text:
# Wess-Zumino-Witten and fermion models in noncommutative space

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative field theories have recently attracted much attention in connection with the low-energy dynamics of D-branes in the presence of a background $`B`$ field -. Afterwards, the unusual properties that emerged in the analysis of such field theories made them very attractive by its own right -.

Concerning two-dimensional noncommutative field theories, both bosonic and fermionic models have been recently investigated -. In particular, we have proven in  that the fermion determinant of the Dirac operator for fermions in a gauge field background can be written as a Wess-Zumino-Witten (WZW) Lagrangian. As in the ordinary commutative case, this result can be exploited to establish a bosonization recipe for non-commutative fermion models, as developed in ,.

In this paper we pursue the analysis of two-dimensional noncommutative models by carefully studying the fermion effective action. Particular care is taken of the fact that, even in the $`U(1)`$ case, the noncommutative Dirac operator can be constructed in different representations which can be thought of as the fundamental, anti-fundamental and adjoint ones. As we shall see, this plays an important role in connection with the resulting bosonized theory. As an example, we discuss the $`U(1)`$ massless Thirring model. We also consider the case in which fermions are taken in the fundamental representation of $`U(N)`$. Concerning the properties of the bosonic model, we establish a mapping connecting the noncommutative WZW action to the standard one and discuss its relation with the Seiberg-Witten  mapping for gauge theories.

The plan of the paper is the following: after establishing our conventions in section 2, we describe in section 3 the evaluation of the perturbative effective action for $`U(1)`$ noncommutative two-dimensional fermions in a gauge field background. We also discuss the extension of this calculation to the $`U(N)`$ case. Then, we present the exact evaluation of the fermion determinant both in the fundamental and in the adjoint representations (sections 4 and 5 respectively) In section 6 we present the bosonization recipe which allows to infer a mapping between non-commutative and commutative WZW models (Section 7). In section 8 we apply our results to the analysis of the noncommutative Thirring model and give our conclusions in section 9.

## 2 Two-dimensional fermion determinants in non-commutative space

We shall work in two-dimensional Euclidean space and define the $``$ product between functions $`\varphi (x)`$ and $`\chi (x)`$ in the form

$$\varphi (x)\chi (x)=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{i}{2}\theta _{\mu \nu }_x^\mu _y^\nu \right)\varphi (x)\chi (y)|_{x=y}$$
(1)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }=\theta \epsilon _{\mu \nu }`$ with $`\theta `$ a real constant. Then, the Moyal bracket is defined as

$$\{\varphi (x),\chi (x)\}=\varphi (x)\chi (x)\chi (x)\varphi (x)$$
(2)
which implies a noncommutative relation for space-time coordinates $`x^\mu `$,

$$\{x^\mu ,x^\nu \}=i\theta _{\mu \nu }$$
(3)
In the case of gauge theories, noncommutativity leads to the definition of the curvature $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ in the form

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ie\{A_\mu ,A_\nu \}$$
(4)
Gauge transformations are defined in the form

$$A_\mu ^g(x)=g(x)A_\mu (x)g^1(x)+\frac{i}{e}g^1(x)_\mu g(x)$$
(5)
where $`g(x)`$ is represented by a $``$ exponential,

$$g(x)=\mathrm{exp}_{}(i\lambda (x))1+i\lambda (x)\frac{1}{2}\lambda (x)\lambda (x)+\mathrm{}$$
(6)
with $`\lambda =\lambda ^at^a`$ taking values in the Lie algebra of $`U(N)`$. The covariant derivative $`𝒟_\mu [A]`$ implementing gauge transformations takes the form

$$𝒟_\mu \lambda =_\mu \lambda ie\{A_\mu ,\lambda \}$$
(7)
Given a fermion field $`\psi (x)`$, three alternative infinitesimal gauge transformations can be considered

$`\delta _ϵ\psi `$ $`=`$ $`iϵ(x)\psi (x)`$ (8)
$`\delta _ϵ\psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\psi (x)ϵ(x)`$ (9)
$`\delta _ϵ\psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\{ϵ(x),\psi (x)\}`$ (10)
In this respect, we should refer to fermions in the fundamental $`f`$ (eq.(8)), ‘anti-fundamental’ $`\overline{f}`$ (eq.(9)) and ‘adjoint’ $`ad`$ (eq.(10)) representations. The associated covariant derivative are defined accordingly,

$`D_\mu ^f[A]\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \psi (x)ieA_\mu (x)\psi (x)`$ (11)
$`D_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \psi (x)+ie\psi (x)A_\mu (x)`$ (12)
$`D_\mu ^{ad}[A]\psi (x)`$ $`=`$ $`𝒟_\mu \psi (x)`$ (13)
Using each one of these three covariant derivatives, a gauge invariant Dirac action for fermions can be constructed

$$S[\overline{\psi },\psi ,A]=d^2x\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu D_\mu \psi $$
(14)
The effective action for fermions in a gauge field background is defined as

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(S_{eff}[A]\right)=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}(S[\overline{\psi },\psi ,A])$$
(15)
## 3 Perturbative effective action

Let us start by computing the quadratic part of the effective action defined by eq.(15) when the Dirac operator is taken in the adjoint representation, as defined in eq.(13). The interaction term $`S_I`$ of the action $`S[\overline{\psi },\psi ,A]`$ (eq.(14)) takes the form, in momentum representation,

$$S_I=2ie_{p,q}\overline{\psi }(p)\gamma ^\mu \psi (q)A_\mu (pq)\mathrm{sin}(qp),$$
(16)
where $`_pd^2p/(2\pi )^2`$.

The quadratic part $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ of the effective action is given by the diagram represented in the figure,

Fig. 1

giving

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=2e_pA_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)_q\mathrm{sin}(qp)^2\mathrm{tr}\left[\frac{(\overline{)}q+\overline{)}p/2)\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}q\overline{)}p/2)\gamma ^\nu }{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}\right]$$
(17)
Using the identity $`\mathrm{sin}(a)^2=1/2\mathrm{cos}(2a)/2`$ we can extract form eq. (17) the so-called planar and non-planar contributions to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$,

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=_pA_\mu (p)A_\nu (p)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }_{planar}^{\mu \nu (2)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{\mu \nu (2)}\right)$$
(18)
with

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{planar}^{\mu \nu (2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2e{\displaystyle _q}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(q^\mu +p^\mu /2)(q^\nu p^\nu /2)+(q^\mu p^\mu /2)(q^\nu +p^\nu /2)}{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}}`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\mu \nu }(q+p/2)(qp/2)}{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}}\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{\mu \nu (2)}`$ $`=`$ $`2e{\displaystyle _q}\{{\displaystyle \frac{(q^\mu +p^\mu /2)(q^\nu p^\nu /2)+(q^\mu p^\mu /2)(q^\nu +p^\nu /2)}{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}}`$ (20)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{\mu \nu }(q+p/2)(qp/2)}{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}}\}\mathrm{cos}(2qp)`$
The planar contribution to the diagram is the standard one and can be computed using for example dimensional regularization (in this case the infrared an ultraviolet divergences cancel each other). One has

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{planar}^{\mu \nu (2)}=\frac{e}{\pi }\left(\delta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}\right)$$
(21)
It is worthwhile to mention that this result is twice the effective action in the fundamental and anti-fundamental representations (that is, taking the Dirac operator as defined either by (11) or by (12)), as it can be easily seen by noticing that in the later the diagram has a vertex contribution of $`e^{ipq}e^{ipq}=1`$ (there is no non-planar contribution) while in the former we have $`(2i\mathrm{sin}(pq)^2=4(1/21/2\mathrm{cos}(2pq))`$. Taking into account that the only the non-oscillating part contributes to the planar part of the diagram we have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{planar}^{(2)Adj}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)Fund}$$
(22)
Interestingly enough, this is reminiscent of the relation that one obtains when one compares the anomaly and the fermion determinant for commutative two-dimensional fermions in an $`U(N)`$ gauge field background, for the fundamental and the adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$. In this case, there is a factor relating the results in the adjoint and the fundamental which corresponds to the quadratic Casimir $`C(G)`$ in the adjoint, as first reported in  (see for example  for a detailed derivation). Now, it was observed in - that diagrams in noncommutative $`U(1)`$ gauge theories could be constructed in terms of those in ordinary non-Abelian gauge theory with $`C(G)=2`$; this is precisely what we have found in the present 2-dimensional model. Note that the explicit form of integrals associated to the diagram in Fig.1 for each fermion representation can be constructed if one take as generators for the Moyal algebra generators $`t`$ and $`T`$ in the adjoint and the fundamental representation such that

$$t_{pk}^q=2i\mathrm{sin}(kp)\delta (k+pq)$$
(23)
$$T_{pk}^q=\mathrm{exp}\left(ikp\right)\delta (k+pq)$$
(24)
Let us now compute the non-planar contribution to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$. First we exponentiate the propagators with Schwinger parameters

$$\frac{1}{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_1_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2e^{t_1(q+p/2)^2t_2(qp/2)^2}.$$
(25)
Afterwards we can perform the $`q`$ integration, which becomes gaussian, and we get (after the standard redefinition $`t_1=us`$ and $`t_2=(1u)s`$)) :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{\mu \nu (2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{e}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}ds{\displaystyle _0^1}du\{\delta ^{\mu \nu }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}+u(1u)p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s}}(\theta p)^2)`$ (26)
$`2p^\mu p^\nu u(1u){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}(\theta p)^\mu (\theta p)^\nu \}e^{su(1u)p^2\frac{1}{4s}(\theta p)^2},`$
where $`(\theta p)^\mu =\theta ^{\mu \nu }p_\nu `$. Finally the $`s`$ integration can also be performed and we obtain the expression:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{\mu \nu (2)}=\frac{1}{2\pi }\left\{\left(\delta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}\right)\frac{(\theta p)^\mu (\theta p)^\nu }{(\theta p)}\right\}_0^1𝑑uxK_1(x)$$
(27)
where $`x^2=u(1u)p^2(\theta p)^2`$ and $`K_1(x)`$ is the modified Bessel function of second kind. Notice that the $`u`$ integral converges.

Now, in two dimensions $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=\theta ϵ^{\mu \nu }`$ so we have the identity:

$$\frac{(\theta p)^\mu (\theta p)^\nu }{(\theta p)^2}=\delta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}$$
(28)
and thus $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{nonplanar}^{(2)}`$ vanishes. That is, up to quadratic order in the fields, the effective action is given by the planar part:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=\frac{e}{\pi }_pA_\mu (p)\left(\delta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}\right)A_\nu (p).$$
(29)
Therefore, assuming that the higher point contributions to the effective action are the minimal necessary to recover gauge invariance (we will prove this statement in the next section), the effective action in the adjoint representation is twice the effective action in the fundamental representation. Hence, a relation like (22) should hold for the complete effective action $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Adj}=2\mathrm{\Gamma }^{Fund}$$
(30)
This computation can be generalized to the $`U(N)`$ case, namely when the Dirac operator acts as

$$𝒟_\mu \lambda =_\mu \lambda ie\{A_\mu ,\lambda \}$$
(31)
with $`\lambda \lambda ^at^a`$. In this case the interaction part of the action takes the form

$$S_I=e\sqrt{2}_{p,q}\overline{\psi }^a(p)\gamma ^\mu \psi (q)^bA_\mu ^c(pq)\left(id^{abc}\mathrm{sin}(qp)+if^{abc}\mathrm{cos}(qp)\right),$$
(32)
where the $`f^{abc}`$ and $`d^{abc}`$ are, respectively, the antisymmetric and symmetric structure constants of $`U(N)`$ (the $`\sqrt{2}e`$ factor comes from our normalization of the $`U(N)`$ generators).

The quadratic part of the effective action is in this case

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}={\displaystyle \frac{e}{2}}{\displaystyle _p}A_\mu ^a(p)A_\nu ^b(p){\displaystyle _q}\mathrm{tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{(\overline{)}q+\overline{)}p/2)\gamma ^\mu (\overline{)}q\overline{)}p/2)\gamma ^\nu }{(q+p/2)^2(qp/2)^2}}\right]\times `$
$`\left\{\left(d^{acd}d^{bcd}+f^{acd}f^{bcd}\right)+\left(d^{acd}d^{bcd}f^{acd}f^{bcd}\right)\mathrm{cos}(2qp)\right\}`$ (33)
The planar and non-planar contributions are the same as in the $`U(1)`$ case except for the group theoretical prefactors. Taking into account that the non-planar contribution vanishes and the identity:

$$d^{acd}d^{bcd}+f^{acd}f^{bcd}=2N\delta ^{ab}$$
(34)
we finally have

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}=N\frac{e}{\pi }_pA_\mu ^a(p)\left(\delta ^{\mu \nu }\frac{p^\mu p^\nu }{p^2}\right)A_\nu ^a(p).$$
(35)
This result is $`2N`$ times the quadratic effective action in the fundamental representation.

## 4 The fermion determinant in the fundamental representation: the $`U(1)`$ case

Here we shall briefly describe the exact calculation of the effective action for noncommutative $`U(1)`$ fermions in the fundamental representation as first presented in ref. by integrating the chiral anomaly. Indeed, taking profit that in 2 dimensions a gauge field $`A_\mu `$ can always be written in the form

$$\overline{)}A=\frac{1}{e}\left(i\overline{)}U[\varphi ,\eta ]\right)U^1[\varphi ,\eta ]$$
(36)
with

$$U[\varphi ,\eta ]=\mathrm{exp}_{}(\gamma _5\varphi +i\eta ),$$
(37)
one can relate the fermion determinant in a gauge field background $`A_\mu `$ with that corresponding to $`A_\mu =0`$ by making a decoupling change of variables in the fermion fields. As announced, we consider in this section the case of fermions in the fundamental representation. Then, the appropriate change of fermionic variables is

$$\psi U[\varphi ,\eta ]\psi ,\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }U^1[\varphi ,\eta ]$$
(38)
One gets

$$det(\overline{)}ie\overline{)}A)=det\overline{)}\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^1𝑑t\frac{dJ^f[t\varphi ,A]}{dt}\right)$$
(39)
where $`J^f[t\varphi ,A]`$ is the Fujikawa Jacobian associated with a transformation $`U_t`$ such that ($`ot1`$)

$`U_0`$ $`=`$ $`1`$
$`U_1`$ $`=`$ $`U[\varphi ,\eta ]`$ (40)
Let us briefly describe at this point the calculation presented in  based in the the evaluation of the chiral anomaly. Consider an infinitesimal local chiral transformation which in the fundamental representation reads

$`\delta _ϵ^5\psi `$ $`=`$ $`i\gamma _5ϵ(x)\psi (x)`$ (41)
The chiral anomaly $`𝒜=𝒜^at^a`$,

$$_\mu j_5^{a\mu }=𝒜^a[A],$$
(42)
$$j_5^{a\mu }=\overline{\psi }\gamma _5t^a\psi $$
(43)
can be calculated from the Fujikawa Jacobian $`J[ϵ,A_\mu ]`$ associated with infinitesimal transformation (41),

$$\mathrm{log}J[ϵ,A_\mu ]=2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{c}d^2x𝒜[A]ϵ(x)=2\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}^\mathrm{c}d^2x\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _5ϵ(x)\right)|_{reg}$$
(44)
Here Tr means both a trace for Dirac (tr) and a functional trace in the space on which the Dirac operator acts while $`\mathrm{tr}^c`$ indicates a trace over the gauge group indices. We indicate with reg that some regularization prescription should be adopted to render finite this trace. We shall adopt the heat-kernel regularization, this meaning that

$$𝒜[A]=\underset{M^2\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{Tr}\left(\gamma _5\mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\frac{\gamma ^\mu \gamma ^\nu D_\mu D_\nu }{M^2}\right)\right)$$
(45)
The covariant derivative in the regulator has to be chosen among those defined by eqs.(11)-(13) according to the representation one has chosen for the fermions. Concerning the fundamental representation, the anomaly has been computed following the standard Fujikawa procedure  in ,.

$$𝒜^f[A]=\frac{e}{4\pi }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }$$
(46)
(We indicate with $`f`$ that the fundamental representation has been considered). Analogously, one obtains for the anti-fundamental representation

$$𝒜^{\overline{f}}[A]=\frac{e}{4\pi }\epsilon ^{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }$$
(47)
Now, writing $`ϵ=\varphi dt`$, we can use the results given through eqs.(44)-(46) to get, for the Jacobian,

$$\mathrm{log}J^f[t\varphi ,A]=\frac{e}{2\pi }\mathrm{tr}^\mathrm{c}d^2x\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^t\varphi $$
(48)
where

$$F_{\mu \nu }^t=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu ie\{A_\mu ^t,A_\nu ^t\}$$
(49)
$$\gamma ^\mu A_\mu ^t=\frac{1}{e}\left(i\overline{)}U_t\right)U_t^1$$
(50)
This result can be put in a more suggestive way in the light cone gauge where

$`A_+`$ $`=`$ $`0`$
$`A_{}`$ $`=`$ $`g(x)_{}g^1(x)`$
$`g(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}_{}(2\varphi )`$ (51)
Indeed, in this gauge one can see that (48) becomes

$`\mathrm{log}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{det(\overline{)}ie\overline{)}A)}{det\overline{)}}}\right)=\mathrm{log}J^f[t\varphi ,A]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}\mathrm{tr}^\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle d^2x\left(_\mu g^1\right)\left(_\mu g\right)}`$ (52)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{12\pi }}\epsilon _{ijk}\mathrm{tr}^\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle _B}d^3yg^1(_ig)g^1(_jg)g^1(_kg)`$
Here we have written $`d^3y=d^2xdt`$ so that the integral in the second line runs over a 3-dimensional manifold $`B`$ which in compactified Euclidean space can be identified with a ball with boundary $`S^2`$. Index $`i`$ runs from 1 to 3. Concerning the anti-fundamental representation, the calculation of the fermion determinant follows identical steps. Using the expression of the anomaly given by (47), one computes the determinant which coincides with that in the fundamental representation (remember that the anomaly is proportional to the charge $`e`$ while the determinant to $`e^2`$). These were the main results in ref.. In the next section, we shall extend them to the case in which the Dirac operator is in the adjoint representation.

## 5 The determinant in the adjoint representation: the $`U(1)`$ case

We showed in Section 3 that the effective action for the Dirac fermions coupled to an external gauge field in the adjoint representation is, at quadratic order, twice the effective action in the fundamental representation. In this section we will find the exact effective action by computing in exact form the fermionic determinant with the heat-kernel approach.

The action is given by

$$S_f=d^2x\overline{\psi }i\gamma ^\mu \left(_\mu \psi +ie\{A_\mu ,\psi \}\right)$$
(53)
Writing the field $`A_\mu `$ as in equation (36) (for simplicity we ill work in the gauge $`\eta =0`$) we can make a change if the fermion variables to decouple the fermions from the gauge field

$`\psi =e^{\gamma ^5\{\varphi ,\}}\chi =\chi +\gamma ^5\{\varphi ,\chi \}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\varphi ,\{\varphi ,\chi \}\}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\overline{\psi }=\overline{\chi }e^{\{,\varphi \}\gamma ^5}=\overline{\chi }+\{\overline{\chi },\varphi \}\gamma ^5+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\{\overline{\chi },\varphi \},\varphi \}+\mathrm{}`$ (54)
Similarly to the previous section, the Fujikawa Jacobian associated to (54) can bee written as

$$det(\overline{)}+ie\gamma [A,]_{})=det\overline{)}\mathrm{exp}\left(2_0^!𝑑t\frac{dJ^{ad}[t\varphi ,A]}{dt}\right)$$
(55)
where $`J^{ad}[t\varphi ,A]`$ is the Fujikawa Jacobian associated with a transformation for fermions in the adjoint,

$`\psi =e^{\gamma ^5[t\varphi ,]_{}}\chi `$
$`\overline{\psi }=\overline{\chi }e^{[,t\varphi ]_{}\gamma ^5}`$ (56)
where $`t`$ is a parameter.

Following the same procedure as before, we find that

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}(J^{ad})=d^2x𝒜(x)\varphi (x)$$
(57)
where

$$𝒜(x)=2\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\mathrm{tr}\gamma ^5_k\mathrm{exp}_{}(ikx)\mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\overline{)}D^{2Ad}/M^2\right)\mathrm{exp}_{}(ikx)$$
(58)
After a straightforward computation it can be proved the following identity

$$\mathrm{exp}_{}(ikx)\mathrm{exp}_{}\left(\overline{)}D_{Ad}^2/M^2\right)\mathrm{exp}_{}(ikx)=\mathrm{exp}_{}\left((\overline{)}D_{Ad}+i\overline{)}k+ie\overline{)}c)^2/M^2\right)$$
(59)
where

$`c_\mu (x;k)`$ $`=`$ $`2i{\displaystyle _p}\mathrm{exp}_{}\left(ipk\mathrm{sin}(pk)\right)A_\mu (p)\mathrm{exp}_{}(ipx)`$ (60)
$`=`$ $`A_\mu (x\theta k)A_\mu (k)`$
Finally, expanding the exponent up to order $`M^2`$, taking the trace and integrating over $`d^2k`$ we have

$$𝒜(x)=\frac{e}{\pi }\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}_p((1\mathrm{exp}_{}({}_{}{}^{M^2\theta ^2p^2/4}))ϵ_{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }(p)\mathrm{exp}_{}(ipx)$$
(61)
Notice that if we take the $`\theta 0`$ limit before taking the $`M\mathrm{}`$ limit $`𝒜`$ vanishes and the Jacobian is $`1`$, so we recover the standard (commutative) result which corresponds to a trivial determinant for the trivial $`U(1)`$ covariant derivative. However, the limits $`\theta 0`$ and $`M\mathrm{}`$ do not commute so that if one takes the $`M^2\mathrm{}`$ limit at fixed $`\theta `$ one has the $`\theta `$-independent result

$$\frac{d}{dt}\mathrm{log}J^{Ad}[t\varphi ,A]=\frac{e}{\pi }d^2x\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }^t\varphi $$
(62)
which is twice the result of the fundamental representation. The integral in $`t`$ is identical to the one of the fundamental representation so we finally have

$`\mathrm{log}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{det(\overline{)}ie\gamma _\mu \{A_\mu ,\})}{det\overline{)}}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\mathrm{tr}^\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle d^2x\left(_\mu g^1\right)\left(_\mu g\right)}`$ (63)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{6\pi }}\epsilon _{ijk}\mathrm{tr}^\mathrm{c}{\displaystyle _B}d^3yg^1(_ig)g^1(_jg)g^1(_kg)`$
We have thus reobtained relation (30) but now by comparing the exact answer for the fermion determinant in both representations.

## 6 The bosonization recipe

Once one has gotten an exact result for the fermion determinant, one can derive the path-integral bosonization recipe. That is, a mapping from the a two-dimensional noncommutative fermionic model with onto an equivalent noncommutative bosonic model. This implies a precise relation between the fermionic and bosonic Lagrangian, currents, etc. The basic procedure to obtain this bosonization recipe parallels that already established in the ordinary commutative case. For the noncommutative case, it was developed in detail in . Here, we shall describe just the main steps in the derivation of this equivalence.

The fermion current associated with the $`U(1)`$ gauge invariance of the fermion model is naturally given by

$$j_\mu (x)=\overline{\psi }(x)\gamma _\mu \psi (x)$$
(64)
Its coupling to an external source in order to obtain correlation functions after differentiation can be done simply in the form

$$S_{int}=d^2xj_\mu (x)s_\mu (x)$$
(65)
so that after differentiation with respect to $`s`$ one gets, as usual, v.e.v.’s of current correlation functions. Now, being the integral in (65) quadratic, one can safely replace the ordinary product between $`j`$ and $`s`$ by a $``$ product,

$$S_{int}=d^2xj_\mu (x)s_\mu (x)$$
(66)
One can then write the fermion generating functional in the presence of a source $`s_\mu `$ in the form,

$$Z_{fer}[s]=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(d^2x\overline{\psi }D_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[s]\psi \right)=det\left(iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[s]\right)$$
(67)
The occurrence of the Dirac operator in the antifundamental representation is consistent with definition (66) but one can of course also define the generating functional in terms of $`D_\mu ^f`$.

Since the fermion determinant in the r.h.s. of eq.(67) is gauge invariant, we can write

$$Z_{fer}[s]=Z_{fer}[s^U]$$
(68)
where, as before, we indicate with $`s^U`$ the gauge transformed of $`s`$ with a gauge group element $`U`$ as in eq.(5). One now integrates over $`U`$ both sides in (68) getting

$$Z_{fer}[U]=𝒩DUdet\left(iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[s^U]\right)$$
(69)
At this point, one introduces an auxiliary field $`b_\mu `$ through the identity

$$s_\mu ^U=b_\mu $$
(70)
which in the path-integral (69) can be implemented in the form

$$Z_{fer}[U]=Db_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }\delta (b_+s_+)\delta (\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }[b]\epsilon _{\mu \nu }F_{\mu \nu }[s])det\left(iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[b]\right)$$
(71)
Here $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be seen as the Faddeev-Popov determinant associated with the delta function “fixing the gauge” $`b_+=s_+`$. The other delta completes the identification (70) (These kind of representations are discussed in detail in ). One now introduces a Lagrange multiplier $`a`$ in order to represent the curvature’s delta function. Moreover, one writes

$`s_+`$ $`=`$ $`i\stackrel{~}{s}^1_+\stackrel{~}{s}`$
$`s_{}`$ $`=`$ $`is_{}s^1`$
$`b_+`$ $`=`$ $`isb_{}(sb)^1`$ (72)
One also trades the Lie algebra valued scalar Lagrange multiplier $`a`$ by a gauge group valued $`\widehat{a}`$ through an analogous relation and then, after repeated use of the Polyakov-Wiegmann identity ends with

$$Z_{fer}[s]=D\widehat{a}Db\mathrm{exp}\left((1+2)W[a\stackrel{~}{s}sb]\right)\mathrm{exp}\left(W[\stackrel{~}{s}s]W[\widehat{a}\stackrel{~}{s}s]\right)$$
(73)
We have explicitly written the factor $`(1+2)`$ in front of the first WZW Lagrangian to stress that this term arises not only from the fermion determinant but also from the Jacobian arising in passing from the $`b_\mu `$ integration to the $`b`$ integration, a Jacobian which corresponds to the determinant of the Dirac operator in the adjoint.

Use of the Polyakov-Wiegman identity allows to factorize the integral over $`b`$ (that is, the $`b`$ field completely decouples and can be integrated out). After some manipulations, one finally ends with

$$Z_{fer}[s]=Da\mathrm{exp}\left(W[\widehat{a}]+\frac{i}{4\pi }d^2x\left(s_+\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}^1+s_{}\widehat{a}^1_+\widehat{a}\right)\right)$$
(74)
(We have ignored terms quadratic in the source which just give irrelevant contact terms when computing current-current correlators).

We have then arrived to the identity

$$Z_{fer}[s]=Z_{bos}[s]$$
(75)
where $`Z_{bos}`$ in the r.h.s. is the generating functional for a Wess-Zumino-Witten model for a gauge-group valued field $`a`$ coupled to bosonic sources in such a way that one can already give the bosonization recipe for currents

$`\overline{\psi }\gamma _+\psi `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\widehat{a}^1_+\widehat{a}`$
$`\overline{\psi }\gamma _{}\psi `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4\pi }}\widehat{a}_{}\widehat{a}^1`$ (76)
We have then proved the equivalence between a two-dimensional noncommutative free fermion model and the non-commutative Wess-Zumino-Witten model. Now, on the one hand we know that, being quadratic, the action for noncommutative free fermions coincides with that for ordinary (commutative) ones. On the other hand we know that ordinary free fermions are equivalent to a bosonic theory with ordinary WZW term. The situation can be represented in the following figure

Fig. 2

So, we were able to pass from the noncommutative WZW theory with action $`WZW[\widehat{a}]`$ to the commutative one, $`WZW[a]`$ by going counterclockwise through the fermionic equivalent models. One should then be able to find a mapping $`\widehat{a}a`$, analogous to the one introduced in  for non-commutative gauge theories. In the present case, the mapping should connect exactly $`WZW[\widehat{a}]`$ with $`WZW[a]`$ filling the cycle in figure 2. Next section is devoted to the construction of such a mapping.

## 7 Mapping Wess-Zumino-Witten actions: <br>Seiberg-Witten change of variables

Before study the mapping between the non-commutative and standard WZW theories, let us mention some properties of the Moyal deformation in two dimensions.

Equation (1) can be re-written in term of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic coordinates in the form:

$$\varphi (z,\overline{z})\chi (z,\overline{z})=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\theta (_z_{\overline{w}}_{\overline{z}}_w)\right\}\varphi (z,\overline{z})\chi (w,\overline{w})|_{w=z}$$
(77)
This equation reduces considerably in two particular cases. First, when one of the functions is holomorphic (anti-holomorphic) and the other is anti-holomorphic (holomorphic), the deformed product reads as

$$\varphi (z)\chi (\overline{z})=e^{\theta _z_{\overline{z}}}\varphi (z)\chi (\overline{z}),\varphi (\overline{z})\chi (z)=e^{\theta _z_{\overline{z}}}\varphi (\overline{z})\chi (z)$$
(78)
and the deformation is produced by an overall operation over the standard (commutative) product with no $`wz`$ limit necessary.

Second, if both functions are holomorphic (anti-holomorphic), the star product coincides with the regular product

$$\varphi (z)\chi (z)=\varphi (z)\chi (z),\varphi (\overline{z})\chi (\overline{z})=\varphi (\overline{z})\chi (\overline{z}).$$
(79)
That means that the holomorphic or anti-holomorphic sectors of a two-dimensional field theory are unchanged by the deformation of the product. For example, the holomorphic fermionic current in the deformed theory takes the form,

$$\widehat{ȷ}_z=\psi _R^{}\psi _R.$$
(80)
And since $`\psi _R`$ has no $`\overline{z}`$ dependence on-shell, the deformed current coincides with the standard one

$$j_z=\psi _R^{}\psi _R.$$
(81)
Moreover, since the free actions are identical, any correlation functions of currents in the standard and the $``$-deformed theory will be identical.

This last discussion tell us that, since the WZW actions are the generating actions of fermionic current correlation functions, both actions (standard and non-commutative) are equivalent. It remains to see if we can link both actions through a Seiberg-Witten like mapping. Let us try that.

Consider a WZW action defined in a non-commutative space with deformation parameter $`\theta `$. The action is invariant under chiral holomorphic and anti-holomorphic transformations

$$\widehat{g}\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\overline{z})\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z)$$
(82)
so in analogy with the Seiberg-Witten mapping we will look for a transformation that maps respectively holomorphic and anti-holomorphic “orbits” into “orbits”. Of course the analogy breaks down at some point as this holomorphic and anti-holomorphic “orbits” are not equivalence classes of physical configurations, but just symmetries of the action. However we will see that such a requirement is equivalent, in some sense, to the “gauge orbits preserving transformation condition” of Seiberg-Witten.

Thus, we will find a transformation that maps a group-valued field $`\widehat{g}^{}`$ defined in non-commutative space with deformation parameter $`\theta ^{}`$ to a group-valued field $`\widehat{g}`$, with deformation parameter $`\theta `$. We demand this transformation to satisfy the condition

$$\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}^{}(\overline{z})^{}\widehat{g}^{}^{}\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(z)\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\overline{z})\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z)$$
(83)
where the primed quantities are defined in a $`\theta ^{}`$-non-commutative space and the non primed quantities defined in a $`\theta `$-non-commutative space. In particular this mapping will preserve the equations of motion:

$$\widehat{g}^{}=\alpha ^{}^{}\beta ^{}\widehat{g}=\alpha \beta $$
(84)
The simplest way to achieve this, by examining equation (78) is defining

$$\widehat{g}[\theta ]=e^{\theta _z_{\overline{z}}}g[0]$$
(85)
or, infinitesimally

$$\frac{d\widehat{g}}{d\theta }=_z_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}$$
(86)
However, the corresponding transformation for $`\widehat{g}^1`$ is more cumbersome

$$\frac{d\widehat{g}^1}{d\theta }=_z_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}^1+2_{\overline{z}}(\widehat{g}^1_z\widehat{g})\widehat{g}^1$$
(87)
So let us consider a more symmetric transformation, that coincides on-shell, with (86) and (87). Consider thus

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{g}}{d\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}^1_z\widehat{g}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{g}^1}{d\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`_z\widehat{g}^1_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}\widehat{g}^1`$ (88)
These equations satisfy the condition (83) for functions $`\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\overline{z})`$ independent of $`\theta `$. Indeed we have, for example

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d(\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z))}{d\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\widehat{g}}{d\theta }}\mathrm{\Omega }(z)_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}_z\mathrm{\Omega }(z)`$ (89)
$`=`$ $`(\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z))_{\overline{z}}(\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z))^1_z(\widehat{g}\mathrm{\Omega }(z))`$
and a similar equation for the anti-holomorphic transformation.

The next step is to see how does the WZW action transforms under this mapping. First consider the variation of the following object:

$$\omega =\widehat{g}^1\delta \widehat{g}$$
(90)
where $`\delta `$ is any variation that does not acts on $`\theta `$.

After a straightforward computation we find that

$$\frac{d\omega }{d\theta }=_{\overline{z}}\omega j_zj_z_{\overline{z}}\omega $$
(91)
where

$$j=\widehat{g}^1_z\widehat{g}$$
(92)
is the holomorphic current. In particular we have

$$\frac{dj_z}{d\theta }=_{\overline{z}}j_zj_zj_z_{\overline{z}}j_z=_{\overline{z}}(j_z^2)$$
(93)
Similarly we can find the variations for

$$\overline{\omega }=\delta \widehat{g}\widehat{g}^1$$
(94)
and we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\overline{\omega }}{d\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`_z\omega j_{\overline{z}}+j_{\overline{z}}_z\overline{\omega }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dj_{\overline{z}}}{d\theta }}`$ $`=`$ $`_zj_{\overline{z}}j_{\overline{z}}+j_{\overline{z}}_zj_{\overline{z}}=_z(j_{\overline{z}}^2)`$ (95)
where

$$j_{\overline{z}}=_{\overline{z}}\widehat{g}\widehat{g}^1.$$
(96)
Note that on-shell, both $`j_z`$ and $`j_{\overline{z}}`$ are $`\theta `$-independent, that is the non-commutative currents coincide with the standard ones. This result is expected since the same happens for their fermionic counterparts.

Now, instead of studying how does the $`\theta `$-map acts on the WZW action, it is easy to see how does the mapping acts on the variation of the WZW action with respect to the fields. In fact, we have

$$\delta W[\widehat{g}]=\frac{k}{\pi }d^2x\mathrm{tr}\left(_{\overline{z}}j_z\omega \right)$$
(97)
where $`j_z`$ and $`\omega `$ are the quantities defines in eqs.(90) and (92) and there is no $``$-product between them in eq.(97) in virtue of the quadratic nature of the expression.

Thus, a simple computation show that

$$\frac{d\delta W[\widehat{g}]}{d\theta }=0$$
(98)
and we have a remarkable result: the transformation (88), integrated between $`0`$ and $`\theta `$ maps the standard commutative WZW action into the noncommutative WZW action. That is, we have found a transformation mapping orbits into orbits such that it keeps the form of the action unchanged provided one simply performs a $`\theta `$-deformation. This should be contrasted with the 4 dimensional noncommutative Yang-Mills case for which a mapping respecting gauge orbits can be found (the Seiberg-Witten mapping) but the resulting commutative action is not the standard Yang-Mills one. However, one can see that the mapping (88) is in fact a kind of Seiberg-Witten change of variables.

Indeed, if we consider the WZW action as the effective action of a theory of Dirac fermions coupled to gauge fields, as we did in previous sections, instead of an independent model, we can relate the group valued field $`g`$ to gauge potentials. As we showed in eq.(51), this relation acquires a very simple form in the light-cone gauge $`A_+=0`$ where

$$A_{}=\widehat{g}(x)_{}\widehat{g}^1(x).$$
(99)
But notice that in this gauge, $`A_{}`$ coincides with $`j_{\overline{z}}`$ (eq.(96), so we have from equation (95)

$$\delta A_{}=\delta \theta \left(_zA_{}A_{}+A_{}_zA_{}\right)$$
(100)
which is precisely the Seiberg-Witten mapping in the gauge $`A_+=0`$.

## 8 The $`U(1)`$ Thirring model

As an example of the bosonization recipe previously obtained, we analyze in this section the two-dimensional non-commutative Thirring model with dynamics governed by the (Euclidean) Lagrangian

$$L=\overline{\psi }i\overline{)}\psi \frac{g^2}{2}j_\mu j^\mu $$
(101)
where the fermion current is defined as

$$j_\mu =\overline{\psi }\gamma _\mu \psi $$
(102)
The partition function for the model is

$$Z=D\overline{\psi }D\psi \mathrm{exp}\left(d^2xL\right)$$
(103)
Let us introduce an auxiliary vector field $`A_\mu `$ to eliminate the quartic fermion self-interaction. We use the identity

$$\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{g^2}{2}d^2xj_\mu j^\mu \right)=DA_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(d^2x\left(\frac{1}{2g^2}A_\mu A^\mu j_\mu A_\mu \right)\right)$$
(104)
Being all terms in the exponentials quadratic, the $``$ product in (104) can be replaced by the normal one so that (104) is just the usual Hubbard-Stratonovich identity.

With this, the partition function (103) can be written as

$$Z=D\overline{\psi }D\psi DA_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(d^2xL_{eff}\right)$$
(105)
where we have defined

$$L_{eff}=\overline{\psi }\gamma ^\mu iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]\psi +\frac{1}{2g^2}A_\mu A^\mu $$
(106)
Here the Dirac operator $`D_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]`$ acts on the anti-fundamental representation (as defined in eq.(12) with $`e=1`$). The fermionic path-integral in $`Z`$ can now be performed, leading to

$$Z=DA_\mu \mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{1}{2g^2}d^2xA_\mu A^\mu \right)det\left(\gamma ^\mu iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]\right)$$
(107)
In order to use the results obtained in the previous sections, we write, for the vector field light-cone components,

$`A_+`$ $`=`$ $`g^1(x)_{}g(x)`$
$`A_{}`$ $`=`$ $`h^1(x)_{}h(x)`$ (108)
with $`g(x)`$ and $`h(x)`$ group elements, in this case of the $`U(1)`$ gauge group, as defined in eq.(6). Then, the fermion determinant in (107) can be identified with the Wess-Zumino-Witten action for the $`U(1)`$ gauge group element $`gh^1`$. Now, such an identification implies that one has adopted a gauge invariant regularization prescription for computing the fermion determinant, as done in the precedent section. A way to see this is the following: one can evaluate separately the left-handed and right-handed part of the fermion determinant just by working in the appropriate light-cone gauge,

$`\mathrm{log}det\left(_++iA_+\right)`$ $`=`$ $`W[g]`$
$`\mathrm{log}det\left(_{}+iA_{}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`W[h^1]`$ (109)
Then, one can combine the two results to get the determinant of the complete Dirac operator. But in doing that, one has to add a term of the form $`d^2xA_+A_{}`$ with an a priori undetermined coefficient $`\overline{a}`$ since such a term is the one involved in the derivation of a finite answer from the regularized determinants. One then has

$$\mathrm{log}det\left(\gamma ^\mu iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]\right)=W[g]+W[h^1]+\frac{\overline{a}}{4\pi }d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h$$
(110)
In the case of a gauge theory, gauge invariance fixes the arbitrary parameter $`\overline{a}=1`$ . In the present case, since $`A_\mu `$ is not a gauge field but an auxiliary field, $`\overline{a}`$ remains in principle undetermined, this leading, as we shall see, to the existence of a family of solutions, a well known feature already encountered in the ordinary Thirring model.

Let us note at this point that a Polyakov-Wiegmann identity can be seen to hold in noncommutative space,

$$W[gh^1]=W[g]+W[h^1]+\frac{1}{4\pi }d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h$$
(111)
Using this identity, eq.(110) can be rewritten compactly as

$$\mathrm{log}det\left(\gamma ^\mu iD_\mu ^{\overline{f}}[A]\right)=W[gh^1]+\frac{a}{4\pi }d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h$$
(112)
where we have redefined the arbitrary parameter so that $`a=\overline{a}1`$.

Concerning the integration variables, we want to write $`Z`$ as an integral over $`g`$ and $`h`$ and for this we have to take into account the Jacobians arising when (108) is taken as a change of the path-integral variables,

$`DA_+DA_{}=J[g,h^1]DgDh`$ (113)
One can easily see that Jacobian $`J[g,h^1]`$ coincides with the determinant of a Dirac operator in the adjoint representation. Indeed, writing for $`g(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}_{}(i\alpha )`$

$$g(\alpha +\delta \alpha )=g(\alpha )\mathrm{exp}_{}(i\delta \alpha )$$
(114)
an analogous expression for $`h`$ one has

$$J[g,h^1]det\frac{\delta A_+}{\delta \alpha }det\frac{\delta A_{}}{\delta \alpha ^{}}$$
(115)
or

$$J^{ad}[g,h^1]=Ndet(\gamma _\mu (_\mu +i\{A_\mu ,\})$$
(116)
In passing from (115) to (116) we have again assumed that the product of left-handed and right-handed determinants can be written in terms of the determinant of the complete Dirac operator in the adjoint at the cost of taking into account an in principle undetermined, regularization dependent coefficient (here included in $`N`$).

At this point we can use our previous result on the connection between the determinant in the fundamental and in the adjoint to write

$$\mathrm{log}J^{ad}[g,h^1]=2\left(W[gh^1]+\frac{a}{4\pi }d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h\right)$$
(117)
where, for consistence, the same regularization dependent coefficient $`a`$ has been used.

Then, using eqs.(112),(117) we can write for $`Z`$

$$Z=DgDh\mathrm{exp}\left(3W[gh^1]\frac{1}{2}(\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{3a}{2\pi })d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h\right)$$
(118)
Now, the second term in the argument of the exponential can be made to vanish if one choses $`a`$ such that

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\frac{3a}{2\pi }=0$$
(119)
In that case, trading $`g(x)`$ for a new variable $`u(x)`$ such that $`g(x)=u(x)h(x)`$, one gets

$$Z=𝒩Du\mathrm{exp}(3W[u])$$
(120)
(Here, the trivial $`h`$ integration has been included in a normalization $`𝒩`$).

We can see this phenomenon from another point of view: for any choice of the regularization parameter $`a`$ there exists a particular value of the coupling constant, which we call $`g^{}`$,

$$g^2=\frac{2\pi }{3a}$$
(121)
such that the Thirring model reduces to a Wess-Zumino-Witten model with “level” $`k=3`$.

Now, identity (111) can be used to write, instead of (120)

$`Z={\displaystyle DgDh}`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(3W[g]+3W[h^1]`$ (122)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g^2}}(3a+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}){\displaystyle }d^2xg^1_+gh^1_{}h)`$
this meaning that there exist a second critical point $`g^{}`$ such that

$$g^2=\frac{2\pi }{1+3a}$$
(123)
at which $`Z`$ reduces to the partition function of two (factorized) Wess-Zumino-Witten models,

$$Z=Dg\mathrm{exp}(3W[g])Dh\mathrm{exp}(3W[h^1])$$
(124)
## 9 Discussion

From the calculation of the Dirac operator determinant in a gauge field background, we have established the connection between the action for $`U(N)`$ fermions and the WZW action in noncommutative two-dimensional space. The bosonization recipe for fermion currents is just the trivial extension of the standard one with $``$ products replacing ordinary ones so that correlation functions of currents in the standard and the $`\theta `$-deformed theory will be identical. Being the WZW actions the generating functionals of fermionic current correlation functions, both actions (standard and non-commutative) are then equivalent. Moreover, a Seiberg-Witten like mapping can be constructed so that in both cases the WZW action is formally the same with the appropriate product of fields in each case. All these results stem from one of our fundamental formulæ(eq.(98)),

$$\frac{d\delta W[\widehat{g}]}{d\theta }=0$$

This formula shows the independence of the WZW action on the deformation parameter $`\theta `$. From this, one can infer that the existence of a mass scale ($`[\theta ^{1/2}]=m`$) should not affect the scale invariance of the deformed WZW action. This is consistent with the result of  where it was found that the one loop beta function for a nonlinear sigma model with a Wess-Zumino term in noncommutative space vanishes at the same point as the ordinary model. In our context, this manifests through the fact that the noncommutative WZW model, when derived from the fermion determinant, gives an action at its fixed point. This behavior, which is rather evident at the fermionic level (being quadratic, the noncommutative free fermion action coincides with the standard one), is a non-trivial result at the WZW bosonic level.

On the fermion side, an interesting result is obtained when one considers the Dirac operator $`\overline{)}D`$ in different representations with respect to the $`\theta `$ deformation. We have found a factor of $`2`$ relating the results for $`\mathrm{log}det\overline{)}D`$ in the adjoint and the fundamental, reminiscent of the factor $`C(G)`$ that one obtains when one compares the determinant for commutative two-dimensional fermions in an $`U(N)`$ gauge field background, for the fundamental and the adjoint representation of $`U(N)`$.

Acknowledgements: E.Moreno is partially supported by Fundación Antorchas,. This work is partially supported through grants by CONICET (PIP 4330/96) and ANPCYT (PICT 97/2285).


format: text

text:
# Correlated errors in quantum error corrections

## Abstract

We show that errors are not generated correlatedly provided that quantum bits do not directly interact with (or couple to) each other. Generally, this no-qubits-interaction condition is assumed except for the case where two-qubit gate operation is being performed. In particular, the no-qubits-interaction condition is satisfied in the collective decoherence models. Thus, errors are not correlated in the collective decoherence. Consequently, we can say that current quantum error correcting codes which correct single-qubit-errors will work in most cases including the collective decoherence.

Information processing with quantum bits (qubits) e.g. quantum computing and quantum cryptography is a novel technique that will solve some classically intractable problems -. However, in order to make quantum computing practical, quantum error correcting codes (QECCs) - are indispensable . With QECCs, we can correct errors on qubits induced by interactions of qubits with the environment.

However, there exists no QECC that can correct all errors. That is, only some subsets of all possible errors can be corrected with QECCs. So, the strategy is to choose certain subclasses of errors that constitute dominant parts as to-be-corrected ones, while other classes of errors that constitute negligible parts as not-to-be-corrected ones. Generally, single-qubit-errors where only one qubit has undergone interaction with the environment or arbitrary unitary operation are assumed to be the most common ones. More precisely, it is assumed that the probability of $`k`$ (integer $`k`$ $`0`$) errors is of order $`ϵ^k`$, which is much smaller than $`ϵ`$ the probability of a single error if $`ϵ`$ is small enough and $`k2`$ . This is the independence condition. However, it should be noted that the independence condition is distinguished from the independent decoherence where each qubits interact with their own environments which do not interact with one another ***Correlated decoherence should also be distinguished from collective decoherence. The former is the one which does not satisfy the independence condition while the latter is the one where qubits interacts with environments collectively.. Although the independence of qubit-environment interaction ensures the independence condition, the converse is not guaranteed. The purpose of this paper is to show that even if qubits do not interact independently with environments, the generated errors satisfy the independence condition to the second order, provided that quantum bits do not directly interact with (or couple to) each other. Generally, this no-qubits-interaction condition is assumed except for the case where two-qubit gate operation is being performed. In particular, the no-qubits-interaction condition is satisfied in the collective decoherence models -. Thus, we can say that correlated errors are not generated in most cases including the collective decoherence. Therefore, current QECCs - which correct single-qubit-errors work in most cases including the collective decoherence. Recently Knill et al. have shown that there exist some QECCs that can correct errors due to general interaction . So, there exist some QECCs which correct errors due to collective interaction. However, their results do not mean that QECCs correcting single-qubit-errors work in collective decoherence.

First, let us consider complete independent decoherence where qubits interact with their own environments which do not interact with one another. This has been addressed and worked out thoroughly in Ref.. We will consider this in Hamiltonian formulations. Let us consider the following total Hamiltonian.

$`𝐇_T`$ $`=`$ $`[𝐇_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐇_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E`$ (2)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐐_1^j𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_1^j𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E]`$ (3)
$`+`$ $`[𝐈_1𝐇_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐇_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐐_2^j\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐄_2^j\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E]+\mathrm{}`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`[𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐇_n𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E`$ (7)
$`+`$ $`𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐇_n^E`$ (8)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐐_n^j𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐄_n^j].`$ (9)
Here, $`𝐇_\alpha `$ and $`𝐇_\alpha ^E`$ are the free Hamiltonian of $`\alpha `$-th qubit and $`\alpha `$-th environment, respectively, ($`\alpha =1,2,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`n`$ is the number of qubits and integer $`j1`$) and $`𝐈`$ is the identity operator. $`𝐐_\alpha ^j`$ is an operator that acts on $`\alpha `$-th qubit and $`𝐄_\alpha ^j`$ is an operator that acts on $`\alpha `$-th environment. It is clear that a set of terms in a parenthesis commute with that in other parenthesis in Eq.(1). Since $`\mathrm{exp}(_iA_i)=_i\mathrm{exp}(A_i)`$ when $`[A_i,A_j]=0`$ for each $`i,j`$ ($`[A,B]=ABBA`$), the total unitary time evolution operator $`U(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i𝐇_Tt)`$ decomposes into $`n`$ factors. Thus each qubit-environment system evolves separately by their own unitary operators, for example, the first qubit- environment system by $`U_1(t)=\mathrm{exp}(i[𝐇_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E+𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐇_1^E𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E+_j𝐐_1^j𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_1^j𝐈_2^E\mathrm{}𝐈_n^E]t)`$. Each qubit-environment’s evolution can be decomposed  as, for example,

$`U_1(t)|\psi _1|e_1`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}(\sigma ^k𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n)|\psi _1|e_k_1`$ (10)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _1|e_k_1.`$ (11)
Here, $`|\psi _\alpha `$ and $`|e_\alpha `$ denotes $`\alpha `$-th qubits and $`\alpha `$-th environment state, respectively. $`\sigma ^0=𝐈,\sigma ^1=\sigma ^x,\sigma ^2=i\sigma ^y`$, and $`\sigma ^3=\sigma ^z`$, $`𝐈`$ is the identity operator, and $`\sigma ^x,\sigma ^y,\sigma ^z`$ are the Pauli operators. $`\sigma _\alpha ^k`$ denotes $`\sigma ^k`$ acting on $`\alpha `$-th qubit leaving others intact. $`|e_k`$ are not normalized and not necessarily orthogonal . However, in general the norm of the terms with $`\sigma _1^1,\sigma _1^2,\sigma _1^3`$ in Eq.(10) are of the first order of time $`t`$ while that with $`\sigma _1^0`$ is of the zeroth order. This property is required to ensure the quantum Zeno effect -. Therefore,

$$\underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _1|e_1=c_1^0t^0\sigma _1^0|\psi _1|\overline{e}_0_1+c_1^kt\underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _1|\overline{e}_k_1,$$
(12)
where $`|\overline{e}_k`$ is normalized state of $`|e_k`$ and $`c_1^k`$’s are some constants. The same relation is satisfied for other $`\alpha `$’s. As noted above, the total qubits-environments system can be expressed as direct products of each qubit-environment system, each of which satisfy an equation similar to Eq.(12). Then, we can see by inspection that terms with $`k`$ errors are of order $`t^k`$ in general (Note that the total state is in a form similar to $`[1+t]^n`$.). So we can say that the independence of qubits-environments interactions ensure the independence condition.

Next, let us consider incomplete independent decoherence where qubits interact with different environments which are still interacting with one another. In this case total states do not decompose into factors in general and thus the above method cannot be used to derive the independence condition. On the other hand, one may guess that collective decoherence generates correlated errors. However, there is no reason why the collective interaction of qubits with the environment necessarily induces correlated errors. However, in both models, qubits do not couple to each other or they satisfy no-qubits-interaction condition. Then correlated errors are not generated, as we show in the following. Therefore, we can say that incomplete and collective decoherence does not generate correlated errors. Now, we state the no-qubits-interaction condition more precisely: in each term of the qubit-environment interaction Hamiltonian $`𝐇_I`$, only one qubit-operator is a non-identity. That is,

$`𝐇_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐐_1^j𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_1^j`$ (13)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐐_2^j\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_2^j`$ (14)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐐_n^j𝐄_n^j.`$ (15)
The total Hamiltonian is the following.

$`𝐇_T`$ $`=`$ $`𝐇_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_E+𝐈_1𝐇_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐈_E`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐇_n𝐈_E`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐇_E+𝐇_I𝐇_0+𝐇_I.`$ (18)
Here we adopt the interaction picture  where $`|\psi _I`$ (the state vector in the interaction picture) $`=\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)|\psi _S`$ (the state vector in Schrodinger picture). The time evolution of $`|\psi _I`$ is determined by the Schrodinger-like equation

$$i\frac{|\psi _I}{t}=V(t)|\psi _I,$$
(19)
where

$$V(t)\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)𝐇_I\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0).$$
(20)
Since $`V(t)`$ is time dependent, the time evolution operator $`U_I(t)`$ for $`|\psi _I`$ is given by the Dyson series .

$`U_I(t)=1+`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}(i)^m{\displaystyle _0^t}𝑑t_1{\displaystyle _0^{t_1}}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{t_{m1}}}𝑑t_mV(t_1)V(t_2)\mathrm{}V(t_m).`$ (22)
From Eqs.(13) and (20),

$`V(t)`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐐_1^j𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_1^j]\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐐_2^j\mathrm{}𝐈_n𝐄_2^j]\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)`$ (25)
$`+\mathrm{}`$ $`+`$ $`\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)[{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}𝐈_1𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐐_n^j𝐄_n^j]\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)`$ (26)
$``$ $`V_1(t)+V_2(t)+\mathrm{}+V_n(t).`$ (27)
We consider the relation

$$U_I(t)=U_I^1(t)U_I^2(t)\mathrm{}U_I^n(t)+O(t^2),$$
(28)
where $`U_I^\alpha (t)=1+_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}(i)^m_0^t𝑑t_1_0^{t_1}𝑑t_2\mathrm{}_0^{t_{m1}}𝑑t_mV_\alpha (t_1)V_\alpha (t_2)\mathrm{}V_\alpha (t_m)`$ and $`O(f(x))`$ means asymptotically less than a constant operator times $`f(x)`$. However, since $`|\psi _S=\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)|\psi _I`$ and the operator $`\mathrm{exp}(it𝐇_0)`$ do not entangle qubits with environments, it is sufficient for us to consider only $`U_I(t)`$. We can see that each $`U_I^\alpha (t)`$ makes $`\alpha `$-th qubit to entangle with environment. For an example,

$`U_I^1(t)|\psi _I|e_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}(\sigma ^k𝐈_2\mathrm{}𝐈_n)|\psi _I|e_k_I`$ (29)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _I|e_k_I.`$ (30)
Here, $`|\psi _I`$ and $`|e_I`$ denotes qubits and the environment state in the interaction picture, respectively. And $`|e_k_I`$ are not normalized and not necessarily orthogonal. By operating all factors in $`U_I(t)`$ sequentially, we obtain

$`U_I(t)|\psi _I|e_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{k\}}{}}\sigma _1^{k_1}\sigma _2^{k_2}\mathrm{}\sigma _n^{k_n}|\psi _I|e_{\{k\}}_I`$ (31)
$`+`$ $`O(t^2)|\psi _I|e_I,`$ (32)
where $`\{k\}`$ is an abbreviation for $`k_1,k_2,\mathrm{},k_n`$, and $`k_\alpha =0,1,2,3`$. Let us consider Eq.(29). As above, the norm of the terms with $`\sigma _1^1,\sigma _1^2,\sigma _1^3`$ of Eq.(29) are of the first order of time $`t`$ while the norm of the term with $`\sigma _1^0`$ is of the zeroth order of time $`t`$. Therefore,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _I|e_I`$ $`=`$ $`c_1^0t^0\sigma _1^0|\psi _I|\overline{e}_0_I+c_1^kt{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\sigma _1^k|\psi _I|\overline{e}_k_I`$ (33)
$`+`$ $`O(t^2)|\psi _I|e_I,`$ (34)
where $`|\overline{e}_k_I`$ is the normalized state of $`|e_k_I`$. The same relation is satisfied for other $`\alpha `$’s. Then,

$`{\displaystyle \underset{\{k\}}{}}\sigma _1^{k_1}\sigma _2^{k_2}\mathrm{}\sigma _n^{k_n}|\psi _I|e_{\{k\}}_I+O(t^2)|\psi _I|e_I`$ (35)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{\{k\}}{}}c_{\{k\}}t^{N(\{k\})}\sigma _1^{k_1}\sigma _2^{k_2}\mathrm{}\sigma _n^{k_n}|\psi _I|\overline{e}_{\{k\}}_I`$ (36)
$`+`$ $`O(t^2)|\psi _I|e_I,`$ (37)
where $`N(\{k\})`$ is the number of instances when $`k_\alpha 0`$. Now, we can see that all terms with more than 1 errors (or $`N(\{k\})2`$) are of order $`t^2`$. Thus the independence condition is satisfied to the second order (we can obtain the full independence condition in the case where the $`O(t^2)|\psi _I|e_I`$ term is negligible.). So, we can say that any qubit-environment system that satisfies the no-qubits-interaction condition (Eq.(13)) obeys the independence condition to the second order so that the QECCs correcting single-qubit-errors works successfully.

To summarize, we have shown that errors are not generated correlatedly, provided that quantum bits do not directly interact with each other, or that in each term of the qubit-environment interaction Hamiltonian $`𝐇_I`$ only one qubit-operator is a non-identity operator (Eq.(13)). Generally, this no-qubits-interaction condition is assumed except for the case where two-qubit gate operation is being performed. In particular, the no-qubits-interaction condition is satisfied in the collective decoherence models -. So, current QECCs - which correct single-qubit-errors work in most cases including the collective decoherence.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the Korean Ministry of Science and Technology through the Creative Research Initiatives Program under Contract No. 98-CR-01-01-A-20. We are very grateful to Andi Song for corrections of this paper.


text:
# Storage Capacity of the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm

## I Introduction

The storage capacity is one of the most important characteristics of a neural network. It is the maximal number of random input-output patterns per input entry that a network is able to correctly classify with probability one. This quantity is independent of the algorithm used to learn the weights of the network; it only depends on its architecture. We will refer to it as the architecture storage capacity $`\alpha _c^{arch}`$ in the following, to distinguish it from the algorithm-dependent one, hereafter called algorithm storage capacity, $`\alpha _c^{alg}`$.

The simplest neural network, the perceptron, has the inputs directly connected to the output. Geometrical arguments Cover  and a statistical mechanics calculation Gardner  determined that $`\alpha _c^{arch}=2`$. Several perceptron learning algorithms, like the Adatron AbKe ; AnBi , are known to achieve such storage capacity.

The capacity can be increased using networks with more complicated architectures. The next one on increasing complexity is the extensively studied WRB  monolayer perceptron (MLP), which has $`k`$ “hidden” perceptrons connected to the output unit. As a MLP can store any function of its inputs, provided that the number of hidden units is adequate, it is not worth to consider more complex architectures for the storage problem.

Given an input pattern, the hidden units’ states define a $`k`$-dimensional vector, the pattern’s internal representation (IR). The network’s output is a function of the IR. In the following, we consider binary neurons, of states $`\pm 1`$, and focus on the parity machine, whose output is the product of the $`k`$ components of the IR.

The main problem when training MLPs is that the IRs of the input patterns are unknown. It has been proposed BiOp  to build the hidden layer using a constructive procedure, called Tilinglike Learning Algorithm (TLA), in which the hidden perceptrons are included one after the other and trained to correct the learning errors of the preceding unit. As each unit can at least correct one error, convergence is ensured BiOp . It is straightforward to show that the TLA generates a parity machine BiOp , but the number of included hidden units depends crucially on the performance of the perceptron learning algorithm used to train them.

Geometric arguments MiDu  and a statistical mechanics replica calculation XKO , showed that the architecture storage capacity of the parity machine in the limit of a large number of hidden units $`k`$ is $`\alpha _c^{arch}(k)k\mathrm{ln}k/\mathrm{ln}21.44k\mathrm{ln}k`$. However, it was not clear whether this storage capacity could be actually achieved with a learning algorithm. In this paper, we show that the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm (TLA) can reach a storage capacity close to the architecture storage capacity, provided that the hidden perceptrons are trained with an appropriate learning algorithm. In section II we describe more precisely the setting and the TLA. The analytical expression of the algorithm storage capacity in the limit of large $`k`$ is determined in section III, where we show that the learning algorithm used to train the hidden units must satisfy stringent condition for the TLA to converge with a finite number of hidden units. The results presented in section IV show that these conditions rule out some perceptron learning algorithms, like the Adatron. The conclusions are presented in section V.

## II The Tilinglike Learning Algorithm

Let us assume a training set $`_\alpha =\{𝐱_\mu ,\tau _\mu \}_{\mu =1,\mathrm{},P}`$ of $`P=\alpha N`$ input-output patterns. The inputs $`𝐱_\mu `$ are random gaussian $`N`$-dimensional vectors with zero mean and unit variance in each direction. The corresponding outputs $`\tau _\mu =\pm 1`$ are the learning targets. Their values $`\tau `$ are randomly selected with probability:

$$P(\tau ;\epsilon )=\epsilon \delta (\tau +1)+(1\epsilon )\delta (\tau 1),$$
(1)
with $`\epsilon =1/2`$. The rôle of the bias $`\epsilon `$ introduced in (1) will become clear in the following. The probability of the targets $`\tau _\mu `$ is unbiased.

The TLA constructs the parity machine by including successive perceptrons in the hidden layer. Each unit is connected to the input $`𝐱`$ through weights $`\{𝐉,\theta \}=(J_1,\mathrm{},J_N,\theta )`$ where $`\theta `$ is a threshold. The inputs are classified through $`\sigma =\mathrm{sign}(𝐉𝐱\theta )`$. Thus, a perceptron separates linearly the input space with a hyperplane orthogonal to $`𝐉`$ (we assume $`𝐉𝐉=1`$) at a distance $`\theta `$ to the origin. The weights and the threshold are learned through the minimization of a cost function:

$$E(\{𝐉,\theta \};_\alpha )=\underset{\mu =1}{\overset{P}{}}V\left(\tau _\mu (𝐉𝐱_\mu \theta )\right).$$
(2)
where the potential $`V(\lambda )`$ is the contribution of each pattern to the cost, and $`|\lambda |`$ is the distance of the pattern to the hyperplane.

Within the TLA heuristics, the first perceptron $`k=1`$ is trained to learn targets $`\tau _\mu ^1=\tau _\mu `$. After learning, its weights are $`\{𝐉^1,\theta ^1\}`$; its training error is $`\epsilon _t^1=(1/P)_\mu \mathrm{\Theta }(\sigma _\mu ^1\tau _\mu ^1)`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }(x)`$ is the Heaviside function and $`\sigma _\mu ^1`$ the perceptron’s output to pattern $`\mu `$. If $`\epsilon _t^1=0`$, the training set is correctly classified; the TLA stops with only one simple perceptron. Otherwise, a new perceptron is introduced. The successive perceptrons $`i`$ are trained to learn training sets $`_\alpha (i)=\{𝐱_\mu ,\tau _\mu ^i\}`$ with targets $`\tau _\mu ^i=\tau _\mu ^{i1}\sigma _\mu ^{i1}`$, that is, $`\tau _\mu ^i=1`$ if the pattern $`\mu `$ is correctly classified by the previous perceptron and $`\tau _\mu ^i=1`$ otherwise. If the perceptron learning algorithm is correctly chosen it can be shown that the successive training errors $`\epsilon _t^i`$ are strictly decreasing BiOp ; Gordon . Thus, the TLA procedure necessarily converges to a MLP with $`k`$ units, where the $`k^{th}`$ perceptron is the first one to meet the condition $`\epsilon _t^k=0`$. Then, the product $`\sigma _\mu =\sigma _\mu ^1\mathrm{}\sigma _\mu ^k=\tau _\mu `$ gives the correct output to the patterns of the training set $`_\alpha `$.

## III Storage Capacity

The algorithm storage capacity of the TLA, $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k)`$, is simply the inverse function of $`k(\alpha )`$, the average number of perceptrons typically included by the TLA when the training set has a size $`\alpha =P/N`$. In order to determine $`k(\alpha )`$, consider the $`i^{th}`$ hidden unit : The probability of its targets $`\tau _\mu ^i`$ depends on the training error $`\epsilon _t^{i1}`$ of the previous perceptron. Although there exist some correlations between the outputs $`\tau _\mu ^i`$, due to the correlations in the weights of the successive perceptrons, in the limit of a large training sets ($`\alpha \mathrm{}`$) they may be neglected WeSa . Thus, we may assume that the targets $`\tau _\mu ^i`$ are independently drawn with probability (1), with a bias $`\epsilon _t^{i1}`$. Then, the successive training errors satisfy a simple recursive relation WeSa ; BuGo ; Buhot :

$$\epsilon _t^i=_t(\alpha ,\epsilon _t^{i1})$$
(3)
where $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon _t^{i1})`$ is the training error of a simple perceptron trained with a training set of size $`\alpha `$ and biased targets $`\tau _\mu ^i`$ drawn with a probability $`P(\tau _\mu ^i;\epsilon _t^{i1})`$ given by (1). The number $`k`$ of perceptrons necessary to correctly classify the initial training set satisfies BuGo ; Buhot :

$$_kf_\alpha (1/2)=\underset{k\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{f_\alpha \mathrm{}f_\alpha }}(1/2)=0$$
(4)
where $`f_\alpha (\epsilon )`$ stands for $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )`$ and the symbol $``$ for the composition of functions. In the limit of a large $`\alpha `$, the training error $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )`$ is close to $`\epsilon `$ and the number of simple perceptrons $`k(\alpha )`$ is large. It is thus possible to use the continuum limit:

$$\epsilon _t^{i+1}\epsilon _t^i\frac{1}{k}\frac{d\epsilon }{dx}=\epsilon _t(\alpha ,\epsilon )$$
(5)
with $`x=i/k`$. After integration of this differential equation we obtain BuGo ; Buhot  the typical number of hidden units introduced by the TLA:

$$k(\alpha )=_0^{1/2}\frac{d\epsilon }{\epsilon _t(\alpha ,\epsilon )}.$$
(6)
$`k(\alpha )`$ depends on the specific cost function (2) used to train the perceptrons through $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )`$, which is the training error of a simple perceptron learning a training set with biased targets.

## IV Results for different learning potentials

In this section we determine the perceptron’s training error $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )`$ for biased training sets, in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$ with $`\alpha =P/N`$ fixed). For different possible choices of the potential $`V`$ in (2), we deduce the number of hidden units, $`k(\alpha ;V)`$ and the algorithm storage capacity of the TLA. Only the main results are presented here, the interested reader can find the details in BuGo ; Buhot .

### IV.0.1 Adatron cost function

The Adatron potential is $`V(\lambda )=(\kappa \lambda )^2\mathrm{\Theta }(\kappa \lambda )`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a positive parameter called stability. All the patterns with negative $`\lambda `$ and those with $`\lambda >0`$ but closer than $`\kappa `$ to the hyperplane (which are correctly classified) contribute to the cost. The training error $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )`$ is obtained through a replica calculation assuming replica symmetry (RS), which can be shown to hold for all $`\alpha `$. It turns out that for fixed $`\kappa `$, in the limit of large $`\alpha `$, $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )>\epsilon `$. As a consequence, the constraint that the successive training errors are strictly decreasing, necessary for the convergence of the TLA, is not satisfied. This problem can be circumvented at the price of considering $`\kappa `$ as a free parameter, and minimizing the training error with respect to it. In that case, $`_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )<\epsilon `$ and the algorithm storage capacity is $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,Adatron)4.55\mathrm{ln}k`$ in the limit of large $`\alpha `$.

### IV.0.2 Gardner-Derrida cost function

The potential of the Gardner-Derrida (GD) cost function GaDe  is $`V(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Theta }(\kappa \lambda )`$. The hypothesis of RS is incorrect for this potential, and the obtained value of $`_t`$ is a lower bound to the true training error. Consequently, the replica calculation allows only to determine an upper bound to $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k)`$. If $`\kappa =0`$, the cost is nothing else but the number of misclassified patterns. It gives the lowest bound to $`_t`$. In the limit of large training set size $`\alpha `$, we obtain:

$$_t(\alpha ,\epsilon )\epsilon \frac{2}{a^2(\epsilon )}\frac{\mathrm{ln}\alpha }{\alpha },$$
(7)
where $`a(\epsilon )`$ satisfies $`\epsilon =[e^a(1a)1]/[2(\mathrm{cosh}aa\mathrm{sinh}a1)]`$. This leads to $`k(\alpha ,GD)0.475\alpha /\mathrm{ln}\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,GD)2.11k\mathrm{ln}k`$, larger than $`\alpha _c^{arch}(k)`$, probably due to the failure of the RS hypothesis.

In order to obtain a lower bound to $`\alpha _c^{arch}(k)`$ we used the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method GeKr ; BuGo ; Buhot , which gives an upper bound to $`_t`$. As a result of both calculations, we can bound $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,GD)`$:

$$0.924k\alpha _c^{alg}(k,GD)2.11k\mathrm{ln}k.$$
(8)
On view of this result, we expect that the algorithm storage capacity of the TLA behaves like $`k(\mathrm{ln}k)^\nu `$ with $`0\nu 1`$. A calculation with one step of replica symmetry breaking would give an estimate of the exponent $`\nu `$. Since the RS solution gives a better approximation of the training error than the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method, we expect the exponent $`\nu `$ to be close to $`1`$, leading to an algorithm storage capacity close to the architecture’s capacity. This result shows that the TLA may build a nearly optimal network.

In order to improve the robustness against noise in the data, it is usually useful to impose some finite stability $`\kappa `$ to the patterns. The corresponding GD potential is $`V(\lambda )=\mathrm{\Theta }(\kappa \lambda )`$. As with $`\kappa =0`$, here also the RS solution is unstable. The bounds on $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,\kappa ,GD)`$ deduced from the results for $`_t`$ obtained with the RS hypothesis and the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method BuGo ; Buhot , give:

$$\frac{k}{\kappa \sqrt{2\mathrm{ln}k}}\alpha _c^{alg}(k,\kappa ,GD)\frac{k}{2\kappa ^2}.$$
(9)
Strikingly, imposing a finite stability $`\kappa `$ has an important effect on the algorithm storage capacity, which in this case behaves as $`k(\mathrm{ln}k)^\nu `$ with $`1/2\nu 0`$. The prefactors of the bounds of $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,\kappa ,GD)`$ are $`\kappa `$-dependent and they both diverge for $`\kappa 0`$. The exponent $`\nu `$ is independent of $`\kappa `$ for finite $`\kappa `$ but differs from the one corresponding to $`\kappa =0`$.

## V Conclusion

We determined analytically the storage capacity of the Tilinglike Learning Algorithm for the parity machine, a constructive procedure generating a monolayer perceptron of binary hidden units. A training set of input-output examples is used to determine the number of hidden units, which are introduced one after the other. These are simple perceptrons that have to learn their weights using increasingly biased target distributions.

We have shown that the storage capacity of the TLA depends crucially on the learning errors of the successively introduced perceptrons. The properties of the algorithm used to train the latter have thus dramatic consequences on the size of the hidden layer generated by the TLA, and may even hinder the convergence to a finite size network. This arises, in particular, if the perceptrons are trained with the Adatron algorithm unless the stability is adapted to the successive targets’ biases.

The smallest network is obtained using the Gardner-Derrida cost function with vanishing stability, which corresponds to minimizing the training error. Based on the results obtained within the replica symmetry hypothesis, and those using the Kuhn-Tucker cavity method, we expect a supra-linear storage capacity $`\alpha _c^{alg}(k,GD)k(\mathrm{ln}k)^\nu `$ with $`\nu >0`$, very close to the theoretical capacity corresponding to the architecture considered.

The work of AB is supported by the Marie Curie Fellowship HPMF-CT-1999-00328.


text:
# What Is The BBN Prediction for the Baryon Density and How Reliable Is It?

## I Introduction

Since the determination of its solar system abundance by the Apollo astronauts almost thirty years ago, deuterium has been used to constrain the density of ordinary matter . The reason is simple: big-bang deuterium production has a strong dependence upon the baryon density ($`\rho _B^{1.6}`$), and astrophysical processes since have only destroyed deuterium .

Until recently, deuterium was used to set an upper limit to the baryon density (around 10% of critical density), based upon the fact that the big bang must produce at least the amount of deuterium seen in the local interstellar medium (ISM). Together with measurements of the abundances of the other light elements produced in the big bang, a concordance interval for the baryon density was derived, $`0.007\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.024`$ . For two decades the big-bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) baryon density has stood as the best determination of the amount of ordinary matter and the linchpin in the case for nonbaryonic dark matter .

A dramatic change occurred in 1998 when the abundance of deuterium was measured in high-redshift clouds of pristine gas backlit by even more distant quasars. Tytler and his collaborators have now determined deuterium abundances for three clouds and derived upper limits for a number of other clouds . Based upon these and other results we infer a primeval deuterium abundance, (D/H)$`{}_{P}{}^{}=(3.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ (95% C.L.), which leads to a precision determination of the baryon density :

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.).$$
(1)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }_B`$ is the fraction of critical density contributed by baryons, $`h=H_0/100\mathrm{km}\mathrm{sec}^1\mathrm{Mpc}^1`$, and the physical baryon density $`\rho _B=1.878(\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2)\times 10^{29}\mathrm{g}\mathrm{cm}^3`$.

A key test of the BBN prediction, and indeed the consistency of the standard cosmology itself, lies ahead. Measurements of cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropy on small angular scales can ultimately determine the baryon density to an accuracy of around 1%. The physics involved is very different: gravity-driven acoustic oscillations of the photon-baryon fluid when the Universe was around 500 000 years old. The first step toward this important goal was taken recently when the BOOMERANG and MAXIMA CMB experiments reported results for the baryon density: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.032_{0.008}^{+0.009}`$ (95% C.L.) . At about the 2$`\sigma `$ level, this independent measure of the amount of ordinary matter agrees with the BBN prediction and supports the longstanding BBN argument for non-baryonic dark matter.

The CMB determination of the baryon density should improve dramatically over the next few years, making a very precise comparison of the two methods possible. The difference between the BBN and CMB baryon densities has already triggered lively discussion in the literature . Motivated by this, we have written this paper to explain the BBN prediction for the baryon density and the associated uncertainties.

## II Uncertainties in the predicted deuterium abundance

The standard scenario for big-bang nucleosynthesis begins with the assumptions of (i) the isotropic and homogeneous Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) cosmology, (ii) three massless (or very light) neutrino species, (iii) zero (or very small) chemical potentials for the neutrino species, and (iv) spatial homogeneity of the baryon density. Within the standard theory, the predictions for the light-element abundances depend only upon the baryon density (more precisely, baryon-to-photon ratio) and the dozen nuclear-reaction rates that enter the calculation.

Essentially all of these rates have been measured at energies relevant for BBN, and because large numbers of measurements exist for most of the cross sections, reliable estimates of the uncertainties can be made (see Fig. 1). We have used all the extant nuclear data to estimate directly the uncertainties in the BBN predictions . We integrated the nuclear data over thermal distributions to obtain thermally averaged rates. Then, uncertainties in the predictions were estimated by a Monte Carlo method, repeatedly calculating the abundances with individual cross-section data being varied according to their quoted experimental uncertainties (also accounting for correlated normalization errors). From the resulting distribution of predicted abundances we have derived the uncertainties.

The uncertainty in the D/H prediction around $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020`$ arises mainly from the reactions $`d(d,n)^3\mathrm{He}`$, $`d(p,\gamma )^3\mathrm{He}`$, and $`p(n,\gamma )d`$, with a smaller contribution from $`d(d,p)t`$ (see Fig. 2). The total uncertainty from all of these combined is $`5.4\%`$ at 95% C.L., and increases slightly for larger $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$. Combining this with the slope of the power-law dependence of D/H on baryon density, we obtain a nuclear contribution to the uncertainty in the deuterium-derived baryon density of 3.4% (95% C.L.).

We end this discussion with two comments. First, BBN actually determines the baryon-to-photon ratio when the Universe was about 100 seconds old, $`\eta =(5.6\pm 0.6)\times 10^{10}`$ (95% C.L.); to translate this into a baryon density today two things are needed: (i) average mass per baryon; and (ii) the assumption of adiabatic expansion since BBN . At the 1% level, the average mass per baryon depends upon chemical composition; for the post-BBN primordial mix or universal solar abundance, $`\overline{m}=1.6701.671\times 10^{24}`$g. Adiabatic expansion since BBN is a feature of the standard cosmology. With these assumptions, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=(3.650\pm 0.008)\times 10^7\eta `$ (95% C.L.), where the error comes from the uncertainty in the CMB temperature, $`T=(2.725\pm 0.002)`$K (95% C.L.) .

The second comment is an explanation of why our estimates of the light-element uncertainties are about a factor of two to three smaller than the previous very thorough study by Smith et al. (SKM)  in 1993. Some of it is simply improved measurements. However, the bulk of the difference involves technique. As described, our analysis used all the data directly, each data point weighted by its error bar. SKM estimated $`2\sigma `$ limits to cross sections by constructing envelopes (motivated by theory) forced to contain most of the measurements, and then from these, derived overall rate uncertainties. Although much simpler to implement, this technique gives too much weight to experiments with large error bars and to cross-section data in energy intervals that are not as important to BBN, and results in unnecessarily conservative error estimates.

## III Uncertainties in the observed deuterium abundance

In 1976 Adams  pointed out that the primordial abundance of deuterium could be determined by observations of Lyman-series absorption of quasar light by intervening high-redshift ($`z>2.5`$) clouds of pristine gas, by using the fact that the deuterium feature is isotopically shifted by 82 km/s to the blue (see Fig. 3). Successfully implementing this idea awaited the advent of the 10-meter Keck telescope and its HIRES spectrograph . At present, four absorbing gas clouds place stringent constraints on the primeval deuterium abundance, and another five provide independent consistency checks. Here we briefly summarize the state of the observations, and discuss possible systematics. For a detailed review, see Ref. .

The technique is simple and straightforward; the relative abundances of deuterium and hydrogen are measured through absorption profile fitting of the Lyman series. In these clouds of virtually primordial material (metal abundance less than 1% of solar), the relative column densities of neutral deuterium and neutral hydrogen yield the primeval D/H ratio without correction for ionization or destruction of deuterium by stars . The major obstacle is the discovery of systems that are suitable for deuterium detection. To observe the weak deuterium feature, the neutral hydrogen column density must exceed about $`10^{17}\mathrm{cm}^2`$, and such clouds are relatively rare. The current rate of success is approximately 4 suitable clouds per 100 quasars studied. (Note, for each high-redshift quasar there are hundreds of intervening gas clouds, but typically only one with sufficiently high column density to see deuterium.)

There are three systems at $`z>2.5`$ where deuterium has been detected: D/H = $`(3.3\pm 0.6)\times 10^5`$ ; $`(4.0\pm 1.4)\times 10^5`$  and $`2.5\pm 0.5`$  (95% C.L.). The third and newest system has a much higher hydrogen column density, and deuterium is seen in Lyman-$`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, 5, 6, and 7. A fourth system provides a strong upper limit: D/H $`<6.7\times 10^5`$ (95% C.L.) .

Using the likelihood distributions for the first two detections and a gaussian likelihood for the new detection, we infer (D/H)$`{}_{P}{}^{}=(3.0\pm 0.4)\times 10^5`$ (95% C.L.). We note that the dispersion of the three detections is somewhat larger than one might expect based upon the estimated error of the mean, though not unreasonably so: The reduced $`\chi ^2=7.1`$ for two degrees of freedom has a probability of 3%.

Another five extragalactic absorbers that give limits on D/H at high redshift have been analyzed . They add no weight to the D/H determination, but are all consistent with (D/H)$`{}_{P}{}^{}=3\times 10^5`$. Fig. 4 summarizes the deuterium detections and upper limits.

Earlier claims of a factor of ten higher deuterium abundance in an absorption cloud associated with Q0014+8118  were shown to be a result of misidentification of the putative deuterium feature . The aforementioned upper-limit systems also argue strongly against high deuterium. In addition, recent analyses of a low redshift system suggestive of high D/H  are unconvincing due to lack of spectral coverage of the entire Lyman series.

Although the technique is simple and direct, there are two important sources of systematic uncertainty. The first arises from “hydrogen interlopers,” low column-density gas clouds that are coincidentally situated to mimic deuterium absorption . Interlopers result in a one-sided systematic bias which can lead to an overestimation of D/H. Absorbing clouds are ubiquitous at high redshifts  and the chance probability of an interloper is non-negligible.

The probability of an interloper depends on many factors, including redshift, neutral hydrogen column density, and velocity dispersion as well as the intrinsic value of D/H. Here, we present an a posteriori estimate of the probability for hydrogen contamination at the level of 10% or more in each system. In the three absorption systems with detections, the a priori probability for 10% contamination is: $`0.007`$, $`0.01`$ and $`0.001`$ respectively, assuming that the interloper must fall within 5 km/s of the expected position of deuterium absorption. (Because of its very high hydrogen column density, the third system is particularly immune to the possibility of an interloper.) Multiplying these a priori probabilities by the number of clouds searched (about 25), we arrive at estimates for the a posteriori probabilities, $`0.18`$, $`0.25`$, $`0.03`$ respectively. The final joint probability that all three systems are contaminated by more than 10% is less than 0.1%.

This small probability, and the consistency of the three deuterium detections, argues strongly for deuterium detections rather than hydrogen interlopers. One can attempt to correct for hydrogen contamination by assuming a flat prior for contamination of 0 to 10% in the lower column-density systems, Q1009 and Q1937. The likelihood for (D/H)P, in this case, has a central value that is 3% lower and an uncertainty that is slightly (20%) larger. This analysis further suggests that contamination by interlopers is not a significant systematic; further, allowing for this small contamination lessens the possible significance of the larger than expected scatter in the derived deuterium abundances.

The other important source of systematic error involves model fitting of absorption line profiles in quasar spectra. A small number of Voigt profiles were used to model the deuterium absorption systems . The effect of model-parameter choice has been studied extensively in the measurement of D/H at high redshift , as well as in the local interstellar medium . Including the uncertainty of the unabsorbed quasar continuum, the estimated possible systematic bias is at the level of 5%. This bias could affect all sightlines, but it should have a different magnitude and direction from one system to the next.

Finally, it has been argued that astrophysical mechanisms that significantly alter the deuterium abundance in these clouds are implausible ; the relatively small intrinsic scatter allowed by the current data argues against any significant post-BBN production or destruction, as more scatter would be expected. This argument is weaker than those above, since there could be some real scatter in the data.

## IV Why BBN Cannot Accommodate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$

Because the uncertainty associated with the CMB baryon density is significant (about 15%), there is nothing special about the central value, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.032`$. Nonetheless, it is interesting and instructive to ask if BBN could accommodate such a high value. The answer is a resounding no for three reasons: D, 7Li and 4He, in that order. For a baryon density of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$, the predicted abundances are: (D/H)$`=(1.6\pm 0.12)\times 10^5`$; (7Li/H) $`=(8.5\pm 0.7)\times 10^{10}`$; and $`Y_P=0.251\pm 0.001`$ (95% C.L.). All three conflict significantly with observations.

Aside from high-redshift hydrogen clouds, the most precise determination of the deuterium abundance is that measured with the HST for the local ISM, (D/H)$`=(1.5\pm 0.2)\times 10^5`$ (95% C.L.) . The technique is the same, except on a smaller scale: absorption by clouds of neutral gas along the lines of sight to many nearby stars is measured. (Variations in the local D/H, both upward and downward, have been reported and may be statistically significant . If real, they probably reflect the inhomogeneity of the local ISM.) The ISM value for D/H is essentially equal to the predicted primordial abundance for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$ and would imply that the local ISM is pristine material, because astrophysical processes since BBN have only destroyed deuterium. This is in stark contrast to the abundance of heavy elements (around 2%) which indicates about half the material has been processed through stars, and thus implies a primeval deuterium abundance of about $`3\times 10^5`$. Further, the D/H prediction at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$ is also lower than the abundance inferred for the pre-solar nebula, (D/H)$`=(2.1\pm 1.0)\times 10^5`$ (95% C.L.) .

The predicted 7Li abundance is about six times that measured in the atmospheres of old pop II halo stars, (7Li/H)$`=[1.7\pm 0.1(95\%\mathrm{C}.\mathrm{L}.)\pm 0.2(\mathrm{syst})]\times 10^{10}`$ . While there is lively debate about the possible depletion of 7Li in these stars (by rotationally driven mixing and convective burning), there is a consensus that any such depletion must be less than about a factor of two . Thus, 7Li too is a serious problem for this baryon density.

Finally, though there is no consensus about the primeval abundance of 4He, and discussion continues about possible systematic error, $`Y_P=0.250`$ is inconsistent with the two largest compilations of 4He measurements. The primordial 4He abundances inferred from these two studies of metal-poor, extragalactic Hii regions are: $`Y_P=0.244\pm 0.004`$  and $`Y_P=0.234\pm 0.004`$ , both at 95% C.L.

## V A very conservative range for the BBN baryon density

We believe our stated range for the BBN baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ (95% C.L.) is well justified. However, two recent reviews have quoted broader 95% C.L. intervals: $`0.015\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.023`$  and $`0.004\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^20.021`$ . The differences are simple to explain: The first review  used the older SKM analysis for the error in the predicted deuterium abundance (see Fig. 2). The second review  still allows for the possibility that the primeval D/H is as large as $`3\times 10^4`$. As described above, we believe the case for high primeval D/H is simply no longer tenable.

The question remains, just how high can the baryon density be pushed. To answer that question and obtain a “very conservative range” for the baryon density, we revert to the older, more conservative SKM analysis of the input nuclear data – though unlikely, our Monte Carlo analysis could be driven by an experiment with understated errors – and use a very conservative range for the primeval deuterium abundance, (D/H)$`{}_{P}{}^{}=(2.13.9)\times 10^5`$.

This range for the primeval deuterium abundance is derived from a weighted average of the three detections, with the error of the mean being estimated from the standard deviation of the three detections using the standard formula. By so doing, we are in effect disregarding the estimated errors for the individual measurements, and instead using the dispersion of the measured values to estimate the error of the mean. If the statistical errors are larger than estimated or if there are unknown systematic errors, this approach might more accurately reflect the underlying errors. (We note that O’Meara et al. , motivated by the larger than expected dispersion of the three detections, have advocated a similar approach for estimating the uncertainty in the primeval deuterium abundance.)

Adding the theoretical and observational uncertainties discussed above in quadrature, we obtain a very conservative range for the BBN baryon density: $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.0160.026`$, which is about twice the width of what we believe to be a well justified 95% confidence interval. Precisely because this very conservative range is predicated upon the possibility of systematic error, or error that is not well quantified by a Gaussian distribution function, we have not assigned a confidence level to it. We also note that at the upper limit of this extreme range, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.026`$, all the light-element abundances, (D/H)$`{}_{P}{}^{}=2.0\times 10^5`$, (7Li/H)$`=6.6\times 10^{10}`$ and $`Y_P=0.249`$, are uncomfortably different from their inferred values.

## VI Concluding remarks

A flood of high-precision data – from CMB measurements to very large redshift surveys to precision D/H determinations – is transforming cosmology. Soon, no one will remember a time when the phrase precision cosmology was an oxymoron. The new data are testing our most promising ideas about the early Universe as well as the consistency of the big-bang framework itself. A comparison between the BBN and CMB baryon densities will be one of the most important consistency tests.

The use of BBN to determine the baryon density is a mature subject. The predictions have been scrutinized and the required nuclear data are measured at the relevant energies. The determination of the deuterium abundance in nearly pristine high-redshift gas clouds now involves nine systems, and considerable attention has been paid to systematic error. While our stated uncertainty in the BBN baryon density is small, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.020\pm 0.002`$ (95% C.L.), it is well justified (our very conservative range is only twice as broad). As more deuterium systems are discovered and analyzed, the uncertainty will shrink. Even without improvement in the nuclear data, a precision of about 4% (at 95% C.L.) is possible.

On the other hand, CMB anisotropy measurements have just recently achieved sufficient angular resolution to probe the baryon density. The first result, a 15% determination of the baryon density, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.032_{0.008}^{+0.009}`$, is encouraging. It supports the longstanding BBN argument for nonbaryonic dark matter and agrees with the BBN baryon density at about the $`2\sigma `$ level. It is important to note that the CMB results for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2`$ depend upon the number of free cosmological parameters used in the analysis and the priors assumed for them . The CMB determination will improve significantly over the next few years as more experiments probe the sub-degree angular scales, making a more robust comparison with the BBN prediction possible.

As we have emphasized, there are three good reasons why BBN cannot tolerate $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.03`$: the predicted abundances of D, 7Li and 4He; all would conflict significantly with observed abundances. The standard cosmology and standard BBN cannot – and probably will not have to – accommodate a baryon density this large.

Should future CMB measurements zero in on a baryon density higher than our extreme upper limit, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Bh^2=0.026`$, they would, in our opinion, implicate nonstandard cosmology or BBN. Among the possibilities are: large neutrino chemical potentials , entropy reduction since BBN due to exotic physics , a decaying tau neutrino , neutrino oscillations , or the inconsistency of the standard cosmology. At the moment, none of these possibilities are particularly compelling, and we will wait to see if they are necessary.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by the DOE (at Chicago and Fermilab) and by the NASA (at Fermilab by grant NAG 5-7092). We thank Wayne Hu, Gary Steigman, Max Tegmark, and David Tytler for useful comments.