format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Noncommutative geometry plays a fascinating role in string theory. There has been a great deal of recent interests in noncommutative theories, stimulated by their connection with string theory and $`M`$-theory; for a review and comprehensive list of references see Ref. and . The idea that the coordinates of spacetime do not commute at sufficiently small distance scales is related to the non-perturbative backgrounds of string and M theories . Noncommutativity on D-branes in the presence of constant background $`B`$-field, was the original interest . The worldvolume of a D-brane with constant background $`B`$-field is a simple and concrete example of a noncommutative spacetime, in which gauge and matter fields live .

Noncommutative field theories have rich structures. The embedding of these theories into string theory , suggests that these structures may be directly relevant to reconsidering the familiar notions of the superstrings and the low energy limits of them. In other words, any change in the string theory affects the whole noncommutativity. Now we introduce some of these changes.

We consider the worldsheet of superstring as a two dimensional noncommutative space. Therefore we can introduce some additional terms to the superstring action that for the ordinary worldsheet they are zero. For the small noncommutativity parameter of the string worldsheet we develop the worldsheet supersymmetry for this action. The boundary conditions of open string with noncommutative worldsheet, lead to the generalized noncommutativity parameter of spacetime. In this case the noncommutativity of spacetime is a consequence of $`B`$-field and the noncommutativity of the string worldsheet. The closed string emitted from a brane with background field, has a boundary state that is generalized by the noncommutativity of its worldsheet.

Our motivation for studying noncommutativity of string worldsheet is the following. If the worldsheet lives in a noncommutative spacetime, it is natural to expect it to inherit the noncommutativity from the spacetime. This can be seen from the fact that the pull-back of the spacetime noncommutativity parameter on the string worldsheet is not zero.

It is worth emphasizing that such theory is inherently non-conformal. The parameter of noncommutativity introduces a length scale in the worldsheet which breaks the scale invariance and subsequently the conformal invariance of the theory. Despite lack of conformal invariance, for the following reasons we shall investigate the model.

From the renormalization group and flows, it is shown that large (small) distance of the spacetime corresponds to small (large) distance of worldsheet. In other words we have the relation $`L^2=ln(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ is a characteristic two dimensional distance that is very much shorter than the two dimensional distance $`\mu ^1`$ that the worldsheet is seen and $`L`$ is a characteristic spacetime distance . In fact $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is two dimensional UV cut-off. Now consider finite UV cut-off. This will certainly break scale invariance of the worldsheet theory. If we allow the scale invariance of the worldsheet to be broken at very short distances on the worldsheet, we can interpret the worldsheet noncommutativity parameter as the UV cut-off for the worldsheet.

This paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we briefly review superstring with ordinary worldsheet. In section 3, we present a new action and corresponding supersymmetry for the superstring with noncommutative worldsheet. In section 4, we study closed string and its boundary state, that describes a brane. In section 5, we obtain the boundary conditions of open string, in presence of a brane. In section 6, some definitions for the noncommutativity parameter of the worldsheet of superstring is suggested.

## 2 Superstring with ordinary worldsheet

Superstring in presence of a brane with background fields, is described by the action

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\xi \left(\sqrt{h}h^{ab}g_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu +ϵ^{ab}B_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu i\sqrt{h}g_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho ^a_a\psi ^\nu \right)`$ (1)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}𝑑\zeta F_{\alpha \beta }(X^\alpha _\zeta X^\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^\alpha \theta ^\beta ),`$
where, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the worldsheet of the string, and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is its boundary. The indices $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma ,\mathrm{}`$, show the brane directions. Coordinate $`\zeta `$ is tangent to the boundary of the string worldsheet. The field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is the NS$``$NS massless field, and $`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ is constant field strength of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`A_\alpha `$. The field $`\theta ^\mu `$ is the following combination of the components $`\psi _1^\mu `$ and $`\psi _2^\mu `$ of the worldsheet fermion $`\psi ^\mu `$,

$`\theta ^\mu =\psi _1^\mu +i\psi _2^\mu .`$ (2)
Let $`F_{\alpha \beta }=0`$, $`g_{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{diag}(1,1,\mathrm{},1)`$ and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ be constant background field. Also consider $`h_{ab}=\eta _{ab}=\mathrm{diag}(1,1)`$. Therefore the equations of motion are,

$`(_\tau ^2_\sigma ^2)X^\mu =0,`$ (3)
$`_+\psi _1^\mu =0,`$
$`_{}\psi _2^\mu =0,`$
where, $`_\pm =\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \pm _\sigma )`$. The invariance of the action under the worldsheet supersymmetry transformations

$`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\psi ^\mu ,`$ (4)
$`\delta \psi ^\mu =i\rho ^a_aX^\mu ϵ,`$
leads to the following boundary state equations for the closed superstring

$`(_\tau X^\alpha B_\beta ^\alpha _\sigma X^\beta )_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (5)
$`(_\sigma X^i)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (6)
for the bosonic part, and

$`\left(\psi _1^\alpha i\psi _2^\alpha +B_\beta ^\alpha (\psi _1^\beta +i\psi _2^\beta )\right)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (7)
$`(\psi _1^i+i\psi _2^i)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (8)
for the fermionic part. The indices $`i,j,\mathrm{},`$ show the transverse directions of the brane. Since the presence of the brane breaks half of the supersymmetry, for deriving (5)-(8) we used the relation $`ϵ_2=iϵ_1`$.

The boundary conditions of open superstring are

$`(_\sigma X^\alpha B_\beta ^\alpha _\tau X^\beta )_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (9)
$`(_\tau X^i)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$
$`\left(\psi _1^\alpha +i\psi _2^\alpha +B_\beta ^\alpha (\psi _1^\beta i\psi _2^\beta )\right)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$
$`(\psi _1^ii\psi _2^i)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$
where the boundaries are at $`\sigma _0=0,\pi `$.

## 3 Noncommutative worldsheet

Let $`\xi ^0`$ and $`\xi ^1`$ be the coordinates of the worldsheet of superstring. The “star product” between two arbitrary functions $`f(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)`$ and $`g(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)`$ is

$`f(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)g(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)=\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\zeta ^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\eta ^b}}\right)f(\zeta ^0,\zeta ^1)g(\eta ^0,\eta ^1)_{\zeta =\eta =\xi }.`$ (10)
Therefore there is noncommutativity between $`\xi ^0`$ and $`\xi ^1`$, i.e.

$`\xi ^a\xi ^b\xi ^b\xi ^a=i\theta ^{ab}.`$ (11)
Later we shall discuss the antisymmetric tensor $`\theta ^{ab}`$.

For the coordinates $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ let $`\eta _{ab}`$ be the metric of the string worldsheet, therefore the superstring action under the star product becomes

$`S^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\sigma \left(g_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu ^aX^\nu +ϵ^{ab}B_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu ig_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho ^a_a\psi ^\nu \right)+\overline{S}^{},`$ (12)
where $`ϵ^{01}=ϵ^{10}=1`$. The action $`\overline{S}^{}`$ contains the bosonic and the fermionic fields of the worldsheet, and when the star product changes to the usual product, i.e. for $`\theta ^{ab}=0`$, it vanishes. We consider $`\overline{S}^{}`$ as the following

$`\overline{S}^{}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\sigma \left(C_{\mu \nu }X^\mu X^\nu +k^{ab}A_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ^{ab}S_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho _a\rho _b\psi ^\nu \right),`$ (13)
where $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`A_{\mu \nu }`$ are arbitrary antisymmetric tensors and $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`k^{ab}`$ are arbitrary symmetric tensors. Many other terms can be considered that their usual product vanish. For example the terms

$`C_{\mu \nu }_{a_1}\mathrm{}_{a_m}X^\mu ^{a_1}\mathrm{}^{a_m}X^\nu ,`$ (14)
$`k^{ab}A_{\mu \nu }_{a_1}\mathrm{}_{a_l}_aX^\mu ^{a_1}\mathrm{}^{a_l}_bX^\nu ,`$
$`ϵ^{ab}S_{\mu \nu }_{a_1}\mathrm{}_{a_n}\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho _a\rho _b^{a_1}\mathrm{}^{a_n}\psi ^\nu ,`$
are zero for the usual product. The arbitrary numbers $`m,l`$ and $`n`$ are positive integers. Because of the derivatives, we do not introduce these terms to the action (13). After expanding in terms of the powers of $`\theta ^{ab}`$, the first non-zero term of the second term of the action (13) contains derivatives of order four, for simplification this term is neglected too. Also there are another terms such as $`S_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}\psi _1^\mu \psi _1^\nu `$ and $`S_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}\psi _2^\mu \psi _2^\nu `$ and their derivatives like (14), that for symmetric matrices $`S_{\mu \nu }^{(1)}`$ and $`S_{\mu \nu }^{(2)}`$, vanish under the usual product. These terms do not have worldsheet covariant forms, therefore we also put away them.

Now we consider the expansion of the action (12) up to the first order of $`\theta ^{ab}`$ and study closed and open superstrings of it

$`S^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi \alpha ^{}}}{\displaystyle _\mathrm{\Sigma }}d^2\sigma (g_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu ^aX^\nu +ϵ^{ab}B_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu ig_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho ^a_a\psi ^\nu `$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{ab}g_{\mu \nu }_a\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho ^a^{}_a^{}_b\psi ^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^{a^{}b^{}}\theta ^{ab}S_{\mu \nu }_a\overline{\psi }^\mu \rho _a^{}\rho _b^{}_b\psi ^\nu `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{ab}C_{\mu \nu }_aX^\mu _bX^\nu )+𝒪(\theta ^2).`$
The second term and the last three terms are total derivative. Note that $`\theta ^{ab}`$ has only one independent component, therefore it can be written as

$`\theta ^{ab}=\theta ϵ^{ab}.`$ (16)
In the coordinate system $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$ we choose $`\theta `$ as a constant parameter.

Let us define $`B_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ as follows

$`B_{\mu \nu }^{}=B_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta C_{\mu \nu }.`$ (17)
Therefore the $`B`$-term and $`C`$-term of the action (15) can be combined to $`B^{}`$-term. If we assume $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ to be a linear combination of $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ (field strength of a $`U(1)`$ gauge field)

$`C_{\mu \nu }=aF_{\mu \nu }+bB_{\mu \nu },`$ (18)
gauge invariance of $`B_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ under the gauge transformations

$`A_\mu A_\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ,`$ (19)
$`B_{\mu \nu }B_{\mu \nu }+_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu ,`$
requires the following relation between coefficients “$`a`$” and “$`b`$” and the parameter $`\theta `$

$`2+i\theta (a+b)=0.`$ (20)
This equation implies $`ab`$, which means if $`B_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ is a gauge invariant field, $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ in the form of combination (18) is not gauge invariant.

From now on we neglect $`𝒪(\theta ^2)`$ in the action (15). Let $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`C_{\mu \nu }`$ be constant, i.e. independent of the spacetime coordinates. We introduce the new supersymmetry transformations,

$`\delta X^\mu =\overline{ϵ}\psi ^\mu i\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau (\overline{ϵ}\psi ^\nu ),`$ (21)
$`\delta \psi ^\mu =i\rho ^a_aX^\mu ϵ.`$
These transformations form a closed algebra. To see this, consider two successive transformations with supersymmetry parameters $`ϵ`$ and $`ϵ^{}`$, therefore

$`[\delta _ϵ,\delta _ϵ^{}]X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _ϵ(\delta _ϵ^{}X^\mu )(ϵϵ^{})`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`2i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^aϵ^{}(_aX^\mu i\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau _aX^\nu ),`$
for the worldsheet bosons, and

$`[\delta _ϵ,\delta _ϵ^{}]\psi ^\mu =2i\overline{ϵ}\rho ^aϵ^{}(_a\psi ^\mu i\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau _a\psi ^\nu ),`$ (23)
for the worldsheet fermions. To obtain the last equation, one should use the equation of motion of $`\psi ^\mu `$, which is $`\rho ^a_a\psi ^\mu =0`$.

As it is mentioned, the presence of a brane breaks half of the supersymmetry. For $`ϵ_2=iϵ_1i\epsilon `$, the above transformations become

$`\delta X^\mu =\epsilon (\theta ^\mu i\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau \theta ^\nu ),`$ (24)
$`\delta \psi _1^\mu =2i\epsilon _{}X^\mu ,`$
$`\delta \psi _2^\mu =2\epsilon _+X^\mu .`$
We shall use these transformations, to obtain the boundary conditions of superstrings.

## 4 Closed superstring

For the closed superstring let the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ be $`\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. Now we concentrate to the R$``$R and the NS$``$NS sectors of type II superstring. These sectors imply that the surface terms of the variation of the action (15) vanish. This variation gives the boundary state equations for the closed superstring, emitted from the brane, as

$`(_\tau X^\alpha B_\beta ^\alpha _\sigma X^\beta B_i^\alpha _\sigma X^i)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (25)
$`(\delta X^i)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (26)
for the bosonic part. Equation (26) implies that $`_\sigma X^i`$ vanishes on the boundary, and will be dropped from the equation (25). From now on we assume that the mixed components of $`S_{\mu \nu }`$ are zero, i.e.

$`S_{i\alpha }=0.`$ (27)
According to the supersymmetry transformations (24) and the bosonic part of the boundary state equations, i.e. equations (25) and (26), there are the following boundary state equations for the worldsheet fermions

$`\left(\psi _1^i+i\psi _2^ii\theta S_j^i_\tau (\psi _1^j+i\psi _2^j)\right)_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (28)
$`(\psi _1^\alpha i\psi _2^\alpha +B_\beta ^\alpha (\psi _1^\beta +i\psi _2^\beta )+i\theta S_\beta ^\alpha _\tau (\psi _1^\beta i\psi _2^\beta )`$ (29)
$`i\theta B_\beta ^\alpha S_\gamma ^\beta _\tau (\psi _1^\gamma +i\psi _2^\gamma ))_{\tau _0}B=0.`$
As expected these equations respect the supersymmetry transformations. We explicitly show this. That is, from the fermionic boundary conditions (28) and (29) and the supersymmetry transformations, we obtain the bosonic boundary conditions (25) and (26). The equation (28) and the first transformation of (24) give the transverse bosonic boundary condition (26).

To see the consistency of (25) and (29), let us write the supersymmetry transformations of the left and the right moving parts of $`X^\mu `$

$`\delta X_L^\mu =i\epsilon (\psi _2^\mu \theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau \psi _1^\nu ),`$ (30)
$`\delta X_R^\mu =\epsilon (\psi _1^\mu +\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau \psi _2^\nu ).`$
The sum of these transformations gives $`\delta X^\mu `$ of (24). The difference of these gives

$`\delta X^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`\delta X_L^\mu \delta X_R^\mu `$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\epsilon (\lambda ^\mu +i\theta S_\nu ^\mu _\tau \lambda ^\nu ).`$
where $`\lambda ^\mu `$ is

$`\lambda ^\mu \psi _1^\mu i\psi _2^\mu .`$ (32)
From the equation (29) we have

$`\left(\epsilon (\lambda ^\alpha +i\theta S_\beta ^\alpha _\tau \lambda ^\beta )B_\beta ^\alpha [\epsilon (\theta ^\beta i\theta S_\gamma ^\beta _\tau \theta ^\gamma )]\right)_{\tau _0}B=0.`$ (33)
According to the transformations (24) and (31) this is

$`(\delta X^\alpha B_\beta ^\alpha \delta X^\beta )_{\tau _0}B=0,`$ (34)
which is equivalent to the equation

$`(_\sigma X^\alpha B_\beta ^\alpha _\sigma X^\beta )_{\tau _0}B=0.`$ (35)
For the coordinate $`X^\mu `$ we have the relation

$`_\sigma X^\mu =_\tau X^\mu ,`$ (36)
that can be seen from the solution of the equation of motion,

$`X_L^\mu =x_L^\mu +2\alpha ^{}p_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu e^{2in(\tau +\sigma )},`$
$`X_R^\mu =x_R^\mu +2\alpha ^{}p_R^\mu (\tau \sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\alpha _n^\mu e^{2in(\tau \sigma )},`$ (37)
where $`X^\mu =X_L^\mu +X_R^\mu `$ and $`X^\mu =X_L^\mu X_R^\mu `$. Therefore equations (35) and (36) give the boundary state equation (25). Now we obtain the boundary state $`B`$.

Boundary state

Combining the solutions of the equations of motion and boundary state equations, we obtain these equations in terms of modes. Consider some of the brane directions and some of the transverse directions of the brane to be compact on tori.

The boundary state of the bosonic part is

$`B_{bos},\tau _0={\displaystyle \underset{\{p^\alpha \}}{}}B_{bos},\tau _0,p^\alpha ,`$ (38)
where

$`B_{bos},\tau _0,p^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_p}{2}}\sqrt{det(1+B^{})}\mathrm{exp}\left(i\alpha ^{}\tau _0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}(p_{op}^i)^2\right)`$ (39)
$`\times \delta ^{(9p)}(x^iy^i)\mathrm{exp}\left({\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m}}e^{4im\tau _0}\alpha _m^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\nu \right)`$
$`\times 0{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_L^i=p_R^i=0{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}p^\alpha .`$
The set $`\{y^i\}`$ shows the position of the brane. The orthogonal matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^\mu `$ is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_\nu ^\mu =(Q_\beta ^\alpha ,\delta _j^i),`$ (40)
$`Q_\beta ^\alpha =[(1+B^{})^1(1B^{})]_\beta ^\alpha .`$
The state (39) is general form of the state of Ref.. The momentum of the closed string along the compact directions of the brane, i.e. $`\{X^{\alpha _c}\}`$, is

$`p^{\alpha _c}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}B_{\beta _c}^{\alpha _c}L^{\beta _c},`$ (41)
$`L^{\beta _c}=N^{\beta _c}R^{\beta _c},`$
where $`R^{\beta _c}`$ is the radius of compactification of $`X^{\beta _c}`$-direction and $`N^{\beta _c}`$ is winding number of closed string around the $`X^{\beta _c}`$-direction. For interpretation of (41) see Ref..

For the NS$``$NS sector, we have the following fermionic boundary state equations

$`\left((12r\theta S)_j^ib_r^je^{2ir\tau _0}+i(1+2r\theta S)_j^i\stackrel{~}{b}_r^je^{2ir\tau _0}\right)B_f,\tau _0_{NS}=0,`$ (42)
for the transverse directions of the brane. For the directions along the brane we have

$`([1+B^{}+2r\theta (1B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha b_r^\beta e^{2ir\tau _0}`$ (43)
$`i[1B^{}2r\theta (1+B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{b}_r^\beta e^{2ir\tau _0})B_f,\tau _0_{NS}=0.`$
In both of these equations, “$`r`$” is negative or positive half-integer number.

Equations (42) and (43) have the following solution

$`B_f,\eta ,\tau _0_{NS}`$ $`=`$ $`K_{NS}\mathrm{exp}\left[i\eta {\displaystyle \underset{r=1/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(e^{4ir\tau _0}b_r^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(r)}\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\nu \right)\right]0,`$ (44)
where $`\eta =\pm 1`$ is introduced to make GSO projection easily. The matrix $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(r)}`$ has definition

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(r)\nu }^\mu =(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(r)\beta }^\alpha ,H_{(r)j}^i),r{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (45)
$`H_{(r)j}^i=[(12r\theta S)^1(1+2r\theta S)]_j^i,`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(r)\beta }^\alpha =\left([1+B^{}+2r\theta (1B^{})S]^1[1B^{}2r\theta (1+B^{})S]\right)_\beta ^\alpha .`$ (47)
Consistency of the solutions of equation (43) for positive and negative “$`r`$” requires the following relation between $`B_\beta ^\alpha `$ and $`S_\beta ^\alpha `$,

$`B_\beta ^\alpha (S^2)_\gamma ^\beta =(S^2)_\beta ^\alpha B_\gamma ^\beta .`$ (48)
That is, $`B^{}`$ and $`S^2`$ should commute. This is a restriction that naturally arises on $`C`$ and $`S`$.

The factor $`K_{NS}`$ is expected by the path integral with boundary action

$`K_{NS}={\displaystyle \underset{r=1/2}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(det[1+B^{}+2r\theta (1B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha \right).`$ (49)
This is general form of the result . For the ordinary worldsheet i.e. $`\theta =0`$, this reduces to “1” , as expected (note that, $`_{r=1/2}^{\mathrm{}}1\mathrm{lim}_{t0}(2^t1)\zeta (t)=0`$ ). The assumption of smallness of $`\theta `$, gives

$`K_{NS}=1+{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{24}}\mathrm{Tr}[(Q_0S)_\beta ^\alpha ]+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (50)
where $`Q_0`$ is given by (40) for $`\theta =0`$. Note that we made use of $`_{r=1/2}^{\mathrm{}}r\frac{1}{2}\zeta (1)=\frac{1}{24}`$ , and

$`det(1+\theta M)=1+\theta \mathrm{Tr}(M)+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (51)
for a matrix $`M`$ to obtain (50). Up to the first order of $`\theta `$, $`C`$ does not appear in $`K_{NS}`$.

For the R$``$R sector, the boundary state equations of the worldsheet fermions in terms of the modes are

$`(d_0^i+i\stackrel{~}{d}_0^i)B_f,\tau _0_R=0,`$ (52)
$`\left((12n\theta S)_j^id_n^je^{2in\tau _0}+i(1+2n\theta S)_j^i\stackrel{~}{d}_n^je^{2in\tau _0}\right)B_f,\tau _0_R=0,`$ (53)
for the transverse directions of the brane, and

$`(d_0^\alpha iQ_\beta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{d}_0^\beta )B_f,\tau _0_R=0,`$ (54)
$`([1+B^{}+2n\theta (1B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha d_n^\beta e^{2in\tau _0}`$ (55)
$`i[1B^{}2n\theta (1+B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{d}_n^\beta e^{2in\tau _0})B_f,\tau _0_R=0,`$
for the brane directions. In the equations (53) and (55) the number “$`n`$” is a non-zero integer.

The solution of the equations (52)-(55) is

$`B_f,\eta ,\tau _0_R`$ $`=`$ $`K_R\mathrm{exp}\left[i\eta {\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(e^{4in\tau _0}d_n^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }^{(n)}\stackrel{~}{d}_n^\nu \right)\right]B_f,\eta _R^{(0)},`$ (56)
where $`B_f,\eta _R^{(0)}`$ is solution of equations (52) and (54),

$`B_f,\eta _R^{(0)}=_{AB}^{(\eta )}A\stackrel{~}{B},`$ (57)
where $`A`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ describe the vacuum of the fermionic zero modes $`d_0^\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{d}_0^\mu `$. The matrix $`^{(\eta )}`$ is ,

$`^{(\eta )}=\overline{C}\mathrm{\Gamma }^0\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{\alpha }_1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\overline{\alpha }_p}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1+i\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{11}}{1+i\eta }}\right)\mathrm{exp}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B_{\alpha \beta }^{}\mathrm{\Gamma }^\alpha \mathrm{\Gamma }^\beta ),`$ (58)
where “$`\overline{C}`$” is charge conjugation matrix. Also brane is along the directions $`\{X^{\overline{\alpha }_1},\mathrm{},X^{\overline{\alpha }_p}\}`$. Note that for the exponential in (58) there is a convention: the exponential must be expanded, with the convention that all gamma matrices anticommute, therefore there are a finite number of terms.

Again consistency of the solutions of equation (55), for positive and negative “$`n`$” leads to the condition (48).

For the R$``$R sector of superstring the matrices $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(n)}`$, $`H_{(n)}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(n)}`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(n)\nu }^\mu =(\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(n)\beta }^\alpha ,H_{(n)j}^i),n1`$ (59)
$`H_{(n)j}^i=[(12n\theta S)^1(1+2n\theta S)]_j^i,`$ (60)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{(n)\beta }^\alpha =\left([1+B^{}+2n\theta (1B^{})S]^1[1B^{}2n\theta (1+B^{})S]\right)_\beta ^\alpha .`$ (61)
The factor $`K_R`$ is

$`K_R={\displaystyle \underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\left(det[1+B^{}+2n\theta (1B^{})S]_\beta ^\alpha \right).`$ (62)
For the ordinary worldsheet, this factor reduces to the expected result $`\left(det[(1+B)_\beta ^\alpha ]\right)^{1/2}`$ of Ref., (note that, $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}1\zeta (0)=\frac{1}{2}`$). The parameter $`\theta `$ is small, therefore

$`K_R={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{det[(1+B)_\beta ^\alpha ]}}}\left[1{\displaystyle \frac{\theta }{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}[(1+B)^1C]_\beta ^\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\mathrm{Tr}[(Q_0S)_\beta ^\alpha ]\right)\right]+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (63)
where we have used $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}n\zeta (1)=\frac{1}{12}`$ .

## 5 Open superstring

Now we obtain the boundary conditions of open superstring. From now on consider the metric of the spacetime to be constant $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ . Also let the mixed components of the metric be zero, i.e. $`g_{\alpha j}=0`$. Furthermore assume that the field $`B^{}`$ has non-zero components only along the brane, i.e. the components $`B_{ij}^{}`$ and $`B_{\alpha j}^{}`$ are zero. The variation of the action (15) gives the boundary conditions

$`(\delta X^i)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (64)
$`(g_{\alpha \beta }_\sigma X^\beta B_{\alpha \beta }^{}_\tau X^\beta )_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (65)
for the bosonic part, where $`\sigma _0=0,\pi `$ show the boundaries. The worldsheet fermions obey the following boundary conditions

$`\left(g_{ij}(\psi _1^ji\psi _2^j)i\theta S_{ij}_\tau (\psi _1^ji\psi _2^j)\right)_{\sigma _0}=0,`$ (66)
$`(g_{\alpha \beta }(\psi _1^\beta +i\psi _2^\beta )+B_{\alpha \beta }^{}(\psi _1^\beta i\psi _2^\beta )+i\theta S_{\alpha \beta }_\tau (\psi _1^\beta +i\psi _2^\beta )`$ (67)
$`i\theta B_{\alpha \beta }^{}S_\gamma ^\beta _\tau (\psi _1^\gamma i\psi _2^\gamma ))_{\sigma _0}=0.`$
Similar to the closed superstring, one can show that these boundary conditions respect the worldsheet supersymmetry. The open string boundary conditions (64)-(67), can be obtained from the closed one, with the exchanges $`_\tau X^\mu _\sigma X^\mu `$ and $`\psi _1^\mu \psi _1^\mu `$. This is equivalent to the change $`ϵ_2ϵ_2`$, in supersymmetry transformations (21).

According to the boundary condition (64), the transverse directions of the brane remain ordinary. Boundary condition (65) says that the worldvolume of the brane is a noncommutative space. The parameter of spacetime noncommutativity is

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=2\pi \alpha ^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+B^{}}}B^{}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{gB^{}}}\right)^{\mu \nu }.`$ (68)
The appearance of $`B^{}`$ instead of $`B`$ in this quantity shows the effects of the noncommutativity of the worldsheet to the spacetime noncommutativity. Thus for non-zero “$`\theta `$” and “$`C`$”, the brane directions are noncommutative, even if $`B`$-field vanishes.

If we apply the assumption of the smallness of $`\theta `$ in (68), we obtain

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^{\mu \nu }+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (69)
where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Theta }_0C(gB)^1(g+B)^1C\mathrm{\Theta }_02\pi \alpha ^{}(g+B)^1C(gB)^1,`$ (70)
as expected, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an antisymmetric matrix. The parameters $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0^{\mu \nu }`$ show the spacetime noncommutativity for the ordinary string worldsheet.

The effective metric of the open string is

$`G_{\mu \nu }=g_{\mu \nu }(B^{}g^1B^{})_{\mu \nu }=G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta (Bg^1C+Cg^1B)_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\theta ^2(Cg^1C)_{\mu \nu },`$ (71)
$`G^{\mu \nu }=\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{g+B^{}}}g{\displaystyle \frac{1}{gB^{}}}\right)^{\mu \nu }.`$
Up to the order $`\theta `$, $`G^{\mu \nu }`$ is

$`G^{\mu \nu }=G_0^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta \left(G_0C(gB)^1(g+B)^1CG_0\right)^{\mu \nu }+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (72)
where $`G_0^{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G_{\mu \nu }^{(0)}`$ refer to the metric that is seen by open string with ordinary worldsheet.

Now we use the metric (71) to calculate the first correction of Yang-Mills and open string couplings

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{g_{YM}^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^{})^{(3p)/2}}{(2\pi )^{p2}g_s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{det(g+B^{})}{detG}}\right)^{1/2},`$ (73)
$`G_s={\displaystyle \frac{(\alpha ^{})^{(3p)/2}}{(2\pi )^{p2}}}g_{YM}^2.`$ (74)
These give

$`g_{YM}=g_{YM}^{(0)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\theta \mathrm{Tr}[(g+B)^1C]\right)+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (75)
$`G_s=G_s^{(0)}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\theta \mathrm{Tr}[(g+B)^1C]\right)+𝒪(\theta ^2),`$ (76)
where $`g_{YM}^{(0)}`$ and $`G_s^{(0)}`$ are the Yang-Mills and open string couplings for the ordinary worldsheet, in noncommutative spacetime.

## 6 The parameter of the noncommutativity

Now we suggest some definitions for the noncommutativity parameter of the string worldsheet. These definitions are independent of the assumption of the smallness of $`\theta ^{ab}`$, that we used in previous sections. If we change the worldsheet coordinates $`\xi ^0`$ and $`\xi ^1`$ to $`\xi ^0=\xi ^0(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)`$ and $`\xi ^1=\xi ^1(\xi ^0,\xi ^1)`$, the tensor $`\theta ^{ab}`$ changes to $`\theta ^{a^{}b^{}}`$,

$`\theta ^{a^{}b^{}}={\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^a^{}}{\xi ^a}}{\displaystyle \frac{\xi ^b^{}}{\xi ^b}}\theta ^{ab}.`$ (77)
As expected, this implies that noncommutativity depends on the coordinate system of the string worldsheet. Note that according to the relation (77) we can choose a coordinate system on the string worldsheet with constant noncommutativity parameter, i.e. independent of the worldsheet coordinates.

The first definition

Since the quantity $`\theta _{ab}\theta ^{ab}`$ does not change from one coordinate system of worldsheet to another one we give the first definition of $`\theta ^{ab}`$ as

$`\theta _{ab}\theta ^{ab}=\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }.`$ (78)
In the coordinate system $`(\sigma ,\tau )`$, the left hand side is $`2\theta ^2`$. Raising the indices of $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{\mu \nu }`$ leads to

$`\theta ^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\mu \nu }G_{\nu \nu ^{}}\mathrm{\Theta }^{\nu ^{}\mu ^{}}G_{\mu ^{}\mu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Theta }G\mathrm{\Theta }G).`$ (79)
Again for $`C_{\mu \nu }0`$, the right hand side also contains $`\theta `$. Therefore (79) is an equation for $`\theta `$.

The second definition

Consider the noncommutative Yang-Mills theory and background dependence of it . For the background $`B`$, the noncommutativity of spacetime is described by $`\mathrm{\Theta }_0`$, and for $`B^{}`$, it is described by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$. It has been discussed in  that, the background independence of noncommutative Yang-Mills at fixed “$`g_{\mu \nu }`$”, leads to this fact that, the quantity $`g_{YM}^2\sqrt{det\mathrm{\Theta }}`$ must be invariant under the changes of the background field. Therefore

$`g_{YM}^2\sqrt{det\mathrm{\Theta }}=(g_{YM}^{(0)})^2\sqrt{det\mathrm{\Theta }_0}.`$ (80)
We suggest this equation as second definition for the parameter $`\theta `$. According to the equations (68) and (73) the left hand side is a function of $`\theta `$, therefore from this equation $`\theta `$ is calculated. Note that for zero slope limit , the above equation reduces to an identity, i.e. the left hand side will be independent of $`\theta `$.

## 7 Conclusions and remarks

The noncommutative worldsheet of superstring affects many things. The additional terms to the noncommutative action of superstring, generalize the supersymmetry transformations, the boundary state of closed superstring, the boundary conditions of open superstring, Yang-Mills and open string couplings, and many other things. The new closed string boundary state describes a brane that is more general than the mixed branes . The noncommutativity of the string worldsheet also changes the spacetime noncommutativity. Therefore even if the background $`B`$-field vanishes, spacetime remains noncommutative.

We suggested some definitions for the noncommutativity parameter of the string worldsheet that relate this parameter to the corresponding one of spacetime.

As it has been discussed in Ref., renormalization exhibits the large distance spacetime physics to be encoded in the short distance structure of the worldsheet. In other words the renormalization is justified by the divergence of $`L^2=ln(\mathrm{\Lambda }/\mu )`$.

According to the renormalization group, the short two dimensional UV cut-off distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ slides to more and more short distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^1`$. In other words, there is an effective worldsheet at two dimensional distance $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. The effective worldsheet can be used to calculate effective string effects at spacetime distance $`L`$. Since the noncommutativity parameter of the worldsheet breaks the scale invariance of the worldsheet theory, it can be interpreted as the UV cut-off. Therefore the cut-off distances $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ correspond to two noncommutativity parameters $`\theta _0`$ and $`\theta `$ respectively. This implies that for the noncommutativity parameter of the worldsheet, there are some bounds.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank H. Arfaei for useful discussion. Also I am grateful to referee of the “European Physical Journal C”, for useful comments, which help me to improve the manuscript.


text:
# Chern-Simons versus dipolar composite fermions at finite wavevector

## I Introduction

The compressible state of two dimensional electrons at the filling factor $`\nu =1/2`$ has been explained as the result of Fermi surface formation of quasiparticles called composite fermions . Here the filling factor, $`\nu `$, is the ratio of the number of electrons and the total number of external flux quanta given by the external magnetic field. Thus there exist $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ number of external flux quanta per electron if $`\nu =1/\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$. The composite fermions are bound objects of electrons and their correlation holes. Due to the fact that the electron wavefunction vanishes at the positions of correlation holes and there exists a phase winding of the electron wavefunction around them, these correlation holes are also called vortices. The bound state of electrons and even number of vortices satisfies Fermi statistics leading to the name “composite fermions” .

Upon the discovery of the compressible states in the half-filled Landau level, it was soon proposed that the vortices can be represented by fictitious flux quanta pointing in the opposite direction of the external magnetic field . In this case, the bound state of an electron and two fictitious flux quanta would see zero effective magnetic field on average at $`\nu =1/2`$ . This is because the number of external flux quanta per electron and that of fictitious flux quanta are the same. Now the composite fermion system can form a Fermi sea as if they are free fermions in zero magnetic field. These ideas can be formulated in terms of the Chern-Simons gauge theory that represents the fictitious flux quanta by a U(1) gauge field and requires the position of these flux quanta to be the same as those of electrons. This “Chern-Simons composite fermion” theory explained the finite compressibility of the system and various experimental results that require understanding of the long wavelength and low energy properties of the system .

In spite of this success, the Chern-Simons composite fermion theory suffers from some important problems. At the most naive level, the flux attachment transformation uses the kinetic energy of the electrons to generate the kinetic energy of composite fermions. If this transformation is taken seriously, the mass of the composite fermions is given by the bare mass of electrons. This is certainly not correct because, in the lowest Landau level, the kinetic energy of electrons is quenched and the only relevant energy scale is given by the interaction energy; the mass of the composite fermions should be determined by the interaction energy scale . Therefore the kinetic energy term with the bare mass in the Hamiltonian should be somehow replaced by the term with the interaction induced mass . In the Chern-Simons theory approach, the kinetic energy term with the interaction induced mass has been used on phenomenological ground . One hopes that the final answer will be correct in the limit of the zero bare mass (infinite cyclotron energy).

Sometime ago, more microscopic picture was suggested to resolve the unsatisfactory aspects of the Chern-Simons theory . In the lowest Landau level, the system of $`N`$ number of composite fermions maintains the antisymmetry of the total wavefunction by assigning a different vector $`𝐤_j`$ ($`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$) to each composite fermion such that the distance between the electron and vortices in a given composite fermion $`j`$ is $`|𝐤_j|l_B^2`$ and the direction of $`𝐤_j`$ is perpendicular to the line connecting the positions of electron and vortices . Here $`l_B=\sqrt{\mathrm{}c/eB}`$ is the magnetic length. The electron and vortices within each composite fermion drift along the equipotential, $`V(|𝐤|)`$, in the same direction keeping the distance, $`|𝐤|l_B^2`$, between them. This can generate the dispersion (or “kinetic energy”) of the composite fermions . Also the vectors $`𝐤_j`$ form a Fermi sea in $`𝐤`$-space with a well defined Fermi wavevector $`k_F=\sqrt{4\pi n_e}`$ where $`n_e`$ is the density of electrons. Since the “kinetic energy” arises from the interaction potential, the effective mass at the Fermi wavevector is determined by the interaction energy scale . These composite fermions are called “dipolar composite fermions” due to the dipolar internal structure .

The ideas outlined above have been recently formulated in several different ways . The essential parts of the formulation can be summarized as follows . We consider the case of $`\nu =1/\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ for simplicity. Let $`𝐑_{ej}`$ be the position of the electron $`j`$ and $`𝐑_{vj}`$ be the position of $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ number of vortices associated with the electron $`j`$. Equivalently one can regard the complex coordinates of vortices, $`w_j`$, as dummy variables in reference to the coordinates, $`z_j=x_j+iy_j`$, of the electrons. Using a canonical transformation, we can define an equivalent set of coordinates:

$$𝐫_j=\frac{1}{2}(𝐑_{ej}+𝐑_{vj}),𝐤_j=(𝐑_{ej}𝐑_{vj})l_B^2,$$
(1)
where $`(𝐚)_\mu ϵ_{\mu \nu }a_\nu `$ ($`\mu ,\nu =x,y`$) and $`𝐚𝐛=𝐚(𝐛)`$. In this representation, $`𝐫_j`$ is the center of mass coordinate, $`|𝐤_j|l_B^2`$ is the distance between the electron and vortices, and the direction of $`𝐤_j`$ is perpendicular to the line connecting the electron and the vortices. Notice that $`𝐑_{ej}`$ and $`𝐑_{vj}`$ are guiding center coordinates of electrons and vortices so that they satisfy the following commutation relations.

$$[R_{ej}^x,R_{ej}^y]=il_B^2,[R_{vj}^x,R_{vj}^y]=il_B^2,$$
(2)
where $`R_{ej}^x`$ and $`R_{ej}^y`$ denote the $`x`$ and $`y`$ components of $`𝐑_{ej}`$ and so on. Using these relations, we get

$$[r_j^\alpha ,k_j^\beta ]=i\delta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(3)
where $`\alpha ,\beta =x,y`$. Thus $`𝐤_j`$ serves as the canonical momentum of the coordinate $`𝐫_j`$. The density operators for electrons and vortices can be written in the Fourier space as

$`\rho ^L(𝐪)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i𝐪𝐑_{ej}}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i𝐪[𝐫_j𝐤_j(l_B^2/2)]},`$ (4)
$`\rho ^R(𝐪)={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i𝐪𝐑_{vj}}={\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}e^{i𝐪[𝐫_j+𝐤_j(l_B^2/2)]},`$ (5)
where $`L`$ and $`R`$ represent the electron and vortices respectively. In order to eliminate additional degrees of freedom (the coordinates of the vortices are dummy variables) and ensure the equivalence to the original system, we require the following constraint.

$$\rho ^R(𝐪)=\overline{\rho }(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐪),$$
(6)
where $`\overline{\rho }`$ is the average density of electrons. The Hamiltonian of the system is written in terms of physical electron density operators :

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪):\rho ^L(𝐪)\rho ^L(𝐪):,$$
(7)
where $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)=V(𝐪)e^{q^2l_B^2/2}`$ and $`V(𝐪)`$ is the interaction potential. The colons $`:\mathrm{}:`$ represents the normal ordering.

In the long wavelength limit, the electron density operator can be expanded as

$$\rho ^L(𝐪)\overline{\rho }(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐪)i\frac{l_B^2}{2}\underset{j}{}e^{i𝐪𝐫_j}𝐪𝐤_j.$$
(8)
The Hamiltonian can now be written as (up to a constant)

$$H=\frac{l_B^2}{8}\underset{ij}{}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)(𝐪𝐤_i)(𝐪𝐤_j)e^{i𝐪𝐫_i}e^{i𝐪𝐫_j}.$$
(9)
In particular, the $`i=j`$ term will give rise to

$$H\underset{j}{}𝐤_j^2/2m^{}\mathrm{with}\frac{1}{m^{}}\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)q^2l_B^2.$$
(10)
This may be taken as the origin of the kinetic energy term of the composite fermions in the long wavelength limit .

It turns out that it is very important to incorporate the residual interaction terms and the constraint to satisfy proper conservation laws. For example, the original system of dipolar composite fermions is invariant under $`𝐤_j𝐤_j+𝐊`$ for all $`j`$ and any $`𝐊`$ because it just corresponds to a constant shift in the center of mass coordinate of the entire system . This symmetry is intimately related to the fact that the kinetic energy term of the electrons is absent or the system is in the infinite bare mass limit $`m_b\mathrm{}`$. This, for example, leads to $`F_1=1`$ among Landau parameters via $`m^{}/m_b=1+F_1`$ if the dipolar composite fermions are treated as quasiparticles in the Landau Fermi liquid theory . The approximate Hamiltonian in Eq.10, however, breaks this symmetry. While this problem can be fixed in the long wavelength and low energy limits by incorporating the constraints , it was also shown that one can formulate the theory in a conserving approximation for all $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$ (more specifically for $`\nu =1`$ bosons) . In any case, the conserving approximation leads to the conclusion that the system is still compressible . Also various physical response functions in the low energy and long wavelength limit were shown to have the same forms as those of the Chern-Simons gauge theory approach. In other words, the dipolar composite fermion description in the infinite bare mass limit seems to be equivalent to the Chern-Simons composite fermion system in the zero bare mass (or infinite cyclotron energy) limit as far as the low energy and long wavelength limits are concerned .

In this paper, we ask whether the close correspondence between the results of the Chern-Simons theory and those of the lowest Landau level theory is still valid at finite wavevectors where the excitations do not necessarily look like dipolar quasiparticles. We were partly motivated by the recent phonon drag experiment in the double-layer $`\nu =1/2`$ system . In this experiment, the drag resistivity between two layers due to the electron-phonon interaction is measured . In the absence of an applied magnetic field, it has been known that the phonon drag divided by $`T^2`$ reaches its maximum when the temperature becomes of the order of $`T_0=c(2k_F^e)`$ where $`c`$ is the phonon velocity and $`k_F^e`$ is the Fermi wavevector of the electrons in each layer . This is due to the fact that the particle-hole excitations of electrons cease to exist beyond the wavevector $`q=2k_F^e`$ so that the phonons with $`q>2k_F^e`$ cannot scatter electrons at low temperatures. Thus the scattering between the particle-hole continuum and the phonons is suppressed when the energy scale is larger than $`T_0`$. In a way, this experiment can tell us the properties of the system at short distances like $`(k_F^e)^1`$. In the case of $`\nu =1/2`$ double-layer system, one may expect that the cutoff wavevector scale would be set by the composite fermion Fermi wavevector, $`k_F^{\mathrm{cf}}`$ where $`k_F^{\mathrm{cf}}=\sqrt{2}k_F^e`$ if all the spins of electrons are polarized due to strong magnetic field. It is expected that the maximum of the drag resistivity should occur at a temperature $`T_{1/2}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ around $`T_{1/2}=c(2k_F^{\mathrm{cf}})=\sqrt{2}T_0`$. On the other hand, in the experiment, $`T_{1/2}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ turns out to be even smaller than $`T_0`$ . Recently, Bonsager, MacDonald, and the author performed a theoretical calculation of the drag resistivity in the Chern-Simons theory . It was found that the maximum of the drag resistivity indeed occurs around $`T_{1/2}`$ if the effective Fermi energy (determined from the effective mass) of the composite fermions $`\epsilon _F`$ is much larger than $`T_{1/2}`$ . However, for realistic values of effective mass, one finds $`\epsilon _FT_{1/2}`$ leading to substantial finite temperature effects that were not observed in the experiment . At this stage, it appears that the Chern-Simons theory does not capture the correct short distance properties of the system.

Upon this situation, it is natural to ask what happens to the composite fermions in the lowest-Landau-level theory at short distances because this approach is supposed to be more microscopic. One may expect that more microscopic theory may give rise to different results compared to the predictions of the Chern-Simons theory and eventually explain the experiment. In this paper, we will consider the density-density response function at $`q=2k_F`$ at low energies and investigate possible difference between the results of the lowest Landau level theory and the Chern-Simons theory. In order to compare the theory with the drag experiment, we need to know the physical response functions at arbitrary energy and wavevector scales. Thus complete explanation of the experiment mentioned above is beyond the scope of this paper. We will, however, try to make a connection wherever it is possible and discuss what might happen in the drag experiment using our results.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In section II, we briefly review the formalism of the lowest-Landau-level theory. In section III, the density-density response function at $`q=2k_F`$ in the low energy limit is evaluated. In section IV, these results are compared with those of the Chern-Simons theory. In section V, we discuss possible connection between our results and the phonon drag experiment. We summarize our results in section VI.

## II brief review of the lowest-Landau-level theory

We set $`l_B=1`$ from now on. We restore this factor explicitly wherever it is necessary. It can be shown that the density operators of electrons and vortices in Eq.5 can be written in second quantized forms as

$`\rho ^L(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{\frac{1}{2}i𝐤𝐪}c_{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}^{}c_{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}},`$ (11)
$`\rho ^R(𝐪)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}e^{\frac{1}{2}i𝐤𝐪}c_{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}^{}c_{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}},`$ (12)
where $`c_𝐤,c_𝐤^{}`$ satisfy the fermionic anticommutation relation;

$$\{c_𝐤,c_𝐤^{}^{}\}=(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐤𝐤^{}).$$
(13)
These operators satisfy the following lowest-Landau-level algebra first noticed in Ref..

$`[\rho ^L(𝐪),\rho ^L(𝐪^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`2i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐪𝐪^{}}{2}}\right)\rho ^L(𝐪+𝐪^{}),`$ (14)
$`[\rho ^R(𝐪),\rho ^R(𝐪^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`2i\mathrm{sin}\left({\displaystyle \frac{𝐪𝐪^{}}{2}}\right)\rho ^R(𝐪+𝐪^{}),`$ (15)
$`[\rho ^L(𝐪),\rho ^R(𝐪^{})]`$ $`=`$ $`0.`$ (16)
The constraint in Eq.6 implies that

$$[\rho ^R(𝐪)\overline{\rho }(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐪)]|\mathrm{\Psi }_{\mathrm{phys}}=0.$$
(17)
One can first build up states as combinations of $`_{\{𝐤_i\}}c_𝐤^{}|0`$ where $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and then project them to satisfy the constraint. Notice also that the constraint operators $`G(𝐪)=\rho ^R(𝐪)\overline{\rho }(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐪)`$ commutes with the Hamiltonian given by Eq.7.

Using the second quantized electron density operator, the Hamiltonian in Eq.7 can be rewritten as

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1d^2k_2d^2q}{(2\pi )^6}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)e^{\frac{1}{2}i𝐤_1𝐪\frac{1}{2}i𝐤_2𝐪}}`$ (19)
$`\times c_{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}^{}c_{𝐤_2+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}^{}c_{𝐤_2\frac{1}{2}𝐪}c_{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪},`$
subject to the constraints $`\rho ^R(𝐪)\overline{\rho }(2\pi )^2\delta (𝐪)=0`$. We first use the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation to obtain the effective kinetic energy of the quasiparticles. In the HF approximation, the effective single-particle Hamiltonian can be written as

$$H_{\mathrm{eff}}=\underset{𝐤}{}\xi _𝐤c_𝐤^{}c_𝐤,$$
(20)
where $`\xi _𝐤=\epsilon _𝐤\mu `$ and

$$\epsilon _𝐤=\stackrel{~}{V}(\mathrm{𝟎})\frac{d^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^2}n_𝐤^{}^0\frac{d^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^2}\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤𝐤^{})n_𝐤^{}^0.$$
(21)
In the ground state at zero temperature, $`n_𝐤^0=\theta (k_Fk)`$ with $`k_F`$ being $`\sqrt{2}`$ times the Fermi wavevector of the electrons in zero magnetic field and $`\mu `$ chosen such that $`\xi _{k_F}=0`$. Notice that $`𝐤`$ dependence of $`\xi _𝐤`$ comes from the Fock term in the effective Hamiltonian. When the interaction potential is repulsive, $`\xi _𝐤`$ is a monotonically increasing function of $`|𝐤|`$. The effective mass of the quasiparticles at the Fermi level can be obtained from

$$\frac{k_F}{m^{}}\frac{\xi _𝐤}{|𝐤|}=\frac{k_F}{2\pi }\frac{d\theta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}}{2\pi }\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤^{}𝐤)\mathrm{cos}\theta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}},$$
(22)
where $`\theta _{\mathrm{𝐤𝐤}^{}}`$ is the angle between $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$.

The HF ground state which is just the Fermi sea $`|FS`$ is not annihilated by the constraint operator; $`G(𝐪)|FS0`$ for $`𝐪0`$. Also $`G(𝐪)`$ does not commute with the HF effective Hamiltonian. Thus $`G(𝐪)`$ are not conserved by the HF approximation. In order to recover the conserved quantities, we use the generalized HF theory called the time-dependent HF approximation which is the natural conserving approximation related to the HF theory.

The density-density response function in this generalized HF approximation corresponds to the sum of all ring and ladder diagrams with the single particle Green’s function given by

$$𝒢(𝐤,\omega _n)=(i\omega _n\xi _𝐤)^1,$$
(23)
where $`\omega _n`$ is the Matsubara frequency. The irreducible density-density response function of electrons, $`\chi _{LL}^{irr}`$, in the generalized HF approximation corresponds to the sum of the ladder diagrams. The expression for $`\chi _{LL}^{irr}`$ was found to have the following form .

$`\chi _{LL}^{irr}=`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2kd^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^4}(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }}`$ (24)
$`\times `$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu ){\displaystyle \frac{f(\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }}(e^{i𝐤^{}𝐪}1).`$ (25)
Here the scattering vertex function, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$, satisfies the following integral equation.

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤𝐤^{})\frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤_1,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤_1𝐤^{}).$$
(26)
It is also useful to define the following one-particle-irreducible vertex function;

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=1\frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤_1,𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu ).$$
(27)
One can show that the conservation of the constraints is represented by the following Ward identities satisfied by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ ;

$$i\omega _\nu \mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=i\omega _\nu \xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}.$$
(28)
For example, using the Ward identity, one can show that $`\rho ^R(𝐪)\rho ^R(𝐪)=\rho ^R(𝐪)\rho ^L(𝐪)=0`$ and so on .

At low temperatures, in the limit of small $`q`$ and $`\omega _\nu `$, the expression for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ was explicitly found as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\frac{𝐪𝐯_𝐤𝐪𝐯_𝐤^{}}{\omega _\nu ^2\chi _0(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )}\frac{𝐪𝐯_𝐤𝐪𝐯_𝐤^{}}{q^2\chi _0^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )},$$
(29)
where

$$\chi _0(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu },$$
(30)
and

$$\chi _0^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\frac{1}{2}𝒩(0)v_F^2+\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )$$
(31)
with

$$\chi _{0p}^{}=\frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}\left(\frac{\widehat{𝐪}𝐤}{m^{}}\right)^2\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }.$$
(32)
Here $`𝐯_𝐤`$ is the velocity and $`𝒩(0)`$ the density of states at the Fermi level. In the long wavelength limit, the exponential factors in the expression of $`\chi _{LL}^{irr}`$ can be expanded as $`e^{i𝐤𝐪}1i𝐤𝐪`$. Using the scattering vertex function in the long wavelength and low energy limits, one finds

$$\chi _{LL}^{irr}q^2\overline{\rho }\frac{\overline{\rho }+m^{}\chi _0^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )}{\chi _0^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )}.$$
(33)
It leads to the similar result to that of the density-density response function in the Chern-Simons theory in the long wavelength and low energy limits (small $`|𝐪|`$ and $`\omega `$) ;

$$\chi _{LL}^{irr}\frac{\overline{\rho }^2}{\chi _d^{}i\omega k_F/(2\pi q^3)},$$
(34)
where $`\chi _d^{}`$ is the diamagnetic susceptibility of the Fermi gas with the dispersion $`\xi _𝐤`$. This also implies that the compressibility of the system is finite.

## III q=2$`k_F`$ density-density response function

In this section, we study the $`q=2k_F`$ density-density response function in the lowest-Landau-level theory. The difficulty in finding the finite wavevector response function comes from the fact that one needs to know the scattering vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ for arbitary $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega _\nu `$. In principle, if one can find all the eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the integral kernel, one can find the inverse of the integral operator and find the solution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$. This turns out to be not an easy task for arbitray $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega _\nu `$.

In the small $`|𝐪|`$ limit, the nontrivial part of the integral kernel becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤^{}𝐤_1)\frac{f}{\epsilon }|_{\xi _𝐤},$$
(35)
which is concentrated at $`k=k_F`$ at zero temperature. In this limit, both $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤𝐤^{})`$ and the scattering vertex function can be expanded only in terms of $`\mathrm{cos}\mathrm{}\theta _𝐤`$ and $`\mathrm{sin}\mathrm{}\theta _𝐤`$ ($`\mathrm{}=0,1,\mathrm{}`$) because both $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$ are basically restricted on the Fermi surface . If one takes only the $`\mathrm{}=1`$ modes, the eigenfunctions are just $`𝐪𝐯_𝐤/q`$ and $`𝐪𝐯_𝐤^{}/q`$. By finding the correspoding eigenvalues, one gets the expression of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ in Eq.29 .

When $`𝐪`$ is not small, the tricks outlined above do not work. Fortunately, we can find at least one eigenvector which is correct for all $`𝐪`$ in the small frequency limit. This eigenvector can be found by use of the Ward identity and is given by $`\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}`$ with the eigenvalue tending to zero as $`i\omega _\nu 0`$. This part of the vertex function can be explicitly found as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\frac{(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})(\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\omega _\nu ^2\chi _0(𝐪,i\omega )}.$$
(36)
One can also show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ exhausts the Ward identity in Eq.28 in the following sense. Let us consider the following quantity.

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ $`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤_1,𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )}`$ (37)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}}{\omega _\nu ^2\chi _0(𝐪,i\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}`$ (38)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}}{\omega _\nu ^2\chi _0(𝐪,i\omega )}}{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\left\{\left[f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})\right]+i\omega _\nu \frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\right\}}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`1{\displaystyle \frac{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}}{i\omega _\nu }},`$ (40)
where the definition of $`\chi _0`$ in Eq.30 is used in going from the third to fourth lines. Notice also that, among two terms in the curly braket in the third line, the first term gives zero contribution to the $`𝐤_1`$-integral. Comparing with the Ward identity in Eq.28, one can see that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ is nothing but the one-particle-irreducible vertex $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$. Therefore, the full scattering vertex function can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )+\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )$$
(41)
such that

$$\frac{d^2k_1}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤_1+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤_1\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐤_1,𝐤,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=0.$$
(42)
Now, for notational convenience, let us rewrite the irreducible density-density response function as follows.

$$\chi _{LL}^{irr}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )=\chi _a(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )+\chi _b(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )+\chi _c(𝐪,i\omega _\nu ),$$
(43)
where

$`\chi _a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{(2\pi )^2}(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }},`$ (44)
$`\chi _b`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2kd^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^4}(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }(e^{i𝐤^{}𝐪}1)},`$ (45)
$`\chi _c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2kd^2k^{}}{(2\pi )^4}(e^{i𝐤𝐪}1)\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )\frac{f(\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪})f(\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪})}{\xi _{𝐤^{}+\frac{1}{2}𝐪}\xi _{𝐤^{}\frac{1}{2}𝐪}i\omega _\nu }(e^{i𝐤^{}𝐪}1)}.`$ (46)
Let us investigate $`\chi _a`$ and $`\chi _b`$ first, then consider $`\chi _c`$ later. When the momentum transfer is given by $`𝐪=𝐐_02k_F\widehat{𝐪}`$, one can see that $`𝐤\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐐_0`$ can be rewritten as

$$𝐤\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐐_0=\pm k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩.$$
(47)
We can also easily see that $`𝐤𝐐_0=𝐩𝐐_0=2k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$, where $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$ is the component of $`𝐩`$ perpendicular to $`\widehat{𝐪}`$. In the low energy limit $`|\omega |\epsilon _F`$ (here $`\epsilon _F\epsilon _{|𝐤|=k_F}`$), we have $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}k_F`$ in the imaginary part of the analytically-continued response functions $`\chi (𝐪,i\omega _\nu \omega +i0^+)`$. In this case, restoring $`l_B^2=(2/\stackrel{~}{\varphi })k_F^2`$ in the expression, the exponential factor in $`\chi _a`$ can be expanded as

$$e^{il_B^2𝐤𝐪}1=e^{il_B^22k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}}1il_B^22k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}.$$
(48)
Thus the imaginary part of $`\chi _a(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ in the low energy limit can be written as

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _a(𝐐_0,\omega )2\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^2\left(\frac{m^{}}{k_F}\right)^2\mathrm{Im}\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega ),$$
(49)
where $`\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ is given by Eq.32. After changing the integral variable from $`𝐤`$ to $`𝐩`$ defined via $`𝐤\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐐_0=\pm k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩`$, one can take the low frequency approximation $`|\omega |\epsilon _F`$ and $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪},𝐩\widehat{𝐪}k_F`$ to find the imaginary part of $`\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )`$. Here we can use

$`\xi _𝐤`$ $`=`$ $`\xi (|𝐤|)=\xi \left(|k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩|\right)`$ (50)
$``$ $`\xi \left(k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩\widehat{𝐪})^2}{k_F}}\right)`$ (51)
$``$ $`\xi _{k_F}+\left(𝐩\widehat{𝐪}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩\widehat{𝐪})^2}{k_F}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _𝐤}{|𝐤|}}\right)_{|𝐤|=k_F}`$ (52)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{k_F}{m^{}}}𝐩\widehat{𝐪}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(𝐩\widehat{𝐪})^2}{m^{}}}.`$ (53)
Similarly, we get

$$\xi _{𝐤+𝐪}\frac{k_F}{m^{}}𝐩\widehat{𝐪}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{(𝐩\widehat{𝐪})^2}{m^{}}.$$
(54)
After finding the imaginary part, the leading order behavior of the real part can be also found by the Kramers-Kronig relation with a frequency cutoff that depends on the details of the interaction potential. Finally, we get

$$\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )\frac{m^{}}{2\pi }\left(\frac{k_F}{m^{}}\right)^2\left[C_1\left(\frac{2m^{}\epsilon _F}{k_F^2}\right)^{3/2}+i\frac{1}{6}\left(\frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}\right)^{3/2}\right],$$
(55)
where $`C_1`$ is a constant that depends on the details of the single-particle spectrum $`\xi _𝐤`$. Recall that $`\epsilon _F=\epsilon _{|𝐤|=k_F}`$. In the case of the quadratic band, $`\xi _𝐤=k^2/2m^{}\mu `$, $`C_1=1/6`$ and $`2m^{}\epsilon _F/k_F^2=1`$. Using Eq.55, the low frequency limit of $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _a(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ can be estimated as

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _a(𝐐_0,\omega )\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^2\frac{m^{}}{6\pi }\left(\frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}\right)^{3/2}.$$
(56)
Similarly, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _b(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ can be evaluated by expanding the exponential factors. Notice, however, that the expansion in the linear order in $`il_B^22k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$ will give zero contribution to the integral because of the symmetry of the integrand. Thus one has to keep the terms that are second order in $`il_B^22k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$. After some algebra, we obtain the following result in the low frequency limit.

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _b(𝐐_0,\omega )4\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^4\left(\frac{m^{}}{k_F}\right)^4\mathrm{Im}\left\{\frac{[\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )]^2}{\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )}\right\}.$$
(57)
In the low frequency limit, one can also show that

$$\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )\frac{m^{}}{2\pi }\left[D_1\left(\frac{2m^{}\epsilon _F}{k_F^2}\right)^{1/2}+i\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}\right)^{1/2}\right],$$
(58)
where $`D_1`$ is a constant that depends on the details of the single-particle spectrum $`\xi _𝐤`$. In the case of the quadratic band with the effective mass $`m^{}`$, we get $`D_1=1`$ with $`2m^{}\epsilon _F/k_F^2=1`$. Using Eq.55 and Eq.58, the leading order contribution to $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _b(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ can be estimated as

$`\mathrm{Im}\chi _b(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ $``$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}\right)^4\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{k_F}}\right)^4\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Re}\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )}{\mathrm{Re}\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )}}\right]^2\mathrm{Im}\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ (59)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}\right)^4{\displaystyle \frac{C_1^2}{D_1^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2m^{}\epsilon _F}{k_F^2}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (60)
Now let us consider $`\chi _c(𝐪,\omega )`$. In principle, in order to evaluate $`\chi _c`$ for finite $`𝐪`$, one needs to know the form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ for arbitrary $`𝐤`$ and $`𝐤^{}`$. This is a difficult task because the form of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ cannot be obtained from Ward identities. As a result, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ will, in general, depend on some detailes of the given potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)`$. Some progress can be made, however, if the momentum transfer $`𝐪`$ is given by $`𝐐_0=2k_F\widehat{𝐪}`$. It is also worthwhile to notice that, due to the identity given by Eq.42, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ is an odd function of $`𝐤𝐪`$ and $`𝐤^{}𝐪`$. In fact, the small $`𝐪`$ limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐪,i\omega _\nu )`$ becomes the first term in the expression of the small $`𝐪`$ limit of the full scattering vertex in Eq.29. Thus the second term in Eq.29 can be regarded as the small $`𝐪`$ limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. This form, of course, cannot be easily generalized to the case of arbitrary $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$.

Let us investigate the integral equation for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )`$ given by Eq.26 more closely in the small $`\omega _\nu `$ limit. In order to make a progress, let us define $`𝐩`$ and $`𝐩^{}`$ such that $`𝐤\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐪=\pm k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩`$ and $`𝐤^{}\pm \frac{1}{2}𝐪=\pm k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩^{}`$. In the imaginary part of $`\chi _c(𝐐_0,\omega )`$, we have $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪},𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}k_F`$ in the low frequency limit. This means that $`𝐤𝐤^{}=𝐩𝐩^{}k_F`$. In this case, it is reasonable to assume that $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐤𝐤^{})=\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐩𝐩^{})`$ can be expanded in terms of $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$, $`𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}`$, $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$, and $`𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}`$.

One can see that similar consideration applies to the $`𝐤_1`$-dependence of the kernel of the integral equation in Eq.26 as far as the frequency $`\omega _\nu `$ is sufficiently small. One has to, however, introduce a cutoff in the $`𝐩_1`$ integral after changing the variable from $`𝐤_1`$ to $`𝐩_1`$. This cutoff depends on the details of the potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)`$. In view of the structure of the integral equation, it is also reasonble to assume that, in the low frequency limit, the scattering vertex $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐤,𝐤^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )`$ can be expanded in terms of $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$, $`𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}`$, $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}`$, and $`𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}`$. In fact, these are the eigenfunctions of the integral equation in the low frequency limit. More explicitly, the integral equation in the low frequency limit may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩,𝐩^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )=\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐩^{}𝐩)^{}\frac{d^2p_1}{(2\pi )^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩,𝐩_1,𝐪,i\omega _\nu )\frac{f(\xi _{k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩_1})f(\xi _{k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩_1})}{\xi _{k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩_1}\xi _{k_F\widehat{𝐪}+𝐩_1}i\omega _\nu }\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐩_1𝐩^{}),$$
(61)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐩𝐩^{})=V_1𝐩\widehat{𝐪}𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}+V_2𝐩\widehat{𝐪}𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}$$
(62)
and $`^{}`$ represents the fact that there is a cutoff in the $`𝐩_1`$-integral. The solution for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩,𝐩^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )`$ can be written as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝐩,𝐩^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )=\frac{𝐩\widehat{𝐪}𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}}{\lambda _1(𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )}+\frac{𝐩\widehat{𝐪}𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}}{\lambda _2(𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )}.$$
(63)
One can see that the integral equations for the first and the second terms are decoupled. The first term is nothing but the $`𝐪=𝐐_0`$ limit of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_1`$ in Eq.36. Thus we know exactly what $`\lambda _1(𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )`$ is. The second term would correspond to a contribution from $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$. The explicit form can be found from the integral equation as

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_2(𝐩,𝐩^{},𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )\frac{𝐩\widehat{𝐪}𝐩^{}\widehat{𝐪}}{V_2^1+(m^{})^2\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,i\omega _\nu )}$$
(64)
in the small $`\omega `$ limit.

Using $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ obtained above, we now evaluate $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _c`$. In the low frequency limit, the exponential factor can be again expanded by assuming that $`l_B^2𝐤𝐪=l_B^22k_F𝐩\widehat{𝐪}1`$ or $`𝐩\widehat{𝐪}k_F`$. Substituting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_2`$ in Eq.64 to the expression of $`\chi _c`$ in Eq.46, we get

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _c(𝐐_0,\omega )=4\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^2\frac{(m^{})^4}{k_F^2}\mathrm{Im}\left\{\frac{[\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )]^2}{V_2^1+(m^{})^2\chi _{0p}^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )}\right\}.$$
(65)
In the low frequency limit, the leading order contribution is given by

$`\mathrm{Im}\chi _c(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ $``$ $`4\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{(m^{})^4}{k_F^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{[2V_2^1+(m^{})^2\mathrm{Re}\chi _{0p}^{}]\mathrm{Re}\chi _{0p}^{}}{(V_2^1+(m^{})^2\mathrm{Re}\chi _{0p}^{})^2}}\mathrm{Im}\chi _{0p}^{}`$ (66)
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}}\right)^2{\displaystyle \frac{1+2[V_2(m^{}k_F^2/2\pi )(2m^{}\epsilon _F/k_F^2)^{3/2}C_1]^1}{\left\{1+[V_2(m^{}k_F^2/2\pi )(2m^{}\epsilon _F/k_F^2)^{3/2}C_1]^1\right\}^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{3\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}}\right)^{3/2}.`$ (67)
Combining $`\chi _a,\chi _b`$ and $`\chi _c`$, we can see that $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _b`$ is the leading order contribution in $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$. Therefore, in the low frequency limit, we have

$$\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^4\frac{C_1^2}{D_1^2}\left(\frac{2m^{}\epsilon _F}{k_F^2}\right)^2\frac{m^{}}{\pi }\left(\frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}\right)^{1/2}\left[1+𝒪\left(\frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}\right)\right].$$
(68)
In the next section, we will compare this result with that of the Chern-Simons theory.

## IV $`Q=2k_F`$ density-density response function in the Chern-Simons theory

The irreducible density-density response function in the Chern-Simons theory at arbitrary $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$ was previously calculated and has the following form .

$$\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}(𝐪,\omega )=\frac{\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )}{1\left(\frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{q}\right)^2\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )\chi _0^{}(𝐪,\omega )},$$
(69)
where $`\chi _0(𝐪,\omega )`$ and $`\chi _0^{}(𝐪,\omega )`$ are given by Eq.30 and Eq.31 with the quadratic dispersion $`\xi _𝐤=k^2/2m^{}\mu `$.

In the case of the quadratic band, in the low frequency limit, it can be shown that the leading order results are given by

$`\chi _0(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{2\pi }}\left[1+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}}\right)^{1/2}\right]`$ (70)
$`\chi _0^{}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m^{}}{6\pi }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{k_F}{m^{}}}\right)^2\left[1+i{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}}\right)^{3/2}\right]`$ (71)
Using the results above, the imaginary part of $`\chi _{cs}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ in the low frequency limit can be estimated as

$`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _0}{\left[1\left(\frac{2\pi \stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{2k_F}\right)^2\mathrm{Re}\chi _0\mathrm{Re}\chi _0^{}\right]^2}}`$ (72)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{m^{}}{4\pi }}{\left[1+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{2}\right)^2\right]^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{m^{}\omega }{k_F^2}}\right)^{1/2}.`$ (73)
Notice that the density-density response function in the Chern-Simon theory, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$, has the same $`\sqrt{\omega }`$ dependence as that of the density-density response function, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}(𝐐_0,\omega )`$, in the lowest-Landau-level theory. However, the coefficients are different. In fact, the ratio between them becomes

$$\frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}}{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}}4\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^4\left[1+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{2}\right)^2\right]^2\frac{C_1^2}{D_1^2}\left(\frac{2m^{}\epsilon _F}{k_F^2}\right)^2.$$
(74)
This ratio is, in general, nonuniversal number which depends on the details of the interaction potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)`$. In order to get some feelings about how small or large the ratio can be, let us take the HF dispersion relation, $`\xi _𝐤`$, being quadratic in $`𝐤`$ with the effective mass $`m^{}`$. In this case, and $`C_1^2/D_1^2=1/36`$ and $`2m^{}\epsilon _F/k_F^2=1`$. As a result, we get

$$\frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}}{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}}\frac{1}{9}\left(\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}\right)^4\left[1+\frac{1}{3}\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }}{2}\right)^2\right]^2.$$
(75)
Typical ratios are given by

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}}{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{16}{81}}0.198\mathrm{for}\nu =1/2,`$ (76)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}}{\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{49}{1296}}0.038\mathrm{for}\nu =1/4,`$ (77)
and the ratio approaches to $`1/81=0.012`$ as $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }`$ becomes an infinitely large even number. Of course, these numbers cannot be taken seriously on the face value because the HF dispersion is quadratic only for small $`|𝐤|k_F`$ and the dispersion relation for larger $`|𝐤|`$ affects also these numbers. However, it may be suggestive for certain purposes. In the next section, we will use these estimations to discuss the results of the recent phonon drag experiment.

## V discussion on the phonon drag experiment

Recently, the drag resistivity between two $`\nu =1/2`$ layers was measured when the layer separation is much larger than the magnetic length (or typical interparticle spacing) in each layer. In this case, the contribution to the drag resistivity from the interlayer Coulomb interaction is substantially suppressed and the electron-phonon interaction becomes the dominant source of the scattering. Theoretically, the drag resistivity can be evaluated from

$`\rho _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8\pi ^2e^2n_1n_2T}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑qq^3`$ (78)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle ^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\omega \left|{\displaystyle \frac{U_{21}(𝐪,\omega )}{\epsilon (𝐪,\omega )}}\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{Im}\chi _1(𝐪,\omega )\mathrm{Im}\chi _2(𝐪,\omega )}{\mathrm{sinh}^2(\mathrm{}\omega /2T)}},`$ (79)
where $`\chi _{1,2}`$ are the density-density response functions and $`n_{1,2}`$ the electron densities in layer 1 and 2. $`U_{21}`$ is the interaction between the electrons in different layers and $`\epsilon `$ is the interlayer dielectric or screening function. The details can be found in Ref. and Ref.. If the interaction is dominated by the phonon-mediated interaction, $`U_{21}`$ is given by the interlayer electron-phonon interaction. When two layers are identical, the matrix element for the drag resistivity invloves $`[\mathrm{Im}\chi (𝐪,\omega )]^2`$.

Let us first discuss the situation of the zero applied magnetic field. The phonon-mediated drag occurs by transfering momentum $`𝐪`$ of the phonon to excite the particle-hole continuum of electrons. At zero temperature, the particle-hole continuum ceases to exist if the momentum transfer $`q`$ is larger than $`2k_F`$ at low frequencies. Formally, this means that $`\mathrm{Im}\chi `$ becomes very small if $`q>2k_F`$ in the low frequency limit. Thus when the phonon energy $`\omega _{\mathrm{ph}}=cq`$ becomes larger than $`c(2k_F)`$, the scattering is suppressed. At finite temperature $`T`$, the typical phonon energy is set by the temperature scale so that, if $`T>T_0=c(2k_F)`$, the drag resistivity is substantially suppressed. This is why there is a maximum of $`\rho _{21}`$ around $`TT_0`$ in the measured phonon-mediated drag resistivity.

In the case of the $`\nu =1/2`$ double-layer system, the underlying ground state is the composite fermion Fermi sea. Naively, one may expect that the drag resistivity will have a maximum around $`TT_{1/2}>T_0`$ where $`T_{1/2}=c(2k_F^{\mathrm{cf}})`$ and $`k_F^{\mathrm{cf}}=\sqrt{2}k_F^e`$. Here $`k_F^{\mathrm{cf}}`$ is the Fermi wave vector of composite fermion system. In the experiment, the maximum of the drag resistivity occurs at a temperture that is even smaller than $`T_0`$ .

In order to invetigate the theoretical consequence in detail, Bonsager, MacDonald, and the author calculated the phonon-mediated drag resistivity in the Chern-Simons theory . In fact, since the electron density-density response function is not simply proportional to the density-density response function of composite fermions in the Chern-Simons theory, it is not obvious whether the naive expectation is valid even in the Chern-Simons theory. They found that

1. If the effective mass of composite fermions is sufficiently small such that the effective Fermi energy is substantially larger than $`T_{1/2}`$, the naive expectation is more or less correct. That is, the maximum occurs around $`T_{1/2}`$.

2. When realistic values of the effective mass are used, however, the effective Fermi energy is not very small compared to typical temperature scale we are looking at (such as $`T_{1/2}`$). As a result, there are significant finite temperature effects leading to the shift (not necessarily monotonic as a function of the effective mass) of the maximum position.

3. In any case, the maximum of the drag resistivity occurs always at a temperature larger than $`T_0`$. Thus the theory cannot explain the large downward shift of the maximum position.

Now the question is what happens in the lowest-Landau-level theory. In order to evaluate the drag resistivity in the lowest-Landau-level theory, one needs to know, in principle, the imaginary part of the density-density response function for arbitrary frequency and wavevector. This may be necessary especially because the effective Fermi energy is not much larger than the temperature scales we are interested in. Evaluation of the density-density response function at arbitrary $`𝐪`$ and $`\omega `$ in the lowest-Landau-theory is not an easy task because one has to solve the scattering vertex function $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ for arbitrary wavevector and frequency. Also the finite wavevector response function would contain nonuniversal contribution which may depend on the details of the given interaction potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}(𝐪)`$.

In this paper, we evaluated the imaginary part of the density-density response function of electrons for $`q=2k_F`$ in the low frequency limit. Thus the full evaluation of the drag resistivity is beyond the scope of the present paper. However, based on what we got in the last section, we may be able to speculate what might happen to the drag resistivity within the lowest-Landau-level theory. We found in the last section that the imaginary parts of the density-density response functions in the Chern-Simons and lowest-Landau-level theory ($`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}`$) have the same $`\sqrt{\omega }`$ dependence in frequency at $`q=2k_F`$ in the low frequency limit. It may appear that this is a disappointing result because the lowest-Landau-theory does not provide qualitatively different results.

However, we also learned that the ratio between $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}`$ and $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}`$ can be quite different from unity. For the sake of the order of magnitude estimation, if we use a quadratic approximation for $`\xi _𝐤`$ in the lowest-Landau-level, $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}/\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}0.2`$ for $`\nu =1/2`$ as shown in Eq.77. In the expression of the drag resistivity in Eq.79, the imaginary part of the density-density response enters as $`[\mathrm{Im}\chi ]^2`$. If the behavior of $`\mathrm{Im}\chi _{LL}^{irr}/\mathrm{Im}\chi _{\mathrm{cs}}`$ for larger frequencies is similar to that of the low frequency limit, the contribution from the scattering events with $`q`$ near $`2k_F`$ to the drag resistivity in the lowest-Landau-level theory would be $`1/25`$ times smaller than that of the Chern-Simons theory. This implies that the large wavevector scattering may be quantitatively more suppressed in the lowest-Landau-level theory compared to the case of the Chern-Simons theory.

In fact, according to the experimental data, the smallest drag resistivity in the measured temperature range is only $`20`$ times smaller than the maximum value. Thus, if the drag resistivity near $`T_{1/2}=c(2k_F)`$ is $`1/25`$ times smaller than the expected value, it may appear that the maximum occurs at a much smaller temperature scale, $`T_{1/2}^{\mathrm{max}}<T_{1/2}`$.

The discussion above is based on the density-density response function at $`q=2k_F`$ in the low frequency limit. Thus, at this stage, the discussion above is only suggestive and not the satisfactory explanation. It appears that numerical calculation of the response function is necessary to understand fully the phonon drag experiment.

## VI summary

In this paper, we consider finite $`q`$ density-density response function of the compressible Fermi-liquid-like states in the lowest Landau level. In particular, we evaluated the $`q=2k_F`$ density-density response function in the low energy limit within the lowest-Landau-level formalism. We compare this result with the prediction of the Chern-Simons theory. We found that the density-density response functions in both cases are proportional to $`\sqrt{\omega }`$ in the low frequency limit. However, the coefficients can be quite different and the ratio between them is a nonuniversal number. We found that the response function at $`q=2k_F`$ in the lowest-Landau-level theory can be substantially smaller than that of the Chern-Simons theory.

Using these results, we speculate that the lowest-Landau-level theory may explain the suppression of the $`q=2k_F`$ scattering seemingly observed in the experiment on the phonon-mediated drag resistivity in the double layer $`\nu =1/2`$ system. However, the satisfactory understanding of the phonon drag experiment may require numerical evaluation of the density-density response function.

Finally, we would like to mention various other possibilities which were not considered in this paper. The lowest-Landau-level theory in the present form through the time-dependent HF approximation may turn out to be inadequate for describing the large $`q`$ or short distance behaviors of density-density response of the composite fermions. This is because the picture of the correlations between the electrons and vortices itself may break down at short distances due to the fact that we are looking at the length scale comparable to the distance between the electrons and vortices . The theory, if it exists, which describes this situation and the crossover or transition from the present lowest-Landau-level theory to this regime may provide better understanding of the finite $`q`$ response of the system. In any case, our work should serve as a useful starting point for understanding more microscopic picture of the compressible states in the lowest Landau level.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Tom Gramila, Ilya Gruzberg, Hae-Young Kee, Dung-Hai Lee, Allan MacDonald, Ganpathy Murthy, R. Shankar, and especially Nick Read for many helpful discussions. We also thank Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality, where some parts of this work were performed. This work was supported by the NSF grant No. DMR-9983783 and the Alfred P. Sloan foundation.


text:
# References

TMF 123 (2000) 182-188

nlin.SI/0008017

Supersymmetric integrable systems
from geodesic flows on superconformal groups 111Presented by C.D. at the International Seminar on Integrable Systems, Bonn, 22nd February, 1999.
Chandrashekar Devchand$`^a`$ and Jeremy Schiff$`^b`$
a Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik
Vivatsgasse 7, 53111 Bonn, Germany
devchand@mpim-bonn.mpg.de
b Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
Bar–Ilan University, Ramat Gan 52900, Israel
schiff@math.biu.ac.il

> Abstract
>
> We discuss the possible relationship between geodesic flow, integrability and supersymmetry, using fermionic extensions of the KdV equation, as well as the recently introduced supersymmetrisation of the Camassa-Holm equation, as illustrative examples.

1.  Misha Saveliev was a pioneer of geometric constructions of supersymmetric integrable systems (e.g. ). In particular, the interrelationship between integrability, geometry, diffeomorphism invariance and supersymmetry was a special interest of his. We therefore feel that he would have appreciated our recent considerations on a) the meaning of integrability for systems containing both bosonic and fermionic fields and b) the relation between geodesic flow and integrability. Although geodesic flows are not integrable in general, many important integrable systems are in fact geodesic flow equations. This raises the question of whether one may geometrically determine integrable flows amongst geodesic ones. This has in fact been a pressing open question for ODEs as well as PDEs ever since Arnold noticed that the Euler flow equations for incompressible fluids, just like the Euler top equations, allow interpretation as geodesic flows on (finite or infinite dimensional) Lie groups. Briefly, an inner-product $`.,.`$ on a Lie algebra g determines a right (or a left) invariant metric on the corresponding Lie group $`G`$. The equation of geodesic motion on $`G`$ with respect to this metric is determined by the bilinear operator $`B:\text{g}\times \text{g}\text{g}`$ defined by

$$[V,W],U=W,B(U,V),W\text{g}.$$
(1)
The geodesic flow equation is then simply the Euler equation

$$U_t=B(U,U).$$
(2)
2.  An important class of examples where geodesic flow is indeed integrable concerns the group of diffeomorphisms of the circle, Diff($`S^1`$). Geodesic motion with respect to a metric induced by an $`L^2`$ norm, $`u^2𝑑x`$, describes Euler flow for a one dimensional compressible fluid, $`u_t=3uu_x`$, which has implicit general solution, $`ut=\frac{1}{3}x+F(u)`$, $`F`$ an arbitrary function, which describes extremely unstable shock waves. If the group is centrally extended to the Bott-Virasoro group, the celebrated KdV equation arises, which has extremely stable solutions. Now, if the metric is changed to one induced by the $`H^1`$ norm, $`(u^2+\nu u_x^2)𝑑x,\nu \mathrm{}`$, one obtains the Camassa-Holm (CH) equation,

$$u_t\nu u_{xxt}=3uu_x+\nu (uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx}).$$
(3)
This has drawn considerable interest recently as an integrable system (having bihamiltonian structure), but displaying more general wave phenomena than KdV, such as finite time blow-up of solutions and a class of piecewise analytic weak solutions known as peakons. (For more complete references we refer to ). Nothing is known about what precisely makes these geodesic flows integrable; the Euler equation for fluid flow in more than one spatial dimension is, in general, not integrable. The investigation of families of geodesic flows which include integrable cases may possibly yield clues about the special geometric features required. A convenient way to produce such families, for example containing the KdV and CH equations, is to consider geodesic flows on the superconformal group containing the Bott-Virasoro group as the even part. This is moreover a method of generating couplings to fermionic fields: a remarkably rich generalisation, as we shall see, of the purely bosonic KdV or CH systems. The important question of whether the coupled systems remain integrable has hitherto not been adequately explored.

3.  The NSR superconformal algebra consists of triples $`(u(x),\phi (x),a)`$, where $`u`$ is a bosonic field, $`\phi `$ is a fermionic (odd) field and $`a`$ is a constant. The Lie bracket is given by

$$\begin{array}{c}[(u,\phi ,a),(v,\psi ,b)]\hfill \\ =(uv_xu_xv+\frac{1}{2}\phi \psi ,u\psi _x\frac{1}{2}u_x\psi \phi _xv+\frac{1}{2}\phi v_x,_{S^1}𝑑x\left(c_1u_xv_{xx}+c_2uv_x+c_1\phi _x\psi _x+\frac{c_2}{4}\phi \psi \right)),\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
where $`c_1,c_2`$ are constants. Geodesic flow on the corresponding group with respect to an $`L^2`$ type metric induced by the norm (parametrised by $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$),

$$(u,\phi ,a),(v,\psi ,b)_{L^2}=_{S^1}𝑑x\left(uv+\alpha \phi _x^1\psi \right)+ab$$
(5)
yields a 1 parameter fermionic extension of KdV,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill u_t& =\hfill & u_{xxx}3uu_x+2\xi \xi _{xx},\hfill & \\ \hfill \xi _t& =\hfill & \frac{1}{\alpha }\xi _{xxx}\frac{3}{2}u_x\xi (1+\frac{1}{2\alpha })u\xi _x,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(6)
where the fermionic field is defined by $`\phi =\lambda \xi _x;\lambda ^2=\frac{4}{3\alpha }`$. In general this family of systems is neither integrable nor supersymmetric (in the sense of being invariant under supersymmetry transformations between $`u`$ and $`\xi `$, namely $`\delta u=\tau \xi _x,\delta \xi =\tau u`$, where $`\tau `$ is an odd parameter). Apart from the $`\xi =0`$ KdV case, it is well known that this family contains two further integrable cases:

1) $`\alpha =\frac{1}{4}`$: the kuperKdV system of Kupershmidt, which is bihamiltonian, but not supersymmetric,

2) $`\alpha =1`$: the superKdV system of Mathieu and Manin-Radul, which is supersymmetric, but does not afford an extension of the KdV bihamiltonian structure.

It is interesting that both these are particular cases among the 1-parameter family of geodesic flows . Previously only the bihamiltonian kuperKdV system was thought to occur as a geodesic flow .

Extending (5) to the $`H^1`$ inner product,

$$(u,\phi ,a),(v,\psi ,b)_{H^1}=_{S^1}𝑑x\left(uv+\nu u_xv_x+\alpha \phi _x^1\psi +\alpha \mu \phi _x\psi \right)+ab,$$
(7)
where $`\mu ,\nu `$ are further constants, gives rise to the Euler equations

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill u_t\nu u_{xxt}& =\hfill & \kappa _1u_x+\kappa _2u_{xxx}3uu_x+\nu (uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx})+2\xi \xi _{xx}+\frac{2\mu }{3}\xi _x\xi _{xxx},\hfill & \\ \hfill \xi _t\mu \xi _{xxt}& =\hfill & \frac{\kappa _1}{4\alpha }\xi _x+\frac{\kappa _2}{\alpha }\xi _{xxx}\frac{3}{2}u_x\xi (1+\frac{1}{2\alpha })u\xi _x+\mu u\xi _{xxx}+\frac{3\mu }{2}u_x\xi _{xx}+\frac{\nu }{2\alpha }u_{xx}\xi _x.\hfill & \end{array}$$
(8)
Here $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2`$ are independent parameters determined by $`a,c_1,c_2`$. This is evidently a 5-parameter family of systems containing CH (3) as well as the 1-parameter KdV family (6). It is automatically hamiltonian. Introducing new variables, $`m=u\nu u_{xx}`$ and $`\eta =\xi \mu \xi _{xx}`$, it may be re-written

$$\left(\begin{array}{c}m_t\\ \eta _t\end{array}\right)=𝒫\left(\begin{array}{c}\frac{\delta }{\delta m}\\ \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta }\end{array}\right)$$
(9)
where the graded hamiltonian structure

$$𝒫=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\kappa _2_x^3+\kappa _1_x_xmm_x& \frac{1}{2}_x\eta +\eta _x\\ _x\eta \frac{1}{2}\eta _x& \frac{3}{4\alpha }(\frac{\kappa _1}{4}+\kappa _2_x^2)\frac{3}{8\alpha }m\end{array}\right)$$
(10)
and the hamiltonian functional is given succinctly in terms of $`U=(u,\phi ,0)`$ by

$$_2=\frac{1}{2}U,U_{H^1}=\frac{1}{2}𝑑x\left(u^2+\nu u_x^2+\frac{4}{3}(\xi _x\xi +\mu \xi _{xx}\xi _x)\right).$$
(11)
This generalises the so-called second Hamiltonian structure of KdV and its fermionic extensions, as well as that of CH. The first Hamiltonian structure of the latter systems does extend to systems of the general form (8), but the single intersection with this 5-parameter family is the kuperKdV case. There are therefore no bihamiltonian extensions of CH amongst the systems (8). The latter however do contain the superCH system,

$`u_tu_{xxt}`$ $`=`$ $`3uu_x+2\xi \xi _{xx}+uu_{xxx}+2u_xu_{xx}+\frac{2}{3}\xi _x\xi _{xxx},`$
$`\xi _t\xi _{xxt}`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{3}{2}(u\xi )_x+u\xi _{xxx}+\frac{3}{2}u_x\xi _{xx}+\frac{1}{2}u_{xx}\xi _x,`$ (12)
the unique supersymmetric extension of (3). This is invariant under the transformations $`\delta u=\tau \xi _x,\delta \xi =\frac{3}{4}\tau u`$. We have found sufficiently nontrivial evidence  to allow us to conjecture the integrability of this system.

4.  The meaning of integrability for such systems with fermions remains somewhat confusing. Usual arguments for integrability have consisted of showing, for instance, the existence of either bihamiltonian structures or an infinite number of conserved quantities. Neither of these are very reliable criteria. In particular, the superKdV example demonstrates that bihamiltonicity is probably sufficient, but by no means necessary for integrability of systems with fermions. Discussions of a generalised Painlevé test for fermionic systems also exist, but the analysis with bosonic and fermionic fields taking values in respectively the even and odd parts of some grassmann algebra has proven difficult to perform carefully enough and there are serious errors in the literature. Usually the underlying grassmann algebra is thought of as an infinite dimensional algebra, generated by infinitely many odd generators. However, integrability should clearly be independent of the choice of this underlying grassmann algebra; and choosing some low dimensional algebra, generated by a small number of odd generators, can yield a great deal of useful information about the general case. In particular, consideration of a series of the simplest grassmann algebras generated by one, two, three,… odd generators has the power of yielding conclusive evidence for the non-integrability of the system in general. With only a finite number of odd generators, the fields afford expansion in a basis of polynomials of the odd generators. We shall talk of the n-th deconstruction when referring to coefficients of up to nth-order monomials in the odd generators. For instance, a bosonic and a fermionic field in the second deconstruction takes values in a grassmann algebra with basis $`\{1,\tau _1,\tau _2,\tau _1\tau _2\}`$, where $`\tau _1,\tau _2`$ are two odd generators. They take the form

$$u=u_0+\tau _1\tau _2u_1,\xi =\tau _1w_1+\tau _2w_2.$$
(13)
Such deconstructed fields have purely bosonic components, $`u_0,u_1,w_1,w_2`$, in terms of which the analysis is considerably more transparent. Manton  recently investigated some simple supersymmetric classical mechanical systems in this ‘deconstructive’ fashion.

We have investigated the somewhat more general family of fermionic extensions of KdV,

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill u_t& =\hfill & u_{xxx}+6uu_x\xi \xi _{xx}\hfill & \\ \hfill \xi _t& =\hfill & c\xi _{xxx}+a\xi u_x+bu\xi _x,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(14)
here displayed in rescaled conventions with respect to (6). Now, choosing the simplest grassmann algebra, with single odd generator $`\tau `$ and basis $`\{1,\tau \}`$, yields the coupling of the KdV field $`u`$ to another bosonic field $`w`$,

$`u_t`$ $`=`$ $`u_{xxx}+6uu_x`$ (15)
$`w_t`$ $`=`$ $`cw_{xxx}+awu_x+buw_x,`$ (16)
where $`\xi =\tau w`$. This system, being purely bosonic, allows singularity analysis in a manner similar to that of Weiss, Tabor and Carnevale. The WTC-Painlevé analysis for merely this simple system sets strong restrictions on the values of $`a,b,c`$ in the general system (14) for which integrability remains a possibility.

The WTC algorithm for (15)-(16) is to seek Laurent series solutions in the neighbourhood of an arbitrary singularity manifold, $`\varphi (x,t)=0`$, of the form

$$u(x,t)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}b_n(x,t)\varphi (x,t)^{n2},w(x,t)=\underset{n=n_1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}a_n(x,t)\varphi (x,t)^n.$$
(17)
Here the series for $`u`$ is the standard WTC series for (15), with $`b_4,b_6`$ arbitrary, and the remaining coefficients $`b_n`$ determined recursively. The series for $`w`$ is a Frobenius-Fuchs type series, with three arbitrary coefficient functions $`a_{n_1},a_{n_2},a_{n_3}`$ ($`n_3>n_2>n_1`$) and the remainder of the $`a_n`$’s determined recursively. It is straightforward to show that $`n_1+n_2+n_3=3`$, and as $`Nn_3n_1`$ increases, the number of consistency conditions for existence of the $`w`$ series increases rapidly. We have examined all possible cases for $`N<10`$. For $`N=8,9`$ there are no consistent cases, and the list of cases for smaller $`N`$ is also very limited; these are tabulated below. It is clear that crucial questions about the general system (14) may already be decided in the very simple 1st deconstruction. Non-integrability, in particular, seems to make itself known early on.

|  | N | $`n_i`$ | (a,b,c) |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`i`$ | 2 | 0,1,2 | (0,0,c) | uncoupled system |
| $`ii`$ | 4 | -1,1,3 | (3,6,4) | kuperKdV |
| $`iii`$ | 5 | -2,2,3 | (3,3,1) | superKdV |
| $`iv`$ |  |  | (-6,-6,-2) |  |
| $`v`$ |  | -1,0,4 | (0,3,1) | potential form of superKdV |
| $`vi`$ |  |  | (0,-6,-2) | potential form of $`iv`$ |
| $`vii`$ | 7 | -3,2,4 | (6,6, 1) | linearisation: $`w=\delta u`$ |
| $`viii`$ |  | -2,0,5 | (0,6,1) | potential form of $`vii`$ |

Table: P-integrable cases within the family (16)

As we see from this list, most of the cases passing the P-test could have been expected, being 1st deconstructions of kuperKdV ($`ii`$) and superKdV ($`iii`$), the so-called potential form of the latter having solutions given by $`w_{(v)}=w_{(iii)}`$, and two trivial cases: the uncoupled system ($`i`$) and the linearisation of KdV with $`w`$ denoting the variation $`\delta u`$. There is therefore basically only one unexpected case ($`iv`$), together with its potential form ($`vi`$).

Proceeding to the 2nd deconstruction, with two odd generators and fields having the structure (13), we note that apart from a multiplicity of $`w`$’s the only significant change is the enhancement of the system (15),(16) by an additional equation for $`u_1`$, the ‘soul’ of $`u`$,

$$u_{1t}=u_{1xxx}+6(u_0u_1)_xw_{[1}w_{2]xx},$$
(18)
where $`u_0`$ satisfies (15) and $`w_1,w_2`$ are solutions of (16). The P-analysis of this provides a major surprise: $`u_1`$ has a leading term of order $`\varphi ^3`$! So coupling fermions to KdV essentially changes the singularities of its solutions. In the literature it has always been erroneously assumed that the Laurent series solution leads with a double pole, as for the simple, uncoupled, KdV equation. This also demonstrates deconstruction to be a very constructive analytical tool for the investigation of systems containing fermions. The only cases in the above table which do not pass the P-test for the 2nd deconstruction are the unexpected cases $`iv`$ and $`vi`$. In general, therefore, these cases do not correspond to new integrable fermionic extensions of KdV. The 1st deconstructions are, however, certainly P-integrable. This illustrates a further important advantage of this deconstructive method: It provides a simple routine for the construction of integrable couplings of systems known to be integrable.

5.  With manifold choices available for the underlying grassmann algebra, both superCH (12) and the integrable cases amongst (14) provide a very rich class of solvable systems. In fact they include some important classical ODEs as reductions. For instance, in the galilean reference frame, with all fields depending on only one variable $`z=xvt`$, CH (just as KdV) corresponds to the familiar equation,

$$p^2=12c_1p+c_2p^2\frac{2}{v}p^3,$$
(19)
where $`c_1,c_2`$ are integration constants. This equation has a well-known general solution in terms of the Weierstraß $`\mathrm{}`$-function,

$$p(z)=2v\mathrm{}(z)+\frac{1}{6}c_2v,$$
(20)
where the periods of $`\mathrm{}`$ are determined by the coefficients $`c_1,c_2,v`$. In this galilean reference frame, the first and second deconstructions of super/kuper KdV, for which (19) is the ‘body’, are special cases of the Lamé equation which have been of interest for over a century. For instance, for the superKdV case, the first deconstruction yields the equation

$$w(z)^{\prime \prime }\left(6\mathrm{}(zz_0)\frac{v}{2}\right)w(z)=d,d=const.$$
(21)
In the case of our new superCH system, we have shown in  that the 1st deconstruction and the galilean reduction of the 2nd deconstruction fulfil the requirements of the P-test. These are therefore nontrivial integrable reductions of the superCH system (12). In the process we have encountered further integrable generalisations of Lamé’s equation which seem to be new: In the 1st deconstruction the fermionic equation has galilean reduction,

$$h^{}{}_{}{}^{}+\frac{3}{8}(\frac{p}{v}\frac{c_2}{6}+\frac{c_1}{p}\frac{7}{2p^2})h=0,$$
(22)
and the soul of the bosonic equation in the 2nd deconstruction yields

$$k^{}{}_{}{}^{}+(\frac{3p}{v}\frac{c_2}{4}\frac{3}{4p^2})k=0,$$
(23)
where, in both equations, $`p`$ is given by the linear expression in $`\mathrm{}`$ (20). To conclude we note that integrability for PDEs is certainly not an all-or-nothing affair. Even if superCH turns out to be non-integrable in general, we have shown that it does display nontrivial integrability properties and it would be interesting to understand the geometry underlying our analytical results.