text:
# Quantum Hall Skyrmions in the framework of O(4) Non-linear Sigma Model

## I Introduction

Skyrmions are generally described by nonlinear sigma model. A smooth texturing of the spins can be described by an effective nonlinear sigma model where the spin is described as a unit vector $`𝐧(𝐫)`$. This spin vector $`𝐧`$ lies on a sphere $`S^2`$ where we may consider a magnetic monopole located at the centre. Skyrmions are characterized by the topological charge $`Z=𝑑𝐫q(𝐫)`$ where $`q=𝐧.(_x𝐧\times _y𝐧)/4\pi `$ is the Pontryagin density. Z is the winding number of the mapping $`𝐧(𝐫)`$ from the compactified space $`S^2`$ to the target space of the sigma model $`(S^2)`$ and is given by the homotopy $`\pi _2(S^2)=Z`$. The topological density is proportional to the deviation of the electron density from its uniform value $`\rho _0`$.

In analogy to the Ginzburg-Landau description of superconductivity, the Chern-Simons theory of quantum Hall systems was derived by Zhang, Hansson and Kivelson 5  which was subsequently extended by Lee and Kane 6  to describe the spin unpolarized quantum Hall liquid. In a quantum Hall fluid, the ground state has been found to be a fully spin polarized quantum ferromagnet. By noticing that the dynamics of quantum Hall system with a spin polarized ground state will follow that of a quantum ferromagnet and that the skyrmion is a charged object of the system, Sondhi et.al. s1 ; s2  proposed a phenomenological action which is valid for the long wave length and small frequency limit. In this scheme, the competition between the Zeeman and Coulomb terms sets the size and energy of the skyrmions and modifies the detailed form of their profiles. In case the Zeeman energy and Coulomb energy are taken to be vanishing, analytic expressions are available for the skyrmions and their energy is independent of their size. This scale invariance is broken by the Zeeman and Coulomb terms in the Lagrangian.

To study low energy excitations for partially polarized states a nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model has been developed 7  considering a two component quantum Hall system within a Landau-Ginzberg theory with two Chern-Simons gauge fields. It has been found that these excitations have finite energy due to the presence of the Chern-Simons gauge field and closely resemble the skyrmions in the usual nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model. Skyrmions in arbitrary polarized quantum Hall states are studied ssm  employing a doublet model taking into account two fields carrying the spin index in Chern-Simons term with a matrix valued coupling strength.

Skyrmion excitations in quantum Hall systems at $`\nu =1`$, using finite size calculations xh , is studied in spherical geometry where electrons reside on the surface of a sphere with a monopole at the centre. For a monopole of total magnetic flux $`N_\varphi =2\mu `$ the lowest Landau level degeneracy is $`2\mu +1`$. All single particle states in lowest Landau level have fixed angular momentum value $`\mu `$. At filling factor $`\nu =1`$ corresponding to the electron number $`N=2\mu +1`$ the ground state is spin polarized independent of the strength of the Zeeman splitting. When an additional flux is added or removed from the system, the ground state is a skyrmion (antiskyrmion) with topological charge $`Q=+1(1)`$. The energy gap is determined by the interplay of the Zeeman energy and electron-electron interaction.

In this note, we shall study the static properties of skyrmions in spherical geometry considering a $`O(4)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model in $`3+1`$ dimensional manifold. In some earlier papers rev11 ; bb  we have analyzed the hierarchy of quantum Hall states in spherical geometry from the view point of chiral anomaly and Berry phase. In this framework it is shown that the Magnus force acting on vortices and skyrmions in the quantum Hall system is generated by the background field associated with the chirality of the system bdm . The various polarization states of quantum Hall fluid is also studied and their low energy excitations are examined using a homotopic analysis bdp . The $`O(4)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model helps us to have two independent subalgebras each isomorphic to a $`SU(2)`$ algebra so that the left and right group can be taken to be associated with two mutually opposite orientations of the magnetization vector which resides on the $`2D`$ surface of the sphere. The homotopic analysis then suggests that for fully polarized states the low energy excitations are skyrmions. It is here shown that the addition of the quartic stability term introduced by Skyrme, known as the Skyrme term in the literature, will determine the size of the quantum Hall skyrmions in this framework. This also helps us to determine the spin and statistics of the skyrmion through the introduction of the topological $`\theta `$-term in the Lagrangian.

In sec.2 we recapitulate the study of skyrmion excitations in quantum Hall fluid when the system is described by means of the Zhang-Hansson-Kivelson model and modified by Lee and Kane to take into account the effect of spin. In sec.3 we shall describe quantum Hall skyrmions in spherical geometry considering a $`O(4)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model taking into account the Skyrme term and $`\theta `$-term. In sec.4 we shall determine the size and energy of the skyrmion in this formalism.

## II Quantum Hall Skyrmions in Planar Geometry

We here recapitulate the works on quantum Hall skyrmions on the basis of the bosonic theory of an electron which is viewed as a composite object of a boson and a flux tube carrying an odd multiple of flux quanta $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0=h/e`$ attached via a Chern-Simons term. We begin with the Landau-Ginzburg theory of the Hall effect introduced by Zhang, Hansson and Kivelson 5  and modified by Lee and Kane 6  to incorporate the effect of the spin. We consider the Lagrangian st

$`L=`$ $`i\varphi ^{}[_0i(a_0+eA_0)]\varphi `$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m^{}}}|[_ii(a_i+eA_i)]\varphi |^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(|\varphi |^2\rho _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }a_\mu _\nu a_\sigma `$
Here $`\varphi =(\varphi _1,\varphi _2)`$ is a two component complex scalar field. $`\theta `$ is the statistics parameter which takes the values $`\theta =(2n+1)\pi `$ so that the boson field $`\varphi `$ represents a fermion, $`A_\mu `$ the external electromagnetic field and $`m^{}`$ is the effective mass of the electron. To determine the size and energy of the skyrmions Zeeman and Coulomb interactions should be included. However, to study the topological features we can ignore them for the moment. We consider a solution with uniform density $`\rho =(|\varphi _1|^2+|\varphi _2|^2)=\rho _0`$ at filling fraction $`\nu =\frac{1}{2n+1}`$. In order to separate the amplitude and spin degrees of freedom we introduce the CP1 field $`𝐳`$ and we write

$$\varphi =\sqrt{\rho }𝐳$$
(2)
The Lagrangian (1) now takes the form

$`L=`$ $`i\rho 𝐳^{}[_0i(a_0+eA_0)]𝐳`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{2m^{}}}|[_ii(a_i+eA_i)]𝐳|^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2}}(\rho \rho _0)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\theta }}ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }a_\mu _\nu a_\sigma `$
Here $`𝐳`$ is a two component complex field with the constraint $`𝐳^{}𝐳=|z_1|^2+|z_2|^2=1`$.

One can now use the identity

$$\frac{\rho }{2m^{}}|[_ii(a_i+eA_i)]𝐳|^2=\frac{\rho }{8m^{}}(𝐧)^2+\frac{m^{}}{2\rho }𝐉^\mathrm{𝟐}$$
(4)
where $`𝐉=(J^1,J^2)`$ with

$$J^i=\frac{\rho }{m^{}i}[𝐳^{}_i𝐳i(a_i+eA_i)]$$
(5)
The local spin direction is given by

$$n^a=𝐳^{}\sigma ^a𝐳$$
(6)
and $`𝐧=(_1𝐧,_2𝐧)`$. The term $`\frac{\rho }{8m}(𝐧)^2`$ corresponds to the static nonlinear sigma model.

Now introducing Hubbard-Stratanovich transformation $`𝐉`$ with the relation $`J_0=\rho `$ so that the current 3-vector $`(J^0,J^1,J^2)`$ is promoted to the status of an independent dynamical variable, the Lagrangian can be written as

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& i\rho [𝐳^{}_0𝐳i(a_0+eA_0)]\hfill \\ & & +i[𝐳^{}_i𝐳i(a_i+eA_i)]J^i+\frac{m^{}}{2\rho }𝐉^2\hfill \\ & & \frac{\rho }{8m}(𝐧)^2\frac{\lambda }{2}(\rho \rho _0)^2+\frac{1}{4\theta }ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda }a_\mu _\nu a_\lambda \hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
Integrating over the $`U(1)`$ phase degree of freedom in $`𝐳`$ we arrive at the current conservation law $`_\alpha J_\alpha =0`$ and we have current 3-vector $`(\rho =J^0,J^1,J^2)`$ as the curl of a three dimensional vector field. One can set $`J_{[0]}^\mu =(\rho _0,0,0)`$ equal to $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }_\nu 𝒜_\sigma ^{[0]}`$ and

$$J^\mu J_{[0]}^\mu =ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }_\nu 𝒜_\sigma $$
(8)
Integrating out the Chern-Simons field $`a_\mu `$ and using the relation $`2\theta \rho _0=eB_z`$, we can finally arrive at the relation

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi 𝒥_S^\mu (𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})\theta J^\mu 𝒜_\mu \hfill \\ & & +\frac{m^{}}{2\rho }𝐉^2\frac{\rho }{8m^{}}(𝐧)^2\frac{\lambda }{2}(J^0J_{[0]}^0)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(9)
where

$$𝒥_S^\mu =\frac{1}{2\pi i}ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }_\mu \overline{z}_\sigma _\nu z_\sigma $$
(10)
is the skyrmion number current.

Defining the field strength term $`_{\mu \nu }=_\mu 𝒜_\nu _\nu 𝒜_\mu `$ to be the dual of the electron number current and adjusting the unit of length and time such that $`c=\sqrt{\lambda \rho _0/m^{}}`$, the velocity of density waves in the absence of magnetic field becomes unity, we can write

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi 𝒥_S^\mu (𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})\frac{1}{2}\theta ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }𝒜_\mu _{\nu \sigma }\hfill \\ & & \frac{\lambda }{4}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{8\lambda }(𝐧)^2\hfill \end{array}$$
(11)
It is noted that the skyrmion number current acts as a source for a topologically massive gauge field $`𝒜_\mu `$ st  and also sees the background field $`𝒜_\mu ^{[0]}`$.

Incorporating Zeeman and Coulomb terms Sondhi et.al. s1  considered the following modified form of the Lagrangian (1).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L(𝐫)\hfill & =& \varphi ^{}(𝐫)[_0i(a_0+eA_0)]\varphi (𝐫)]\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{2m^{}}|[_ii(a_i+eA_i)]\varphi (𝐫)|^2\hfill \\ & & \frac{1}{2}d^2r^{}V(𝐫𝐫^{})[|\varphi (𝐫)|^2\rho _0][|\varphi (𝐫^{})|^2\rho _0]\hfill \\ & & \frac{e^2}{4\theta }ϵ^{\mu \nu \sigma }a_\mu (𝐫)_\nu a_\sigma (𝐫)\frac{1}{2}g\mu _BB\varphi ^{}(𝐫)\sigma ^z\varphi (𝐫)\hfill \end{array}$$
(12)
Here $`V=e^2/ϵr`$ is the interparticle Coulomb potential and $`\mu _B`$ is the Bohr magneton.

Noting that $`\varphi _\alpha =\sqrt{\rho }z_\alpha `$ where $`z_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{}z_\alpha =1`$ and using the mapping $`n^a=𝐳^{}\sigma ^a𝐳`$, we can replace the CP1 field by an $`O(3)`$ sigma model field. Indeed, by observing that at the ground state the dynamics of the system is that of a ferromagnet with a long range interaction arising from the Coulomb interaction between the underlying electrons, we take into account the necessary terms and consider the Lagrangian st

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_{eff}\hfill & =& \frac{1}{2}\rho ^0𝐀(𝐧)._t𝐧\frac{1}{2}\rho ^s(𝐧)^2\hfill \\ & & +\frac{1}{2}g\rho _0\mu _B𝐧.𝐁\frac{e^2}{2ϵ}d^2r^{}\frac{q(𝐫)q(𝐫^{})}{|𝐫𝐫^{}|}\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
Here $`𝐀`$ is the vector potential of a unit magnetic monopole, $`\rho ^s`$ is the spin stiffness ($`\rho ^s=e^2/16\sqrt{2\pi }ϵl`$ for $`\nu =1`$), $`ϵ`$ is the dielectric constant and $`l`$ is the magnetic length. $`q(𝐫)=𝐧.(_x𝐧\times _y𝐧)/4\pi `$ is the topological density. This topological density is proportional to the deviation of the electron density $`\rho `$ from its uniform value; $`q=\nu (\rho \rho _0)`$. The topological charge is $`Z=𝑑𝐫q(𝐫)`$. For $`\nu =1`$, skyrmions with topological charge $`Z`$ carry electric charge $`Z|e|`$.

The Zeeman and Coulomb terms break the scale invariance. Their profiles now depend on the dimensionless ratio $`\stackrel{~}{g}=(g\mu _BB)/(e^2/ϵl^2)`$ of the Zeeman energy to Coulomb energy. For $`Z=1`$ skyrmions the scale invariant solution yields a Zeeman energy that diverges logarithmically with system size for any $`\lambda `$. This can be fixed by matching the scale invariant solution onto the exact asymptotic solution in the outer region. This suggest for $`Z=1`$ the size s3

$$\lambda =0.558l(\stackrel{~}{g}|\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{g}|)^{1/3}$$
(14)
and energy

$$E=\frac{e^2}{ϵl}[\sqrt{\frac{\pi }{32}}+0.622(\stackrel{~}{g}|\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{g}|)^{1/3}]$$
(15)
Indeed at large $`g`$ the quasiparticles are single particle-like and may carry charge and spin $`S_z=1/2`$ and have size $`l`$. At small $`g`$, they still carry charge $`\pm e`$ but diverge in size and have nontrivial spin with a divergent $`z`$-component of spin $`S_z`$ (the number of reversed spin) as well as divergent total spin.

## III Quantum Hall Skyrmions in $`3+1`$ dimensional manifold

We want to study the low energy topological excitations of the quantum Hall fluid within the framework of $`O(4)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model in $`3+1`$ dimensional manifold. In this geometry, electrons are placed on the surface of a sphere under the influence of an uniform radial magnetic field. The magnetic field is produced by a magnetic monopole of strength $`\mu `$ placed at the centre of the sphere. As we know, the angular momentum in the field of a magnetic monopole is given by

$$𝐉=𝐫\times 𝐩\mu \widehat{𝐫}$$
(16)
where $`\mu `$ can take the values $`0,\pm 1/2,\pm 1,\pm 3/2,\mathrm{}\mathrm{}..`$. Evidently, eigenvalues of $`𝐉`$ can take the values $`|\mu |`$, $`|\mu |+1`$, $`|\mu |+2`$,……. In this geometry the quantum Hall states can be depicted by a two-component spinor $`\left(\begin{array}{c}u\\ v\end{array}\right)`$ such that $`u=\mathrm{cos}\theta /2e^{i\varphi /2}`$ and $`v=\mathrm{sin}\theta /2e^{i\varphi /2}`$ b1  and

$$|\psi _{\nu =1}=\underset{i,j}{}(u_iv_jv_iu_j)$$
(17)
is the spin polarized ground state at $`\nu =1`$.

The generalized state for $`\nu =1/m`$, $`m`$ being an odd integer, is written as rev11 ; h1

$$|\psi _\nu =\underset{i<j}{}(u_iv_jv_iu_j)^{1/\nu }$$
(18)
However it should be added that at $`\nu =1`$ we have a non-interacting spectrum which is never a correspondence for $`\nu =1/m`$, with $`m`$ being an odd integer. Indeed FQH states correspond to interacting systems.

The skyrmion state can be written as

$$|\psi =C^{}\underset{k}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}v_k\\ \alpha u_k\end{array}\right)|\psi _\nu $$
(19)
where the spin texture is included within the components $`v_k`$ and $`u_k`$ and $`0\alpha 1`$.

Actually, if a smooth and monotonical function $`g(\theta )`$ is defined with $`g(0)=0`$ and $`g(\pi )=\pi `$ then the skyrmion state can be written as xh

$$\widehat{\varphi }(\mathrm{\Omega })=\mathrm{cos}(g(\theta )\theta )\widehat{e_r}+\mathrm{sin}(g(\theta )\theta )\widehat{e_\theta }$$
(20)
where $`\widehat{e_r}`$ and $`\widehat{e_\theta }`$ are the basis vectors. The size of a skyrmion is determined by the function $`g(\theta )`$ and $`g(\theta )=\theta `$ describes the hedgehog skyrmion with spin in the radial direction $`\widehat{r}`$.

This is the skyrmion state with the constraint $`|\widehat{\varphi }(\mathrm{\Omega })|=1`$.

The quantum state for the classical skyrmion $`\widehat{\varphi }(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ can be written as

$$|\psi =C.P\underset{k}{}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{sin}g(\theta _k)/2e^{i\varphi _k/2}\\ \mathrm{cos}g(\theta _k)/2e^{i\varphi _k/2}\end{array}\right)|\psi _\nu $$
(21)
where $`C`$ is the normalization constant, $`P`$ is the projection operator to the lowest Landau level and $`g(\theta )`$ controls the size of the skyrmion xh . From eqns. (19) and (21) it is seen that $`0\alpha 1`$ is determined from $`g(\theta )`$ and it controls the size of the skyrmion.

The size of the skyrmion can be defined by the position where spin direction is perpendicular to the radial (and spin) direction at either pole. With this convention, the skyrmion size is

$$\theta _0=2arc\mathrm{tan}\alpha $$
(22)
which equals $`\pi /2`$ for the hedgehog skyrmion with $`\alpha =1`$

Bychkov et. al. have shown by  that the quantum Hall skyrmions consist of a core whose size is defined by the interplay between the Zeeman and Coulomb energies and an additional length scale $`l_{sk}`$ which determines the tail of the spin distribution. This characteristic length is given by

$$l_{sk}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=2\sqrt{2/\pi }|\stackrel{~}{g}|(a_B/l^3)$$
(23)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ is the effective $`g`$ factor, $`a_B=ϵ\mathrm{}^2/me^2`$ is the Bohr radius, $`ϵ`$ being the dielectric constant and $`l`$ is the magnetic length. It is noted that as $`\stackrel{~}{g}0`$, $`l_{sk}\mathrm{}`$, we can take

$$\mathrm{cot}\theta /2=x/x_0$$
(24)
where $`x`$ and $`x_0`$ are two dimensionless parameters given by $`x=r/l_{sk}`$ and $`R=x_0l_{sk}`$, $`R`$ being the size of the skyrmion core region.

We can associate $`\alpha `$ with $`x_0/x`$ where $`x_01`$ and $`x1`$ i.e. for $`r`$ far away from the exponential tail of the skyrmion. It is pointed out that in the region $`x_0x1`$, $`r`$ is far outside the skyrmion core.

In the framework of $`O(4)`$ nonlinear $`\sigma `$-model the size of the skyrmion is determined by the quartic stability term, known as the Skyrme term. Indeed, taking the spin variable $`𝐳=U𝐳_\mathrm{𝟎}`$ where $`𝐳_0=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`USU(2)`$, we may write the nonlinear sigma model Lagrangian in terms of the $`SU(2)`$ matrices $`U`$ as sk

$$L=\frac{M^2}{16}(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\frac{1}{32\eta ^2}[_\mu UU^{},_\nu UU^{}]^2$$
(25)
where $`M`$ is a constant of dimension of mass and $`\eta `$ is a dimensionless coupling parameter. The $`\alpha `$ dependence may be incorporated through $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ where these parameters are taken as functions of $`\alpha `$.

To have a geometrical interpretation of the Skyrme term (eqn.(25)), we note that it effectively corresponds to the vorticity of the system which prevents it from shrinking it to zero size. In fact in an axisymmetric system where the anisotropy is introduced along a particular direction through the introduction of a magnetic monopole at the centre, the components of the linear momentum satisfy a commutation relation of the form

$$[p_i,p_j]=i\mu ϵ_{ijk}\frac{x^k}{r^3}$$
(26)
When the position space is a 3-sphere $`S^3`$ with a monopole at the centre, we can have a commutation relation of the form

$$[p_i,p_j]=\frac{i}{R}ϵ_{ijk}p_k$$
(27)
where R is proportional to the radius of the $`S^3`$. For a distorted sphere we can consider $`R`$ as a functional form $`R(\theta ,\varphi )`$ corresponding to the core radius of the skyrmion. We can define the core size of the skyrmion such that $`R=R_0(1\alpha )`$ where $`R_0`$ is the size of the skyrmion having minimal energy.

In view of this, in $`3+1`$ dimensions we can generalize the Lagrangian (11) incorporating the Skyrme term in the form

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L\hfill & =& 2\pi \stackrel{~}{𝒥}_\mu ^S(𝒜_\mu +𝒜_\mu ^{[0]})\frac{M^2}{16}Tr(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\frac{1}{32\eta ^2}Tr[_\mu UU^{},_\nu UU^{}]^2\hfill \\ & & \frac{\theta }{16\pi ^2}{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{4}_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
Here $`\theta =g/c^2`$ with $`g=\nu e^2/h`$ as Hall conductivity and $`{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is a Hodge dual given by

$${}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }_{\lambda \sigma }$$
(29)
This is associated with $`O(4)`$ nonlinear sigma model where the topological current is defined as

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒥}_\mu ^S=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}ϵ_{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }Tr(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\alpha U)(U^1_\beta U)$$
(30)
and $`𝒜_\mu [𝒜_\mu ^{[0]}]`$ is a four vector. It is to be mentioned that we have taken the kinematic term (second term in equation (28)) which takes into account spin waves, the Goldstone modes associated with a ferromagnetic ground state. The $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`U`$ is here defined as

$$U=n_0I+𝐧.\stackrel{}{\tau }$$
(31)
where the chiral fields $`n_0`$,$`n_1`$,$`n_2`$ and $`n_3`$ satisfy the relation $`n_i^2=1`$.

It may be noted that in $`2+1`$ dimension, we have the normalized $`3`$-vector field $`𝐧`$ with $`n_i^2=1`$ where $`n_i`$ corresponds to the local spin direction. In the $`O(4)`$ model $`n_i(i=1,2,3)`$ corresponds to this spin direction which live on the $`2`$-dimensional surface of the sphere where the extra field $`n_0`$ helps us to consider three ”boost” generators in $`(n_0,n_i)`$ planes. In view of this, we can consider two types of generators such that the generator $`M_k`$ rotates the $`3`$-vector $`𝐧(𝐱)`$ to any chosen axis and the boost generators $`N_k`$ would mix $`n_0`$ with the components of $`𝐧`$. We can now construct the following algebra

$$[M_i,M_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k$$

$$[M_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}N_k$$

$$[N_i,N_j]=iϵ_{ijk}M_k$$
(32)
which is locally isomorphic to the Lie algebra of the $`O(4)`$ group. This helps us to introduce the left and right generators

$$L_i=\frac{1}{2}(M_iN_i)$$

$$R_i=\frac{1}{2}(M_i+N_i)$$
(33)
which satisfy

$$[L_i,L_j]=iϵ_{ijk}L_k$$

$$[R_i,R_j]=iϵ_{ijk}R_k$$

$$[L_i,R_j]=0$$
(34)
Thus the algebra has split into two independent subalgebras each isomorphic to a $`SU(2)`$ algebra and corresponds to the chiral group $`SU(2)_LSU(2)_R`$. The left and right chiral group can now be taken to be associated with two mutually opposite orientations of the magnetization vector which resides on the $`2`$D surface of the sphere.

It may be mentioned that the $`P`$ and $`T`$ violating $`\theta `$-term $`(\frac{\theta }{16\pi ^2}{}_{}{}^{}_{\mu \nu }^{}_{\mu \nu })`$ in $`3+1`$ dimensions corresponds to the Chern-Simons term in $`2+1`$ dimension. This term is related to chiral anomaly and we have the Pontryagin index given by db

$$q=2\mu =\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}Tr^{}_{\mu \nu }_{\mu \nu }d^4x$$
(35)
It may noted that in $`2+1`$ dimensions, the topological current

$$J_\mu =\frac{1}{8\pi }ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }𝐧.(_\nu 𝐧\times _\lambda 𝐧)$$
(36)
may be related to the gauge field current

$$J_\mu =ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }_\nu 𝒜_\lambda $$
(37)
which helps us to write the Chern-Simons term as

$$W=\frac{\theta }{4\pi }d^3xϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }𝒜_\mu _\nu 𝒜_\lambda $$
(38)
Evidently this relates to the Hopf invariant which can be explicitly written in terms of $`SU(2)`$ matrix $`U(x)`$ which rotates the vector $`𝐧`$ to the chosen (third) axis $`𝐧.\stackrel{}{\tau }=U^1\tau _3U`$ and the Hopf invariant is given by

$$H=\frac{ϵ_{\mu \nu \lambda }}{24\pi ^2}d^3xTr(U^1_\mu U)(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)$$
(39)
which is a degree of mapping of the (2+1) dimensional space time into $`SU(2)`$ and is given by the homotopy $`\pi _3(S^3)=Z`$. In $`3+1`$ dimensions, if we consider Euclidean four dimensional space-time such that $`_{\mu \nu }=0`$ at all points on the boundary $`S^3`$ of a certain volume $`V^4`$ inside which $`_{\mu \nu }0`$ then the gauge potential tends to be a pure gauge in the limiting case towards the boundary i.e. we have

$$𝒜_\mu =U^1_\mu U,USU(2)$$
(40)
This then helps us to write the topological charge of quantum Hall skyrmions given by eqn.(38) as the winding number

$$Z=\frac{1}{24\pi ^2}_{S^3}𝑑S_\mu ϵ^{\mu \nu \lambda \sigma }[(U^1_\nu U)(U^1_\lambda U)(U^1_\sigma U)]$$
(41)
which is given by the homotopy $`\pi _3(S^3)=Z`$ and the electric charge is given by $`\nu eZ`$. We observe here that the Pontryagin index given by $`q=2\mu `$ in eqn.(35) introduces the Berry phase for quantum Hall states as $`\mu `$ represents magnetic monopole strength. Indeed, the flux through the sphere is $`2\mu `$ and the phase is given by $`e^{i\varphi _B}`$ where $`\varphi _B=2\pi \nu `$ (number of flux quanta enclosed by the loop). When a $`Z=1`$ skyrmion is moved around a closed loop it acquires a Berry phase $`2\pi \nu N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of skyrmions enclosed by the loop. To find the spin and statistics, we consider a process which exchanges two skyrmions in the rest frame of one of the skyrmions. This exchange effectively corresponds to the other skyrmion moving around the first in a half circle and hence it picks up a phase $`\pi \nu `$ which is the statistical phase of a skyrmion. For $`\nu =1`$ it is a fermion and $`\nu =1/m`$, $`m`$ being an odd integer it corresponds to an anyon in planar geometry. In general, the spin of the skyrmion having charge $`\nu eZ`$ is given by $`\nu Z/2`$.

## IV Skyrmion Size and Energy

From our above discussions, we now observe that the energy of a free skyrmion depends on the following two terms in the Lagrangian (28)

$$L=\frac{M^2}{16}(_\mu U^{}_\nu U)\frac{1}{32\eta ^2}[_\mu UU^{},_\nu UU^{}]^2$$
(42)
The static nonlinear sigma model Lagrangian corresponding to eqn. (42) gives rise to the energy integral as

$$E=d^3x\{\frac{M^2}{16}Tr(U^{}U)+\frac{1}{32\eta ^2}Tr[_iUU^{},_jUU^{}]^2\}$$
(43)
where $`(i,j=1,2,3)`$

To compute the energy, we take the Skyrme ansatz sk

$$U(x)=exp[iF(r)\stackrel{}{\tau }.\widehat{𝐱}]$$
(44)
where $`\stackrel{}{\tau }`$ are Pauli matrices, $`\widehat{𝐱}=\frac{𝐱_𝐢}{𝐫}`$ and $`F(0)=\pi `$ and $`F(r)0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$; $`r`$ is the spherical radius in $`3`$-dimensional manifold. We explicitly write $`U=\mathrm{cos}F(r)+i\stackrel{}{\tau }.\widehat{𝐱}\mathrm{sin}F(r)`$ with $`\mathrm{cos}F(r)=\frac{1(r/R)^2}{1+(r/R)^2}`$, $`\mathrm{sin}F(r)=\frac{2(r/R)}{1+(r/R)^2}`$. The energy integral becomes

$$E(R)=4\pi ^2M^2RI_1+2\pi ^2\frac{I_2}{\eta ^2R}$$
(45)
where

$$I_1=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x[\mathrm{sin}^2F(r)+x^2(\frac{F}{x})^2]=3.0$$

and

$$I_2=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑x[\frac{\mathrm{sin}^4F(r)}{x^2}+\mathrm{sin}^2F(r)(\frac{F}{x})^2]=1.5$$

where $`x=r/R`$. This gives the expression of energy

$$E(R)=12\pi ^2M^2R+\frac{3\pi ^2}{\eta ^2R}$$
(46)
The minimum of energy $`E(R)`$ is found from the relation

$$\frac{E(R)}{R}=12\pi ^2M^2\frac{3\pi ^2}{\eta ^2R^2}=0$$
(47)
which gives for $`E_{min}`$, the size as

$$R_0=\frac{1}{2M\eta }$$
(48)
and the energy

$$E_{min}=E(R_0)=12\pi ^2M/\eta $$
(49)
It is to be noted that the coupling parameters $`M`$ and $`\eta `$ are functions of $`\alpha `$ such that in the limit $`\alpha 0`$, $`M(\alpha )0`$ and $`\eta (\alpha )0`$ but $`M/\eta `$ is fixed.

We may compare $`E_{min}`$ with the scale invariant energy

$$E(0)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4\sqrt{2}}\frac{e^2}{ϵl}$$
(50)
which is obtained from eqn. (15) with $`g=0,V=0`$, in the Lagrangian (13). In this case energy is given by the pure nonlinear sigma model : the size of the skyrmion is infinite and the energy is independent of the size. So we may write

$$E(R_0)=12\pi ^2M/\eta =\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4\sqrt{2}}e^2/ϵl$$
(51)
Away from $`g=0`$, skyrmions acquire a size. Now matching this value for $`g1`$ so that the form of the solution in the core region is determined by the scale invariant term alone, we take $`R=R_0(1\alpha )`$ and we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E(R)\hfill & =& \frac{6\pi ^2M}{\eta }[(1\alpha )+\frac{1}{(1\alpha )}]\hfill \\ & & =\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4\sqrt{2}}e^2/ϵl\frac{1}{2}[2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(1\alpha )}]\hfill \end{array}$$
(52)
We can compare this with the standard result for energy with $`Z=1`$, s3

$$E(g)=\frac{\sqrt{\pi }}{4\sqrt{2}}\frac{e^2}{ϵl}[1+\frac{24.9}{4\pi }(\stackrel{~}{g}|ln\stackrel{~}{g}|)^{1/3}]$$
(53)
where $`\stackrel{~}{g}=(g\mu _BB)/(e^2/ϵl)`$ so that we can equate

$$\frac{1}{2}[2+\frac{\alpha ^2}{(1\alpha })]=1+\frac{24.9}{4\pi }(\stackrel{~}{g}|ln\stackrel{~}{g}|)^{1/3}$$
(54)
which suggests

$$\frac{\alpha ^2}{1\alpha }=\frac{24.9}{2\pi }(\stackrel{~}{g}|ln\stackrel{~}{g}|)^{1/3}$$
(55)
We must mention here that though the value of $`\alpha `$ is constrained in the region $`0\alpha 1`$ and $`\alpha =1`$ corresponds to the hedgehog skyrmion with spin in the radial direction but eqn. (52) suggests that $`\alpha =1`$ is a singularity point. Indeed, the relation $`R=R_0(1\alpha )`$ gives a nonzero size for $`\alpha =1`$ when $`R_0`$ is infinite. So in this case matching the minimum energy for $`g=0`$, $`V=0`$ and away from $`g=0`$ with $`g1`$ will not be meaningful. Indeed the solution $`\mathrm{cot}\theta /2=x/x_0`$ is valid except for a very narrow region around $`x=x_0`$ by . This implies that a small region around $`\alpha =1`$ will not give meaningful result for size and energy of the skyrmion. For comparison we have computed the energies of skyrmions in terms of $`\alpha `$ and it is found that up to $`\alpha =0.7`$ we have reasonable values of $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ beyond which $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ becomes large enough to be compatible with quantum Hall skyrmions \[Fig. 1\].

This suggests that in spherical geometry within the framework of $`O(4)`$ nonlinear sigma model in $`3+1`$ dimensional manifold we can determine the size of the skyrmion incorporating the Skyrme term in the Lagrangian. The ratio of the Zeeman energy and Coulomb energy can be encoded in it \[Fig. 2\].

It may be added here that very recently Wójs and Quinn qu  presented the numerical results for the spin excitation spectra of integral and fractional Hall systems in spherical geometry.

## V Discussion

Many authors have considered quantum Hall skyrmions in spherical geometry and studied different aspects of the system in terms of $`O(3)`$ nonlinear sigma model with success. In all these approaches, the electrons and hence the 3 (constrained) order parameter fields reside on the $`2`$-dimensional surface of the $`2+1`$-dimensional $`O(3)`$ model. To study the static properties of the skyrmions we have used here the $`3+1`$-dimensional $`O(4)`$ nonlinear sigma model which actually builds on a different manifold and possesses different number of order parameter fields. The extra order parameter field helps us to consider two independent $`SU(2)`$ algebras depicting two mutually opposite orientations of the magnetization vector which lives on the $`2`$-dimensional surface. In this framework with the homotopic analysis we have shown the existence/non-existence of skyrmions in fully polarized, unpolarized and partially polarized quantum Hall states bdp . The Skyrme term which gives rise to the stability of the soliton determines the size of quantum Hall skyrmions. Indeed, the distortion of the spherical shape can be incorporated through the angular dependence which can be conveniently introduced through a parameter $`\alpha `$ with $`0\alpha 1`$. Excepting a small region around $`\alpha =1`$, we can compare the result with the conventional $`2D`$ formalism when the size is determined by the Zeeman energy and Coulomb energy for small $`g`$. This helps us to encode the effect of the Zeeman energy and Coulomb energy in the parameter $`\alpha `$ and the size can be determined from the relation $`R=R_0(1\alpha )`$ where $`R_0`$ corresponds to the size which is characteristic of the minimum energy $`E(R_0)`$. In $`2D`$ formalism this minimum energy corresponds to $`\stackrel{~}{g}1`$ which may be matched with the scale invariant value when the energy is contributed by the spin stiffness term for $`g=0,V=0`$.

We have also shown that the spin and statistics of the skyrmion is given by the $`\theta `$-term. The skyrmion charge is given by $`\nu eZ`$ where $`Z`$ is the winding number associated with the homotopy $`\pi _3(S^3)=Z`$ and the spin is given by $`\nu Z/2`$. For $`Z=1`$, the skyrmion, when moving around a closed loop picks up a phase $`2\pi \nu N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of skyrmions enclosed by the loop. In a process which exchanges two skyrmions in the rest frame of one of the skyrmions, the exchange corresponds to the other skyrmion moving about the first in a half circle and hence it picks up a phase $`\pi \nu `$ which is the statistical phase.


format: text

text:
# Untitled Document

Secant varieties of Grassmann Varieties

M.V.Catalisano, A.V.Geramita, A.Gimigliano

Introduction:

The problem of determining the dimensions of the higher secant varieties of the classically studied projective varieties is a problem with a long and interesting history. The recent work by J. Alexander and A. Hirschowitz (see \[AH\], for example) completed a project that was underway for over 100 years (see \[Pa\], \[Te\], and \[W\]) and confirmed the conjecture that, apart from the quadratic Veronese varieties and a (few) well known exceptions, all the Veronese varieties have higher secant varieties of the expected dimension.

There has been no comparable success with the case of the Segre varieties (nor is there even a compelling conjecture) although there is much interest in this question - and not only among geometers. In fact, this particular problem is strongly connected to questions in representation theory, coding theory and algebraic complexity theory (see our paper \[CCG\] for some recent results as well as a summary of known results, and \[BCS\] for the connections with complexity theory). In this paper we investigate this same problem for another family of classically studied varieties, namely the Grassmann varieties in their Plücker embeddings. The dimensions of all the higher secant varieties to the Grassmannians of lines in projective space are well known (and we give a simple proof of this known result in Section 2) but, to the best of our knowledge, little more can be found in the classical or modern literature about this problem (although, see the comments of Ehrenborg in \[E\], and \[No\] for connections with coding theory).

In this paper we give some general results about the dimensions of the higher secant varieties to the Grassmann varieties. As a corollary we can calculate the dimensions of the chordal (or secant line) varieties to all the Grassmann varieties. Our result shows that (apart from the known cases) all these secant varieties have the expected dimension.

In Section 3 we discuss our search for deficient secant varieties to Grassmannians. We give new proofs that $`G(3,7)`$ and $`G(3,9)`$ have deficient secant varieties and also find a new Grassmannian with deficient secant varieties, namely $`G(4,8)`$. Finally some words concerning our methods. Our approach uses, as its first step, the fundamental observation of Terracini about secant varieties (the so-called Lemma of Terracini). This Lemma converts the problem of determining the dimension of a (higher) secant variety into one of finding the dimension of a certain linear space. The second step in our approach is to identify this linear space (via an exterior algebra version of apolarity) with a graded piece of an intersection of homogenous “fat ideals” in an exterior algebra. The final step consists of calculating the dimension of the appropriate piece of this ideal in the exterior algebra.

1. Preliminaries, Grassmannians and Exterior Algebras.

We recall a few elementary facts about exterior algebras and Grassmannians. Let $`V`$ be a finite dimensional vector space over the field $`K`$ (we will always assume that $`charK=0`$ and that $`K`$ is algebraically closed) and let $`dimV=n+1`$. Then $`(V)`$ denotes the exterior algebra of $`V`$. $`(V)`$ is a graded (non-commutative) ring such that $`((V))_k=^kV`$. It is well-known that $`^k(V)`$ is a finite dimensional vector space and that $`dim^k(V)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)`$. The elements of $`^k(V)`$ are called exterior k-vectors (and sometimes skew-symmetric tensors). An exterior $`k`$-vector $`T`$ is said to be decomposable if we can find vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_kV`$ such that $`T=v_1\mathrm{}v_k`$. We say that the exterior $`k`$-vector $`T`$ has $``$-rank $`=r`$ if it can be written as a sum of $`r`$ (but no fewer) decomposable $`k`$-exterior vectors.

It is natural to ask the following two questions:

$`1)`$ What is the least integer $`D(k,n+1)`$ so that every exterior vector in $`^k(V)`$ has $``$-rank $`D(k,n+1)`$?

$`2)`$ What is the least integer $`E(k,n+1)`$ for which there is a dense subset $`U^k(V)`$ (dense in the Zariski topology) such that every exterior vector in $`U`$ has $``$-rank $`E(k,n+1)`$? We will call this number the typical rank (called the essential rank in \[E\]) of $`^k(V)`$?

Our main focus in this paper will be on Question $`2)`$. We first recall the coordinate description of the canonical multilinear, alternating map

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\nu _k:& \underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{V\times \mathrm{}\times V}}:& & ^k(V)\\ \\ & (v_1,\mathrm{},v_k)& & v_1\mathrm{}v_k\end{array}.$$

Choose an ordered basis $`\{e_0,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ for $`V`$. We identify the elements of $`\underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{V\times \mathrm{}\times V}}`$ with $`k\times (n+1)`$ matrices having entries in $`K`$ by writing $`v_j=_{i=0}^na_{i,j}e_i`$ and letting $`M=(a_{i,j})`$ be the $`k\times (n+1)`$ matrix which has the coordinates of the vector $`v_j`$ as its $`j^{\mathrm{th}}`$ row. We will assume, from now on, that we have chosen such an ordered basis for $`V`$ and that we are making the identification above.

With the basis for $`V`$ as above, it is standard to choose, as an ordered basis for $`^kV`$, the set

$$\{e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}0i_1<\mathrm{}<i_kn\}$$

where the subsets $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}`$ are ordered lexicographically. With this choice the map $`\nu _k`$ can now be written

$$\nu _k(v_1,\mathrm{},v_k)=\underset{\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}}{}m_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}$$

where $`m_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}`$ is the $`k\times k`$-minor of $`M`$ formed by the columns $`i_1,i_2,\mathrm{},i_k`$.

It is clear from this description that $`v_1\mathrm{}v_k0`$ if and only if the matrix $`M`$ has rank $`k`$ i.e. if and only if $`\{v_1,\mathrm{},v_k\}`$ are a linearly independent set of vectors if and only if $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_k`$ (the linear space spanned by the vectors $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_k`$ ) is $`k`$-dimensional.

If $`\{v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_k^{}\}`$ is another set of $`k`$ vectors from $`V`$, and $`\{v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_k^{}\}`$ corresponds to the $`k\times (n+1)`$ matrix $`M^{}`$, then it is a standard fact of linear algebra that

$$v_1,\mathrm{},v_k=v_1^{},\mathrm{},v_k^{}\text{ }\text{ an invertible }k\times k\text{ matrix }A\text{ such that }M=AM^{}.$$

It follows that, in the notation above,

$$m_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}=(detA)m_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}^{}.$$
$`(\mathrm{})`$
These last considerations suggest that:

$`1)`$ we consider the map $`\nu _k`$ as being defined on the quotient space of $`\underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{V\times \mathrm{}\times V}}`$ given by the action of the group $`GL_k`$ and, in particular, only on those elements of the quotient space which have, as representative, a set of $`k`$ linearly independent vectors (equivalently, is represented by a $`k\times (n+1)`$ matrix of rank $`k`$), i.e. we should consider the map $`\nu _k`$ as being defined on the Grassmannian of $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of $`K^{n+1}V`$ (denoted $`G_{k,n+1}`$);

$`2)`$ we consider the target space of $`\nu _k`$ as $`P(^k(V))P^{N_k}`$ (where $`N_k=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)1`$) and we consider the coordinate functions on $`P^{N_k}`$ to be $`z_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}`$ where the sets $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\}`$ are chosen as above.

Remarks: $`1)`$ None of what we have described above is new, i.e. this is the usual description of the Plücker embedding of the Grassmannian of $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of an $`n+1`$-dimensional vector space into a projective space. We have insisted on recalling all the standard ideas of this embedding because we will be using the explicit description of this embedding later and we want to have all the notation present for the reader.

$`2)`$ Once we choose a basis for $`V`$ there is a natural 1-1 correspondence between the associated bases of $`^kV`$ and $`^{n+1k}V`$. It is well known that, if we use this corredspondence as an identification, the equations defining the Plücker embeddings of $`^kV`$ and $`^{n+1k}V`$ into $`P^{N_k}=P^{N_{n+1k}}`$ are the same. Thus, for the remainder of this paper we will only consider the Grassmanians $`G_{k,n+1}`$ where $`k[(n+1)/2]`$.

We will have occasion to use another standard fact from linear algebra, namely: two matrices of size $`r\times s`$ have the same row space if and only if their row reduced echelon forms are equal.

The way we will use this fact is that we will consider, as representatives of the Grassmannian, $`G_{k,n+1}`$, those matrices of size $`k\times (n+1)`$ which have rank $`k`$ and which are in row-reduced echelon form. By the comment above, these are precisely the matrices which correspond to the different $`k`$-dimensional subspaces of $`V`$ and on which the map $`\nu _k`$ is now being defined.

Definition 1.1: Let $`XP^N`$ be a closed irreducible projective variety; the $`s^{th}`$ (higher) secant variety of $`X`$ is the closure of the union of all linear spaces spanned by $`s`$ points of $`X`$. We will use $`X^s`$ to denote the $`s^{th}`$ secant variety of $`X`$. There is an “expected dimension” for $`X^s`$: i.e. if $`dimX=n`$, one “expects” that $`dimX^s`$ = min$`\{N,sn+s1\}`$. This estimate comes from observing that choosing $`s`$ points from $`X`$ gives $`sn`$ parameters and, having made that choice, we are looking at points on a projective space of dimension $`s1`$. Thus there are $`sn+(s1)`$ parameters, assuming all choices were independent. Of course, the secant varieties to a variety already embedded in $`P^N`$ cannot have a dimension which exceeds $`N`$. Putting these two things together gives the “expected” dimension for the variety $`X^s`$ that we wrote above. Since it need not always be the case that the parameters mentioned above are independent, it is not always the case that $`X^s`$ has the “expected dimension”. In such a case we have $`dimX^s<`$ min$`\{N,sn+s1\}`$ and we say that $`X^s`$ is defective. A measure of this “defectiveness” is given by the quantity min$`\{N,sn+s1\}dimX^s`$.

Let us go back to the embedded Grassmannian, $`\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})P^{N_k}`$. Since this variety parameterizes the decomposable exterior vectors in $`^k(V)`$, its secant varieties $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$ can be viewed as the closure of the locus of exterior vectors having $``$-rank $`=s`$. Hence we have another interpretation of the numbers $`E(k,n+1)`$ we introduced above. More precisely: Fact: Let $`V`$ be a $`K`$-vector space with $`dim_KV=n+1`$, then:

$$E(k,n+1)=\mathrm{min}\{s|[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s=P^{N_k}\}.$$

Moreover, information about the dimension of $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$, for values of $`s`$ different from $`E(k,n+1)`$, will tell us about the stratification of $`P(^kV)`$ with respect to $``$-rank. Before proceeding it is worthwhile to recall that the dimensions of all the secant varieties to the Grassmannian of 2-dimensional subspaces of an $`n+1`$-dimensional space, i.e. the dimensions of $`[\nu _2(G_{2,n+1})]^s`$, are known (e.g. see \[Z\] ). Also, some results on $`E(k,n+1)`$ (from a more algebraic and combinatorial point of view) can be found in \[E\].

One of the main tools we will use to find the dimensions of secant varieties is the famous Lemma di Terracini. We recall that lemma now.

Lemma: (Terracini’s Lemma) Let $`X`$ be an irreducible variety in $`P^n`$ and let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_s`$ be generic points of $`X`$. Let $`T_{P_i}`$ be the projectivized tangent space to $`X`$ at $`P_i`$ and denote by $`T_{P_1},\mathrm{},T_{P_s}`$ the (projective) linear subspace of $`P^n`$ spanned by the $`T_{P_i}`$. Then,

$$dimX^s=dimT_{P_1},\mathrm{},T_{P_s}.$$

In view of Terracini’s Lemma, we need a good description of the tangent space to a point of $`\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})P^{N_k}`$. We do this by studying the differential of the map $`\nu _k`$ above. Since it is immaterial which point of $`\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})`$ we consider, we will consider the point $`\nu _k(M)`$, for $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right)`$, where $`I_k`$ is the $`k\times k`$ identity matrix and $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the $`k\times (n+1k)`$ matrix of zeroes.

The image of this point of the Grassmannian is the point $`[1:0:\mathrm{}:0]`$ of the Plücker embedding in $`P^{N_k}`$. This is a point in the affine piece of $`P^{N_k}`$ which is the complement of the closed set $`V(z_{0,1,2,\mathrm{},k1})`$, i.e. it is the point in $`A^{N_k}`$ whose affine coordinates are $`(0,0,\mathrm{},0)`$.

The points of the Grassmannian, $`G_{k,n+1}`$, with image in this affine piece are all represented by matrices in row reduced echelon form of the type $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& A\end{array}\right)`$, where $`A`$ is any matrix of size $`k\times (n+1k)`$. Thus, an affine version of the map $`\nu _k`$ can be described by:

$$\nu _k:A^{k(n+1k)}P^{N_k}\backslash V(z_{0,1,2,\mathrm{},k1})A^{N_k}=A^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)1}$$

where, if $`A`$ is the $`k\times (n+1k)`$ matrix which represents a point of $`A^{k(n+1k)}`$, then the coordinates of the image of $`A`$ are given by considering all the maximal minors of $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& A\end{array}\right)`$ except the first minor, i.e the minor corresponding to the first $`k`$ columns.

We now want to compute the linear transformation $`d\nu _k(M)`$ explicitly. Since we know that $`\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})`$ is a smooth variety of dimension $`k(n+1k)`$, we are not so interested in the rank of this linear transformation (it has to be $`k(n+1k)`$). Rather, what we need is an explicit description of the vectors in the image of this linear transformation.

Since $`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right)`$ corresponds to the origin of $`A^{k(n+1k)}`$, the tangent space to $`M`$ can be thought of as all the matrices $`B`$ of size $`k\times (n+1k)`$. A curve in $`A^{k(n+1k)}`$ through $`M`$ with tangent vector $`B`$ at $`M`$ is given by the line $`\lambda B`$, where $`\lambda K`$. The image (under $`\nu _k`$) of a particular point on this line (call it $`\lambda _0B`$) is given by the $`k\times k`$ minors of the matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}I_k& \lambda _0B\end{array}\right)`$ (not the first minor). The minors which involve all but 1 column of $`I_k`$ give us all the possible $`\lambda _0b_{i,j}`$, where $`b_{i,j}`$ runs through all the entries of $`B`$, while those minors which involve all but $`r`$ columns of $`I_k`$ give us $`\lambda _0^r()`$ where $``$ is some $`r\times r`$ minor of $`B`$. Thus the image of $`B`$ under the differential $`d\nu _k(M)`$ is:

$$d\nu _k(M)(B)=lim_{\lambda 0}(1/\lambda )(\nu _k(\lambda B)\nu _k(0))$$

It is easy to see that, in the limit, we get the entires $`b_{i,j}`$, wherever there was a $`\lambda b_{i,j}`$, and a 0 wherever there was a $`\lambda ^r()`$ for $`r>1`$. Put another way, the affine cone over $`T_{\nu _k(M)}(\nu _k(G_{k,n+1}))`$ is:

$$\{(\mathrm{},c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k},\mathrm{})A^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)}\begin{array}{c}\text{where }c_{i_1,\mathrm{},i_k}=0\text{ if more than one of }\\ \text{ }i_1,\mathrm{},i_k\text{ is different from }0,1,\mathrm{},k1\text{ }\end{array}\}.$$

I.e. it is the vector subspace of $`^k(V)`$ generated by all the $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_k}`$ where at least $`(k1)`$ of the $`i_j`$’s are in $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},k1\}`$. Recall that there is a natural “apolarity” in the exterior algebra $`(V)`$, i.e. there is a perfect pairing

$$^k(V)\times ^{n+1k}(V)^{n+1}VK$$

induced by the multiplication in $`(V)`$.

Thus, if $`Y`$ is any subspace of $`^k(V)`$, we can associate to $`Y`$, its perpendicular space $`Y^{}^{n+1k}(V)`$ where

$$Y^{}:=\{w^{n+1k}(V)vw=0\text{ for all }vY\}.$$

Of course, $`(Y^{})^{}=Y`$ and from standard facts of linear algebra we have

$$dim_KY^{}+dim_KY=dim_K^k(V)=dim_K^{n+1k}(V).$$

Now, if we let $`Y=T_{\nu _k(M)}(\nu _k(G_{k,n+1}))`$ (with $`M`$ as above) then

$$Y^{}=e_{j_1}\mathrm{}e_{j_{n+1k}}\text{ at least two of }\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_{n+1k}\}\text{ are in }\{0,1,\mathrm{},k1\}.$$

Put another way,

$$Y^{}=[(e_0,\mathrm{},e_{k1})2]_{n+1k}$$
$`()`$
i.e. $`Y^{}`$ is the degree $`n+1k`$ part of the square of the ideal of $`(V)`$ generated by $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_{k1}`$.

Since, quite generally, whenever $`W_1,\mathrm{},W_s`$ are subspaces of $`^k(V)`$ we have that

$$(W_1+\mathrm{}+W_s)^{}=W_1^{}\mathrm{}W_s^{}$$

we obtain, by applying Terracini’s Lemma and the results just obtained above, that:

Proposition 1.2: Let $`V`$ be a vector space of dimension $`n+1`$ and let

$$_1=\{v_{1,1},\mathrm{},v_{k,1}\},\mathrm{},_s=\{v_{1,s},\mathrm{},v_{k,s}\}$$

be a collection of $`s`$ sets of $`k`$ generic vectors in $`V`$. Let $`I_j=(v_{1,j},\mathrm{},v_{k,j})(V)`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},s`$ and let

$$W=(I_12\mathrm{}I_s2)_{n+1k}$$

Then the dimension of $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$ is

$$dim_KW^{}1=\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)dim_KW\right]1=\left[\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)1\right]dim_KW$$

. $``$

If the subspaces $`V_i`$, spanned by the $`_i`$ above, are as “disjoint as possible”, we expect that

$$dim_KW=max\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)s[k(n+1k)+1],0\}$$

i.e. that

$$dim[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s=\mathrm{min}\{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)1,s[k(n+1k)]+(s1)\}$$

which is what we called the expected dimension  of $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$. I.e. if $`W`$ has the expected dimension then so does $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$. Moreover, if $`W`$ has more than the expected dimension then the difference is precisely what we called the defectiveness of $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$.

Remark: Notice that as long as $`ksn+1`$ we can choose the vectors $`v_{i,j}`$ to be part of the basis $`\{e_0,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of $`V`$. It is precisely this case we will consider in the next section.

2. The “monomial” case. In this section we will suppose that $`ksn+1`$ and let

$$W=[(e_0,\mathrm{},e_{k1})2\mathrm{}(e_{ksk},\mathrm{},e_{ks1})2]_{n+1k}.$$

By analogy with the case of ideals in the symmetric algebra of a free module, we call call such ideals ”monomial ideals” of the exterior algebra. Thus, we can view $`W`$ as the degree $`n+1k`$ part of a monomial ideal (the intersection of $`s`$ squares of monomial ideals).

We have the following theorem: Theorem 2.1: Let V,n,k be as in the previous section. Then: i) if $`k=2`$ then $`[\nu _2(G_{2,n+1})]^s`$ is defective for  $`s<E(2,n+1)=\frac{n+1}{2}`$ with defectiveness  $`2s(s1)`$; ii) while if $`k3`$ and $`ksn+1`$, then $`[\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})]^s`$ has the expected dimension.

Proof: The case $`k=2`$ is known (e.g. see \[E\] or also \[Z\]) but we give the proof here for the sake of completeness and also because the “monomial ideal” approach makes it quite easy. First, assume that $`2sn+1`$. We have to consider the vector space

$$W=[(e_0,e_1)2(e_2,e_3)2\mathrm{}(e_{2s2},e_{2s1})2]_{n1}$$

Once we note that $`(e_i,e_j)2=(e_ie_j)`$ we have that

$$W=(e_0e_1\mathrm{}e_{2s2}e_{2s1})_{n1}$$

Thus, $`W`$ will trivially be $`=\{0\}`$ if and only if $`n1<2s`$. This immediately gives that

$$E(2,n+1)=\frac{n+1}{2}.$$

When $`n12s`$, we get that a basis for $`W`$ is given by the decomposable exterior vectors of the form:

$$e_0e_1\mathrm{}e_{2s1}e_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}e_{\alpha _t},$$

where $`t=n12s`$ and $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _t`$ can be any $`t`$ elements in $`\{2s,\mathrm{},n\}`$. So,

$$dim_KW=dim_K(^te_{2s},\mathrm{},e_n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2s+1}{n2s1}\right)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n2s+1}{2}\right).$$

A simple computation shows that this is not the expected dimension for $`W`$ (the expected dimension is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{2}\right)s(2n1)`$ in this case) and that the defectiveness is $`\delta =2s22s=2s(s1)`$. This completes the proof of $`i)`$.

As for $`ii)`$, let $`k3`$ and $`ksn+1`$. Recall that we may always suppose that $`k(n+1)/2`$ (see Remark 2 before Definition 1.1).

Case 1: Suppose that $`2s>n+1k`$.

In order for there to be a monomial $`e_{i_1}\mathrm{}e_{i_{n+1k}}`$ in $`W`$ we must have at least two of $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_{n+1k}\}`$ from each of the $`s`$ subsets

$$\{0,\mathrm{},k1\},\{k,\mathrm{},2k1\},\mathrm{},\{ksk,\mathrm{},ks1\}.$$

So, if $`2s>n+1k`$ this will automatically give that $`W=0`$. It remains to check that, under the given hypothesis on $`s,n`$ and $`k`$, the expected dimension of $`W`$ is also 0.

Observe that in order to have: $`k3,ksn+1`$ and $`2s>n+1k`$ we must have:

$$\frac{n+1k}{2}<s\frac{n+1}{k}.$$
$`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$
This implies that

$$k2k(n+1)+2(n+1)>0$$
$`(\mathrm{})`$
The discriminant of the quadratic expression in $`(\mathrm{})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(n+1)(n7)`$, so for $`n<7`$, the quadratic expression has the same sign for every $`k`$. Since the coefficient of $`k2`$ is positive this means that $`(\mathrm{})`$ is always satisfied for such $`n`$.

Now, the conditions: $`k3`$, $`n6`$, $`ks7`$, and $`2k7`$ has only one solution: $`k=3,s=2,n=5`$. A quick check shows that for these parameters the expected dimension for $`W`$ is indeed $`0`$. This gives $`E(3,6)=2`$ and $`\nu _3(G_{3,6})2=P^{14}`$ as required.

When $`n=7`$, the only possibility for $`k`$ is 3 and there is no $`s`$ satisfying $`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$.

So, suppose that $`n8`$. The quadratic equation associated to $`(\mathrm{})`$ then has two distinct roots

$$r_1=\frac{n+1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}<\frac{n+1}{2}+\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}=r_2$$

Thus $`(\mathrm{})`$ can be satisfied only for $`kr_1`$ and $`kr_2`$. But, $`r_2>\frac{n+1}{2}`$, so we need only consider $`kr_1`$.

Notice that, for $`n>8`$, $`\frac{n+1}{2}\frac{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}}{2}<3`$, so only case left to consider is $`n=8`$ and $`k=3`$ and there is no $`s`$ satisfying $`(\mathrm{}\mathrm{})`$ for those values of $`n`$ and $`k`$.

This completes Case 1.

Case 2: $`2sn+1k`$.

In this case $`W`$ is certainly $`0`$. Since $`W`$ is the degree $`n+1k`$ part of a monomial ideal, to compute $`dim_KW`$ it is enough to count all the monomials of degree $`n+1k`$ which are NOT in $`W`$.

These are the monomials $`e_{\alpha _1}\mathrm{}e_{\alpha _{n+1k}}`$ with the property that, when we choose $`\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n+1k}`$ from $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ we must make sure that from at least one of the $`s`$ subsets

$$\{0,\mathrm{},k1\},\{k,\mathrm{},2k1\},\mathrm{},\{(s1)k,\mathrm{},sk1\}$$

we have chosen either nothing or one index.

If we concentrate at first (say) on the subset $`\{0,\mathrm{},k1\}`$, then we need to choose $`n+1k`$ elements from $`\{0,\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that all $`n+1k`$ are outside $`\{0,\mathrm{},k1\}`$ or at most one is in $`\{0,,\mathrm{},k1\}`$

Since there are exactly $`n+1k`$ elements outside $`\{0,\mathrm{},k1\}`$, we have only 1 choice if we choose nothing from $`\{0,\mathrm{},k1\}`$. However, there are $`n+1k`$ subsets of $`\{k,\mathrm{},n\}`$ consisting of $`(n+1k)1`$ elements and to those we can add any one of the $`k`$ elements in $`\{0,\mathrm{},k1\}`$. This gives us a total of $`1+k(n+1k)`$ choices. Since we can do this for each of the $`s`$ subsets of $`k`$ elements above, we get a total of $`s[k(n+1k)+1]`$ choices. I.e. there are exactly $`s[k(n+1k)+1]`$ monomial of degree $`n+1k`$ outside $`W`$. Since this is precisely the expected codimension of $`W`$, the theorem is proved.

The previous result has the following immediate corollary: Corollary 2.2: Let $`V,n,k`$ be as above but suppose that $`k3`$. Then all the chordal varieties, $`\nu _k(G_{k,n+1})2`$ have the expected dimension. 3. Some Final Remarks

Since there appears to be so little in the literature about secant varieties to Grassmannians (but lots of folklore) we would like to collect some scattered results we have found and record them in this section. This will include an (apparently) new example of a deficient variety.

First, let $`m,n,d`$ be three positive integers such that $`m=n+d1`$. Let $`V`$, $`W`$ be vector spaces over $`K`$ such that $`dim_KV=n`$ and $`dim_KW=m`$. Let $`\varphi _d:P^{n1}P^t`$ be the Veronese embedding (and so $`t=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{m}{d}\right)1`$). The Plücker embedding of $`^dW`$ is also in $`P^t`$ since, as Ehrenborg pointed out in \[E\], there is a 1-1 correspondence beetween $`d`$-subsets of an $`m`$-set and $`d`$-multisubsets of an $`n`$-set.

This suggests that in looking for deficient Grassmannians we consider all the deficient Veronese varieties. We do that now.

Case 1: All the quadratic Veronese varieties are defective, i.e. when $`d=2`$ we can choose $`n`$ arbitrarily. What about the corresponding Grassmannians? For $`m=4,5`$ the Grassmannian of lines is not defective, for trivial reasons. However, it is the case that all the other Grassmannians of lines are defective. (See Theorem 2.1 i) ). This is hopeful.

Case 2: There are exactly four other defective Veronese varieties. They correspond to:

$`i)`$ $`d=4`$, $`n=3`$ and hence $`m=6`$;

$`ii)`$ $`d=4`$, $`n=4`$ and hence $`m=7`$;

$`iii)`$ $`d=3`$, $`n=5`$ and hence $`m=7`$;

$`iv)`$ $`d=4`$, $`n=5`$ and hence $`m=8`$.

Now, $`i)`$ suggests we look at $`\nu _4(G_{4,6})`$. Since $`^4K6^2K6`$, this is indeed defective, it is (again) a Grassmannian of lines.

¿From $`ii)`$ we consider $`\nu _4(G_{4,7})`$. Since $`4K73K7`$ we should check if $`\nu _3(G_{3,7})`$ is defective. The secant plane variety should fill $`P^{34}`$ but it does not, as we will now show.

By our method, we have to determine $`dimZ`$, where

$$Z=[(e_0,e_1,e_2)2(e_3,e_4,e_5)2(e_6,v,w)2]_4$$

where $`\{e_0,\mathrm{},e_6\}`$ is a basis of $`W`$ and $`v`$, $`w`$ are generic vectors in $`W`$.

We can actually suppose that $`v`$,$`w`$ $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_5`$, in fact if $`v=e_6+v_1`$ and $`w=e_6+w_1`$ we get:

$$(e_6,v,w)2=(e_6v,e_6w,vw)=(e_6v_1,e_6w_1,v_1w_1)=(e_6,v_1,w_1)2.$$

Notice that:

$$Z^{}=[(e_0,e_1,e_2)2(e_3,e_4,e_5)2]_4=e_{i_1}e_{i_2}e_{i_3}e_{i_4}_4,$$

$$\mathrm{with}i_1<i_2\{0,1,2\},i_3<i_4\{3,4,5\}.$$

Thus, if there is something in $`Z`$ it must be of the form $`vw\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2e_0,\mathrm{},e_5`$. Actually, by the genericity of $`v,w`$ we can suppose that $`e_0,\mathrm{},e_5=v,w,e_1,\mathrm{},e_4`$, hence we can consider $`\mathrm{\Gamma }e_1,\mathrm{},e_4`$. We can even forther suppose that $`v=e_0+\mathrm{}+e_5`$ and $`w=_{i=0}^5b_ie_i`$ and then it is enough to insure that for each of the 6 monomials, $`m`$, in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, the summands of $`vwm`$ which are not in $`Z^{}`$ are all $`=0`$. This gives us 6 linear equations in the $`b`$’s whose coefficient matrix is:

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}b_3b_0& b_0b_2& 0& b_1b_0& 0& 0\\ b_4b_0& 0& b_0b_2& 0& b_1b_0& 0\\ b_5b_0& 0& 0& 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& 0& 0& b_5b_0\\ 0& b_5b_4& b_3b_5& 0& 0& b_5b_1\\ 0& 0& 0& b_5b_4& b_3b_5& b_5b_2\end{array}\right)$$

This is a matrix whose rank is $`=5`$ and hence we get $`dimZ=1`$, i.e. $`\nu _3(G_{3,7})`$ is defective for secant $`P^2`$’s, with defectivity 1.

Note: Apparently this example is well-known, as we recently learned from J. Landsberg (private communication). We were unable to find a reference to it in the literature.

From $`iii)`$ we are again brought to consideer $`\nu _3(G_{3,7})`$, which we have just done.

From,$`iv)`$ we should consider $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$. We now show that this is indeed a defective variety.

The Grassmannian $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$ lies in $`P^{69}`$. Since $`dim\nu _4(G_{4,8})=16`$ we have, by our Corollary 2.2, that $`dim(\nu _4(G_{4,8}))2=33`$, the expected dimension. One expects that $`dim(\nu _4(G_{4,8}))3=50`$, but we will show that $`(\nu _4(G_{4,8}))3=49`$ instead.

By what we have seen before, it will be enough to prove that $`dim_KW=20`$, where if $`H_1,H_2`$ and $`H_3`$ are three generic subspaces of $`K8`$, each of dimension 4, with bases $`\{v_{i1},v_{i2},v_{i3},v_{i4}\}`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, then

$$W=[(v_{11},v_{12},v_{13},v_{14})2(v_{21},v_{22},v_{23},v_{24})2(v_{31},v_{32},v_{33},v_{34})2]_4$$

in the exterior algebra $`(K8)`$.

We can assume that $`H_1=e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3`$, where the $`e_i`$ are part of a standard basis for $`K8`$. Consider $`H_3H_2,e_i`$. This is a one dimensional subspace of $`H_3`$ which we’ll denote by $`w_i`$ By the genericity of the subspaces we may suppose that $`\{w_0,w_1,w_2,w_3\}`$ are a basis for $`H_3`$. But, $`w_i=e_i+u_i`$ for $`u_iH_2`$ and again, using the genericity, we can assume that $`\{u_0,u_1,u_2,u_3\}`$ are a basis for $`H_2`$.

Putting all this together we can assume, without loss of generality, that

$$H_1=e_0,e_1,e_2,e_3,H_2=e_4,e_5,e_6,e_7\text{ with }\{e_0,\mathrm{},e_7\}\text{ a basis for }K8$$

and

$$H_3=e_0+e_4,e_1+e_5,e_2+e_6,e_3+e_7.$$

Now a simple calculation using Macaulay 2 shows that $`dim_KW`$ is indeed 20 and we are done. In fact, a simple hand check shows that the 20 forms in this space are:

$$e_0e_1e_4e_5;e_0e_2e_4e_6;e_0e_3e_4e_7;$$

$$e_1e_2e_5e_6;e_1e_3e_5e_7;e_2e_3e_6e_7,$$

the 12 forms

$$e_ie_{i+4}(e_je_{k+4}\pm e_ke_{j+4});ijk,i,j,k\{0,1,2,3\}$$

and the two forms

$$(e_0e_5\pm e_1e_4)(e_2e_7\pm e_3e_6);(e_0e_6\pm e_2e_4)(e_1e_6\pm e_3e_5).$$

This shows that$`(\nu _4(G_{4,8}))3`$ is 1-defective. One wonders about the dimensions of the other secant varieties of $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$. A calculation (using Macaulay 2) shows that $`(\nu _4(G_{4,8}))5=P^{69}`$. It is not hard to show that if we fix three general points $`P`$, $`Q`$, and $`R`$ on the Grassmannian in $`P^{69}`$ then the linear system of hyperplanes which contain the tangent spaces $`T_P`$ and $`T_Q`$ and which also contain $`R`$ have exactly a fixed line in the tangent plane $`T_R`$. (This is the geometric reason why the secant planes to $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$ are 1-deficient.)

Hence, when we take a fourth point $`S`$ on $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$ and consider the linear system of hyperplanes on $`P^{69}`$ which contains $`T_P`$, $`T_Q`$, and $`T_R`$ and which also contain S, that system contains three fixed lines in $`T_S`$. We expect those lines to be linearly independent and hence that the 4-secants to $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})`$ are 4-defective. Calculations with Macaulay 2 seem to confirm that expectation.

It would be tempting, at this point, to conjecture that inasmuch as we have exhausted the list of defective Veronese varieties then we have also exhausted the list of defective Grassmannians! Indeed, we hoped that this might be so, but J. Landsberg informed us that he had a communication from M. Catalano-Johnson asserting that $`\nu _3(G_{3,9})`$ is also defective.

Since we couldn’t find that example in the literature we provide a proof now. Notice that, in view of Theorem 2.1 ii, the space of secant $`P^2`$’s does have the correct dimension. So, we will now show that $`(\nu _3(G_{3,9}))4`$ has dimension 73 instead of the expected dimension 75.

The argument follows the same lines we used to find the defectivity of $`\nu _4(G_{4,8})3`$. Following the discussion in $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 2 we need to find $`dim_KW`$, where if $`H_i,i=1,\mathrm{},4`$ are 4 generics 3-dimensional subspaces of $`K9`$ and a basis for $`H_i`$ is $`\{v_{i1},v_{i2},v_{i3}\}`$, then

$$W=\left[\underset{i=1}{\overset{4}{}}(v_{i1},v_{i2},v_{i3})2\right]_6.$$

It is easy to see that, with no loss of generality, we can assume the four subspaces are:

$$H_1=e_1,e_2,e_3,H_2=e_4,e_5,e_6,H_3=e_7,e_8,e_9$$

and

$$H_4=e_1+e_4+e_7,e_2+e_5+e_8,e_3+e_6+e_9.$$

Using the exterior algebra routines in Macaulay 2 we find that $`dim_KW=10`$ and so the dimension of $`\nu _4(G_(4,8))3`$ is 73, as stated.

These last two examples suggested that we should check $`\nu _3(G_{3,12})`$ and $`\nu _4(G_{4,12})`$ as well. We have verified that $`\nu _3(G_{3,12})5`$ and $`\nu _4(G_{4,12})4`$ are not defective.

REFERENCES

\[AH\]: J.Alexander, A.Hirschovitz. Polynomial interpolation in several variables. J. of Alg. Geom. 4 (1995). 201-222.

\[BCS\]: P. Bürgisser, M. Clausen, M.A. Shokrollahi, Algebraic Complexity Theory, Vol. 315, Grund. der Math. Wiss., Springer, 1997

\[CGG\]: M.V.Catalisano, A.V.Geramita, A.Gimigliano. Rank of tensors, Secant Varieties of Segre Varieties and Fat Points. Preprint, To appear inn Lin. Algebra and Appl.

\[E\]: R.Ehrenborg. On Apolarity and Generic Canonical Forms. J. of Algebra 213 (1999). 167-194.

\[No\]: D. Yu. Nogin. Spectrum of codes associated with the Grassmannian G(3,9). Problems of Information Transmission, 33 (1997). 114-123.

\[Pa\]: F.Palatini. Sulle varietà algebriche per le quali sono di dimensione minore dell’ ordinario, senza riempire lo spazio ambiente, una o alcuna delle varietà formate da spazi seganti. Atti Accad. Torino Cl. Scienze Mat. Fis. Nat. 44 (1909). 362-375.

\[Te\]: A.Terracini. Sulle $`V_k`$ per cui la varietà degli $`S_h`$ $`(h+1)`$-seganti ha dimensione minore dell’ordinario. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo 31 (1911). 392-396.

\[W\]: W.Wakeford. On canonical forms. Proc. London Math. Soc. 18 (1919/20). 403-410.

\[Z\]: F.L.Zak. Tangents and Secants of Algebraic Varieties. Translations of Math. Monographs, vol. 127 AMS. Providence (1993).

M.V.Catalisano, Dip. Matematica, Univ. di Genova, Italy.

e-mail: catalisa@dima.unige.it

A.V.Geramita, Dept. Math. and Stats. Queens’ Univ. Kingston, Ont., Canada and Dip. di Matematica, Univ. di Genova. Italy.

e-mail: geramita@dima.unige.it ; tony@mast.queensu.ca

A.Gimigliano, Dip. di Matematica and CIRAM, Univ. di Bologna, Italy.

e-mail: gimiglia@dm.unibo.it


text:
# Large N reduction with overlap fermions

## 1 Introduction

This contribution, based on joint work, provides some background to Narayanan’s talk .

Lattice field theory provides an approach to calculating numerical values or bounds for physical quantities from first principles without relying on perturbation theory or on non-systematic approximations. However, most of the numerical results about strong interactions involve fermions and are obtained in valence (quenched) QCD. This is not a systematic approximation because the zero flavor limit is singular. As a result, many lattice results still do not have a status higher than estimates coming from other phenomenological approximations that make ad-hoc approximations of different types. It makes little sense to go beyond few percent accuracy in simulations with valence QCD.

The long term goal of our work is to replace valence QCD with planar QCD in either the ’t Hooft  or the Veneziano  limit. Unlike valence QCD, for many quantities of interest, planar QCD is believed to be the first term in a systemtic series. Our initial focus is on the two point functions of quark bilinears. In the planar limit, such a correlation function is characterized by an infinite number of pole masses and corresponding residues. Using the lattice, it should be possible to obtain good values for these correlation functions in momentum space at Euclidean momenta that are smaller than the inverse lattice spacing. Such information would be phenomenologically useful, for example, in the analysis of weak semi- and non-leptonic decays .

## 2 The planar limit

Let us consider QCD with gauge group $`SU(N_c)`$ instead of $`SU(3)`$. We are in Euclidean space, and assume that the volume $`V`$ is already taken to infinity. Similarly, the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has also been eliminated. The coupling constant has disappeared too, generating an intrinsic scale in terms of which all predictions are pure numbers depending only on $`N_c`$. There are good choices for this intrinsic scale, in the sense that they lead to simple $`N_c`$ dependences. Feynman diagrams and more general counting arguments tell us what powers of $`N_c`$ to scale out so that remaining quantities have finite limits at $`N_c=\mathrm{}`$. In short, a nonperturbatively defined large $`N_c`$ limit seems to exist and is reachable by lattice techniques.

In perturbation theory, the large $`N_c`$ limit is easiest to understand before renormalization is taken into account. To get planar perturbative QCD one scales the gauge coupling constant $`g^2`$ by a factor of $`N_c`$ and $`N_c`$ is taken to infinity keeping $`\lambda =g^2N_c`$ fixed. Using the known terms in the $`\beta `$-function one easily derives how a perturbative scale can be defined so that it stays finite at infinite $`N_c`$.

The above ’t Hooft limit generalizes to the case where the number of flavors, $`N_f`$ also is taken to infinity with the ratio $`\rho =\frac{N_f}{N_c}`$ kept fixed. This gives the Veneziano limit.

On the lattice, fast convergence to the $`N_c=\mathrm{}`$ limits was observed for the string tension, glueball mass, topological susceptibility, and finite temperature transition point in pure gauge theory . These calculations are of theoretical interest; for practical applications it is certainly cheaper to just work at $`N_c=3`$.

Having learned that the large $`N_c`$ limit is meaningful outside perturbation theory and that it provides numbers quite close to $`N_c=3`$, we note that large $`N_c`$ reduction  provides a potential shortcut that would enable us to get the planar limit numbers in a substantially more efficient way because of the dramatic reduction in the number of degrees of freedom one needs to integrate over. In particular, the fermionic matrix becomes so small that it can be stored in its entirety in memory and dealt with in a more direct way than in standard simulations.

## 3 Quenched Reduction

Reduction works on lattices with finite numbers of sites. In physical applications, reduction implies a change in the order of limits of the traditional $`\frac{1}{N_c}`$ expansion. Now, we first take $`N_c`$ (possibly also $`N_f`$) to infinity and only subsequently deal with the large $`V`$ and large $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ limits.

The basic content of reduction is that there exists a certain “prototype” lattice gauge theory which encompasses lattice gauge theories with varying group sizes on differently sized lattices. However, the entire prototype family has the same planar limit. Thus, large $`V`$ can be traded for larger $`N_c`$. The main point is that this tradeoff appears to be very lucrative.

The prototype variables are $`d`$ $`SU(N)`$-matrices $`T_\mu ,\mu =1,2..,d`$ and two fermionic $`N\times M`$ complex matrices $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$. The pure gauge action is given by

$$S_g=\frac{N}{4\lambda }\underset{\mu ,\nu }{}Tr\left(C_{\mu \nu }C_{\mu \nu }^{}\right),C_{\mu \nu }[T_\mu ,T_\nu ].$$
(1)
It is invariant under $`SU(N)`$ conjugation $`T_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }T_\mu \mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$ and under a $`Z(N)^d`$ acting by $`T_\mu e^{\frac{2\pi ı}{N}k_\mu }T_\mu `$.

To add fermions one introduces a “Dirac” operator $`D(T)`$, which also transforms by conjugation, and a term $`S_f=Tr\left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}D(T)\mathrm{\Psi }\right)`$ This breaks the $`Z(N)^d`$. There is an additional fermionic symmetry under the obvious action of $`SU(M)`$.

Assuming that $`N`$ and $`M`$ factorize, $`N=nL_1L_2\mathrm{}L_d`$ and $`M=mL_1L_2\mathrm{}L_d`$, one can constrain the basic variables in the prototype so that one obtains a traditional lattice gauge theory on a toroidal $`L_1\times L_2..\times L_d`$ lattice. A planar limit can be defined on the lattice by scaling the lattice gauge coupling with $`n`$ in the ’t Hooft fashion. The basic claim of  was that for a certain class of interesting observables, the differently constained prototypes become identical in this planar limit, at finite lattice spacing. However when the continuum limit is approached, the identity is spoiled by a phase transition. Quenched reduction  is designed to eliminate this effect by applying another constraint to the prototype theory: The eigenvalues of the $`T_\mu `$ matrices are frozen at $`d`$ independently drawn sets of uniformly distributed points on the unit circle parametrized by angles $`\theta _\mu ^j`$. Further , the $`T_\mu `$ matrices entering $`D(T)`$ are multiplied by $`U(1)`$ phase factors of the form $`e^{ıp_\mu }`$. Observables obtained by carrying out a quenched average with fixed angles have to be subsequently averaged over uniformly distributed $`\theta _\mu ^j`$ and $`p_\mu `$. A large $`N`$ limit can be defined as before, scaling the lattice coupling with $`N`$.

## 4 The resolution of some old problems

In the past, when chirality and the lattice were thought to be irreconcilable, the preferred way to introduce fermions was in a continuum version of quenched reduction . In this version one replaces the unitary $`T_\mu `$ matrices of the prototype by hermitian matrices: $`T_\mu 1+ıA_\mu `$. $`a_\mu ^j`$, the eigenvalues of $`A_\mu `$, are frozen and drawn from a uniform distribution over an interval $`[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2},\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}]`$. Similarly, the Dirac operator $`D(T)`$ gets replaced by a $`D(A)`$ and the random variable $`p_\mu `$ is introduced by replacing $`A`$ by $`A_\mu +q_\mu `$ with $`q_\mu `$ randomly drawn again from $`[\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2},\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}]`$.

In perturbation theory this looks fine. Surprisingly, there seems to be no clash between the UV regularization and gauge invariance even when the continuum theory would be chiral and anomalous. In addition, there seems to be no room in even $`d=2k`$ for topological charge, since the natural object

$`ϵ_{\mu _1\nu _1\mu _2\nu _2\mathrm{}.\mu _k\nu _k}`$ (2)
$`Tr([A_{\mu _1},A_{\nu _1}][A_{\mu _2},A_{\nu _2}]\mathrm{}.[A_{\mu _k},A_{\nu _k}])`$ (3)
vanishes identically.

In the past, it was unclear how this regulated continuum reduced model differed from the lattice version. It made some sense that topology would become a strange concept because the disappearance of spacetime took away the concept of a local topological density. Also, so long as fermions were dealt with in the ’t Hooft limit, the issue of anomalies did not look pressing. Nevertheless, there was enough uncertainty surrounding this issue that no further work on fermions in reduced models was done. The lattice provided no attractive alternative.

The main new observation in this context is that choosing $`D(T)`$ as the overlap Dirac operator  frees the lattice version with fermions from all difficulties. The overlap also provides a definition of topological charge  in the pure gauge reduced model, opening the possibility to be consistent with recent studies of topology on the lattice at large $`N_c`$ in traditional formulations. Moreover, topological obstructions that reflect anomalies are known to exist in ordinary lattice gauge theories already on finite lattices, as emphasized in . These obstructions will also appear in the reduced model. Thus, so long as we stay on the lattice, quenched reduction will not eradicate anomalies.

## 5 Comments

Reduction seems to be closely related to the technique of “field orbifolding” . For a pure $`U(N_c)`$ gauge theory, the constraints that turn the prototype model into a regular lattice gauge theory are equivalent to imposing invariance under a subgroup of the symmetry group of the prototype. It is known that field orbifolding preserves the planar limit in certain continuum filed theories and has a geometrical interpretation in string theory. Could one gain new insights into reduction from this?

Numerically, twisted reduction  used to be considered superior to quenching in the pure gauge sector. Unfortunately, the introduction of fermions is problematic . Can one get around the fermion problem in some way while sticking to twisted reduction instead of quenched reduction in the pure gauge sector?

## 6 Conclusions

This is a good time to numerically revisit quenched reduction. Some of the old problems have been solved: Instanton effects and anomalies can be incorporated. Presently available computational power, albeit still short of what is needed for a full QCD simulation, might be amply capable of dealing with reduced models.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

The recent booming activity in brane-world studies is caused by several reasons. First, gravity on a 4d brane embedded in a higher-dimensional AdS-like Universe may be localized . Second, there appears a way to resolve the mass hierarchy problem .

An essential element of brane-world models is the presence of two free parameters in the theory (the bulk cosmological constant and the brane tension, or brane cosmological constant). The role of the brane cosmological constant is to fix the position of the brane in terms of tension (that is, why the brane cosmological constant and the brane tension are almost the same thing). Being completely consistent and mathematically reasonable, such a way of doing things may look incompletely satisfactory. Indeed, the physical origin (and prediction) of brane tension in terms of some dynamical mechanism may be required.

The ideology may be different, in the spirit of Refs. . One considers the addition of surface counterterms to the original action on an AdS-like space. These terms are responsible for making the variational procedure well-defined (in Gibbons-Hawking’s spirit) and for eliminating the leading divergences of the action. The brane tension is no more considered as a free parameter but is fixed by the condition of finiteness of spacetime when the brane goes to infinity. Of course, leaving the theory in such a form would rule out a possible existence of consistent brane-world solutions. Fortunately, other parameters contribute to brane tension. If one assumes that there is a quantum CFT living on the brane (which is closer to the spirit of AdS/CFT correspondence ), then such a CFT produces a conformal anomaly (or an anomaly-induced effective action). This contributes to the brane tension. As a result, a dynamical mechanism of getting a brane world with a flat or curved (de Sitter or Anti-de Sitter) brane appears. In other words, the brane world is a consequence of the presence of matter on the brane! For example, the sign of conformal anomaly terms for usual matter is such that, in the one-brane case, the de Sitter (ever-expanding, inflationary) Universe is a preferable solution to the brane equation222A similar mechanism for anomaly driven inflation in the usual 4d world has been invented by Starobinsky  and generalized for the presence of a dilaton in Refs. .

The scenario of Refs.  may be extended to the presence of dilaton(s), as was done in Ref. , or to the formulation of quantum cosmology in a Wheeler-De Witt form . Then the whole scenario looks even more related to the AdS/CFT correspondence, since dilatonic gravity appears naturally as the bosonic sector of 5d gauged supergravity. Moreover, there appears an extra prize in the form of dynamical determination of the 4d boundary value of the dilaton. In , a quantum dilatonic one-brane Universe has been presented, with a possibility of getting an inflationary, hyperbolic or flat brane with dynamical determination of the brane dilaton. An interesting question is related to generalization of such a scenario in dilatonic gravity for the multi-brane case. This will be discussed here.

In the next section we present the general action of 5d dilatonic gravity with surface counterterms and a quantum brane CFT contribution. This action is convenient for describing brane-worlds where the bulk is an AdS-like spacetime. There could be one or two (flat or curved) branes in the theory. As was already mentioned, the brane tension is not fixed in our approach, instead, the effective brane tension is induced by quantum effects. An explicit analytical solution of the bulk equation for a number of exponential bulk potentials is presented. It is interesting that quantum-created branes can be flat, de Sitter (inflationary), or hyperbolic. The role of quantum brane matter corrections in getting such branes is extremely important. Nevertheless, there are a few particular cases where such branes appear on the classical level, i.e., without quantum corrections.

In most cases, as usually occurs in AdS dilatonic gravity, the solutions contain a naked singularity. However, in other cases the scalar curvature is finite, and there is a horizon. The corresponding 4d branes may be interpreted as wormholes.

## 2. Dilatonic gravity action with brane quantum corrections

Let us present the initial action for dilatonic AdS gravity under consideration. The (Euclidean) AdS metric has the following form:

$$ds^2=dz^2+\mathrm{e}^{2\stackrel{~}{A}(z)}\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\widehat{g}_{ij}dx^idx^j.$$
(1)
Here $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ is the metric of the Einstein manifold defined by $`r_{ij}=k\widehat{g}_{ij}`$, where $`r_{ij}`$ is the Ricci tensor constructed from $`\widehat{g}_{ij}`$ and $`k`$ is a constant. One can consider two copies of the regions given by $`z<z_0`$ and glue two regions putting a brane at $`z=z_0`$. More generally, one can consider two copies of regions $`\stackrel{~}{z}_0<z<z_0`$ and glue the regions putting two branes at $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}_0`$ and $`z=z_0`$. Hereafter we call the brane at $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}_0`$ as an “inner’ brane and that at $`z=z_0`$ as “outer” brane.

One chooses the 4-dimensional boundary metric as

$$g_{(4)}^{}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}=\mathrm{e}^{2A}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu },$$
(2)
and a tilde specifies quantities connected with $`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }`$.

Let us consider the case where there are two branes at $`z=\stackrel{~}{z}_0`$ and $`z=z_0`$:

$`S_{\mathrm{two}\mathrm{branes}}=S+\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{GH}}+2\stackrel{~}{S}_1+\stackrel{~}{W},`$ (3)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\mathrm{GH}}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi G}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g_{(4)}}_\mu n^\mu },`$ (4)
$`\stackrel{~}{S}_1={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi Gl}}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{g_{(4)}}\left(\frac{6}{l}+\frac{l}{4}\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi )\right)},`$ (5)
$`\stackrel{~}{W}=\stackrel{~}{b}{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\stackrel{~}{F}A}`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{b}^{}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}\{A[2\stackrel{~}{}^2+\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\nu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{4}{3}}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\stackrel{~}{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ]A+(\stackrel{~}{G}{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{}\stackrel{~}{R})A\}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}[\stackrel{~}{b}^{\prime \prime }+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}(\stackrel{~}{b}+\stackrel{~}{b}^{})]{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}[\stackrel{~}{R}`$
$`6\stackrel{~}{}A6(\stackrel{~}{}_\mu A)(\stackrel{~}{}^\mu A)]^2`$
$`+\stackrel{~}{C}{\displaystyle }d^4x\sqrt{\stackrel{~}{g}}A\varphi [\stackrel{~}{}^2+2\stackrel{~}{R}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{}_\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\nu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{R}\stackrel{~}{}^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(\stackrel{~}{}^\mu \stackrel{~}{R})\stackrel{~}{}_\mu ]\varphi `$ (6)
with $`N`$ scalar, $`N_{1/2}`$ spinor, $`N_1`$ vector fields, $`N_2`$ ($`=0`$ or $`1`$) gravitons and $`N_{\mathrm{HD}}`$ higher-derivative conformal scalars; $`b`$, $`b^{}`$ and $`b^{\prime \prime }`$ are

$`b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N+6N_{1/2}+12N_1+611N_28N_{\mathrm{HD}}}{120(4\pi )^2}},`$
$`b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N+11N_{1/2}+62N_1+1411N_228N_{\mathrm{HD}}}{360(4\pi )^2}},`$
$`b^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (7)
For an introduction to the anomaly-induced EA see . We should note that the relative sign of $`\stackrel{~}{S}_1`$ is different from $`S_1`$. The parameters $`\stackrel{~}{b}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ correspond to the matter which may be different from the outer brane one on the inner brane as in (2.). Hence, the situation with different CFTs on the branes may be considered. Having the action, one can study its dynamics.

Let us start the consideration of field equations for a two-brane model. First of all, one defines a new coordinate $`z`$ by

$$z=𝑑y\sqrt{f(y)},$$
(8)
and solves $`y`$ with respect to $`z`$. Then the warp factor is $`\mathrm{e}^{2\widehat{A}(z,k)}=y(z)`$. Here one assumes the 5-dimensional space-time metric as follows:

$$ds^2=f(y)dy^2+y\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{4}{}}\widehat{g}_{ij}(x^k)dx^idx^j.$$
(9)
Using the substitution $`dz=\sqrt{f}dy`$ and choosing $`l^2\mathrm{e}^{2\widehat{A}(z,k)}=y(z)`$, one has metric in the form

$`ds^2=dz^2+\mathrm{e}^{2A(z,\sigma )}\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{g}_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu l^2\left(d\sigma ^2+d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2\right).`$ (10)
Here $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2`$ is the metric of a 3-dimensional unit sphere. Then for the unit sphere ($`k=3`$)

$$A(z,\sigma )=\widehat{A}(z,k=3)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cosh}\sigma ,$$
(11)
for flat Euclidean space ($`k=0`$)

$$A(z,\sigma )=\widehat{A}(z,k=0)+\sigma ,$$
(12)
and for the unit hyperboloid ($`k=3`$)

$$A(z,\sigma )=\widehat{A}(z,k=3)\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{sinh}\sigma .$$
(13)
We now identify $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{g}`$ in (2.) with those in (2). Then we find $`\stackrel{~}{F}=\stackrel{~}{G}=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{R}=6/l^2`$, etc.

Our choice for the dilaton and bulk potential admitting an analytical solution is

$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1\mathrm{ln}\left(p_2y\right),`$ (14)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`c_0+c_1\mathrm{e}^{a\varphi }+c_2\mathrm{e}^{2a\varphi },`$ (15)
where $`a`$, $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$, $`c_0`$, $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$ are some constants. When $`p_1=\pm 1/\sqrt{6}`$, we find that $`f(y)`$ identically vanishes. Therefore we should assume $`p_1\pm 1/\sqrt{6}`$. Then we find the following set of exact bulk solutions (for all cases $`c_0=12/l^2`$):

case 1: $`c_1={\displaystyle \frac{6kp_2p_1^2}{32p_1^2}},c_2=0,a={\displaystyle \frac{1}{p_1}},`$ (16)
$`f(y)={\displaystyle \frac{32p_1^2}{4ky}},p_1\pm \sqrt{6};`$
case 2: $`c_1=6kp_2,a=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}},p_1=\sqrt{3},`$ (17)
$`f(y)={\displaystyle \frac{3}{\frac{2c_2}{p_2^2}4ky}};`$
case 3 $`c_2=3kp_2,a=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}},p_1={\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}},`$ (18)
$`f(y)={\displaystyle \frac{21\sqrt{p_2}}{8\sqrt{y}\left(c_1y+7k\sqrt{p_2y}\right)}}.`$
The equation for the case $`k=0`$ is identical to that of the outer brane.

As an example, we consider case 1 in (16). Since $`f(y)`$ should be positive (we should also note $`y>0`$), one gets

$$q^2\frac{4k}{32p_1^2}>0(q>0).$$
(19)
In (19), we can also consider the limit of $`k0`$ keeping $`q`$ finite, i.e., $`p_1^2\frac{3}{2}`$.

When $`k0`$, from the equations of motion we get:

$`8b^{}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(y_0){\displaystyle \frac{3y_0}{32\pi G}}\left(qy_0^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{y_0}{l}}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2p_1^2l}{8}}\right)`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{y_0}{2l}}\left(y_0^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1+\sqrt{1p_1^2l^2/2}}{2}}q\right)`$
$`\times \left(y_0^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{1\sqrt{1p_1^2l^2/2}}{2}}q\right)`$
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{q}{8\pi G}}y_0^{5/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{9lp_1q^2}{8\pi G}}y_0+6C\varphi _0.`$ (21)
The brane equations are

$`8\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`F_1(y_0),`$ (22)
$`0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{p_1q}{8\pi G}}y_0^{\frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{9lp_1q^2}{8\pi G}}y_0+6\stackrel{~}{C}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0.`$ (23)
Since $`p_2`$ is absorbed into the definition of $`q`$ in (20) and (22), Eqs. (21) and (23) can be regarded as the equation which determines $`p_2`$, or $`(\varphi _0/p_1)\mathrm{ln}(p_2y_0)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0/p_1)=\mathrm{ln}(p_2y_0)`$. We now investigate the properties of $`F_1(y_0)`$ as a function of $`y_0`$. The asymptotic behaviours are given by

$`F_1(y_0)`$ $`\stackrel{y_0+0}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2q^2l}{16}}y_0<0,`$ (24)
$`F_1(y_0)`$ $`\stackrel{y_0+\mathrm{}}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2l}}y_0^2<0.`$ (25)
Since

$$F_1^{}(y_0)=\frac{3}{16\pi G}\left(\frac{3q}{4}y^{1/2}\frac{1}{l}y_0\frac{p_1^2q^2l}{16}\right),$$
(26)
$`F_1(y_0)`$ has extrema when

$$0=y_0\frac{3ql}{4}y_0^{1/2}+\frac{p_1^2q^2l^2}{16},$$
(27)
whose solutions are given by

$$y_0^{1/2}=y_\pm ^{1/2}\frac{3ql}{8}\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{4p_1^2}{9}}\right).$$
(28)
Therefore if

$$|p_1|>3/2,$$
(29)
Eq. (27) has no solution and $`F_1(y_0)`$ is a monotonically decreasing function of $`y_0`$. Then Eqs. (24) and (25) tell that there is no solution of the brane equation (20) for negative $`b^{}`$ in the case (29). On the other hand, when

$$|p_1|<3/2,$$
(30)
substituting (28) into the expression for $`F_1(y_0)`$ in (20), one gets

$`F_1(y_\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16\pi G}}{\displaystyle \frac{3^4q^4l^3}{28^4}}\left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4p_1^2}{9}}}\pm 1\right)`$ (31)
$`\times \left(\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{4p_1^2}{9}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\right).`$
Then we find that $`y_0=y_+`$ corresponds to a maximum of $`F_1(y_0)`$. The maximum is positive, $`F_1(y_+)>0`$, if $`\sqrt{14p_1^2/9}1/3>0`$, that is,

$$p_1^2<2.$$
(32)
In the case (32), if

$$F_1(y_+)8b^{},$$
(33)
Eq. (20) has a solution, i.e., there can be a brane. We can also consider an inner brane, which lies at $`y=y_1<y_0`$. For the inner brane, the relative sign of $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}`$ and $`b^{}`$ changes in the equation corresponding to (20). Then, if

$$F_1(y_{})8\stackrel{~}{b}^{},$$
(34)
there can be an inner brane. Then, if both (33) and (34) hold, we can have a two-brane dilatonic solution. For such a solution, there might be, in general, a problem in the consistency between (21) and (23). Taken together, (21) and (23), can be regarded as the equations which determine $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ (we should note that $`p_2`$ is implicitly contained in $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$). In the classical limit, where $`C=0`$, the terms containing $`p_2`$ (or $`\varphi _0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_0`$) disappear. Then it seems to be non-trivial whether or not there is any solution which satisfies both (33) and (34).

We now consider the classical limit in case $`k0`$ , where $`b^{}=C=\stackrel{~}{b}^{}=\stackrel{~}{C}=0`$, and (20) and (22) become identical. Then the solutions to Eqs. (20) and (22) are given by

$$y_0^{\frac{1}{2}}=\left(1\pm \sqrt{1\frac{p_1^2}{2}}\right)\frac{ql}{2}.$$
(35)
Since both solutions are positive, we can regard the smaller one (the $``$ sign in (35)) as the one corresponding to the inner brane and and larger one ($`+`$ sign) to the outer brane. On the other hand, Eqs. (21) and (23) have the following form:

$$0=\frac{p_1q^2ly_0}{2}\left(17\sqrt{1\frac{p_1^2}{2}}\right).$$
(36)
In (36), the upper sign ($``$) corresponds to the outer brane and the lower one ($`+`$) to the inner brane. We should note that there is no solution, except the trivial one, for the inner brane. This seems to tell us that we need a quantum correction from brane matter in order to obtain the two-brane dilatonic inflationary universe where the observable world can be associated with one of inflationary branes.

When $`k=0`$ in case 1, as discussed before, if $`q`$ is finite,

$$p_1^23/2.$$
(37)
Then we get the following equation:

$$0=y_0qly_0^{1/2}+\frac{3q^2l^2}{16},$$
(38)
which has two solutions:

$$y_0^{1/2}=\frac{3ql}{4},\frac{ql}{4}.$$
(39)
These two solutions might be regarded as two-brane solutions. On the other hand, the form of the equation of motion in case $`k=0`$ is identical to that of $`k0`$ in (21), which can be solved with respect to $`\varphi _0`$ or $`p_2`$ in the one-brane solution. However, in case $`k=0`$, the value of $`p_1`$ is fixed by (37). In the classical limit of the case $`k=0`$, the equation of motion  can be rewritten in the form of (38), and there appear the solutions (39). The brane equation of motion  has the form (36), but Eq. (37) does not satisfy (36). This demonstrates the role of quantum effects in the realization of a dilatonic inflationary two-brane-world Universe.

Solutions 2 and 3 may be considered in a similar way, for details see .

## 3. Discussion

In summary, we have presented a generalization of a quantum dilatonic brane world where the brane is flat, spherical (de Sitter) or hyperbolic, and it is induced by the quantum effects of CFT living on the brane. In this generalization one may have two-brane-worlds or even multi-brane-worlds what proves a general nature of the scenario suggested in Refs.  where, instead of an arbitrary brane tension added by hand, the effective brane tension is produced by boundary quantum fields. What is more interesting, the bulk solutions have an analytical form, at least for the specific choice of the bulk potential under consideration.

In classical dilatonic gravity, a variety of brane-world solutions have been presented in Ref.  where the problem of singularities was also discussed. A fine-tuned example of bulk potential where one gets a nonsingular bulk solution, has been presented.

Let us find out if our solutions contain curvature singularities. Multiplying $`g_{(5)}^{\mu \nu }`$ with the Einstein equation in the bulk,

$`R_{(5)\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{(5)\mu \nu }(R_{(5)}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\rho \varphi ^\rho \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{12}{l^2}}+\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi )),`$ (40)
which is obtained from $`S_{\mathrm{EH}}`$, one gets

$$R_{(5)}=\frac{1}{2}_\rho \varphi ^\rho \varphi \frac{5}{3}\left(\frac{12}{l^2}+\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi )\right).$$
(41)
Substituting the expressions (14) and (15) into (41), we find

$$R_{(5)}=\frac{p_1^2}{2y^2f}\frac{5}{3}\left[c_1(p_2y)^{ap_1}+c_2(p_2y)^{2ap_1}\right].$$
(42)
Then, for cases 1 $`÷`$ 3, the scalar curvature $`R_{(5)}`$ is

case 1: $`R_{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{p_1^2q^2}{y}},`$ (43)
case 2: $`R_{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{8k}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\stackrel{~}{c}_2}{3y^2}},`$ (44)
case 3 $`R_{(5)}={\displaystyle \frac{33\stackrel{~}{c}_1}{21\sqrt{y}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4k}{y}}.`$ (45)
In all cases the singularity appears at $`y=0`$.

In case 1, when $`y0`$ and the coordinates besides $`y`$ are fixed, the infinitesimally small distance $`ds`$ is given by

$$ds=\sqrt{f}dy\frac{dy}{q\sqrt{y}},$$
(46)
which tells us that the distance between the brane and the singularity is finite. Then in the cases $`k=0`$ and $`k<0`$ the singularity is naked when we Wick-re-rotate the space-time to Lorentzian signature. When $`k>0`$, the singularity is not precisely naked after the Wick re-rotation since the horizon is situated $`y=0`$, i.e., the horizon coincides with the curvature singularity.

### Acknowledgement

The work has been supported by RFBR.