text:
# Indirect exchange in GaMnAs bilayers via spin-polarized inhomogeneous hole gas: Monte Carlo simulation

## I Introduction

During the last decade a new interest arose in the study of the magnetic order in layered materials. This area includes the study of magnetic semiconductor pseudo-binary alloys like A1-xMxB, where M stands for a magnetic ion. These alloys are called Diluted Magnetic Semiconductors (DMS). dms1 ; dms2  A few years ago some groups van1 ; van2 ; oiwa1 ; oiwa2 ; matsukura ; ohno1 ; ohno2  succeeded in producing homogeneous samples of Ga1-xMnxAs alloys with $`x`$ up to $`7\%`$ using low temperature ($`200300^o`$ C) Molecular Beam Epitaxy (MBE) techniques. Mn is a transition metal having its $`3d`$ level half filled with five electrons, in such a way that it carries a spin of $`5\mathrm{}/2`$, according to the Hund’s rule. In Ga1-xMnxAs alloys a substitutional Mn acts as an acceptor (it binds one hole), and at the same time it carries a localized magnetic moment, due to its 3d shell. For $`x=0.053`$, the alloy is a metallic ferromagnet, matsukura  the Curie-Weiss temperature is 110K, and the free hole concentration is near $`12\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3. The ferromagnetic order in the metallic phase is understood as resulting from the indirect exchange between the Mn ions due to the local spin polarization in the hole gas. bose01  At present a vast literature exists about different possible mechanisms for that indirect exchange. dietl ; bose01 ; macdon ; bhatt  The free hole concentration in the metallic phase is a fraction (10-20$`\%`$) of the total concentration of Mn. This is understood as due to the presence of As anti-sites and interstitial Mn. The magnetic ordering resulting from indirect exchange via spin-polarized free carriers implies in a spin coherence length larger than the average distance between localized magnetic moments. The possibility of having a DMS based on GaAs opens a wide range of potential applications as, for instance, in integrated magneto-optoelectronic devices. nat

In this work we extended a confinement-adapted Ruderman-Kittel-Kasuya-Yosida (RKKY) bose01  mechanism to study the magnetic order resulting from the indirect exchange between magnetic moments in a GaAs/Ga1-xMnxAs nanostructure with two DMS layers. A temperature dependent Monte Carlo (MC) simulation is performed to determine the resulting magnetic phases. This article is organized as follows. In Sec. II we present the calculation of the indirect exchange for a confined spin-polarized Fermi gas in a semiconductor heterostructure. In Sec. III the self-consistent calculation of the heavy-hole single band electronic structure is presented in some detail. In Sec. IV the Monte Carlo simulation is performed to determine the resulting magnetic phases and the relevant properties. In Sec. V we present our conclusions. Our calculations reveal that a ferromagnetic phase exists even in thin layers in the structure containing two DMS layers. Considering the intra-layer and the inter-layer interactions as two independent mechanisms, we conclude that the intra-layer interaction is dominant in what concerns the internal magnetic order of each layer, while the inter-layer interaction alone, which determines the relative orientation of the two average magnetizations, is responsible for a transition temperature four times lower than that resulting from the two mechanism acting together. The roles of the carrier concentration and of the cutoff parameter are also analyzed.

## II Indirect exchange via spin-polarized Fermi gas

The indirect exchange between localized magnetic moments in quasi-two-dimensional structures mediated by a Fermi gas has been addressed several times.koren ; rkky4 ; larsen ; beal ; utiv ; aristov ; balten1 ; balten2  Basically, it deals with a confined electron (or hole) gas being locally spin-polarized by magnetic moments distributed in a layer.

The interaction potential between the Fermi gas and the set of localized magnetic moments is well described by the Kondo-like exchange term:

$$H_{\text{ex}}=I\underset{i}{}\stackrel{}{S}_i\stackrel{}{s}(\stackrel{}{r})\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R}_i),$$
(1)
where the localized spin of the Mn ion $`\stackrel{}{S}_i`$ at position $`\stackrel{}{R}_i`$ will be treated as a classical variable, and $`\stackrel{}{s}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the spin operator of the carrier at position $`\stackrel{}{r}`$; $`I`$ is the $`spd`$ interaction.

If $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\widehat{\psi }_\sigma ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ describe the fermion field operator for spin $`\sigma `$, then

$$s^z(\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{2}(\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r})),$$
(2)
$$s^+(\stackrel{}{r})=\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(3)
$$s^{}(\stackrel{}{r})=\widehat{\psi }_{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r})\widehat{\psi }_{}(\stackrel{}{r}),$$
(4)
with the usual definitions of $`s^+=s_x+is_y`$, and $`s^{}=s_xis_y`$. In terms of field operators, the (Kondo) exchange term in the Hamiltonian is

$$H_{\text{ex}}=\frac{I}{2}\underset{i}{}\{S_i^z[\psi _{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\psi _{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)]+S_i^+\psi _{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)+S_i^{}\psi _{}^{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\psi _{}(\stackrel{}{r}_i)\}.$$
(5)
We consider holes in a semiconductor heterostructure that are confined in the growth direction, assumed to be the z-axis. The total Hamiltonian, $`H=H_0+H_{\text{ex}}`$ includes in $`H_0`$ the kinetic part, the confinement potential and the Hartree as well as exchange and correlation terms. luc  Neglecting scattering from impurities, holes in the effective mass approximation are free particles in the ($`x,y`$) plane, i.e., in the plane parallel to the layer interfaces. Their field operator can be written as

$$\widehat{\psi }_\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=\frac{1}{\sqrt{A}}\underset{n,\stackrel{}{k}}{}e^{i\stackrel{}{k}.\stackrel{}{\rho }}\varphi _{n,\sigma }(z)\eta _\sigma c_{n,\stackrel{}{k},\sigma },$$
(6)
where $`A`$ is the normalization area, $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is a wave vector in the ($`x,y`$) plane, $`\eta _\sigma `$ is the spin tensor for the polarization $`\sigma `$, $`\varphi _{n,\sigma }(z)`$ is the envelope function which describes the motion of the fermion in the $`z`$-direction, and $`c_{n,\stackrel{}{k},\sigma }`$ is the fermion annihilation operator for the state ($`n,\stackrel{}{k},\sigma `$). $`\stackrel{}{\rho }`$ represents a vector in the ($`x,y`$) plane.

The confined RKKY indirect exchange is a second-order perturbative treatment. It gives two terms for the correction to the ground state energy of the system formed by the set of (classical) localized moments and the Fermi gas. bose01  The first one is the self-energy term, which corrects the site energy. The second is the interaction between the localized magnetic moments, the RKKY exchange, allowing the interaction to be written as a Heisenberg Hamiltonian:

$$\delta E^{(2)}=\underset{i,j}{}J_{ij}\text{S}_i\text{S}_j.$$
(7)
The RKKY approach can be extended to spin-polarized states. This is, in one sense, going beyond the second-order perturbation. In that case no simple spin-spin scalar product is obtained, as in Eq. (7), since the spin polarization breaks the rotational symmetry establishing a preferential direction, namely that of the average magnetization.

In the second-order perturbation, the correction to the energy which is bilinear in the magnetic ion dipole moment is obtained from

$$\delta E^{(2)}=\underset{t^{},F^{}}{}\frac{<F,t|H_{\text{ex}}|F^{},t^{}><F^{},t^{},|H_{\text{ex}}|F,t>}{E_{F^{},t^{}}^0E_{F,t}^0}.$$
(8)
Here, the state $`|F,t>`$ is understood as the direct product of the state of the system of classical localized moments and that of the quantum spin-polarized gas. Substituting Eq. (5) into Eq. (8) we obtain, after a lengthy calculation, the effective Hamiltonian which includes explicitly the spin-flip terms:

$$H_{eff}=\underset{i,j}{}(C_{ij}^{}+C_{ij}^{})S_i^zS_j^z+(C_{ij}^{}+C_{ij}^{})(S_i^xS_j^x+S_i^yS_j^y),$$
(9)
where the spin-flip term is given by:

$`C_{ij}^{}={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n^{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\text{k}\text{q}}{}}({\displaystyle \frac{I}{2A}})^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{ϵ_{n^{},\text{k}+\text{q}}ϵ_{n,\text{k}}}}\mathrm{exp}[i\text{q}(\text{R}_j\text{R}_i)]\times `$
$`\varphi _n^{}^{}(z_i)\varphi _n(z_i)\varphi _n^{}(z_j)\varphi _n^{}(z_j)\theta (E_Fϵ_{n,\text{k}})\theta (ϵ_{n^{},\text{k}+\text{q}}E_F).`$ (10)
Notice that the arrows refer to spins up or down for holes, not the orientation of the localized magnetic moments at the Mn sites. Similar definitions hold for the other $`C_{ij}^{\sigma \sigma ^{}}`$. Eq. (10) can be expressed in terms of the Lindhard function: abrik ; keld

$$\chi ^{n,n^{}}(\stackrel{}{q})=\underset{\stackrel{}{k}}{}\frac{\theta (E_Fϵ_{n,\stackrel{}{k}})\theta (E_Fϵ_{n^{},\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}})}{ϵ_{n^{},\stackrel{}{k}+\stackrel{}{q}}ϵ_{n,\stackrel{}{k}}},$$
(11)
and its real-space Fourier transform:

$$\chi ^{n,n^{}}(\text{R}_{ij})=\underset{\stackrel{}{q}}{}\mathrm{exp}[i\stackrel{}{q}\text{R}_{ij}]\chi ^{n,n^{}}(\stackrel{}{q}).$$
(12)
Substituting Eq. (11) in Eq. (10) we obtain

$$C_{ij}^{\mu \nu }=\underset{n\mu }{}\underset{n^{}\nu }{}(\frac{I}{2A})^2\varphi _n^{}^{}(z_i)\varphi _n(z_i)\varphi _n^{}(z_j)\varphi _n^{}(z_j)\chi ^{n,n^{}}(\text{R}_{ij}),$$
(13)
where the summations on $`n`$ and $`n`$ are restricted to those sub-bands with the proper spin polarization.

The intra-subband real space Lindhard function $`\chi ^{n,n}(\text{R}_{ij})`$ has been derived by several authors: bose01 ; koren ; utiv ; beal ; aristov

$$\chi ^{n,n}(R_{ij})=\frac{m_t^{}A^2}{4\pi \mathrm{}^2}k_F^{(n)2}[J_0(k_F^{(n)}R_{ij})N_0(k_F^{(n)}R_{ij})+J_1(k_F^{(n)}R_{ij})N_1(k_F^{(n)}R_{ij})],$$
(14)
where $`m_t^{}`$ is the transversal (parallel to the interfaces) effective mass, and $`k_F^{(n)}`$ refers to the Fermi wavevector of subband $`n`$.

The inter-subband terms cannot be expressed in a closed form. bose01  They must be obtained numerically from the integral

$$\chi ^{n,n^{}}(\text{R}_{ij})=_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑qqF_{n,n^{}}(q)J_0(qR_{ij}),$$
(15)
where

$$F_{n,n^{}}(q)=\frac{A^2m_t^{}}{8\pi ^2\mathrm{}^2}(1\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }_{n^{},n}}{q^2})[1\sqrt{1(\frac{2k_F^{(n)}q}{q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{n^{},n}})^2}\theta (q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{n^{},n}2qk_F^{(n)})]\theta (ϵ_n^{}E_F),$$
(16)
with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{n^{},n}=2m_t^{}(E_n^{}E_n)/\mathrm{}^2`$.

## III Spin-polarized electronic structure for magnetic multilayers

In order to obtain the spin-polarized electronic structure for holes given an average magnetization of the Mn ions, we solve self-consistently the heavy hole single band Schrödinger equation in the reciprocal space. The hole system is supposed to be homogeneous in the $`xy`$ plane, so the Hartree term depends only on the coordinate $`z`$, $`U_H(\stackrel{}{r})=U_H(z).`$ For the purpose of obtaining the electronic structure we treat the magnetic interaction as being due to an uniform magnetization in the DMS layers. If a net magnetization exists, it will polarize the hole gas. This problem is solved self-consistently by a secular matrix equation in the reciprocal space. The method would be exact were not for cutting the matrix size. The advantage is that it provides spin-polarized eigenvalues and eigenfunctions with high accuracy, not only for bound states, but also for a high number of scattering states. For each spin, we define the wavefunction Fourier Transform (FT):

$$\psi _\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=d^3q\mathrm{exp}(i\stackrel{}{q}.\stackrel{}{r})\psi _\sigma (\stackrel{}{q}).$$
(17)
The hole eigenstates will be obtained by discretizing the integrals on $`\stackrel{}{q}`$ appearing in

$$d^3r\psi _\sigma ^{}(\stackrel{}{r})(HE)\psi _\sigma (\stackrel{}{r})=0.$$
(18)
When integrating the magnetic term in the Hamiltonian over $`\stackrel{}{r}`$, we assumed the magnetic impurities to be uniformly distributed in each one of the Ga1-xMnxAs DMS layers, all of them having the same thermal average magnetization. This treatment includes not only the ferromagnetic phase but also phases where a partial magnetization is observed, as the “canted-spin” phases. bose01 ; bose02  Therefore, taking an homogenous concentration of $`N_i`$ magnetic impurities in the $`j`$-th layer, we have:

$`I{\displaystyle }d^3r\mathrm{exp}[i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{q}^{}).\stackrel{}{r}]{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{N_i}{}}}\stackrel{}{s}(\stackrel{}{r}).\stackrel{}{S}(\stackrel{}{R_i})\delta (\stackrel{}{r}\stackrel{}{R_i})`$
$`I{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}<M>_j{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{\overset{N_i}{}}}\mathrm{exp}[i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{q}^{}).\stackrel{}{R_i}]=`$
$`I{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}<M>_j{\displaystyle \frac{N_i}{V}}{\displaystyle }d^3R_i\mathrm{exp}[i(\stackrel{}{q}\stackrel{}{q}^{}).\stackrel{}{R_i}]=`$
$`N_0\beta {\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{2}}x{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}<M>_jF_{DMS}^j(q_zq_z^{})(2\pi )^3\delta ^2(\stackrel{}{q}_{}\stackrel{}{q}_{}^{}),`$ (19)
where $`\sigma =\pm 1`$ for spin parallel (upper sign) or anti-parallel (lower sign) to the magnetization, and $`\frac{N_i}{V}=xN_0`$ is the impurity density, in terms of $`N_0`$, the density of the cation ions. The sp-d exchange constant for holes is usually written as $`\beta `$. Here we used $`N_0\beta =1.2`$eV. okaba  $`F_{DMS}^j`$ is the integral performed on the $`z`$ -coordinate inside the $`j`$-th DMS layer:

$$F_{DMS}^j(q)\frac{1}{2\pi }_jdz\mathrm{exp}[iq.z].$$
(20)
Comparing Eqs. (19) and (20), the latter being just the Fourier transform of an unit barrier function within the range of the $`j`$-th DMS layer, we see that the thermal average magnetization $`<M>_j`$ polarizes the hole gas by introducing additional effective confining potentials given by

$$V_{mag}^{eff}(z)=N_0\beta x\frac{\sigma }{2}\underset{j}{}<M>_jg_j(z),$$
(21)
where $`g_j(z)=1`$ if $`z`$ lies inside the $`j`$-th layer, and $`g_j(z)=0`$ otherwise. Next, we define

$$U_{eff}(q)=\frac{1}{2\pi }dz\mathrm{exp}[iq.z][U_c(z)+V_{mag}^{eff}(z)+U_H(z)],$$
(22)
where $`U_c(z)`$ and $`U_H(z)`$ are the confining and the Hartree potentials, respectively. The eigenvalues and eigenfunctions at the bottom of the 2-D subbands may be obtained by solving the secular equation for each spin polarization:

$$det\left\{\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^2q_z^2}{2m^{}}E\right]\delta (q_zq_z^{})+U_{eff}(q_zq_z^{})\right\}=0.$$
(23)
## IV Monte Carlo simulation: Interlayer interaction and magnetic ordering

In the present work we have focused our attention on metallic systems with the Mn concentration $`x=5\%`$, and we have neglected possible superexchange (anti-)ferromagnetic interaction between the nearest neighbors and the next-nearest neighbors pairs. We have performed extensive Monte Carlo (MC) simulations in order to determine the possible magnetic order occurring in a system containing a double layer of Ga1-xMnxAs. Classical spins $`𝐒_i`$, representing the localized magnetic moments of the Mn ions, are randomly distributed on the cation sites with concentration $`x`$. They are assumed to interact through the exchange Hamiltonian defined by Eq. (9).

The interaction derived in Sec. II is assumed to be effective within a cutoff radius which corresponds to the carrier spin coherence length. This cutoff is taken tentatively as $`R_c=2.5a`$, and $`R_c=2a`$, where $`a`$ is the fcc lattice parameter of GaAs. These values correspond to five and four monolayers (ML), respectively. This choice makes the smallest value assumed for $`R_c`$ nearly equal to the hole mean free path estimated from bulk transport measurements. matsukura

The electronic structure was calculated for a system of two DMS layers grown inside a GaAs quantum well. We have studied two different DMS layer widths, 10 and 20 Å. The GaAs spacer separating the DMS layers has been considered as having widths varying from 5 Å to 60 Å. The whole system consists of a 200Å quantum well with infinite barriers in the z-direction, in the center of which the two GaMnAs layers and a GaAs spacer are disposed, as shown in Fig. 1. The eigenstates, obtained according to Sec. III, were calculated for net magnetizations $`\frac{<M>}{5\mathrm{}/2}=0.0,0.1,0.2,\mathrm{}1.0`$, for each one of the geometries used. Notice that $`<M>`$ determines the effective magnetic potential in Eq. (21) and, in consequence, the whole electronic structure. A typical result for the electric charge density, and the spin polarization densities is shown in Fig. 1c. We see that holes are attracted to the region of the DMS layers by the negatively charged Mn ions. Because $`N_0\beta `$ is negative, however, the $`spd`$ interaction (taken into account as the effective magnetic potential) favors the occurrence of anti-parallel spin subbands at lower energies. Several subbands are occupied, due to the high concentration of free carriers, most of them corresponding to the anti-parallel spin polarization. Therefore, the total interaction, i.e., the confinement, the Coulomb interaction (Hartree and correlation terms) plus the $`spd`$ interaction results in an inhomogeneous distribution of spin polarization and spin charge density. Holes with parallel spins, at lower density than that of parallel spins, concentrate on the DMS layers, while the latter, at higher density, spreads in a much wider region. The inhomogeneity of the spin polarization density influences the indirect exchange between localized magnetic moments, and this fact is taken into account explicitly in the present calculation. For each value of $`<M>`$ the exchange interaction terms in Eq. (9) are calculated and tabulated for all possible magnetic ions distances $`R_{ij}`$ in the $`(x,y)`$ plane according to the zincblende structure within the cutoff radius.

The MC calculation is performed in a finite box, whose axes are parallel to the  directions. Its dimensions are $`L_x=L_y`$, and $`L_z=2L`$, where $`L`$ is the width of each DMS layer. Periodic boundary conditions are imposed in the $`(x,y)`$ plane. The lateral dimensions are adjusted in such a way that the total number $`N_s`$ of Mn sites is about 4000, for all samples with different $`L_z`$. The initial spin orientations of the Mn ions are randomly assigned in the two DMS layers which are separated by a distance $`d`$, the width of the GaAs spacer. At a given temperature, the energy of the system due to exchange interaction is calculated, and the equilibrium state for a given temperature is sought by changing the individual vector spin orientation according to the Metropolis algorithm. diep  A slow cooling stepwise process is accomplished, starting from above the transition temperature $`T_c`$, and making sure that the thermal equilibrium is reached at every temperature. Every time the net magnetization increases to reach a value of $`n\times 0.1`$, $`n`$ an integer varying form 0 to 10, the tabulated values of the exchange interaction terms are substituted by those corresponding to the new reference $`<M>`$. The tabulated values of the exchange interaction terms were calculated from the hole states (eigenfunctions, eigenvalues and Fermi wavevectors) resulting from self-consistent calculation described in Sec. III for this specific thermal average magnetization $`<M>`$. Then, the resulting spin configuration for the Mn ions is taken as the starting configuration for the next step at a lower temperature. The Monte Carlo procedure adopted in this way takes account of the changes on the hole gas polarization due to the presence of the established order among the localized magnetic moments in the Mn ions. Thus the magnetization is determined by a fully self-consistent process, but the effects of the fluctuations of the magnetization on the electronic structure are neglected in this process.

For each temperature, the thermal average magnetization $`<M>`$, and the Edwards-Anderson (EA) order parameter $`q`$ are calculated. diep  The latter is defined as

$$q=\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(\underset{\alpha }{}\left|\frac{1}{t}\underset{t^{}=t_0}{\overset{t_0+t}{}}S_{i\alpha }(t^{})\right|^2\right)^{1/2},$$
(24)
where $`\alpha =x`$, $`y`$ and $`z`$. In order to avoid spurious results on the thermal average values of $`q`$ over a large time interval $`t`$, a summation on $`t^{}`$ is performed starting from a time $`t_0`$, when the system already reached the thermal equilibrium. This is true for other quantities such as energy, magnetic susceptibility, etc.

The MC simulations have been performed for several samples as indicated on Table I. The ratio between the carrier concentration and the Mn concentration is the same for the two DMS layers, and is chosen to reproduce hole concentrations which in bulk would be $`p=1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3, and $`p=2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3. In Fig. 2 the normalized magnetization as a function of temperature is shown for samples #1 to #6, with the DMS layer width of 10 Å, bulk hole concentration $`p=1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3, and $`R_c=5`$ monolayers (ML). All these samples show a paramagnetic (P) to a ferromagnetic (FM) phase transition. The transition temperatures decrease with the increase of the spacer thickness, pointing to the importance of the inter-layer interaction. In Fig. 3 all parameters are kept the same as in the previous figure, but $`p=2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3. The increase on the hole concentration has two main influences on the magnetization curves: (i) an increase of $`T_c`$ and (ii) the possibility of the occurrence of a canted spin phase (C), with a partial ferromagnetic order.bose01  This canted spin phase can be explained on the basis of the oscillatory behavior of the exchange interaction. The increase on the hole concentration produces an increase of the Fermi wave number, and anti-ferromagnetic (AF) interactions are likely to occur, according to the oscillatory nature of the (confined) indirect interaction. The Curie temperatures $`T_c`$ for samples # 01 to # 12 are obtained in the range from 20 K to 49 K.

In Fig. 4 the results are shown for two 20 Å DMS layers. The hole concentration is $`p=2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3, and the cutoff length is 5 ML. $`T_c`$ decreases with the interlayer separation, as before. However, compared to the 10 Å system, a higher $`T_c`$ is observed in the present case. In Fig. 5 the cutoff radius used was 4 ML. We observe here the same behavior as before, but with higher $`T_c`$, and also with higher values of $`<M>`$. The presence of effective AF interactions in these samples, due to the oscillatory behavior of the exchange interaction, may produce canted spin phases, rather than FM phases. This results from competing ferro- and antiferromagnetic interactions. It is the case of the so-called frustration. Although these are ordered phases, as can be observed in the EA parameters on Fig. 6, the Mn magnetic moments are not all parallel and the magnetizations at zero temperature are in most samples partial, lying on the range of 60% to 100%. The Curie temperatures $`T_c`$ for samples # 13 to # 24 are obtained in the range from 35 to 64 K.

In order to better understand the importance of the spin-polarized indirect exchange on the magnetic order and on the transition temperature of these layered systems, we have compared our results with a simulation performed with an unpolarized exchange. This is done by using the tabulated values of the exchange for $`<M>=0`$ in the whole cooling stepwise MC simulation. For this comparison we have chosen a sample with the same characteristics of sample # 1, i.e., two 10 Å DMS layer and a GaAs spacer of 5 Å. The result is shown in Fig. 7. The presence of polarization more than doubles the Curie temperature. This occurs because the effective magnetic potential resulting from the finite thermal average magnetization, and the consequent polarization of the hole gas favor a stronger concentration of charge and spin on the DMS layers, as can be seen in Fig. 1, providing a stronger exchange than that for the unpolarized system.

A calculation was performed to estimate how the interlayer interaction is affected by the the width of the spacer, and how this effect appears in the Curie temperature. To this end, the exchange interaction inside each DMS layer was “turned off” by making it artificially equal to zero. Thus, only the Mn ions belonging to two different DMS layers are interactive. The MC simulations are then performed on the same basis as described before. The results are presented in Table II, for the two DMS layers with 10 Å width separated by 5, 10, 15, 20, 40, and 60 Å, and for two different hole concentrations, $`1\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3 in Fig. 8 (samples #19 to #24), and $`2\times 10^{20}`$ cm-3 in Fig. 9 (samples #25 to #30). These results show that there is an effective interlayer coupling able to produce a FM phase. The fact that Tc coming out exclusively from that interaction is about four times lower than that for the complete interaction reveals that the main contribution to the magnetic ordering within each layer is due to de intralayer coupling. The interlayer interaction acts mainly to establish the ferromagnetic arrangement between the magnetization of the two layers. Notice, however, that the resulting magnetic order affects and is affected by the distribution of charge and spin of the free carriers in the structure. We have performed an exponential fitting of the transition temperature as a function of the spacer thickness for samples with $`L=10\AA `$, taking into account the complete interaction and also solely with the interlayer interaction. This is shown in Fig. 10. Notice that the exponential fitting works well in both cases, putting into evidence the importance of the intra-layer interaction. A similar calculation was performed to explore the dependence of the Curie temperature on the DMS layer width, for a fixed spacer thickness ($`d=10\AA `$). The results appear in Fig. 11, for $`L=10,20,40`$ and $`50\AA `$. The Curie temperature increases with the DMS width approaching the fully filled $`T_c`$, as a saturation exponential function.

Up to now the simulations in this work were performed in a single Monte Carlo sample (for each geometry chosen, given by the set of parameters $`L,d`$ and $`p`$) with a specific distribution of the sites occupied by the magnetic ions. Next, the calculation is performed taking into account a configurational average on the initial distribution of the orientation of individual magnetic moments $`𝐒_𝐢`$ on the Mn ions, as well as on the sites $`𝐑_𝐢`$ where these ions are localized. The positions of the Mn ions identify a MC sample. The parameters are chosen as those of sample $`\mathrm{\#}01`$ in Table I. The site configurational average is performed, in each case, over three initial configurations, namely $`a,b`$ and $`c`$ (the MC samples). Although the results do not change significantly, as it can be seen from Fig. 12 which shows the average magnetization versus temperature, it is important to observe general behaviors which appear in the process. For instance, Fig. 13 shows the susceptibility versus temperature, and we can see that, apart the critical fluctuations to be expected at the transition temperature, which is perfectly defined in that figure, the fluctuations are more important at low temperatures than at high temperatures above $`T_C`$. Another interesting behavior appears in Fig. 14, showing the magnetic specific heat ($`C_V`$) versus temperature. Again, the fluctuations are more important at low temperatures. Besides, the maximum of $`C_V`$ occurs at a temperature which is lower than that of the maximum of the susceptibility, what is reminiscent of the spin-glass behavior, and can be understood as a consequence of the competing FM and AF interactions characteristics of the indirect exchange.

## V Discussions and Final Comments

This Monte Carlo simulations shows that this system with two thin GaMnAs layers inside a GaAs matrix presents a ferromagnetic, or at least a canted magnetic phase ordering. The input parameters, namely the hole concentration, the DMS layer width, the DMS layer separation and the interaction cutoff, all influence the magnetic phase of these systems. The increase of hole concentration favors the canted phase due to the intrinsic frustration of the indirect exchange interaction. In the reverse direction, the elimination of the AF interactions produces FM samples and an increase of the Tc as already observed in a previous work. bose01  The increase of the DMS layer width will increase the number of interacting magnetic moments raising also Tc. As expected, Tc will be lowered with the increase on the spacer thickness, since as the separation increases the interlayer coupling become weaker and weaker until it reaches a limiting value. This limit is finite due to the confinement by the infinite barriers at the boundaries of the structure. We have quantified the influence of this parameter on the magnetization of the system. Despite the fact that this interlayer interaction is four times weaker than that of the complete system, it is important to notice that it plays an important role in the existence of a FM phase in multilayers, and in digital superlattices.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by CENAPAD-SP (Centro Nacional de Processamento de Alto Desempenho em São Paulo) UNICAMP/FINEP-MCT, CNPq and FAPERJ in Brazil, and by the CAPES-COFECUB Franco-Brazilian Program.


format: text

text:
# Chiral symmetry and strangeness content in nuclear physics parametrized by a medium dependent bag constant

## Abstract

Non-perturbative QCD vacuum effects at finite density are parametrized by means of a bag constant $`B`$. It is extracted from a Nambu- Jona Lasinio model with two or three flavors. The parameter $`B`$ is used in an effective bag-like model of baryons to study the nuclear phenomenology. We examine the nucleon structure and the thermodynamical properties of symmetric nuclear matter, particular attention is paid to the symmetry energy and to the eventual phase transition to deconfined quark matter. An alternative sketch of the binding mechanism of symmetric nuclear matter emerges within this approach. It is also found that the inclusion of strangeness content in $`B`$ is crucial for an appropriate description.
PACS:12.39.Ba,12.39.Fe,21.65.+f, 12.40.Yx, 21.30.Fe

The low energy regime of QCD is very difficult to manage due to its non-perturbative nature. This feature gives rise to different methods, like sum rules and effective models, to avoid dealing with the full theory in the description of the hadronic phenomenology. These approaches intend to include the symmetries of QCD implicitly into the final results.

A simple shortcut procedure to take care of non-perturbative vacuum contributions is the introduction of the so-called bag constant $`B`$, in both confined and deconfined quark phases. The former bag models used it to account for the energy required to create a unit volume of the Weyl-Wigner vacuum into the complex QCD ground state. In ref. two different scales were associated to $`B`$, the higher one is related to the condensation of gluons and consequently with the recovery of the scale symmetry of QCD. The lower one is indicative of the restoration of chiral symmetry. Approximate calculations for these scales there given are $`B^{1/4}=245MeV`$ and $`B^{1/4}=140MeV`$ respectively.

Another significant aspect in the definition of the bag parameter is its hypothetical variation with the medium properties of the hadronic matter. Speculation about the medium dependence of $`B`$ has been motivated from different areas and ad-hoc phenomenological parametrizations have been proposed . It is expected that the gradual recovery of fundamental symmetries with increasing density and/or temperature modifies the vacuum structure and the value of $`B`$ accordingly.

In this work we attempt to extract a bag parameter that varies with the baryonic density but carrying the signature of the chiral symmetry and, ultimately to examine its influence over the nuclear dynamics at finite density. For this purpose we use two rather different theoretical descriptions of the high density regime of the strong interacting matter and we combine them to describe in a simplified manner the influence of the QCD vacuum changes over the gross properties of the nuclear matter. We have selected the Nambu-Jona Lasinio (NJL) model  to study the modification of the QCD vacuum with increasing baryonic density and to extract a medium-dependent bag constant. This parameter is then inserted into the Quark Meson Coupling (QMC) model  to describe the nucleon substructure. It must be mentioned that each one of these issues have been independently investigated in the past, but we intend to put them together in a novel combination. For instance, a density dependent bag constant has been proposed within the QMC , but it was initially regarded as a way to restore certain aspects of the nuclear phenomenology instead of a manifestation of the underlying QCD vacuum. This fact explains why the parametrization of $`B`$ has been made in terms of either the scalar $`\sigma `$ meson mean field or the effective nucleon mass.

Adopting the viewpoint of the early bag models, we expect that $`B`$ would carry significative information about the fundamental symmetries and would transfer it to the hadronic sector. Thus, as previously mentioned, the recovery of chiral and scale symmetries with increasing density and/or temperature would have remarkable effects over $`B`$.

The formulation of chiral invariant theories was certainly one of the major successes in the development of the bag models . However QMC abandoned this requirement since it was thought as a way to match the bag picture of the hadron structure with the Quantum Hadrodynamics  treatment of the nuclear many-body problem. The coupling to a scalar $`\sigma `$ meson plays a key role in this description, therefore the explicit breaking of chiral symmetry seems to be an inherent feature of the QMC formulation. In the following we shall see how a bag constant respecting the chiral invariance in its definition, could modify this situation.

Our starting point is the original meaning of $`B`$, i.e. the energy difference between the fundamental state with explicit realization of the symmetries and that with symmetries spontaneously broken . For this purpose we consider the NJL for both SU(2) and SU(3) versions of the chiral symmetries . In the last case the flavor degeneracy is removed introducing a heavy strange quark.

The lagrangian density of the model is

$$=\overline{q}(i/m)q+_4+_6$$
(1)
with $`q^t=(u,d,s)`$ and $`m=`$diag$`(m_u,m_d,m_s)`$ is the current mass matrix that explicitly breaks chiral invariance. The four quarks interaction term $`_4`$ is invariant under $`U_L(3)\times U_R(3)`$ transformations

$$_4=G\left[(\overline{q}\lambda _kq)^2+(\overline{q}i\gamma _5\lambda _kq)^2\right],$$
(2)
where $`\lambda _k`$, $`k=0,\mathrm{},8`$ are the Gell-Mann matrices with $`\lambda _0=\sqrt{2/3}`$ diag$`(1,1,1)`$.

The six quarks term removes the redundant $`U_A(1)`$ symmetry

$$_6=K\left\{det[\overline{q}_i(1+\gamma _5)q_j]+det[\overline{q}_i(1\gamma _5)q_j]\right\}$$
(3)
Due to the development of the quark-antiquark condensates the current quark masses acquires its large constituent values $`M_k`$, given by the self-consistent equations

$$M_k=m_k4G<\overline{q}_kq_k>+2K<\overline{q}_iq_i><\overline{q}_jq_j>,$$
(4)
with $`ikj`$, and the condensates are given by

$`<\overline{q}_kq_k>`$ $`=`$ $`C_k=i\underset{x_0^{}x_0+}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{ip.(x^{}x)}TrG_k(p)}`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c}{2\pi ^2}}M_k\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }E_\mathrm{\Lambda }p_kE_{p_k}M_k^2\mathrm{ln}({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }+E_\mathrm{\Lambda }}{p_k+E_{p_k}}})\right],`$ (6)
where we have used the quark propagator

$$G_k(p)=(/p+M_k)[\frac{1}{p^2M_k^2+iϵ}+2\pi i\delta (p^2M_k^2)\theta (p_kp)]$$
(7)
and $`E_x=\sqrt{x^2+M_k^2}`$. We have used a non-covariant 3-momentum cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, and explicitly included finite density effects using the Fermi momentum $`p_k`$. Therefore the ground state is obtained filling the quark Fermi shell plus the Dirac sea divergent contribution. The contribution of $`k`$-flavor $`n_k`$ to the total baryon density is related to its Fermi momentum by

$$n_k=\frac{N_c}{3}\frac{p_k^3}{3\pi ^2}.$$
(8)
Once the eqs. (4) and (6) have been solved the energy density for the fundamental state is evaluated by taking the statistical average of the hamiltonian density

$$\epsilon _{QM}=\frac{N_c}{8\pi ^2}\underset{k}{}(F(M_k,p_k)F(M_k,\mathrm{\Lambda }))+2G(C_u^2+C_d^2+C_s^2)4KC_uC_dC_s,$$
(9)
with $`F(M,x)=xE_x(E_x^2+x^2)M^4\mathrm{ln}((x+E_x)/M)`$.

A definite constant $`\epsilon _0`$ must be added to Eq. (9) in order to get zero energy when no valence quarks are present. The pressure is evaluated using the thermodynamical relation

$$P_{QM}=\underset{k}{}\mu _kn_k\epsilon _{QM},$$
(10)
where $`\mu _k=\epsilon _{QM}/n_k`$ is the chemical potential for quarks of flavor $`k`$.

As above mentioned we take $`B`$ as the difference between Eq. (9) and the energy of the state with zero quark condensates, but at the same baryonic density. This definition is in agreement with that used in . In this way a density dependent bag parameter has been obtained, able to be used in both hadron and quark matter since the parametrization is made in terms of only a common conserved charge. It is expected that the flavor composition of matter affects the density dependence of $`B`$, therefore we examine three different situations (a) symmetric $`ud`$ quark matter in the SU(2) version of the model, (b) symmetric $`ud`$ quark matter in the SU(3) version, that is the Dirac sea contribution of strange quarks is included, and (c) electrically neutral quark matter coexisting with leptons in equilibrium by electroweak decay, a situation of interest in astrophysical applications. Thus we have the constraints for the quark Fermi momenta $`p_u=p_d=p,p_s=0`$, $`n=2N_cp^3/(9\pi ^2)`$ for the items (a)-(b) and $`\mu _s=\mu _d,\mu _u+\mu _e=\mu _d`$, $`0=N_c(2p_u^3p_d^3p_s^3)/3p_e^3`$, $`n=N_c(p_u^3+p_d^3+p_s^3)/(9\pi ^2)`$ for the case (c). Here $`n`$ stands for the baryon number density and $`\mu _e`$ for the electron chemical potential.

For practical calculations we have used $`m_u=m_d=5.5MeV,m_s=140.7MeV`$ and the model parameters $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=602.3`$ MeV, $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=1.835`$, $`K\mathrm{\Lambda }^5=12.36MeV`$ which were obtained by reproducing the $`\pi `$-, $`K`$\- and $`\eta `$’-meson masses together with the constant $`f_\pi `$ , for cases (b) and (c). For the item (a) instead, we have used the parameters given in  for the Hartree results in the 3-momentum cutoff approach, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=653MeV`$, $`G\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=2.14`$.

The density dependence obtained in our calculations is shown in Fig.1. The SU(2) and SU(3) schemes differ essentially in all the range, while within the three flavor treatment the cases (b) and (c) are similar for low and medium densities. The items (a) and (c) exhibit a steep descent at sufficiently high densities, in contrast with case (b) that keeps a large constant value. The cause of this behavior is that the strange condensate does not melt in (b) as the non-strange ones do. In turn this is due to the lack of the valence strange quark contribution, as confirmed by the sudden splitting of the curves (b) and (c) at $`n4.5n_0`$ shown in Fig. 1. The fast decrease of the graph corresponding to (c) coincides with the turning up of the strange quark into the Fermi sea. Therefore the large asymptotic value shown by the SU(3) approach for the symmetric $`ud`$ matter can be assigned to the constraint of null strange Fermi momentum.

The resulting $`B`$ parameter can be used to evaluate nuclear matter properties. For this purpose we have selected a bag-like model that provides a satisfactory description of a wide range of nuclear phenomena, the QMC model . Within the QMC baryons are regarded as non-overlapping spherical bags, where three valence quarks are confined. These quarks interact with its surrounding media by the interchange of light $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$-mesons, as suggested by the successful Quantum Hadrodynamics models  . Inside the bag the quark fields obey the mean-field equation

$$(i\gamma ^\mu _\mu g_\omega ^k\gamma ^0\omega _0m_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{})q_k(x)=0,$$
(11)
where $`m_k^{}=m_kg_\sigma ^k\sigma `$, since within the bag there is only a small breakdown of chiral symmetry we use the current value of the quark masses $`m_k`$. In Eq. (11) $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega _0`$ stand for the mean field values of the meson fields evaluated in the dense hadronic medium and $`g_{\sigma ,\omega }^k`$ are the quark-meson coupling constants. The solutions of this equation is

$$q_k(r,t)=𝒩^{1/2}\frac{e^{i\epsilon _kt}}{\sqrt{4\pi }}\left(\begin{array}{c}j_0(x_kr/R)\\ i\beta _k\stackrel{}{\sigma }.\widehat{r}j_1(x_kr/R)\end{array}\right)\chi ^k,$$
(12)
where $`\chi ^k`$ is the quark spinor and

$`\epsilon _k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_k}{R}}+g_\omega ^k\omega _0,`$
$`𝒩`$ $`=`$ $`R^3[2\mathrm{\Omega }_k(\mathrm{\Omega }_k1)+Rm_{k}^{}{}_{}{}^{}]{\displaystyle \frac{j_0^2(x_k)}{x_k^2}}`$
$`\beta _k`$ $`=`$ $`\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }_kRm_k^{}}{\mathrm{\Omega }_k+Rm_k^{}}}\right]^{1/2}`$ (13)
with $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k=[x_k^2+(Rm_k^{})^2]^{1/2}`$. The eigenvalue $`x_k`$ is solution of the equation

$$j_0(x_k)=\beta _kj_1(x_k)$$
(14)
which arises from the condition of zero quark current through the bag surface.
In this model the ground state bag energy is identified with the baryon mass $`M^{}`$,

$$M^{}=\frac{_kN_k\mathrm{\Omega }_kz_0}{R}+\frac{4}{3}\pi BR^3$$
(15)
where $`N_k`$ is the number of quarks of flavor $`k`$ inside the bag. As usual in the bag model, two phenomenological corrective terms are added to the quark energy: the one containing $`z_0`$ amends the single particle spectrum and the other, proportional to the bag volume, represents the energy required to create a Weyl-Wigner bubble in the complex QCD vacuum. The last one has acquired a density dependence in our approach.

The bag radius adjusts to maintain the confinement volume in equilibrium with it surrounding media. Thus once $`B`$ is given and $`z_0`$ fixed to reproduce the baryon mass at zero baryon density, the bag radius $`R`$ is determined by the equilibrium condition $`dM^{}/dR=0`$

Density dependent bag parameters have been proposed previously within the QMC description . Formerly it was regarded as a way to restore the phenomenology of $`\sigma \omega `$ fields at the saturation nuclear density $`n_0=0.15fm^3`$ . However the density dependence of $`B`$ was guessed by means of the effective nucleon mass or by the $`\sigma `$-mean field, thus its relation with the underlying theory was not clear. Instead a phenomenological relation between $`B`$ and the equation of state of nuclear matter was the proposal in , and restriction to experimental electron scattering analysis was imposed in . The decrease of $`B`$ at $`0.7n_0`$ is of $`55\%`$ and $`22\%`$ for curves (a) and (b)-(c) respectively. In the last case it is only a few percent above the upper bound of $`1017\%`$ established in . Based on different grounds, the necessity of a variable bag parameter was claimed in  in order to describe appropriately the structure of neutron stars.

Next we shall examine the behavior of symmetric nuclear matter at medium and high densities under the varying $`B`$-parameter that includes the signatures of the chiral symmetry of the strong interaction, considering two or three flavors contributions.

The thermodynamical properties in the QMC model are evaluated regarding nucleons as quasi-particles with single particle spectrum $`ϵ_p=\sqrt{p^2+M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}+g_\omega \omega _0`$, where the effective nucleon mass must be evaluated from Eq. (15). The energy density and the pressure for symmetric nuclear matter are, therefore

$`\epsilon _{NM}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi ^2}}F(M^{},p_F)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m_\sigma ^2\sigma ^2+m\omega ^2\omega ^2),`$ (16)
$`P_{NM}`$ $`=`$ $`nϵ_{p_F}\epsilon _{NM}.`$ (17)
In Eq. (16) the energy of mesons has been included, $`p_F`$ is the nucleon Fermi momentum related with the baryon density $`n=2p_F^3/(3\pi ^2)`$, and conditions of homogeneity and static equilibrium has been assumed. The symmetry energy of nuclear matter is a very significative quantity to understand a variety of nuclear processes at medium and high densities . For example, it has a crucial role in the dynamics and structure of neutron stars, as well as in the composition of matter in heavy-ion collisions. However its behavior far from the normal nuclear density is poorly known experimentally, and theoretical predictions range over a wide and sometimes contradictory qualitative results. For a linear nucleon-$`\rho `$ meson coupling the energy symmetry for symmetric nuclear matter is

$$ϵ_{sym}=\frac{1}{8}\left(\frac{g_\rho }{m_\rho }\right)^2n+\frac{p_F^2}{6\sqrt{p_F^2+M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}}$$
(18)
The mesons mean field values have not been determined yet, they can be obtained minimizing the energy density with respect to $`\sigma `$ and $`\omega `$. This leads to the equations

$`\sigma `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2m_\sigma ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{M^{}}{\sigma }}\left[p_F\sqrt{p_F^2+M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}M^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\mathrm{sinh}^1(p_F/M^{})\right],`$ (19)
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_\omega }{m_\omega ^2}}n.`$ (20)
The nucleon-meson couplings are expressed in terms of the quark-meson couplings as $`g_\sigma =3g_\sigma ^k,g_\omega =3g_\omega ^k`$. Numerical values can be assigned reproducing the conditions of nuclear matter at the saturation density $`n_0`$. Meaningfully it is found in the SU(3) treatment that, for a certain value of the binding energy, one can do calculations without the $`\sigma `$-meson coupling, i.e. $`g_\sigma ^k=0`$. Thus we choose the values $`P_{NM}(n_0)=0`$, $`\epsilon _{NM}(n_0)M_0=16.807MeV`$ for the pressure and the binding energy at the normal density. If the vector-isovector meson $`\rho `$ is also considered, then the corresponding coupling constant $`g_\rho =g_\rho ^k`$ can be deduced equating the symmetry energy $`ϵ_{sym}=(ϵ_N/n)`$ at $`n_0`$ to its phenomenological value $`ϵ_{sym}=34MeV`$. The coupling constants obtained under these assumptions are shown in Table I.

Numerical calculations have been developed taking $`m_\sigma =2.787fm^1,m_\omega =3.968fm^1`$, and $`m_\rho =3.902fm^1`$ for the meson masses, $`M_p=4.755fm^1,M_n=4.761fm^1`$ for the nucleon masses at zero baryon density. For the sake of comparison we have also carried out calculations with the standard fixed $`B`$ treatment (in the following labelled case (d)).

Some results for the in-medium nucleon properties are displayed in Fig.2. The neutron mass is uniformly decreasing, the falling at $`n_0`$ is approximately $`10\%`$ in the SU(3) treatment, $`2025\%`$ in the constant $`B`$ option and of an excessively high $`40\%`$ in the SU(2) case. The behavior of the bag radius in terms of the baryon density is shown in Fig. 2, the cases (b) and (d) provide a radius with a bounded variation. In particular for the approach (b) an increasing radius is obtained whose growth saturates $`15\%`$ over its zero density value. Instead for case (a) a monotonously increasing radius is obtained, exceeding the limit of validity of the model. The large increment of the bag radius yields a violation of the non-overlapping bag hypothesis at $`nn_0`$, thus we may conclude that the two flavor description of the bag parameter is not able of true physical consideration. In the three flavor case this assumption is also broken down but at the higher density $`n6n_0`$.

The results for the pressure and the symmetry energy are shown in Fig. 3, it can be seen that the softest equation of state at high densities corresponds to (d). The nuclear compressibility $`\kappa =9P_{NM}/n`$ takes on the values $`310`$ and $`335MeV/fm^3`$ at $`n=n_0`$ for the (d) and (b) approaches, respectively. For the symmetry energy all the results are very similar for low densities and differences becomes sensible only beyond $`n/n_02.5`$.

Thermodynamical quantities are similar in the approaches (b) and (d), corresponding greater pressures and lower symmetry energy to the instance (b). Instead nucleon mass and radius have distinguishing behaviors in all the range of densities.

The medium dependent $`B`$ description has an upper bound of applicability given by the point where bags start to overlap, unless new physical aspects arise before this situation is reached. This could be the case if a deconfinement phase transition take place. To examine this possibility we have compared the equation of state obtained previously with that corresponding to quark matter. The Gibbs criterium for phase transitions $`P_{NM}=P_{QM}`$ and $`\mu _n=2\mu _d+\mu _u`$ is adopted, and variable or fixed $`B`$ is used. Thus a first order phase transition is found only for the case (a), but at so high density that QMC model assumptions have been violated. Not transition at all is found for the cases (b).

In this paper we have studied the effects of including the chiral symmetry of QCD and the strange degree of freedom in the definition of the bag parameter $`B`$. This has been obtained from a Nambu- Jona Lasinio model with two or three flavors, at finite baryon density. Since baryon number is a conserved charge of both quark and hadron matter, the quantity $`B`$ obtained can be regarded as medium-dependent and applied to examine nucleon properties and the nuclear matter equation of state. Thus our results for $`B`$ are based on a dynamical effective model of QCD, in contrast with previous calculations that used ad hoc parametrizations in terms of the $`\sigma `$-meson mean field. The description in terms of only non-strange quarks must be discarded, i.e. the bag parameter must include the strange vacuum contribution even for the description of ordinary nuclear matter. Within the SU(3) scheme we have found that the behavior of $`B`$ strongly depends on the composition of matter at medium and high densities.

For the hadronic phase we used the QMC model of confined quarks coupled to mesons, that allows us to extract the confinement volume medium-dependence. From the comparison of the items (b) and (d) we conclude that the case (b) does not need of the $`\sigma `$ meson to appropriately describe the properties of nuclear matter. Therefore the saturation mechanism differs from those of Quantum Hadrodynamics, the attractive contribution is provided by the interplay between many-body effects and the modification of the hadronic phase vacuum. Avoiding a direct coupling between quarks and the $`\sigma `$-meson opens new possibilities such as a chiral extension of the QMC, or could eliminate the unpleasant features reported in .

We have not found any first order phase transition from symmetric nuclear matter to quark matter, but this could be a failure of the approach that could be mended including quark correlations between neighboring bags in the high density regime of the hadronic phase .

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by the CONICET, Argentina.


text:
# References

Up to now a consistent formulation of four dimensional noncommutative gravity that reduces to the standard Einstein-Hilbert theory in the commutative limit has proven quite difficult to approach , , ,  , . Among others there are problems like finding an invariant measure, solving the inconsistencies of a complex metric, singling out the correct degrees of freedom. In two and three dimensions these difficulties can be avoided since a theory of gravity can be formulated as a gauge theory and we know how to deform gauge transformations in a noncommutative geometry , , , .

In this paper we pursue the idea of searching for a description of four dimensional noncommutative gravity as a gauge invariant theory with constraints. For the standard Einstein action with a cosmological term ,  this can be easily done using the $`SO(1,4)`$ de Sitter group as a start, and then reducing the symmetry to the $`SO(1,3)`$ Lorentz group via the torsion free constraint. The constraints play an important role: they allow to write an action which, although independent of the metric, is not topological . Moreover their solution eliminates the unphysical, dependent degrees of freedom leaving the metric as the only dynamical field.

When we consider a noncommutative deformation of the theory introducing the Moyal $``$-product , we have to face the fact that the only consistent gauge groups are the unitary groups. Thus we look for the simplest unitary groups which contain $`SO(1,4)`$ and $`SO(1,3)`$ with the aim to deform their algebra with the $``$-product. The appropriate groups turn out to be $`U_{}(2,2)`$ and $`U_{}(1,1)\times U_{}(1,1)`$ respectively . In fact we find that starting from a gauge theory invariant under $`U_{}(2,2)`$ we can impose constraints that reduce the symmetry to a subclass contained in $`U_{}(1,1)\times U_{}(1,1)`$. We name this subalgebra $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ since it represents *the simplest noncommutative deformation* of the Lorentz algebra $`SO(1,3)`$. We use the constraints to express the dependent gauge fields in terms of the independent ones and construct an action invariant under $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. It reduces to the standard action in the commutative limit. Then we show that via the Seiberg-Witten map , gauge transformations $`\lambda `$ in $`SO(1,3)`$ turn precisely into $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ transformations $`\widehat{\lambda }`$. We define our noncommutative theory based on this set $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ of gauge transformations. Thus we are allowed to express the $`\theta `$-dependence of the fields in the action in terms of the fields in the commutative theory using the Seiberg-Witten map. In this fashion the whole theory is described in terms of the vierbeins and the Lorentz transformations. Finally we solve explicitly the constraints to first order in $`\theta `$ and exhibit the first order noncommutative correction to the Einstein-Hilbert action.

We start by studying how the introduction of the $``$ product leads to a deformation of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,3)`$ that we call $`SO_{}(1,3)`$.

In a noncommutative theory, under an infinitesimal gauge transformation $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ the gauge connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ transforms as follows:

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }+[\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu ]_{}=_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }$$
(1)
Since

$$[\widehat{\delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1},\widehat{\delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2}]\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\widehat{\delta }_{[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2]_{}}\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu $$
(2)
in order to have a representation of the Lie algebra of the group $`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2]_{}`$ must be in the algebra.

Under the $``$-operation the Lorentz algebra does not close. To prove this we consider the basis of a Clifford algebra $`\{\gamma _a,\gamma _b\}=2\eta _{ab}`$, with $`\gamma _a`$ $`4\times 4`$ matrices and $`\eta _{ab}`$ the flat Minkowski metric. Then we define $`\gamma _{ab}\frac{1}{2}(\gamma _a\gamma _b\gamma _b\gamma _a)`$ as the six generators of the Lorentz group, $`\gamma _5i\gamma _0\gamma _1\gamma _2\gamma _3`$, and construct the Moyal commutator of two local Lorentz transformations $`\lambda _1=\lambda _1^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, $`\lambda _2=\lambda _2^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$

$`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1^{ab}\lambda _2^{cd}\gamma _{ab}\gamma _{cd}\lambda _2^{cd}\lambda _1^{ab}\gamma _{cd}\gamma _{ab}`$ (3)
$`=`$ $`\lambda _1^{ab}_s\lambda _2^{cd}[\gamma _{ab},\gamma _{cd}]+\lambda _1^{ab}_a\lambda _2^{cd}\{\gamma _{ab},\gamma _{cd}\}`$
where

$`f_sg`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(fg+gf)=fg+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\right)^2\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }_\alpha _\gamma f_\beta _\delta g`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{even}\mathrm{powers}\mathrm{in}\theta `$
$`f_ag`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(fggf)=\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\right)\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\alpha f_\beta g+`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3!}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\right)^3\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\gamma \delta }\theta ^{\rho \sigma }_\alpha _\gamma _\rho f_\beta _\delta _\sigma g+\mathrm{odd}\mathrm{powers}\mathrm{in}\theta `$
Since

$`[\gamma _{ab},\gamma _{cd}]`$ $`=`$ $`2(\eta _{ad}\gamma _{bc}+\eta _{cb}\gamma _{ad}\eta _{ac}\gamma _{bd}\eta _{bd}\gamma _{ac})`$
$`\{\gamma _{ab},\gamma _{cd}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2i(\eta _{ac}\eta _{bd}i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+ϵ_{abcd}\gamma _5)`$ (5)
then

$`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2]_{}`$ $`=`$ $`(\lambda ^{ab}+\lambda ^{ab(2)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{ab(2n)}+\mathrm{})\gamma _{ab}+`$
$`+`$ $`(\lambda ^{1(1)}+\lambda ^{1(3)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{1(2n+1)}+\mathrm{})i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+(\lambda ^{5(1)}+\lambda ^{5(3)}+\mathrm{}+\lambda ^{5(2n+1)}+\mathrm{})\gamma _5`$
where $`\lambda ^{(n)}`$ is of order $`\theta ^n`$.

The gauge transformations in (S0.Ex6) are not Lorentz transformations but they have a special and rather simple $`\theta `$-expansion: the terms which are even powers in $`\theta `$ are Lorentz transformations, while the ones odd in $`\theta `$ have non vanishing components on $`i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}`$ and $`\gamma _5`$. The set in (S0.Ex6) forms a subclass of the $`U_{}(1,1)\times U_{}(1,1)`$ algebra which is closed under the $``$-product: indeed it is easy to prove that if $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2`$ have a $`\theta `$-expansion as the one in (S0.Ex6), then their Moyal-commutator $`[\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_1,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_2]_{}`$ has again the same kind of $`\theta `$-expansion, i.e. even powers are proportional to $`\gamma _{ab}`$, odd powers are proportional to $`i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}`$ and $`\gamma _5`$. We call this subalgebra $`SO_{}(1,3)`$: it should describe the invariance of our noncommutative theory of gravity.

In order to achieve this goal we start with a $`U_{}(2,2)`$ gauge theory and break the symmetry to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ imposing suitable constraints. The procedure is most easily elucidated for the commutative theory : in this case one considers a $`U(2,2)`$ gauge theory and breaks the symmetry down to $`SO(1,3)`$, obtaining a gauge formulation for standard gravity. $`U(2,2)`$ is the Lie group of complex $`4\times 4`$ matrices $`U`$ such that: $`U^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }U=\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }=diag(++)`$. A basis of the Lie algebra is given by 16 linear indipendent matrices $`\lambda `$ satisfying the relation:

$$\lambda ^{}=\stackrel{~}{\eta }\lambda ^{}\stackrel{~}{\eta }.$$
(7)
In the Dirac-Pauli representation with $`\gamma _0=\stackrel{~}{\eta }`$ we choose the following basis $`\tau ^I`$:

$$(i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1},\gamma _5,i\gamma _a^+,i\gamma _a^{},\gamma _{ab})$$
(8)
where in addition to the generators of $`U(1,1)\times U(1,1)`$ one has $`\gamma _a^\pm \gamma _a(1\pm \gamma _5)`$.

The connection $`A_\mu `$ of the corresponding gauge theory is Lie algebra valued

$$A_\mu =a_\mu i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+b_\mu \gamma _5+e_\mu ^{a+}i\gamma _a^++e_\mu ^ai\gamma _a^{}+\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}$$
(9)
The field strength is

$$F_{\mu \nu }_\mu A_\nu +A_\mu A_\nu \mu \nu =F_{\mu \nu }^I\tau _I$$
(10)
with components

$`F_{\mu \nu }^1`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu a_\nu \mu \nu `$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^5`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu b_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(e_\mu ^{a+}e_{\nu a}^{}e_\mu ^ae_{\nu a}^+)\mu \nu `$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu e_\nu ^{a+}2b_\mu e_\nu ^{a+}+\omega _\mu ^{ab}e_{\nu b}^+\mu \nu `$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu e_\nu ^a+2b_\mu e_\nu ^a+\omega _\mu ^{ab}e_{\nu b}^{}\mu \nu `$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^{ab}+\omega _{\mu c}^a\omega _\nu ^{cb}4(e_\mu ^{a+}e_\nu ^b+e_\mu ^ae_\nu ^{b+})\mu \nu `$ (11)
One can show that imposing the constraints

$`a_\mu =b_\mu =0`$
$`e_\mu ^a=\beta e_\mu ^{a+}`$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^{a+}=0`$ (12)
the gauge group $`U(2,2)`$ is broken into $`SO(1,3)`$ with an additional U(1) global symmetry.

Now we consider the following $`SO(1,3)`$ invariant action

$$S=d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr(\gamma _5F_{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma })$$
(13)
Using the constraints (12) and the definition

$$R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}=_\mu \omega _\nu ^{ab}+\omega _{\mu c}^a\omega _\nu ^{cb}\mu \nu $$
(14)
the action (13) becomes

$$S=\frac{i}{2}d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{abcd}(R_{\mu \nu }^{ab}8\beta e_\mu ^{a+}e_\nu ^{b+})(R_{\rho \sigma }^{cd}8\beta e_\rho ^{c+}e_\sigma ^{d+})$$
(15)
The case $`\beta =0`$ gives the topological Gauss-Bonnet term , while $`\beta 0`$ gives also the classical Einstein action with a cosmological term.
It is worth noticing that the choice of the constant $`\beta `$ in (12) determines the value of the cosmological constant of the model. Once the constraints are imposed we are left with $`P_ai\gamma _a^++\beta i\gamma _a^{}`$ and $`M_{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, a basis for the de Sitter or anti de Sitter group depending on the sign of $`\beta `$. For $`\beta =0`$ one would obtain the Poincarè group, but in this case the action (13) becomes topological and it cannot be used to describe four dimensional gravity.

Now we turn to the noncommutative case. We consider a $`U_{}(2,2)`$ noncommutative gauge theory (i.e. a $`U(2,2)`$-gauge theory in a noncommutative space) and we impose constraints to reduce the symmetry to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. This we want to be the gauge symmetry of our noncommutative gravity, since, as emphasized above, $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ is the natural noncommutative deformation of the ordinary $`SO(1,3)`$ Lorentz algebra.

In the $`U_{}(2,2)`$ gauge theory we write the connection $`\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu `$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu =\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu \gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}i\gamma _a^++\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^ai\gamma _a^{}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}$$
(16)
where all the fields are functions of the space time coordinates and of the noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$. The corresponding field strength is given by

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\nu +\stackrel{~}{A}_\mu \stackrel{~}{A}_\nu \mu \nu =\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^I\tau _I$$
(17)
with components

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^1`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{a}_\nu +i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{a}_\nu i\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{b}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}_a\stackrel{~}{e}_{a\nu }^{}+\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a_a\stackrel{~}{e}_{a\nu }^+){\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{\nu ab}\mu \nu `$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^5`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{b}_\nu +2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{b}_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\nu a}^{}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\nu a}^+){\displaystyle \frac{i}{8}}ϵ_{abcd}\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu `$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}2\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _s\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\nu b}^++2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{b+}_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu `$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^a+2\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _s\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^a+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\nu b}^{}+2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^a{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}ϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^b_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu `$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{ab}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{\mu c}^a_s\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cb}4(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^b+\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a_s\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{b+})+iϵ_{cd}^{ab}(\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{c+}_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^d\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^c_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{d+})+`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{ab}+iϵ_{cd}^{ab}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu `$
Now we want to impose constraints so that the invariance is broken to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. Moreover, in order to recover standard gravity in the commutative limit, the fields must satisfy

$`\underset{\theta 0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu =0\underset{\theta 0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu =0`$
$`\underset{\theta 0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a=\beta \underset{\theta 0}{lim}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$ (19)
To this end it is convenient to write the gauge fields in a $`\theta `$-expanded form

$`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`a_\mu ^{(1)}+a_\mu ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`b_\mu ^{(1)}+b_\mu ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`e_\mu ^{a+}+e_\mu ^{a+(1)}+e_\mu ^{a+(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`\beta e_\mu ^{a+}+e_\mu ^{a(1)}+e_\mu ^{a(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}+\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}+\omega _\mu ^{ab(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ (20)
where we have taken into account the conditions in (19).

In order to reduce the gauge symmetry we impose the following constraints

$$\stackrel{~}{F}^{a+}=F^{a+}+F^{a+(1)}+\mathrm{}+F^{a+(n)}+\mathrm{}=0$$
(21)
and, at each order in $`\theta `$, reflecting the different role played in the Moyal product by the even and the odd powers,

$$e_\mu ^{a(n)}=()^n\beta e_\mu ^{a+(n)}$$
(22)
The constraints in (21) and (22) are just sufficient to break $`U_{}(2,2)`$ into $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. Indeed $`\stackrel{~}{F}^{a+}=0`$ requires $`\widehat{\delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{a+}=0`$ i.e.

$`\widehat{\delta }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^5_s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{a+}+4\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b^++2i\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^1_a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{a+}+2iϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{bc}_a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{d+}`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`0`$
which leads to the condition $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{a+}=0`$. With this restriction now we consider the constraints in (22) and impose them on the corresponding variations $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$ and $`\delta _{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a`$. Since under a gauge transformation the connection transforms as in (1) we have

$`\delta \stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$ $`=`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^5_s\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}4\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu b}^++2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^1_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}+2iϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{bc}_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{d+}`$
$`\delta \stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a+2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^5_s\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a4\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu b}^{}+2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^1_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^a2iϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{bc}_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^d`$ (24)
$`+`$ $`2\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_b^{}+2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a2iϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{bc}_a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_\mu ^d`$
In order to satisfy (22) first we have to impose $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^a=0`$ so that the variations in (24) become

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a\pm }=2\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^5_s\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a\pm }4\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\mu b}^\pm +2i\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^1_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a\pm }\pm 2iϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{bc}_a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{d\pm }$$
(25)
Writing the above relations as $`\theta `$-expansions

$$\delta \stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a\pm }=\delta e_\mu ^{a\pm }+\delta e_\mu ^{a\pm (1)}+\delta e_\mu ^{a\pm (2)}+\mathrm{}$$
(26)
we obtain

$`\delta e_\mu ^{a\pm (n)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+q=n}{}}2\lambda ^{5(p)}_{2k}e_\mu ^{a\pm (q)}4{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+q=n}{}}\lambda ^{ab(p)}_{2k}e_{\mu b}^{\pm (q)}+`$ (27)
$`+`$ $`2i{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+1+q=n}{}}\lambda ^{1(p)}_{2k+1}e_\mu ^{a\pm (q)}\pm 2i{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+1+q=n}{}}ϵ_{bcd}^a\lambda ^{bc(p)}_{2k+1}e_\mu ^{d\pm (q)}`$
where $`p,k,q=0,1,2,..`$ and we used the notation $`fg=_{k=o}^{\mathrm{}}f_kg`$. At this point it is simple to show that the constraints $`e_\mu ^{a(n)}=()^n\beta e_\mu ^{a+(n)}`$ are satisfied if we impose the additional conditions

$`\lambda ^{1(2n)}`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{5(2n)}=0`$
$`\lambda ^{ab(2n+1)}`$ $`=`$ $`0`$ (28)
Therefore the restricted gauge parameter $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ belongs to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ and this completes our proof.

The action  which is invariant under an $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ transformation $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^1i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^5\gamma _5+\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ is

$$S_{NC}=d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr(\gamma _5\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma })$$
(29)
Indeed one immediately obtains

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }}S_{NC}=d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }Tr([\gamma _5,\stackrel{~}{\lambda }]\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma })=0$$
(30)
More explicitly (29) can be rewritten as

$$S_{NC}=\frac{i}{2}d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(16\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }^5ϵ_{abcd}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }^{cd}\right)$$
(31)
with field strengths as given in (18).

Now we want to use the constraints (21) and (22) in (31) and express the dependent fields in terms of the independent, dynamical ones. First we use

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{a+}=_\mu \stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}2\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu _s\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}+\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}_s\stackrel{~}{e}_{\nu b}^++2i\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu _a\stackrel{~}{e}_\nu ^{a+}+\frac{i}{2}ϵ_{bcd}^a\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{b+}_a\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu =0$$

and determine $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }_\mu ^{ab}`$ order by order in $`\theta `$, thus obtaining $`\omega _\mu ^{ab(n)}=\omega _\mu ^{ab(n)}(e_\mu ^{a+},\mathrm{},e_\mu ^{a+(n)}`$, $`a_\mu ^{(1)},\mathrm{},a_\mu ^{(n1)}`$, $`b_\mu ^{(1)},\mathrm{},b_\mu ^{(n)})`$.

At this level we have obtained a theory in terms of the fields $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu `$ invariant under transformations $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }SO_{}(1,3)`$. It represents a noncommutative deformation of Einstein gravity which contains the vierbeins plus an infinite number of additional fields which enter at all orders in the $`\theta `$-expansion of $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu `$. Now we attempt to reduce the number of independent fields employing the Seiberg-Witten map .
In general the map allows to express the gauge connection of a noncommutative theory $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ as a a $`\theta `$-expansion of standard gauge theory variables $`A_\mu `$. In the present case we want to identify the fields $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu `$ with the corresponding ones obtained via the Seiberg-Wittten maps $`\widehat{e}_\mu ^{a+}(e_\mu ^{a+})`$, $`\widehat{a}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ and $`\widehat{b}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$.
As we will show the procedure is consistent with the choice of the constraints (21) and (22). The only dynamical fields of the theory turn out to be the vierbeins $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$ in terms of which we can define the space-time metric

$$g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^{a+}e_{\nu a}^+$$
(32)
In order to implement consistently this procedure it is crucial to prove that the gauge group $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ of the noncommutative theory is related to the $`SO(1,3)`$ commutative theory precisely via the Seiberg-Witten map. Then we can determine the functions $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}(e_\mu ^{a+})`$, $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ solving the equations

$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}(e_\mu ^{a+})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}(e_\mu ^{a+}+\delta _\lambda e_\mu ^{a+})\stackrel{~}{e}_\mu ^{a+}(e_\mu ^{a+})`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+}+\delta _\lambda e_\mu ^{a+})\stackrel{~}{a}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$
$`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+}+\delta _\lambda e_\mu ^{a+})\stackrel{~}{b}_\mu (e_\mu ^{a+})`$ (33)
where $`\lambda `$ belongs to the Lorentz algebra, i.e. $`\lambda =\lambda ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ (the $`SO(1,3)`$ gauge group of the commutative limit), while $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ belongs to the $`SO_{}(1,3)`$ gauge group of the corresponding (via the Seiberg-Witten map) noncommutative theory.

Thus let us show that if we start from an SO(1,3) gauge theory and use the Seiberg-Witten map to construct the corresponding noncommutative one, the gauge group is precisely mapped into $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. We describe the commutative theory through its connection $`A_\mu =\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ and gauge parameters $`\lambda =\lambda ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ and the corresponding noncommutative one through $`\widehat{A}(A)`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }(\lambda ,A)`$ defined as

$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =`$ $`\widehat{A}_\mu (A+\delta _\lambda A)\widehat{A}_\mu (A)`$ (34)
where

$`\delta _\lambda A_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \lambda +\lambda A_\mu A_\mu \lambda `$
$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\lambda }`$ (35)
The solution of (34) is equivalent to

$`\delta \widehat{A}_\mu (\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,(_\beta \widehat{A}_\mu +\widehat{F}_{\beta \mu })\}_{}`$
$`\delta \widehat{\lambda }(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{_\alpha \lambda ,A_\beta \}_{}.`$ (36)
Our goal is to prove that the gauge parameter $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ belongs to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$. We look for a solution of (36) in a $`\theta `$-expanded form:

$`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu +A_\mu ^{(1)}+A_\mu ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
$`\widehat{\lambda }`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda +\lambda ^{(1)}+\lambda ^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$ (37)
and we want to prove that

$`A_\mu ^{(n)}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu ^{(n)I}(A)t_{I(n)}`$
$`\lambda ^{(n)}(A)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda ^{(n)I}(A)t_{I(n)}`$ (38)
where $`t_{I(n)}=\gamma _{ab}`$ if $`n`$ is even, while $`t_{I(n)}(i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1},\gamma _5)`$ if $`n`$ is odd. We prove (38) by induction first for $`A_\mu ^{(n)}`$. We begin with the $`n=1`$ case. As emphasized above in the commutative theory we have $`A_\mu =\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, $`\lambda =\lambda ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$. Thus inserting $`\delta A_\mu ^{(1)}=A_{\mu \alpha \beta }\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }`$ in the first equation (36) we obtain the result for $`n=1`$

$$A_{\mu \alpha \beta }=\frac{1}{2}A_\alpha ^{ab}(_\beta A_\mu ^{cd}+F_{\beta \mu }^{cd})(\eta _{ac}\eta _{bd}i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+ϵ_{abcd}\gamma _5)$$
(39)
Now assuming the result is true for general $`n`$, we prove it for $`n+1`$. We define

$$A_\mu ^{(n)}=\frac{1}{n}A_{\mu \alpha _1\beta _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n\beta _n}\theta ^{\alpha _1\beta _1}\mathrm{}\theta ^{\alpha _n\beta _n}$$
(40)
so that

$$\delta A_\mu ^{(n)}(\theta )=A_{\mu \alpha _1\beta _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _n\beta _n}\theta ^{\alpha _1\beta _1}\mathrm{}\delta \theta ^{\alpha _n\beta _n}$$
(41)
Inserting the above expressions in the first equation (36) we find

$`\delta A_\mu ^{(n+1)}(\theta )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+q=n}{}}A_\alpha ^{(p)I}_{2k}(_\beta A_\mu ^{(q)J}+F_{\beta \mu }^{(q)J})\{t_{I(p)},t_{J(q)}\}+`$ (42)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{4}}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }{\displaystyle \underset{p+2k+1+q=n}{}}A_\alpha ^{(p)I}_{2k+1}(_\beta A_\mu ^{(q)J}+F_{\beta \mu }^{(q)J})[t_{I(p)},t_{J(q)}]`$
Using the standard commutation relations among the generators we end up with $`A_\mu ^{(2n)}=A_\mu ^{(2n)ab}\gamma _{ab}`$ and $`A_\mu ^{(2n+1)}=A_\mu ^{(2n+1)1}i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+A_\mu ^{(2n+1)5}\gamma _5`$. This result on the $`\theta `$-structure of $`\widehat{A}_\mu (\theta )`$, and the second of the Seiberg and Witten equations (36) lead to the conclusion that the parameter $`\widehat{\lambda }(\theta )`$ belongs to $`SO_{}(1,3)`$.

As anticipated above now we can safely determine the independent fields of our noncommutative theory through the Seiberg-Witten map. We apply this procedure and explicitly compute the first order noncommutative correction to the standard gravity action. The action is expanded in powers of $`\theta `$

$`S_{NC}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\left(16\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^1\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }^5ϵ_{abcd}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma }^{cd}\right)}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`S+S^{(1)}+S^{(2)}+\mathrm{}`$
and the first noncommutative correction $`S^{(1)}`$ is evaluated in terms of the dynamical fields $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$ as follows: from (19) and (18) we find that $`F_{\mu \nu }^1=F_{\mu \nu }^5=0`$. Thus $`S^{(1)}`$ is simply given by

$$S^{(1)}=id^4xϵ^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }ϵ_{abcd}F_{\mu \nu }^{ab(1)}F_{\rho \sigma }^{cd}$$
(44)
Inserting the constraints

$`a_\mu =b_\mu =0`$
$`e_\mu ^a=\beta e_\mu ^{a+}e_\mu ^{a(1)}=\beta e_\mu ^{a+(1)}`$ (45)
in the expression (18) for $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$, we obtain

$`F_{\mu \nu }^{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^{ab}+\omega _{\mu c}^a\omega _\nu ^{cb}8\beta e_\mu ^{a+}e_\nu ^{b+}\mu \nu `$
$`F_{\mu \nu }^{ab(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu \omega _\nu ^{ab(1)}+\omega _{\mu c}^{a(1)}\omega _\nu ^{cb}+\omega _{\mu c}^a\omega _\nu ^{cb(1)}\mu \nu `$ (46)
Now solving the constraints $`F_{\mu \nu }^{a+}=0`$ in $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ and $`F_{\mu \nu }^{a+(1)}=0`$ in $`\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}`$ we determine the spin connections in terms of the vierbein $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$.

At $`0^{th}`$-order in $`\theta `$ we have

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{a+}=_\mu e_\nu ^{a+}_\nu e_\mu ^{a+}+\omega _\mu ^{ab}e_{\nu b}^+\omega _\nu ^{ab}e_{\mu b}^+=0$$
(47)
It is solved by

$$\omega _\mu ^{ab}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\rho a+}ϵ^{\nu b+}(_\mu e_\nu ^{k+}e_{\rho k}^+_\nu e_\rho ^{k+}e_{\mu k}^++_\rho e_\mu ^{k+}e_{\nu k}^+)$$
(48)
where $`ϵ_a^{\mu +}`$ is the inverse vierbein

$$e_\nu ^{a+}ϵ_b^{\nu +}=\delta _b^ae_\mu ^{a+}ϵ_a^{\nu +}=\delta _\mu ^\nu $$
(49)
In the same way at $`1^{st}`$-order we have

$$F_{\mu \nu }^{a+(1)}=_\mu e_\nu ^{a+(1)}2b_\mu ^{(1)}e_\nu ^{a+}+\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}e_{\nu b}^++\omega _\mu ^{ab}e_{\nu b}^{+(1)}\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{bcd}^a_\alpha e_\mu ^{b+}_\beta \omega _\nu ^{cd}\mu \nu =0$$
(50)
With the definition

$$A_{\mu \nu }^{a(1)}_\mu e_\nu ^{a+(1)}2b_\mu ^{(1)}e_\nu ^{a+}+\omega _\mu ^{ab}e_{\nu b}^{+(1)}\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{bcd}^a_\alpha e_\mu ^{b+}_\beta \omega _\nu ^{cd}$$
(51)
we rewrite (50) as

$$\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}e_{\nu b}^+\omega _\nu ^{ab(1)}e_{\mu b}^+=A_{\mu \nu }^{a(1)}+A_{\nu \mu }^{a(1)}$$
(52)
Therefore we obtain

$$\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\rho a+}ϵ^{\nu b+}(A_{\mu \nu }^{k(1)}e_{\rho k}^+A_{\nu \rho }^{k(1)}e_{\mu k}^++A_{\rho \mu }^{k(1)}e_{\nu k}^+)$$
(53)
At this stage we have $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}(e_\mu ^{a+})`$ from (48) and $`\omega _\mu ^{ab(1)}(e_\mu ^{a+},e_\mu ^{a+(1)},b_\mu ^{(1)})`$ from (53).

We still have to evaluate $`b_\mu ^{(1)}`$ and $`e_\mu ^{a+(1)}`$ in terms of $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$. We do this via the Seiberg-Witten map: in addition to the relations in (35) and (36) we have correspondingly

$`\delta _\lambda e_\mu ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda e_\mu ^+e_\mu ^+\lambda `$
$`\delta _{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{e}_\mu ^+`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{e}_\mu ^+\widehat{e}_\mu ^+\widehat{\lambda }`$ (54)
and

$$\delta \widehat{e}_\mu ^+(\theta )=\frac{1}{2}\delta \theta ^{\alpha \beta }(\{\widehat{A}_\alpha ,_\beta \widehat{e}_\mu ^+\}_{}+\frac{1}{2}\{[\widehat{e}_\mu ^+,\widehat{A}_\alpha ]_{},\widehat{A}_\beta \}_{})$$
(55)
From (36) we have to $`1^{st}`$-order

$$A_\mu ^{(1)}=\frac{i}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\{A_\alpha ,(_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu })\}$$
(56)
Substituting in the above equation $`A_\mu =\frac{1}{4}\omega _\mu ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, $`\lambda =\lambda ^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, $`F_{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }^{ab}\gamma _{ab}`$, with $`\omega _\mu ^{ab}`$ as given in (48) we obtain

$`A_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\omega _\alpha ^{ab}(_\beta \omega _\mu ^{cd}+F_{\beta \mu }^{cd})\{\gamma _{ab},\gamma _{cd}\}`$ (57)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{16}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\omega _\alpha ^{ab}(_\beta \omega _\mu ^{cd}+F_{\beta \mu }^{cd})(2i\eta _{ac}\eta _{bd}i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}2iϵ_{abcd}\gamma _5)`$
$`=`$ $`a_\mu ^{(1)}i\text{]}\text{ }\text{1}+b_\mu ^{(1)}\gamma _5`$
In this way

$`a_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\omega _\alpha ^{ab}(_\beta \omega _{\mu ab}+F_{\beta \mu ab})`$
$`b_\mu ^{(1)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{abcd}\omega _\alpha ^{ab}(_\beta \omega _\mu ^{cd}+F_{\beta \mu }^{cd})`$ (58)
are determined as functions of $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$.

In the same way from (55) we obtain

$`e_\mu ^{+(1)}(e,A)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\left(\{A_\alpha ,_\beta e_\mu ^+\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{[e_\mu ^+,A_\alpha ],A_\beta \}\right)`$ (59)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\alpha ^{bc}_\beta e_\mu ^{a+}\{i\gamma _a^+,\gamma _{bc}\}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{e_\mu ^{a+}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\alpha ^{bc}[i\gamma _a^+,\gamma _{bc}],{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\omega _\beta ^{ef}\gamma _{ef}\}\right)`$
Using

$`[i\gamma _a^+,\gamma _{bc}]`$ $`=`$ $`2\eta _{ab}i\gamma _c^+2\eta _{ac}i\gamma _b^+`$
$`\{i\gamma _a^+,\gamma _{bc}\}`$ $`=`$ $`2iϵ_{abcd}(i\gamma _d^+)`$ (60)
finally we obtain:

$$e_\mu ^{a+(1)}=\frac{1}{4}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }ϵ_{bcd}^a(_\beta e_\mu ^{b+}\omega _\alpha ^{cd}\frac{1}{4}\omega _{\alpha k}^be_\mu ^{k+}\omega _\beta ^{cd}).$$
(61)
Using the expressions given in (61) and in (58) we can reconstruct the first order correction of the spin-connection (53) which finally allows to obtain $`F_{\mu \nu }^{ab(1)}`$ in (46). In this way one can reexpress the first order correction in (44) explicitly in terms of the vierbeins $`e_\mu ^{a+}`$.
The complete result requires a straightforward but quite lengthy algebra. It would be interesting to proceed further and write the action explicitly in terms of the metric. Then one could evaluate the corrected propagator and investigate how these $`\theta `$-dependent terms affect the renormalization properties of the theory.

Acknowledgements

We thank S. Cacciatori, L. Martucci and M. Picariello for very helpful comments and suggestions.
This work has been partially supported by INFN, MURST, and the European Commission RTN program HPRN-CT-2000-00113 in which the authors are associated to the University of Torino.