGg,\overline{G}\overline{G}g,$$
(2.27)
Since $`𝒢`$ satisfies (2.26), we can identify $`𝒢`$ with $`𝒢_0`$ (2.18) corresponding to the Kerr-de Sitter space-time. We consider the following decomposition of $`𝒢_0`$,

$`𝒢_0`$ $`=`$ $`G_0\overline{G}_0^1,`$
$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{a+1}{2\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a1}{2}}& \frac{i}{\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a+1}{2}}\\ \frac{i(a1)}{2\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a+1}{2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{a}}z^{\frac{a1}{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }\end{array}\right),`$ (2.32)
$`\overline{G}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}1}{2}}& \frac{i(\overline{a}1)}{2\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}+1}{2}}\\ \frac{i}{\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}+1}{2}}& \frac{\overline{a}+1}{2\sqrt{\overline{a}}}\overline{z}^{\frac{\overline{a}1}{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }\end{array}\right)`$ (2.37)
Then we construct the flat connections (2.23) from $`G_0`$ and $`\overline{G}_0`$,

$`A_0`$ $`=`$ $`G_0^1dG_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & ie^\tau dz\\ \frac{ib_0}{c/6}e^\tau \frac{dz}{z^2}& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right),`$ (2.40)
$`\overline{A}_0`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{G}_0^1d\overline{G}_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & \frac{i\overline{b}_0}{c/6}e^\tau \frac{d\overline{z}}{\overline{z}^2}\\ ie^\tau d\overline{z}& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right).`$ (2.43)
The dreibein obtained from $`A_0,\overline{A}_0`$ are written in the form $`e=\frac{l}{2i}\left(A_0\overline{A}_0\right)=\frac{l}{2i}\overline{G}_0^1\left(𝒢_0^1d𝒢_0\right)\overline{G}_0`$. Thus these SL(2;$``$) flat connections provide descriptions of the Kerr-de Sitter geometry in the Chern-Simons gravity, that is, $`ds^2=2\text{Tr}e^2=ds_{(b_0,\overline{b}_0)}^2`$.

### 2.3 Phase Space of de Sitter Gravity

In studies of the three-dimensional anti-de Sitter gravity, a generalization of anti-de Sitter and the BTZ black hole solutions was considered . Applying their methods to the de Sitter case, we find the following solutions,

$$A_b=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & ie^\tau dz\\ \frac{ib(z)}{c/6}e^\tau dz& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right),\overline{A}_{\overline{b}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & \frac{i\overline{b}(\overline{z})}{c/6}e^\tau d\overline{z}\\ ie^\tau d\overline{z}& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right).$$
(2.44)
Here $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ have to be invariant under $`ze^{2\pi i}z`$ to be consistent with the coordinate transformation (2.1). These SL(2;$``$) flat connections are obtained as solutions of the equations of motion under the gauge fixing condition $`A_\tau =iJ^0,\overline{A}_\tau =iJ^0`$ and the following conditions which are consistent with the Strominger’s boundary conditions to be asymptotically de Sitter ,

$`A_{\overline{z}}`$ $``$ $`0,\overline{A}_z0,`$ (2.45)
$`A_z`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& ie^\tau \\ 𝒪\left(e^\tau \right)& 0\end{array}\right),\overline{A}_{\overline{z}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 𝒪\left(e^\tau \right)\\ ie^\tau & 0\end{array}\right),\text{at}\tau \mathrm{}.`$ (2.50)
The degrees of freedom of the classical solutions are two functions $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$, and thus the phase space of the three-dimensional de Sitter gravity is composed of these functions. The asymptotic Virasoro algebras which act on this phase space are realized as residual gauge transformation,

$$\eta _f=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}f^{}& ife^\tau \\ i\left(\frac{1}{2}f^{\prime \prime }+\frac{b}{c/6}f\right)e^\tau & \frac{1}{2}f\end{array}\right),\overline{\eta }_{\overline{f}}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}\overline{f}^{}& i\left(\frac{1}{2}\overline{f}^{\prime \prime }+\frac{\overline{b}}{c/6}\overline{f}\right)e^\tau \\ i\overline{f}e^\tau & \frac{1}{2}\overline{f}\end{array}\right),$$
(2.51)
where $`f=f(z)`$ and $`\overline{f}=\overline{f}(\overline{z})`$ should be invariant under $`ze^{2\pi i}z`$, also. These transformations preserve the forms of the flat SL(2;$``$) connections (2.44) and generate the infinitesimal deformations of $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$.

$`\delta _fA=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ \frac{i\delta _fb}{c/6}e^\tau dz& 0\end{array}\right),\delta _{\overline{f}}\overline{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& \frac{i\delta _{\overline{f}}\overline{b}}{c/6}e^\tau d\overline{z}\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right).`$ (2.56)
The deformations of $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ are given by the coadjoint actions of the Virasoro algebras with the central charge $`c`$,

$$\delta _fb=fb^{}+2f^{}b+\frac{c}{12}f^{\prime \prime \prime },\delta _{\overline{f}}\overline{b}=\overline{f}\overline{b}^{}+2\overline{f}^{}\overline{b}+\frac{c}{12}\overline{f}^{\prime \prime \prime }.$$
(2.57)
The diffeomorphism corresponding to these gauge transformations is generated by the following vector fields,

$`\xi ^\mu _\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(f^{}+\overline{f}^{})_\tau +\left\{f+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{\overline{b}}{c/6}e^{2\tau }f^{\prime \prime }\overline{f}^{\prime \prime }}{2\left[\frac{b\overline{b}}{(c/6)^2}e^{2\tau }e^{2\tau }\right]}}\right\}_z+\left\{\overline{f}+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{b}{c/6}e^{2\tau }\overline{f}^{\prime \prime }f^{\prime \prime }}{2\left[\frac{b\overline{b}}{(c/6)^2}e^{2\tau }e^{2\tau }\right]}}\right\}_{\overline{z}}.`$ (2.58)
The flat connections (2.44) describe a deformation of the Kerr-de Sitter space-time. Its metric $`ds_{(b,\overline{b})}^2`$ is

$$ds_{(b,\overline{b})}^2=l^2\left[d\tau ^2+\frac{b(z)}{c/6}dz^2+\frac{\overline{b}(\overline{z})}{c/6}d\overline{z}^2+\left(e^{2\tau }+\frac{b(z)\overline{b}(\overline{z})}{(c/6)^2}e^{2\tau }\right)dzd\overline{z}\right].$$
(2.59)
The deformed flat connections (2.44) can be solved in principle as

$$A_b=G_b^1dG_b,\overline{A}_{\overline{b}}=\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}^1d\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}.$$
(2.60)
$`G_b`$ and $`\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}`$ are generally complicated functions of $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$, respectively.555 The explicit forms of $`G_b`$ and $`\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}`$ will be given in Section 4. Then one can provide a region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1) defined by a mapping $`𝒢_{(b,\overline{b})}(\tau ,z,\overline{z})=G_b\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}^1`$. We will call this region $`Z_{(b,\overline{b})}`$. The space-time corresponding to the deformed solutions $`A_b`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\overline{b}}`$ is realized as $`Z_{(b,\overline{b})}`$ with the induced metric $`ds_{(b,\overline{b})}^2=\frac{l^2}{2}\text{Tr}\left(𝒢_{(b,\overline{b})}^1d𝒢_{(b,\overline{b})}\right)^2`$. The Virasoro algebras with the central charge $`c`$ act on the phase space consisting of $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ by coadjoint actions (2.57). Let us consider the coadjoint orbits of $`b=\frac{b_0}{z^2}`$ and $`\overline{b}=\frac{\overline{b}_0}{\overline{z}^2}`$. We denote them as $`W_{b_0}`$ and $`\overline{W}_{\overline{b}_0}`$ respectively. Then $`W_{b_0}\times \overline{W}_{\overline{b}_0}`$ can be identified with the family of $`Z_{(b,\overline{b})}`$ in which $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ lie on $`W_{b_0}`$ and $`\overline{W}_{\overline{b}_0}`$ respectively. Namely, $`Z_{(b_0/z^2,\overline{b}_0/\overline{z}^2)}`$ is deformed to $`Z_{(b,\overline{b})}`$ by coadjoint action of the Virasoro algebras. And the metric $`ds_{(b_0,\overline{b}_0)}^2`$ is deformed to $`ds_{(b,\overline{b})}^2`$, (2.59).

We again note that each geometry is characterized by its region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1), although all geometries are locally equivalent to SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1). Therefore the degrees of freedom of this system can be regarded as ways of taking a region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1), in other words, ways of drawing a two-dimensional surface, which is a boundary of a region, in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1). Thus this degrees of freedom may be interpreted in terms of a two-dimensional theory.

## 3 Quantization of de Sitter Gravity

In the previous section, we clarified that the phase space of the three-dimensional de Sitter gravity consists of the holomorphic and anti-holomorphic functions, $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ respectively, with invariance under $`ze^{2\pi i}z`$. Here we first consider an introduction of a symplectic structure into the phase space. It was shown that the Virasoro algebras with pure imaginary central charges are obtained by applying the symplectic reduction method to the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons theory .666 In appendix B, we show that the Virasoro algebra with a pure imaginary central charge is obtained by a standard canonical quantization of the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons theory. We here show that there exists a symplectic form which leads to the Virasoro algebras with real central charges after quantization. The similar methods to those used in Ref. for the asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-time, e.g., geometric quantization method , are applied to the case of de Sitter gravity. There is an essential difference between these two cases. While the group which acts on the phase space is $`\widehat{DiffS^1}`$ in anti-de Sitter case, we now must deal with the conformal group which is not globally well-defined. Thus we concentrate on perturbative analyses around the de Sitter and Kerr-de Sitter geometries. Then we consider the unitary representations of the Virasoro algebra and discuss the perturbative stability of vacua.

### 3.1 Coadjoint Orbit

A general element of the Virasoro algebra is written as $`f(z)_z+ac`$ where $`c`$ is a central element and $`a`$ is a complex number. We denote this as $`(f,a)`$. The commutation relation is given by

$$[(f,a_1),(g,a_2)]=(fg^{}f^{}g,\frac{i}{24}\frac{dz}{2\pi i}\left(f^{\prime \prime \prime }gfg^{\prime \prime \prime }\right)).$$
(3.1)
Under this commutation relation, adjoint vectors $`l_m=(iz^{m+1},0)`$ satisfy

$$i[l_m,l_n]=(mn)l_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0}.$$
(3.2)
A general coadjoint vector has the form $`b(z)dz^2+tc^{}`$ where $`t`$ is a complex number and $`c^{}`$ a dual element of $`c`$. We abbreviate it as $`(b,t)`$. The dual pairing between coadjoint and adjoint vectors is defined as

$$(b,t),(g,a)=i\frac{dz}{2\pi i}b(z)g(z)+ta.$$
(3.3)
The coadjoint action of the Virasoro group is given by

$$\delta _f(b,t)=(fb^{}+2f^{}b+\frac{t}{12}f^{\prime \prime \prime },0).$$
(3.4)
The dual pairing is invariant under the action of the Virasoro algebra, $`\delta _f(b,t),(g,a)=0`$. A coadjoint orbit is defined as an orbit of a coadjoint vector by coadjoint action of the conformal group. Let us consider an orbit of $`(\frac{b_0}{z^2},t)`$, we denote it as $`W_{b_0}`$, where $`b_0`$ is a complex number. From (3.4) for $`b=\frac{b_0}{z^2}`$ and $`f=_nf_nz^{n+1}`$, we find

$$\delta _fb=2\underset{n}{}nf_n\left[b_0+\frac{t}{24}(n^21)\right]z^{n2},$$
(3.5)
thus $`b_0`$ is invariant under coadjoint actions of the Virasoro algebra. There are two classes of orbits. For general $`b_0`$, $`\delta _fb`$ vanishes for $`f=z`$, thus the stability group of this type of orbits is dilatation. If $`b_0=\frac{t}{24}\left(m^21\right)`$ where $`mZ_{>0}`$, there are three solutions $`f=z,z^{1\pm m}`$ of $`\delta _fb=0`$.

For $`z_s=s(z)`$, the integrated form of (3.4) is given by

$$b^s(z_s)=\left(\frac{dz_s}{dz}\right)^2\left[\frac{b_0}{z^2}\frac{t}{12}\{z_s,z\}\right],$$
(3.6)
where $`\{z_s,z\}`$ is the Schwarzian derivative $`\{z_s,z\}\frac{d^3z_s/dz^3}{dz_s/dz}\frac{3}{2}\left(\frac{d^2z_s/dz^2}{dz_s/dz}\right)^2`$. Then $`b^s`$ is an element of $`W_{b_0}`$. The coadjoint orbit representations of generators of the Virasoro algebra $`l_m=(iz^{m+1},0)`$ are given by

$$L_m=(b^s,t),(iz^{m+1},0)=\frac{dz_s}{2\pi i}b^s(z_s)z_s^{m+1}.$$
(3.7)
Since the central element corresponds to $`(0,1)`$, it has a constant value $`c=t`$ on the orbit. Therefore we denote $`t`$ as $`c`$. A canonical symplectic structure is introduced on each coadjoint orbit by the dual pairing ,

$`\mathrm{\Omega }|_{b^s}(u,v)`$ $`=`$ $`(b^s,t),[(u,0),(v,0)]`$ (3.8)
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle \frac{dz_s}{2\pi i}b^s(z_s)\left(uv^{}u^{}v\right)(z_s)}{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{dz_s}{2\pi i}\left(uv^{\prime \prime \prime }u^{\prime \prime \prime }v\right)(z_s)},`$
where $`u=u(z_s)`$ and $`v=v(z_s)`$ are tangent vectors at $`b^s`$. It should be noted that the semi-classical analysis is justified in the region of large $`c`$ because the symplectic form $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is large in that region. Under this symplectic structure $`L_m`$’s (3.7) satisfy the classical Virasoro algebra

$$i\{L_m,L_n\}=(mn)L_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0}.$$
(3.9)
### 3.2 Quantization of Coadjoint Orbits

We first make a perturbative analysis of the orbit $`W_{b_0}`$ at the classical level. We set

$$z_s=s(z)=z+i\underset{n0}{}s_nz^{n+1},$$
(3.10)
where $`s_n`$ is a complex number. Then $`b^s`$ is expanded as the following form from the formula (3.6)

$`b^s(z_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{b_0}{z^2}}+2i{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(n1)\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}n(n+1)\right]s_nz^{n2}`$ (3.11)
$`3{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}(m1)(n1)\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(m^2+n^2+mn+m+n)\right]s_ms_nz^{mn2}+𝒪(s^3).`$
The explicit form of the symplectic form is

$$\mathrm{\Omega }(s,s^{})=i\underset{m}{}\left[2mb_0+\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\right]s_ms_m^{}+𝒪(s^3).$$
(3.12)
From the inverse matrix of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the following Poisson bracket is obtained

$$\{s_m,s_n\}=i\left[2mb_0+\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\right]^1\delta _{m+n,0}+𝒪(s).$$
(3.13)
The expressions for the generators of the Virasoro algebra are

$`L_m`$ $`=`$ $`2im\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(m^21)\right]s_m+𝒪(s^2),\mathrm{for}m0,`$ (3.14)
$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`b_0+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n^2\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(n^21)\right]s_ns_n+𝒪(s^3).`$ (3.15)
A discussion of the stability of vacua for “energy function” $`L_0`$ in the anti-de Sitter gravity was provided by the similar perturbative method . In that case, the reality condition $`(s_n)^{}=s_n`$ was imposed because the coordinate corresponding to $`z`$ was a real parameter which parametrizes $`S^1`$. Therefore $`s_ns_n`$ was positive definite and a condition for vacua to be stable was obtained from the requirement that $`L_0`$ should be bounded from below. However $`z`$ is now a complex coordinate and thus no restriction is imposed on $`s_n`$ at the classical level.

We next consider a semi-classical quantization of the orbits. It is performed by replacing the Poisson bracket (3.13) to $`i`$ times the commutator. Then we find that $`s_n`$ are essentially creation and annihilation operators up to their normalizations. We are interested in the unitary representations of the Virasoro algebra in which $`(L_m)^{}=L_m`$, in particular $`(L_0)^{}=L_0`$, holds. This unitarity condition leads to the conditions $`(s_m)^{}=s_m`$ and $`b_0`$ up to this order of perturbations. 777This type of Hermitian conjugation is also considered in view of the dS/CFT correspondence in Ref.. The stability of the classical vacua means that $`L_0`$ should be bounded below at $`b(z)=\frac{b_0}{z^2}`$. It holds true only when

$$b_00.$$
(3.16)
Therefore only orbits with $`b_0_0`$ provide the unitary representations of the Virasoro algebra with the stable vacua.

The quantum Virasoro algebra is given by replacing the Poisson bracket to $`i`$ times the commutator in the classical Virasoro algebra (3.9),

$$[L_m,L_n]=(mn)L_{m+n}+\frac{c}{12}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0}.$$
(3.17)
Each unitary representation of the Virasoro algebra is labeled by its highest weight state $`|h`$. The highest weight state satisfies $`L_0|h=h|h`$ and $`L_n|h=0`$ for $`n1`$. In particular $`|0`$ satisfy $`L_1|0=0`$ in addition to the above conditions. The unitary irreducible representations $`𝒱_{h=b_0}`$ corresponding to $`W_{b_0}(b_0>0)`$ are constructed by acting the Virasoro generators $`L_n`$ ($`n1`$) on $`|b_0`$. The unitary irreducible representation $`𝒱_{}^{}{}_{h=0}{}^{}`$ corresponding to $`W_{b_0=0}`$ is given by acting $`L_n`$ ($`n2`$) on $`|0`$.

### 3.3 Quantization of Gravity in dS3

The phase space of the three-dimensional de Sitter gravity is composed of de Sitter, Kerr-de Sitter geometries and their Virasoro deformations. The de Sitter space and its Virasoro deformations are identified with the product of the Virasoro coadjoint orbits $`W_{b_0=0}\times \overline{W}_{\overline{b}_0=0}`$. The quantizations of the orbits lead to the unitary irreducible representations of the Virasoro algebras $`𝒱_{}^{}{}_{h=0}{}^{}\times \overline{𝒱^{}}_{\overline{h}=0}`$. The Kerr-de Sitter geometry with $`b=\frac{b_0}{z^2}`$ and $`\overline{b}=\frac{\overline{b}_0}{\overline{z}^2}`$ and their deformations $`Z_{(b,\overline{b})}`$ are identified with the product of the orbits $`W_{b_0}\times \overline{W}_{\overline{b}_0}`$. If $`b_0`$ is real, that is $`b_0=\overline{b}_0`$, and $`b_0>0`$, the quantizations of the orbits lead to the unitary irreducible representations of the Virasoro algebras $`𝒱_{b_0}\times \overline{𝒱}_{b_0}`$. The unitarity condition that $`b_0`$ is real means $`J=0`$, thus $`b_0=\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )`$ from (2.8). In addition to that, the stability condition requires $`b_00`$. Therefore $`\mu `$ is restricted in the region $`\mu 1`$. Geometries with excess angles ($`\mu >1`$) are forbidden by these conditions. As a result, the quantizations of deformations only of de Sitter and conical geometries without angular momenta provide the unitary theories with stable vacua. On the other hand, quantizations of the Kerr-de Sitter space-times with non-vanishing angular momenta and their deformations do not give unitary theories.

We provide some comments for the geometries with $`J=0`$ and $`\mu <0`$. As noted in the previous section, these geometries seem to be unphysical in the Schwarzschild coordinates. However, according to the discussion in this section, they are naturally included in the phase space constructed here and are represented by the following region in SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1),

$`𝒢_{(\mu <0)}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i(1+i\sqrt{m})}{2}z^{\frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}}& z^{\frac{1+i\sqrt{m}}{2}}\\ \frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}z^{\frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}}& iz^{\frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\tau & 0\\ 0& e^\tau \end{array}\right)`$ (3.25)
$`\times \left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{i(1i\sqrt{m})}{2}\overline{z}^{\frac{1+i\sqrt{m}}{2}}& \frac{1+i\sqrt{m}}{2}\overline{z}^{\frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}}\\ \overline{z}^{\frac{1i\sqrt{m}}{2}}& i\overline{z}^{\frac{1+i\sqrt{m}}{2}}\end{array}\right),`$
with $`m\mu `$. The induced metric on this region is given by

$$ds_{(\mu <0)}^2=l^2\left[d\tau ^2+\frac{1+m}{4}\frac{dz^2}{z^2}+\frac{1+m}{4}\frac{d\overline{z}^2}{\overline{z}^2}+\left(e^{2\tau }+\frac{(1+m)^2}{16}\frac{1}{z^2\overline{z}^2}e^{2\tau }\right)dzd\overline{z}\right],$$
(3.26)
that is $`ds_{(\mu <0)}^2=ds_{(b_0,\overline{b}_0)}^2`$ with $`b_0=\overline{b}_0=\frac{c}{24}(1+m)`$. The Virasoro deformations of these geometries can be defined by the same way as those explained until here. After quantization, furthermore, the states of these geometries are allowed under our consideration about the unitarity and stability at the perturbative level.

## 4 On Three-dimensional de Sitter Gravity and Liouville Field Theory

It is well-known that the Chern-Simons action on a manifold with boundaries reduces to the chiral WZNW actions on the boundaries . It was shown that the action of the three-dimensional anti-de Sitter gravity which is written by two SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons actions reduces to the non-chiral WZNW action and furthermore it reduces to the Liouville field theory under the boundary conditions being the asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-time . Recently analogous analyses were done in  for the three-dimensional de Sitter gravity with the asymptotically past de Sitter space-time.

### 4.1 Reduction to Liouville Field Theory

We briefly review processes of the reduction to the Liouville field theory  in order to fix the notations we use here.

The Einstein action is given by the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons action (2.20). The reduction is carried out by two stages. At the first stage, we impose the following reduction conditions,

$$A_{\overline{z}}0,\overline{A}_z0,$$
(4.1)
at the infinitely past $`\tau \mathrm{}`$. These conditions are same as (2.45). Under these conditions and the gauge fixing $`A_\tau =iJ^0,\overline{A}_\tau =iJ^0`$, the flat connections are written as

$$A=G^1dG,\overline{A}=\overline{G}^1d\overline{G},$$
(4.2)
where $`G`$ and $`\overline{G}`$ are group elements of SL(2;$``$) and behave at $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ as

$`Gg(z,\overline{z})\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }\end{array}\right),\overline{G}\overline{g}(z,\overline{z})\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\tau }\end{array}\right).`$ (4.7)
Substituting these flat connections into the SL(2;$``$) Chern-Simons action, we obtain two chiral WZNW action in terms of $`g(z,\overline{z})`$ and $`\overline{g}(z,\overline{z})`$ respectively. Then changing the variables,

$$H=G^1\overline{G},h=g^1\overline{g},$$
(4.8)
two chiral WZNW actions are combined to the non-chiral WZNW action,

$$S=\frac{ik}{4\pi }_M𝑑zd\overline{z}\text{Tr}\left(h^1_zhh^1_{\overline{z}}h\right)+\frac{ik}{12\pi }_M\text{Tr}\left(H^1dH\right)^3.$$
(4.9)
Here we provide some comments to this WZNW action. $`H`$ and $`h`$ must satisfy $`H=ϵH^{}ϵ^1`$ and $`h=ϵh^{}ϵ^1`$ for this theory to describe the de Sitter gravity. Thus this is actually SL(2;$``$)/SU(1,1) WZNW theory. Next the composition (4.8) is different from the pairing (2.27) which we defined in the previous section to clarify the connection between the SL(2;$``$) flat connections and the space-time metric.

At the second stage of the reduction, conditions which are on-shell equivalent to the equations (2.50) in the previous section are imposed on the conserved currents of the WZNW theory. We can explicitly describe them by using the Gauss decomposition

$$h=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ X& 1\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}& 0\\ 0& e^{\frac{1}{2}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& Y\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(4.10)
Then the constraints are written by

$$\{\begin{array}{c}J_z^0=2i\left(\frac{1}{2}_z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}e^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}X_zY\right)=0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\left(J_z^1+iJ_z^2\right)=e^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}_zY=i,\hfill \end{array}\{\begin{array}{c}\overline{J}_{\overline{z}}^0=2i\left(\frac{1}{2}_{\overline{z}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}e^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}Y_{\overline{z}}X\right)=0\hfill \\ \frac{1}{2}\left(\overline{J}_{\overline{z}}^1i\overline{J}_{\overline{z}}^2\right)=e^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}_{\overline{z}}X=i,\hfill \end{array}$$
(4.11)
where $`J_z=_zhh^1`$ and $`\overline{J}_{\overline{z}}=h^1_{\overline{z}}h`$. After applying the constraints, the WZNW action (4.9) reduces to one of the Liouville field theory,

$$S=\frac{ik}{4\pi }_M𝑑zd\overline{z}\left(\frac{1}{2}_z\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{\overline{z}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}+2e^{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}}\right).$$
(4.12)
Moreover transforming to the conformal gauge of the metric on $`M`$ and redefining $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}=\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }`$ , the action is written as

$$S=\frac{1}{4\pi }_Md^2x\left[\frac{1}{2}h^{ij}_i\mathrm{\Phi }_j\mathrm{\Phi }+\frac{\lambda }{2\gamma ^2}e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}+\frac{Q}{2}R\mathrm{\Phi }\right],$$
(4.13)
where $`Q=\frac{2}{\gamma }=\sqrt{\frac{l}{2G}}`$ and $`\lambda =\frac{16}{l^2}`$.

### 4.2 3d gravity and Liouville Field Theory

General solutions of the equation of motion of the Liouville theory are locally given by the following form

$$e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}=\frac{_zF_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}}{(1F\overline{F})^2}$$
(4.14)
where $`F`$ is a holomorphic function $`F=F(z)`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ is anti-holomorphic $`\overline{F}=\overline{F}(\overline{z})`$. While $`e^{\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }}`$ must be invariant under $`ze^{2\pi i}z`$, $`F`$ and $`\overline{F}`$ are not required to have this invariance.

We give explicit connections between these classical solutions and three-dimensional geometries. From the constraints (4.11) we find

$$X=\frac{i\gamma }{2}_z\mathrm{\Phi },Y=\frac{i\gamma }{2}_{\overline{z}}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(4.15)
Substituting these relations and the classical solutions (4.14) into the Gauss decomposition of $`h`$ (4.10), $`h`$ can be written as the decomposed form into holomorphic and anti-holomorphic parts,

$$hg(z)^1\overline{g}(\overline{z})=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{_zF}}& \frac{iF}{\sqrt{_zF}}\\ \frac{i}{2}\frac{_z^2F}{\left(_zF\right)^{3/2}}& \frac{\left(_zF\right)^2\frac{1}{2}F_z^2F}{\left(_zF\right)^{3/2}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{\sqrt{_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}}}& \frac{i}{2}\frac{_{\overline{z}}^2\overline{F}}{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^{3/2}}\\ \frac{i\overline{F}}{\sqrt{_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}}}& \frac{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{F}_{\overline{z}}^2\overline{F}}{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^{3/2}}\end{array}\right).$$
(4.16)
By following the inverse procedures of the reduction from the Chern-Simon theory to the Liouville theory, the SL(2;$``$) flat connections corresponding to (4.14) can be obtained as

$$A=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & ie^\tau dz\\ \frac{i}{2}\{F,z\}dz& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right),\overline{A}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{2}d\tau & \frac{i}{2}\{\overline{F},\overline{z}\}d\overline{z}\\ ie^\tau d\overline{z}& \frac{1}{2}d\tau \end{array}\right).$$
(4.17)
We identify $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ with the generalized solutions $`A_b`$ and $`\overline{A}_{\overline{b}}`$ (2.44). Then $`b`$ ($`\overline{b}`$) is written by the Schwarzian derivative of $`F`$ ($`\overline{F}`$),

$$b(z)=\frac{c}{12}\{F(z),z\},\overline{b}(\overline{z})=\frac{c}{12}\{\overline{F}(\overline{z}),\overline{z}\}.$$
(4.18)
That is, $`b(z)`$ $`\left(\overline{b}(\overline{z})\right)`$ coincides with the stress tensor of the holomorphic (anti-holomorphic) part of the Liouville theory. By using $`F`$ and $`\overline{F}`$, $`G_b`$ and $`\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}`$ (2.60) are written as $`G_b=g(z)e^{i\tau J^0}`$ and $`\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}=\overline{g}(\overline{z})e^{i\tau J^0}`$. Thus we can give the explicit form of the region corresponding to the deformed space-time,

$`𝒢_{(b,\overline{b})}`$ $`=`$ $`G_b\overline{G}_{\overline{b}}^1`$ (4.25)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\left(_zF\right)^2\frac{1}{2}F_z^2F}{\left(_zF\right)^{3/2}}& \frac{iF}{\sqrt{_zF}}\\ \frac{i}{2}\frac{_z^2F}{\left(_zF\right)^{3/2}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{_zF}}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}e^\tau & 0\\ 0& e^\tau \end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^2\frac{1}{2}\overline{F}_{\overline{z}}^2\overline{F}}{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^{3/2}}& \frac{i}{2}\frac{_{\overline{z}}^2\overline{F}}{\left(_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}\right)^{3/2}}\\ \frac{i\overline{F}}{\sqrt{_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}}}& \frac{1}{\sqrt{_{\overline{z}}\overline{F}}}\end{array}\right),`$
Setting $`F=F_0z^a`$ and $`\overline{F}=\overline{F}_0\overline{z}^{\overline{a}}`$, the region $`𝒢_0`$ (2.18) corresponding to the Kerr-de Sitter solution is obtained.

We would like clearly to see the relationship between the phase space of the three-dimensional gravity and that of the Liouville theory. Under the conformal transformation $`zz_s=s(z)`$, $`F(z)`$ is transformed as scalar, $`F^s(z_s)=F(z)`$. Then $`b(z)`$ (4.18) correctly transforms as the stress tensor,

$`b(z)b^s(z_s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}\{F^s(z_s),z_s\}`$ (4.26)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{dz_s}{dz}}\right)^2\left[b(z){\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}\{z_s,z\}\right].`$
The infinitesimal form of the transformation is $`\delta _fF=F^{}f`$ and $`\delta _fb=fb^{}+2f^{}b+\frac{c}{12}f^{\prime \prime \prime }`$, where we took $`z_s=zf(z)`$ and $`f`$ is a single valued function on the complex plane. Setting $`F=F_0`$ and $`f=i_nu_nz^{n+1}`$, in particular, we consider deformations of the solution corresponding to the Kerr-de Sitter geometry,

$$F_f(z)=F_0+\delta _fF_0=z^a\left(1ia\underset{n}{}u_nz^n\right).$$
(4.27)
For this $`F_f`$, the stress tensor (4.18) becomes

$`b_f(z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z^2}}\{{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(1a^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n(a^2n^2)u_nz^n`$ (4.28)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n}{}}(a+m)(a+n)[(m+n)am^2n^23mn]u_mu_nz^{m+n}\}+𝒪(u^3).`$
Then we find

$`L_m`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}b(z)z^{m+1}}=2im\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(m^21)\right]u_m+𝒪(u^2),\text{for}m0`$
$`L_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dz}{2\pi i}b(z)z}=b_0+{\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}n^2\left[b_0+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{24}}(n^21)\right]u_nu_n+𝒪(u^3),`$ (4.29)
where $`b_0=\frac{c}{24}(1a^2)`$. These coincide with the perturbative expressions, (3.14) and (3.15), of the Virasoro generators if we identify $`u_m`$ with $`s_m`$. Therefore we obtained the correspondences between the infinitesimal Virasoro deformations of the Kerr-de Sitter geometries and those of configurations of the Liouville field. Thus the quantization of this Liouville theory is expected to reproduce the same unitary irreducible representations of the Virasoro algebras as those of the three-dimensional gravity obtained in the previous section.

In the quantum Liouville field theory , the primary field is given by $`e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}(\alpha )`$ with weight $`\frac{1}{2}\alpha (\alpha Q)`$. And the primary state is defined by $`|\alpha \underset{z0}{lim}e^{\alpha \mathrm{\Phi }}(z)|0`$ which satisfies

$$L_0|\alpha =\frac{1}{2}\alpha (\alpha Q)|\alpha ,L_n|\alpha =0\text{for}n1,$$
(4.30)
where $`|0`$ is the SL(2;$``$) invariant vacuum, $`L_n|0=0`$ for $`n1`$. The representations of the Virasoro algebra are constructed by acting $`L_n(n1)`$ on $`|\alpha `$ and $`L_n(n2)`$ on $`|0`$, respectively.

The primary state $`|\alpha |\alpha `$ is identified with the state of the point particle without angular momentum in the 3d gravity by matching the conformal weight with $`b_0=\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )`$,

$$\alpha =\sqrt{\frac{c}{12}}\left[1\sqrt{1\frac{b_0}{c/24}}\right],$$
(4.31)
where $`0b_0\frac{c}{24}`$, thus $`\alpha `$ is real and $`0\alpha \sqrt{\frac{c}{12}}`$. This upper bound for the value of $`\alpha `$ corresponds to the Seiberg bound. The state with $`\alpha `$ within this range is non-normalizable. The excitations on the primary states can be identified with the excitations by the deformations of the point particle state, as explained in terms of classical perturbations. In the case of the geometries with $`\mu <0`$ and $`J=0`$, their counterparts in the Liouville field theory are the primary states $`|\alpha |\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =\sqrt{c/12}\left[1\pm i\sqrt{m}\right]`$ where $`m=\mu >0`$. These states are normalizable because $`Re(\alpha )=\sqrt{c/12}`$. These sorts of states are allowed by our discussion about the unitarity and stability in the gravity side. On the other hand, we have concluded that the states of the Kerr-de Sitter geometries ($`J0`$) and their deformations do not provide the unitary theory. Those states would correspond to states in representations constructed on the primary states of the Liouville theory with complex value of $`\alpha `$ which is given by eq.(4.31) with $`b_0=\frac{c}{24}(1\mu )\frac{i}{2}J`$. It is known from studies of the Liouville theory that these representations with $`Re(\alpha )\sqrt{c/12}`$ are not unitary.

## 5 Discussions

We would like to discuss relations between the holonomies of SL(2;$``$) flat connections and the zero modes of the Liouville field. The geometries we have considered here have the closed paths $`ze^{2\pi i}z`$ and $`\overline{z}e^{2\pi i}\overline{z}`$. The holonomies of the SL(2;$``$) flat connections (2.40), which correspond to the Kerr-de Sitter metric, along these paths are given by

$`\text{Tr}Pe^{\scriptscriptstyle A}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}G_0^1(z,\tau )G_0(e^{2\pi i}z,\tau )=2\mathrm{cos}(a\pi ),`$
$`\text{Tr}Pe^{{\scriptscriptstyle \overline{A}}}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\overline{G}_0^1(\overline{z},\tau )\overline{G}_0(e^{2\pi i}\overline{z},\tau )=2\mathrm{cos}(\overline{a}\pi ),`$ (5.1)
where $`a=\sqrt{1\frac{b_0}{c/24}}`$ and $`\overline{a}=\sqrt{1\frac{\overline{b}_0}{c/24}}`$ as defined before. Thus the Kerr-de Sitter metric can be characterized by these holonomies as well its mass and angular momentum. Substituting the solution corresponding to this geometry in the Liouville theory into the right hand side in the eq.(4.14), we find

$$\mathrm{\Phi }\frac{1}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}a+\frac{(a1)}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}z+\frac{1}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}\overline{a}+\frac{(\overline{a}1)}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}\overline{z}.$$
(5.2)
Here we ignore the denominator of the right hand side in the eq.(4.14), that is, the effect of the Liouville potential, thus this equality is not strict. However comparing this equation with the following expansion $`\mathrm{\Phi }xip\mathrm{ln}z+\text{(anti-holomorphic part)}`$, we obtain

$$x=\frac{1}{\gamma }\mathrm{ln}a,p=\frac{i(a1)}{\gamma }.$$
(5.3)
These correspond to the relations which used in the Ref. to investigate a quantization of three-dimensional gravity with a negative cosmological constant in the view of the Liouville field theory. As pointed out in that paper, we should also consider quantization of these global degrees of freedom, holonomies, within the three-dimensional gravity.

We think that more accurate analyses are needed in order to completely understand the quantum nature of the three-dimensional de Sitter gravity. First we implicitly assumed in this paper that the states obtained by quantization of the phase space of the gravity, e.g., de Sitter or point particle geometries, are normalizable. On the other hand the primary states corresponding to the point particle geometries are non-normalizable in the Liouville field theory. To clarify origin of this discrepancy, it is needed to study the global structure of the phase space and to strictly define the inner product between quantum states in the de Sitter gravity. Next we stated in Section 2 that the flat SL(2;$``$) connections $`A`$ and $`\overline{A}`$ can not be independent mutually so that the dreibein and spin connection are real quantities. This requirement connects the holomorphic part of the degrees of freedom of the theory with the anti-holomorphic part, that is, $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ should be a complex conjugate function of $`b(z)`$. On the other hand, we imposed $`L_m^{}=L_m`$, which are relations among the modes of the holomorphic part $`b(z)`$, as the unitarity condition. It might be possible to adopt other conditions which relate $`b(z)`$ to $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$ by Hermitian conjugation.888 Recently this type of Hermitian conjugations has been discussed in Ref.

In this paper we used the coordinate system corresponding to the planar coordinate of de Sitter space. In general quantum theory might depend on the choice of the coordinate system, e.g., the vacua corresponding to different coordinates could be connected with each other by the Bogoliubov transformations. Therefore it is meaningful to investigate quantum theory of the de Sitter gravity in other coordinate systems, particularly in the global coordinate.

Acknowledgment
This work of H. U. was supported in part by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientists.

## Appendix A Brown-York Stress Tensor

Here we show that the Brown-York stress tensor  for general solutions we used coincides with $`b(z)`$ and $`\overline{b}(\overline{z})`$.

Since the equation (2.22) is satisfied for solutions of the equations of motion, we consider the action 999This action originated from the Chern-Simons action is on-shell equivalent to the gravitational action including the boundary term and the counter term considered in Ref..

$$S=\frac{1}{16\pi G}_Md^3x\sqrt{g}\left(R\frac{2}{l^2}\right)\frac{i}{8\pi G}_M𝑑zd\overline{z}\frac{\sqrt{h}}{l}.$$
(A.1)
For the space-time metric

$$ds^2=l^2\left[dt^2+h_{zz}dz^2+h_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}d\overline{z}^2+2h_{z\overline{z}}dzd\overline{z}\right],$$
(A.2)
the Brown-York stress tensors are given by

$`T_{zz}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta h^{zz}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\left[R_{zz}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{zz}\left(R{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^2}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi Gl}}\left[h_{zz}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_th_{zz}\right]_M,`$ (A.3)
$`T_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\sqrt{h}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta h^{\overline{z}\overline{z}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\left[R_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}\left(R{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^2}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi Gl}}\left[h_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_th_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}\right]_M,`$ (A.4)
$`T_{z\overline{z}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{h}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta S}{\delta h^{z\overline{z}}}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}\left[R_{z\overline{z}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}h_{z\overline{z}}\left(R{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l^2}}\right)\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi Gl}}\left[h_{z\overline{z}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_th_{z\overline{z}}\right]_M.`$ (A.5)
Substituting the general space-time metric (2.59), the bulk terms of the above stress tensors vanish and only boundary contributions remain,

$`T_{zz}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi l^2}}b(z),T_{\overline{z}\overline{z}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi l^2}}\overline{b}(\overline{z}),T_{z\overline{z}}=0.`$ (A.6)
## Appendix B Canonical Quantization of $`SL(2;)`$ Chern-Simons Gravity

In this appendix, as mentioned in Section 3, we make a canonical quantization à la Dirac of three-dimensional de Sitter gravity described by the action (2.13). (The case of three-dimensional anti-de Sitter gravity is discussed in Ref..) Then we find the Virasoro algebra with a pure imaginary central charge as the asymptotic symmetry.

$`\text{SL}(2;)`$ Chern-Simons action is defined from (2.20):101010$`ϵ^{\tau \rho \sigma }=+1`$.

$`S_{EH}`$ $`=`$ $`S_{CS}(A)S_{CS}(\overline{A}),`$
$`S_{CS}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _M}\text{Tr}\left(AdA+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}A^3\right)`$ (B.1)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _M}𝑑\tau d\rho d\sigma ϵ^{\mu \nu \rho }(\eta _{ab}A_\mu ^a_\nu A_\rho ^b+ϵ_{abc}A_\mu ^aA_\nu ^bA_\rho ^c),`$ (B.2)
where $`A`$ is the $`sl(2;)`$-valued 1-form related to dreibein and spin connection by (2.21). $`M`$ is a three-dimensional manifold whose topology is $`𝐑\times 𝐑^2`$. $`M`$ is parameterized by $`(\tau ,\rho ,\sigma )`$ whose region is $`(\mathrm{}<\tau <\mathrm{},0\rho <\mathrm{},0\sigma <2\pi )`$. We concentrate on $`S_{CS}(A)`$ part only in the sequel since the discussion on $`S_{CS}(\overline{A})`$ part is parallel.

$`M`$ is a non-compact manifold with a two-dimensional boundary $`\tau \mathrm{}`$ and $`\rho \mathrm{}`$. Thus we require the boundary condition for $`A`$ so that the action (B.2) is differentiable with respect to $`A_\rho `$ and $`A_\sigma `$:

$`A_{\overline{z}}=0\mathrm{at}\tau \mathrm{},`$ (B.3)
where $`z=e^{\rho +i\sigma }`$ and $`A_z=(A_\rho iA_\sigma )/2z,A_{\overline{z}}=(A_\rho +iA_\sigma )/2\overline{z}`$. This boundary condition is the same as (2.45). As for the boundary $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ we include the boundary term in the Chern-Simons action so that the action is differentiable with respect to $`A_\tau ^a`$.

We make a canonical quantization of the Chern-Simons action $`S_{CS}[A]`$. $`S_{CS}[A]`$ is invariant under the gauge transformation $`\delta A_\mu ^a=D_\mu \lambda ^a(D_\mu \lambda ^a=_\mu \lambda ^a+ϵ^a{}_{bc}{}^{}A_{\mu }^{b}\lambda ^c)`$ and thus describes a constrained system. The standard recipe of Hamiltonian formalism of constrained systems yields the following constraints in addition to $`\pi _a^\tau =0`$ and the Gauss law constraint: 111111We take $`\tau `$ as time here. Although, corresponding to the radial quantization of conformal field theory on $`𝐑^2`$, we can formally take $`\rho `$ as “time”, the following discussion and the final result do not essentially change.

$`\varphi _a^i\pi _a^i+{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{8\pi }}ϵ^{ij}\eta _{ab}A_j^b`$ $`=`$ $`0(i,j=\rho ,\sigma \mathrm{and}ϵ^{\rho \sigma }=1).`$ (B.4)
We fix the gauge $`A_\tau =iJ^0`$ and will explicitly solve the Gauss law constraint later on. Thus the Dirac bracket of the remaining dynamical variable $`A_i^a`$ under the constraint (B.4) becomes

$`\{A_i^a(x),A_j^b(y)\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{ik}}ϵ_{ij}\eta ^{ab}\delta ^2(xy)(ϵ_{\rho \sigma }=+1).`$ (B.5)
By means of the Dirac bracket (B.5), the Dirac bracket between the functionals $`F[A]`$ and $`G[A]`$ of the dynamical variables $`A_i^a(x)`$ is given by

$`\{F[A],G[A]\}_D={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi }{ik}}ϵ_{ij}\eta ^{ab}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\rho d\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{\delta F[A]}{\delta A_i^a(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta G[A]}{\delta A_j^b(x)}},`$ (B.6)
where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the space-like surface $`𝐑^2`$ of constant $`\tau `$.

By using the bracket (B.6), the algebra of the generators of the gauge transformation $`\delta A_i^a=D_i\lambda ^a`$ can be obtained. The generator of the gauge transformation is given by the Gauss law constraint:

$`Q(\lambda )={\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\rho d\sigma \eta _{ab}\lambda ^aF_{\rho \sigma }^b+{\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\sigma \eta _{ab}\lambda ^aA_\sigma ^b,`$ (B.7)
where $`F_{\rho \sigma }^a=_\rho A_\sigma ^a_\sigma A_\rho ^a+ϵ^a{}_{bc}{}^{}A_{\rho }^{b}A_\sigma ^c`$. $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the boundary of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at $`\rho \mathrm{}`$ and the boundary term is supplemented for $`Q(\lambda )`$ to be differentiable with respect to $`A_i^a`$. From (B.6) and (B.7), one can easily find the algebra of the generator $`Q(\lambda )`$:

$`\{Q(\lambda ),Q(\eta )\}_D=Q\left([\lambda ,\eta ]\right){\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\sigma \eta _{ab}\lambda ^a_\sigma \eta ^b\left([\lambda ,\eta ]^a=ϵ^a{}_{bc}{}^{}\lambda _{}^{b}\eta ^c\right).`$ (B.8)
As mentioned above, we solve explicitly the Gauss law constraint and the equations of motion of $`A_i^a`$ under the boundary condition (B.3) and the gauge fixing condition for $`A_\tau ^a`$. The general solutions are given by

$`A_\tau =iJ^0=\text{g}^1_\tau \text{g},A_{\overline{z}}=0,\mathrm{and}A_z=\text{g}^1\widehat{A}(z)\text{g}(\text{g}=e^{i\tau J^0}).`$ (B.9)
The space of these general solutions is invariant under the gauge function $`\lambda ^a=\text{g}^1\widehat{\lambda }^a(z)\text{g}`$. The generator of this gauge transformation gives the global charge of the Chern-Simons theory on a manifold with the boundary . On this classical phase space, the generator of the gauge transformation with this gauge function is reduced to

$`Q(\lambda )=\text{g}^1\widehat{Q}(\widehat{\lambda })\text{g},\widehat{Q}(\widehat{\lambda })={\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑z\eta _{ab}\widehat{\lambda }^a(z)\widehat{A}^b(z).`$ (B.10)
We note that the generator is given by the boundary integral only. $`\widehat{Q}(\widehat{\lambda })`$ satisfies the same algebra as that of $`Q(\lambda )`$:

$`\{\widehat{Q}(\widehat{\lambda }),\widehat{Q}(\widehat{\eta })\}_D=\widehat{Q}([\widehat{\lambda },\widehat{\eta }]){\displaystyle \frac{ik}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑z\eta _{ab}\widehat{\lambda }^a_z\widehat{\eta }^b.`$ (B.11)
In the similar manner to the case of conformal field theory on $`𝐑^2`$, we expand $`\widehat{A}^a(z)`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }^a(z)`$ respectively:

$`\widehat{A}^a(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}T^a(z)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{k}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}T_n^az^{n1},\widehat{\lambda }^a(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\widehat{\lambda }_n^az^n.`$ (B.12)
From (B.11), the algebra of the Laurent coefficients of $`\widehat{A}^a(z)`$ can be obtained as

$`\{T_m^a,T_n^b\}_D=ϵ^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}T_{m+n}^{c}{\displaystyle \frac{k}{2}}m\eta ^{ab}\delta _{m+n,0}.`$ (B.13)
This is nothing but the holomorphic part of $`\mathrm{SL}(2;)`$ current algebra. Thus the global charge of $`\mathrm{SL}(2;)`$ Chern-Simons theory on a manifold with the boundary satisfies $`\mathrm{SL}(2;)`$ current algebra (B.13).

The solutions (B.9), however, do not satisfy the boundary condition to be asymptotically de Sitter (2.50) in general. Thus we need to require further boundary conditions corresponding to (2.50) for the Laurent coefficients $`T_m^a`$ such as121212$`T_m^\pm =T_m^1\pm iT_m^2`$.

$`T_m^0=0,T_m^+=ik\delta _{m+1,0}.`$ (B.14)
One can treat the above conditions as new constraints on $`T^a(z)`$ and obtain the resulting algebra of the remaining variable $`L_{m1}T_m^{}`$ by means of the Dirac bracket under the new constraints:

$`\{L_m,L_n\}_D=i(mn)L_{m+n}{\displaystyle \frac{c}{12}}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0},`$ (B.15)
where $`c=6k=\frac{3l}{2G}`$. This is the Virasoro algebra of the asymptotic symmetry on the asymptotically three-dimensional de Sitter space-time.

However, in order to obtain the corresponding quantum algebra acting on the physical Hilbert space, the replacement of the Dirac bracket with $`i`$ times commutator is required. Thus the quantum algebra becomes

$`[L_m,L_n]=(mn)L_{m+n}+{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{12}}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0}.`$ (B.16)
As promised, one can find the quantum algebra of the asymptotic symmetry is the Virasoro algebra with a pure imaginary central charge $`ic`$.

Finally we comment on the relation between this algebra and the Virasoro algebra discussed in Section 3. From the relation $`T^{}(z)=ib(z)`$ (see (2.44)), $`T_m^{}=i\stackrel{~}{L}_{m1}`$ leads to the corresponding quantum algebra:

$`[\stackrel{~}{L}_m,\stackrel{~}{L}_n]=i(mn)\stackrel{~}{L}_{m+n}{\displaystyle \frac{ic}{12}}(m^3m)\delta _{m+n,0}.`$ (B.17)
The central extension term of the algebra in terms of $`\stackrel{~}{L}_m`$ still remains pure imaginary. Two different algebras, (3.17) and (B.17), are based on the Poisson bracket of the same reduced variables. This discrepancy originates from the different choice of the symplectic structure which defines the Poisson bracket between the reduced variables.


format: text

text:
# Scalar mesons in QCD and tests of the gluon content of the 𝜎 Mini-review given at the QCD 02 9th International High-Energy Physics Conference in Quantum ChromoDynamics (Montpellier 2-9th July 2002).

## 1 Introduction

The nature of scalar mesons is an intriguing problem in QCD. Experimentally, there are well established scalar mesons with isospin $`I=1`$, the $`a_0(980)`$, with isospin $`I=1/2`$ $`K_0^{}(1410)`$ meson, and with isospin $`I=0`$, the $`f_0`$-mesons at 980, 1370 and 1500 MeV . Besides these resonances there are different indications  for a low lying scalar isoscalar state, the famous $`\sigma `$. The isoscalar scalar states are especially interesting in the framework of QCD since, in this $`U(1)_V`$ channel, their interpolating operator is the trace of the energy-momentum tensor:

$$\theta _\mu ^\mu =\frac{1}{4}\beta (\alpha _s)G^2+\underset{i}{}[1+\gamma _m(\alpha _s)]m_i\overline{\psi }_i\psi _i,$$
(1)
where $`G_{\mu \nu }^a`$ is the gluon field strengths, $`\psi _i`$ is the quark field; $`\beta (\alpha _s)`$ and $`\gamma _m(\alpha _s)`$ are respectively the QCD $`\beta `$-function and quark mass-anomalous dimension. In the chiral limit $`m_i=0`$, $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$ is dominated by its gluon component $`\theta _g`$, like is the case of the $`\eta ^{}`$ for the $`U(1)_A`$ axial-anomaly, explaining why the $`\eta ^{}`$-mass does not vanish like other Goldstone bosons for $`m_i=0`$. In this sense, it is natural to expect that these $`I=0`$ scalar states are glueballs/gluonia or have at least a strong glue component in their wave function. QCD spectral sum sum rules (QSSR) are an important analytical tool of nonperturbative QCD and especially well suited to address the question of the quark-gluon mixing since the principal nonperturbative ingredients are the quark condensate, the gluon condensate and the mixed quark-gluon condensate. In this talk, we summarize some essential features of QSSR analyses and discuss different production processes for obtaining information on the gluon content of the scalar mesons.

## 2 Unmixed scalar mesons from QSSR

$``$ Masses and couplings of unmixed scalar $`\overline{q}q`$ mesons and gluonia have been extensively studied in the past using QSSR within the standard Operator Product Expansion (OPE) of the diagonal two-point correlator :

$$\psi (q^2)=id^4xe^{iqx}0|𝒯J(x)J(0)^{}|0,$$
(2)
associated to the quark or/and the gluonic currents It has been emphasized that the mass of the isoscalar scalar $`S_2\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ meson is about 1 GeV, in agreement with the one of the observed $`a_0(980)`$, as expected from the good realization of the $`SU(2)`$ symmetry implying a degeneracy between the $`a_0`$ and $`S_2`$ states, while its width into $`\pi \pi `$ is about 100 MeV . On the other, the mass of the mesons containing a strange quark is above 1 GeV due to $`SU(3)`$ breaking, where the same mechanism explains successfully the well-known $`\varphi `$$`\rho `$ and $`K^{}`$$`\rho `$ mass splittings. In recent analysis , it has been shown that instanton within the instanton liquid model  as well as new $`1/q^2`$  induced by a tachyonic gluon mass  from the linear term of the short distance part of the QCD potential 111A linear term of the potential at all distances has been recently proposed by ’t Hooft  as a possible way to solve the confinement problem., affect only slightly these mass predictions and do not allow to decrease these values in a stable way.
$``$ In the gluonium channel, using a subtracted sum rule sensitive to $`\psi _G(0)16\beta _1/\pi \alpha _sG^2`$, (where $`\beta _1=1/2(112n/3)`$ and $`\alpha _sG^20.07`$ GeV4 ) and the unsubtracted sum rule, it was found  that one needs two resonances for consistently saturating the two sum rules, where the lowest mass gluonium $`\sigma _B`$ should be below 1 GeV. A low energy theorem obeyed by the vertex $`\pi |\theta _\mu ^\mu |\pi `$ also shows that the $`\sigma _B`$ can be very wide with a $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ width of about $`(0.20.8)`$ GeV corresponding to a mass of $`(0.71)`$ GeV, while a $`\sigma _B`$ having a mass less than 0.6 GeV has a weaker coupling because $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }M_\sigma ^2`$ and thus cannot be broad. This result shows a huge violation of the OZI rule like in the case of the $`\eta ^{}`$-channel .
$``$ From the previous results, one can already conclude that the observed $`\sigma (0.6)`$ cannot be a pure $`\overline{q}q`$ state, but contains most probably a large gluon component in its wave function 222Similar conclusions using different approaches have been reached in ., while the $`\kappa (0.9)`$ meson cannot also be identified with an usual $`\overline{u}s`$ scalar resonace which mass is predicted to be about the $`K_0^{}(1.31.4)`$.
$``$ As a consequence, a quarkonium-gluonium mixing (decay mixing 333This has to be contrasted with the small mass-mixing coming from the off-diagonal two-point function .) scheme has been proposed in the $`I=0`$ scalar sector , for explaining the observed spectrum and widths of the possibly wide $`\sigma (<1`$ GeV) and the narrow $`f_0(0.98)`$. The data are well fitted when the mixing angle is maximal:

$$|\theta _S|40^0,$$
(3)
indicating that the $`\sigma `$ and $`f_0`$ have equal numbers of quark and gluon in each of their wave functions. This mixing scenario also implies a strong coupling of the $`f_0`$ to $`\overline{K}K`$ (without appealing to a four-quark state model) with a strength :

$$g_{f_0K^+K^{}}=2g_{f_0\pi ^+\pi ^{}},$$
(4)
a property confirmed by the data. The physical on-shell $`f_0`$ is narrow $`(<134`$ MeV) due to a destructive mixing, whilst the $`\sigma (.71)`$ can be $`(0.40.8)`$ GeV wide (constructive mixing). Compared to the four-quark states and/or $`\overline{K}K`$ molecules models (see e.g. ), this quarkonium-gluonium mixing scenario includes all QCD dynamics based on the properties of the scale anomaly $`\theta _\mu ^\mu `$, which comes from QCD first principles. We propose some further tests of this scenario from semileptonic and radiative decay processes in the following 444We shall not discuss hadronic productions which are less clean than the former two due to eventual rescattering effects..

## 3 Tests from $`D_{(s)}`$ semileptonic decays

### $`S_2(\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)`$ meson productions

$``$ If the scalar mesons were simple $`\overline{q}q`$ states, the semileptonic decay width could be calculated quite reliably using QSSR, where the relevant diagram is a quark loop triangle. This analysis has been done with a good success for the semileptonic decays of the $`D`$ and $`D_s`$ into pseudoscalar and vector mesons . For the production of a pseudoscalar or scalar $`\overline{q}q`$ states several groups  predict all form factors to be: $`f_+(0)0.5,`$ yielding a decay rate:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(DS_2l\nu )=(8\pm 3)10^{16}\mathrm{GeV},$$
(5)
for $`M_{S_2}600`$ MeV.
$``$ However, because of the enigmatic nature of the $`\sigma `$, one has also considered, in , the case that the quark-antiquark current does not couple to a resonance but rather to an uncorrelated quark-antiquark pair. In that case the decay rate is reduced by a factor 2, but, in the spectral distribution, there is a broad bump visible with a maximum near the presumed $`\sigma `$ mass of 600 MeV. Unfortunately, even in high stastistics experiments, the estimated decay rates of the $`D`$-meson are at the edge of observation since the decays into an isoscalar are CKM-suppressed due to the $`c`$-$`u`$ transition at the weak vertex.

### Scalar gluonium and/or $`\overline{s}s`$ productions

The evaluation of diagrams for a semileptonic decay into a gluonium state is, unfortunately, more involved than in the $`\overline{q}q`$ case. Therefore, we can give only semi-qualitative results which, however, are model independent.
$``$ The only way to obtain a non-CKM suppressed isoscalar is to look at the semileptonic decay of the $`D_s`$-meson, where the light quark is a strange one and an isoscalar $`s\overline{s}`$ or/and gluonium state can be formed.
$``$ If the $`\overline{s}s`$ is relatively light ($`<1`$ GeV), which might be the natural partner of the $`\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d`$ often interpreted to be a $`\sigma (0.6)`$ in the literature, then, one should produce a $`\overline{K}K`$ pair through the isoscalar $`\overline{s}s`$ state. The QSSR prediction for this process is under quite good control . The non-observation of this process will disfavour the $`\overline{q}q`$ interpretation of the $`\sigma `$ meson.
$``$ If a gluonium state is formed it will decay with even strength into $`\pi \pi `$ and a $`K\overline{K}`$ pairs. Therefore a gluonium formation in semileptonic $`D_s`$ decays should result in the decay patterns:

$$D_s\sigma _B\mathrm{}\nu \pi \pi \mathrm{}\nu D_s\sigma _B\mathrm{}\nu K\overline{K}\mathrm{}\nu ,$$
(6)
with about the same rate up to phase space factors. The observation of the semileptonic $`\pi \pi `$ decay of the $`D_s`$ would be a unique sign for glueball formation.
$``$ A semi-qualitative estimate of the above rates can be obtained by working in the large heavy quark mass limit $`M_c`$. Using, e.g., the result in , the one for light $`\overline{q}q`$ quarkonium production behaves as:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[D_sS_q(\overline{q}q)l\nu ]|V_{cq}|^2G_F^2M_c^5|f_+(0)|^2.$$
(7)
$``$ For the $`\sigma _B(gg)`$ production, we study the $`1/M_c`$ behaviour of the $`WWgg`$ box diagram, where it is easy to find that the dominant (in $`1/M_c`$) contribution comes from the one involving one charmed propagator. Therefore the production amplitude can be described by the Euler-Heisenberg effective interaction :

$$_{eff}\frac{g_W\alpha _s}{p^2M_c^2}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }G_{\alpha \beta }G^{\alpha \beta }+\mathrm{perm}.+\mathrm{}$$
(8)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ are h.o in $`1/M_c`$, $`g_W`$ is the electroweak coupling and $`p^2M_\sigma ^2`$ is the typical virtual low scale entering into the box diagram. Using dispersion techniques similar to the one used for $`J/\psi \sigma _B\gamma `$ processses , one obtains, assuming a $`D_s`$ and $`\sigma _B`$-dominances:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }[D_s\sigma _B(gg)l\nu ]|V_{cs}|^2G_F^2\frac{|0|\alpha _sG^2|\sigma _B|^2}{M_cM_\sigma ^4}.$$
(9)
The matrix element $`0|\alpha _sG^2|\sigma _B`$ is by definition proportional to $`f_\sigma M_\sigma ^2`$, where $`f_\sigma `$ is hopefully known from two-point function QSSR analysis . Using $`f_\sigma 0.8`$ GeV, one then deduces:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[D_s\sigma _B(gg)l\nu ]}{\mathrm{\Gamma }[D_sS_q(\overline{q}q)l\nu ]}\frac{1}{|f_+(0)|^2}\left(\frac{f_\sigma }{M_c}\right)^2,$$
(10)
which is $`𝒪(1)`$. This qualitative result indicates that the gluonium production rate can be of the same order as the $`\overline{q}q`$ one contrary to the naïve perturbative expectation ($`\alpha _s^2`$ suppression), which is a consequence of the OZI-rule violation of the $`\sigma _B`$ decay.
$``$ However, it also indicates that, due to the (almost) universal coupling of the $`\sigma _B`$ to Goldstone boson pairs, one also expects a production of the $`K\overline{K}`$ pairs, which can compete with the one from $`\overline{s}s`$ quarkonium state, and again renders more difficult the identification of the such $`\overline{s}s`$ state if allowed by phase space.

## 4 Tests from $`J/\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ radiative decays

Radiative decays of vector mesons have been often proposed to be the classical gluonia production processes. In , one expects the rate:

$$B[J/\psi \gamma \sigma _B]B[\sigma _Ball](46)\times 10^4,$$
(11)
which is far below the upper rate of production for $`B(J/\psi \gamma \pi \pi )`$ of about $`10^2`$ allowed by BES . Analogous rate is expected for the $`\sigma ^{}(1.3)`$(radial excitation of the $`\sigma `$) and $`G(1.5)`$ productions.
$``$ Extending the analysis of the $`J/\psi `$ into the one of the $`\varphi `$ by replacing the charm quark constituent loop by the strange quark, it is easy to find :

$$Br[\varphi \gamma f_0(980)]1.3\times 10^4,$$
(12)
which despite the crude approximation (use of the $`1/m_s`$ constituent mass expansion) leads to a surprising satisfactory result compared with the averaged data $`(1.08\pm 0.07\pm 0.06)\times 10^4`$ from .
$``$ For the $`a_0`$, one also expects that the L$`\sigma `$M + ChPT ($`SU(3)`$ symmetry) can give a reliable prediction of the production rate (see e.g. ) due to its isovector nature contrary to the case of the isoscalar mesons affected by their gluon content ($`U(1)_V`$ symmetry). In this case, one expects the decay chain process through kaon loops:

$$\varphi \gamma \overline{K}K\gamma a_0\gamma \eta \pi ,$$
(13)
where the coupling of the $`a_0`$ to $`\overline{K}K`$ can be obtained from e.g. the $`SU(3)`$ relation in .

## 5 Conclusions

We have reviewed the different features of scalar mesons from QCD spectral sum rules and the different OZI-violating and classic gluonia semileptonic and radiative decay processes for testing the eventual gluon component of the $`\sigma `$ meson. We wish that some progresses on this field will be accomplished in the near future, as after about a 1/4 century study, we still remain with more questions than answers on the true nature of scalar mesons.

## Acknowledgements

This talk has been completed at the Max-Planck-Institute für Physics of Munich. It is a pleasure to thank Valya Zakharov for his invitation and for discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The constituent quark model is a useful descriptive tool in hadron spectroscopy. The empirical spectrum of mesons and baryons suggests that hadrons are largely composed of the spin-1/2 constituent quarks confined to $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`qqq`$ systems. Naturally, one needs to understand these relevant degrees of freedom, their effective structure parameters and forces acting between them to reach the understanding of QCD in the confining regime. However, despite many phenomenological successes the fundamental question of the connection between the three (for baryons) ( or the $`q\overline{q}`$-pair, for mesons) ”spectroscopic” quarks, bearing the quantum numbers of a given hadron, and the infinite number of the ”current” (or fundamental) quarks required, $`e.g.`$, by the deep-inelastic lepton-hadron scattering, is still a problem. One can believe, that, among other available menses, the precision description of static electroweak properties of hadrons, while had been one of cornerstones of the constituent quark model itself, can still be of relevance for deeper understanding of fundamental question on the ”constituency” of constituent quarks. One of aspects of this problem is the following. The diagonalized Hamiltonian matrix, including the contributions of all spin-dependent interactions between three constituent quarks, defines masses of the ground and radially and orbitally excited states of the nucleon and provides also the structure of baryon state vectors in the $`SU(6)\times O(3)`$ basis states thus giving the deviation of the $`F/D`$-values, parameterizing the electroweak current matrix elements, from the $`F/D=2/3`$ that corresponds to participating states in the $`\underset{¯}{56}`$ -representation, as often assumed for the nucleon and lowest symmetrical radial excitation (presumably, the Roper resonance with mass $`1440`$ Mev). As discussed in ref., if the Roper resonance would be something different from the $`3q`$-radial excitation, belonging to the $`\underset{¯}{5}6`$-representation of $`SU(6)`$, e.g. the hybrid state, then total probability to find the $`(\underset{¯}{56})`$ \- configuration in the nucleon state vector would be diminished and the $`F/D`$-value could rise up to the value found from a version of phenomenological analysis of the baryon magnetic moments and axial couplings with important implications for the polarized parton distributions of the nucleon (see, e.g., for the recent discussion).

## 2 The pionic ”dressing” of hadrons: examples and problems

In this section we consider some consequences from sum rules for the static, electroweak characteristics of baryons following mainly from the phenomenology of broken internal symmetries. We choose the phenomenological sum rule techniques to obtain, at the price of a minimal number of the model-dependent assumptions, a more reliable, though not as much detailed information about the hadron properties in question. The main focus will be on the role of nonvalence degrees of freedom ( the nucleon sea partons and/or peripheral meson currents ) in parameterization and description of hadron magnetic moments, both diagonal and non-diagonal, including the $`N\mathrm{\Delta }\gamma `$-transition moment. Earlier we have considered a number of consequences of sum rules for the static, electroweak characteristics of baryons following from the theory of broken internal symmetries and common features of the quark models including relativistic effects and corrections due to nonvalence degrees of freedom – the sea partons and/or the meson clouds at the periphery of baryons.
Here, we list some of the earlier discussed  sum rules (we use the particle and quark symbols for corresponding magnetic moments):

$`\alpha _D={\displaystyle \frac{D}{F+D}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{u}{d}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\mathrm{\Xi }^0(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{})}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{})}}`$ (2)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{P+N+\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}{P+N\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}}}`$ (3)
The $`D`$\- and $`F`$\- constants in Eq.(1) parameterize ”reduced” matrix elements of quark current operators where $`SU(3)`$ symmetry-breaking effects are contained in the factorized effective coupling constants of the single-quark-type operators, while other contributions (e.g. representing the pion exchange current effects) are cancelled in Eqs.(1)-(3) by construction.

The nonzero ratio $`u/d`$ is related to the chiral constituent quark model where a given baryon consists of three ”dressed”, massive constituent quarks. Owing to the virtual transitions $`qq+\pi (\eta ),qK+s`$ the ”magnetic anomaly” is developing, i.e., $`u/d=1.80\pm .02Q_u/Q_d=2`$. Evaluation of the one-loop quark-meson diagrams done earlier  gives: $`u/d=(Q_u+\kappa _u)/(Q_d+\kappa _d)1.85`$, the $`\kappa _q`$ being the quark anomalous magnetic moment in natural units, if we take the $`SU(3)`$-invariant quark-pseudoscalar-meson couplings, the physical masses for the $`\pi `$-, $`\eta `$-, K-mesons and the $`m_{q(s)}300(400)`$ MeV. In the full $`SU(3)`$-symmetry limit, when $`m_q=m_s,m_\pi =m_\eta =m_K`$, we return to $`u/d=2`$, the ratio pertinent to the structureless current quarks. Evaluation of the ”magnetic anomaly” via Eq.(3) turns out rather close to the result of the lowest order quark-pion loop diagrams with the pseudoscalar $`qq\pi `$-coupling estimated via the Goldberger-Treiman relation at the quark level , while the terms of order $`O(g_{qq\pi }^4)`$ are negligible if the use is made of old calculations for magnetic moments of nucleons  to adapt them for the quark case through corresponding replacement of the coupling constants and masses of fermions. The ratio $`s/d.64`$ demonstrating the $`SU(3)`$-symmetry breaking is evaluated via

$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{d}}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})\mathrm{\Xi }^{}(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{})}}`$ (4)
Now, we list some consequences of the obtained sum rules. The numerical relevance of adopted parameterization is seen from results enabling even to estimate from one of obtained sum rules, namely,

$`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^+\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})(\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}6\mathrm{\Lambda }+2\mathrm{\Xi }^0+2\mathrm{\Xi }^{})`$
$`(\mathrm{\Xi }^0\mathrm{\Xi }^{})(\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+6\mathrm{\Lambda }4\mathrm{\Xi }^04\mathrm{\Xi }^{})=0.`$ (5)
the necessary effect of the isospin-violating $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^o\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-mixing. By definition, the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$–value entering into Eq.(18) should be ”refined” from the electromagnetic $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$–mixing affecting $`\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda })_{exp}`$. Hence, the numerical value of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, extracted from Eq.(18), can be used to determine the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$–mixing angle through the relation

$`\mathrm{sin}\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{exp}}{2\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma })}}=(1.43\pm 0.31)10^2`$ (6)
in accord with the independent estimate of $`\theta _{\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ from the electromagnetic mass-splitting sum rule . Of course, this approach is free of a problem raised by Lipkin and concerning the ratio $`R_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ of magnetic moments of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$\- and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$\- hyperons. With the parameters $`u/d=1.80`$ and $`\alpha _D=(D/(F+D))_{mag}=0.58`$, defined without including in fit the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-hyperon magnetic moment, we obtain

$$R_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/\mathrm{\Lambda }}=\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }^++2\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=.27(\text{vs}.23\text{[12]})$$
(7)
while in the standard nonrelativistic quark model without inclusion of nonvalence d.o.f. this ratio would equals $`1`$.

The experimentally interesting quantities $`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }^+P)=\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }^0N)`$ and $`\mu (\mathrm{\Sigma }^0\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ are affected by the exchange current contributions and for their estimation we need additional assumptions. We use the analogy with the one–pion–exchange current, well–known in nuclear physics, to assume for the exchange magnetic moment operator

$`\widehat{\mu }_{exch}={\displaystyle \underset{i<j}{}}[\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i\times \stackrel{}{\sigma }_j]_3[\stackrel{}{\tau }_i\times \stackrel{}{\tau }_j]_3f(r_{ij}),`$ (8)
where $`f(r_{ij})`$ is a unspecified function of the interquark distances, $`\stackrel{}{\sigma }_i(\stackrel{}{\tau }_i)`$ are spin (isospin) operators of quarks. Calculating the matrix elements of $`\widehat{\mu }_{exch}`$ between the baryon wave functions, belonging to the 56–plet of $`SU(6)`$, one can find

$`\mu (\mathrm{\Delta }^+P)_{\underset{¯}{5}6}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}\left(PN+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(P+N){\displaystyle \frac{1u/d}{1+u/d}}\right).`$ (9)
where Eq.(24) may serve as a generalization of the well–known $`SU(6)`$–relation .

We list below the limiting relations following from the neglect of the nonvalence degrees of freedom

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }^+[\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}]=P[PN]+(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2N}{P}}),`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Xi }^0[\mathrm{\Xi }^{}]=N[PN]+2(\mathrm{\Lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}})(1+{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2P}}),`$ (11)
$`\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma })={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}}N.`$ (12)
The numerical values of magnetic moments following from this assumption coincide almost identically with the results of the $`SU(6)`$–based NRQM taking account of the $`SU(3)`$ breaking due to the quark–mass differences . We stress, however, that no NR assumption or explicit $`SU(6)`$-wave function are used this time. The ratio $`\alpha _D=D/(F+D=.61`$ in this case and it is definitely less than $`\alpha _D=.58`$, when nonvalence degrees of freedom are included. This is demonstrating a substantial influence of the nonvalence degrees of freedom on this important parameter.

## 3 The OZI-Rule and SU(3) Symmetry Violation in Magnetic and Axial Couplings of Baryons

Here, we follow a complementary view of the nucleon structure, keeping the constraint u/d=-2,and the OZI-rule violating contribution of sea quarks, parameterized as
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(N)=_{q=u,d,s}\mu (q)<N|\overline{s}s|N>0`$.

We shall refer to this approach  as a correlated current-quark picture of nucleons. We have then the following important sum rules (in n.m.)

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(N)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(3(P+N)\mathrm{\Sigma }^++\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\mathrm{\Xi }^0+\mathrm{\Xi }^{})`$ $`=`$ $`.06\pm .01,`$ (13)
$`\mu _N(\overline{s}s)=\mu (s)N|\overline{s}s|N=(1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{s}})^1\mathrm{\Delta }(N)`$ $`=`$ $`.11,`$ (14)
where the ratio d/s=1.55 follows from the correspondingly modified Eq.(4) (that is with $`Y`$ replaced by $`Y\mathrm{\Delta })`$). By definition, $`\mu _N(\overline{s}s)`$ represents the contribution of strange (”current”) quarks to nucleon magnetic moments. Numerically, our $`\mu _N(\overline{s}s`$ agrees fairly well with other more specific models ( see,e.g. . Actually, our Eqs. (13) and (14) are equivalent, up to the common factor $`(1/3)`$, which is the electric charge of the strange quark, to the half-sum of two relations in Ref. that refer to $`\mu _N(\overline{s}s)`$ and where the ratios of effective magnetic moments of quarks in different baryons should be taken the same. We stress that the sign of our $`\mu (\overline{s}s)`$ is opposite to one of the central measured value in the experiment SAMPLE .

The calculated quantity indicates violation of the OZI rule and the strange current quark contribution $`\mu _N(\overline{s}s)`$ is seen to constitute a sizable part of the isoscalar magnetic moment of nucleons (or, which is approximately the same, of the nonstrange constituent quarks)

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(P+N)=\mu (\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)+\mu (\overline{s}s)=.44,`$ (15)
This observation helps to understand the unexpectedly large ratio

$`BR\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{P}N\varphi +\pi }{\overline{P}N\omega +\pi }}\right)(10\pm 2)\%,`$ (16)
reported for the s–wave $`\overline{N}N`$ – annihilation reaction .

Indeed, the transition $`(\overline{P}N)_{swave}V+\pi `$, where $`V=\gamma ,\omega ,\varphi `$, is of the magnetic dipole type. Therefore, the transition operator should be proportional to the isoscalar magnetic moment contributions from the light u– and d–quarks and the strange s–quark, Eq.(25). The transition operators for the $`\omega `$– and $`\varphi `$–mesons are obtained from $`\mu (\overline{q}q)`$ and $`\mu (\overline{s}s)`$ through the well–known vector meson dominance model ( VDM ).Using the ”ideal” mixing ratio $`g_\omega :g_\varphi =1:\sqrt{2}`$ for the photon–vector–meson junction couplings and $`\mu _\omega :\mu _\varphi =\mu (\overline{q}q):\mu (\overline{s}s)`$ we get

$`BR\left({\displaystyle \frac{\overline{P}N\varphi +\pi }{\overline{P}N\omega +\pi }}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu (\overline{s}s)}{\sqrt{2}\mu (\overline{u}u+\overline{d}d)}}\right)^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{p_\varphi ^{c.m.}}{p_\omega ^{c.m.}}}\right)^36\%,`$ (17)
which is reasonably compared with data.

To estimate possible influence of the SU(3) breaking in the ratio of the weak axial-to-vector coupling constants we adopt the following prescription suggested by the success of our parameterization of the baryon magnetic moment values within constituent quark model. In essence, we assume that the leading symmetry breaking effect is produced by different renormalization of the $`\overline{q}qW`$\- strangeness-conserving and strangeness-nonconserving vertices with the participation of the constituent quarks. As to the baryon wave functions and the transition matrix elements of the standard octet (i.e. Cabibbo) currents, they will fulfill separately , within the strangeness-conserving or, respectively, the stranegeness-nonconserving coupling constants. Hence we have two sets of the $`SU(3)`$-symmetry relations but, in general, with different values of $`F`$\- and $`D`$-type coupling constants in each set.

So that, to obtain the contributions of the u-,d-, and s-flavoured quarks to the ”proton spin” (or, rather to certain combination of the axial current matrix elements), denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(p),\mathrm{\Delta }d(p)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }s(p)`$, the use should be made of baryon semileptonic weak decays with $`(\mathrm{\Delta }S=0)`$, treated with the help of the exact $`SU(3)`$-symmetry. It has been shown in Ref. that when both the strangeness-changing $`(\mathrm{\Delta }S=1)`$ and strangeness-conserving $`(\mathrm{\Delta }S=0)`$ transitions are taken for the analysis, then $`(D/F+D)_{ax}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=0,1}=.635\pm .005`$ while $`(D/F+D)_{ax}^{\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}=.584\pm .035`$ (which is more close to $`(D/D+F)_{mag}`$).

We list below two sets of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$-values, we have obtained from the data with inclusion of the QCD radiative corrections (e.g. and references therein) : $`\mathrm{\Delta }u(p).82(.83),\mathrm{\Delta }d(p).44(.37),\mathrm{\Delta }s=.10\pm .04(.19\pm .05)`$, where the values in the parentheses correspond to $`\alpha _D=(D/D+F)=.58`$. Concerning the very $`g_a(\mathrm{\Delta }S=1)`$-constants, we mention the following options. In all but one  analyses of the hyperon $`\beta `$-decays, the absence of the ”weak electricity” form factor $`g_2(Q^2)`$ due to induced second class weak current has been postulated from the very beginning. Following this way and taking $`g_a^{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n)=.34\pm .024`$, one gets  $`(F/D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}=.575`$, demonstrating difference from $`(F/D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=0}=.72`$ and the different tendency of deviation from $`(F/D)_{SU(6)}=2/3`$, the fact which has to be understood dynamically. The fit to all $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}ne\overline{\nu }`$ decay data of Ref.  with $`g_20`$ yields $`g_a=.20\pm .08`$ and $`g_2=+.56\pm .37`$. One cannot then define $`(F/D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=1}`$ because data for all other hyperons have been treated under the assumption $`g_2=0`$. However, noting close numerical values of two quantities

$`FD=g_a^{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}n)=.20\pm .08,`$
$`FD=g_a^{exp}(np)\sqrt{6}g_a^{exp}(\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Lambda })=.19\pm .04,`$
one can suggest, in this particular case, the universal value $`(F/D)_{\mathrm{\Delta }S=0,1}=.72`$ to get

$`g_a(\mathrm{\Lambda }p)=F+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D=.77;(.718\pm .015),`$ (18)
$`g_a(\mathrm{\Xi }^{}\mathrm{\Lambda })=F{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}D=.28;(.25\pm .05),`$ (19)
$`g_a(\mathrm{\Xi }^o\mathrm{\Sigma }^+)=F+D=1.26;(1.32\pm .20)`$ (20)
where the values in parentheses have been derived  from the analyses of data with the additional constraint $`g_2=0`$. The most significant difference in two sets of $`g_a`$ values is seen for the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }pe\overline{\nu }`$ decay which, therefore, lends itself as the best candidate for an alternative treatment of available or improved new data with the ”weak-electricity” $`g_2`$\- constant taken as a free parameter to be determined from data simultaneously with the axial-vector and weak-magnetism constants.

## 4 Concluding remarks

Besides importance of resolution of the problem on the presence and quantitative role of the weak second-kind current and corresponding form factors in the hyperon $`\beta `$-decay observables, one can mention also about major theoretical interest in the careful study of the strangeness-conserving $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^\pm \mathrm{\Lambda }e^\pm \nu (\overline{\nu })`$ transitions which would not only prove (or disprove) hypotheses about dependence of $`(F/D)`$-ratios on the $`\mathrm{\Delta }S`$, labelling the transitions, but also would provide information on the isospin breaking effects underlying the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^o`$ \- mixing.

There is presently well-justified experimental and theoretical interest concerning the question of hidden strangeness in the nucleon. The SAMPLE collaboration has recently reported the first measurement of the strange magnetic moment of the proton , which turned out very close to zero, but with rather large experimental errors, ”touching” both significant positive values of $`\mu _s`$ (in our normalization), as majority models also predict, as well as the opposite sign value, claimed mainly within chiral soliton models (e.g. , and references therein). For a detailed understanding about the strength of the various strange operators in the proton one has to wait until the dedicated programs at JLab, BATES (MIT) and MAMI (Mainz) will be fulfilled on the measurement of parity violation in the helicity dependence of electron-nucleon scattering in wider range of the momentum-transfers to separate the contributions of the charge, magnetic and axial terms, thus providing data about the basic quark structure of the nucleon.

## Acknowledgments

The author would like to express his deep gratitude to Prof. T. Morii for organization of the Workshop and for most warm hospitality extended to him. This work was also supported in part by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research grant No. 00-15-96737.