format: text

text:
# Detection of a broad iron emission line and sub-millisecond quasiperiodic oscillations from the type I X-ray burster 4U 1728-34 in a high state

## 1 Introduction

The behavior of accretion flows around compact objects in x-ray binaries is of great interest for probing strong gravitational fields and for understanding the nature of compact objects. Two tools used in this pursuit are x-ray spectroscopy and x-ray timing. Both have proved useful, but ambiguities remain in the interpretation of either spectroscopic or timing observations. Combination of simultaneous timing and spectroscopic data may place stronger constraints on the properties of the accretion flow and on the compact object.

Here, we combine the timing capabilities of the Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer (RXTE; Bradt, Rothschild, & Swank (1993)) with the wide spectral range and good spectral resolution of BeppoSAX (Boella et al. (1997)) in an observation of the neutron-star low-mass x-ray binary (NS-LMXB) and type I x-ray burster 4U 1728-34 made simultaneously with the two observatories. Discovered by Uhuru (Forman et al. (1978)), 4U 1728-34 is a well known persistent atoll source that shows frequent type I X-ray bursts (Basinska et al. (1984)). The source shows line emission (White et al. (1986)), kilohertz quasiperiodic oscillations (QPOs) in the persistent emission, and oscillations near 363 Hz in x-ray bursts (Strohmayer et al. (1996)).

Our observations, as described in §2, found the source in an unusually luminous state. The timing analysis, including detection of quasiperiodic oscillations, is described in §3, and the spectral analysis, including detection of Fe line emission, in §4. We interpret these results in §5 and conclude, in §6, with a suggestion of a means via which future observations could be used to test the interpretation.

## 2 Observations and Source State

4U 1728-34 was jointly observed by BeppoSAX from 1999 August 19, 01:57:29 UT to August 20 04:54:32 UT for a total on–source observing time of 51.3 ks and by RXTE from 1999 August 19 03:49:57 UT to August 20 11:26:15 UT for a total good observing time of 48 ks. Several x-ray bursts were detected during these observations. As we are interested here in the persistent emission, intervals of the observations surrounding the bursts were removed.

The RXTE data were used to determine the source state, i.e. location in the color-color diagram, and to study the timing behavior. We extracted x-ray colors in 256 s intervals from our observation and also, for comparison, from a large data set extracted from the RXTE archive, see Fig. 1. We selected energy bands of 2.6–4–6.4–9.7–16 keV to define the colors. The lower limit of our energy range is somewhat higher than typically used previously (Mendez & van der Klis (1999)) because recent gain changes in the Proportional Counter Array (PCA; Zhang et al. (1993)) do not allow reliable extraction of flux below 2.6 keV.

Source position within the color-color diagram changes continuously along a one-dimensional curve embedded in the two-dimensional diagram and position along the curve is generally thought to be an indicator of mass accretion rate within the system (Hasinger & van der Klis (1989); Schulz, Hasinger & Trumper (1989)). For the colors chosen in Fig. 1, mass accretion rate increases as the curve is traversed counterclockwise. From the position of the source in the color-color diagram, we infer that the source was in a state of high mass accretion rate during the observations analyzed here.

## 3 Timing behavior

We searched for QPOs in the range 400–2000 Hz in intervals of continuous observation, summing 2 s power spectra calculated from $`122\mu `$s time resolution PCA event data within each interval. We first conducted a search over 256 s intervals using all events, but did not find any significant QPO peaks. Previous QPO searches using relatively short intervals in observations of 4U 1728-34 have shown that the QPO amplitudes drop below the threshold of detection at high inferred mass accretion rates (Mendez & van der Klis (1999)), such as found during our observation. Thus, this null result was not unexpected.

From analysis of archival observations at the highest inferred mass accretion rates where kHz QPOs were detected, we found that selection of events with energies above 4 keV optimized the signal to noise ratio for detection of kHz QPOs. We used this energy selection criterion to perform a new kHz QPO search in the current data. To maximize the statistics available in each power spectrum, we used full continuous observation intervals with typical durations near 3 ks. The only detection of a significant kHz QPO peak in our search range (400–2000 Hz) in our data is of a QPO peak at $`1284\pm 6`$ Hz in an interval with a duration of 2460 s, see Fig. 2. The QPO peak has a width of $`32\pm 12\mathrm{Hz}`$ and an rms amplitude of $`3.9\%\pm 0.5\%`$ (above 4 keV). Allowing for 75 trials, we estimate the probability of chance occurrence to be $`1.5\times 10^5`$, corresponding to a $`4.3\sigma `$ detection.

The QPO frequency is the highest ever reported for 4U 1728-34. In 4U 1728-34, the frequency of kHz QPOs is well correlated with position in the color-color diagram with higher frequencies corresponding to higher inferred mass accretion rates (Mendez & van der Klis (1999)). The x-ray colors during the interval when the QPO is detected (1.866, 0.358) are indicated by the cross in Fig. 1 and correspond to a higher inferred mass accretion rate than any previous kHz QPO detection in this source.

## 4 Spectral behavior

Broad band energy spectra of the source were obtained combining data from the four BeppoSAX Narrow Field Instruments (NFIs): the Low Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (LECS; Parmar et al. (1997)) for 0.3–4 keV, the Medium Energy Concentrator Spectrometer (MECS; Boella et al. (1997)) for 1.8–10 keV, the High Pressure Gas Scintillation Proportional Counter (HPGSPC; Manzo et al. (1997)) for 8–40 keV, and the Phoswich Detection System (PDS; Frontera et al. (1997)) for 15–50 keV. LECS and MECS data were extracted in circular regions centered on the source position using radii of 8’ and 4’ respectively, containing 95% of the source flux. An image analysis of the BeppoSAX data revealed no other sources. There is a source in the WGACAT (White, Giommi, & Angelini (1994)) $`5\mathrm{}`$ away, but its flux is a factor of 100 lower and would not significantly contaminate the spectra. The spectra have been rebinned to have at least 30 counts per channel, and the HPGSPC and PDS spectra were grouped using a logarithmic grid. Standard normalization factors have been included to account for the mismatch in the BeppoSAX instruments absolute flux calibration. We found that spectra extracted for different intervals within the observations gave spectral parameters consistent within errors. Thus, we report spectral fits only for the sum over the entire BeppoSAX observation.

Different models were used to fit the broad band continuum. The one that gave the best fit contained the following components: 1) a black body at soft energies (White et al. (1988)) described by a temperature ($`kT_{\mathrm{bb}}`$) and flux ($`F_{\mathrm{bb}}`$), 2) a Comptonized component (COMPTT, Titarchuk (1994)) for the hard energy part described by the temperature of injected photons ($`kT_\gamma `$), the electron temperature ($`kT_e`$), and optical depth ($`\tau `$), 3) photoelectric absorption at low energy with a column density ($`N_\mathrm{H}`$). However, even this model alone was clearly rejected, $`\chi _\nu ^21.65`$, and strong residuals were present between 4 and 8 keV indicative of Fe line emission. In order to find the best fit continuum parameters, we fitted the continuum excluding the data between 4 and 8 keV. In Fig. 3, the spectrum together with residuals from this fit are shown. The line emission is clearly broader than the instrumental response ($`\sigma =0.20\mathrm{keV}`$ at 6 keV); using a single narrow line in place of the broad line increases the $`\chi ^2`$ by 30. The line was modeled adding a simple Gaussian profile with centroid ($`E_\mathrm{G}`$), width ($`\sigma `$), and equivalent width ($`EW`$). The best fit had $`\chi ^2/\mathrm{DoF}=653/516`$ and the best fit parameters are reported in Table 1. The 0.2-50 keV flux was $`6.4\times 10^9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$ and the unabsorbed flux was $`8.6\times 10^9\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{s}^1`$. We also searched for an absorption edge in the energy range 7-10 keV. No statistically significant edge was detected and we place an upper limit of 0.19 (95% confidence) on the optical depth of any absorption edge in the 7-10 keV band.

## 5 Discussion

The line could arise from the neutron star itself, the accretion disk, or a corona. The high Compton optical depth of the continuum emission likely excludes line production on the neutron star surface as the line would be down-scattered and significantly reduced in intensity. However, line production on the stellar surface cannot be completely excluded if the Comptonizing region is small compared to the stellar radius or comparable to the stellar radius and highly non-uniform.

Production of the line in an accretion disk corona (ADC) should lead to an Fe absorption edge in addition to the emission line. Broadening of a single narrow line via Compton scattering to the width observed would require an optical depth greater than 2.6, in strong contrast to our upper limit of 0.19. Unless the ADC is very highly ionized, suppressing the Fe edge, the low upper limit obtained on the optical depth would argue against significant broadening due to Comptonization. However, the observed broad feature could be a blend of lines originating from an ADC and broadening due to rotation is possible.

Origin of the line in the accretion disk was disregarded in many past studies of broad iron emission features from LMXBs (e.g. White et al. (1985)) due to the high ionization expected in the inner parts of the disk. However, the luminosity of 4U 1728-34 is $`L_X0.1L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ significantly lower than $`L_XL_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ seen from the brightest LMXBs. Using a thin disk model (Shakura & Sunyaev (1973)) in the radiation pressure dominated regime and taking a distance to 4U 1728-34 of 4.2 kpc (van Paradijs (1978)) leading to a luminosity $`L_X0.1L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, a viscosity parameter in the range $`\alpha =0.20.5`$, and assuming illumination from a point source located at the center of the neutron star, we find that the peak ionization, found near a radius of 21 km, is in the range $`\xi =5001200\mathrm{erg}\mathrm{cm}\mathrm{s}^1`$. This is only a rough estimate since the peak ionization depends on the assumed distance, viscosity, disk model, and source geometry. However, significant iron line flux is expected in this ionization range (Matt, Fabian, & Ross (1996)). Our measured line profile is not inconsistent with relativistically broadened line emission from highly ionized iron (Fe XXV to Fe XXVI). To avoid Compton down-scattering similar to that expected to render the line undetectable if emitted from the stellar surface, the Comptonization region must be quite compact. Recent results on energy lags in kHz QPOs in NS-LMXBS favor Comptonization regions with sizes no larger than 10 km (Kaaret et al. (1999)). Thus, the accretion disk appears to be a plausible site of origin for the observed line emission.

## 6 Summary and Outlook

We have obtained simultaneous measurements of the x-ray spectrum and the high frequency timing properties of the low-mass x-ray binary 4U 1728-34. We report detection of the highest frequency oscillations, at $`1284\pm 6`$ Hz, yet observed from this source. This is the second highest kHz QPO frequency reported and the highest with a statistical significance above $`4\sigma `$ (van Straaten et al. (2000)). Detection of this high frequency may be used to place constraints on the mass-radius relation of the neutron star in 4U 1728-34 (Miller, Lamb, & Psaltis (1998)).

We also report detection of a broad emission feature. We suggest that the emission feature may be a relativistically broaden line emitted from the ionized inner accretion disk (Smale et al. (1993)). However, the line could, instead, arise from an accretion disk corona, and new observations with much better spectral resolution are called for to constrain the ionization state of the emitting matter and help determine the origin of the line.

To conclude, we offer a few speculations on information that could obtained from future simultaneous timing and spectral observations if the Fe line does arise from the inner accretion disk. Most of the leading models of kHz QPOs in NS-LMXBs identify one kHz QPO frequency with the Keplerian orbital frequency at the inner edge of an accretion disk (Miller, Lamb, & Psaltis (1998); Psaltis & Norman (2000); Stella, Vietri, & Morsink (1999); Titarchuk & Osherovich (1999)). A key test of this interpretation would be to find evidence for changes in the disk properties measured via other, i.e. spectral, means correlated with changes in the QPOs. If an Fe line from the inner accretion disk is observable, then the Fe line profile, via relativistic broadening, should provide information on the inner radius of the disk. The QPO frequency is also determined by the inner radius of the disk and the radius and frequency should be related via Kepler’s third law, $`\nu ^2r^3`$. Detection of such a correlation would be a striking confirmation of the interpretation of the kHz QPO frequency as a Keplerian orbital frequency. Furthermore, if this interpretation is correct, simultaneous knowledge of an orbital radius and the associated orbital frequency would lead to a measurement of the compact object mass. Accurate mass determinations are available for binary radio pulsars, but not for accreting neutron stars (van Paradijs (1998)) which are of interest because they have undergone significant accretion and, thus, should probe the allowed mass range of neutron stars.

###### Acknowledgements.

We thank Evan Smith and Donatella Ricci for their efforts in coordinating the observations and the referee, Norbert Schulz, for comments which improved the paper. PK and SP acknowledge support from NASA grants NAG5-7405 and NAG5-8408. SP acknowledges support from a CNR short-term mobility grant.


text:
# 1 2-loop results with time slicing (TS), mode regularization (MR) and dimensional regularization (DR). Dots denote derivatives while hatched lined denote ghosts. For each scheme the sum of all graphs and the counterterms is -{1/12}𝑅.

hep-th/0008045

YITP-00-44

Dimensional regularization of nonlinear sigma models on a finite time interval
F. Bastianelli a111E-mail: bastianelli@bo.infn.it, O. Corradini b222E-mail: olindo@insti.physics.sunysb.edu and P. van Nieuwenhuizen b333E-mail: vannieu@insti.physics.sunysb.edu

a Dipartimento di Fisica, Università di Bologna
and
INFN, Sezione di Bologna
via Irnerio 46, I-40126 Bologna, Italy

b C. N. Yang Institute for Theoretical Physics
State University of New York at Stony Brook
Stony Brook, New York, 11794-3840, USA

Abstract

We extend dimensional regularization to the case of compact spaces. Contrary to previous regularization schemes employed for nonlinear sigma models on a finite time interval (“quantum mechanical path integrals in curved space”) dimensional regularization requires only a covariant finite two-loop counterterm. This counterterm is nonvanishing and given by $`\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{}^2R`$.

The regularization of nonlinear sigma models with higher dimensional target spaces but on a one dimensional worldline (quantum mechanical path integrals in curved space) has a long and confusing history. Early on, it was noticed by many authors that one obtains extra finite noncovariant counterterms of order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ in the actions for the path integral if one goes from the hamiltonian to the lagrangian approach. These results were obtained in various ways: by using the Schroedinger equation for the transition element , Weyl ordering of the hamiltonian , canonical point transformations in path integrals with time slicing  or by making a change of variables at the operatorial level from field variables to collective coordinates and nonzero modes . Also in standard four dimensional gauge field theories such order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ counterterms were found to be present if one chooses the Coulomb gauge  because gauge theories become nonlinear sigma models in this gauge.

Having fixed the counterterms in the action for the path integral has no meaning by itself. One must also specify the regularization scheme. Nonlinear sigma models contain double derivative couplings so they are superficially divergent at the one- and two-loop levels by power counting. In  it was noted that one should take into account the factor $`\sqrt{\mathrm{det}g_{ij}}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}\delta (0){\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \mathrm{tr}\left(\mathrm{ln}g_{ij}\right)}\right\}`$ in the measure; exponentiating this factor by means of “Lee-Yang ghosts” , one obtains instead $`{\displaystyle 𝑑\tau \left(b^ig_{ij}c^j+a^ig_{ij}a^j\right)}`$ and the divergences canceled in the sums of diagrams. Different counterterms correspond to different regularization schemes for these individually divergent Feynman graphs. In fact, one first chooses a regularization scheme and then determines the corresponding counterterms.

The last decade two schemes were studied in detail : (i) mode regularization (MR)  according to which the quantum fluctuations $`q(\tau )`$ around a background solution $`x_{cl}(\tau )`$ are expanded in a Fourier sine series cut-off at mode $`N`$ and all calculations are performed before letting $`N`$ tend to infinity, and (ii) time slicing (TS)  according to which only $`N`$ variables $`q(\tau _1),\mathrm{},q(\tau _N)`$ appear in the action at equally spaced points $`\tau _i`$. In the latter case exact propagators were developed for finite $`N`$ and the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ could already be implemented in the Feynman rules themselves.

Of course, different regularization schemes give results which differ by finite local counterterms. In mode regularization these counterterms were fixed by requiring that the transition element $`x|\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}}H)|y`$ can also be obtained from a path integral with an action which differs from the naive action and which is fixed by requiring that the transition element satisfies the Schroedinger equation with the hamiltonian $`H`$. In time slicing one also obtains a path integral representation for $`x|\mathrm{exp}(\frac{\tau }{\mathrm{}}H)|y`$ by inserting complete sets of position and momentum eigenstates, but here all steps are deductive and there is no need to impose the Schroedinger equation. Since Feynman graphs are regulated differently it comes as no surprise that also the counterterms are different. One finds

$$\begin{array}{c}V_{MR}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}R\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{24}g^{ij}g^{kl}g_{mn}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^m\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^n\hfill \\ V_{TS}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}R+\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}g^{ij}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik}^l\mathrm{\Gamma }_{jl}^k.\hfill \end{array}$$
(1)
With these counterterms, both schemes give the same answer corresponding to an hamiltonian $`H`$ proportional to the covariant laplacian. Thus we see that a covariant quantum hamiltonian in the transition amplitude requires in both cases these noncovariant counterterms in the path integral to obtain the same covariant answer for the transition element. Numerous two- and three-loop calculations have confirmed these schemes . Yet, it might simplify the calculations if a regularization scheme were found that only needs covariant counterterms. One might think of using geodesic time slicing, but the positions of the intermediate points $`q(\tau _1),\mathrm{},q(\tau _N)`$ would depend on the path considered and complexities overwhelm efforts in this direction.

The obvious choice for regularization scheme is, of course, dimensional regularization, but in the past we did not succeed is using this scheme due to the following problems:
(i) for all interesting applications one needs the action defined on a finite time interval. This requires a modification of the standard formulation of dimensional regularization such that it can be applied to a finite time interval. This is the main problem which we solve below. Once this problem is solved, the calculation of the transition element and anomalies follows relatively straightforwardly.
(ii) generalizing terms such as $`\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }\dot{\varphi }`$ in the Feynman graphs; one must decide how to write them in $`n`$ dimensions (as $`_\mu \varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi _\nu \varphi `$ or $`_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi _\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi `$ for example). This problem has a simple solution  which we use below: one starts with the action $`_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi `$ in $`n`$ dimensions and then all Lorentz indices $`\mu ,\nu `$ in all contractions are unambiguous.

Recently, as a test project, we considered nonlinear sigma models on a infinite time interval. We were inspired to return to our attempts to use dimensional regularization for nonlinear sigma models by recent papers by Kleinert and Chervyakov  who studied a nonlinear sigma model with a one-dimensional target space, and considered the same problem as Gervais and Jevicki , but using ordinary dimensional regularization. They studied a free particle in a box of length $`d`$ by replacing the confining box by a smooth convex potential $`V(x)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{m^2}{g}\mathrm{tan}^2(\sqrt{g}x)`$ which grows to infinity near the walls ($`x=\pm \frac{d}{2}`$). The field redefinition $`x\phi =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\mathrm{tan}(\sqrt{g}x)`$ was made to obtain a nonlinear sigma model with a mass term $`\frac{1}{2}m^2\phi ^2`$. Using dimensional regularization it was found that both models gave the same results “so that there is no need for an artificial potential term of order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ called for by previous authors” . Of course, this refers to possible noncovariant counterterms since a one-dimensional model cannot test counterterms proportional to $`R`$. However, the interpretation “…artificial potential term…” of the results of \[1-6,8-14\] may be misleading. In general counterterms up to order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ are needed in any given regularization scheme as they mirror in this context the ordering ambiguities present in the canonical approach to quantum mechanics. It would be wrong to omit them. In the regularization schemes discussed before, the order $`\mathrm{}^2`$ counterterms, including the noncovariant ones, are present and are definitely correct. We shall find later on with our modified dimensional regularization scheme on a finite time interval that no noncovariant counterterms are present, as in . One should view this as a property of a particular regularization scheme, in which the coefficients of the possible noncovariant counterterms happen to vanish.

The fact that no noncovariant counterterms were needed for infinite time intervals in the one-dimensional model of Kleinert and Chervyakov and in the $`D`$dimensional model of  suggested to us to study dimensional regularization applied to general nonlinear sigma models. For an infinite time interval we indeed recently found that one only needs a covariant counterterm $`\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{}^2R`$ , but for massless nonlinear sigma models one must add by hand a noncovariant mass term $`\frac{1}{2}m^2x^2`$ in order to regulate infrared divergences, and the result depends on $`m`$. For the really interesting applications (to anomalies and correlation functions of quantum field theories) one needs a finite time interval. In this case there are no infrared divergences and covariance can be maintained. In this letter we shall extend the method of dimensional regularization used in  to a finite time interval and show that for nonlinear sigma models one needs only a covariant counterterm $`V_{DR}=\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{}^2R`$.

The model we consider is given by the following action

$`S[x^i]={\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g_{ij}(x)\dot{x}^i\dot{x}^j.`$ (2)
Decomposing the paths $`x^i(\tau )`$ into a classical part $`x_{cl}^i(\tau )`$ satisfying suitable boundary conditions, and quantum fluctuations $`q^i(\tau )`$ which vanish at the boundary ($`q^i(1)=q^i(0)=0`$) and decomposing the lagrangian into a free part $`\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(0)\dot{q}^i\dot{q}^j`$ plus interactions, the propagator becomes formally

$$\begin{array}{c}0|Tq^i(\tau )q^j(\sigma )|0=g^{ij}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ,\sigma )\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }(\tau ,\sigma )=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{2}{\pi ^2n^2}\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\sigma )\right]=\tau (\sigma +1)\theta (\tau \sigma )+\sigma (\tau +1)\theta (\sigma \tau ).\hfill \end{array}$$
(3)
In MR one truncates the sum to $`N`$ modes and sends $`N\mathrm{}`$ at the end of the calculations, while in TS one uses $`\frac{}{\sigma }\theta (\sigma \tau )=\delta (\sigma \tau )`$ where $`\delta (\sigma \tau )`$ acts like a Kronecker delta, implying for example that $`\delta (\sigma \tau )\theta (\sigma \tau )\theta (\sigma \tau )=\frac{1}{4}`$ (and not equal to $`\frac{1}{3}`$ as one might perhaps naively expect from replacing the integrand with $`\frac{1}{3}\frac{}{\sigma }\theta ^3(\sigma \tau )`$. In general products of distributions are ambiguous, but going back to time slicing they are well defined). With these prescriptions one can unambiguously compute loop graphs.

To extend dimensional regularization to a compact time interval $`1\tau 0`$ we introduce $`D`$ extra infinite dimensions $`𝐭=(t^1,\mathrm{},t^D)`$, and take the limit $`D0`$ at the end, as in standard dimensional regularization . We also require translational invariance in the extra dimensions. As action in the $`D+1`$ dimensions we take

$`S[x,a,b,c]={\displaystyle d^{D+1}t\left[\frac{1}{2}g_{ij}(x)\left(_\mu x^i^\mu x^j+a^ia^j+b^ic^j\right)+V_{DR}(x)\right]}`$ (4)
where $`V_{DR}`$ is the counterterm in dimensional regularization, $`t^\mu =(\tau ,𝐭)`$ with $`\mu =0,1,\mathrm{},D`$ and $`d^{D+1}t=d\tau d^D𝐭`$. The propagators for this action read

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)={\displaystyle \frac{d^D𝐤}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{2}{(\pi n)^2+𝐤^2}\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\sigma )\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤(𝐭𝐬)}}.`$ (5)
The coordinates $`𝐭`$ and $`𝐬`$ for the extra $`D`$ dimensions run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$, and also the $`D`$ continuous momenta $`𝐤`$ run from $`\mathrm{}`$ to $`\mathrm{}`$. This propagator satisfies the Green equation444 An alternative ansatz is suggested by writing the sines in (5) as $`(\mathrm{exp}i\pi n(\tau \sigma )\mathrm{exp}i\pi n(\tau +\sigma ))`$ and modifying it into $`(\mathrm{exp}ik_\mu (t^\mu s^\mu )\mathrm{exp}ik_\mu (t^\mu +s^\mu ))`$, where $`k_\mu =(\pi n,𝐤)`$. This last expression has been used for finite temperature physics (J. Zinn-Justin, private communication, unpublished), but is not suitable for our purposes as it does not satisfy the Green equation.

$`(_\tau ^2+_𝐭^2)\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)=\delta ^{D+1}(s,t)=\delta (\tau ,\sigma )\delta ^D(𝐭𝐬)`$ (6)
where $`\delta (\tau ,\sigma )=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}2\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\sigma )`$ is the Dirac delta on the space of functions which vanish at $`\tau ,\sigma =1,0`$.

In addition to the point particle coordinates $`x^i(t)`$ there are ghosts: one real commuting ghost $`a^i(t)`$ and two real anticommuting ghosts $`b^i(t)`$ and $`c^i(t)`$ . They appear in the action in the combination $`_\mu x^i(t)^\mu x^j(t)+a^i(t)a^j(t)+b^i(t)c^j(t)`$, and have propagators

$$\begin{array}{c}0|Ta^i(t)a^j(s)|0=g^{ij}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_{gh}(t,s),0|Tb^i(t)c^j(s)|0=2g^{ij}(0)\mathrm{\Delta }_{gh}(t,s)\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }_{gh}(t,s)=\frac{d^D𝐤}{(2\pi )^D}\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}2\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\tau )\mathrm{sin}(\pi n\sigma )\mathrm{e}^{i𝐤(𝐭𝐬)}=\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)=\delta (\tau ,\sigma )\delta ^D(𝐭𝐬).\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
These ghosts arise after one integrates over the momenta in the path integral, and contribute to higher loops in exactly the same way as ghosts in gauge theories. Although their propagators are formally equal to delta functions which vanish in standard dimensional regularization, they do contribute in our case because there are no infrared divergences, so that the usual cancellation between infrared and ultraviolet divergences in $`d^{D+1}k=0`$ does not take place.

We can now calculate loop graphs treating the $`D`$ dimensional momenta as in ordinary dimensional regularization, and performing the sums over $`n`$ as in finite temperature physics. We compute all two-loops graphs which contribute to the vacuum energy. For this case we have $`x_{cl}^i(\tau )=0`$. We shall give details of the calculations in an example below, but first summarize our result in the Table 1, where we give the results for each of the diagrams which contribute to the two-loop vacuum energy. In the last column we quote the tensor structure of the graphs with the shorthand notation $`^2gg^{ij}g^{kl}_k_lg_{ij}`$, $`^jg_jg^{ik}g^{jl}_k_lg_{ij}`$, $`_kgg^{ij}_kg_{ij}`$ and $`g_kg^{ij}_ig_{jk}`$. We record the results for time slicing, mode regularization and our version of dimensional regularization, respectively555 To check the statement in the caption of Table 1 one may use that $`R=^2g^jg_j\frac{3}{4}\left(_kg_{ij}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(_ig_{jk}\right)_jg_{ik}+\frac{1}{4}\left(_jg\right)^2\left(_jg\right)g^j+g_j^2`$ and the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ terms for TS are given by $`\frac{1}{8}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{32}\left(_ig_{jk}\right)^2\frac{1}{16}\left(_ig_{jk}\right)\left(_jg_{ik}\right)`$ while for MR one has $`\frac{1}{24}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{1}{32}\left(_ig_{jk}\right)^2\frac{1}{48}\left(_ig_{jk}\right)\left(_jg_{ik}\right)`$..

It is clear that there are only differences for $`B_3`$ and $`B_4`$. The computations in DR are done by using partial integration to bring all integrals in a form that can unambiguously be computed at $`D0`$. The various manipulation are justified in dimensional regularization. In particular, partial integration is always allowed in the extra $`D`$ dimension because of momentum conservation while it can be done in the finite time interval whenever there is an explicit function vanishing at the boundary (e.g. the propagator of the coordinates without derivatives). Let us use the notation $`\frac{}{t^\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)={}_{\mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)`$ and $`\frac{}{s^\mu }\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)=\mathrm{\Delta }_\mu (t,s)`$ so that eq. (6) yields $`{}_{\mu \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)=\mathrm{\Delta }_{gh}(t,s)=\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)`$. The rule for contracting which indices with which indices follows from the action in (4). We find then for $`B_4`$ in dimensional regularization

$`B_4(\mathrm{DR})={\displaystyle _1^0}d\tau {\displaystyle _1^0}d\sigma {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }^{}){}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )`$ (8)
$`={\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }){}_{\mu }{}^{}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2`$ (9)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^{D+1}td^{D+1}s\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^{D+1}t(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2}|_t`$ (10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\tau {}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{2}|_\tau ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}`$ (11)
where the symbol $`|_\tau `$ means that one should set $`\sigma =\tau `$. Similarly

$`B_3(\mathrm{DR})={\displaystyle _1^0}d\tau {\displaystyle _1^0}d\sigma \mathrm{\Delta }({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\mathrm{\Delta }_{gh}^2){\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s\mathrm{\Delta }((_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta })(_{\nu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }))=`$ (12)
$`={\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s((_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )+(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(_{\nu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta })`$ (13)
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(_{\mu \nu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }))={\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s((_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )+(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(_{\nu \nu }\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ (14)
$`=B_4+{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })^2\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)=B_4+{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })^2|_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}.`$ (15)
We used the identity $`(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )=(\mathrm{\Delta }_{\nu \mu \mu })`$ obvious from (5). Moreover to compute diagrams like $`A_1`$ it is useful to use an identity which can be quickly derived in $`D+1`$ dimensions: recalling that we denote with a subscript $`0`$ the derivative along the original compact time direction one has $`((_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\mu )(t,s)+(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta })(t,s))|_{t=s}={}_{0}{}^{}[({}_{0}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s))|_{t=s}]`$.

In the calculation of $`B_4(\mathrm{DR})`$ all steps are as in ordinary dimensional regularization, though one may question the following step

$`{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2={\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2|_t`$ (16)
where we used that formally $`{}_{\mu \mu }{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }(t,s)=\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)`$. The symbol $`\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)`$ is an analytically continued delta function, and it is not clear that one may treat that as a regular delta function which is defined for $`D`$ integer and positive. However, we recall that the correct prescription of dimensional regularization is to carry out all integrals over spacetime at integer dimensions before analytically continuing the momenta to $`D`$ dimensions. Using this we can show by explicit calculation that (16) is correct. The right hand side of eq. (16) reads

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle 𝑑\sigma d^D𝐬\underset{m_10}{}\frac{d^D𝐪_1}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{(1e^{2\pi im_1\sigma })}{(\pi m_1)^2+𝐪_1^2}\underset{m_20}{}\frac{d^D𝐪_2}{(2\pi )^D}\frac{(1e^{2\pi im_2\sigma })}{(\pi m_2)^2+𝐪_2^2}(𝐪_1𝐪_2\pi ^2m_1m_2)I}`$ (17)
where $`I`$ is unity. The integral over $`𝐬`$ gives the volume of the internal space which can be factored out, while the integrals over $`𝐪_1`$ and $`𝐪_2`$ are treated with ordinary dimensional regularization which makes the sums over $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ finite for sufficiently large negative $`D`$. Thus sums over modes of the finite time segment are made finite by dimensional regularization in the internal space. For the left hand side of equation (16), one obtains a similar result after extracting the exponents containing $`(\tau \sigma )`$ from each of the three propagators, and performing the integrals over $`𝐭`$ and $`\tau `$, but now $`I`$ is nontrivial

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}(1e^{2\pi in\sigma })\left[\delta _{m_1+m_2+n,0}+{\displaystyle \underset{l}{}}\delta _{m_1+m_2+n(2l+1),0}{\displaystyle \frac{2e^{(2l+1)\pi i\sigma }}{i\pi (2l+1)}}\right].`$ (18)
We used that $`_1^0𝑑\tau e^{i\pi m\tau }=\delta _{m,0}+_l\frac{2}{i\pi (2l+1)}\delta _{m(2l+1),0}`$ for any integer $`m`$. We can extend the sum over $`n`$ to include $`n=0`$. Performing the sum over $`n`$ we obtain conditionally convergent series

$`I={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(1e^{2\pi i(m_1+m_2)\sigma }\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i\pi }}\left(S(\sigma )e^{2\pi i(m_1+m_2)\sigma }S(\sigma )\right)`$ (19)
where $`S(\sigma )=_l\frac{e^{(2l+1)i\pi \sigma }}{2l+1}`$. The function $`S(\sigma )`$ is equal to $`\frac{i\pi }{2}`$ for $`1\sigma 0`$, and $`S(\sigma )=S(\sigma )`$, hence $`I`$ equals unity. This proves (16).

It may be useful to compare the calculations in DR with those using MR and TS. Consider the integral $`_1^0_1^0\left({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}^{}\right)(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})\left({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$. In DR we wrote the integrand as $`(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )=(_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }){}_{\mu }{}^{}(\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2)`$, and partially integrated the second $`\mu `$ derivative to obtain

$`{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}})(_{\mu \mu }\mathrm{\Delta })(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}t{\displaystyle }d^{D+1}s\delta ^{D+1}(t,s)(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2=`$ (20)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^{D+1}t(\mathrm{\Delta }_\nu )^2}|_t={\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}.`$ (21)
In MR one can perform similar steps to arrive at $`_1^0_1^0(\frac{1}{2})\left({}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }\right)(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^2`$ but we do not set $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }=\delta (\tau \sigma )`$ because in MR both $`\delta (\tau \sigma )`$ and $`\theta (\tau \sigma )`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ are smeared so that one would need to work out integrals of products of such MR regulated distributions. Instead we use the symmetry of $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in $`\tau `$ and $`\sigma `$ to replace $`{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ and obtain then

$`B_4(\mathrm{MR})={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_\sigma (\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}`$ (22)
where we used that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\tau +\theta (\sigma \tau )`$. In DR this procedure is not possible when $`\mu `$ is different from $`\nu `$. In the TS scheme one obtains directly without partial integration

$`B_4(\mathrm{TS})={\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\tau {\displaystyle _1^0}𝑑\sigma [\tau +\theta (\sigma \tau )][\sigma +\theta (\tau \sigma )][1\delta (\tau s)]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}`$ (23)
where we used that with TS one has $`_1^0_1^0\theta (\tau \sigma )\theta (\sigma \tau )\delta (\tau \sigma )=\frac{1}{4}`$ while $`_1^0_1^0\delta (\tau \sigma )\tau \theta (\tau \sigma )=\frac{1}{4}`$.

Summarizing: we have solved the problem of how to modify dimensional regularization such that it can be applied to finite time intervals. Our extension of dimensional regularization keeps translational invariance in the extra $`D`$ dimensions. One can now regulate nonlinear sigma models on a finite time interval by using dimensional regularization. We were inspired by recent papers  which applied standard dimensional regularization on an infinite time interval to a model with a mass term. Such a mass term is also needed in more general models on an infinite time interval  to regularize infrared divergences, but it breaks general covariance in target space. Our method applies both to massless and massive models and does not break general covariance. With this new method no noncovariant finite counterterms are needed. Other regularization schemes need such noncovariant counterterms, so from this perspective dimensional regularization is just another regularization scheme but with a simpler set of counterterms. Certainly all regularization schemes, each with its own counterterms, yield the same results. In this letter we tested this for the two-loop vacuum energy. Although the contributions to individual diagrams are different, we obtained the same results for the two-loop vacuum energy with this dimensional regularization and its covariant counterterms, $`V_{DR}=\frac{\mathrm{}^2}{8}R`$, as previously obtained with mode regularization and time slicing with their noncovariant counterterms. Presently, anomalies in higher dimensions are being calculated and we expect that our scheme will simplify such calculations. Also applications to scattering amplitudes may benefit from this scheme.


text:
# Untitled Document

Next-Order Estimate of Higgs $``$ Two-Gluon Rate
F. A. Chishtie, V. Elias, T. G. Steele
Department of Applied Mathematics, The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario N6A 5B7 Canada.
Department of Physics and Engineering Physics, University of Saskatchewan
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan S7N 5E2 Canada.

Abstract. Using asymptotic Padé approximant methods, we have calculated the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5)`$ contribution to the Standard-Model $`Hgg`$ decay rate. This process is of particular interest because of the slow convergence evident from the known terms of its QCD series. The $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5)`$ term is expressed as a 3rd degree polynomial in $`Lln\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2(\mu )}\right)`$. We find that the asymptotic Padé predictions for the renormalization-group accessible coefficients of $`L`$, $`L^2`$ and $`L^3`$ are within 1%, 2% and 7% of their respective values. The inclusion of the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5)`$ contribution renders the full decay rate virtually scale independent over the entire $`0.3M_H\mu M_t`$ range of the renormalization scale $`\mu `$.

INTRODUCTION

The Higgs boson remains the only missing particle within the Standard Model of particle physics. One of the principal hadronic decay modes for a Weinberg-Salam Higgs (of mass $`100175GeV`$) is the Higgs $`2`$ gluon ($`Hgg`$) process, a process whose leading (one-loop) contribution is $`𝒪(\alpha _s^2)`$. The two known subleading contributions exhibit very slow convergence: e.g. the decay of an $`M_H=100GeV`$ Standard-Model Higgs is characterized by the following perturbative series:

$`1+0.66+0.21.`$
The present paper is directed towards an estimate of the next order (i.e., four-loop) contribution of the $`Hgg`$ process by using renormalization group (RG) and asymptotic Padé-approximant methods similar to those employed in  for next-order terms in correlation functions, and in  for the case of a (non-Standard-Model) CP-odd Higgs decay into two gluons. In the analysis of this latter process, we obtained Padé-approximant estimates of RG-accessible coefficients of next-order perturbation theory that are accurate to within a few percent, providing support for the Padé-predicted RG-inaccessible coefficient still needed for an estimate of the $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5)`$ contribution. In the present work, we derive the RG accessible coefficients of the Standard-Model $`Hgg`$ rate within an $`\overline{MS}`$ framework with six active flavours . RG invariance allows us to calculate all the coefficients $`c_k`$ of $`ln^k\left[\frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2(\mu )}\right]`$ except for the constant $`(k=0)`$ term. We then demonstrate how Padé approximant methods may be utilized to estimate the full $`𝒪(\alpha _s^5)`$ contribution to the decay rate, and show that such estimates of the RG-accessible coefficients are quite close to their true values. Finally, we discuss how incorporation of the estimated four-loop term eliminates virtually all residual scale- ($`\mu `$-) dependence in the overall $`Hgg`$ rate.

RG-ACCESSIBLE COEFFICIENTS OF THE $`Hgg`$ RATE

The $`Hgg`$ decay rate is given by the following perturbative expression in the $`4M_t^2>>M_H^2>>M_b^2`$ limit :

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_{Hgg}=\frac{\sqrt{2}G_FM_H^3}{72\pi }S[x^{(6)}(\mu ),L(\mu ),T],$$
(1)
$$S[x,L,T]=x^2(1+x[(\frac{215}{12}\frac{23T}{6})+\frac{7}{2}L].$$

$$+x^2[(146.8912\frac{4903}{48}T+\frac{529}{48}T^2)$$

$$+(\frac{1445}{16}\frac{161}{8}T)L+\frac{147}{16}L^2]$$

$$.+x^3[c_0+c_1L+c_2L^2+c_3L^3]+𝒪(x^4)).$$
(2)
The rate (1) is expressed entirely in terms of a scale-dependent $`t`$-quark mass and coupling constant characterised by six active flavours via $`L(\mu )ln\left(\frac{\mu ^2}{m_t^2(\mu )}\right)`$ and $`x^{(6)}(\mu )=\alpha _s^{(6)}(\mu )/\pi `$. The constant $`Tln\left(\frac{M_H^2}{M_t^2}\right)`$ involves a scale-independent ratio of propagator-pole Higgs and $`t`$-quark masses . The coefficients $`c_i`$ in (2) characterize the unknown 4th loop contribution to the decay rate. Three of these unknown coefficients \[$`c_1,c_2,c_3`$\] can be extracted via the RG-invariance of the physical decay rate:

$`0=\mu ^2{\displaystyle \frac{dS}{d\mu ^2}}[x,L,T],`$
$`=[12\gamma _m(x)]{\displaystyle \frac{S}{L}}+\beta (x){\displaystyle \frac{S}{x}}.`$ (3)
The $`\beta `$ and $`\gamma _m`$ functions for six active flavours are given by

$$\beta ^{(6)}(x)=\frac{7}{4}x^2\frac{13}{8}x^3+\frac{65}{128}x^4\mathrm{}$$
(4)
$$\gamma _m^{(6)}(x)=x\frac{27}{8}x^2\mathrm{}.$$
(5)
One can verify that (3) is valid order by order to known terms in (2). The continued validity to orders $`x^5L^2`$, $`x^5L`$ and $`x^5`$ yield values for $`c_1,c_2`$ and $`c_3`$:

$$c_1=910.3167\frac{16643}{24}T+\frac{3703}{48}T^2,c_2=\frac{1225}{4}\frac{1127}{16}T,c_3=\frac{343}{16}.$$
(6)
In the following section, we will utilize asymptotic Padé approximation procedure to estimate $`\{c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3\}`$. The ability to predict known coefficients will serve to test the appropriateness of this procedure for estimating the RG-inaccessible coefficient $`c_0`$.

PADÉ PREDICTIONS FOR FOUR-LOOP COEFFICIENTS

The series $`S[x,L,T]`$ in (2) may be expressed as follows:

$$S[x,L,T]=x^2\left[1+R_1[L,T]x+R_2[L,T]x^2+R_3[L,T]x^3+\mathrm{}\right],$$
(7)
where

$$R_1[L,T]=\left(\frac{215}{12}\frac{23}{6}T\right)+\frac{7}{2}L,$$
(8)
$$R_2[L,T]=146.8912\frac{4903}{48}T+\frac{529}{48}T^2+\left(\frac{1445}{16}\frac{161}{8}T\right)L+\frac{147}{16}L^2,$$
(9)
$$R_3[L,T]=c_0(T)+c_1(T)L+c_2(T)L^2+c_3L^3.$$
(10)
As discussed in prior work  and in another contribution to these Proceedings,111See “Reducing the Theoretical Uncertainty in the Extraction of $`|V_{ub}|\mathrm{}`$” in this volume. Padé-approximant methods may be utilized in order to predict that

$$R_3[L]=2R_2^3[L]/(R_1[L]R_2[L]+R_1^3[L])$$
(11)
To obtain $`c_1,c_2,c_3`$, we match the scale dependence of (10) to that of (11) over the $`L>0`$ region \[ultraviolet scales of $`\mu >M_t(\mu )]`$ by optimizing the least squares function

$$\chi ^2[c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3]=_0^1\left[R_3(c_0c_1lnw+c_2ln^2wc_3ln^3w)\right]^2𝑑w,$$
(12)
as in our prior contribution to this Proceedings,1 with $`w=\frac{m_t^2(\mu )}{\mu ^2}`$ \[$`L=ln(w)]`$, and with $`R_3`$ given by (11). For $`M_H=100GeV`$ $`(T=1.126)`$, we find that

$$\chi ^2(c_0,c_1,c_2,c_3)$$

$$=4.06416887810^7+720c_3^2+4c_0c_2+c_0^2+2c_0c_1+24c_2^2+12c_1c_2+12c_0c_3+2c_1^2$$

$$+240c_2c_3+48c_1c_310205.87c_017507.05c_154106.23c_2234536.67c_3.$$
(13)
Optimization requires that

$$\frac{\chi ^2}{c_i}=0$$
(14)
which yields the following predicted values:

$$c_0^{\chi ^2}=2452,c_1^{\chi ^2}=1774,c_2^{\chi ^2}=377.2,c_3^{\chi ^2}=20.45,$$
(15)
The corresponding true values of the RG-accessible coefficients (6) when $`M_H=100GeV`$ are

$$c_1=1789.02,c_2=385.568,c_3=21.4375.$$
(16)
indicative of the accuracy of the estimation procedure leading to (15). In Table 1, a tabulated set of predictions of the four loop term $`c_0`$ is given for $`M_H`$ between 100 and $`175GeV`$. Relative errors of $`c_1`$ and $`c_2`$ are seen to remain within 2% over the range of $`M_H`$ given; $`c_3`$ is seen to be within 7% of its true value for the same range.

The results for $`c_0`$, as tabulated in Table 1, can be utilized to predict $`c_0`$ as a degree-3 polynomial in $`T`$:

$$c_0(T)=755.91029T+394.3T^226.74T^3.$$
(17)
This prediction, as obtained via Padé-approximant methods, can be coupled with $`c_3`$ and the known $`T`$-dependence (6) of $`c_1(T)`$ and $`c_2(T)`$ to predict the full four-loop contribution (10) to $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$, the scale-sensitive (i.e., $`\mu `$-dependent) portion (7) of the $`Hgg`$ rate (1).

Surprisingly, the scale-dependence of $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$ is virtually eliminated upon incorporation of the estimated four-loop contribution to the rate. In Table 2, this scale-sensitive portion of the $`Hgg`$ rate is evaluated for $`M_H=125GeV`$ for selected values of the scale parameter $`\mu `$ between 38 and $`175GeV`$. The four-loop term $`R_3x^3`$, as defined by (10) to include the $`M_H=125GeV`$ Padé estimate $`c_0=1646`$ from Table 1, varies from zero to 7% of the leading term in the perturbative series within $`S[x,L,T]`$, depending on the choice for $`\mu `$. Nevertheless, $`S[x,L,T]`$ displays a relative error of 0.6% over this same range of $`\mu `$, suggesting that the Padé estimate for $`c_0`$ is precisely what is required to remove virtually all residual scale- ($`\mu `$ -) dependence from the four-loop-order decay rate.

| $`M_H\left(GeV\right)^1`$ | $`c_0^{pr}`$ | $`c_1^{pr}`$ | $`c_1^{RG}`$ | $`c_2^{pr}`$ | $`c_2^{RG}`$ | $`c_3^{pr}`$ | $`c_3^{RG}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 100 | 2453 | 1772 | 1789 | 378.4 | 385.6 | 20.27 | 21.44 |
| 125 | 1646 | 1405 | 1417 | 349.6 | 354.1 | 20.17 | 21.44 |
| 150 | 1120 | 1126 | 1137 | 326.2 | 328.4 | 20.07 | 21.44 |
| 175 | 763.2 | 903.7 | 915.1 | 306.6 | 306.7 | 19.98 | 21.44 |

TABLE 1: Predicted (pr) and true (RG) values (as determined by renormalization- group methods) for four-loop coefficients of the $`Hgg`$ decay rate, as obtained via the moment approach of ref. . Least- squares predictions, as in (15) for $`M_H=100GeV`$ are virtually identical to those of the moment approach, which also depend on the asymptotic Padé prediction (11) for the four-loop term.

| $`\mu `$ | $`\alpha _s\left(\mu \right)`$ | $`m_t\left(\mu \right)`$ | $`1+R_1x+R_2x^2+R_3x^3`$ | $`S[x\left(\mu \right),L\left(\mu \right),T]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |  | $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |  |  |
| 38 | 0.1353 | 200.9 | 1 + 0.3818 - 0.0439 + 0.0026 | 0.002486 |
| 66 | 0.1245 | 190.6 | 1 + 0.5192 + 0.0658 - 0.0000 | 0.002490 |
| 80.5 | 0.1211 | 187.3 | 1 + 0.5631 + 0.1067 + 0.0074 | 0.002491 |
| 125 | 0.1141 | 180.4 | 1 + 0.6526 + 0.1986 + 0.0367 | 0.002486 |
| 175 | 0.1092 | 175.6 | 1+ 0.7127 + 0.2668 + 0.0676 | 0.002475 |

TABLE 2: Virtual scale invariance of $`Hgg`$ four-loop estimated rate when $`M_H=125GeV`$. $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ is assumed to evolve from $`\alpha _s(M_Z)=0.119`$ , and $`m_t(\mu )`$ is assumed to evolve from $`m_t(m_t)M_t=175.6GeV`$. The order-by-order perturbation series within the decay rate, as defined by (7), as well as $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$, the scale-sensitive portion of the rate (1), are listed for representative values of $`\mu `$ between $`M_H/3`$ and $`M_t`$. Although the predicted four loop term $`R_3x^3`$ varies between zero and seven percent of the lead (one-loop) term in the series, the scale-sensitive portion of the rate $`S[x,L.T]`$ is constant up to $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S/S|=0.6\%`$.

| $`\mu `$ | $`\alpha _s\left(\mu \right)`$ | $`m_t\left(\mu \right)`$ | $`1+R_1x+R_2x^2+R_3x^3`$ | $`S[x\left(\mu \right),L\left(\mu \right),T]`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |  | $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |  |  |
| 47 | 0.1309 | 196.8 | 1 + 0.3793 - 0.0378 + 0.0023 | 0.002334 |
| 78.5 | 0.1215 | 187.7 | 1 + 0.5036 + 0.0589 + 0.0000 | 0.002337 |
| 95.5 | 0.1183 | 184.6 | 1 + 0.5463 + 0.0973 + 0.0064 | 0.002338 |
| 150 | 0.1114 | 177.8 | 1 + 0.6360 + 0.1866 + 0.0333 | 0.002334 |
| 175 | 0.1092 | 175.6 | 1+ 0.6641 + 0.2170 + 0.0458 | 0.002330 |

TABLE 3: Virtual scale invariance of $`Hgg`$ four-loop estimated rate when $`M_H=150GeV`$. Running of $`\alpha _s(\mu )`$ and $`m_t(\mu )`$, as well as the perturbative series $`1+R_1x+\mathrm{}`$ within $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$, the scale-sensitive portion of the rate (1), are as in Table 2. Although the four-loop term $`R_3x^3`$ grows to be 4.6% of the leading term (unity) in the series, the rate itself is seen to exhibit a relative error $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S/S|\stackrel{<}{_{}}0.3\%`$ over the range $`M_H/3\stackrel{<}{_{}}\mu \stackrel{<}{_{}}M_t`$.

| $`M_H`$ | $`\mu ^{\left(MS\right)}`$ | $`\delta _m\left(\mu ^{MS}\right)`$ | $`R_3x^3\left(\mu ^{MS}\right)`$ | $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(Hgg\right)`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`\left(GeV\right)`$ | $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |  |  | $`\left(GeV\right)`$ |
| 100 | 65.5 | -0.059 | \+ 0.0089 | $`1.9010^4`$ |
| 125 | 80.5 | -0.015 | \+ 0.0074 | $`3.5210^4`$ |
| 150 | 95.5 | +0.023 | \+ 0.0064 | $`5.8310^4`$ |
| 175 | 111 | +0.077 | \+ 0.0309 | $`9.0810^4`$ |

TABLE 4: Incorporation of Mass-corrections $`\delta _m(\mu ^{MS})`$ to the perturbative series (22) in the predicted Standard-Model $`Hgg`$ decay rate for various choices of $`M_H`$, as described in the text. The “minimal sensitivity” choice of scale $`(\mu ^{MS})`$ represents a (very weak) local maximum of $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$ prior to the incorporation of mass-corrections. The magnitude of the leading mass correction $`\delta _m`$ is shown to be several times larger than the estimated four-loop correction $`R_3x^3`$, although it is generally smaller than the known three-loop correction $`R_2x^2`$.
This reduction in scale dependence is even more dramatic as $`M_H`$ increases to $`150GeV`$, as is evident from Table 3. Incorporation of the Padé estimate $`c_0=1120`$ (Table 1) into $`R_3x^3`$, as defined by (10) \[with RG-values (6) for $`\{c_1,c_2,c_3\}`$\], leads to a four-loop expression for the rate characterised by a relative error $`|\mathrm{\Delta }S/S|0.3\%`$ over values of the scale parameter $`\mu `$ chosen between 47 and $`175GeV`$. It must be noted that $`c_0`$’s contribution to $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$ is just $`c_0x^3(\mu )`$, in itself an appreciably scale-dependent contribution. The absence of any concomitant scale dependence in $`S`$, despite its potentially large contribution from an arbitrary choice of $`c_0`$, demonstrates the success of the Padé estimate for $`c_0`$ in controlling potentially large residual scale sensitivity in the $`Hgg`$ rate.

LEADING FERMION MASS CORRECTIONS

The rate (1) has implicit within its lead term the assumption that $`M_H^2<<4M_t^2`$ . Physical departures from this assumption, while small compared to the three-loop contribution to the $`Hgg`$ rate as calculated in , are in fact somewhat larger than the four-loop contributions estimated above. These fermion mass corrections are most easily incorporated by replacing the leading factor of unity in the series $`1+R_1x+R_2x^2+R_3x^3`$ with the following departure from the assumed $`m_b^2<<M_H^2<<4M_t^2`$ hierarchy of masses :

$$1\frac{9}{16}\left[(A_t+ReA_b)^2+(ImA_b)^2\right]1+\delta _m(\mu )$$
(18)
$$A_t=2\left[\tau _t+(\tau _t1)\left(sin^1(\sqrt{\tau _t})\right)^2\right]/\tau _t^2,\tau _tM_H^2/4m_t^2(\mu ),$$
(19)
$$A_b=2\left[\tau _b+(\tau _b1)f(\tau _b)\right]/\tau _b^2,\tau _bM_H^2/4m_b^2(\mu ),$$
(20)
$$f(\tau )\frac{1}{4}\left[ln\left(\frac{1+\sqrt{11/\tau }}{1\sqrt{11/\tau }}\right)i\pi \right]^2.$$
(21)
We (somewhat arbitrarily) choose the scale $`\mu `$ to be the “minimal- sensitivity”  maximum ($`\mu ^{MS}`$) of $`S[x(\mu ),L(\mu ),T]`$, which is seen to occur at values of $`\mu `$ tabulated in Table 4 for various choices of $`M_H`$. The values for $`m_b(\mu ^{MS})`$ and $`m_t(\mu ^{MS})`$ utilized in (19) and (20) are evolved from refernce values $`m_t(m_t)=175.6GeV`$, $`m_b(m_b)=4.2GeV`$ . The leading mass correction $`\delta _m(\mu ^{MS})`$, as obtained from (18-21), is tabulated and compared to the corresponding estimate of the four-loop term $`R_3x^3(\mu ^{MS})`$ in Table 4. These mass corrections are clearly seen to dominate over the four-loop term in the scale-sensitive portion of the $`Hgg`$ rate, which is now given by

$$S[x(\mu ^{MS}),L(\mu ^{MS}),T]$$

$$=x^2(\mu ^{MS})\left[1+\delta _m(\mu ^{MS})+R_1x(\mu ^{MS})+R_2x^2(\mu ^{MS})+R_3x^3(\mu ^{MS})\right].$$
(22)
Predictions for the full Standard Model $`Hgg`$ rate that are inclusive of these mass corrections are also listed in Table 4. Although these leading mass corrections are two to six times as large as the estimated four-loop correction, they are seen to be smaller (in general) than the three-loop corrections $`R_2x^2(\mu ^{MS})`$. Moreover, subsequent subleading departures from the $`m_b^2<<M_H^2<<4M_t^2`$ mass hierarchy are anticipated to be $`𝒪(x\delta _m)`$, which should be comparable to or somewhat smaller than the four-loop terms listed in Table 4. Note that $`|\delta _m(\mu ^{MS})|`$ is itself only $`2\%`$ of the leading term (i.e., unity) in the perturbative series for the $`M_H=125`$ and $`150GeV`$ cases, as evident from Table 4, thereby providing justification for the three-digit accuracy of the $`Hgg`$ predicted rates for these cases.

REFERENCES

1. Chetyrkin, K.G., Kniehl, B.A., and Steinhauser, M., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 353 (1997).
2. Chishtie, F., Elias, V., and Steele, T.G. Phys. Rev. D 59, 105013 (1999).
3. Chishtie, F.A., Elias, V., and Steele, T.G., J. Phys. G 26, 93 (2000).
4. Chishtie, F.A., Elias, V., and Steele, T.G., J. Phys. G 26 (to appear: hep-ph/0004140).
5. Elias, V., Steele, T.G., Chishtie, F., Migneron, R., and Sprague, K., Phys. Rev. D 58, 116007 (1998).
6. Caso, C. et. al. \[Particle Data Group\], Eur. Phys. J. C 3, 1 (1998).
7. Spira, M., Djouadi, A., Graudens, D., and Zerwas, P.M., Nucl. Phys. B 453, 17 (1995).
8. Stevenson, P.M., Phys. Rev. D 23, 2916 (1981).


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The $`D=6,(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet plays an important rôle in modern string theory through the fact that it is the world-volume multiplet of the M-theory 5-brane. In the context of the Maldacena conjecture  the near-horizon geometry of a large number of such branes is $`AdS_7\times S^4`$, and $`D=11`$ supergravity on such a background is supposed to be related to a conformal field theory of the boundary of $`AdS_7`$ . In the $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ case for IIB supergravity, the boundary conformal field theory is $`N=4`$ super Yang-Mills theory, in the large $`N_c`$ limit (where the gauge group is $`SU(N_c)`$), but in the $`D=6`$ case the interacting conformal field theory is not known. Nevertheless some progress can be made assuming that there is such a superconformal field theory.

The $`D=6,(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet was first written down in  and reformulated in an appropriate harmonic superspace in  where it was also shown how the superconformal fields which correspond to the KK multiplets of $`D=11`$ supergravity can be easily constructed as powers of the underlying field strength superfield. This construction is very similar to the construction of the KK multiplets which was used for $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory in  following the realisation that the field strength tensor and the supercurrent can be written in a simple way in superspace .

In this paper we give more details of the results outlined in ; after discussing the multiplet in ordinary superspace111More recent discussions of the multiplet in ordinary superspace can be found in ., we reformulate it in harmonic superspace. We then go on to discuss its conformal properties and finally we make some remarks on the properties of correlation functions that can be deduced from symmetry properties alone.

## 2 The tensor multiplet

The (2,0) tensor multiplet consists of five scalars, a set of four chiral fermions transforming under the four-dimensional representation of the internal symmetry group $`USp(4)`$ (symplectic Majorana-Weyl fermions) and a two-form gauge potential $`A`$ whose three-from field strength is self-dual. The coordinates of $`D=6,(n,0)`$ Minkowski superspace are $`(x^a,\theta ^{\alpha i})`$ where $`a=0,\mathrm{}5`$ is a Lorentz vector index, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{}4`$ is a chiral spinor index and $`i=1,\mathrm{}2n`$ is an internal symmetry index for the group $`USp(2n)`$. The spinors satisfy a reality condition of the form

$$\psi _{\alpha i}\overline{\psi }_\alpha ^i=\eta ^{ij}\psi _{\alpha j}$$
(1)
where the conjugation denoted by the bar includes multiplication by a matrix $`B`$ which converts dotted to undotted spinor indices and satisfies $`\overline{B}B=1`$, so that they have altogether $`4n`$ real components. The antisymmetric matrix $`\eta ^{ij}`$ is the symplectic invariant and we use the convention that $`\eta _{ij}`$ has the same components as $`\eta ^{ij}`$. The superspace covariant derivatives are $`_a`$ and $`D_{\alpha i}`$ where

$$[D_{\alpha i},D_{\beta j}]=i\eta _{ij}(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }_a$$
(2)
The (2,0) tensor multiplet is described by a superfield $`W_{ij}`$ which is real, antisymmetric and traceless with respect to $`\eta ^{ij}`$. It obeys the constraint

$$D_{\alpha i}W_{jk}=2\eta _{ij}\lambda _{\alpha k}2\eta _{ik}\lambda _{\alpha j}+\eta _{jk}\lambda _{\alpha i}$$
(3)
from which it follows that

$$D_{\alpha i}\lambda _{\beta j}=\frac{i}{2}(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }_aW_{ij}+\frac{i}{24}(\gamma ^{abc})_{\alpha \beta }F_{abc}$$
(4)
where $`F_{abc}`$ is self-dual. By applying further $`D`$’s to these relations one finds that the leading components of $`W_{ij}`$, $`\lambda _{\alpha i}`$ and $`F_{abc}`$ are the only independent spacetime fields and that they obey the equations of motion

$`^a_aW_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma ^a)^{\alpha \beta }_a\lambda _{\beta i}=0`$
$`^aF_{abc}`$ $`=`$ $`_{[a}F_{bcd]}=0`$ (5)
The multiplet can also be described by a superspace three-form $`F=dA`$ where $`A`$ is a potential two-form. The non-vanishing components of $`F`$ are

$`F_{\alpha i\beta jc}`$ $`=`$ $`i(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }W_{ij}`$
$`F_{ab\gamma k}`$ $`=`$ $`(\gamma _{ab}\lambda )_{\gamma k}`$ (6)
as well as $`F_{abc}`$.

We note that there is also a $`(1,0)`$ tensor multiplet described by a real scalar superfield $`W`$ which is subject to a second-order constraint

$$D_{[\alpha }^{(i}D_{\beta ]}^{j)}W=0$$
(7)
Its components are a scalar, a spinor $`\lambda _{\alpha i}`$ and a self-dual field strength $`F_{abc}`$. It can also be described by a $`(1,0)`$ superspace three-form $`F`$ whose components are the same as in (6) with $`W_{ij}`$ replaced by $`\eta _{ij}W`$. (In $`(1,0)`$ $`\eta _{ij}=ϵ_{ij}`$.)

## 3 Harmonic superspace description

Harmonic superspaces are extensions of Minkowski superspace $`M`$ of the form $`\widehat{M}:=M\times \text{𝔽}`$ where 𝔽 is a coset space of the internal symmetry group which is usually chosen to be a compact complex manifold . Such superspaces can be thought of as applications of twistor geometrical techniques in a supersymmetric setting. The original idea of Penrose’s twistor theory was to encode information about spacetime in holomorphic data on projective twistor space . However, in the case of Euclidean “spacetime” $`\text{}^4`$, twistor space can be thought of as an extension of spacetime by a two-sphere $`S^2\text{}P^1`$ . The significance of this sphere is that it parametrises the self-dual complex structures on $`\text{}^4`$ (there is also an anti-self-dual set). One can then construct a natural complex structure on the total space by combining the complex structure on $`\text{}^4`$ parametrised by the given point of the sphere with the complex structure on the sphere itself. This idea can be generalised to superspace, but with complex structures replaced by (odd) CR structures which can be thought of as partial complex structures . More formally, a CR structure is a subbundle of the complexified tangent bundle which has local bases of complex vector fields whose Lie brackets are fields of the same type. The prototype of an odd CR structure is provided by chirality in $`D=4,N=1`$ superspace and generalised chirality is referred to as Grassmann analyticity (G-analyticity). In the harmonic superspace context the space 𝔽 parametrises the odd, Lorentz covariant CR structures on Minkowski superspace, and on the total space $`\widehat{M}`$ there is a natural CR structure obtained by combining the odd CR structure specified by a given point of 𝔽 with the complex structure of 𝔽 itself.

In $`D=6,(n,0)`$ superspace the problem is therefore to find subsets of the $`D`$’s which anticommute amongst themselves. If we demand that such subsets be Lorentz covariant then we are looking for derivatives $`D_{\alpha r}=u_r{}_{}{}^{i}D_{\alpha i}^{}`$ such that

$$[D_{\alpha r},D_{\beta s}]=0$$
(8)
since in such a case it is consistent to look for superfields which are annihilated by $`D_{\alpha r}`$. Clearly there will be a complementary set $`D_{\alpha r^{}}=u_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i}D_{\alpha i}^{}`$, and we should require that $`u_I{}_{}{}^{i}=(u_r{}_{}{}^{i},u_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i})`$ be an element of $`USp(2n)`$. In order to have such odd CR structures we must have

$$u_r{}_{}{}^{i}u_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\eta _{ij}^{}=0$$
(9)
For $`(1,0)`$ the only possibility is to choose $`r`$ to have only one value, $`1`$ say, so that the space of odd CR structures is again the two-sphere. In the $`(2,0)`$ case a natural choice is to allow $`r`$ to take two values, $`1,2`$, say, with $`r^{}=3,4`$. Then we can satisfy (8) above in this way if we choose the basis in which

$`\eta _{rs}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{r^{}s^{}}=0`$
$`\eta _{rs^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta _{s^{}r}=\delta _{rs^{}}`$ (10)
The space of such odd CR structures is $`U(2)\backslash USp(4)`$. Clearly we can generalise this particular type of structure to arbitrary $`n`$ with associated coset space $`U(n)\backslash USp(2n)`$.

There are other possibilities which do not halve the number of odd coordinates; for example, in $`(2,0)`$ superspace we can consider the CR-structure specified by $`D_{\alpha 1}`$ which again has isotropy group $`U(1)\times SU(2)`$ (this is not the same group as that for $`D_{\alpha 1},D_{\alpha 2}`$). Moreover, one can consider Lorentz covariant odd CR structures spanned by $`p`$ derivatives compatible with odd CR structures spanned by $`q`$ derivatives, $`p<q`$, and so on. The spaces associated with such sets of CR structures are clearly the spaces of nested subspaces of $`\text{}^{2n}`$ which are isotropic, i.e. for any two vectors $`u,v`$ in a given subspace one has $`\eta _{ij}u^iv^j=0`$. These spaces are called isotropic flag manifolds and have been employed in the recent work of Ferrara and Sokatchev on conformal fields in six dimensions . In the following we shall only use spaces of the type $`U(n)\backslash USp(2n)`$.

The required harmonic superspaces are formed by adjoining these parameter spaces to Minkowski superspace, the idea being that constraints on Minkowski space superfields can be expressed more simply in terms of fields defined on the larger spaces. We therefore form the spaces $`\widehat{M}:=M\times \text{𝔽}`$ where $`\text{𝔽}=U(n)\backslash USp(2n)`$. Since $`F`$ is a homogeneous space it is often convenient to use the well-known group-theoretical technique of writing tensor fields on 𝔽 as equivariant maps from $`USp(2n)`$ to $`V`$ where $`V`$ is a representation space for the isotropy subgroup $`U(n)`$. Such a map $`A(u)`$ has the property that $`A(hu)=R(h)A(u)`$ where $`hU(n)`$ and $`R(h)`$ is the representation of $`U(n)`$ acting on $`V`$.

An element $`u`$ of $`USp(2n)`$ is both unitary and symplectic, so that

$$u_I{}_{}{}^{i}u_{J}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\eta _{ij}^{}=\eta _{IJ}$$
(11)
and

$$\overline{u}^I{}_{i}{}^{}=(u^1)_i{}_{}{}^{I}:=u_i^I$$
(12)
In our conventions the group $`USp(2n)`$ acts naturally to the right on 𝔽, and this right action is generated by the left-invariant vector fields. On the other hand, the left action of the group on itself is generated by the right-invariant vector fields which we denote by $`\widehat{D}_{IJ}`$. These vector fields satisfy the following constraints

$`\widehat{D}_{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D}_{JI}`$
$`\overline{\widehat{D}}^{IJ}`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{IK}\eta ^{JL}\widehat{D}_{KL}`$ (13)
The algebra of the right-invariant vector fields is

$$[\widehat{D}_{IJ},\widehat{D}^{KL}]=4\delta _{(I}{}_{}{}^{(K}\widehat{D}_{J)}^{}^{L)}$$
(14)
and they act on $`USp(2n)`$ by

$$\widehat{D}_{IJ}U_K{}_{}{}^{k}=\eta _{IK}u_J{}_{}{}^{k}\eta _{JK}u_I^k$$
(15)
The $`\widehat{D}_{IJ}`$’s split into $`\widehat{D}_{rs},\widehat{D}_{r^{}s^{}}`$ and $`\widehat{D}_{rs^{}}`$, the latter set corresponding to the isotropy algebra $`\text{u}(n)`$ while the former two sets correspond to the coset. We now define

$`D_o`$ $`=`$ $`\eta ^{rs^{}}\widehat{D}_{rs^{}}`$
$`D_{rs^{}}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{D}_{rs^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\eta _{rs^{}}D_o`$ (16)
and drop the hats on $`D_{rs}`$ and $`D_{r^{}s^{}}`$. $`D_o`$ is the $`\text{u}(1)`$ derivative while the operators $`D_{rs^{}}`$ span the $`\text{s}\text{u}(n)`$ part of the isotropy algebra. The operators $`D_{rs}`$ transform as a symmetric second-rank tensor under $`SU(n)`$ and can be regarded as the components of the $`\overline{}`$ operator on the coset, while the operators $`D_{r^{}s^{}}`$ are the conjugate set. With these conventions $`u_r^i`$ and $`u_r^{}^i`$ have $`U(1)`$ charges $`+1`$ and $`1`$ respectively.

The CR structure on the whole space $`\widehat{M}=M\times U(n)\backslash USp(2n)`$ is spanned by $`D_{\alpha r}`$ and $`D_{rs}`$, with involutivity being guaranteed by virtue of the fact that each derivative of this set (anti)-commutes with any other in the set.

To complete the picture we need the notion of a real structure. In the $`(1,0)`$ case we define a conjugation by combining the antipodal map on the two-sphere with complex conjugation. For an equivariant function $`A`$ on $`SU(2)`$ we define

$$A(u)\stackrel{~}{A}(u)=\overline{A(ϵu)}$$
(17)
where $`ϵ`$ is the usual $`ϵ`$-matrix. Fields which have an even $`U(1)`$ charge can be real under this operation, which simply means that such a field contains real representations of $`SU(2)`$ in a harmonic expansion.

In the $`(n,0)`$ case there is a very similar operation defined on equivariant fields by

$$A(u)\stackrel{~}{A}(u)=\overline{A(\eta u)}$$
(18)
Again a field can be real under this conjugation if it has even $`U(1)`$ charge. Explicitly, $`\stackrel{~}{u}:=\overline{(\eta u)}`$ is given by

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill \stackrel{~}{(u_r{}_{}{}^{i})}& =& \hfill \overline{u}^r^{}_i& =& \hfill (u^1)_i^r^{}& =& \hfill \eta ^{r^{}s}u_{si}\\ \hfill \stackrel{~}{(u_r^{}{}_{}{}^{i})}& =& \hfill \overline{u}^r_i& =& \hfill (u^1)_i^r^{}& =& \hfill \eta ^{rs^{}}u_{s^{}i}\end{array}$$
(19)
We shall now apply this formalism to the $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet. We define

$$W:=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{rs}u_r{}_{}{}^{i}u_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}W_{ij}^{}$$
(20)
We claim that $`W`$ is analytic. Since $`D_{rs}u_t{}_{}{}^{i}=0`$, $`W`$ is clearly analytic on $`F`$. Grassmann analyticity follows because

$`D_{\alpha r}W`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{st}u_s{}_{}{}^{j}u_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}u_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}D_{\alpha i}^{}W_{jk}`$ (21)
$`=`$ $`ϵ^{st}u_s{}_{}{}^{j}u_{t}^{}{}_{}{}^{k}u_{r}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}(\eta _{ij}\lambda _{\alpha k}\eta _{ik}\lambda _{\alpha j}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\eta _{jk}\lambda _{\alpha i})`$
Since $`u_r{}_{}{}^{i}u_{s}^{}{}_{}{}^{j}\eta _{ij}^{}=0`$ we deduce immediately that $`D_{\alpha r}W=0`$. We note as well that the reality of $`W_{ij}`$ ensures that $`W`$ is real under the conjugation defined above.

The converse of this result is also true, namely, a real analytic field $`W`$ of charge $`2`$ defined on $`\widehat{M}`$ can be expressed in the form of (20) where the Minkowski superspace field $`W_{ij}`$ obeys the constraints of the $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet discussed previously. The first part of this comes from the Bott-Borel-Weil theorem which, applied to this case, states that such an analytic field $`W`$ must have a short expansion of the form of (20). Note that this implies that $`W_{ij}`$ is symplectic traceless, since the trace is automatically absent in (20). Reality then implies that $`W_{ij}`$ is real, and G-analyticity implies that it must satisfy the constraint (3). This is because $`D_{\alpha i}W_{jk}`$ will in general decompose into a $`4`$ and a $`16`$ under $`USp(4)`$, but the latter will not give zero if substituted into the right-hand side of (21).

It is obvious that we can use $`W`$ to generate a family of superfields $`A_p:=W^p`$ which are analytic on $`\widehat{M}`$ and which have $`U(1)`$ charge $`2p`$ . The field $`A_2`$ is particularly important as it is the supercurrent, which in Minkowski superspace has the form $`W_{ij}W_{kl}|_{14}`$ . The fact that only the $`14`$-dimensional representation of $`W\times W`$ appears in the product is due to the properties of the $`u^{}s`$. Indeed, in $`SO(5)`$ notation $`W`$ transforms as a vector and the powers of $`W`$ that appear in the series $`A_p`$ fall into the symmetric traceless representations of $`SO(5)`$. This is very similar to the $`N=4`$ Yang-Mills case, where the leading components of the KK multiplets fall into symmetric traceless representations of $`SO(6)`$. To show that these composite fields are superconformal we now turn to a discussion of superconformal transformations in six dimensions.

## 4 Superconformal transformations in Minkowski superspace

Superconformal transformations in $`D=6,(n,0)`$ Minkowski superspaces for $`n=1,2`$ have been discussed in refs . The situation is rather similar to four dimensions (see  for a review). An infinitesimal superconformal transformation of Minkowski superspace can be defined to be an infinitesimal diffeomorphism which preserves the odd fermionic tangent bundle spanned by the vector fields $`D_{\alpha i}`$. Dually, it can be defined to be an infinitesimal diffeomorphism which preseves the even cotangent bundle spanned by the one-forms $`E^a:=dx^a\frac{i}{2}d\theta ^{\alpha i}(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }\eta _{ij}\theta ^{\beta j}`$.

Let $`V`$ be the vector field which generates such a diffeomorphism, then we have

$$<D_{\alpha i},_VE^a>=0$$
(22)
where $`<,>`$ denotes the standard pairing between one-forms and vector fields. If

$$V=F^a_a+\phi ^{\alpha i}D_{\alpha i}$$
(23)
we find that (22) implies that

$$D_{\alpha i}F^a+i(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }\phi _i^\beta =0$$
(24)
from which

$$\phi ^{\alpha i}=\frac{i}{6}(\gamma _a)^{\alpha \beta }D_\beta ^iF^a$$
(25)
Thus a superconformal transformation is determined by a function $`F^a`$ obeying the constraint

$$D_{\alpha i}F^a=\frac{1}{6}(\gamma ^a\gamma ^b)_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }D_{\beta i}^{}F_b$$
(26)
It is not difficult to show that $`F^a`$ satisfying (26) contains precisely the parameters of the superconformal algebra. Indeed, differentiating (24) again one finds

$$D_{\alpha i}\phi _j^\beta =\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }(f_{ij}+\frac{1}{4}\eta _{ij}_aF^a)=\eta _{ij}(\gamma ^{ab})_{\alpha \beta }L_{ab}$$
(27)
where $`f_{ij}=f_{ji}`$ and $`L_{ab}=_{[a}F_{b]}`$. One also finds the conformal Killing equation

$$_aF_b+_bF_a=\frac{1}{3}\eta _{ab}^cF_c$$
(28)
as well as the conformal Killing spinor equation

$$\gamma _a_b\phi _i+\gamma _b_a\phi _i=\frac{1}{3}\eta _{ab}\gamma ^c_c\phi _i$$
(29)
If we define the components of $`F`$ in a $`\theta `$-expansion to be $`\stackrel{~}{F}^a:=F^a|`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{\alpha i}:=\phi ^{\alpha i}|`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}:=f_{ij}|`$, where the vertical bar denotes evaluation of a superfield at $`\theta =0`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{F}^a`$ is a conformal Killing vector on ordinary Minkowski space, $`\stackrel{~}{\phi }^{\alpha i}`$ is a conformal Killing spinor which contains the $`Q`$ and $`S`$ supersymmetry parameters and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{ij}`$, which is constant in $`x`$, is the $`USp(2n)`$ parameter.

It is easy to see that the commutator of two vector fields satisfying (22) is a vector field of the same type so that the superconformal algebra can be expressed in terms of $`F^a`$ in the form

$$[F,F^{}]=F^{\prime \prime }$$
(30)
where

$$F^{\prime \prime a}=FF^aF^{}F^ai\phi ^{\alpha i}(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }\phi _i^\beta $$
(31)
is easily checked to satisfy (26) provided that $`F`$ and $`F^{}`$ do.

## 5 Superconformal transformations on analytic fields

The superconformal algebra is represented on $`M\times USp(2n)`$ by vector fields $`V`$ of the form

$$V=V_o+V_u$$
(32)
where $`V_o`$ is a superconformal Killing vector on $`M`$ and

$$V_u=\frac{1}{2}f^{IJ}\widehat{D}_{IJ}$$
(33)
with

$$f^{IJ}=D_\alpha ^{(I}\phi ^{\alpha J)}$$
(34)
In addition we use the standard convention that $`USp(2n)`$ indices are converted from lower case to upper case by means of $`u`$.

This vector field has the following properties: it defines a representation of the superconformal algebra; it commutes with the right-invariant vector fields on $`USp(2n)`$, and it preserves CR-analyticity modulo isotropy group derivatives. Thus Grassmann analyticity is preserved for H-analytic fields because

$$[D_{\alpha r},V]D_{\alpha r},D_{rs}$$
(35)
modulo isotropy group derivatives. These isotropy group terms have the effect that a transformation of the above type, acting on a G-analytic superfield $`A`$, say, with $`U(1)`$ charge $`p`$, does not preserve G-analyticity so that a correction term is required. The only possibility is to include a term proportional to $`F`$, since this function is independent of $`u`$ and hence harmonic analytic. The required transformation law is

$$\delta A=VA+\frac{p}{3n}(F)A$$
(36)
It can be checked that this rule does preserve G-analyticity and harmonic analyticity and that it does define a representation because

$$V_F(F^{})V_F^{}(F)=[F,F^{}]$$
(37)
Equivalently we can write

$$\delta A=𝒱A+\frac{p}{n(3n)}\mathrm{\Delta }A$$
(38)
where

$$𝒱=F+\phi ^{\alpha r^{}}D_{\alpha r^{}}\frac{1}{2}f^{r^{}s^{}}D_{r^{}s^{}}$$
(39)
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`FD_{\alpha r^{}}\phi ^{\alpha r^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}D_{r^{}s^{}}f^{r^{}s^{}}`$ (40)
$`=`$ $`(3n)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}F+\eta ^{rs^{}}f_{rs^{}}\right)`$
The vector field $`𝒱`$ also gives a representation of the superconformal algebra and has the property that it preserves G-analyticity and CR analyticity up to isotropy group terms. The function $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the divergence of $`𝒱`$. Note that there is no singularity for $`n=3`$ as the two $`(3n)`$ factors cancel from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the transformation rule.

For the $`(2,0)`$ tensor multiplet field strength $`W`$ the $`U(1)`$ charge is 2 and hence we expect that

$$\delta W=VW+\frac{1}{3}FW=𝒱W+\mathrm{\Delta }W$$
(41)
To verify that this is indeed the case one starts from the transformation rule of the three-form $`F`$ which is

$$\delta F=_VF$$
(42)
Since

$$F_{\alpha r\beta sc}=i(\gamma _c)_{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{rs}W$$
(43)
we can find the transformation rule for $`W`$ by examining this component of (42). It is straightforward to verify (41) by this means.

## 6 Correlation functions

In this section we consider the constraints which correlation functions of analytic operators in $`D=6,(2,0)`$ should satisfy. Even though we do not know the interacting theory it is still possible to examine the Ward Identities of the theory. The technique to be used here is the same one that has been employed to study the correlation functions of analytic operators in $`D=4`$ superconformal field theories in a series of papers , although we are not able, in this case, to perform checks in harmonic superspace perturbation theory. Indeed, even though one can present the (2,0) tensor multiplet in (1,0) superspace as a tensor multiplet together with a hypermultiplet, the (1,0) tensor multiplet does not admit an off-shell superfield formulation due to self-duality so that there there is no (1,0) superspace action even for the free theory. There have been several studies of 3-point functions in the literature, mainly for scalars  or energy-momentum tensors , including some discussion of anomalies.

We denote an $`N`$-point correlation function of analytic operators with charges $`p_1,\mathrm{}p_n`$ by $`<p_1\mathrm{}p_N>`$. The Ward identity for such a correlation function reads

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(𝒱_i+\frac{1}{3}p_i\mathrm{\Delta }_i\right)<p_1\mathrm{}p_N>=0$$
(44)
where we assume that all the points are separated.

The basic building blocks in the analysis of the Ward identities are the propagator, which is the two-point function of two free $`W`$’s, and the invariants. The propagator can be written

$$<W(1)W(2)>g_{12}=\frac{(12)}{x_{12}^4}$$
(45)
where

$$(12):=u^{ij}(1)u_{ij}(2)$$
(46)
with

$$u^{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{rs}u_r{}_{}{}^{i}u_{s}^{}^j$$
(47)
The spacetime variable $`x`$ is modified in order to satisfy Grassmann analyticity, and $`x_{12}=x_1x_2`$ denotes the difference as usual. The analytic $`x`$ is related to the standard spacetime coordinate $`x_S`$ by

$$x^a=x_S^a\frac{i}{2}\theta ^{\alpha r}(\gamma ^a)_{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\beta s^{}}\eta _{rs^{}}$$
(48)
Given the propagator it is straightforward to write down the two- and three-point functions. They are

$$<p_1p_2>\delta _{p_1p_2}(g_{12})^{p_1}$$
(49)
and

$$<p_1p_2p_3>(g_{12})^{p_{12}}(g_{23})^{p_{23}}(g_{12})^{p_{23}}$$
(50)
where

$$p_{ij}:=\frac{1}{2}p_i+p_jp_k,ki,j$$
(51)
This formula for the three-point functions is rather similar to the one for $`D=4,N=4`$ Yang-Mills theory . Note that it gives the functional form of all of the three-point functions for all of the component operators which are related by AdS/CFT to the KK multiplets of $`D=11`$ supergravity on $`AdS_7\times S^4`$.

For more than three points, using standard conformal field theory techniques, we can write the correlation functions, or at least those which do not vanish at leading order, as prefactors times functions of invariants, where the prefactors, which are constructed from the propagators, are solutions in the free theory. For a given correlator the prefactor will satisfy the full Ward identity (44), but in general will not be unique. We thus have, schematically,

$$<p_1\mathrm{}p_N>P\times F$$
(52)
where $`F`$ is a function of invariants.

It would be interesting to study, for example, four-point functions using similar techniques to those of  to see whether there can be non-trivial correlation functions even though one does not know the interacting theory. We can make a few speculations about certain special correlators, however, for which the charges are chosen in a special way.

We recall that in four dimensional SCFT there are certain extremal and next-to-extremal correlators whose functional form is free and which obey non-renormalisation theorems . It has recently been proposed that similar simplifications should occur in the present context . As in four dimensions the prefactors are uniquely determined for extremal correlators where the charge at point 1, say, is equal to the sum of the charges at the other points, $`p_1=_{i=2}^Np_i`$. The prefactor, $`P`$, is

$$P=\underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}(g_{1i})^{p_i}$$
(53)
In the analysis for such correlators in four dimensions in analytic superspace  it was found to be helpful to use the reduction formula  which relates $`N`$-point functions, differentiated with respect to the coupling, to $`(N+1)`$-point functions with one integrated insertion of the supercurrent. This trick is not available here, but we can still attempt to make a straightforward analysis for four points. There are no nilpotent invariants for four points, essentially because one has enough supersymmetries, 32, to transform away all of the odd coordinates, so that the invariants are the supersymmetric completions of the zeroth-order invariants. There are two independent spacetime cross-ratios and two independent internal cross-ratios and the supersymmetric completions of all of these have singularities in the internal space which occur in, say, $`y_{13}`$ and $`y_{24}`$ together, where we use $`y`$ to denote the complex coordinates of the internal space.222The internal space can be thought of as complexified compactified 3-dimensional Minkowski space. It is difficult to see how such singularities can be cancelled by the prefactors for extremal correlators in which each factor involves point 1. Although this is not a rigorous argument, it is very suggestive, and lends support to the conjecture recently made in .

Another way of looking at this problem would be to work in $`(1,0)`$ harmonic superspace and study the simpler problem of extremal four-point functions of hypermultiplet composites. The internal space in this case is the same as in $`D=4,N=2`$ harmonic superspace, i.e. $`\text{}P^1`$, so that the analysis resembles that given for extremal correlators in $`D=4,N=2`$ given in .

For more than four points there will be nilpotent invariants exactly as in the four-dimensional case. These invariants are rather complicated, but they are all singular. It is therefore very plausible that $`n`$-point extremal correlators are also free . It should be possible to make these arguments using invariants rigorous by studying the singularities explicitly; one might also hope to find strong constraints on next-to-extremal correlators as in four dimensions . This has also been proposed in ref .