text:
# The Intersection of All Maximum Stable Sets of a Tree and its Pendant Vertices

## 1 Introduction

Throughout this paper $`G=(V,E)`$ is a simple (i.e., a finite, undirected, loopless and without multiple edges) graph with vertex set $`V=V(G)`$, edge set $`E=E(G)`$, and its order is $`\left|V\right|`$. If $`XV`$, then $`G[X]`$ is the subgraph of $`G`$ spanned by $`X`$. By $`GW`$ we mean the subgraph $`G[VW]`$, if $`WV(G)`$. We also denote by $`GF`$ the partial subgraph of $`G`$ obtained by deleting the edges of $`F`$, for $`FE(G)`$, and we use $`Ge`$, if $`F`$ $`=\{e\}`$. Let $`K_n`$, $`P_n`$ denote the complete graph on $`n1`$ vertices and the chordless path on $`n2`$ vertices.

A set $`AV`$ is stable if no two vertices from $`A`$ are adjacent. A stable set of maximum size will be referred as to a  maximum stable set of $`G`$, and the stability number of $`G`$, denoted by $`\alpha (G)`$, is the cardinality of a maximum stable set in $`G`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$ stand for the set $`\{S:S`$ is a maximum stable set of $`G\}`$, and $`core(G)=\{S:S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\}`$, (see ).

The neighborhood of a vertex $`vV`$ is the set $`N(v)=\{w:wV`$ and $`vwE\}`$, while the close neighborhood of $`vV`$ is $`N[v]=N(v)\{v\}`$. For $`AV`$, we denote $`N(A)=\{vVA:N(v)A\mathrm{}\}`$, and $`N[A]=N(A)A`$. In particular, if $`\left|N(v)\right|=1`$, then $`v`$ is a pendant vertex of $`G`$. By $`pend(G)`$ we designate the set $`\{vV(G):v`$ is a pendant vertex in $`G\}`$.

By tree we mean a connected acyclic graph of order greater than one, and a forest is a disjoint union of trees and isolated vertices.

In this paper we show that any stable set $`S`$ of a tree $`T`$, of size $`\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, contains at least one pendant vertex of $`T`$. As a consequence, we infer that $`Spend(T)\mathrm{}`$ is valid for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$. Moreover, we prove that in a tree $`T`$ with $`\alpha (T)>\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, there exist at least two pendant vertices belonging to every maximum stable set of $`T`$, such that the distance between them is even.

We give also a new proof for a result of Hopkins and Staton, stating that if $`\{A,B\}`$ is the standard bipartition of the vertex set of a tree $`T`$, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\{A\}`$ or $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\{B\}`$ if and only if the distance between any two pendant vertices of $`T`$ is even.

Our findings are also incorporated in the following contexts.

Firstly, the following theorem concerning maximum stable sets in general graphs, due to Nemhauser and Trotter , shows that for a special subgraph $`H`$ of a graph $`G`$, some maximum stable set of $`H`$ can be enlarged to a maximum stable set of $`G`$. Namely, if $`A\mathrm{\Omega }(G[N[A]])`$, then there is $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, such that $`AS`$. We show that, for trees, some kind of an inverse theorem is also true. More precisely, we show that any maximum stable set of a tree $`T`$ contains at least one of its pendant vertices, i.e., for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$ there exists some $`A`$, such that $`A\mathrm{\Omega }(T[N[A]])`$ and $`AS`$.

Secondly, recall that Hammer, Hansen and Simeone have proved in  that if a graph $`G`$ has $`\alpha (G)>\left|V\left(G\right)\right|/2`$, then $`\left|core(G)\right|1`$. As a strengthening, Levit and Mandrescu  showed that if $`G`$ is a connected bipartite graph with $`\left|V(G)\right|2`$, then $`\left|core(G)\right|1`$. Jamison , Zito , and Gunther, Hartnel and Rall  proved independently that $`\left|core(T)\right|1`$ is true for any tree $`T`$. Now, for a tree $`T`$ with $`\alpha (T)>\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, we demonstrate that $`\left|pend(T)core(T)\right|2`$, which means that there exist at least two pendant vertices of $`T`$ belonging to all maximum stable sets of $`T`$.

Thirdly, it is well-known that any tree $`T`$ has at least two pendant vertices (e.g., see Berge ). Our results say that if $`\alpha (T)>\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, then at least two pendant vertices of $`T`$ belong to all maximum stable sets of $`T`$, and whenever $`\alpha (T)=\left|V(T)\right|/2`$ then both parts of the standard bipartition of $`T`$ contain at least one pendant vertex.

## 2 Pendant vertices and maximum stable sets

###### Lemma 2.1

Any stable set consisting of only pendant vertices of a graph $`G`$ is contained in a maximum stable set of $`G`$.

Proof. Let $`A`$ be a stable set of $`G`$ such that $`Apend(G)`$, and $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$. If $`uAS`$, then $`u`$ is adjacent to some $`wSA`$, otherwise $`S\left\{u\right\}`$ is a stable set larger than $`S`$, which contradicts the maximality of $`S`$. Hence, $`S_1=S\{u\}\left\{w\right\}\mathrm{\Omega }(G)`$, and $`\left|AS\right|<\left|AS_1\right|`$. Therefore, using this exchange procedure, after a finite number of steps, we have to obtain a maximum stable set including $`A`$.

The converse of Lemma 2.1 is not generally true. For instance, as it is emphasized in Figure 1, the maximum stable set consisting of only large vertices does not contain any pendant vertex of the graph $`G`$.

###### Theorem 2.2

If $`S`$ is a stable set of a tree $`T`$ and $`\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, then $`Spend(T)`$ is not empty. Moreover, there exist $`vSpend(T)`$ and $`wS`$ such that the distance between them is $`2`$.

Proof. Suppose, on the contrary, that $`Spend(T)=\mathrm{}`$. Hence, any $`sS`$ has $`\left|N(s)\right|2`$. Since $`T`$ is a tree and $`S`$ is a stable set of size $`\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, it yields the following contradiction:

$$\left|V(T)\right|1=\left|E(T)\right|\left|(S,V(T)S)\right|2\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|.$$

Consequently, we infer that $`Spend(T)`$ is not empty, for any stable set $`S`$ with $`\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$.

We can assert now that there exists some $`k1`$, such that $`Spend(T)=\{v_i:1ik\}`$. Assume that for any $`v_i,wS`$, the distance between them is greater than two. If $`N(v_i)=\{u_i\},1ik`$, it follows that $`S^{}=(S\{v_i:1ik\})\{u_i:1ik\}`$ is a stable set in $`T`$ and $`\left|S^{}\right|=\left|S\right|`$. Clearly, $`S^{}pend(T)=\mathrm{}`$, but this contradicts the fact that, according to the first part of the theorem, $`S^{}pend(T)`$ must be non-empty, since $`\left|S^{}\right|=\left|S\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$. Therefore, there must exist $`vSpend(T),wS`$ such that the distance between them is $`2`$.

Now using the fact that $`\alpha (G)\left|V\left(G\right)\right|/2`$ for any bipartite graph $`G`$, we obtain the following.

###### Corollary 2.3

If $`T`$ is a tree, then $`Spend(T)\mathrm{}`$ for any $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$.

Corollary 2.3 is not generally true for a connected graph $`G`$ with $`pend(G)\mathrm{}`$ (see, for instance, the graph in Figure 1). Notice also that it cannot be generalized to a bipartite graph $`G`$, both for $`\alpha (G)=\left|V(G)\right|/2`$ and $`\alpha (G)>\left|V(G)\right|/2`$ (see Figure 2).

###### Corollary 2.4

If $`T`$ is a tree with $`\alpha (T)=\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, and $`\{A,B\}`$ is its bipartition, then

$$Apend(T)\mathrm{}andBpend(T)\mathrm{}.$$

Proof. In this case both $`A`$ and $`B`$ are maximum stable sets, because $`A,B`$ are stable and $`\alpha (T)\mathrm{max}(\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|)\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2,`$and this implies $`\left|A\right|=\left|B\right|=\alpha (T)`$. Hence, Corollary 2.3 implies the result.

Figure 3 shows that the converse of Corollary 2.4 is not generally true.

Since the distance between any two vertices belonging respectively to $`A`$ and $`B`$ is odd, we obtain the following form of Corollary 2.4.

###### Corollary 2.5

If $`T`$ is a tree with $`\alpha (T)=\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, then $`T`$ contains at least two pendant vertices, such that the distance between them is odd.

Recall from  that $`G`$ is a strong unique independent graph if $`\left|\mathrm{\Omega }(G)\right|=\left|\{S\}\right|=1`$ and $`V(G)S`$ is also stable. For example, every cordless path of odd order belongs to this class of graphs. Any strong unique independent graph $`G`$ is necessarily bipartite, and its bipartition is $`\{S,V(G)S\}`$. Using Theorem 2.2, we are giving now an alternative proof of the following theorem characterizing strong unique independent trees, which was first proved in .

###### Theorem 2.6

 If $`\{A,B\}`$ is the bipartition of the tree $`T`$, then the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`T`$ is a strong unique independent tree;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`pend(T)A`$ or $`pend(T)B`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) the distance between any two pendant vertices of $`T`$ is even.

Proof. ($`i`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) If $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\{A\}`$, then Lemma 2.1 implies $`pend(T)A`$.

The equivalence ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) is clear.

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $``$ ($`i`$) Without loss of generality, we may suppose that $`\left|A\right|\left|V(T)\right|/2`$. Since $`A`$ is also a stable set, Theorem 2.2 ensures that $`Apend(T)\mathrm{}`$, and consequently, $`pend(T)A`$. Let $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$ and $`SA\mathrm{}`$. Then

$$\left|S\right|=\left|SA\right|+\left|SB\right|\left|SA\right|+\left|N(SB)\right|=\left|A\right|$$

and hence, $`\left|SB\right|\left|N(SB)\right|`$. Since no vertex in $`SA`$ is adjacent to any vertex in $`SB`$, it follows that at least one tree, say $`T^{}`$, of the forest $`T[N[SB]]`$, has $`\left|V(T^{})B\right|\left|V(T^{})A\right|`$. Consequently, by Theorem 2.2, it proves that $`T^{}`$ has at least one pendant vertex, say $`v`$, in $`V(T^{})B`$. Since $`N(v,T)=N(v,T^{})`$, we infer that some pendant vertex of $`T`$ must be in $`SB`$, in contradiction with $`pend(T)A`$. Therefore, there is no maximum stable set $`S`$ in $`T`$, such that $`SA\mathrm{}`$, and since $`A`$ is a maximal stable set, it follows that, in fact, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\{A\}`$, i.e., $`T`$ is a strong unique independent tree.

###### Corollary 2.7

If a tree $`T`$ has the bipartition $`\{A,B\}`$ and $`S`$ is a maximal stable set such that $`\left|S\right|>\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}`$, then $`Spend(T)\mathrm{}`$. Moreover, there exist $`vSpend(T)`$ and $`wS`$ such that the distance between them is $`2`$.

Proof. Equivalently, we prove that if $`S`$ is a maximal stable set $`S`$ of $`T`$ satisfying $`Spend(T)=\mathrm{}`$, then $`\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}\left|S\right|`$. If $`S_A=SA,S_B=SB`$, then $`\{S_A,BS_B\}`$ is the bipartition of the tree $`T_1=T[S_A(BS_B)]`$ and $`\{AS_A,S_B\}`$ is the bipartition of the tree

$$T_2=T[(AS_A)S_B].$$

Since $`(S_A,S_B)=\mathrm{}`$, it follows that $`S_Apend(T_1)=\mathrm{}=S_Bpend(T_2)`$, and consequently, by Theorem 2.6, $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$ are strong unique independent trees. Therefore, both $`\left|S_B\right|\left|AS_A\right|`$ and $`\left|S_A\right|\left|BS_B\right|`$. Hence, we get that

$$\left|S\right|=\left|S_A\right|+\left|S_B\right|\mathrm{min}\{\left|S_A\right|+\left|AS_A\right|,\left|BS_B\right|+\left|S_B\right|\}=\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\},$$

which completes the proof.

In other words, Corollary 2.7 shows that for a maximal stable set $`S`$ of a tree with the bipartition $`\{A,B\}`$, it is enough to require that there are no pendant vertices belonging to $`S`$ to ensure that $`\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}\left|S\right|`$ (Figure 4 shows examples of trees with $`\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}=\left|S\right|`$ and $`\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}>\left|S\right|`$).

If $`\left|A\right|\left|B\right|`$ then the claim of Corollary 2.7 is stronger than the corresponding direct consequence from Theorem 2.2, because there is a tree $`T`$ containing a maximal stable set $`S`$, such that $`\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}<\left|S\right|<\left|V(T)\right|/2`$ and $`Spend(T)\mathrm{}`$ (for an example, see Figure 5).

The converse of Corollary 2.7 is not true, see, for instance, the tree in Figure 6.

## 3 Pendant vertices and intersection of all maximum stable sets

We start this section with two results concerning $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graphs, which we shall use in the sequel. Recall that a graph $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable if $`\alpha (G+e)=\alpha (G)`$, for any edge $`eE(\overline{G})`$, where $`\overline{G}`$ is the complement of $`G`$, (see ). The class of $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graphs was characterized by Haynes et al. as follows:

###### Theorem 3.1

 A graph $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable if and only if $`\left|core(G)\right|1`$.

In  it was shown that:

###### Theorem 3.2

 For a connected bipartite graph $`G`$ of order at least two, the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`G`$ is $`\alpha ^+`$-stable;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ has a perfect matching;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`G`$ possesses two maximum stable sets that partition its vertex set;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`\left|core(G)\right|=0.`$

This statement generalizes the corresponding theorem of Gunther et al., proved for trees in .

The following proposition and corollary have been proved for bipartite graphs in the preprint . Trying to give a self-consistent presentation of this paper we prove them independently here.

###### Proposition 3.3

If $`T`$ is a tree, then $`\alpha (T)>\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$ if and only if $`\left|core(T)\right|2`$.

Proof. Suppose, on the contrary, that $`\left|core(T)\right|1`$. According to Theorem 3.1, $`T`$ is an $`\alpha ^+`$-stable graph. Hence, Theorem 3.2 implies that $`\alpha (T)=\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$, in contradiction with the premise on $`\alpha (T)`$.

Conversely, if $`\left|core(T)\right|2`$, then Theorem 3.1 ensures that $`T`$ is not $`\alpha ^+`$-stable. Since for trees $`\alpha (T)\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$, Theorem 3.2 implies that $`\alpha (T)>\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$.

###### Corollary 3.4

If $`T`$ is a tree, then $`\alpha (T)=\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$ if and only if $`\left|core(T)\right|=0`$.

Let $`G_i=(V_i,E_i),i=1,2`$, be two graphs with $`V_1V_2=\mathrm{}`$, and $`Q_1,Q_2`$ be cliques of the same size in $`G_1,G_2`$, respectively. The clique bonding of the graphs $`G_1,G_2`$ is the graph $`G=G_1QG_2`$ obtained by identifying $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ into a single clique $`Q`$, . In other words, $`G`$ is defined by $`V(G)=V_1V_2V(Q_2)`$ and

$$E(G)=E_1E_2(\{xy:x,yV(Q_2)\}\{xy:xV(Q_2),yV_2V(Q_2)\}).$$

If $`V(Q)=\{v\}`$, we shall denote the clique bonding of $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ by $`G_1vG_2`$.

###### Lemma 3.5

If $`T_1,T_2`$ are trees, $`T=T_1vT_2`$, and $`vcore(T)`$, then

$$\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1.$$

Proof. Let $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$. Then $`SV(T_i)`$ is stable in $`T_i`$, and, therefore, it follows that $`\left|SV(T_i)\right|\alpha (T_i)`$, for each $`i=1,2`$. Hence, we get that

$$\alpha (T)=\left|S\right|=\left|SV(T_1)\right|+\left|SV(T_2)\{v\}\right|\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1.$$

Case $`\mathit{1}`$. There are $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i),i=1,2`$, such that $`vS_1S_2`$. Hence, $`S_1S_2`$ is stable in $`T`$ and $`\left|S_1S_2\right|=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)>\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1\alpha (T)`$, which brings a contradiction.

Case $`\mathit{2}`$. There are $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i),i=1,2`$, such that $`vS_1S_2`$. Then $`S_1S_2`$ is stable in $`T`$ and $`\left|S_1S_2\right|=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1\alpha (T)`$, and this implies that $`\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$.

Case $`\mathit{3}`$. There are $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i)`$ such that $`vS_1`$, and $`vS_2`$. Hence, $`(S_1\{v\})S_2`$ is stable in $`T`$ and $`\left|(S_1\{v\})S_2\right|=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1\alpha (T)`$, and this assures that $`\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$.

Consequently, we may conclude that $`\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$.

###### Proposition 3.6

If $`T_1,T_2`$ are trees, $`T=T_1vT_2`$, then $`vcore(T)`$ if and only if $`vcore(T_i),`$ $`i=1,2`$.

Proof. If $`vcore(T)`$, then Lemma 3.5 implies that $`\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$. Suppose, on the contrary, that $`vcore(T_1)`$. Let $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$, be such that $`vS_1`$. Hence $`S=S_1S_2\{v\}`$ is stable in $`T`$ and $`\left|S\right|=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$. Consequently, $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$ but $`vS`$, in contradiction with $`vcore(T)`$.

Conversely, let $`vcore(T_i),i=1,2`$, $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i)`$, $`i=1,2`$, and $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$ be such that $`vS`$. Then $`S_1S_2`$ is stable in $`T`$ and $`\left|S_1S_2\right|=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$. Clearly, $`SV(T_i)`$ is stable in $`T_i,i=1,2`$, and because $`vcore(T_i),i=1,2`$, we have that $`\left|SV(T_i)\right|\alpha (T_i)1,i=1,2`$. Hence,

$$\left|S\right|=\left|SV(T_1)\right|+\left|SV(T_2)\right|\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)2<\left|S_1S_2\right|,$$

and this contradicts the choice $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$.

###### Lemma 3.7

If $`T_1,T_2`$ are trees, $`T=T_1vT_2`$ and $`vcore(T)`$, then

$$core(T)=core(T_1)core(T_2).$$

Proof. According to Lemma 3.5, we have that $`\alpha (T)=\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1`$, and Proposition 3.6 ensures that $`vcore(T_i),i=1,2`$.

Let $`w(core(T)\{v\})V(T_1)`$ and $`S_i\mathrm{\Omega }(T_i),i=1,2`$. Then $`S_1S_2\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$, and, therefore, $`wS_1`$. Since $`S_1`$ is an arbitrary set from $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T_1)`$, we get that

$$wcore(T_1)core(T_1)core(T_2),i.e.,core(T)core(T_1)core(T_2).$$

Conversely, let $`wcore(T_1)\{v\}`$, and suppose there is $`S\mathrm{\Omega }(T)`$, such that $`wS`$. Let us denote $`S_i=SV(T_i)`$, for $`i=1,2`$. Since $`wS_1`$, it follows that $`\left|S_1\{v\}\right|\alpha (T_1)2`$. Hence, we get a contradiction:

$$\left|S\right|=\left|S_1\{v\}\right|+\left|S_2\right|\alpha (T_1)2+\alpha (T_2)<\alpha (T_1)+\alpha (T_2)1=\alpha (T)=\left|S\right|.$$

Consequently, $`core(T_1)core(T_2)core(T)`$ is also valid, and this completes the proof.

In the following statement we are strengthening Corollary 2.3 and Proposition 3.3.

###### Theorem 3.8

If $`T`$ is a tree with $`\alpha (T)>\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, then

$$\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|2.$$

Proof. According to Proposition 3.3, $`\left|core(T)\right|2`$. Since $`T`$ is a tree, it follows that $`\left|pend(T)\right|2`$. To prove the theorem we use induction on $`n=\left|V(T)\right|`$. The result is true for $`n=3`$. Let $`T=(V,E)`$ be a tree with $`n=\left|V\right|>3`$, and suppose that the assertion is valid for any tree with fewer number of vertices. If $`core(T)=pend(T)`$, the result is clear. If $`core(T)pend(T)`$, let $`vcore(T)pend(T)`$ and $`T_1,T_2`$ be two trees such that $`T=T_1vT_2`$. A bipartition of $`N(v)`$ gives rise to a corresponding division of $`T`$ into $`T_1`$ and $`T_2`$.According to Proposition 3.6, $`vcore(T_i),i=1,2`$. Hence, Proposition 3.3 implies that $`\alpha (T_i)>\left|V(T_i)\right|/2,i=1,2`$. By the induction hypothesis, each $`T_i`$ has at least two pendant vertices belonging to $`core(T_i)`$. Lemma 3.7 ensures that $`core(T)=core(T_1)core(T_2)`$, and, therefore, $`T`$ itself has at least two pendant vertices in $`core(T)`$.

###### Corollary 3.9

Let $`T`$ be a tree with $`\alpha (T)>\left|V\left(T\right)\right|/2`$, and $`k2`$. If there exists a vertex $`vcore(T)`$ of degree greater or equal to $`2k`$, then $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|2k`$.

Proof. Let us partition $`N(v)`$ into $`k`$ subsets $`N_i(v),1ik`$, each one having at least two vertices. Then we can write $`T`$ as

$$T=(\mathrm{}((T_1vT_2)vT_3)\mathrm{})vT_k,$$

where $`T_i`$ is the subtree of $`T`$ containing $`N_i(v)`$ as the neighborhood of $`v`$. Hence, by Lemma 3.7, it follows

$$pend(T)=\{pend(T_i):1ik\},core(T)=\{core(T_i):1ik\}.$$

According to Proposition 3.6, $`vcore(T_i),1ik`$, and, therefore, Theorem 3.8 implies that:

$$\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|=\left|core(T_1)pend(T_1)\right|+\mathrm{}+\left|core(T_k)pend(T_k)\right|2k,$$

and this completes the proof.

###### Remark 3.1

For every natural number $`k`$ there exists a tree $`T`$ with a vertex $`v`$ of degree $`k`$ such that $`vcore(T)`$. For instance, such a tree $`T=(V,E)`$ can be defined as follows: $`V=\{v\}\{x_i:1i2k\}`$ and $`E=\{vx_i:1ik\}\{x_ix_{i+k}:1ik\}`$.

Combining Theorems 3.2, 3.8 and Proposition 3.3, we obtain the following characterization of trees having no perfect matchings.

###### Theorem 3.10

If $`T`$ is a tree of order $`n`$, then the following assertions are equivalent:

($`i`$) $`\alpha (T)>n/2`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖}`$) $`T`$ has no perfect matching;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑖𝑖}`$) $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|2`$;

($`\mathrm{𝑖𝑣}`$) $`\left|core(T)\right|0`$.

###### Theorem 3.11

If $`T`$ is a tree with $`\alpha (T)>\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, then for at least two distinct vertices from $`core(T)pend(T)`$ the distance between them is even. Moreover, if the set $`core(T)pend(T)`$ contains exactly two vertices, then the distance between them never equals $`4`$.

Proof. Let $`\{A,B\}`$ be the bipartition of $`T`$ into the color classes. Notice that the distance between two vertices is even if and only if they belong to the same color class of $`T`$.

To prove the theorem we use induction on $`n=\left|V(T)\right|`$. If $`n=3`$, then $`T=P_3`$ and the assertion is true. Let now $`T`$ be a tree with $`n4`$ vertices. By Theorem 3.10, $`\alpha (T)>n/2`$ yields $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|2`$.

Case $`\mathit{1}`$. If $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|3`$, then

$$\mathrm{min}(\left|Acore(T)pend(T)\right|,\left|Bcore(T)pend(T)\right|)>1.$$

Hence at least two vertices of $`core(T)pend(T)`$ belong to one color class, i.e., the distance between them is even.

Case $`\mathit{2}`$. Let now $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|=\left|\{u,v\}\right|=2`$. Figure 7 shows that such trees exist.

If $`N(u)=N(v)`$, then the distance between them is $`2`$, which is even. Suppose now that $`N(u)=\{x\}N(v)=\{y\}`$, and let $`F=T[AB\{u,v,x,y\}]`$. Since $`u`$ and $`v`$ belong to all maximum stable sets of $`T`$, we conclude that neither $`x`$ nor $`y`$ are contained in any maximum stable set of $`T`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }(T)=\{S\{u,v\}:S\mathrm{\Omega }(F)\}`$. Consequently, $`core(T)=core(F)\{u,v\}`$ and $`\alpha (F)=\alpha (T)2>n/22=(n4)/2=\left|V(F)\right|/2`$. Suppose that $`F`$ consists of $`k1`$ disjoint trees $`\{T_i:1ik\}`$. Since $`\alpha (F)=\alpha (T_1)+\mathrm{}+\alpha (T_k)>\left|V(F)\right|/2`$, at least one tree, say $`T_j`$, has $`\alpha (T_j)>\left|V(T_j)\right|/2`$. By the induction hypothesis, there exist $`c,dcore(T_j)pend(T_j)`$ such that the distance between them in $`T_j`$ is even.

The pair of vertices $`\{c,d\}N(x)N(y)`$. Otherwise, if, for instance, $`cN(x)N(y)`$, then $`ccore(T)pend(T)`$ and this contradicts the fact that $`core(T)pend(T)=\{u,v\}`$. If $`\{c,d\}N(x)`$ or $`\{c,d\}N(y)`$, then $`T_j`$ is not a tree, since $`\{cx,xd\}`$ or $`\{cx,xd\}`$ builds a new path connecting $`c`$ and $`d`$ in addition to the unique path between $`c`$ and $`d`$ in $`T_j`$ (together the two paths build a cycle, which is forbidden in trees). Suppose that $`\{c\}N(x)`$ and $`\{d\}N(y)`$. If $`xy`$ $`E(T)`$ then again we see that $`T_j`$ can not be a tree.

No edge from the set $`\{uv,uy,ud,uc,vx,vc,vd\}`$ exists since the vertices $`u`$ and $`v`$ are pendant in $`T`$. One can find an example of such a situation in Figure 7. The vertices $`c`$ and $`d`$ are not adjacent in $`T`$ because they are pendant in $`T_j`$. Thus, the distance between $`u,v`$ in $`T`$ is greater than the distance between $`c`$ and $`d`$ in $`T_j`$ by $`4`$, and consequently, it is even.

If the distance between $`u`$ and $`v`$ is not equal to $`2`$, then $`xy`$. Now the same reasoning as above brings us to the conclusion that the condition $`\left|core(T)pend(T)\right|=2`$ implies $`\left|N(x)N(y)\right|4`$, where the shortest path between $`u`$ and $`v`$ goes through the vertices $`x,c,y,d`$, at least. Hence, the distance between $`u`$ and $`v`$ is different from $`4`$. See Figure 7 for illustration of this claim.

## 4 Conclusions

In this paper we have studied relationships between pendant vertices and maximum stable sets of a tree. We have obtained a more precise version of the well-known result of Berge, , stating that $`\left|pend(T)\right|2`$ holds for any tree $`T`$ having at least two vertices. Namely, we have proved that for such a tree $`T`$ either it has a perfect matching and then both $`Apend(T)\mathrm{}`$ and $`Bpend(T)\mathrm{}`$, where $`\{A,B\}`$ is its bipartition, or it has not a perfect matching and then at least two of its pendant vertices an even distance apart belong to all maximum stable sets. As open problems, we suggest the following: are there at least two pendant vertices of $`T`$ belonging to $`\{S:S`$ is a maximal stable set in $`T`$ of size $`k\}`$, for $`k=\left|V(T)\right|/2`$, or $`k=\mathrm{min}\{\left|A\right|,\left|B\right|\}`$?


format: text

text:
# References

DESY 99–072 hep-ph/0008097
August 2000

Leptoquark Pair Production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ Scattering:

Threshold Resummation111Contribution to the Proceedings of the 1998/99 Linear Collider Workshop.
Work supported in part by EU contract FMRX-CT98-0194(DG 12 - MIHT)

Johannes Blümleina and Alexander Kryukova,b

aDeutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron, DESY
Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany

bInstitute of Nuclear Physics,
Moscow State University, RU–119899 Moscow, Russia

## Abstract

The possibilities to pair–produce leptoquarks in photon–photon collisions are discussed. QCD threshold corrections lead to a strong enhancement of the production cross section. Suitably long–lived leptoquarks ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ }<100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$) may form Leptoquarkonium states.

Leptoquark Pair Production in $`\gamma \gamma `$ Scattering:
Threshold Resummation
Johannes Blümleina and Alexander Kryukovb

aDeutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron DESY, Platanenallee 6, D-15738 Zeuthen, Germany

bInstitute of Nuclear Physics,

Moscow State University, RU–119899 Moscow, Russia

> Abstract: The possibilities to pair-produce leptoquarks in photon–photon collisions are discussed. QCD threshold corrections lead to a strong enhancement of the production cross section. Suitably long–lived leptoquarks ($`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ }<100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$) may form Leptoquarkonium states.

Leptoquarks are hypothetical particles which combine quantum numbers of the fundamental fermions of the Standard Model and emerge as bosonic (scalar and vector) states in various extensions of the Standard Model such as unified theories and sub-structure models. In most of the scenarios the mass spectrum of these states is not predicted. In a series of models, however, one expects states in the range of several hundred GeV to a few TeV. These particles can be searched for at the next generation colliders as LHC and future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders. Currently the following mass ranges are excluded by experiment for scalar leptoquarks:

$`1\mathrm{s}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{generation}\mathrm{leptoquarks}:M`$ $`>`$ $`242\mathrm{GeV}\text{[1]}(\mathrm{CDF}+\mathrm{D0})`$
$`2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{generation}\mathrm{leptoquarks}:M`$ $`>`$ $`202\mathrm{GeV}\text{[2]}(\mathrm{CDF})`$
$`2\mathrm{n}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{generation}\mathrm{leptoquarks}:M`$ $`>`$ $`200\mathrm{GeV}\text{[3]}(\mathrm{D0})`$
$`3\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{generation}\mathrm{leptoquarks}:M`$ $`>`$ $`99\mathrm{GeV}\text{[4]}(\mathrm{CDF})`$
$`3\mathrm{r}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{generation}\mathrm{leptoquarks}:M`$ $`>`$ $`94\mathrm{GeV}\text{[5]}(\mathrm{D0})`$
at $`95\%`$ CL irrespective of the size of the fermion–leptoquark couplings, which is limited to very small values  for most of the leptoquark species. Somewhat higher bounds are derived for vector leptoquark states, depending on the size of their anomalous couplings to the gluon . Unlike the fermionic couplings the couplings of the leptoquarks to the gauge bosons of the Standard Model are known, cf. , and are of the size of the standard gauge couplings of the fermions. Due to the smallness of the fermionic couplings leptoquark pair production processes at high energy colliders 222This applies to high energy $`pp`$ , $`ep`$ , $`\gamma e`$ , $`\gamma \gamma `$  and $`e^+e^{}`$  collisions. allow to perform a widely model independent search for these states.

At $`e^+e^{}`$ high energy linear colliders the largest production cross sections are obtained for $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation. This process was studied in detail in Refs.  both for scalar and vector leptoquark states. The QED radiative corrections to scalar leptoquark pair production were calculated at $`O(\alpha \mathrm{log}(s/m_e^2),O((\alpha \mathrm{log}(s/m_e^2))^2)`$ both for initial and final state radiation as well as the $`O(\alpha _s)`$ QCD correction and the correction due to beamstrahlung in Ref. . These corrections are large in the threshold range. The enhancement due to the QCD corrections, being dominated by the Coulomb singularity $`1/\beta `$ at low velocities is nearly balanced by the losses due to the QED corrections and beamstrahlung despite of the smaller size of the QED coupling constant. The second order QED corrections are still of the size of $`O(10\%)`$ of the Born cross section and have therefore to be taken into account.

A second important production channel is photon–photon pair production of leptoquarks. Here we consider the case that the photon beams are produced form the electron and positron–beams, respectively, by Laser beam Compton back–scattering. The photon energy spectrum  is described by

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (z)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N(x)}}\left[1z+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1z}}{\displaystyle \frac{4z}{x(1z)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{4z^2}{x^2(1z)^2}}\right]`$ (1)
$`N(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16+32x+18x^2+x^3}{2x(1+x)^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{x^24x8}{x^2}}\mathrm{log}(1+x),`$ (2)
where $`z`$ denotes the longitudinal momentum fraction of the photons after beam conversion and $`x=2(\sqrt{2}+1)`$, with $`zx/(1+x)`$. Alternatively, one may consider leptoquark pair production by photon–photon scattering preparing the initial state through Weizsäcker–Williams emission from the $`e^+e^{}`$ beams. These contributions are, however, much smaller than those due to Compton–conversion, cf. . The photon–photon cross section reads

$`\sigma _{\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}(s)={\displaystyle _0^{z_{max}}}𝑑z_1{\displaystyle _0^{z_{max}}}𝑑z_2\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (z_1)\mathrm{\Phi }_\gamma (z_2)\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}}(z_1z_2s)\theta (z_1z_2s4M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2).`$ (3)
For scalar leptoquarks the direct contribution to the sub–system cross section is given by

$`\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{\Phi }_S\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}_S}(s)={\displaystyle \frac{\pi \alpha ^2}{s}}Q_\mathrm{\Phi }^4\left[2(2\beta ^2)\beta (1\beta ^4)\mathrm{log}\left|{\displaystyle \frac{1+\beta }{1\beta }}\right|\right].`$ (4)
The corresponding relations for vector leptoquarks were derived in  and are somewhat lengthly due to the emergence of anomalous couplings.

Besides the direct contributions $`\gamma \gamma \mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ direct–resolved and resolved–resolved terms are present,

$`\sigma (\gamma +\gamma \mathrm{\Phi }\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }})=\sigma _{dir.}+\sigma _{res.,dir.}+\sigma _{res.}`$ (5)
The latter ones are hadronic contributions and were calculated for both scalar and vector leptoquarks in Refs.  including two anomalous couplings for vector leptoquarks. The numerical analysis shows, that these terms contribute significantly only far away from threshold, i.e. typically for larger values of the cms velocities $`\beta 0.8`$ of the leptoquarks .

In the search region (threshold) the photo–pair production cross sections behave like $`Q_\mathrm{\Phi }^4`$ and may vary by a factor of 625 between the production cross sections for $`|Q_\mathrm{\Phi }|=1/3`$ and for $`|Q_\mathrm{\Phi }|=5/3`$ states, which have the same cross section at a hadron collider. For vector leptoquark the cross sections are strongly sensitive to the anomalous couplings $`\kappa _\gamma `$ and $`\lambda _\gamma `$ .

In the threshold region QCD corrections to the photon–photon process, similar as in $`e^+e^{}`$ annihilation , are very important. These corrections can only be calculated for the case of scalar leptoquark pair production, since for vector leptoquarks the effective Lagrangian does not correspond to a renormalizable theory. We will therefore limit the consideration to the case of scalar leptoquarks here. Threshold resummations of the universal terms have been considered in the literature before, cf. Refs. . For a final state of a pair of scalar leptoquarks we follow . The Born cross section $`d\sigma _B`$ obtains the correction factor $`K_S(E)/K_S^{(B)}(E)`$,

$`d\sigma =d\sigma ^{\mathrm{BORN}}{\displaystyle \frac{K_s(E)}{K_S^B(E)}}`$ (6)
$`K^{(B)}(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }}{4\pi }}\sqrt{M_\varphi E}`$ (7)
$`K_S(E)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}{4\pi }}\{{\displaystyle \frac{k_+}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2k_1}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }}}\mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_+}{k_{}}}\right)`$ (8)
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{2k_1^2}{M_\mathrm{\Phi }^2n^4}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }k_1n+k_+\left[n^2\sqrt{E^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}+k_1^2/M_\mathrm{\Phi }\right]}{\left[E+k_1^2/(M_\mathrm{\Phi }n^2)\right]^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}}\},`$
with $`E=\sqrt{s}2M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$. $`M_S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S`$ denote the mass and width of the scalar leptoquark and

$`k_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\alpha _s(M_\mathrm{\Phi })M_\mathrm{\Phi }`$
$`k_\pm `$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{M_\mathrm{\Phi }}{2}}\left(\sqrt{E^2+\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }^2}\pm E\right)}.`$
Here the strong coupling constant $`\alpha _s=\alpha _s(M_S^2)`$ was considered to be fixed.

In Figure 1 the ratio of the integrated cross section with threshold resummation and the Born cross section is shown assuming a decay width of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_S=1\mathrm{G}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ as an illustration. 333The ’idealized’ decay widths are by far smaller due to the the small fermionic couplings. However, the real leptoquark width should be larger since these particles are supposed to fragment into hadrons similar as quarks do. A theoretically safe value of the width is hard to obtain due to these non–perturbative effects. Threshold enhancements of a factor 5–8 can be obtained.

If the width of the leptoquarks turns out to be $`\text{ }<100\mathrm{MeV}`$ Leptoquarkonia can be formed in $`\gamma \gamma `$–collisions, cf.  444This possibility was later discussed in  too.. The $`\beta `$–behavior at threshold is favoring the $`\gamma \gamma `$–process ($`\sigma \beta `$) in comparison to the $`e^+e^{}`$ process ($`\sigma \beta ^3`$). In Figure 2 the total cross sections are shown with and without threshold resummation.

To summarize, photon pair–production of scalar and vector leptoquarks at future $`e^+e^{}`$ linear colliders were studied. The cross sections vary by the leptoquark charge as $`|Q_\mathrm{\Phi }|^4`$, which may mean a variation up to a factor of 625. This production process offers a background free window to study the anomalous couplings $`\kappa _A`$ and $`\lambda _A`$ of potential vector leptoquark states to the photon. The threshold QCD enhancement of the photon–photon process is of $`O(58)`$ for typical choices of the parameters. Leptoquarkonia can be formed in the photon–photon process iff their width is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\mathrm{\Phi }\text{ }<100\mathrm{M}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$.

Figure 1: Ratio of the leptoquark pair production cross section including the threshold resummation and the Born cross section as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. Left full line: $`M=200\mathrm{GeV}`$; dashed line: $`M=250\mathrm{GeV}`$; dotted line: $`M=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, dash–dotted line: $`M=350\mathrm{GeV}`$; right full line: $`M=400\mathrm{GeV}`$.

Figure 2: Leptoquark pair production cross section $`\sigma (\gamma \gamma \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }}\mathrm{\Phi })`$ as a function of $`\sqrt{s}`$. Each pair of equally drawn lines corresponds to the same leptoquark mass. Upper line: $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}}+\sigma _{resum}`$; lower line: $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}}`$. Upper full lines: $`M=200\mathrm{GeV}`$; dashed lines: $`M=250\mathrm{GeV}`$; dotted lines: $`M=300\mathrm{GeV}`$, dash–dotted lines: $`M=350\mathrm{GeV}`$; lower full lines: $`M=400\mathrm{GeV}`$.


text:
# Phase fluctuations, dissipation and superfluid stiffness in d-wave superconductors

## I introduction

There is considerable experimental evidence for a linear temperature dependence of the superfluid density at low temperatures in high-$`T_c`$ superconducting cuprates, i.e.

$$\rho _s(T)=\rho _s(0)\alpha T$$
(1)
where $`\alpha `$ is a weakly doping-dependent constant . However, there is still some controversy regarding the low-energy excitations responsible for this thermal suppression of $`\rho _s`$. The simplest explanation is in terms of quasiparticle excitations near the $`d`$-wave nodes . An alternative explanation is in terms of thermal fluctuations of the phase of the order parameter  or other collective modes .

The existence of well-defined quasiparticles in the superconducting state of cuprates is supported both by transport  and ARPES  experiments (even though there are some studies questioning their Fermi liquid description ). However, the contributions of phase fluctuations to low temperature properties could still be important, especially in the underdoped regime where the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ becomes vanishingly small as the Mott insulator is approached.

The study of phase fluctuations raises several important issues: (1) The form of the phase-only action for layered $`d`$-wave superconductors (SC’s) taking into account the long-range Coulomb interaction; (2) The crossover between quantum and classical regimes of phase fluctuations. These questions were studied in detail in ref.  which, however, did not discuss the role of dissipation. In this paper, we focus on dissipative effects and how they affect the form of the phase-only action and the quantum-to-classical crossover.

There are several reasons to believe that low energy dissipation is important in the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates. Theoretically, weak disorder within a self-consistent T-matrix calculation leads to a nonzero “universal” low frequency quasiparticle conductivity  in $`d`$-wave SC’s. Experiments have also measured a nonzero low frequency conductivity , much larger than the “universal” value. While there is no consensus on the origin of this large conductivity, one would definitely expect this dissipation to affect the phase fluctuations in the system, as first emphasized by Emery and Kivelson (EK) . Our formalism and results, however, differ from those of EK as discussed in detail in the paper.

We summarize our main results below:

(1) We derive the Gaussian effective action for phase fluctuations in the presence of dissipation using a functional integral approach and integrating out fermionic degrees of freedom. While our effective action is derived microscopically by looking at fluctuations around a BCS mean field solution, we make contact with experiment by using parameter values relevant to the high $`T_c`$ SCs. We believe this phenomenological approach of using the derived form for the action, with coefficients taken from experiment, is valid for the SC state of the high $`T_c`$ materials, at least for $`TT_c`$, when quasiparticles are well defined. In addition, we also present in an Appendix, a hydrodynamic derivation for the phase mode based on a two-fluid model, which serves as a check on the microscopic derivation.

(2) A dissipative quantum $`XY`$ model is obtained by coarse-graining the Gaussian action to the scale of the coherence length and analyzed within a self-consistent harmonic approximation.

(3) We find that the magnitude of quantum fluctuations at $`T=0`$ is reduced by the presence of dissipation.

(4) Dissipative phase fluctuations alone, in the absence of quasiparticle excitations, are shown to lead to a $`T^2`$ reduction  of the superfluid stiffness. This behavior crosses over to a classical linear $`T`$ reduction at a scale $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$, which decreases with increasing dissipation.

(5) Choosing parameters appropriate to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, and overestimating the dissipation, we nevertheless find that the crossover scale $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is still fairly large. Thus one cannot attribute the low temperature linear reduction of $`\rho _s(T)`$ to classical phase fluctuations. This $`T`$-dependence must therefore arise entirely from quasiparticle excitations near the $`d`$-wave nodes.

## II effective phase action

We find it convenient to express the superfluid density $`\rho _s`$ in terms of a stiffness $`D_s=\mathrm{}^2\rho _s/m^{}`$, which in the London limit is related to the penetration depth $`\lambda `$ in a 3D bulk system through $`1/\lambda ^2=4\pi e^2D_s/\mathrm{}^2c^2`$. The in-plane superfluid stiffness in a layered system, with interlayer spacing $`d_c`$, is $`d_cD_s`$ with dimension of energy. Henceforth, unless explicitly displayed, we set $`\mathrm{}=k__B=1`$.

We begin with the Gaussian phase action for a 3D isotropic superconductor (SC)

$$S_G[\theta ]=\frac{a^3}{8T}\underset{𝐪,\omega _n}{}\left(\omega _n^2\chi +D(i\omega _n)𝐪^2\right)\theta (𝐪,i\omega _n)\theta (𝐪,i\omega _n).$$
(2)
For a derivation in the $`s`$-wave case see refs.  and for the $`d`$-wave case see ref. . We show in Appendix A that the above action, and its generalization to layered systems, can be also derived from hydrodynamic considerations within a two-fluid model. In the above action (2), the compressibility $`\chi (𝐪0)1/V_𝐪`$ where $`V_𝐪`$ is the Coulomb interaction and $`a`$ is the lattice spacing. On continuing to real frequency $`D(\omega )`$ is the mean field stiffness, which is related to the mean-field complex conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ through $`D(\omega )=(i\omega \sigma (\omega )/e^2)`$. In arriving at the above action, we have made the implicit assumption that $`\sigma (𝐪,\omega )\sigma (0,\omega )`$, and ignored the $`𝐪`$-dependence of the conductivity  for $`𝐪\pi /\xi _0`$.

We use the spectral representation for $`\sigma `$, and find that

$$D(i\omega _n)=D_s^0+\frac{1}{e^2}_0^{\mathrm{}}\frac{d\omega }{\pi }\frac{2\omega _n^2}{(\omega ^2+\omega _n^2)}\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{reg}(\omega )$$
(3)
where we have used $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma (\omega )=\pi D_s^0e^2\delta (\omega )+\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{reg}(\omega )`$. For a frequency-independent $`\mathrm{Re}\sigma _{reg}(\omega )=\sigma _{_{DC}}`$, this simplifies to

$$D(i\omega _n)=D_s^0+\frac{\sigma _{_{DC}}}{e^2}|\omega _n|.$$
(4)
Unless indicated otherwise, we will use this simplified form of the conductivity below, and use $`\overline{\sigma }=\sigma _{_{DC}}d_c/(e^2/h)`$ as a dimensionless measure of the dissipation.

It is straightforward to generalize the above results to a layered system with an in-plane stiffness $`D_{_{}}^0`$ and a c-axis stiffness $`D_{_{}}^0`$. Further, the Coulomb interaction in a system with layer spacing $`d_c`$ gets modified to

$$V(𝐪)=\frac{2\pi e^2d_c}{q_{}ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{sinh}(q_{}d_c)}{\mathrm{cosh}(q_{}d_c)\mathrm{cos}(q_{}d_c)}\right]$$
(5)
where $`q_{},q_{}`$ are the in-plane and c-axis components of $`𝐪`$ respectively.

To investigate the contribution of the phase fluctuations to the depletion of superfluid density it is necessary to go beyond the Gaussian approximation. The simplest model which allows for such an analysis is the quantum $`XY`$ model, in which the phase field is defined on a coarse-grained lattice, with an in-plane lattice constant of $`\xi _0`$ and layer spacing $`d_c`$. The coherence length enters as a short distance cutoff since the mean field assumption of a constant amplitude breaks down at shorter distances.

Following exactly the same procedure of coarse-graining used in ref.  (for the non-dissipative case) we now obtain the dissipative quantum $`XY`$ action:

$`S_{XY}[\theta ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8T}}{\displaystyle \underset{𝐐,\omega _n}{}^{}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\omega _n^2\xi _0^2d_c}{\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐐)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }}|\omega _n|\gamma _{_{}}(𝐐)\right)|\theta (𝐐,\omega _n)|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{D_{_{}}^0d_c}{4}}{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{𝐑,\alpha =x,y}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta (𝐑,\tau )\theta (𝐑+\alpha ,\tau )]\right)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{D_{_{}}^0d_c}{4}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _0}{d_c}}\right)^2{\displaystyle _0^{1/T}}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \underset{𝐑}{}}\left(1\mathrm{cos}[\theta (𝐑,\tau )\theta (𝐑+\widehat{𝐳},\tau )]\right).`$ (7)
Here $`\gamma _{_{}}(𝐐)=(42\mathrm{cos}Q_x2\mathrm{cos}Q_y)`$ with $`𝐐`$ being the dimensionless momentum, and the scaled interaction  $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐐)V(𝐐_{_{}}/\xi _0,Q_{_{}}/d_c)`$. While all momenta with $`|𝐐_x|,|𝐐_y|,|𝐐_z|\pi `$ contribute in (7) above, the prime on the summation denotes a Matsubara frequency cutoff discussed below (see also ref. ).

In this derivation we have promoted the gradient terms in the Gaussian action arising from the superfluid stiffness to the cosine form, while the dissipative terms have still been retained at Gaussian level. A more sophisticated approach would probably end up with a $`\tau `$ non-local kernel within the cosine term; we will however continue to work with the simplest action above. This action (7) is well known in the literature as the resistively shunted Josephson junction (RSJJ) model and its phases and quantum phase transitions have been extensively studied . Here we are interested in the effect of dissipation on quantum phase fluctuations and the classical crossover temperature, in the superconducting state.

We now discuss the differences between our action (7) and that considered by Emery and Kivelson (EK) . EK included the effects of screening by replacing the $`V(𝐐)`$ appearing in Eq. (2) with the screened interaction $`V_s(𝐐)=V(𝐐)/ϵ(\omega )`$. Here $`ϵ(\omega )=1+4\pi \mathrm{i}\sigma _L(\omega )/\omega `$ is the dielectric function at $`𝐐=0`$, and $`\sigma _L(\omega )`$ is the longitudinal optical conductivity. Considering the isotropic 3D Coulomb interaction, $`4\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}𝐐^2`$ , the dynamical term in the EK analysis reduces to the form $`\omega _n^2ϵ_{\mathrm{}}ϵ(\omega )𝐐^2/4\pi e^2`$ . This expression has been shown to be correct  when the screening in the superconductor is produced by some external degrees of freedom with conductivity $`\sigma _L(\omega )`$. An example is provided by a coupled system consisting of a superconductor interacting via Coulomb interactions with a normal metal.

However, as discussed in ref., the EK effective action is not obtained for a single homogeneous SC. The longitudinal conductivity $`\sigma _L`$ of the SC does not explicitly appear in the expression of the density-density correlation function $`\chi `$. Instead dissipation appears through the transverse current-current correlation function, and affects the gradient term in the action (2), so that $`D_{_{}}D_{_{}}\mathrm{i}\omega \sigma _T(\omega )/e^2`$, where $`\sigma _T`$ is the transverse conductivity.

If we would assume that physical (i.e., gauge-invariant) correlation functions appear as the coefficients in the phase action, then, using the equality of the physical longitudinal and transverse conductivities, it is easy to see that our action (2) is identical to the EK action , for the specific case of a SC with isotropic 3D Coulomb interactions. In this 3D case one could associate the $`\sigma `$ with either the gradient term, as we do, or with the time derivative term, as done by EK. The action used by EK is then formally the same as our action, and one could argue that dissipation should appear in the same way whether it is from an external bath (EK) or from internal degrees of freedom (our case).

The above assumption of gauge invariant coefficients is, however, not valid for a single homogeneous SC where the screening arises from the (low energy) internal degrees of freedom. The coefficients in the phase action are then mean-field correlation functions; they cannot, in general, be gauge-invariant since the phase variable is yet to be integrated out. It is only upon integrating out the phase variable that one restores gauge invariance .

## III Quantum and Classical Phase Fluctuations

### A Variational Analysis

We analyze the quantum $`XY`$ action within the self consistent harmonic approximation (SCHA). We believe that this is adequate to calculate the effects of phase fluctuations at low temperatures, where longitudinal (“spin-wave”) fluctuations dominate and transverse (vortex) excitations are exponentially suppressed given their finite core energies. To examine the low temperature in-plane properties, we assume $`D_{_{}}^0=0`$ in (7) since it is very small in highly anisotropic systems with a large $`\lambda _{_{}}`$. For parameter values appropriate to $`Bi2212`$, we have numerically checked that setting $`D_{_{}}^0=0`$ does not affect our in-plane results.

The SCHA  is carried out by replacing the above action by a trial harmonic theory with the renormalized stiffness $`D_{_{}}`$ chosen to minimize the free energy of the trial action. This leads to

$$D_{_{}}=D_{_{}}^0\mathrm{exp}(\delta \theta _{_{}}^2/2)$$
(8)
where $`\delta \theta _{_{}}(\theta _{𝐫,\tau }\theta _{𝐫+\alpha ,\tau })`$ with $`\alpha =x,y`$ and the expectation value evaluated in the renormalized harmonic theory is given by

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2=2T_\pi ^\pi \frac{d^3𝐐}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{n=n_c}{\overset{n_c}{}}\frac{\gamma _{_{}}(𝐐)}{\omega _n^2\xi _0^2d_c/\stackrel{~}{V}_𝐐+(D_{_{}}d_c+\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }|\omega _n|)\gamma _{_{}}(𝐐)}.$$
(9)
As mentioned earlier, the dynamical phase distortions should have a frequency cutoff for the simple action we have considered. In our numerics, we use a cutoff $`n_c`$ corresponding to $`\omega _n\sqrt{(D_{_{}}d_c)(2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)}`$, but we have checked that the presence of a finite $`n_c`$ has only a minor quantitative effect on the results for $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ in the presence of dissipation, and one may set $`n_c\mathrm{}`$ to obtain qualitatively correct results.

### B Analytical estimates of quantum and thermal fluctuations

We first present estimates of the magnitude of quantum fluctuations and the thermal crossover scale making certain simplifying assumptions. The in-plane quantum fluctuations are seen to be dominated by relatively large $`Q_{_{}}`$ from phase space considerations and the form of the integrand in (9). In this case, we may set $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐐1)/\xi _0^2d_c2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0`$. Restricting ourselves to low $`T`$, we ignore the Matsubara cutoffs and set $`n_c\mathrm{}`$. With these simplifications, we work in the limiting cases of small and large dissipation. We report further analytical results in Appendix B. In particular, we calculate the renormalization of the superfluid stiffness for an anisotropic 3D Coulomb interaction (instead of the Coulomb interaction in layered systems used in the paper) which permits us to analyze the case of arbitrary $`\overline{\sigma }`$.

First recall the non-dissipative case  where the problem involves only two energy scales: the Coulomb energy $`(2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)`$ and the layer stiffness $`D_{_{}}d_c`$. The quantum zero point fluctuations of the phase are given by the dimensionless combination $`\sqrt{(2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)/D_{_{}}d_c}`$, while the crossover to classical fluctuations takes place at a temperature $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}\sqrt{(D_{_{}}d_c)(2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)}`$. Taking into account the temperature dependence of the bare stiffness, a better estimate of the crossover temperature is $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}T_c`$.

For the dissipative case at $`T=0`$ we convert the Matsubara sum to an integral. For large $`\overline{\sigma }`$, ignoring $`D_{_{}}d_c`$ in the integrand, and introducing a lower frequency cutoff, $`2\pi D_{_{}}d_c/\overline{\sigma }`$, it is easy to show that the the magnitude of quantum fluctuations may be estimated as $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2\left(\frac{8}{\overline{\sigma }}\right)\mathrm{ln}\left[\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }\sqrt{(2\pi e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)/(D_{_{}}d_c)}\right]`$. This is similar to the result obtained by Chakravarty et al  for a RSJJ model with short range charging energies. Increasing dissipation thus leads to a decrease in quantum fluctuations as the system becomes more classical.

To evaluate the temperature scale at which one crosses over to classical fluctuations in the presence of dissipation, we have to consider the temperature above which only the $`n=0`$ Matsubara frequency contributes, so that phase dynamics is unimportant. For large $`\overline{\sigma }`$, this may be estimated in a simple manner by setting $`(\overline{\sigma }/2\pi )|\omega _n|D_{_{}}d_c`$ with $`n=1`$, which ensures that fluctuations with $`n1`$ would contribute very little to the fluctuation integral in (9). This leads to $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}D_{_{}}d_c/\overline{\sigma }`$. A better estimate is obtained below, which gives $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}3D_{_{}}d_c/\overline{\sigma }`$. It is clear that the classical limit emerges as the limit of infinite dissipation, $`\overline{\sigma }\mathrm{}`$, for which $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}0`$. The crossover scale we obtain is similar in form to the estimate, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}T_c/\overline{\sigma }`$, given in ref. , but is much larger in magnitude.

### C Low temperature behavior

We next turn to the temperature dependence of the renormalized stiffness in the presence of dissipation, where we have set the bare stiffness to be independent of temperature. This is of course an unphysical assumption for a $`d`$-wave SC, but our aim is to explicitly check whether a linear $`T`$-dependence can be obtained within a model of purely dissipative phase fluctuations even when temperatures are smaller than the thermal crossover scale estimated above. The fluctuation $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ at low $`T`$ can be evaluated analytically again by setting the cutoff $`n_c\mathrm{}`$. We can then cast the Matsubara sum in the form

$$\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A(𝐐,T)}{n^2+B(𝐐,T)|n|+C(𝐐,T)}=2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{A(𝐐,T)}{n^2+B(𝐐,T)n+C(𝐐,T)}\frac{A(𝐐,T)}{C(𝐐,T)}.$$
(10)
Rewriting the denominator of the first term in the form $`(n+n_1)(n+n_2)`$, we separate out the terms using partial fractions and express the resulting sums in terms of digamma functions. As $`T0`$, $`n_{1,2}\mathrm{}`$ which allows us to use the asymptotic expansion for the digamma function. The linear $`T`$ term arising from the infinite sum is precisely canceled by the linear $`T`$ term from the $`A(𝐐,T)/C(𝐐,T)`$ term, leaving only a quadratic temperature dependence as was pointed out in ref. . We thus finally arrive at $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(T)=\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(0)+(\overline{\sigma }/3)(T/D_{_{}}d_c)^2`$ at low $`T`$, from which

$$\frac{D_{_{}}(T)}{D_{_{}}(0)}1\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{6}\left(\frac{T}{D_{_{}}(0)d_c}\right)^2.$$
(11)
Thus, ignoring the effects of nodal quasiparticles, the asymptotic low temperature stiffness decreases as $`T^2`$ in the presence of dissipation.

At high temperature, above the thermal crossover scale, we recover the classical result $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(T)2T/(D_{_{}}d_c)`$. An improved estimate of the thermal crossover scale $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ is obtained by matching the slope of this high temperature result for $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ with the low temperature result of Eq. (11). This gives us $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}=3D_{_{}}d_c/\overline{\sigma }`$ as stated earlier.

At this stage, we turn to the recent results of Lemberger and co-workers , who use a circuit analogy and model a Josephson junction as an inductance ($`L_0`$) shunted by a resistance ($`R`$) and capacitance ($`C`$). To make correspondence with this work, we note that the inductance $`L_0(D_{_{}}d_c)^1`$, the charging energy $`e^2/2C(e^2/ϵ_b\xi _0)`$ and the resistance $`R(1/\overline{\sigma })(h/e^2)`$. Upto numerical factors of order unity, our expressions for the magnitude of quantum fluctuations and the thermal crossover scale are then in agreement. The predicted quantum to thermal crossover has also been recently observed in experiments on conventional s-wave superconducting films.

### D Numerical Results

In order to obtain the various scales for the cuprates, we will choose parameters of the above action appropriate for the bilayer system $`Bi2212`$ and evaluate the above estimates. We then present results of detailed numerical calculations which are shown to agree with these simple estimates.

In the absence of detailed information on the bilayer couplings, we make the assumption that the two layers within a bilayer are strongly coupled and phase locked. Experimentally, the in-plane penetration depth of optimally doped $`Bi2212`$ is around $`2100\AA `$ and this translates into a bilayer stiffness $`75meV`$. We use $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}10`$, and $`d_c/a4`$, with the in-plane coherence length $`\xi _0/a10`$. This leads to a Coulomb scale $`(e^2/ϵ_{\mathrm{}}\xi _0)35meV`$. Using the above parameters, we find large quantum fluctuations in the non-dissipative case ($`\overline{\sigma }=0`$) with $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^21`$. The thermal crossover scale as estimated from the zero temperature bilayer stiffness, $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}T_c100K`$. A more sensible estimate is obtained by considering the temperature dependence of the bare stiffness, and this leads to a crossover scale for $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}T_c`$ for $`\overline{\sigma }=0`$.

To study the effect of dissipation, we use conductivity data obtained from experiments performed in the superconducting state. Consistent with our assumption of strongly coupled phases within a bilayer for $`Bi2212`$, the dissipation parameter $`\overline{\sigma }`$ for this system will be taken to be the dimensionless bilayer conductivity. Recent measurements by Corson et al on $`Bi2212`$ films give a Drude conductivity with a large low frequency value corresponding to $`\overline{\sigma }75`$ and a width of a few Terahertz. Similar large conductivities have been measured in the microwave regime . We note that the “universal” quasiparticle conductivity predicted by Lee  for the bilayer conductivity (at $`T=0,\omega 0`$) corresponds to  $`\overline{\sigma }24`$ for $`Bi2212`$. The difference between this “universal” value, and the $`\overline{\sigma }150`$ inferred from microwave data  may be due to vertex corrections. In our calculations, we use a constant dissipation with $`\overline{\sigma }150`$ (as an overestimate) over the entire frequency range of interest: $`\omega _n`$ with $`|n|n_c`$. This frequency range corresponds to $`\omega 100meV`$ at $`T=0`$.

In the presence of dissipation, we find that quantum fluctuations are reduced to a very small value $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^20.2`$. The thermal crossover scale is then $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}=3D_{_{}}d_c/\overline{\sigma }18K`$. This is consistent with our numerics, where we find that linear $`T`$ behavior from thermal phase fluctuations only sets in above a temperature $`20K`$, for this magnitude of dissipation. While this is a low temperature scale, penetration depth measurements  observe a smooth linear $`T`$ behavior down to much lower temperatures $`5K`$, which cannot be reconciled with this crossover scale.

Turning to $`YBCO`$, and treating this system as weakly coupled single layers, far infra-red reflectance measurements  appear to be consistent with $`\overline{\sigma }10`$-$`15`$ over a wide frequency range $`5`$-$`100meV`$. This smaller value of $`\overline{\sigma }`$ compared to $`Bi2212`$ implies that dissipative effects are less important in $`YBCO`$. The “universal” conductivity  for this case  corresponds to $`\overline{\sigma }9`$, not inconsistent with the above data. However, low frequency microwave measurements on $`YBCO`$ observe a strong frequency and temperature dependent quasiparticle conductivity, of the Drude form. We have checked that using a temperature dependent Drude conductivity in this very low frequency regime, in addition to a constant dissipation over the entire frequency range, does not significantly affect our results.

In Fig. 1 we compare our analytical results and estimates obtained above, for $`Bi2212`$, with a numerical solution of the SCHA equations (8) and (9). We find that the purely quadratic dependence persists up to about $`6K`$ for the parameters discussed above, while linear T dependence only sets in at temperatures $`20K`$, consistent with the above estimate for $`T_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. Thus, it is impossible to ignore quasiparticles for understanding the smooth linear $`T`$ behavior of the penetration depth which has been observed down to temperatures $`5K`$.

We next include the linear $`T`$ effect of quasiparticle excitations in the bare stiffness and ask how dissipative phase fluctuations renormalize this. The numerical result is plotted in Fig. 2 and shows that both the $`T=0`$ stiffness and its slope are renormalized by small amounts. This is completely consistent with our estimates for a small quantum renormalization in the presence of dissipation and a temperature scale of about $`20K`$ below which classical thermal effects are unimportant.

### E High temperature behavior

Although quasiparticles dominate at low temperature, eventually phase fluctuations do become important at higher temperatures, in driving the transition to the non-superconducting state. The approximation used thus far (SCHA) by itself is clearly inadequate to address the problem of $`T_c`$ since it only includes longitudinal phase fluctuations. We thus proceed in two steps: first we calculate the temperature dependence of the superfluid stiffness within the SCHA, and then we supplement it with the Nelson-Kosterlitz condition for the universal jump in the stiffness at a 2D Kosterlitz-Thouless transition  mediated by the unbinding of vortices. We do not take into account, for simplicity, the effect of layering in this calculation, but this could be easily done using well-known results for dimensional crossover.

Our numerical results, obtained by solving the SCHA equations for parameter values relevant to $`Bi2212`$, are plotted in Fig. 3. We take the bare stiffness (the dashed line in Fig. 3) to decrease linearly with temperature, consistent with experiments, as a result of quasiparticle excitations. We extend this linear $`T`$ dependence of the bare stiffness to higher temperatures assuming that the gap function is unaffected for $`T<T_c`$. This is probably a good assumption in underdoped systems and may not be unreasonable for optimal doping. The renormalized stiffness calculated within SCHA is shown as the full line. This stiffness shows a jump at a temperature $`90K`$, but that is likely an artifact of the SCHA. The Kosterlitz-Thouless transition occurs at $`T_{KT}=\pi D_s(T_{KT}^{})d_c/8`$, where the fully renormalized stiffness $`D_s`$ is evaluated just below $`T_{KT}`$. We use the renormalized stiffness within the SCHA and the above condition, to obtain an approximate location of this transition. As can be seen from Fig. 3, this gives us a reasonable estimate of $`T_c80K`$, when compared with experiments on optimal $`Bi2212`$ which give $`T_c90K`$.

## IV conclusions

In this paper we have derived and analyzed the effective action for phase fluctuations in the presence of dissipation arising from low-frequency absorption in a $`d`$-wave superconductor. We find that including dissipation reduces the magnitude of quantum phase fluctuations. The temperature at which one crosses over to thermal phase fluctuation is also reduced drastically. However, for parameter values relevant to the high-$`T_c`$ cuprates, we find that the thermal crossover scale is still large, so that quasiparticles dominate the asymptotic low temperature properties. In particular, they must be responsible for linear $`T`$-dependence of the low temperature penetration depth.

Acknowledgements: We acknowledge C. Di Castro, M. Grilli, S. de Palo and T.V. Ramakrishnan for useful discussions and comments. We are particularly grateful to T. Lemberger for helpful discussions and detailed comments on the paper. The work of M.R. was supported in part by the D.S.T., Govt. of India, under the Swarnajayanti scheme.

## A Two fluid hydrodynamics and collective modes at low temperature

In this Appendix we analyze the finite-temperature properties of the two-fluid model, to determine the collective modes of a superconductor in the presence of dissipative processes. We first consider a 3D Galilean invariant system and later generalize the result to a layered system, still maintaining Galilean invariance in the planes. Our goal is to determine the phase action that gives rise to this collective mode, which serves as another way to arrive at the Gaussian action derived microscopically in the text.

The ordinary equations of a superfluid  are altered by the addition of a dissipative contribution. The longitudinal modes arising in the presence of long-range Coulomb forces obey the following set of linearized equations:

$`\omega \delta \rho =𝐪𝐣,`$ (A3)
$`\omega \delta s+{\displaystyle \frac{s\rho _s}{\rho }}𝐪(𝐯_s𝐯_n)=0,`$
$`𝐣=\left[\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{e\rho _s}{m\omega }}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma _{reg}(\omega )}{e}}\right)\right]𝐄+{\displaystyle \frac{𝐪}{\omega }}\delta P,`$
$`\mathrm{i}\omega 𝐯_s\mathrm{i}𝐪\delta \mu +{\displaystyle \frac{e𝐄}{m}}=0,`$ (A5)
$`\mathrm{i}𝐪𝐄={\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}}\delta \rho .`$
Here the symbols have their usual meanings: $`\omega ,𝐪`$ are the frequency and wavevector, the subscripts $`s,n`$ refer to the superfluid or normal component, $`\rho ,𝐣`$ are the particle density and particle-current density, $`𝐯`$ indicates a velocity, $`𝐄`$ is the internal longitudinal electric field, $`\sigma _{reg}(\omega )`$ is the regular part of the complex conductivity, and $`ϵ_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the background dielectric constant. Further the thermodynamic variables, the pressure $`P`$, the entropy per particle $`s`$, and the chemical potential $`\mu `$, are related by the identity

$$\delta \mu =s\delta T+\frac{1}{\rho }\delta P.$$
(A6)
Note that dissipative processes due to thermal conductivity, which should appear on the right-hand side of Eq. (A3), can be neglected at low temperature and anyway, affect only second sound, which is decoupled from the density mode, as we shall see below. Moreover, the Lorentz force and the Joule heating are second order in the fluctuations, and do not affect the linearized equations which we are investigating.

The equations for first and second sound, i.e., for density and entropy fluctuations respectively, are in principle coupled via the pressure variations:

$`\omega ^2\delta \rho `$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2\rho _s}{mϵ_{\mathrm{}}}}\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \omega \sigma _{reg}(\omega )}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}}\right]\delta \rho +q^2\delta P,`$ (A7)
$`\omega ^2\delta s`$ $`=`$ $`q^2{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _ss^2}{\rho _n}}\delta T\left[{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi e^2\rho _n}{mϵ_{\mathrm{}}}}+\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi \omega \sigma _{reg}(\omega )}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _ss}{\rho _n\rho }}\delta \rho .`$ (A8)
However, observing that we can rewrite

$$\delta P=\left(\frac{P}{\rho }\right)_T\delta \rho +\left(\frac{P}{T}\right)_\rho \delta T,$$
(A9)
and using $`\left(P/T\right)_\rho =0`$ as $`T0`$ as a consequence of Nernst’s theorem , we can conclude that, at low temperature, second sound does not mix with the longitudinal density modes. From equations (A8) and (A9), we then deduce the the dispersion for density fluctuations, given by

$$\omega ^2=\left[\frac{4\pi e^2\rho _s}{mϵ_{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{i}\frac{4\pi \omega \sigma _{reg}(\omega )}{ϵ_{\mathrm{}}}\right]+c_p^2q^2$$
(A10)
where $`c_p`$ is a constant. From now on we neglect the term $`c_p^2q^2`$ which is unimportant in the long wavelength limit. This is the plasmon dispersion, and coincides with result of the microscopic derivation in ref. . (To make connection with Eq. (29) of that reference, note that the real part of the right hand side of Eq. (A10) above is $`4\pi \omega \mathrm{Im}\sigma (\omega )`$, where $`\sigma (\omega )`$ is the total conductivity.)

Since we are interested in layered systems Eq. (A10) must be modified. For simplicity we consider the case of carriers confined to stacked (Galilean invariant) planes interacting via an the anisotropic Coulomb potential $`V(𝐪)`$ defined in Eq. (5). Referring to the components in-plane and across planes with a subscript $``$ and $``$ respectively, we then assume that $`m_{}=\mathrm{}`$, $`m_{}=m`$, $`\sigma _{}=0`$ and denoting $`\sigma _{}^{reg}=\sigma _{}`$. The longitudinal electric field $`E`$ has components, $`E_{}=\mathrm{i}q_{}\varphi (𝐪)`$ and $`E_{}=\mathrm{i}q_{}\varphi (𝐪)`$, where the the electrostatic potential $`\varphi (𝐪)`$ for a density disturbance $`\delta \rho (𝐪)`$ is given by $`\varphi (𝐪)=(V(𝐪)/e)\delta \rho `$. As $`m_{}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`\sigma _{}=0`$, only the in-plane component $`E_{}`$ enters in the linear response response Eq. (A3) and determines the ballistic motion of the superfluid electrons, Eq. (A5). Rewriting (A3)-(A5) and decoupling again the first and second sound as before, we obtain the density mode

$$\omega ^2=\left[\frac{\rho _s}{m}\frac{\mathrm{i}\omega \sigma _{}(\omega )}{e^2}\right]q_{}^2V(𝐪).$$
(A11)
Eq. (A11) allows us to deduce the correct expression for the phase-only Lagrangian in the layered case. Indeed, according to the previous equation, in the presence of dissipation, the superfluid stiffness must be transformed as $`\rho _s/m\left(\rho _s/m\mathrm{i}\omega \sigma _{}(\omega )/e^2\right)`$. We thus obtain, at the Gaussian level, the Lagrangian density

$$(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{1}{8}\left[V^1(𝐪)\omega ^2\left(\frac{\rho _s}{m}\frac{\mathrm{i}\omega \sigma _{}(\omega )}{e^2}\right)q_{_{}}^2\right]|\theta (𝐪,\omega )|^2,$$
(A12)
which is the same as the Gaussian action used in the paper.

## B Analytical results for phase fluctuations with arbitrary $`\overline{\sigma }`$

It is useful to calculate the the fluctuation $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ for arbitrary dissipation $`\overline{\sigma }`$, even approximately. To make progress we work with the anisotropic Coulomb interaction

$$V(𝐪)=\frac{4\pi e^2}{\epsilon _{_{}}q_{_{}}^2+\epsilon _{_{}}q_{_{}}^2}.$$
(B1)
which is different from the Coulomb potential (5) for layered systems used in the paper. In particular, one cannot take a 2D limit of (B1) unlike in the layered case. However, it permits us a simple evaluation of the integrals appearing for $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ in (9).

On using the appropriate scaled Coulomb interaction and simplifying $`\gamma _{_{}}(𝐐)Q_{_{}}^2`$, the renormalized Gaussian action (with $`D_{_{}}=0`$) takes the form

$$S_G[\theta ]=\frac{1}{8T}\underset{𝐐,\omega _n}{}\left[\frac{\epsilon _{_{}}\omega _n^2d_c}{4\pi e^2}\left(1+\eta \frac{Q_{_{}}^2}{Q_{_{}}^2}\right)+\left(D_{_{}}d_c+\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }|\omega _n|\right)\right]Q_{_{}}^2|\theta (𝐐,n)|^2$$
(B2)
with $`\eta (\epsilon _{_{}}\xi _0^2)/(\epsilon _{_{}}d_c^2)`$. Setting $`\omega _c4\pi e^2/d_c`$, we then obtain the fluctuation

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2=2T\omega _c_\pi ^\pi \frac{dQ_{_{}}d^2Q_{_{}}}{(2\pi )^3}\underset{\omega _n}{}\left[\epsilon _{_{}}(1+\eta \zeta _𝐐)\omega _n^2+\omega _c\left(D_{_{}}d_c+\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }|\omega _n|\right)\right]^1,$$
(B3)
with $`\zeta _𝐐Q_{_{}}^2/Q_{_{}}^2`$.

The integrand in (B3) depends on $`𝐐`$ only through $`\zeta _𝐐`$. The $`𝐐`$ integral can therefore be transformed to an integral over the variable $`\zeta `$, with density $`N(\zeta )=1/3\sqrt{\zeta }`$ for $`\zeta 1`$ and $`N(\zeta )=1/3\zeta ^2`$ for $`\zeta >1`$, and

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\zeta N(\zeta )\mathrm{\Phi }((1+\eta \zeta )\epsilon _{})\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{\epsilon })_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\zeta N(\zeta )=\mathrm{\Phi }(\overline{\epsilon }),$$
(B4)
where

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(\epsilon )=2T\omega _c\underset{\omega _n}{}\left[\epsilon \omega _n^2+\omega _c\left(D_{_{}}d_c+\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }|\omega _n|\right)\right]^1,$$
(B5)
and $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ is a suitable average value of $`(1+\eta \zeta )\epsilon _{_{}}`$. We have written (B4) such that the effect of the $`𝐐`$ integral appears as a renormalization of the bare in-plane dielectric constant $`\epsilon _{}`$ to a larger value $`\overline{\epsilon }`$. Of course, the value of $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ is temperature dependent. However, the leading temperature dependence of $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ is, in most cases, $`\overline{\epsilon }`$-independent (with the noticeable exception of the dissipation-less case $`\overline{\sigma }=0`$). Therefore, to proceed further analytically, we take $`\overline{\epsilon }`$ to be a constant henceforth.

The quantum corrections can be calculated analytically, expressing $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2`$ by means of the spectral representation for the Matsubara phase propagator deduced from Eq. (B5), so that

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(T)=\frac{2\omega _c}{\overline{\epsilon }}_{\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}\frac{dz}{2\pi }\frac{z\omega _c\overline{\sigma }/2\pi \overline{\epsilon }}{(z^2\omega _p^2)^2+z^2(\overline{\sigma }\omega _c/2\pi \overline{\epsilon })^2}\mathrm{coth}\left(\frac{z}{2T}\right),$$
(B6)
where $`\omega _p^2=(D_{_{}}d_c)(\omega _c/\overline{\epsilon })=4\pi e^2\rho _s/\overline{\epsilon }m^{}`$.

The above expression allows us to explicitly calculate the value of $`\delta \theta ^2(T=0)`$. Introducing the dimensionless parameter $`s=(\overline{\sigma }/4\pi )(\omega _c/\overline{\epsilon }\omega _p)=(\overline{\sigma }/4\pi )\sqrt{\omega _c/\overline{\epsilon }D_{}d_c}`$, and evaluating the above integral at zero temperature we obtain the zero-point-motion contribution

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(0)=\frac{2\omega _c}{2\pi \overline{\epsilon }\omega _p\sqrt{s^21}}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{s+\sqrt{s^21}}{s\sqrt{s^21}}\right)$$
(B7)
in the case $`s>1`$, which is physically relevant for the cuprates, and

$$\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(0)=\frac{2\omega _c}{\pi \overline{\epsilon }\omega _p\sqrt{1s^2}}\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\sqrt{1s^2}}{s}$$
(B8)
in the case $`s<1`$. For $`s1`$ both the above expressions (B7) and (B8) reduce to $`2\omega _c/\pi \overline{\epsilon }\omega _p`$. For $`s1`$, from Eq. (B7), $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(0)(8/\overline{\sigma })\mathrm{ln}(\frac{\overline{\sigma }}{2\pi }\sqrt{\omega _c/(\overline{\epsilon }D_{_{}}d_c)})`$ in agreement with the expression used in the text, except the relevant energy scale, $`\omega _c=4\pi e^2/d_c`$, for the anisotropic Coulomb potential appears instead of $`2\pi e^2/\xi _0`$, the scale appropriate when large $`Q_{_{}}`$ contributes and we are closer to a 2D limit in the fluctuation integral. The quantum fluctuations are large for small $`s`$ and decrease monotonically with increasing $`s`$. For $`s\mathrm{}`$, $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^20`$, and the classical limit is recovered.

At finite temperature and for a bare stiffness which is independent of temperature, the analytical result for the quadratic temperature dependence of $`\delta \theta _{_{}}^2(T)`$ for arbitrary $`\overline{\sigma }`$, given in Eq.(11), has been derived in the text. The same result also follows from a low temperature analysis of Eq.(B6) above.


text:
# References

UNIL-IPT-00-18

IC/2000/133

hep-th/0008087

August 2000

On some new warped brane world solutions in higher dimensions

Seif Randjbar-Daemia and Mikhail Shaposhnikovb
aInternational Center for Theoretical Physics, Trieste, Italy
bInstitute of Theoretical Physics, University of Lausanne,
CH-1015 Lausanne, Switzerland

## Abstract

We present new solutions of higher dimensional Einstein’s equations with a cosmological constant that localize gravity on branes which are transverse to Ricci-flat manifolds or to homogeneous spaces with topologically non-trivial solutions of gauge field equations. These solutions are relevant for the localization of chiral fermions on a brane.

Although the non-compact internal spaces - have been considered in the past, the recent interest, inspired by ideas from superstring theory, emphasizes the notion that our large-scale universe may be regarded as a brane embedded in a higher-dimensional manifold. The gravity may be localized on a brane by the Randall-Sundrum mechanism , while the observed particles are attached to a brane because of dynamics of string theory  or by field-theoretic effects , -. It thus becomes relevant to look for general solutions of the $`D`$-dimensional field equations. It is expected that a richer geometrical and topological structure of the subspaces spanned by extra dimensions will lead to more interesting physical consequences on the brane world. A number of warped solutions have already been found in , -.

In this note, we consider a $`D=D_1+D_2+1`$-dimensional system of gravity - Yang-Mills system and look for warped solutions of the form

$$\mathrm{d}s^2=\mathrm{e}^{A(r)}\eta _{\mu \nu }\mathrm{d}x^\mu \mathrm{d}x^\nu +\mathrm{e}^{B(r)}g_{mn}(y)\mathrm{d}y^m\mathrm{d}y^n+\mathrm{d}r^2,$$
(1)
where $`x^0,x^1,\mathrm{},x^{D_11}`$ cover the brane world $`M_{D_1}`$ and $`y^1,\mathrm{},y^{D_2}`$ cover an internal space $`K`$ with a metric $`g_{mn}(y)`$. The metric with $`D_2=0`$ and $`A=c|r|,c<0`$ is the Randall-Sundrum case , the one with $`D_2=1`$ and $`A=B=c|r|,c<0`$ is the case of local string , $`D_2=1`$ and $`A=c|r|,c<0,B=const`$ corresponds to a global string . When $`D_22`$ the approximate solutions with scalar fields  or exact bulk solutions with $`p`$-form fields  have all assumed that $`K=S^{D_2}`$. In this note we shall consider cases where $`K`$ is not restricted to being a sphere. These general cases become important if we want to localize chiral fermions to the brane world $`M_{D_1}`$ .

In the presence of Yang-Mills fields we shall assume that $`K`$ is a symmetric homogeneous space $`G/H`$ with a $`G`$-invariant metric $`g_{mn}(y)`$ defined on it. We shall also assume that the gauge group has a non-trivial intersection with $`H`$. For example, for $`G/H=S^4`$ it is sufficient to assume that the gauge group contains an SU(2) subgroup. On such spaces one can construct $`G`$-invariant solutions to the Yang-Mills equations , giving

$$\stackrel{}{F}_{mp}\stackrel{}{F}_n^p=\frac{\mathrm{e}^B}{D_2}F^2g_{mn},$$
(2)
where, by virtue of $`G`$-invariance,

$$F^2g^{mp}g^{nq}\stackrel{}{F}_{mn}\stackrel{}{F}_{pq}$$
(3)
must be a constant. The non-trivial equations to be solved can then be put into the form

$$A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{D_1}{2}A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{D_2}{2}A^{}B^{}=\frac{4\kappa ^2}{D2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{F^2}{4g^2}\mathrm{e}^{2B}\right),$$
(4)
$$B^{\prime \prime }+\frac{D_2}{2}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{D_1}{2}A^{}B^{}=\frac{4\kappa ^2}{D2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{2DD_14}{D_2}\frac{F^2}{4g^2}\mathrm{e}^{2B}\right)+k\mathrm{e}^B,$$
(5)
$$D_1A^{\prime \prime }+D_2B^{\prime \prime }+\frac{D_1}{2}A_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+\frac{D_2}{2}B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=\frac{4\kappa ^2}{D2}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{F^2}{4g^2}\mathrm{e}^{2B}\right),$$
(6)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\kappa ^2`$ are $`D`$-dimensional cosmological and Newtonian constants respectively, $`g`$ is the gauge coupling. Also the constant $`k`$ in eq. (5) is the curvature scalar of $`K`$ defined by $`R_{mn}=kg_{mn}`$. It can be shown that only two out of the three equations above are independent. It should also be noted that these equations are valid in the bulk, the brane core region around $`r=0`$ should be treated in the same way as in , which provides a relationship between different tensions on the brane and the values of $`A^{}`$ and $`B^{}`$ near the origin.

At this point it is convenient to consider the cases $`k=0`$ and $`k0`$ separately.

(i) $`k=0`$. In this case $`K`$ is a Ricci flat manifold. Well known examples are tori and Calabi-Yau manifolds. Setting $`F^2=0`$, one can find all solutions of eqs. (4-6), generalizing the solutions found in  for $`D_1=4,D=6`$, where the $`k`$-term is trivially absent. The general result is:

$$A(r)=alog[z^{}(r)]+blog[z(r)],B(r)=clog[z^{}(r)]+dlog[z(r)]$$
(7)
where

$$a=\frac{2}{D1}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{D_2(D2)}{D_1}}\right),b=\frac{2}{D1}\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{D_2(D2)}{D_1}}\right),$$
(8)
$$c=\frac{2}{D1}\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{D_1(D2)}{D_2}}\right),d=\frac{2}{D1}\left(1\sqrt{\frac{D_1(D2)}{D_2}}\right),$$
(9)
and

$$z(r)=Re\left(\alpha e^{\gamma r}+\beta e^{\gamma r}\right),\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{(D1)\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2(D2)}},$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are arbitrary constants.

It is easy to verify that for a negative cosmological constant there is a simple solution with $`A=B=\gamma r`$, where $`\gamma `$ is not given by (10) but $`\gamma =\sqrt{\frac{8\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{(D1)(D2)}}`$ . As in the standard RS solution, we can extend the range of $`r`$ to $`(\mathrm{},+\mathrm{})`$ and write the solution as $`A=B=\gamma |r|`$. In this case $`A^{\prime \prime }=B^{\prime \prime }=2\gamma \delta (r)`$. The field equations in the core region will then relate the tension of the brane to $`\gamma `$, along the lines discussed in . At infinity, $`r\mathrm{}`$, the square of the curvature tensor is singular, as follows from the general expression, given in . The only exception is when the internal space is flat, for example, it can be a torus. In this case the soltuion is non singular even as $`r\mathrm{}`$. For the general solution to make physical sense the singularity should be smoothen by, say, string theory effects.

(ii) $`k0`$. In this case the $`G`$-invariant solutions of Yang-Mills equations can be constructed as in . One can have a regular solution in the bulk with the structure $`A\mathrm{d}S_{D_1+1}\times G/H`$ with $`A=cr`$ and $`B`$ a constant, similar to the one considered in  for a compactification on a monopole for $`D_2=2`$. One can consider two possibilities. In the first case we can treat $`r`$ as a radial co-ordinate, varying fom zero to infinity. Then this solution is singular at $`r=0`$ and requires the addition of a $`G`$ invariant brane, residing at this point. The tensions on the brane must then be fine tuned accordingly. In the second case $`r`$ may vary from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`+\mathrm{}`$. As the Einstein equations are symmetric with respect to the transformation $`rr`$, a solution, leading to the localization of gravity, looks like $`A=c|r|`$ and requires the presence of a brane as well.

An interesting question arises whether one can construct a braneless solution that is regular at $`r=0`$ and which approaches the bulk solution just described for large values of $`r`$. Arguing along the lines of ref. , this seems to be impossible, at least if $`\mathrm{}<r<\mathrm{}`$, when the $`Z_2`$ symmetry is imposed. To this end it is convenient to rewrite eqs.(4-6) as a single equation for $`B`$ only,

$$B^{\prime \prime }=\frac{1}{2(D2)(D_11)D_2e^{2B}}\{(D2)D_2^2B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{2B}+$$
(11)
$$+2(D_11)((42D+D_1)\frac{\kappa ^2F^2}{g^2}D_2(2kDk+4e^B\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda })e^B)\pm S\}$$

where

$$S=D_2\sqrt{D_1(D2)}B^{}e^B\{D_2(D2)^2B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}e^{2B}$$
(12)
$$2(D_11)((2D2D_13)\frac{\kappa ^2F^2}{g^2}+4(D_11)e^{2B}\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }+D_2((2D)k+4e^B\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda })e^B)\}^{\frac{1}{2}}$$

Now, this equation describes a motion of a particle in a potential $`V(B)`$ which is obtained by setting $`B^{}=0`$ in eq. (12) and integrating with respect to $`B`$.

$$V(B)=ke^B\frac{1}{\left(D2\right)}\left\{\frac{1}{2D_2}\left(2DD_14\right)\frac{\kappa ^2F^2}{g^2}e^{2B}4\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }B\right\}$$
(13)
with quite complicated friction force. The regularity of solution at $`r=0`$ requires $`B^{}(0)`$=0, while $`Bconst`$ at infinity. In a mechanical analogy the particle should start moving with zero velocity and reach the maximum of the potential at “time” $`r\mathrm{}`$. This is only possible if the potential (13) has two extrema. This requirement leads to a certain constraints on the parameters $`\frac{\kappa ^2F^2}{kg^2}`$, $`\frac{\kappa ^2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k}`$ and on the dimensionalities $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$. The latter happen to be not consistent with reality of the quantity $`S`$ defined in eq. (12) at the maximum of the potential.

Both types of solutions (i) and (ii) can be used to obtain localized chiral fermions in $`M_{D_1}`$. As argued in  for the case $`K=K_3`$ and $`D=9`$, the index of the Dirac operator $`\nabla ̸`$ acting in the transverse space is two, which implies the existence of two families of chiral fermions in $`M_4`$. Alternatively, if we choose $`K=S^4`$ and $`\stackrel{}{F}`$ an $`SU(2)`$ instanton configuration on $`S^4`$ then we obtain $`\frac{2}{3}t(t+1)(2t+1)`$ generations of chiral fermions on $`M_4`$, where $`t`$ is the $`SU(2)`$ spin of the fermions .

In conclusion, we found new solutions that localize gravity on a brane with non-trivial transverse spaces and gauge instanton backgrounds. It remains to be seen if a realistic theory incorporating fields of the Standard Model can be constructed on these solutions.

We wish to thank T. Gherghetta for helpful discussions. S. R.-D. is thankful to IPT-UNIL for hospitality. This work was supported by the FNRS, contract no. 21-55560.98.