text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The study of Chern-Simons (CS) theories based on non-compact groups is important for understanding classical and quantum properties of three-dimensional (3d) gravity theories . One can show that pure 3d general relativity is $`ISO(1,2)`$ (3d Poincare group) CS theory, while 3d general relativity with a cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a CS theory based on the group $`SO(2,2)`$ for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }<0`$ (Anti-de-Sitter gravity), while for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }>0`$ it is the $`SO(1,3)`$ CS theory (de-Sitter gravity) . Furthermore, 3d supergravity is a super CS theory for the 3d super-Poincare group , AdS supergravity is a super CS for a certain class of supergroups , one of which is $`OSp(m|2)\times OSp(n|2)`$ , while for de-Sitter supergravity the relevant group is $`OSp(1|2;𝐂)`$ .

The moduli space of a CS theory represents the physical degrees of freedom (dof) and it is important for understanding the classical solutions and for the quantization. When the three-manifold has topology $`𝐑\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is compact, then the moduli space for compact groups is well understood . However, when the CS group is non-compact, there are few results. The 3d Poincare group case has been studied in  when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a torus $`T^2`$, and the moduli space is finite dimensional with a non-Hausdorf topology. The super-Poincare case for a torus has been studied in , and the novelty is that the fermionic moduli only appear for special parts of the bosonic moduli space. Also the structure of the 3d super-Poincare algebra is such that there are no quadratic fermion contributions to the bosonic curvature two-form, so that the problem of constructing the moduli space is simpler than in the case of other relevant super groups.

Introducing a symplectic structure on the moduli space is important for understanding solutions and quantization. In the case of groups relevant for 3d gravity, one can use the approach of , where traces of holonomies are used as basic variables. This was extended to the super de-Sitter case in . However, the problem with using traces of holonomies is that it is difficult to understand the fermionic moduli space, basically because the trace is an even element of the Grassman algebra while fermionic moduli belong to the odd part. Hence it is better to consider the holonomy matrix elements, and their algebra in order to find fermionic observables. Even in the purely bosonic case there are advantages in working with the holonomy matrix elements .

In order to explore theses issues we consider a super CS theory for the $`OSp(m|2n)`$ group on $`R\times T^2`$. In section 2 we give a definition of a super CS theory for an arbitrary super Lie group and a three manifold $`M`$. In section 3 we specialize to the case $`M=R\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and describe the canonical formalism. In section 4 we introduce the holonomies for a super Lie group and describe how to determine the moduli space for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=T^2`$. In section 5 we study the moduli space for the $`OSp(m|2n)`$ supergroup and we determine the condition for the existence of the fermionic moduli. In section 6 we discuss the basic features of the symplectic structure on the moduli space, and show how the homogeneous connections can be used to extract information about the moduli space in the exponential sector of the moduli space. We extend these results to the case when the CS supergroup is the exponential of an arbitrary super Lie algebra. In section 7 we work out the $`OSp(1|2)`$ case in detail and we present our conclusions in section 8.

## 2 Super Chern-Simons Theory

Let $`g_s`$ be a super Lie algebra, with a basis $`T_I=\{J_a,Q_\alpha \}`$, where $`J_a`$ are even elements and $`Q_\alpha `$ are odd elements. $`g_s`$ has a super Lie bracket $`[,\}`$, which satisfies

$$[X,Y\}=(1)^{|X||Y|+1}[Y,X\},$$
(1)
as well as the super Jacobi identity

$$[X,[Y,Z\}\}=[[X,Y\},Z\}+(1)^{|X||Y|}[Y,[X,Z\}\},$$
(2)
where $`X`$, $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ are elements of definite parity ($`|X|=0,1`$ for an even, odd element respectively). The super Lie algebra $`g_s`$ is determined by the super Lie brackets of the basis elements

$$[T_I,T_J\}=f_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}T_K,$$
(3)
where $`f_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}`$ are the structure constants, belonging to $`𝐑`$ or $`𝐂`$.

The algebra $`g_s`$ can be represented by matrices so that the relations (3) take the following form

$`[J_a,J_b]`$ $`=`$ $`f_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}J_c,`$ (4)
$`[J_a,Q_\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`f_{a\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }Q_\beta ,`$ (5)
$`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}J_a,`$ (6)
where $`[X,Y]=XYYX`$ and $`\{X,Y\}=XY+YX`$.

Let $`B_N`$ be a Grassmann algebra generated by $`\{\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _N\}`$, which satisfy

$$\{\theta _i,\theta _j\}=01i,jN.$$
(7)
The natural basis of $`B_N`$ can be split into an even and odd part

$`E_N`$ $`=`$ $`\{1,\theta _i\theta _j,\theta _i\theta _j\theta _k\theta _l,\mathrm{}\}`$ (8)
$`O_N`$ $`=`$ $`\{\theta _i,\theta _i\theta _j\theta _k,\mathrm{}\},`$ (9)
so that $`B_N=L(E_N)L(O_N)=B_N^+B_N^{}`$. We can now define a Grassmann enveloping algebra of $`g_s`$, $`B(g_s)`$, as

$$B(g_s)=\{X=X^aJ_a+\chi ^\alpha Q_\alpha |X^aB_N^+,\chi ^\alpha B_N^{}\}.$$
(10)
Consider now a one-form $`A`$ on a three-manifold $`M`$, taking values in $`B(g_s)`$. If $`\{x^\mu \}`$ are coordinates on $`M`$, then

$$A=A_\mu ^a(x)dx^\mu J_a+\psi _\mu ^\alpha (x)dx^\mu Q_\alpha =A_\mu ^I(x)dx^\mu T_I.$$
(11)
Note that in physics there is a restriction $`A_\mu ^aB_0=𝐑`$ or $`𝐂`$ while $`\psi _\mu ^\alpha B_1=L(\theta _i)`$. The super Chern-Simons theory associated to a super Lie group $`G_s`$, whose Lie algebra is $`B(g_s)`$, is defined by the action functional

$$S[A]=_Mstr\left(AdA+\frac{2}{3}AAA\right),$$
(12)
where $`d`$ is the exterior derivative, and $`str`$ is the super trace (invariant bilinear form on $`g_s`$), given by

$$str(J_aJ_b)=\eta _{ab}=\eta _{ba},str(Q_\alpha Q_\beta )=C_{\alpha \beta }=C_{\beta \alpha }str(J_aQ_\alpha )=0.$$
(13)
This is denoted as

$$str(T_IT_J)=\eta _{IJ}.$$
(14)
The equations of motion are the extremal points of $`S[A]`$

$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta A}=dA+AA=F=0,$$
(15)
which are satisfied by the flat $`G_s`$ connections on $`M`$. This can be written in a more explicit form

$`F^a`$ $`=`$ $`dA^a+f_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A^bA^c+f_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\psi ^\alpha \psi ^\beta =0,`$
$`F^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`d\psi ^\alpha +f_{a\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }A^a\psi ^\beta =0.`$ (16)
The super CS theory is invariant under the gauge transformations $`g:MG_s`$, so that the connection $`A`$ and the connection

$$\stackrel{~}{A}=gAg^1+dgg^1$$
(17)
are equivalent. Hence the moduli space is the space of flat connections modulo gauge transformations.

## 3 $`M=𝐑\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ case

We study now the case when $`M=𝐑\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In this case there is a natural split of the coordinates $`x^\mu =\{t,x^i\}`$ where $`t𝐑`$ and $`x^i`$ are coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This induces the split for the one forms $`A_\mu =\{A_0,A_i\}`$, so that the action can be written in the Hamiltonian form

$$S=_{t_1}^{t_2}𝑑t_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2x\left[E_I^i\dot{A}_i^IA_0^IG_I\lambda _i^I\theta _I^i\right],$$
(18)
where $`G_I`$ are the first-class Gauss constraints

$$G_I=_iE_I^i+f_{IK}^{}{}_{}{}^{J}A_i^KE_J^i=0,$$
(19)
while $`\theta _I^i`$ are the second-clsss constraints

$$\theta _I^i=E_I^i\eta _{IJ}ϵ^{ij}A_j^J=0.$$
(20)
Here $`E_I^i`$ is the canonically conjugate momentum to $`A_i^I`$ and $`ϵ_{ij}`$ is the antisymmetric tensor density on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. One can introduce the super Poisson brackets (PB) for the functions on the phase space $`(E,A)`$

$$\{F(x),G(y)\}_{PB}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2z\left(\frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta E_I^i(z)}\frac{\delta G(y)}{\delta A_i^I(z)}(1)^{|A_i^I||E_I^i|}\frac{\delta F(x)}{\delta A_i^I(z)}\frac{\delta G(y)}{\delta E_I^i(z)}\right),$$
(21)
so that

$$\{E_I^i(x),A_j^J(y)\}_{PB}=\delta _j^i\delta _I^J\delta (xy).$$
(22)
The first-class constraints form a closed algebra under the Poisson brackets

$$\{G_I(x),G_J(y)\}_{PB}=f_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}\delta (xy)G_K(y),$$
(23)
and $`Q=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^2xϵ^I(x)G_I(x)`$ generate the infinitesimal (identity connected) gauge transformations

$$\delta A(x)=\{Q,A(x)\}_{PB},\delta E(x)=\{Q,E(x)\}_{PB},\delta A_0^I=\dot{ϵ}^I+f_{JK}^{}{}_{}{}^{I}A_0^Jϵ^K.$$
(24)
Hence the moduli space is the constrained phase space modulo the gauge transformations. Because of the second class constraint, the Gauss constraint becomes

$$ϵ^{ij}F_{ij,I}=0,$$
(25)
where $`F=dA+AA`$. Therefore the moduli space $``$ is that of flat $`G_s`$ connections on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

The PB algebra of the second-class constraints does not close on the constrained phase space, and hence the PB (21) will not induce a good PB on $``$. This can be remedied by introducing a second PB, the Dirac bracket

$$\{F,G\}^{}=\{F,G\}_{PB}\{F,\theta _\alpha \}_{PB}\mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha \beta }\{\theta _\beta ,G\}_{PB},$$
(26)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^{\alpha \beta }\{\theta _\beta ,\theta _\gamma \}_{PB}=\delta _\gamma ^\alpha ,$$
(27)
and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ denote discrete and continious indices. The DB is well defined on the constraint surface, since $`\{\theta _1,\theta _2\}^{}=0`$. The basic Dirac brackets are

$$\{A_i^I(x),A_j^J(y)\}^{}=ϵ_{ij}\eta ^{IJ}\delta (xy)$$
(28)
which will induce a symplectic structure on $``$. The DB (28) induces a symplectic 2-form

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=_\mathrm{\Sigma }str(\delta _1A\delta _2A)$$
(29)
which is the supergroup generalization of the Atiyah-Bott symplectic form .

## 4 Holonomies and the moduli space

The standard approach for determining the moduli of flat connections is to use the holonomies. We will use the same approach for the case of super Lie groups, so let $`U`$ be a homomorphism from the fundamental group of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, to $`G_s`$ defined by

$$U(\gamma )=U(s=2\pi ),\frac{dU(s)}{ds}=A_\mu (s)\frac{dx^\mu }{ds}U(s),$$
(30)
where $`x^\mu (s):[0,2\pi ]M`$ parametrizes the loop $`\gamma `$, and $`U(0)=Id`$. Since we use a matrix representation for $`g_s`$, which are $`(m+n)\times (m+n)`$ matrices, the corresponding $`G_s`$ will be given by $`(m+n)\times (m+n)`$ super matrices

$$g=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ C& D\end{array}\right),$$
(31)
where $`A,D`$ are $`m\times m`$ and $`n\times n`$ matrices respectively, with entries in $`B_N^+`$, while $`B`$ and $`C`$ are $`m\times n`$ and $`n\times m`$ matrices respectively, with entries in $`B_N^{}`$. Given a $`B(g_s)`$ one can always obtain a super Lie group by the exponential map $`g=e^X`$, but as in the case of ordinary Lie groups, one can have $`G_s`$ with elements $`ge^X`$.

The $`\pi _1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ for a Riemann surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is generated by the canonical cycles of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`(a_i,b_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},g`$, where $`g`$ is the genus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The generators satisfy a constraint

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{g}{}}a_i^1b_i^1a_ib_i=1.$$
(32)
In the case of the torus the constraint becomes $`a_1b_1=b_1a_1`$, so that the corresponding holonomies satisfy

$$U_1U_2=U_2U_1.$$
(33)
Since a holonomy transforms by conjugation under gauge transformations, the moduli space will be determined by commuting pairs $`(U_1,U_2)`$ from $`G_s`$ modulo conjugation, i.e.

$$(U_1,U_2)(𝒮U_1𝒮^1,𝒮U_2𝒮^1),𝒮G_s.$$
(34)
## 5 $`OSp(m|2n)`$ supergroup

We now concentrate on the $`OSp(m|2n)`$ Lie group case. It can be defined as a group of super matrices $`M`$

$$M^{st}HM=H=diag(I_m,C_{2n})$$
(35)
where $`C^T=C`$ and $`C^2=I_{2n}`$. If we label $`M`$ as

$$M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& \xi \\ \chi & A\end{array}\right)$$
(36)
and use

$$M^{st}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a^T& \chi ^T\\ \xi ^T& A^T\end{array}\right),$$
(37)
then the relations (35) imply

$`a^Ta+\chi ^TC\chi `$ $`=`$ $`I_m`$ (38)
$`a^T\xi +\chi ^TCA`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (39)
$`\xi ^T\xi +A^TCA`$ $`=`$ $`C.`$ (40)
These relations can be solved by expanding the matrices $`a,A,\chi ,\xi `$ in the Grassman algebra $`B_N`$ basis as

$$X=X_0+X_1\theta ^1+X_2\theta ^2+\mathrm{}+X_N\theta ^N,$$
(41)
where $`\theta ^k=\theta _{i_1}\mathrm{}\theta _{i_k}`$ and we have supressed the $`i_l`$ indices on $`X_k`$. Note that for physics applications $`N2mn`$, otherwise $`N`$ is an arbitrary natural number.

The relations (38) and (40) imply

$$a_0^Ta_0=I_m,A_0^TCA_0=C,$$
(42)
so that $`a_0O(m)`$, while $`A_0Sp(2n)`$. This implies that $`a`$ and $`A`$ are always invertible, so that the relation (39) gives

$$\xi =(a^T)^1\chi ^TCA,$$
(43)
which means that there is only one independent fermionic matrix. Hence if $`\chi =0`$, then $`\xi =0`$ and therefore $`aO(m)`$ while $`ASp(2n)`$, so that one obtains the maximal bosonic subgroup $`O(m)\times Sp(2n)`$.

If $`M`$ is a holonomy matrix $`U`$, we would like to know how the fermion $`\chi `$ transforms under the gauge transformation

$$\stackrel{~}{U}=𝒮U𝒮^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{a}& \stackrel{~}{\xi }\\ \stackrel{~}{\chi }& \stackrel{~}{A}\end{array}\right),$$
(44)
where $`𝒮OSp(m|2n)`$. If

$$𝒮=\left(\begin{array}{cc}s& \delta \\ \sigma & S\end{array}\right)$$
(45)
then

$$𝒮^1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\overline{s}^1& s^1\delta \overline{S}^1\\ S^1\sigma \overline{s}^1& \overline{S}^1\end{array}\right),$$
(46)
where $`\overline{s}=s\delta S^1\sigma `$ and $`\overline{S}=S\sigma s^1\delta `$. By using (46), the relation (44) gives

$$\stackrel{~}{\chi }=\left(\sigma a+S\chi \sigma \xi S^1\sigma SAS^1\sigma \right)\overline{s}^1.$$
(47)
Therefore if we want $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }=0`$, then (47) implies

$$\sigma a+S\chi \sigma \xi S^1\sigma SAS^1\sigma =0.$$
(48)
This can be considered as an equation for $`\sigma `$, which can be written in components of a $`B_N`$ basis as

$$\sigma _{2k+1}a_0S_0A_0S_0^1\sigma _{2k+1}=S_0\chi _{2k+1}+\zeta _{2k+1}(\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _{2k1}),$$
(49)
where $`\zeta _1=0`$. Therefore (49) can be solved iteratively for $`\sigma `$ as a function of $`a,A,\chi `$ and $`s,S`$ provided that the linear operator $`\widehat{A}`$ determined by

$$\widehat{A}\sigma =\sigma a_0S_0A_0S_0^1\sigma $$
(50)
is invertible. It can be written as a $`2mn\times 2mn`$ matrix

$$\widehat{A}_0=a_0^TI_{2n}I_mS_0A_0S_0^1,$$
(51)
so that invertability is equivalent to $`det\widehat{A}_00`$. Note that

$$\widehat{S}^1\widehat{A}_0\widehat{S}=a_0^TI_{2n}I_mA_0$$
(52)
where $`\widehat{S}=I_mS_0`$, so that

$$det(a_0^TI_{2n}I_mS_0A_0S_0^1)=det(a_0^TI_{2n}I_mA_0).$$
(53)
In the case when $`det\widehat{A}_00`$ one can determine all the components of $`\sigma `$ and hence set all of the components of $`\stackrel{~}{\chi }`$ to zero. This then means that the holonomy matrix $`U`$ is equivalent to a holonomy matrix of the $`O(m)\times Sp(2n)`$ subgroup. If $`U_1`$ is such a matrix, i.e. $`U_1=diag(a,A)`$ then $`U_2`$ must be also, since the commutativity implies

$$ab=ba,AB=BA,\mu a=A\mu ,a\nu =\nu A,$$
(54)
where

$$U_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& \nu \\ \mu & B\end{array}\right).$$
(55)
Since $`det(a^TI_{2n}I_mA)0`$ then $`\mu aA\mu =0`$ implies $`\mu =0`$, and hence $`U_2=diag(b,B)`$. Hence the moduli space is that of the $`O(m)\times Sp(2n)`$ Lie group, and there are no fermionic moduli.

Note that this bosonic moduli space will be larger then the moduli space of non-super CS based on the $`O(m)\times Sp(2n)`$ Lie group because the holonomy matrices in the former case belong to the $`B_N^+`$ Grassman algebra while in the latter case the holonmy matrices are real numbers. We can avoid these extra bosonic degrees of freedom by restricting the even part of the CS connection $`A`$ from $`B_N^+`$ to real numbers.

The fermionic moduli will arise in the case when $`det\widehat{A}_0=0`$ and $`det\widehat{B}_0=0`$ where

$$U_1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& \xi \\ \chi & A\end{array}\right),U_2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}b& \nu \\ \mu & B\end{array}\right).$$
(56)
The zero commutator implies

$$ab+\xi \mu =ba+\nu \chi $$
(57)
$$AB+\chi \nu =BA+\mu \xi $$
(58)
$$\chi b+A\mu =\mu a+B\chi $$
(59)
$$a\nu +\xi B=B\xi +\nu A.$$
(60)
Let $`rank(\widehat{A}_0)=r<2mn`$, so that $`r`$ components of $`\chi `$ can be set to zero. Although the non-zero components are not gauge invariant, they cannot be set to zero by a gauge transformation. We will show in the following sections how to define the gauge invariant fermion components, but for our present purposes it sufficient to know that the number of non-zero fermion components is gauge invariant. If $`rank(\widehat{B}_0)=r^{}`$, then one can prove that $`r=r^{}`$. From (57) and (58) it follows

$$[a_0,b_0]=0,[A_0,B_0]=0,$$
(61)
while from (59) it follows

$$A_0\mu _1\mu _1a_0=B_0\chi _1\chi _1b_0.$$
(62)
The relation (62) can be rewritten as

$$\widehat{A}_0\widehat{\mu }_1=\widehat{B}_0\widehat{\chi }_1$$
(63)
From (61) it follows that $`[\widehat{A}_0,\widehat{B}_0]=0`$ and hence these matrices can be simultaneosly diagonalised (or put in the block-diagonal form). If $`r^{}>r`$, then from 63 it follows that $`r^{}`$ components of $`\chi `$ vanish, which is in contradiction with the assumption that only $`r`$ components of $`\chi `$ vanish. Hence $`r^{}r`$. If $`r^{}<r`$ then by reversing $`\mu `$ and $`\chi `$ and by the same argument it follows $`rr^{}`$ so that $`r=r^{}`$. Hence the number of the independent fermionic (odd) moduli is equal to $`2(2nmr)`$.

The total number of real (complex) parameters for the fermionic phase-space is $`(2nmr)e^{2nm}`$. Physics expectation is $`(2nmr)4nm`$, i.e. only $`\chi _1`$ and $`\mu _1`$. This happens when $`\psi B_1`$.

## 6 Symplectic structure of the moduli space

We now discuss some aspects of the symplectic structure on the moduli space which will be useful for an understanding of the results we have derived so far. A natural symplectic structure on $``$ can be induced by the symplectic structure (29) on the space of connections. By using the definition of $`U(\gamma )`$ and (28) one obtains

$`\{U_A^B(\gamma ),U_C^D(\sigma )\}^{}`$ $`=`$ $`2s(\gamma ,\sigma ){\displaystyle \underset{E,F,G,H}{}}(1)^{[(|B||E|)(|A||E|)+(|C||H|)(|D||H|)]}`$ (64)
$`U_A^E(\gamma _i)(T^I)_E^FU_F^B(\gamma _f)U_C^G(\sigma _i)(T_I)_G^HU_H^D(\sigma _f),`$
for loops with at most one intersection, where $`s(\gamma ,\sigma )`$ is the intersection number . From this algebra one can find in principle the PB algebra of the coordinates on the moduli space and hence the symplectic form. However, this is beyond the scope of this paper, and instead we will analyse a simpler algebra, induced by the homogenous connections, since it will give a very good idea of the moduli space, especially of the fermionic moduli.

Consider the holonomies which are the exponentials of the Lie super algebra, i.e. the subgroup $`g_s=\mathrm{exp}X`$. Then $`U_k`$ are given by

$$U_k=\mathrm{exp}(2\pi A_k^aJ_a+2\pi \psi _k^\alpha Q_\alpha ),$$
(65)
where $`A_k`$ and $`\psi _k`$ are constants on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. These correspond to the homogenous sector of the moduli space, for which the corresponding connections can be written as

$$A=A_1d\theta +A_2d\varphi =(A_1^aJ_a+\psi _1^\alpha Q_\alpha )d\theta +(A_2^aJ_a+\psi _2^\alpha Q_\alpha )d\varphi ,$$
(66)
where $`\theta ,\varphi [0,2\pi ]`$ parametrize the $`a,b`$ cycles of the torus. Hence $`[U_1,U_2]=0`$ is equivalent to $`[A_1,A_2]=0`$ which gives the constraints

$`G^a=f_{bc}^{}{}_{}{}^{a}A_1^bA_1^c+f_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\psi _1^\alpha \psi _2^\beta =0,`$ (67)
$`G^\alpha =f_{a\beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }(A_1^a\psi _2^\beta A_2^a\psi _1^\beta )=0.`$ (68)
These are first-class constraints and form an $`osp(m|2n)`$ algebra under the Poisson brackets (28), which for the homogenuous sector become

$$\{A_k^a,A_j^b\}^{}=ϵ_{kj}\eta ^{ab},\{\psi _k^\alpha ,\psi _j^\beta \}^{}=ϵ_{kj}C^{\alpha \beta }.$$
(69)
The relations (69) imply that the space $`A,\psi `$ is the usual phase space, i.e. half of the parameters are coordinates and the other half are the momenta.

According to the theory of solving the constraints in phase space , the constraints (67) and (68) can be solved in the following manner. In the bosonic sector, if we require that $`A_k`$ are ordinary numbers, then the bosonic constraint implies that $`A_k^aJ_a`$ belong to the same abelian subgroup, and hence $`A_k^a=𝒜_kc^a`$. In the fermionic sector, let $`r`$ be the number of independent fermionic constraints $`G^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$. $`r`$ will be given by the rank of the matrix $`c^af_{a\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }`$, and hence one can impose $`r`$ fermionic gauge-fixing conditions $`\chi ^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=0`$ such that

$$det\{G^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }},\chi ^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\}^{}0.$$
(70)
This gives $`4nmrr=2(2nmr)`$ independent fermionic phase-space coordinates, while in the bosonic sector there at most two There may be a further constraint for some Abelian subgroups independent phase space coordinates $`𝒜_1`$ and $`𝒜_2`$.

Therefore the condition for the existence of the fermionic moduli for the exponential sector becomes

$$detc^af_{a\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }=0.$$
(71)
Note that our analysis for the exponential sector is general, and applies to any super Lie group. Hence one finds all inequivalent (with respect to conjugation) Abelian subgroups of the maximal bosonic subgroup, and checks the condition (71). There is also an additional constraint

$$f_{\alpha \beta }^{}{}_{}{}^{a}\psi _1^\alpha \psi _2^\beta =0$$
(72)
coming from the bosonic constraint (67). The constraint (72) will serve to determine the gauge-fixing functions $`\chi ^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=0`$, i.e. $`\chi ^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ will be linear in $`\psi _k`$ such that (72) is satisfied as well as the condition (70) (see section 7).

Also note that the matrix $`J_\alpha ^\beta =c^af_{a\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }`$ is the representation of the generator of the Abelian subgroup to which the bosonic holonomy belongs, and it is the fermion-fermion block in the super-adjoint representation of the super Lie algebra $`(T_I)_J^K=f_{IJ}^{}{}_{}{}^{K}`$. In the $`osp(m|2n)`$ case the condition $`det\widehat{A}_0=0`$ applies to any holonomy, and in the exponential sector it is equivalent to (71).

## 7 $`OSp(1|2)`$ case

We now present explicit constructions in the simplest non-trivial case of the $`OSp(1|2)`$ supergroup. In this case we have $`m=n=1`$, so that $`a`$ is a Grassman number and $`A`$ is an $`Sp(2)=SL(2)`$ matrix, and we take a $`B_2`$ Grassman algebra. The $`osp(1|2)`$ algebra can be represented by matrices satisfying

$`[J_a,J_b]`$ $`=`$ $`ϵ_{ab}^{}{}_{}{}^{c}J_c,`$ (73)
$`[J_a,Q_\alpha ]`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma _a)_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }Q_\beta ,`$ (74)
$`\{Q_\alpha ,Q_\beta \}`$ $`=`$ $`(\sigma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }J_a,`$ (75)
where $`a=0,1,2`$ and the matrices $`(\sigma _a)_{\alpha }^{}{}_{}{}^{\beta }`$ are

$$\sigma _0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\sigma _1=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),\sigma _2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).$$
(76)
The indices $`a`$ and $`\alpha `$ are raised and lowered by $`\eta _{ab}=diag(1,1,1)`$ and $`C_{\alpha \beta }=ϵ_{\alpha \beta }`$. The relevant matrix representation of the generators of the $`osp(1|2)`$ algebra is given by

$$J_a=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& \sigma _a\end{array}\right),Q_\alpha =\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& c_\alpha ^TC\\ c_\alpha & 0\end{array}\right)$$
(77)
where $`c_1^T=(1,0)`$ and $`c_2^T=(0,1)`$. The exponential map gives only a subgroup of the full group.

For the group have $`a_0=\pm 1`$, and inequivalent bosonic Abelian subgroups are given by

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{\varphi \sigma _0}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{v\sigma _1}\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& e^{c(\sigma _0+\sigma _2)}\end{array}\right)$$
(78)
where $`\sigma _0`$, $`s_1`$ and $`\sigma _+=\sigma _0+\sigma _2`$ generate non-equvalent abelian subalgebras of $`sl(2)`$.

Since any element of $`SL(2)`$ can be written as $`\pm e^X`$, the bosonic conjugacy classes will be given by pairs

$$(U_1,U_2)=(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_0& 0\\ 0& ϵ_1e^X\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_0& 0\\ 0& ϵ_2e^Y\end{array}\right)),$$
(79)
where $`ϵ_k=\pm 1`$ and $`X`$ and $`Y`$ belong to the same Abelian subalgebra of $`sl(2)`$ which is not the $`so(2)`$ subalgebra. When $`X,Yso(2)`$, then

$$(U_1,U_2)=(\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_0& 0\\ 0& e^X\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{cc}b_0& 0\\ 0& e^Y\end{array}\right)).$$
(80)
Hence there will be $`216+4=36`$ sectors of bosonic conjugacy classes.

The fermionic moduli will exist for holonomies which satisfy the condition $`det\widehat{A}_0=0`$, which becomes

$$det(a_0I_2A_0)=0.$$
(81)
This is solved by

$$a_0=\pm 1,A_0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1& c\\ 0& \pm 1\end{array}\right).$$
(82)
Note that $`A_0=\pm e^L`$, where $`L=c\sigma _+`$, i.e. $`e^L`$ belongs to the $`GL(1)`$ subgroup of $`SL(2)`$. Hence $`rank\widehat{A}_0=1`$, and therefore there will be $`411=2`$ fermionic moduli. The corresponding holonomy matrices are given by

$$U_k=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\pm 1& \xi _k\\ \chi _k& \pm e^{L_k}\end{array}\right)$$
(83)
where $`\chi _k=(0,\mu _k)^T`$ and $`\xi _k=a_0\chi _k^TCA_0`$. Hence there are $`22=4`$ different sectors of conjugacy classes $`(U_1,U_2)`$ which contain fermions. One can have more general solutions by replacing $`A_0`$ by $`A_0+A_2\theta _1\theta _2`$ where $`A_0^TCA_2+A_2^TCA_0=0`$, but as we discussed, we only consider physical connections. Since $`U_k`$ belong to the parabolic conjugacy class of $`SL(2)`$, we will have $`c_1^2+c_2^2=1`$ .

For the sector where $`U=\mathrm{exp}X`$, we have

$$U_k=\mathrm{exp}2\pi (𝒜_k\sigma _++\psi _k^\alpha Q_\alpha )$$
(84)
where $`\sigma _+=\sigma _0+\sigma _2`$ and

$$\{𝒜_1,𝒜_2\}^{}=1,\{\psi _1^\alpha ,\psi _2^\beta \}^{}=C^{\alpha \beta }$$
(85)
The fermionic constraint yields

$$𝒜_1\psi _2^+𝒜_2\psi _1^+=0,$$
(86)
where $`\psi ^\alpha =(\psi ^+\psi ^{})`$. By inserting the fermionic constraint into the bosonic constraint, one obtains

$$𝒜_1\psi _2^{}𝒜_2\psi _1^{}=0.$$
(87)
This condition represents a consistent gauge-fixing choice, so that there exists a canonical transformation $`\psi _k\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_1=(\mathrm{\Pi },\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }})^T,\stackrel{~}{\psi }_2=(\stackrel{~}{\psi },\psi )^T,$$
(88)
and the constraints (86) and (87) become equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }=0`$ . With such a choice of fermionic variables, and the fact that $`𝒜_1=p`$ and $`𝒜_2=q`$ where $`\{p,q\}^{}=1`$, one can now express $`c_k`$ and $`\chi _k`$ in terms of basic canonical variables, and work out their PB. Constructing the canonical transformation $`\psi _k\stackrel{~}{\psi }_k`$ may not be easy, but one can show that

$$U_1=\mathrm{exp}2\pi (p\sigma _++\frac{p}{q}c^\alpha (p,q)Q_\alpha \psi ),U_2=\mathrm{exp}2\pi (q\sigma _++c^\alpha (p,q)Q_\alpha \psi ),$$
(89)
where $`c^\alpha `$ can be determined from the requiriment that $`\psi _2^\alpha =c^\alpha (p,q)\psi +\mathrm{}`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ represent terms which vanish on the constraint surface.

For the non-exponential sector one can use the holonomy matrix algebra, but in some cases it is possible to obtain explicit expressions in terms of the basic canonical variables. For example, in the sector $`a_0=1`$, $`A_0=e^X`$ (which has no fermionic moduli) one can construct the matrices $`U(\varphi )`$ and $`U(\theta )`$ as

$$U(\varphi )=diag(1,R(\varphi /2))\mathrm{exp}(𝒜_1\sigma \varphi +\psi _1^\alpha Q_\alpha \varphi ),$$
(90)
where $`R(\varphi /2)`$ is the rotation matrix for angle $`\varphi /2`$, and $`U(\theta )`$ is given by replacing $`\varphi `$ with $`\theta `$ in $`U(\varphi )`$ and $`𝒜_1`$ with $`𝒜_2`$, so that $`U(0)=Id`$ and $`U(2\pi )=U_{1,2}`$. Hence the corresponding flat connections are given by

$$A_1=U^1(\varphi )_\varphi U(\varphi ),A_2=U^1(\theta )_\theta U(\theta )$$
(91)
and they are not constant on $`T^2`$, but they are expressed in terms of constant moduli with simple PB. The moduli $`𝒜_k`$ satisfy the same constraints as in the homogeneous case, and the same results apply for them. However, this trick does not work for the holonomies with $`a_0=1`$ and $`A_0=e^X`$.

Since $`c_1^2+c_2^2=1`$, the symplectic structure for the bosonic moduli becomes degenerate. In the exponential sector this is equivalent to $`p^2+q^2=1`$ so that $`p=\mathrm{cos}t`$, $`q=\mathrm{sin}t`$ which suggests a dynamical interpretation as a harmonic oscillator with energy $`E=1/2`$.

The degeneracy of the bosonic symplectic structure for holonomies with fermions appear because the group is small. For bigger groups, there is generically no such degeneracy. For example, for $`OSp(2|2)`$ case we have $`a_0`$ is an $`O(2)`$ matrix while $`A_0`$ is an $`SL(2)`$ matrix. In the sector where $`a_0SO(2)`$, so that $`a_0=R(\varphi )`$, the condition for the existence of the fermionic moduli is

$$det\widehat{A}_0=det(a_0^TI_2I_2A_0)=(2\mathrm{cos}\varphi trA_0)^2=0,$$
(92)
Hence $`A_0`$ belongs to the $`SO(2)`$ subgroup of the $`SL(2)`$, and therefore the bosonic conjugacy classes which have the fermionic moduli are

$$U_1=diag(R(\varphi _1),R(\pm \varphi _1)),U_2=diag(R(\varphi _2),R(\pm \varphi _2)).$$
(93)
The corresponding symplectic form is $`d\varphi _1d\varphi _2`$, and it is nondegenerate. Since $`rank\widehat{A}_0=2`$, there will be $`4`$ fermionic moduli. Also in this sector one can use the exponential map to construct the moduli with canonical PB.

## 8 Conclusions

The structure of the total moduli space is essentially determined by the bosonic moduli associated with the maximal bosonic subgroup. This is reminiscent of the fact that the supergroups have no extra topology associated to the fermionic sector . Note that the bosonic moduli space can have quite a complicated topology, (e.g. non-Hausdorff, see ). It would be interesting to see how the bosonic topology affects the fermionic moduli topology.

The fermionic moduli appear only in special sectors of the bosonic moduli space. In the $`OSp(m|2n)`$ case this condition is given by the vanishing of a determinant coming from the c-number part of the holonomies associated to Abelian subgroups of the maximal bosonic subgroup. In the exponential sector this condition becomes a vanishing determinant of the Abelian subalgebra generator in the fermion-fermion block of the super-adjoint representations. This is true in the general case for the exponential sector. One can use the homogeneous connections to describe the exponential sector, and the example given in the section 7 for a non-exponential holonomy shows how the constant connections could be used to describe the non-exponential sector by the moduli which have canonical PB.

The fermionic canonical moduli $`\psi `$ are not gauge invariant, and one can obtain gauge invariant fermionic moduli $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }`$ via canonical transformation. The non-exponential sector can be examined through the algebra of holonomies, and one can use the results for the $`OSp`$ case to study the algebra. It is not clear how the supertraces in  capture the properties of the fermionic moduli, since the relevant holonomies have supertraces which are c-numbers, and not elements of $`B_N^+`$. To understand this point it would be helpful to study the algebra of the holonomy matrices (83).

Another interesting question is how to represent $`U`$ in terms of basic canonical variables. This can be worked out in the exponential sector, and in order to generalise these results to the non-exponential sector and higher genus surfaces one would need a procedure for reconstructing the connection from the holonomies in the case of non-compact groups and higher-genus surfaces. Note that such a construction exists for compact and semisimple groups and surfaces of arbitrary genus . Also in principle the explicit correspondence between holonomies and general connections described in  could be adapted to the situation at hand.

## Acknowledgements

A. M. was supported by the grant PRAXIS/BCC/18981/98 from the Portugese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT). R. P. was supported by Financiamento Plurianual provided by the FCT.


format: text

text:
# Dispersive Lineshape Theory

## Abstract

Motivated by recent experiments we consider a stochastic lineshape theory for the case when the underlying process obeys power-law statistics, based on a generalized Anderson-Kubo oscillator model. We derive an analytical expression for the lineshape and find rich type of behaviors when compared with the standard theory, for example, new type of resonances and narrowing phenomena. We show that the lineshape is extremely sensitive to the way the system is prepared at time $`t=0`$ and discuss the problem of stationarity.

PACS numbers: 33.70.-w, 05.40.Fb, 31.70.Dk

Since its first introduction by Anderson and Kubo(AK)  lineshape theory based on a stochastic approach has had wide applications in condensed phase spectroscopy ranging from magnetic resonance spectroscopy to the recently developed single molecule spectroscopy . The AK approach as well as other standard approaches (e. g. Bloch equation) is based on the Markovian assumption. These approaches have been applied with great success mainly to ensemble averaged measurements. However, single molecule spectroscopy has revealed that in some cases the underlying dynamics in the condensed phase is highly non-Markovian .

In recent fluorescence intermittency studies on single quantum dot systems  it was found that single quantum dots undergo transitions between bright and dark states during the measurement, and the sojourn times of both bright and dark states are distributed according to power-law, $`t^{3/2}`$, in contrast to an exponential as in the Poisson process. Here we are interested in the stochastic lineshape theory for such non-Markovian processes with emphasis on power-law behavior of the underlying dynamics. The introduction of a power-law process in the lineshape problem appears quite naturally. Consider the following model as an example. The static chromophore $`C`$ at the origin interacts with the single perturber $`P`$ via a short range interaction depending on $`r`$, the distance between $`C`$ and $`P`$. $`C`$ absorbs light with a frequency $`\omega _0`$ when $`r<r_c`$ and with a frequency $`\omega _0^{}\omega _0`$ when $`r>r_c`$. When $`P`$ moves away from $`C`$ it performs a random walk (assumed one dimensional for simplicity). Since the probability density of the first return time in the one dimensional random walk follows $`t^{3/2}`$, the chromophore absorbs light at frequency $`\omega _0^{}`$ with times distributed according to a power-law distribution.

An important issue in a power-law stochastic process is stationarity, which is of concern due to a very broad temporal distribution for underlying processes. The significant difference between stationary and nonstationary cases has manifested itself in many physical problems, e. g. transport properties in disordered materials and power-spectra in chaotic systems. We take into account the stationarity issue fully and show that the lineshape is a very sensitive measure of stationarity when the underlying dynamics obeys power-law statistics.

The stochastic lineshape theory is based on the equation of motion for the transition dipole, $`\dot{\mu }(t)=i\omega (t)\mu (t),`$ where $`\omega (t)`$ is the stochastic frequency of the oscillator. The dynamical quantity which determines the lineshape is the relaxation function $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,t_0)=\mu (t)\mu (t_0)^{},`$ where the average is taken over all the possible realizations of the underlying stochastic process and we have set $`|\mu (t_0)|^2=1`$. From the equation of motion we can calculate the relaxation function as $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,t_0)=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{t_0}^t𝑑\tau \omega (\tau )\right)`$. When the process is assumed to be stationary, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t,t_0)=`$$`\mathrm{\Phi }(tt_0)`$, then the lineshape $`I(\omega )`$ can be calculated as the Fourier transform of the relaxation function by making use of the Wiener-Khintchine(WK) theorem,

$`I(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\mathrm{\Phi }(t)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Re}\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(i\omega +ϵ),`$ (1)
where the symmetry of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(t)=\mathrm{\Phi }^{}(t)`$, has been used and the Laplace transform of $`z(t)`$ denoted by $`\widehat{z}(s)=\{z(t)\}`$ and $`ϵ0^+`$.

We assume that the underlying process is a renewal process as in the AK approach. To make the model as simple as possible, we consider a two state model. The transition frequency $`\omega (t)`$ of the chromophore can take the value of either $`\omega _0`$ or $`+\omega _0`$ depending on the perturber state, $`|+`$ or $`|`$, respectively. Each alternating path between the states $`|+`$ and $`|`$ of the perturber leads to a stochastic realization of chromophore frequency modulation, and it is characterized by a sequence of sojourn times in the states $`|+`$ and $`|`$. The sojourn times in the states $`|\pm `$, $`t_\pm `$, are assumed as mutually independent, identically distributed random variables described by the probability density functions(PDFs), $`h_\pm (t_\pm )`$. The original AK process amounts to the exponential sojourn time PDF. We do not assume any specific functional forms for the sojourn time probability densities from the beginning, but are mainly interested in the process where the sojourn times are distributed with long time power-law tails, $`t^{(1+\alpha )}`$ ($`\alpha >0`$).

Assuming stationarity, which is justified if the process has been going on for long times before the beginning of observation, the sojourn time PDFs for the first transition event is given by $`f_\pm (t_\pm )`$ \[different than $`h_\pm (t_\pm )`$\] by a standard argument,

$`f_\pm (t_\pm )=\tau _\pm ^1{\displaystyle _{t_\pm }^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\tau h_\pm (\tau ),`$ (2)
where the mean sojourn time $`\tau _\pm `$$`=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tth_\pm (t)`$ is assumed to be finite. When $`\tau _\pm \mathrm{}`$ the concept of stationarity breaks down. For the Poissonian case $`h_\pm (t_\pm )=\tau _\pm ^1\mathrm{exp}(t_\pm /\tau _\pm )`$, so we have $`f_\pm =h_\pm `$. Therefore, stationarity is naturally satisfied in the Poissonian process. However, the non-Poissonian process in which we are interested will not be stationary if we simply set $`f_\pm =h_\pm `$, and the WK theorem therefore does not hold.

The conditional relaxation functions $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ij}`$$`(i,j=+,)`$ are defined over the stochastic paths that start from the state $`|i`$ at time 0 and end with the state $`|j`$ at time $`t`$. Here we give a sketch of the derivation for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{++}`$ by summing all the possible stochastic paths that start from and end at the state $`|+`$. Along a particular path if no transition is ever made until $`t`$, then the contribution of this path to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{++}`$ is given by $`F_+(t_+)e^{i\omega _0t_+}`$ in the time domain, where $`F_\pm (t_\pm )=_{t_\pm }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau f_\pm (\tau )`$ is the survival probability of the states $`|\pm `$ for the first event. This contribution will amount to $`\widehat{F}_+(s+i\omega _0)`$ in the Laplace domain. The next possible paths are those which make the first transition to the state $`|`$ at $`t_{1+}`$, jump back to the state $`|+`$ after remaining at the state $`|`$ for time $`t_2`$, and stay at the state $`|+`$ until time $`t`$. The contribution of these to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{++}(t)`$ is given by $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_{1+}`$$`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_2`$$`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑t_{3+}`$ $`\times `$$`f_+(t_{1+})e^{i\omega _0t_{1+}}h_{}(t_2)e^{i\omega _0t_2}H_+(t_{3+})e^{i\omega _0t_{3+}}`$ with the constraint $`t_{1+}+t_2+t_{3+}=t`$, and $`H_\pm (t_\pm )=_{t_\pm }^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\tau h_\pm (\tau )=`$$`\tau _\pm f_\pm (t_\pm )`$ is the survival probability corresponding to $`h_\pm (t_\pm )`$. In the Laplace domain this will read as $`\widehat{f}_+(s+i\omega _0)\widehat{h}_{}(si\omega _0)\widehat{H}_+(s+i\omega _0)`$ by the convolution theorem. Summing all the possible stochastic paths, we have

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{++}(s)`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_++\widehat{f}_+\widehat{h}_{}(1+\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{}+(\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{})^2+\mathrm{})\widehat{H}_+`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\widehat{F}_++{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{f}_+\widehat{h}_{}\widehat{H}_+}{1\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{}}},`$ (4)
where $`\widehat{x}_\pm \widehat{x}_\pm (s\pm i\omega _0)`$ with $`\widehat{x}`$ being $`\widehat{f}`$,$`\widehat{h}`$,$`\widehat{F}`$, or $`\widehat{H}`$. In a similar way, we have

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_+(s)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{f}_+\widehat{H}_{}}{1\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{}}},`$ (5)
and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{}(s)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_+(s)`$ are obtained from $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{++}(s)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_+(s)`$ by exchanging $`+`$ and $``$.

The total relaxation function can be calculated from the conditional relaxation functions,

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}(s)={\displaystyle \underset{i=\pm }{}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=\pm }{}}p_i\widehat{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{ij}(s),`$ (6)
with the initial distribution of the perturber state given by $`p_\pm =\tau _\pm /_{i=\pm }\tau _i`$. Then from Eq. (1) the lineshape is given by

$`I(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Re}`$ $`[({\displaystyle \frac{p_+}{z_+}}+{\displaystyle \frac{p_{}}{z_{}}}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\tau _++\tau _{}}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_+}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{z_{}}})^2`$ (8)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{(1\widehat{h}_+)(1\widehat{h}_{})}{1\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{}}}],`$
where $`z_\pm =i\omega \pm i\omega _0`$ and $`\widehat{h}_\pm =\widehat{h}_\pm (z_\pm )`$, and we have expressed $`\widehat{f}_\pm `$,$`\widehat{F}_\pm `$, and $`\widehat{H}_\pm `$ in terms of $`\widehat{h}_\pm `$. This is the final expression of the lineshape function for the stochastic oscillator undergoing the two state frequency modulation.

It is our aim here to show that the theory exhibits a very strong sensitivity on the choice of PDF for the first event. This becomes important for experimental situations when it is not always clear if the underlying process is stationary or not. For this purpose we define a quasi lineshape $`I_{NS}(\omega )`$ by replacing $`\widehat{f}_\pm `$ with $`\widehat{h}_\pm `$ in the derivation of Eq. (8),

$`I_{NS}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}\mathrm{Re}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\widehat{h}_+\widehat{h}_{}}}\{p_+({\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{h}_+}{z_+}}+`$ (9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}_+(1\widehat{h}_{})}{z_{}}})+p_{}({\displaystyle \frac{1\widehat{h}_{}}{z_{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{h}_{}(1\widehat{h}_+)}{z_+}})\}].`$ (10)
Note that for Poissonian case $`I_{NS}(\omega )=I(\omega )`$ and for ordinary processes (i.e. when all moments of $`h_\pm (t)`$ exist) $`I_{NS}(\omega )I(\omega )`$. However, as we show here, strong sensitivity on the first event is recovered for the dispersive case. We emphasize that Eq. (10) is not a lineshape because the underlying process is not stationary. In certain physical situations, however, the underlying process is not an ongoing process, but has been initiated by a measurement itself, for instance, the blinking process in the quantum dot experiment mentioned before. In this case one can calculate the relaxation function $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{NS}(t)\mathrm{\Phi }(t,0)`$ for the nonstationary stochastic process and $`I_{NS}(\omega )`$ is obtained as the complex Laplace transform of a well-defined nonstationary relaxation function, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{NS}(t)`$, $`I_{NS}(\omega )_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑te^{i\omega t}\mathrm{\Phi }_{NS}(t)`$.

The original AK model is recovered from Eq. (8) by choosing an exponential sojourn time PDF. . We first consider the sojourn time PDFs which have finite first moments, $`\tau _\pm <\mathrm{}`$, but divergent second moments. As a representative of this class, we use the following form,

$`h_\pm (t_\pm )`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\tau _\pm ^3/2\pi t_\pm ^5\right)^{1/2}\mathrm{exp}\left(\tau _\pm /2t_\pm \right).`$ (11)
In this case, $`h_\pm (t)`$ decays as $`t^{5/2}`$ at long times, thus the first moment exists, but the second moment diverges.

In Fig. 1 we have compared the stationary and nonstationary lineshapes for $`h_\pm (t)`$ in Eq. (11) and for the AK case. We have chosen $`h_{3/2}h_+=h_{}`$ by setting $`\tau _+=\tau _{}=\tau `$. The correlation time of the perturber dynamics is varied from slow ($`\omega _0\tau 1`$) to fast ($`\omega _0\tau 1`$) modulation cases in (a)-(d). For the AK case, the well known phenomenon of motional narrowing is shown: in the slow modulation case we see two peaks at $`\omega =\pm \omega _0`$ while in the fast modulation case we observe a single peak at $`\omega =0`$. For the case $`h_{3/2}`$ the stationary and nonstationary cases show very different behaviors as the correlation time is decreased; thus, the first event in the underlying random process has a strong effect on the lineshapes. In addition, new phenomena are found for the stationary lineshape in the fast modulation cases (Fig. 1(c) and (d)): three distinct peaks are observed for the stationary case.

The new peaks we observe in Fig. 1(c) and (d) at $`\omega =\pm \omega _0`$ for the stationary lineshape result from the first event in the stochastic process $`\omega (\tau )`$. The probability for the perturber remaining at the initial state is governed by the long time tail in the sojourn time PDF. Due to the stationarity condition in Eq. (2) the survival probability for the first event decays more slowly for the stationary case($`t^{1\alpha }`$) than for the nonstationary case($`t^\alpha `$), where $`\alpha =3/2`$ in this example. Therefore, the stationary case effectively requires the perturber to remain at the initial state until much longer times than the nonstationarity case, resulting in the enhanced peaks at $`\omega =\pm \omega _0`$. This is why we observe new peaks not present in the standard Poissonian case.

As the next example we consider the one-sided Lévy density as the sojourn time PDF, $`\widehat{h}(s)=\widehat{L}_\alpha (s/r)=\mathrm{exp}((s/r)^\alpha )`$, with $`0<\alpha <1`$, and $`r`$ being a coefficient with an inverse time dimension. It is well known that the Lévy PDF decays algebraically at long times $`rt1`$, $`L_\alpha (t)t^{(1+\alpha )}`$, and thus all the moments of $`L_\alpha (rt)`$ including the first moment diverge. Therefore, there is no microscopic timescale for this PDF, and the form of $`f_\pm (t)`$ given in Eq. (2) cannot be applied. However, in realistic situations, it is unlikely to have power-law behavior for an infinitely long time, but rather, it is likely to have a finite cut-off time provided by, for example, the lifetime of a molecule. Therefore, it is natural to introduce a cut-off time $`t_c`$ such that the algebraic decay is valid during time interval $`r^1tt_c`$. We introduce an exponential cut-off function for the convenience of an analytical treatment. Now the sojourn time PDF is given by $`h_\pm (t)=𝒩_\pm e^{t/t_c}L_\alpha (r_\pm t),`$ where $`𝒩_\pm `$ is the proper normalization constant depending on the cut-off time. Then the Laplace domain expression of $`h_\pm (t)`$ can be written as

$`\widehat{h}_\pm (s)=\mathrm{exp}\left[(r_\pm t_c)^\alpha \left\{1(1+st_c)^\alpha \right\}\right].`$ (12)
Then $`f_\pm (t)`$ is given from Eq. (2) with the mean being $`\tau _\pm =\alpha t_c/(r_\pm t_c)^\alpha `$. Note that in the limit $`t_c\mathrm{}`$ the Lévy PDF without cut-off is recovered as $`\widehat{h}_\pm (s)=\mathrm{exp}((s/r_\pm )^\alpha )`$ and $`\tau _\pm `$ diverges.

In Fig. 2 we have investigated the effect of the cut-off time in the Lévy PDF case both in the stationary and the nonstationary cases. When $`\alpha =0.3`$ (Fig. 2 (a) and (b)), both the stationary and the nonstationary Lévy lineshapes show distinct peaks at $`\omega =\pm \omega _0`$. As the cut-off time is increased, there is little change in both lineshapes other than becoming narrower. When $`\alpha =0.8`$ (Fig. 2 (c) and (d)), there appears a new peak near $`\omega =0`$ in addition to the two resonance peaks. This is a new type of the narrowing behavior which is absent in the Poissonian case in that it is controlled by the power-law index $`\alpha `$ rather than the correlation time $`\tau `$ (as in the Poissonian case), and is termed power-law narrowing. Also, as the cut-off time is increased, the central peak in the lineshape for the stationary case diminishes while it remains in the nonstationary case. This is because in the stationary case, as the cut-off time is increased the first event will dominate the probability weight in the stochastic paths of the perturber dynamics. The difference between the stationary and nonstationary cases is therefore more significant in the Lévy case than in the case $`h_{3/2}(t)`$ given in Fig. 1.

To investigate the power-law narrowing we consider the limit $`t_c\mathrm{}`$. In this limit the stationary lineshape approaches two delta functions, $`I(\omega )=p_+\delta (\omega +\omega _0)+p_{}\delta (\omega \omega _0)`$, since the second term in the Eq. (1) vanishes as $`\tau _\pm \mathrm{}`$. The nonstationary case, however, yields in the limit $`r_\pm |\omega |`$,

$`\underset{t_c\mathrm{}}{lim}I_{NS}(\omega )={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi \alpha )}{2\pi \omega _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{2+x+x^1}{\eta x^\alpha +(\eta x^\alpha )^1+2\mathrm{cos}(\pi \alpha )}},`$ (13)
for $`|\omega |<\omega _0`$ and vanishes when $`|\omega |>\omega _0`$. This expression has been obtained from Eq. (10) by taking the small frequency limit of the sojourn time PDF, $`\widehat{h}_\pm (s)=1(s/r_\pm )^\alpha +\mathrm{}`$. Note that Eq. (13) is not limited to Lévy PDF, but valid for any PDF with $`t^{(1+\alpha )}`$ tail ($`0<\alpha <1`$). Here, $`x=(\omega _0+\omega )/(\omega _0\omega )`$ is a dimensionless frequency, and $`\eta =lim_{t_c\mathrm{}}(p_+/p_{})=(r_{}/r_+)^\alpha `$ is the asymmetry parameter. This function shows a very asymmetric power law singularities at $`\omega =\pm \omega _0`$, $`(\omega _0\pm \omega )^{1\alpha }`$ depending on $`\alpha `$. It is worthwhile to mention that such a strong asymmetric lineshape has been encountered in the problem of the X-ray edge absorption of metals . In the symmetric case ($`\eta =1`$) Eq. (13) reduces to a simpler expression, and in this case there exists a critical value of $`\alpha `$ below which the lineshape is concave and above which convex at $`\omega =0`$, which is given by $`\alpha _c=\mathrm{cos}(\pi \alpha _c/2)=0.5946\mathrm{}`$.

In Fig. 3 we have confirmed this finding by plotting the nonstationary lineshapes for the Lévy PDF case with $`\eta =1`$ and finite, large $`r_\pm `$ and $`t_c`$. The nonstationary case in Fig. 3 (b) shows the concave-to-convex transition at the critical value of $`\alpha `$ as predicted. For the stationary lineshape, similar kind of behavior can be observed in Fig. 3 (a), however, $`\alpha _c`$ now depends on $`t_c`$.

In summary, we have generalized the stochastic lineshape theory to arbitrary renewal processes. Compared with the standard theory, we have found a variety of new phenomena in the lineshapes, such as new peaks and narrowing behaviors. The issue of the stationarity has been considered and the strong sensitivity of the lineshape to the first event in the stochastic trajectory was found. One of many extensions of this work is to consider the random frequency modulation of stochastic oscillator among $`N>2`$ values, and will be published elsewhere. This work was supported by NSF.


text:
# A new era of spectroscopy: SINFONI, NIR integral field spectroscopy at the diffraction limit of an 8m telescope

## 1 INTRODUCTION

A number of astrophysical questions, both extragalactic and galactic, call for high spatial resolution imaging spectroscopy. Some examples are the nature of high redshift objects, the centres of various types of galaxies, quasar hosts, or, more locally, the properties of young stars and star forming regions or the central parsec of our own Galaxy.

In June 2002, SINFONI, the SINgle Faint Object Near-infrared Investigation, will start its operation at the Very Large Telescope (VLT) UT3 (KUEYEN). SINFONI is a collaborative effort by the Max-Planck-Institut für extraterrestrische Physik (MPE) and the European Southern Observatory (ESO), with MPE providing the NIR imaging spectrometer SPIFFI,, while ESO builds the curvature sensor based adaptive optics system MACAO. The laser guide star provided by the UT3 telescope guarantees a high sky coverage for diffraction limited observations.

SPIFFI is equipped with a 10242 HgCdTe HAWAII detector array from Rockwell. In order to fully exploit the detector, 1024 spectra are obtained in one integration, corresponding to a field of 32$`\times `$32 spatial pixels on the sky. Each spectrum covers 1024 pixels, and the resolution can be chosen to be R$``$4500 for J, H or K-band, which allows software OH suppression, or to be R$``$2000, however, covering H and K band at the same time. The spatial pixel scale is variable (0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$025 to 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$25) to allow for various observational conditions. In order to determine SINFONI’s sensitivity, we have created an exposure time calculator for the computation of the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) or the simulation of observations of template objects. All input parameters are supplied by a graphical user interface. In the following chapters, we will give a very brief technical description of SPIFFI, then describe the exposure time calculator and finally discuss some test cases for scientific observations.

## 2 SINFONI

The most important point for the design of a spectrometer at the diffraction limit of a telescope is that the point spread function (PSF) delivered by an adaptive optics system is usually variable on timescales of a few minutes, both in shape and in the relative contributions of diffraction limited core versus seeing limited halo. These variations depend in a complicated way on parameters like seeing, magnitude of the guide star, angular separation of guide star and object, the number of modes corrected, the frequency of operation etc. If image deconvolution is anticipated, information about the PSF is required. But even in the case of no deconvolution, the spectroscopy of extended objects requires the knowledge of the PSF, so that the various spatial contributions to the spectra can be treated correctly. A long slit spectrograph prohibits this kind of investigation, because it provides only 1-d spatial information. Fabry-Perot spectrometers and fourier transform interferometers deliver the information about the PSF, but the conditions are rarely such that the PSF stays stable over a whole wavelength range scan. An integral field spectrometer overcomes this problem by delivering the 2-d spatial information for the whole wavelength range in one integration.

The NIR is best suited for AO-assisted observations, because the performance of AO systems increases with wavelength. Starting around 2.2 $`\mu `$m, the thermal background introduced by telescope and atmosphere leads to an increase in the noise level. A compromise of these two aspects detemines the NIR H and K windows to be the most suited wavelenth ranges for diffraction limited spectroscopy. SINFONI will be optimized to fulfill this task.

In short, SPIFFI is a cryogenic NIR integral field spectrometer, based on a HAWAII focal plane array and has a variable spatial and spectral resolution, suitable for the use with an AO system. Some design criteria of the instrument that affect the sensitivity were the following:

* Detector: Rockwell HAWAII focal plane array, 10242 pixels. Readout noise 8$`e^{}`$ per read, dark current $`0.1e^{}/s`$. An upgrade to a 20482 array is foreseen.
* One spectrum per column (=1024 spectra), not Nyquist sampled in spectral domain.
* Variable pixel scales to account for various observing conditions: 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$025/pix for AO-assisted observations, 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$1 and 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$25 for seeing limited cases.
* The SPIFFI mirror image slicer has a field size of 32x32 pixels (corresponding total fields between 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$8$`\times `$0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$8 and 8$`.^{\prime \prime }`$0$`\times `$8$`.^{\prime \prime }`$0
* Spectral resolution either around 4000 for J, H or K, sufficient for software OH suppression, or $``$2000, covering H and K simultaneously. Nyquist sampling is achieved by spectral dithering in two successive observations.
* Implementation of a “Himmelsspinne” (“Sky spider”) to overcome the limitation on the length of single integrations implied by the necessity to go to a sky position after 100s at latest. The Himmelsspinne images a piece of sky onto the detector and allows to increase the integration times above 100s.

The SPIFFI transmission is 32%. The transmission of the telescope and the AO is assumed to be 80%.

## 3 THE SINFONI EXPOSURE TIME CALCULATOR

The IDL-based SINFONI exposure time calculator applies the basic formula

SNR = $`n_s/\sqrt{N+R^2}`$, N = $`n_s+n_b+n_d`$

where $`n_i`$ denotes the total number of generated e- on a given pixel, the indices s, b and d indicate source, background and dark, respectively. R is the read noise in e-/read. It is used via a graphical user interface, which is displayed in Figure 1

The parameters we take into account are:

* VLT collecting area
* Atmospheric transmission curve
* Spectrally averaged instrument transmission
* Atmospheric emission curve
* Thermal background from the telescope
* Detector quantum efficiency curve
* Pixel size in arcsec2 on the sky
* Spectral resolution
* Application of OH avoidance and/or spectral rebinning
* Source extent (point source, extended with integrated spectrum or extended with pixel-by-pixel analysis)
* Source magnitude (in mag for point sources, mag arcsec-2 for extended sources), spectrum and redshift
* Seeing
* Strehl ratio in AO assisted observations

Depending on what is required, two of the following parameters need to be supplied, the third is then determined:

* Integration time
* S/N
* source strength (in mag or mag arcsec-2)

The SPIFFI instrument was designed to maximize the througput wherever possible and to minimize the background and the noise. The first goal will be achieved by selecting high transmission/efficiency optics, and by placing them in an evacuated environment that preserves them over a long period of time. The second point requires the whole spectrograph to be a cryogenic instrument, such that the thermal background contribution of the instrument itself is negligible compared to the telescope and the sky. The third point was helped by the fact that the HAWAII array we bought from Rockwell shows low read noise and dark current. The relative impact of the read noise will be minimized by selecting long integration times, made possible by the implementation of the sky spider. Moreover we will optimize the electronics and the read out modes (multiple reads). The dark current cannot be overcome, and our estimates show that the instrument is dark limited at AO pixel scales and high spectral resolution in the J and the H band.

Table 1 lists the sensitivities for a variety of cases which are of interest to the general observer. They were computed using the SINFONI exposure time calculator which allows to set explicitly almost all of the parameters below and thus can be used to derive the corresponding magnitudes for other cases of interest. The limiting magnitudes given here are valid for the following constraints/specifications:

* Operation at the VLT
* S/N of 3 in 1h of integration time (15 integrations, 240s each)
* Detector characteristics: 8e- read noise, 0.1e-s-1 dark current
* Median Paranal seeing (0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$69), airmass 1.0
* Telescope temperature 283K, emissivity 15%
* Instrumental transmission, including telescope, MACAO and SPIFFI but excluding the detector, 26%
* Wavelength dependent detector quantum efficiency as provided by Rockwell, average 60%
* S/N per spectral channel, resampling to R=400 for case of OH suppression
* Integrated spectrum within the FWHM for the cases “Point Source” (integrated within the first Airy ring for the AO scale, within FWHM for the seeing scales) and “Extended” (this means an extended source, where the signal is integrated over an aperture supplied by the user), per spatial pixel for the last column.
* Pixel size 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$25 for the seeing limited, 0$`.^{\prime \prime }`$025 (0.5$`\times `$diffraction limit of an 8m telescope) for the AO assisted case
* Strehl ratio of 0.3 for the AO case, which is achieved with a natural guide star brighter than 14.5mag within 15” of the object or with a laser guide star brighter than 11th magnitude within 10” of the object in case of K-band. The strehl ratio assumed for J-band is 0.2.
* Results give point source magnitudes in the case of “Point source” and mag arcsec-2 in the cases of “Extended source” and “per pixel”, the average value for the whole band

## 4 RESEARCH PROSPECTS

Now we will describe examples for the possible scientific targets of interest and the observing modes that should be chosen for their observations. Two of them are accompanied by simulated observations.

### 4.1 Faint, extended objects

For extended objects, the sensitivity of SPIFFI is not increased going to AO scales, because even though the sky background is reduced, the source is distributed over a larger number of pixels accordingly. In order to observe faint, extended objects, the larger pixel size is required to maximize the sensitivity. This is true, no matter if the integrated spectrum is taken or if the object is analyzed pixel-by-pixel.

One group of very obvious targets are high redshift galaxies, like they are observed in the Hubble Deep Field (HDF) at a typical spatial extent of a few arcsec. The determination of their properties will have an impact on the theories of the formation and evolution of galaxies. Their nature can only be verified spectroscopically, and many of them show a distorted spatial structure that underlines the benefit of spatially resolved spectroscopic information. The advantage that the NIR provides for this type of objects is that the optical diagnostic lines, like H$`\alpha `$ and $`[`$O III$`]`$, are redshifted into the SINFONI observing windows for redshifts z$`=0.52.7`$ (H$`\alpha `$) and 1.0-3.9 ($`[`$O III$`]`$). H$`\alpha `$ is a tracer for star formation and not as prone to extinction as Ly$`\alpha `$, while $`[`$O III$`]`$ serves as an excitation diagnostic.

To identify and measure those lines, a low spectral resolution is sufficient (e.g., R=400), which means that the observations are performed at a high spectral resolution and after OH suppression are rebinned along the spectral axis to result in a lower spectral resolution, thereby increasing the SNR.

The spectra in Figures 2 and 3 show the simulated observations of a spectrum with a strong emission line (initially an Ultra Luminous Infrared Galaxy (ULIRG) spectrum redshifted to z=0.25, where the Pa$`\alpha `$ line is shifted into the K-band). The simulated performance is calculated for a single pixel in 1h integration time for a source of 16 mag arcsec-2 surface brightness. The top spectrum shows the input spectrum, the result at the initial resolution of R$``$4500 without OH-suppression is displayed in the lower left spectrum. The lower right spectrum was created by resampling (R$``$1300) with software OH suppression. For comparison, a spectrum derived at a point source magnitude of 20mag is plotted in Figure 3. In all spectra, the Pa$`\alpha `$ line can be clearly identified and used as a diagnostic for star formation.

### 4.2 Faint point sources

In the case of point sources, the sensitivity is increased going to the AO pixel scales, because the sky background is reduced and the number of pixels covered by the source stays the same. So for maximum sensitivity, the AO pixel scale will be chosen. In the case of very faint targets, it is possible to convolve the spectrum down to a lower resolution, if for example the detection of emission lines is the goal.

Typical objects for this case are QSOs. Many questions concerning their nature are still unresolved, like the existence and nature of their hosts and the relative contributions of the quasars and their hosts to the spectrum. The quasars also show strong emission lines which are redshifted into the SINFONI windows at various redshifts (see Table 2). They can provide clues about the nature of these objects.

### 4.3 Bright extended objects

The objects in this group are expected to be observed at high spectral and spatial resolution. The targets are for example interacting galaxies, the narrow line regions of AGN or near-by ULIRGS as extragalactic targets, jets and disks around young stars or planetary nebulae in our Galaxy. Those objects will profit from the spatial coverage of SINFONI, and their spectra can be studied pixel-by-pixel.

One group of targets where already SINFONI’s precursor MPE 3D has been proven to deliver valuable data is the centres of external galaxies. MPE 3D’s spectral resolution of 2000 is sufficient to determine the stellar dynamics in these targets, and it was shown that the three-dimensional information is required for the determination of a central mass, because only then can anisotropy effects be accounted for.

### 4.4 Bright point sources

For bright point sources, the possibility to use the AO scales applies, as well, and the high spectral resolution can be exploited. Possible targets are the cores of globular or young stellar clusters, close binary star systems or star clusters in external galaxies. In cases where the star clusters are resolved into single stars, it is possible to determine their spectral type and thus to place them on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram. This will then allow conclusions on the stellar content of these clusters and thereby the Initial Mass Function (IMF), which is still an open question. The following simulation (Figure 4) shows a spectrum of an M supergiant (M2Iab-Ib). This kind of spectrum is observed in clusters at an age in the 10Myr regime, which are dominated by this type of stars. They can for example be observed in interacting galaxies, or can be the central cluster in a galaxy. If the velocity dispersion is high enough ($`\sigma >50`$km/s) in the cluster, it can be determined at the spectral resolution of SPIFFI. The input parameters for the simulation were the standard parameters again, the object was assumed to be a point source of 17th mag and 15th mag, respectively. The input spectrum is displayed at the top. No spectral rebinning was applied. In the first case, the presence of CO absorption features can clearly be verified, which can serve to age date the population. In the second case, the SNR is high enough ($``$30) to determine a broadening of the feature due to a velocity dispersion in the cluster.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Quantum Hall ferromagnets at filling factor $`\nu =1`$ exhibit charged excitations that are topologically stable objects called skyrmions. Various experiments  have revealed strong evidence for the existence of these objects in two–dimensional electron systems.

For their theoretical description we employ the microscopic Hartree–Fock (HF) theory with the hedgehog ansatz for charged spin–textures, developed by Fertig et. al.  and subsequently commonly used in the literature . We show that the most general single Slater determinant in the lowest Landau level (LLL) approximation collapses into the hedgehog ansatz, hence supporting this approach. Physical observables like magnetization and charge density are then calculated microscopically in the standard way (section 2). However in contrast to previous approaches, we will analyse the full magnetization vector, not only its third component, the spin–density. It will turn out that the magnetization is not a unit vector, but its length is substantially decreased in regions with non–zero excess charge (bag formation). A signature of this behaviour was already observed in , namely that the absolute value of the spin–density at the origin as obtained from the HF calculation is reduced compared to that of the non–linear $`O(3)`$ model which is always unity. However the conjecture that with quantum corrections included, the discrepancies between effective field theory and microscopic HF results may be resolved, is incorrect. Bag formation appears already in tree level and accordingly the magnetization vector can no longer be identified directly with the $`O(3)`$ unit vector field. An additional scalar field is necessary to describe the magnetization vector’s length.

Subsequently, using the gradient expansion, a new $`O(3)`$ type of effective action for extended spin–textures is derived which takes these effects into account (section 3). It will be demonstrated, that this action reproduces the results of the microscopic HF calculation correctly for zero range forces.

## 2 Microscopic Hartree-Fock calculations

As usual lengths are measured in units of the magnetic length $`\mathrm{}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$ and energies in units of the Coulomb energy $`e^2/ϵ\mathrm{}`$. Then for a given electron-electron interaction in the LLL there exists only one dimensionless parameter in the theory, namely the effective Zeeman coupling $`g=g_s\mu _BB/(e^2/ϵ\mathrm{})`$.

In the completely filled LLL (filling factor $`\nu =1`$) the ground state is given by the unique single Slater determinant (Vandermonde’s determinant, see e.g. )

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|m,𝒓|m=\frac{1}{2\pi }\frac{1}{2^mm!}r^m\mathrm{e}^{im\phi }\mathrm{e}^{r^2/4}$$
(1)
with the spins of all single particle states down. Here we are concerned with the description of charged spin-texture excitations, in particular with those in the charge sectors $`Q=\pm 1`$. Due to the particle-hole symmetry  the energies of the positively charged (quasi-hole, antiskyrmion) and negatively charged (quasi-particle and skyrmion) excitations, $`E^\pm =Eϵ_0`$, differ only by the exchange energy per electron in the ground state, e.g. $`ϵ_0=\sqrt{\pi /8}`$ in the pure Coulomb case. Thus it is sufficient to consider the $`Q=+1`$ sector with the following ansätze for the many-body wave function:
(i) the quasi-hole

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|m+1,(\text{quasi-hole})$$
(2)
with just one electron removed from the completely filled LLL. Its energy relative to the ground state is $`E^+=g/22ϵ_0`$ ($`E=g/2ϵ_0`$).
(ii) the hedgehog

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}(u_m|m+v_m|m+1),u_m^2+v_m^2=1,(\text{hedgehog})$$
(3)
introduced by Fertig et. al. . For $`u_m=0,v_m=1,m`$, this ansatz reduces to the quasi–hole (2).
(iii) the general single Slater determinant

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=𝒜\underset{\alpha }{}|\alpha ,|\alpha =\underset{m\sigma }{}C_{m\sigma }^\alpha |m\sigma ,(\text{general single SD})$$
(4)
whose single particle states $`|\alpha `$ with $`\alpha |\alpha =1`$ are given by the most general linear combination of LLL-states labeled by magnetic quantum number $`m=0,\mathrm{},N1`$ and spin $`\sigma `$ (up and down).

A HF calculation for the general Slater determinant (ansatz (4)) was performed with $`N1`$ particles in order to guarantee $`Q=+1`$ in a basis up to $`N=300`$ states involving the diagonalization of $`600\times 600`$ matrices. Independently from the initial conditions chosen, the general Slater determinant always collapsed

$$C_m^\alpha =u_\alpha \delta _{m,\alpha },C_m^\alpha =v_\alpha \delta _{m,\alpha +1}$$
(5)
into the specific hedgehog ansatz (3) during the iteration process. This happened for various Zeeman coupling strengths $`g`$ and also for different (repulsive) interactions. Thus, we may consider this finding as a strong indication that the lowest energy single Slater determinant for $`Q=1`$ in the LLL is indeed always of the hedgehog form. I am not aware of a rigorous proof of that statement, although it is certainly related to the fact that in the ansatz (3) only single particle states with the same grand-spin $`m+\sigma `$ couple.

For the reasons just explained we may use the hedgehog ansatz (3) in the $`Q=+1`$ sector which simplifies the calculation considerably. Instead of diagonalizing matrices there are only coupled algebraic equations for $`u_m`$ and $`v_m`$ to solve for each $`m`$ separately. We give the expression for the HF energy derived in  relative to the completely filled LLL

$`E_{HF}^+`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(u_m^2v_{m1}^2+1)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}(u_m^2+v_{m1}^21)(u_m^{}^2+v_{m^{}1}^21)mm^{}|V|mm^{}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}(u_m^2u_m^{}^2+v_{m1}^2v_{m^{}1}^21)mm^{}|V|m^{}m`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mm^{}}{}}u_mv_mu_m^{}v_m^{}mm^{}+1|V|m^{}m+1.`$
The individual terms are the Zeeman energy and the direct and exchange terms of the two-body interaction $`V`$. The corresponding HF equations are immediately derived. The (excess) charge density

$`\rho ^C(𝒓)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{\Psi }|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\delta (𝒓𝒓_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(1u_m^2v_{m1}^2){\displaystyle \frac{x^m}{m!}}\mathrm{e}^x,x={\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{2}}`$
is radially symmetric and normalized to $`Q^C=+1`$ as may be checked using the condition $`u_m^2+v_m^2=1`$. The magnetization vector

$`𝒎(𝒓)2\pi \mathrm{\Psi }|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}𝝈(i)\delta (𝒓𝒓_i)|\mathrm{\Psi }=(f(r)\mathrm{cos}\phi ,f(r)\mathrm{sin}\phi ,h(r))`$
$`f(r)=\sqrt{2}r{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{u_mv_m}{\sqrt{m+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^m}{m!}}\mathrm{e}^x,h(r)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}(v_{m1}^2u_m^2){\displaystyle \frac{x^m}{m!}}\mathrm{e}^x,`$ (8)
($`𝝈(i)`$ are the Pauli matrices for particle $`i`$) normalized to $`lim_r\mathrm{}𝒎=𝒆_3`$ is of the hedgehog form as expected. However, it is certainly not a unit vector: there are two radial functions involved for which in general $`f^2+h^21`$. In order to make closer contact to effective field theories we may rewrite the magnetization vector in the form

$$𝒎(𝒓)=\sigma (r)\widehat{𝒎}=\sigma (r)(\mathrm{sin}F(r)\mathrm{cos}\phi ,\mathrm{sin}F(r)\mathrm{sin}\phi ,\mathrm{cos}F(r))$$
(9)
with $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ a unit vector. The scalar function $`\sigma `$ describes the deviation of the magnetization vector’s length from $`1`$ (bag formation) and the angle function $`F`$ determines the orientation of the unit vector $`\widehat{𝒎}`$. It is clear that these functions are readily expressed in terms of the original functions $`f`$ and $`h`$.

In this way we are going to analyse the full magnetization vector $`𝒎`$, not only its third component, which is the main difference to previous presentations. It will immediately lead us to an important relation of the formed bag with the charge. In order to better understand the situation we will study the analytical hard-core model before we present numerical results for the more realistic Coulomb interaction.

### 2.1 Hard-core interaction

For a zero range interaction $`V(𝒓_1𝒓_2)=t\delta (𝒓_1𝒓_2)`$ and vanishing Zeeman splitting, $`g=0`$, the HF equations may be solved analytically

$$u_m=\sqrt{\frac{a}{m+1+a}},v_m=\sqrt{\frac{m+1}{m+1+a}},a=\frac{\lambda ^2}{2}.$$
(10)
Here, $`\lambda `$ is a free parameter which fixes the soliton size. The radial functions determining the magnetization $`𝒎`$ in (2) are

$$f(r)=\lambda rp(x,a),h(r)=(xa)p(x,a),x=\frac{r^2}{2}$$
(11)
with the single valued analytical function

$`p(x,a)={\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m+1+a}}{\displaystyle \frac{x^m}{m!}}\mathrm{e}^x,`$
$`x^{a+1}p(x,a)\mathrm{e}^x={\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑tt^a\mathrm{e}^t,`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}(xp(x,a))+(a+x)p(x,a)=1,`$
related to the incomplete gamma function . From (9) and (11) we obtain

$$F(r)=2\mathrm{arctan}\frac{\lambda }{r},\sigma (r)=(x+a)p(x,a)$$
(13)
the angle function of the familiar Belavin–Polyakov soliton , but the modulus function $`\sigma `$ is not equal to $`1`$. The topological and physical charge densities are

$`\rho ^T(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi r}}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dr}}(\mathrm{cos}F)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{(r^2+\lambda ^2)^2}},`$ (14)
$`\rho ^C(r)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}[1(a+x)p(x,a)]={\displaystyle \frac{1\sigma }{2\pi }}.`$ (15)
It is readily checked with (2.1) that both charges are $`Q^T=Q^C=+1`$, however the densities do look quite different in general. For example for the quasi–hole, $`\lambda 0`$, we obtain from (2.1) $`\sigma =1\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2)`$, i.e.

$`\rho ^T(𝒓)=\delta (𝒓),`$ $`\lambda 0,`$ (16)
$`\rho ^C(𝒓)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}(r^2/2),`$ $`\lambda 0.`$ (17)
It is only in the opposite limit of very large skyrmions $`\lambda \mathrm{}`$ that the two densities become similar. But note, that although $`\sigma \stackrel{\lambda \mathrm{}}{}1`$ in that limit, the integral over the physical charge density, i.e. over $`(1\sigma )/2\pi `$, always remains $`1`$.

Thus, the conclusion of this simple exercise is twofold: (i) $`f^2+g^2=\sigma ^21`$, a bag is formed which does go beyond the standard $`O(3)`$ description and (ii) the physical charge density is not equal to the $`O(3)`$ model’s topological density, rather it is connected with the bag via (15).

It should be added, that for hard-core forces at finite Zeeman splitting the size parameter $`\lambda 0`$ and the (anti-) skyrmion collapses into the quasi–hole (16,17). There are no skyrmions for hard-core forces. In the following we are going to discuss the situation for Coulomb forces.

### 2.2 Coulomb interaction

Although a realistic calculation would have to take into account Landau level mixing, the finite thickness of the layer  and also impurities, we consider the electrons in the LLL interacting in the plane via pure Coulomb forces $`V(𝒓_1𝒓_2)=1/|𝒓_1𝒓_2|`$. We are interested in bag formation and its relation to the physical charge density. The corresponding HF equations are solved numerically using a basis up to several thousand states for large skyrmions. The soliton energy in dependence of the Zeeman coupling strength $`g`$ is depicted in Fig. 1. We observe a second order phase-transition at $`g0.053`$ below which (anti-)skyrmions are energetically favored compared to the quasi–hole (dashed line). For extremely small Zeeman couplings (large skyrmions) the soliton energy approaches the Bogomol’nyi bound $`\sqrt{\pi /32}.3133`$, indicating that in this limit the Belavin-Polyakov soliton of the non–linear sigma model is obtained.

The profiles are calculated microscopically via the magnetization (11) and plotted in Fig. 2 for Zeeman coupling $`g=0.03`$. The formation of a bag is clearly indicated. With decreasing Zeeman coupling the bag begins to flatten out. But notice, that in the Belavin-Polyakov limit $`g0`$ the integral over $`(1\sigma )/2\pi `$ is $`1`$.

The physical charge density, calculated microscopically according to (7), and the topological density defined via the angle function $`F`$ (Fig. 2) are depicted in Fig. 3 again for Zeeman coupling $`g=0.03`$. It is noticed that the physical charge density is much flatter compared to the topological density. The bag shape function $`1\sigma `$ (dashed line) is hardly distinguishable from the physical charge density. This supports our findings for hard-core forces: it is the bag and not the topological charge density which is closely related to the physical charge density.

## 3 Effective field theory

There has been a lot of effort to derive an effective field theory for the quantum Hall ferromagnet . The result in terms of a gradient expansion of the unit magnetization vector $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ is essentially an $`O(3)`$ model, i.e. the non–linear sigma model augmented by higher order terms stemming from the interaction. However from the above considerations it is expected that the full magnetization vector $`𝒎`$, namely its modulus $`\sigma `$, should show up in the effective action. In particular the relation between the physical charge density and the bag (15) should be respected. The derivation of such an effective action in full generality is a challenging task. Therefore, in the following subsection we resort to the gradient expansion for extended spin-textures quite as in previous approaches, however we take bag formation into account.

### 3.1 $`O(3)model`$

Starting point is the full magnetization vector and the physical charge density which in lowest order gradient expansion read

$`𝒎=\sigma \widehat{𝒎}=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎}\right)\widehat{𝒎}+𝒪(4),`$ (18)
$`\rho ^C={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi }}ϵ_{ij}\widehat{𝒎}(_i\widehat{𝒎}\times _j\widehat{𝒎})+𝒪(4).`$ (19)
Because of the charge conjugation properties of the magnetization vector, i.e. the scalar field is the same for skyrmions and anti–skyrmions, it is clear that in (18) the energy density of the non–linear sigma model rather than the topological density enters. It is remarkable that its coefficient, which follows e.g. from (15), is independent from the specific two-body interaction. From the discussion in section 2 (cf. Fig. 3) it is evident that the physical charge density in general is not well approximated by the topological density, nevertheless in terms of the gradient expansion for extended spin-textures eq. (19) holds. In accordance with eq.(18) the energy functional could be chosen

$`E[𝒎]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r[_i𝒎_i𝒎+(1𝒎𝒎)^2]}+\text{interaction terms}`$ (20)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r[\sigma ^2_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎}+(1\sigma ^2)^2]}+\mathrm{},`$
with $`\rho _s`$ representing the spin–stiffness, e.g. $`4\pi \rho _s=\sqrt{\pi /32}`$ for the Coulomb interaction. Of course other potentials for the scalar field are possible similar to the one derived from the QCD scaling behaviour to describe bag formation in hadron physics . However up to fourth order in the gradient expansion the exact form of the potential will not matter provided that it reproduces (18) correctly. Note in this context that gradients on the scalar field are of higher order and may be neglected.

None of the previously proposed effective actions allows for bag formation. The collective approaches  operate with unitary rotations which restrict the magnetization to the unit vector $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ right from the beginning. Derivations from Chern-Simons theories have a scalar field included which however is not taken seriously as a dynamical field .

In order to arrive at a non–linear $`O(3)`$ type of model, the scalar field may now be eliminated from (20) in favour of a symmetric fourth order term with definite strength related to the spin–stiffness

$$E[\widehat{𝒎}]=\frac{\rho _s}{2}d^2r[_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎}\frac{1}{4}(_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎})^2+𝒪(6)]+\text{interaction terms}.$$
(21)
It should be emphasized that although the above $`O(3)`$ model deals with a unit vector $`\widehat{𝒎}`$ the bag is still formed via the relation to the magnetization (18). Eqs. (18) and (21) are at variance with the corresponding equations in . The full energy functional, including interaction and Zeeman terms is given by

$`E[\widehat{𝒎}]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _s}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r\left[_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎}\frac{1}{4}(_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎})^2\right]}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2r_1d^2r_2\rho ^C(𝒓_1)V(𝒓_1𝒓_2)\rho ^C(𝒓_2)}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle d^2r\left[1\left(1\frac{1}{4}_i\widehat{𝒎}_i\widehat{𝒎}\right)\widehat{m_3}\right]},`$
with $`\rho ^C`$ replaced by $`\rho ^T`$ (19) in lowest order gradient expansion. This energy functional is clearly charge conjugation invariant as it should be. It is unique up to $`𝒪(4)`$ in the gradients and linear terms in the Zeeman coupling. The essential difference to previously proposed effective field theories is the additional symmetric fourth order term and of course the nontrivial connection of the $`O(3)`$ field with the magnetization (18).

The energy functional (3.1) captures the essential features of the microscopic approach discussed in section 2. For zero range forces, $`4\pi \rho _s=t/4\pi `$, and vanishing Zeeman coupling it simplifies with the hedgehog-ansatz (9) inserted

$$E[F]=\frac{\rho _s}{2}d^2r\left[\left(F^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{r^2}\right)\frac{1}{4}\left(F^2\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{r^2}\right)^2\right].$$
(23)
It is immediately verified that the Belavin-Polyakov soliton (13) solves the corresponding stability condition. With this solution inserted the second term in (23) vanishes leaving only the pure non–linear sigma model. Hence, the soliton energy is $`E=4\pi \rho _s=t/4\pi `$ as in the microscopic calculation. Also, the charge is related to the integral over the bag

$$\frac{1}{2\pi }d^2r(1\sigma )=\frac{1}{8\pi }d^2r\left(F^2+\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2F}{r^2}\right)=1$$
(24)
as in subsection 2.1. Again, for finite Zeeman coupling the soliton collapses. None of the previously proposed effective actions has this simple property that it gives the correct result for extended spin–textures with hard-core forces. It is clear that in order to obtain these results, the symmetric fourth order term in (3.1) is essential.

In the Coulomb case, we obtain also solitons for non–zero but weak Zeeman couplings. Because the repulsive interaction term scales with the inverse soliton size $`1/\lambda `$ it competes with the attractive symmetric fourth order term proportional to $`1/\lambda ^2`$ and there exists a critical soliton size, determined by the Zeeman coupling strength, below which the soliton ceases to exist. In this way the effective theory models qualitatively the phase-transition discussed in subsection 2.2. However, because of the gradient expansion employed, it is not expected that the energy functional (3.1) remains valid for too small solitons. Down to which soliton sizes (3.1) may give a fair description of the microscopic HF calculation has still to be investigated.

It the 1-soliton sector it appears that the effective field theory has not much advantage over the microscopic approach. The numerical difficulty in solving the non–linear (integro-) differential equation for the profile function deduced from (3.1) is comparable to that of the HF calculation. However for multi–soliton systems such as skyrmion gases and crystals  the virtues of the effective field theory become apparent. In terms of collective coordinates the dynamics of such multi–soliton systems may efficiently be described. Also beyond tree approximation when loop corrections are considered the effective field theory approach might have advantages. On the microscopic level this corresponds to go beyond HF which is complicated.

In the following we give a brief argument why properties like bag formation discussed in the context of the HF calculation are not explained by loop corrections.

### 3.2 Loop corrections

Intuitively it is clear that the HF calculation on the microscopic level should correspond to the tree approximation of the effective theory. Accordingly, bag formation (18) and the symmetric fourth order term in (21) appear already classically. Could quantum corrections be responsible for these effects as suggested in ?

In the absence of an appropriate expansion parameter like the number of colors in hadron physics the role of loop corrections is difficult to judge. In fact, loop corrections may lead to bag formation by softening the constraint $`\widehat{𝒎}^2=1`$. Also the energy is lowered and the charge distribution broadened. Using heat kernel expansion methods one can even show that loop corrections effectively lead to a symmetric fourth order term with the correct (attractive) sign. Nevertheless, we argue that these effects observed in the HF calculation cannot be attributed to loop corrections for the subsequent argument.

Let us for simplicity consider only the non–linear sigma model part in the effective action. The equations for the fluctuations are independent of the strength of that term, i.e. the spin–stiffness $`\rho _s`$. The only dimensionful parameter which appears is the size $`\lambda `$ of the BP soliton. For that reason the effective symmetric fourth order term produced by the heat kernel expansion comes with a coefficient proportional to $`\lambda `$ such that the total term scales like $`1/\lambda `$. In fact, the whole Casimir energy scales like $`1/\lambda `$ as was explicitely demonstrated in . In any case, the spin–stiffness does not appear at all, which implies that the symmetric fourth order term found in (21) necessary to model the microscopic HF calculation cannot be explained by quantum fluctuations. From that argument it becomes clear that the bag is already formed in tree level according to (18) and (21).

The above reasoning does not imply that fluctuations are unimportant. In fact, we expect significant loop corrections , which among other things also will intensify the bag formation. But in the microscopic picture this would correspond to go beyond HF  performing e.g. a RPA calculation.

## 4 Conclusions

Charged skyrmions in quantum Hall ferromagnets at filling factor $`\nu =1`$ were reanalysed in the framework of the HF theory. It was demonstrated, that within the LLL approximation the hedgehog ansatz leads to the lowest energy configuration in the unit charge sector. Calculating all three components of the magnetization vector it was noticed that its length deviates locally from unity, i.e. a bag is formed which accommodates the excess charge. The physical charge density is extremely well approximated by the bag, but in general deviates considerably from the topological density. Hence, the commonly accepted and celebrated equivalence of physical and topological charge does not hold locally.

In terms of a gradient expansion an improved $`O(3)`$ type of effective action is proposed for the quantum Hall ferromagnet, which takes bag formation into account. Accordingly, the magnetization vector is nontrivially related to the $`O(3)`$ unit vector field. In addition to previous approaches, the effective action contains an attractive symmetric fourth order term. For hard-core forces it was explicitely demonstrated that with these amendments made the correct microscopic result for extended spin–textures is obtained. For more realistic forces the effective action models the phase–transition anti–skyrmion to quasi–hole (skyrmion to quasi–particle) observed in the microscopic calculation when the Zeeman splitting is increased. The additional fourth order term also modifies the soliton–soliton interaction, e.g. it influences the dipole–strength in the dipole–dipole force for skyrmions. By this means the properties of multi–skyrmion systems such as skyrmion gas and lattice are affected.

The present investigation can be completed in several respects. The range of validity of the proposed energy functional for realistic two–body forces may carefully be tested by comparison with the microscopic HF calculation. Also the time–derivative part of the effective action  is of interest and will be subject to changes due to the bag. Beyond that, the derivation of a corresponding effective field theory without resorting to the gradient expansion is desirable. Such a theory should, in addition to the $`O(3)`$ unit vector field, contain a scalar field for the magnetization vector’s length as a dynamical field. Finally, loop corrections may be calculated along the lines of ref. . On the microscopic level this can be complemented by RPA type calculations which take fluctuations into account.

## 5 Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank his colleagues G. Holzwarth, T. Fließbach, F. Meier and A.-S. Marculescu for contributing to a seminar about the quantum Hall effect from which this study has emerged. This work was supported in part by funds provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (Contract No. DFG-Ho-527/16-1).