text:
# Derivative corrections in 10-dimensional super-Maxwell theory

## 1 Introduction

The tree-level effective action of the open string, with or without Chan-Paton factors, has drawn a lot attention recently . Without Chan-Paton factors it corresponds, for slowly varying fields, to the Born-Infeld action . Its supersymmetric completion can be obtained quite elegantly using $`\kappa `$-symmetry -. With Chan-Paton factors the action is known only for some low orders of $`\alpha ^{}`$ -. The complications in this case are partly due to the fact that for a nonabelian gauge theory $`[𝒟,𝒟]F=[F,F]`$, so that the approximation in which derivatives of the fields are ignored can no longer be made. That such derivative terms are also present in the abelian case is clear from string scattering amplitudes, e.g. the four-point function, as mentioned in the early papers on the open string effective action . Nevertheless not much is known about this extension of the Born-Infeld action at the present time.

In this paper we will investigate these higher derivative terms in the context of supersymmetry. The motivation for this is, besides the intrinsic interest in the string effective action, that these terms also have a relation with the nonabelian extension of the Born-Infeld action. One way to approach this problem is by using $`\kappa `$-symmetry, in which linear and nonlinear supersymmetry arise from the gauge fixing of a local fermionic symmetry. Recent efforts in this direction have not been successful , but alternatives are under investigation -. It should be realized that the higher-derivative contributions of the abelian effective action do not fit in the present $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation -. Thus a supersymmetric, and eventually a $`\kappa `$-symmetric, formulation of these terms could be helpful in solving the nonabelian problem.

In this paper we take a first step in this direction, which is to obtain all terms in the abelian effective action through order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ by imposing supersymmetry. The result is that there are two different independent supersymmetric invariants. The first invariant consists of terms at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$, respectively of the form $`F^4`$ and $`F^6`$ and their fermionic partners, and is the contribution to the Born-Infeld invariant through this order. The second invariant involves only terms at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$: $`^4F^4`$ and their fermionic partners. The terms with two derivatives, $`^2F^5`$ and their fermionic counterparts, turn out to be inconsistent with supersymmetry. Furthermore, all conceivable terms at $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ with a higher number of derivatives are removable by field redefinitions and therefore trivial.

In discussing the higher derivative contributions to the open string effective action it is useful to introduce some notation. We write such terms as

$$_{(m,n)}=\frac{\alpha ^m}{g^2}\left(^nF^p+^{n+1}F^{p2}\overline{\chi }\gamma \chi \right),$$
(1.1)
where $`g`$ is the gauge coupling constant of dimension $`(d4)/2`$. Henceforth we will set $`g=1`$. The powers in (1.1) are related by $`2p2m+n4=0`$. We will denote the terms at order $`\alpha ^m`$ and with $`n`$ derivatives by $`(m,n)`$. In this paper we do not consider fermion-dependent contributions beyond the bilinear fermion terms in (1.1).

The Noether procedure we employ to find the supersymmetric deformations of the super-Maxwell action is an iterative procedure. At a given order in $`\alpha ^{}`$ it yields a number of apparently independent superinvariants, all determined up to a multiplicative constant. For example, the $`(4,4)`$ terms we will discuss have an arbitrary coefficient $`a_{(4,4)}`$ that is not fixed by supersymmetry. However, some of these coefficients might be determined by pursuing the Noether procedure for higher values of $`m`$ and $`n`$. One can also use input from string theory. We will limit ourselves to the contributions to the effective action that follow from the open string tree-level S-matrix. The tree-level correlation functions that one derives from the effective action should reproduce these string amplitudes, which allows one to fix the previously undetermined coefficients. In particular, the $`(m,2m4)`$ terms should reproduce the $`\alpha ^{}`$-expanded 4-point function. For $`m`$ odd, this expansion contains a coefficient $`\pi ^2\zeta (m2)`$. It is hard to see how the Noether procedure could determine such coefficients in the absence of algebraic relations between the values of the Riemann zeta-function for odd integer arguments. Therefore these terms should all correspond to separate independent superinvariants, as we argued in . We will come back to these points in the discussion.

Most of the information on derivative corrections concerns bosonic terms only. In  it was shown that terms $`(m,2)`$ vanish for all $`m`$. Our calculation of $`(4,2)`$ confirms this and extends it to the corresponding fermionic terms. In  the bosonic part of $`(4,4)`$ was constructed explicitly. More recently, Wyllard  obtained the $`(m,4)`$ terms using the boundary state formalism. Further work has been done in  with the Seiberg-Witten map and noncommmutativity. Information about the fermionic contributions can in principle be obtained from calculating superstring scattering amplitudes involving external fermions. The required formalism can be found in , and applications using the four-point function to orders $`\alpha ^m,m4`$ can be found in . The recent determination of the string five-point function and its relation with the nonabelian Born-Infeld action  concerns bosonic terms at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ only.

This paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we will briefly discuss our method, the main results on linear and nonlinear supersymmetry are given in Section 3. Finally, in Section 4, we discuss the general structure of the web of supersymmetric derivative corrections.

## 2 Constructing $`\alpha ^{}`$ corrections

In this section we review our method of imposing supersymmetry order by order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. A more detailed exposition of this iterative (or Noether) procedure can be found in . Starting point is the $`d=10`$, $`N=1`$ supersymmetric Maxwell Lagrangian111We work in Minkowski spacetime and write spacetime indices as lower indices. Our conventions for the $`\gamma `$-matrices follow . $`\chi `$ is a Majorana-Weyl spinor and inert under gauge transformations. $`_m`$ is the contribution of order $`\alpha ^m`$ to the effective action. Similarly, $`\delta _m`$ indicate supersymmetry transformations of order $`\alpha ^m`$. If we want to indicate the part of $`_m`$ with $`n`$ derivatives we write $`_{(m,n)}`$, similarly for $`\delta _{(m,n)}`$.

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}F_{ab}+\frac{1}{2}\overline{\chi }\text{/}\chi .`$ (2.1)
The equations of motion are simply

$$_aF_{ab}=\text{/}\chi =0,$$
(2.2)
supersymmetry is realised linearly on the fields:

$`\delta _0A_a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a\chi ,`$
$`\delta _0\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}F_{ab}\gamma _{ab}ϵ.`$ (2.3)
Closure of the supersymmetry algebra requires the fields to be on-shell and involves a field dependent gauge transformation of the gauge field:

$`[\delta _{0ϵ_1},\delta _{0ϵ_2}]A_a`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{ϵ}_1\text{/}ϵ_2A_a_a(2\overline{ϵ}_1A\text{/}ϵ_2),`$
$`[\delta _{0ϵ_1},\delta _{0ϵ_2}]\chi `$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{ϵ}_1\text{/}ϵ_2\chi (\frac{7}{8}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _aϵ_2\gamma _a\frac{1}{5!16}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _{abcde}ϵ_2\gamma _{abcde})\text{/}\chi .`$ (2.4)
This lowest order action also has a nonlinear supersymmetry:

$`\delta _0A_a`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _0\chi `$ $`=`$ $`\eta .`$ (2.5)
The iterative procedure consists of two steps. Let the $`_k`$ for $`k<m`$ be known. The first step in obtaining the term $`_m`$ is to write down all possible terms of order $`\alpha ^m`$, i.e., terms that have the correct dimension and are Lorentz and gauge invariant. We limit ourselves to terms that are at most of quadratic order in the fermions. Lagrangians are defined up to total derivatives and field redefinitions. The possibility for the latter arises when a term is proportional to the lowest order equation of motion (2.2) for one of the fields. If such a term is present in $`_m`$ it can be removed by a field redefinition of order $`m`$. The price one pays is that the contributions $`_n`$ with $`n>m`$ are modified. We deal with this ambiguity, at each order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, by not allowing in the Lagrangian any terms that are proportional to the order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}}`$ field equations, or terms that can be rewritten as such by means of a partial integration. Furthermore, we determine how the remaining terms are related by partial integrations and keep only an independent subset. This leaves us with a minimal Ansatz for $`_0`$ in which each term has an arbitrary coefficient that will be determined in the second step.

The second step is to vary the fields in this Ansatz with the supersymmetry transformation rules $`\delta _0`$. In addition we need to vary the lower order terms in the Lagrangian, say $`_k`$, $`k<m`$, with the appropriate transformation rules $`\delta _{mk}`$; both were already obtained in a previous stage of the iterative procedure. Having done this, we are left with two types of variations. On the one hand there are terms which are proportional to the lowest order field equation or that can be rewritten as such using a partial integration. On the other hand there are variations that cannot be rewritten in this way. The first set can be eliminated by new transformation rules $`\delta _m`$ of $`_0`$, the second set must be set to zero by solving the resulting equations for the unknown coefficients in the Ansatz.

In calculating the new transformation rules at order $`\alpha ^m`$ one will find that some variations may be quadratic in the lowest order equations of motion. In that case there is an ambiguity in the choice of the new transformations $`\delta _m`$. Regardless of this choice, such variations always give rise to transformation rules that contain a lowest order equation of motion. Therefore these terms do not play a role in checking the closure of the supersymmetry algebra at order $`\alpha ^m`$. If such transformations are applied to some $`_k`$ when constructing an invariant at order $`m+k`$, they give variations that can automatically be supersymmetrized. Their contribution to the order $`m+k`$ transformation rules need not contain a lower order equation of motion and therefore these terms are important when pursuing the Noether procedure to higher orders. Note however that this last issue does not yet play a role at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ and should not bother us in this paper.

The procedure is applied for both linear and nonlinear supersymmetry.

## 3 Results

In the end we are left with all possible deformations of the Lagrangian and the supersymmetry tranformation rules at a certain order in $`\alpha ^{}`$, up to field redefinitions. In this Section we will give the action and study the algebra of the linear and nonlinear supersymmetry transformations. The transformation rules themselves are given in Appendix A.

### 3.1 Orders $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$, $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ and $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$

It is well known that there are no nontrivial supersymmetric deformations of (2.1) at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}}`$, i.e. all terms allowed by supersymmetry can be removed by field redefinitions. In  the terms at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ were obtained by using the Noether procedure. For completeness, and since we need these results at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$, we review them here.

Following the steps outlined in the previous section, one first writes down an Ansatz for the Lagrangian; these are all terms of the form $`F^4`$, $`^2F^3`$, $`^4F^2`$, $`^6F`$ and fermionic partners. All of these terms turn out to be removable by field redefinitions, except for $`F^4`$ and its fermionic counterpart $`F^2\overline{\chi }\gamma \chi `$: $`_2=_{(2,0)}`$. Imposing supersymmetry fixes the coefficients in this Ansatz up to one overall multiplicative constant. The result is:

$`_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{32}}\{F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}+4F_{ac}F_{bd}F_{ab}F_{cd}`$ (3.1)
$`8F_{ab}F_{ac}\overline{\chi }\gamma _b_c\chi 2F_{ab}_aF_{cd}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{bcd}\chi \}.`$
Of course, these terms are the same as the ones obtained from the Born-Infeld invariant222Up to a field redefinition.. The supersymmetry transformations also receive $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$ contributions; they are given in the appendix. From the point of view of supersymmetry the coefficient $`a_{(2,0)}`$ is arbitrary. At tree-level the string four-point function sets $`a_{(2,0)}\pi ^2`$.

At order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}`$ there are no supersymmetric contributions. This might be inferred by taking the abelian limit of the results of . However, since it is not obvious that every supersymmetric abelian action allows a nonabelian supersymmetric extension, it is important to check this directly in the abelian context. This has been done in  by superspace methods, and we have verified this result by an independent calculation using the method of Section 2.

### 3.2 Order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$

We now turn to the main topic of this paper: the $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$ contributions. There are three nontrivial sectors in the Ansatz: $`(4,0)`$, $`(4,2)`$, $`(4,4)`$. The structures with more derivatives are removable by field redefinitions. Furthermore, it turns out that this is also the case for the bosonic terms $`(4,2)`$, i.e., the terms $`^2F^5`$, but not for their fermionic partners, which are of the form $`^3F^3\overline{\chi }\gamma \chi `$. In applying the method of Section 2 we need the variations $`\delta _0_{(4,0)}`$ as well as $`\delta _2_{(2,0)}`$. In the cases $`(4,2)`$ and $`(4,4)`$ only the variation $`\delta _0`$ is needed.

The results of the Noether procedure are the following: in the sector $`_{(4,0)}`$ with $`F^6`$ and $`F^4\overline{\chi }\gamma \chi `$ the only terms allowed by supersymmetry are those needed for the ‘continuation’ of the invariant of order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}`$, i.e. the Born-Infeld invariant. Thus there appears no new invariant, independent of the lower orders. Furthermore, the fermionic terms in $`_{(4,2)}`$ of the form $`^3F^3\overline{\chi }\gamma \chi `$ are not supersymmetrizable. Finally, in the section $`_{(4,4)}`$ there does appear a new invariant. We have verified that the bosonic terms of this invariant are the same as those of  up to field redefinitions. We however disagree with , where both bosonic and fermionic terms are determined by comparison with the string four-point function.

The action at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$, $`_4=_{(4,0)}+_{(4,4)}`$, reads:

$`_{(4,0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(a_{(2,0)})^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{384}}\{32F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{cd}F_{de}F_{ef}F_{af}12F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{cd}F_{ad}F_{ef}F_{ef}`$
$`F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}F_{ef}F_{ef}12_aF_{bc}F_{de}F_{af}F_{be}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{cdf}\chi `$
$`+72F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{be}F_{de}\overline{\chi }\gamma _a_c\chi +18_aF_{bc}F_{de}F_{ef}F_{af}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{bcd}\chi `$
$`+12_aF_{bc}F_{de}F_{bf}F_{ae}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{cdf}\chi \},`$
$`_{(4,4)}`$ $`=`$ $`a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{8F_{ab}F_{bc}_d_eF_{af}_d_eF_{cf}8F_{ab}_cF_{ad}_eF_{bf}_c_eF_{df}`$ (3.2)
$`+32F_{ab}_cF_{ad}_eF_{bf}_d_eF_{cf}+16F_{ab}_cF_{de}_aF_{ef}_d_fF_{bc}`$
$`+4_a_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ce}\overline{\chi }\gamma _d_e\chi 4_aF_{bc}_a_dF_{ef}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{bef}_c_d\chi `$
$`+4F_{ab}_c_dF_{ef}\overline{\chi }\gamma _{abe}_c_d_f\chi +8F_{ab}_c_dF_{ae}\overline{\chi }\gamma _b_c_d_e\chi `$
$`+2_aF_{bc}_a_d_eF_{bc}\overline{\chi }\gamma _d_e\chi \}`$
Note that the overall coefficient of $`_{(4,0)}`$ is uniquely fixed by supersymmetry in terms of $`a_{(2,0)}`$, the coefficient $`a_{(4,4)}`$ is unrelated. String theory tells us that at tree-level $`a_{(4,4)}\pi ^4`$.

### 3.3 Nonlinearly realised SUSY

Nonlinear supersymmetry arises from the breaking of $`N=2`$ supersymmetry to $`N=1`$: the superstring effective action corresponds to the worldvolume theory of a D9-brane, and D-branes break half of the $`N=2`$ supersymmetry. In the $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation of the Born-Infeld action it arises from the gauge-fixing of the local $`\kappa `$-symmetry. The presence of this nonlinear symmetry can be taken as an indication that a $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation is possible, but there is certainly no proof of such a relation.

The nonlinear supersymmetry is quite restrictive in the sectors without extra derivatives: $`(2,0)`$ and $`(4,0)`$. For instance, in $`(4,0)`$ one finds the result $`_{(4,0)}`$ (3.2), plus one additional term which is invariant under the nonlinear symmetry (up to variations which vanish on-shell) all by itself. It is to be noted that in the sector $`(4,2)`$ it is possible to impose nonlinear supersymmetry. Similarly, in $`(4,4)`$ nonlinear supersymmetry is not restrictive at all, and many combinations of terms are invariant under (2).

### 3.4 Closure of the algebra

The supersymmetry algebra can only be evaluated on the vector field, due to the absence of higher fermion terms in the action and transformation rules. We find, for all contributions of order $`\alpha ^m,m4`$:

$`[\delta _{ϵ_1},\delta _{ϵ_2}]A_a`$ $`=`$ $`2\overline{ϵ}_1\text{/}ϵ_2A_a_a(2\overline{ϵ}_1A\text{/}ϵ_2)+`$ (3.3)
$`+a_{(4,4)}_a\{+32_c_dF_{eb}_cF_{df}F_{ef}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _bϵ_2+16_c_dF_{eb}_cF_{ef}F_{df}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _bϵ_2`$
$`+8_c_dF_{ef}_cF_{ef}F_{db}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _bϵ_2+16_cF_{db}_eF_{fc}_eF_{fd}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _bϵ_2`$
$`16_cF_{db}_eF_{fc}_fF_{ed}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _bϵ_2+4_g_hF_{bc}_gF_{de}F_{hf}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _{bcdef}ϵ_2`$
$`+4_g_hF_{bc}_gF_{hd}F_{ef}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _{bcdef}ϵ_24_gF_{bc}_hF_{de}_gF_{hf}\overline{ϵ}_1\gamma _{bcdef}ϵ_2\}.`$
Note that the terms without extra derivatives do not modify the gauge transformation in the algebra. This is simply due to the absence of a derivative in the corresponding transformation rules. Nevertheless, the required cancellations for closure, and the fact that all remaining terms combine into a gauge transformation, is an important check on our result.

The algebra of the nonlinear transformations reads :

$`[\delta _{\eta _1},\delta _{\eta _2}]A_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{2}}\left(\overline{\eta }_1\text{/}\eta _2A_a_a(\overline{\eta }_1A\text{/}\eta _2)\right),`$ (3.4)
which does not have modifications at order $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}`$. Note that this is just the usual supersymmetry algebra, occurring at a higher order in $`\alpha ^{}`$. This proves that the nonlinear symmetry is indeed a supersymmetry.

The mixed algebra takes on the form:

$`[\delta _ϵ,\delta _\eta ]A_a`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{80}}_a\left(_b_cF_{de}(5_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _b\eta +2_bF_{cf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{def}\eta )\right).`$ (3.5)
## 4 Discussion and conclusions

Our present knowledge of the open string effective action is represented in Figure 1. Black dots indicate the sectors $`(m,n)`$ for which both bosonic and fermionic terms have been established. The dots $`(m,0)`$ for all $`m`$ form the Born-Infeld action, for which the result is known to all orders in the fermions -; for the single dot $`(4,4)`$, presented in this paper, only the terms bilinear in the fermions are known. White dots without diagonal lines are known to be empty. These include all points $`(m,2(m1))`$, that would correspond to the three-point function333In addition, it turns out that all terms that one could possibly write down in this sector can be removed by field redefinitions.. We have also put a white dot for all points $`(m,2)`$, although strictly speaking the absence of these contributions has only been established for the bosonic terms. As far as we know there is, in this order by order superinvariant, no way to exclude a priori the presence of a fermionic contribution in these sectors. Nevertheless, we make here the first conjecture:

Conjecture 1: If the bosonic part of the sector $`(m,n)`$ vanishes, then also the fermionic contributions of that sector vanish.

The white dots also include all points $`(m,4)`$ for $`m`$ odd. In  the bosonic part of $`(m,4)`$ was obtained for all $`m`$; it vanishes for $`m`$ odd. In favor of this conjecture is our result for $`(4,2)`$. The conjecture implies that the terms $`(m,0)`$, $`m`$ odd, all vanish. This is obvious for the bosonic terms, but it has to be checked for the fermionic terms. This could be done for instance by starting with the explicit form of the Born-Infeld action given by  and by doing the field redefinitions needed to eliminate all fermionic contributions at odd orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$. For the higher derivative terms a useful check would be $`(5,4)`$.

There are many sectors which are known to be present but for which the complete contribution to the effective action is presently unknown. These yellow dots include all points $`(m,2m4)`$ corresponding to the four-point function, all points $`(m,4)`$, $`m`$ even , and we would add to these all points $`(m,2m4k+4)`$ (for $`m>2k1`$ to avoid $`n=2`$) which correspond to higher derivative contributions to the open string $`2k`$-point function.

The remaining points are white with diagonal lines, and correspond to contributions to the string $`2k+1`$-point functions for $`k>1`$. Everything we know so far about the effective action would be consistent with the vanishing of these contributions, which would imply the vanishing of the open string $`2k+1`$-point function without Chan-Paton factors. Note that present knowledge confirms this conjecture for terms with 0, 2 and 4 extra derivatives. Thus we make a second conjecture444It is a pleasure to thank A. Tseytlin for an interesting correspondence on this point.:

Conjecture 2: The tree level open string odd-point function without Chan-Paton factors vanishes.

Since this is a conjecture about string theory, it cannot be checked by using supersymmetry alone. For the effective action it implies that there are no terms with an odd number of fields (either bosons or fermions).

With these conjectures in mind we analyze the supersymmetry transformations that connect the dots in Figure 1. We have drawn arrows to indicate the known supersymmetry transformations. As a first example we consider the terms $`(m,0)`$, $`m`$ even, i.e., the Born-Infeld invariant. These terms are invariant under the transformations $`\delta _0,\delta _{(2,0)},\delta _{(4,0)},\mathrm{}`$, depending only on the single parameter $`a_{(2,0)}`$. Note that we indicate these transformations by a repeated addition of the same arrow, and not by drawing new arrows from $`(0,0)`$ to $`(m,0)`$ for each $`m`$. In this way we denote that all these terms contribute to the same invariant. Similarly, the point $`(4,4)`$ is the leading term in a new sequence of supersymmetry transformations that continues to the points $`(4k,4k)`$, involving the parameter $`a_{(4,4)}`$. It is clear that all points on the diagonal $`(m,2m4)`$ will lead to at least one new sequence of arrows or supersymmetry transformations, involving parameters $`a_{(m,2m4)}`$. The question is now, whether these new ‘independent’ invariants will remain independent when the Noether procedure is pursued to higher orders. Consider for example the point $`(8,8)`$. This point can be reached from $`(0,0)`$ by applying the arrow $`(4,4)`$ twice, but also by applying the arrow $`(2,0)`$ and then $`(6,8)`$ (or vice versa). These contributions need to be cancelled by the $`\delta _0`$ variation of $`_{(8,8)}`$. In principle, there are now two possibilities: they can either be cancelled separately, or not. In the latter case we need both contributions at the same time, and then there must be relations between the coefficients $`a_{(4,4)}a_{(4,4)}`$ and $`a_{(2,0)}a_{(6,8)}`$. So it is indeed possible that a priori independent invariants are related to each other at higher orders in the iteration. Note however that at least $`a_{(2,0)}`$ and $`a_{(4,4)}`$ will remain independent to all orders. The reason is that $`a_{(2,0)}`$ and $`a_{(4,4)}`$ can be changed independently by rescaling $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the extra derivatives, respectively.

Now we invoke our knowledge of the string tree-level 4-point function . In the tree-level effective action the coefficients $`a_{(m,2m4)}`$ for $`m`$ even contain factors $`\pi ^m`$, and therefore the coefficients $`a_{(2,0)},a_{(4,4)}`$ and $`a_{(6,8)}`$ are, in string theory, all proportional to powers of $`\pi `$. The relations between these coefficients alluded to in the previous paragraph are therefore possible in the string theory context. Independence of these coefficients would imply that there are more supersymmetric invariants than required by string theory.

At odd $`m`$, and also at even $`m`$ for $`m`$ large enough, the situation is different. At odd $`m`$ the string four-point function has a factor $`\pi ^2\zeta (m2)`$. This implies that the coefficients $`a_{(m,2m4)}`$, for $`m`$ odd, will remain independent to all orders in the Noether procedure, since there are no (known) relations between the values of the Riemann $`\zeta `$-function for odd values of its argument. At certain even values of $`m`$ one finds, besides powers of $`\pi `$, also terms with $`\zeta `$-functions. An interesting example is the point $`(10,12)`$. We can reach it with supersymmetry transformations through $`(6,8)`$ by applying $`\delta _{(4,4)}`$, from $`(8,12)`$ by applying $`\delta _{(2,0)}`$, and from $`(5,6)`$ by applying $`\delta _{(5,6)}`$. Now it should be noted that at $`(8,12)`$ the string four-point function has two separate kinematic structures: one proportional to $`\pi ^{10}`$, and one proportional to $`\pi ^2\zeta (3)^2`$. The three different ways of arriving at $`(10,12)`$ therefore lead to two kinds of terms: those with $`\pi ^{12}`$ and those with $`\pi ^4\zeta (3)^2`$. These must belong to two separate supersymmetric invariants. Again, the minimum requirement is that these are part of the invariants containing $`(4,4)`$ and $`(5,6)`$, anything else leads to an accumulation of more and more invariants not required by string theory.

The minimum assumption is therefore that supersymmetry requires independent coefficients at $`(4,4)`$, and at $`(m,2m4)`$ with $`m`$ odd, the points where $`\pi ^2\zeta (m2)`$ appears. This leads to the conjecture:

Conjecture 3: The sectors $`_{(4,4)}`$ and $`_{(m,2m4)}`$, $`m`$ odd, contain the leading contributions to separate superinvariants. There are no other invariants starting at $`_{(m,n)}`$ for any $`m,n`$.

The independent coefficients in the maximal extension of supersymmetric Maxwell theory in $`d=10`$ are, according to these conjectures, $`a_{(2,0)}`$, $`a_{(4,4)}`$ and $`a_{(m,2m4)}`$ for $`m`$ odd. The tree-level open string effective action corresponds to a particular choice of these coefficients. The independence of $`a_{(2,0)}`$ and $`a_{(4,4)}`$ implies that the Born-Infeld action for slowly varying fields is a separate invariant.

The issues that we raised above clearly need to be addressed. It is probably not possible to continue the Noether procedure we used much further, due to the rapidly increasing number of possible terms in the Lagrangian at higher orders in $`\alpha ^{}`$. One should therefore look for other methods of tackling these issues. In particular, it would be interesting to see whether more information on the structure of the superinvariants can be obtained from string theory considerations. Another possibility would be to set up the Noether procedure in $`d=10`$ $`𝒩=1`$ on-shell superspace. A clear advantage of this setting is that field redefinition ambiguities do not arise, since all fields are constrained to satisfy their lowest order equations of motion. Finally, the persistence of the non-linear supersymmetry in the higher-derivative terms is a strong indication that a $`\kappa `$-symmetric formulation of the all-order effective action exists. Given the success of $`\kappa `$-symmetry in clarifying the structure of the supersymmetric Born-Infeld action, it is conceivable, if not likely, that it will yield similar striking results when applied to this problem.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Arkady Tseytlin for an interesting correspondence. The work of Martijn Eenink is part of the research programme of the “Stichting voor Fundamenteel Onderzoek van de Materie” (FOM). This work is supported in part by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which we are associated to the University of Utrecht.

## Appendix A Transformation rules

In the Appendix we will give the complete set of transformation rules for all orders $`\alpha ^m,m4`$. As discussed in Section 2, we give only those transformations that do not vanish on-shell. These are needed to establish the existence of an invariant, but do not change the supersymmetry algebra.

### A.1 Linear supersymmetry

The variation of the gauge field reads:

$`\delta A_a`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a\chi `$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{32}}\{6F_{cd}F_{cd}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a\chi 16F_{ac}F_{cd}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d\chi `$
$`4F_{ac}F_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cde}\chi +F_{cd}F_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{acdef}\chi \}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}}{1024}}\{+96F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}F_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e\chi 128F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{cd}F_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e\chi `$
$`+104F_{bc}F_{bd}F_{ce}F_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a\chi +18F_{bc}F_{bc}F_{de}F_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a\chi `$
$`+32F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ce}F_{df}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bef}\chi +24F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}F_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bef}\chi `$
$`+32F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{de}F_{cf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{def}\chi 16F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{be}F_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cdefg}\chi `$
$`6F_{bc}F_{bc}F_{de}F_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{adefg}\chi 16F_{bc}F_{bd}F_{ce}F_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{adefg}\chi `$
$`\frac{4}{3}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}F_{gh}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bcdefgh}\chi +\frac{1}{6}F_{bc}F_{de}F_{fg}F_{hi}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{abcdefghi}\chi \}+`$
$`+a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{+20_bF_{cd}_a_b_eF_{cd}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e\chi +28_b_cF_{ad}_b_dF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e\chi `$
$`28_b_cF_{ad}_b_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e\chi +8_bF_{cd}_a_b_cF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{def}\chi `$
$`+2_a_bF_{cd}_b_cF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{def}\chi +4_b_cF_{de}_b_cF_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{adefg}\chi `$
$`+4F_{bc}_a_d_eF_{bc}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi +12_bF_{cd}_b_eF_{cd}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a_e\chi `$
$`+4_bF_{cd}_b_eF_{cd}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_a\chi 84_bF_{cd}_a_cF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi `$
$`+72_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi 40_bF_{cd}_b_cF_{ae}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi `$
$`+8_bF_{cd}_a_cF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_d\chi +40_bF_{cd}_b_cF_{ae}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_d\chi `$
$`+8_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_d\chi 8_bF_{ac}_b_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi `$
$`+16_bF_{ac}_b_dF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi 8_bF_{ac}_c_dF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_e\chi `$
$`+4F_{bc}_a_b_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cef}_d\chi 8_bF_{cd}_b_cF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{ade}_f\chi `$
$`+8_bF_{cd}_c_eF_{bf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{ade}_f\chi +4_bF_{cd}_b_cF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{aef}_d\chi `$
$`+6_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cde}_f\chi +4_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cef}_d\chi `$
$`+2_bF_{cd}_a_eF_{bf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cdf}_e\chi +4_bF_{cd}_b_eF_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{acdfg}_e\chi `$
$`+16F_{bc}_b_dF_{ae}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_c_d\chi 56F_{bc}_a_dF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_c_d\chi `$
$`+24F_{ab}_b_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_c_e\chi 80F_{bc}_a_bF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_c_e\chi `$
$`4F_{bc}_d_eF_{bc}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a_d_e\chi +84F_{bc}_b_dF_{ae}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _c_d_e\chi `$
$`116F_{bc}_d_eF_{ab}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _c_d_e\chi +24_bF_{cd}_bF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a_d_e\chi `$
$`16_bF_{cd}_cF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a_d_e\chi +8_bF_{cd}_bF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_a_d\chi `$
$`8_bF_{cd}_cF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_a_d\chi +64_bF_{cd}_aF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_b_d\chi `$
$`+8_bF_{cd}_cF_{ae}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_b_d\chi 16_bF_{ac}_bF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_c_e\chi `$
$`+56_bF_{ac}_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_b_e\chi 16_bF_{ac}_dF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_c_d\chi `$
$`8_bF_{ac}_dF_{ce}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _e_b_d\chi 4F_{ab}_c_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bef}_c_d\chi `$
$`2F_{bc}_a_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bce}_d_f\chi 8F_{bc}_b_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{ace}_d_f\chi `$
$`8F_{bc}_d_eF_{bf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{acf}_d_e\chi 4F_{bc}_a_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bef}_c_d\chi `$
$`4_aF_{bc}_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bce}_d_f\chi 4_aF_{bc}_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bef}_c_d\chi `$
$`+4_bF_{cd}_bF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{cde}_a_f\chi +4_bF_{cd}_eF_{bf}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{acd}_e_f\chi `$
$`+8_bF_{cd}_cF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{ade}_b_f\chi +4F_{bc}_d_eF_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{abcfg}_d_e\chi `$
$`+2_bF_{cd}_eF_{fg}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{acdfg}_b_e\chi +16F_{ab}_cF_{de}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _d_b_c_e\chi `$
$`+32F_{bc}_dF_{be}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _a_c_d_e\chi +4F_{bc}_dF_{ef}\overline{ϵ}\gamma _{bce}_a_d_f\chi \}.`$ (A.1)
The variations of the fermion are:

$`\delta \chi `$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{ab}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{32}}\{+F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}\gamma _{ab}ϵ4F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ac}\gamma _{bd}ϵ`$
$`+\frac{1}{6}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}\gamma _{abcdef}ϵ\}+`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{a_{(2,0)}^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}}{1024}}\{12F_{ab}F_{ac}F_{bd}F_{cd}F_{ef}\gamma _{ef}ϵ+F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}F_{ef}\gamma _{ef}ϵ`$
$`8F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ce}F_{df}\gamma _{ef}ϵ+64F_{ab}F_{ac}F_{bd}F_{ce}F_{df}\gamma _{ef}ϵ`$
$`+\frac{1}{3}F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}F_{gh}\gamma _{cdefgh}ϵ4F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ae}F_{bf}F_{gh}\gamma _{cdefgh}ϵ`$
$`+\frac{1}{60}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}F_{gh}F_{ij}\gamma _{abcdefghij}ϵ\}+`$
$`+a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{8\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{ac}_dF_{ef}_b_c_dF_{ef}16\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_eF_{cf}_d_e_fF_{ab}`$
$`8ϵ_aF_{bc}_bF_{de}_a_cF_{de}+2\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_e_fF_{ab}_e_fF_{cd}`$
$`+72\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_c_eF_{af}_e_fF_{bd}40\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_c_eF_{af}_d_fF_{be}`$
$`+16\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_c_eF_{af}_d_eF_{bf}56\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{cd}_e_fF_{ac}_e_fF_{bd}`$
$`+24\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{ac}_d_eF_{bf}_d_fF_{ce}16\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{ac}_d_eF_{bf}_d_eF_{cf}`$
$`2\gamma _{ab}ϵF_{ab}_c_dF_{ef}_c_dF_{ef}4\gamma _{abcd}ϵF_{ae}_f_gF_{bc}_f_gF_{de}`$
$`4\gamma _{abcd}ϵF_{ae}_f_gF_{bc}_e_fF_{dg}\gamma _{abcdef}ϵF_{ab}_g_hF_{cd}_g_hF_{ef}`$
$`12\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_cF_{df}_e_fF_{ab}+8\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_dF_{cf}_e_fF_{ab}`$
$`+64\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_dF_{af}_c_eF_{bf}48\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_fF_{ad}_c_eF_{bf}`$
$`56\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_fF_{ad}_c_fF_{be}+64\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_fF_{ad}_e_fF_{bc}`$
$`16\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_dF_{af}_e_fF_{bc}8\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_dF_{af}_c_fF_{be}`$
$`4\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{ad}_bF_{ef}_c_dF_{ef}16\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{ad}_eF_{bf}_c_fF_{de}`$
$`6\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{de}_fF_{ab}_c_fF_{de}+4\gamma _{abcd}ϵ_eF_{af}_fF_{bg}_e_gF_{cd}`$
$`4\gamma _{abcd}ϵ_eF_{af}_gF_{bc}_f_gF_{de}+16\gamma _{ab}ϵ_cF_{ad}_eF_{bf}_c_eF_{df}`$
$`\gamma _{abcdef}ϵ_gF_{ab}_hF_{cd}_g_hF_{ef}\}.`$ (A.2)
### A.2 Nonlinear supersymmetry

The nonlinear supersymmetry transformations of the vector field are:

$`\delta A_a`$ $`=`$ $`a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\left\{+\frac{1}{4}F_{ab}\overline{\eta }\gamma _b\chi \frac{1}{8}F_{bc}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{abc}\chi \right\}`$ (A.3)
$`+a_{(2,0)}^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{\frac{1}{768}F_{bc}F_{de}F_{fg}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{abcdefg}\chi +\frac{1}{128}F_{bc}F_{ad}F_{ef}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{bcdef}\chi `$
$`+\frac{3}{128}F_{bc}F_{bc}F_{de}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{ade}\chi +\frac{1}{16}F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{de}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{cde}\chi `$
$`+\frac{1}{32}F_{bc}F_{bd}F_{ce}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{ade}\chi \frac{3}{64}F_{bc}F_{bc}F_{ad}\overline{\eta }\gamma _d\chi `$
$`\frac{1}{16}F_{ab}F_{bc}F_{cd}\overline{\eta }\gamma _d\chi \}`$
$`+a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{20_b_cF_{ad}\overline{\eta }\gamma _d_b_c\chi +12_b_cF_{ad}\overline{\eta }\gamma _b_c_d\chi `$
$`4_b_cF_{de}\overline{\eta }\gamma _{ade}_b_c\chi \}.`$
The nonlinear supersymmetry transformations of the fermion are:

$`\delta \chi `$ $`=`$ $`\eta `$ (A.4)
$`+a_{(2,0)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}}\left\{+\frac{1}{16}F_{ab}F_{ab}\eta +\frac{1}{32}F_{ab}F_{cd}\gamma _{abcd}\eta \right\}`$
$`+a_{(2,0)}^2\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{+\frac{1}{512}F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{cd}\eta \frac{3}{128}F_{ab}F_{ac}F_{bd}F_{cd}\eta `$
$`+\frac{1}{512}F_{ab}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}\gamma _{cdef}\eta \frac{1}{64}F_{ab}F_{ac}F_{bd}F_{ef}\gamma _{cdef}\eta `$
$`+\frac{1}{6144}F_{ab}F_{cd}F_{ef}F_{gh}\gamma _{abcdefgh}\eta \}`$
$`+a_{(4,4)}\alpha ^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}4}}\{4_a_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{cd}\eta +8_a_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ce}\gamma _{de}\eta `$
$`16_a_bF_{cd}_a_cF_{be}\gamma _{de}\eta 2_a_bF_{cd}_a_bF_{ef}\gamma _{cdef}\eta \}`$


format: text

text:
# Stratification of the orbit space in gauge theories. The role of nongeneric strata

## 1 Introduction

There is increasing evidence that gauge theories are Nature’s favorite trick. They have led to a number of questions and some answers of interest to both physicists and mathematicians. Factorization by local gauge transformations induces non-trivial bundle structures in gauge theory and, rather than being a smooth manifold, the gauge orbit space is a stratified space. It has an open dense generic stratum and several nongeneric strata. The generic stratum was extensively studied and led to a geometrical understanding of the Gribov ambiguity , the Faddeev-Popov technique and anomalies. In contrast, the role of nongeneric strata has not yet been fully clarified (see however    ).

In a field theory, physical states are quantum fluctuations around classical solutions and physical processes are path integrals on the space of field configurations. Therefore, because of its full measure, the (generalized) generic connections play the main role in the quantum fluctuations and in the path integral. However, for the classical solutions around which quantum fluctuations take place, there is no reason why they cannot be taken from the nongeneric strata. In fact, the perturbative vacuum is as nongeneric as it could possibly be.

The main concern in this paper is the role that nongeneric strata play in the construction of physical states. In Sections 2 and 3 some results are collected concerning the stratification of gauge orbit spaces and the characterization of the physical space as the zero set of a momentum map. Most of these results are widely dispersed in the mathematical literature, sometimes hidden behind considerable formalism. Hence, a short summary, as presented in these sections, might be useful.

After a general discussion of possible roles for nongeneric strata, evidence is presented in Section 4 for their role in the structure of the ground state measure and low-lying excitations in $`SU\left(2\right)`$ and $`SU\left(3\right)`$ gauge theories.

## 2 Stratification of the orbit space in gauge theories

A classical gauge theory consists of four basic objects:

(i) A principal fiber bundle $`P(M,G)`$ with structural group $`G`$ and projection $`\pi :PM`$, the base space $`M`$ being an oriented Riemannian manifold.

(ii) An affine space $`𝒞`$ of connections $`\omega `$ on $`P`$, modelled by a vector space $`𝒜`$ of 1-forms on $`M`$ with values on the Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ of $`G`$.

(iii) The space of differentiable sections of $`P`$, called the gauge group $`𝒲`$

(iv) A $`𝒲`$invariant functional (the Lagrangian) $`:𝒜`$

Choosing a reference connection, the affine space of connections on $`P`$ may be modelled by a vector space of $`𝒢`$-valued 1-forms ($`C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1𝒢\right)`$). Likewise the curvature $`F`$ is identified with an element of ($`C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝒢\right)`$).

In coordinates one writes

$$A=A_\mu ^adx^\mu t_axMt_a𝒢$$

and the action of $`\gamma =\{g\left(x\right)\}𝒲`$ on $`𝒜`$ is given by

$$\gamma :A_\mu \left(x\right)\left(gA_\mu \right)\left(x\right)=g\left(x\right)A_\mu \left(x\right)g^1\left(x\right)\left(g\right)\left(x\right)g^1\left(x\right)$$
(1)
All statements below refer to the case where $`G`$ is a compact group.

The action of $`𝒲`$ on $`𝒜`$ leads to a stratification of $`𝒜`$ corresponding to the classes of equivalent orbits $`\left\{gA;g𝒲\right\}`$. Let $`S_A`$ denote the isotropy (or stabilizer) group of $`A𝒜`$

$$S_A=\{\gamma 𝒲:\gamma A=A\}$$
(2)
The stratum $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(A\right)`$ of $`A`$ is the set of connections having isotropy groups $`𝒲`$conjugated to that of $`A`$

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }\left(A\right)=\{B𝒜:\gamma 𝒲:S_B=\gamma S_A\gamma ^1\}$$
(3)
The configuration space of the gauge theory is the quotient space $`𝒜/𝒲`$ and therefore a stratum is the set of points in $`𝒜/𝒲`$ that correspond to orbits with conjugated isotropy groups.

The stratification of the gauge space when $`G`$ is a compact group has been extensively studied \- . The stratification is topologically regular. The map that, to each orbit, assigns the conjugacy class of its isotropy group is called the type. The set of strata carries a partial ordering of types, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau \mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau ^{^{}}`$ with $`\tau \tau ^{}`$ if there are representatives $`S_\tau `$ and $`S_\tau ^{}`$ of the isotropy groups such that $`S_\tau S_\tau ^{}`$. The maximal element in the ordering of types is the class of the center $`Z(G)`$ of $`G`$ and the minimal one is the class of $`G`$ itself. Furthermore $`_{t\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ is open and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\tau `$ is open in the relative topology in $`_{t\tau }\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$.

Most of the stratification results have been obtained in the framework of Sobolev connections and Hilbert Lie groups. However, for the calculation of physical quantities in the path integral formulation

$$\varphi =_{𝒜/𝒲}\varphi \left(\xi \right)e^{i\left(\xi \right)}𝑑\mu \left(\xi \right)$$
(4)
a measure in $`𝒜/𝒲`$ is required, and no such measure has been found for Sobolev connections. Therefore it is more convenient to work in a space of generalized connections $`\overline{𝒜}`$, defining parallel transports on piecewise smooth paths as simple homomorphisms from the paths on $`M`$ to the group $`G`$, without a smoothness assumption. The same applies to the generalized gauge group $`\overline{𝒲}`$. Then, there is in $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒲}`$ an induced Haar measure, the Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure \- . Sobolev connections are a dense zero measure subset of the generalized connections. The question remained however of whether the stratification results derived in the context of Sobolev connections would apply to generalized connections. This question was recently settled by Fleischhack who, by establishing a slice theorem for generalized connections, proved that essentially all existing stratification results carry over to the generalized connections. In some cases they even have wider generality.

Because the isotropy group of a connection is isomorphic to the centralizer of its holonomy group, the strata are in one-to-one correspondence with the Howe subgroups of $`G`$, that is, the subgroups that are centralizers of some subset in $`G`$. Given an holonomy group $`H_\tau `$ associated to a connection $`A`$ of type $`\tau `$, the stratum of $`A`$ is classified by the conjugacy class of the isotropy group $`S_\tau `$, that is, the centralizer of $`H_\tau `$

$$S_\tau =Z\left(H_\tau \right)$$
(5)
An important role is also played by the centralizer of the centralizer

$$H_\tau ^{}=Z\left(Z\left(H_\tau \right)\right)$$
(6)
that contains $`H_\tau `$ itself. If $`H_\tau ^{}`$ is a proper subgroup of $`G`$, the connection $`A`$ reduces locally to the subbundle $`P_\tau =(M,H_\tau ^{})`$. Global reduction depends on the topology of $`M`$, but it is always possible if $`P`$ is a trivial bundle. $`H_\tau ^{}`$ is the structure group of the maximal subbundle associated to type $`\tau `$.Therefore the types of strata are also in correspondence with types of reductions of the connections to subbundles. If $`S_\tau `$ is the center of $`G`$ the connection is called irreducible, all others are called reducible. The stratum of the irreducible connections is called the generic stratum. It is open and dense and it carries the full Ashtekar-Lewandowski measure.

## 3 Constraints and momentum maps

### 3.1 Singularity structure of Yang-Mills solutions. Linear and quadratic constraints

The canonical formulation is the more appropriate one to discuss the role of non-generic strata in gauge theories. This is because it allows a clear separation between gauge invariance and the role of constraints. It uses the theory of bifurcations of zero level sets of momentum mappings as developed by Arms  and Arms, Marsden and Moncrief. The main points of this construction are summarized below (using an explicit coordinatewise notation).

With $`A^\mu =A_a^\mu t_a`$ ($`\left\{t_a\right\}`$ a basis for the Lie algebra), one takes

$$\begin{array}{cccc}A_a^i\hfill & & & \\ E_a^i\hfill & =\hfill & F_a^{i0}=\hfill & ^iA_a^0^0A_a^if_{bca}A_b^iA_c^0\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
as canonical variables. If $`𝒜`$ is the set of vector potentials in $`M`$ ($`M`$ is a compact spacelike Cauchy surface or the 3-plane $`x^0=0`$ with appropriate decaying conditions on the fields at infinity) the set $`(A,E)`$ is a phase-space coordinate in the cotangent bundle of $`𝒜`$.

$$(A,E)T^{}𝒜(C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^1𝒢\right),C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^2𝒢\right))$$
(8)
Write the Yang-Mills first-order action as

$$I=\frac{2}{g^2}d^4xTr\left\{^0AE+\frac{1}{2}\left(E^2+B^2\right)A^0\left(E+[A,E]\right)\right\}$$
(9)
with $`B_a=\frac{1}{2}ϵ_{ijk}F_a^{jk}`$. Then the Hamiltonian is

$$H=d^3x\underset{a}{}\left(E_a^2+B_a^2\right)$$
(10)
and $`A^0`$ being a Lagrange multiplier, the constraint is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(x\right)=E+[A,E]=DE=0$$
(11)
This being a well posed Cauchy problem, to characterize the singularities of the solutions it suffices to characterize the singularities of the constraint equations.

With canonical brackets

$$\{A_a^i\left(x\right),E_b^j\left(y\right)\}_{x^0=y^0}=\delta ^{ij}\delta _{ab}\delta ^3\left(xy\right)$$
(12)
one obtains for the infinitesimal gauge transformations

$`\delta E_a^i\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{bca}\delta \alpha _b\left(x\right)E_c^i\left(x\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3y\{E_a^i\left(x\right),\underset{b}{}\delta \alpha _b\left(y\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\left(y\right)\}_{x^0=y^0}}`$
and

$`\delta A_a^i\left(x\right)`$ $`=`$ $`^i\delta \alpha _a\left(x\right)+f_{bca}\delta \alpha _b\left(x\right)A_c^i\left(x\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^3y\{A_a^i\left(x\right),\underset{b}{}\delta \alpha _b\left(y\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\left(y\right)\}_{x^0=y^0}}`$
Therefore $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b\left(x\right)`$ behaves as a Hamiltonian function for the flow corresponding to the group element generated by $`t_b`$. Hence,

$$(A,E)T^{}𝒜\stackrel{J}{}DEC^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝒢\right)$$
(15)
is what is called a momentum mapping for the symmetry group. This mapping will be denoted $`J`$. Because $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^3𝒢\right)`$ is dual to $`C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^0𝒢^{}\right)`$ this mapping may also be considered as a mapping from $`T^{}𝒜`$ to $`h^{}=C^{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }^0𝒢^{}\right)`$ (the space of smooth sections on the Lie algebra dual)

$$(A,E)\stackrel{J}{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_b(x)t^b$$
(16)
with $`\left\{t^b\right\}`$ as a basis for the dual Lie algebra $`𝒢^{}`$.

The constraint $`DE=0`$ means that the set of solutions of Yang-Mills theory is the zero set of a momentum mapping.

For the characterization of the set of solutions of the constraint equations an important role is played by the derivative mapping $`J^{}:T_{(A,E)}\left(T^{}𝒜\right)h^{}`$ and its adjoint $`J^{}:h^{}T_{(A,E)}\left(T^{}𝒜\right)`$. Linearizing $`A`$ and $`E`$ around a background field $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$

$$\begin{array}{ccc}A\hfill & =\hfill & \overline{A}+a\hfill \\ E\hfill & =\hfill & \overline{E}+e\hfill \end{array}$$
(17)
one easily obtains

$$\begin{array}{ccc}J^{}(a,e)_b\hfill & =\hfill & _ie_b^i+f_{bca}\left(\overline{A}_c^ke_a^k+a_c^k\overline{E}_a^k\right)\hfill \\ \left(J^{}v\right)_a^k\hfill & =\hfill & (f_{bac}\overline{E}_c^kv_b\left(x\right),\left(^k\delta _{ba}+f_{bca}\overline{A}_c^k\right)v_b\left(x\right))\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
Using pointwise metrics on $`M`$ and $`𝒢`$ and integration, a Riemannian structure is defined in $`T^{}𝒜`$

$$<<(a1,e1),(a2,e2)>>=d^3x(a1a2+e1e2)$$
(19)
which is related to the symplectic form by the complex structure

$$𝕁(a1,e1)=(e1,a1)$$
(20)
$$\omega ((a1,e1),(a2,e2))=<<𝕁(a1,e1),(a2,e2)>>$$
(21)
Because $`J^{}`$ is elliptic with injective principal symbol (in $`^2`$), one has the $`^2`$ splittings

$`T_{(\overline{A},\overline{E})}\left(T^{}𝒜\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Ker}J^{}\text{Im}J^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Im}\left(𝕁J^{}\right)\text{Ker}\left(J^{}𝕁\right)`$
$$h^{}=\text{Ker}J^{}\text{Im}J^{}$$
(23)
One denotes by

$`P`$ = the projection $`T^{}𝒜`$Im$`J^{}`$

$`H`$ = the projection $`T^{}𝒜`$Ker$`J^{}`$

Elimination of redundant variables (or gauge fixing) corresponds, in geometrical terms, to the construction of a slice for the action of the gauge group $`𝒲`$. A slice through a point $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})T^{}𝒜`$ is a submanifold $`ST^{}𝒜`$ such that

(i) $`\gamma (\overline{A},\overline{E})=(\overline{A},\overline{E})\gamma S=S\gamma 𝒲`$

(ii) $`\gamma SS\mathrm{}\gamma (\overline{A},\overline{E})=(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$

(iii) $`T^{}𝒜`$ is locally the product of the slice $`S`$ and the orbit of $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$

In this setting the following important results have been obtained  :

(1) An orthogonal slice for the group action is

$$(\overline{A},\overline{E})+\text{Ker}\left(J^{}𝕁\right)$$
(24)
The orthogonal complement, Im$`\left(𝕁J^{}\right)`$, is the tangent space to the orbit at $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$.

(2) Denote by $`C=\left\{J=0\right\}`$ the solution set of the constraint equations and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}C_P\hfill & =\hfill & \left\{PJ=0\right\}\hfill \\ C_H\hfill & =\hfill & \left\{HJ=0\right\}\hfill \end{array}$$
(25)
with $`C=C_PC_H`$

Then, there is a smooth mapping (the Kuranishi transformation) that maps $`C_P`$ locally onto $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$Ker$`J^{}`$. (Ker$`J^{}`$ is the set of solutions of the linearized constraints, $`_ie_b^i+f_{bca}\left(\overline{A}_c^ke_a^k+a_c^k\overline{E}_a^k\right)=0`$).

(3) Ker$`J^{}`$, that is, $`\left(f_{bac}\overline{E}_c^kv_b\left(x\right)=0,\left(^k\delta _{ba}+f_{bca}\overline{A}_c^k\right)v_b\left(x\right)=0\right)`$, is the set of infinitesimal symmetries of $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$. If Ker$`J^{}=0`$, then $`C_P=C`$ and in this case the solution set of the full constraint equations is a manifold near $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$ with tangent space Ker$`J^{}`$. It means that, if the background has no symmetries, any solution of the linearized equations approximates to first order a curve of exact solutions.

(4) In case the background has nontrivial symmetries (Ker$`J^{}0`$), define a set $`QC`$ as follows

$$QC=\{(a,e)T_{(\overline{A},\overline{E})}\left(T^{}𝒜\right):(a,e)\left(\text{Ker}\left(J^{}𝕁\right)\text{Ker}J^{}\right)\text{ and }[ae]=0\}$$
(26)
in coordinates

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill _ia_b^i+f_{bca}\left(\overline{A}_c^ke_a^k+a_c^k\overline{E}_a^k\right)& \hfill =& \hfill 0\\ \hfill _ie_b^i+f_{bca}\left(\overline{A}_c^ka_a^ke_c^k\overline{E}_a^k\right)& \hfill =& \hfill 0\\ \hfill [ae]_b=f_{bca}a_c^k\left(x\right)e_a^k\left(x\right)& \hfill =& \hfill 0\end{array}$$
(27)
The first condition is the (gauge fixing) condition that restricts the perturbation to the slice. The second is the linearized constraint and the third a quadratic constraint condition.

Then, $`S`$ being the slice, there is a local diffeomorphism (Kuranishi’s) of $`CS`$ onto $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})+QC`$. Equivalently, the non-linear constraint set is locally $`C`$Orbit$`(\overline{A},\overline{E})QC`$.

It means that, when the background has non-trivial symmetries, there are solutions of the linearized equations that are not tangent to actual solutions and a further quadratic constraint must be imposed on the perturbations.

(5) The term $`[ae]_b=f_{bca}a_c^k\left(x\right)e_a^k\left(x\right)`$, used above, is the diagonal of the quadratic form

$$J^{\prime \prime }((a1,e1),(a2,e2))=[a1e2]+[a2e1]$$
(28)
The degeneracy space of this quadratic form characterizes the solutions with the same symmetries as $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$, namely:

The set of solutions with the same symmetries as $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$ is a manifold with tangent space at $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$ given by

$$\{(a,e):(a,e)\left(\text{Ker}\left(J^{}𝕁\right)\text{Ker}J^{}\right)\text{ and }J^{\prime \prime }((a,e),(a1,e1))=0\}$$
(29)
for all $`(a1,e1)\left(\text{Ker}\left(J^{}𝕁\right)\text{Ker}J^{}\right)`$

#

The results listed above have some practical consequences. They mean, for example, that in perturbative calculations around a background $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$ with non-trivial symmetries, linear perturbations must be further restricted by a quadratic condition. In quantum perturbation theory, the quadratic condition becomes an operator condition and physical perturbations must be annihilated by the corresponding quadratic operator.

Further consequences and roles for the non-generic backgrounds are explored in the remainder of the paper.

### 3.2 Confinement and the singlet structure of excitations

The confinement question covers two distinct statements:

(i) All observables are color neutral

(ii) All physical states all color singlets

For fields transforming under a non-Abelian gauge group, once it is assumed that gauge invariance is an exact symmetry, the first statement is a simple manifestation of the existence of a non-Abelian superselection rule. This has been proved long ago by Strocchi. Let $`\{Q_a\}`$ be the set of color charges that generates the (global) gauge group $`G`$ and $`𝒪`$ a local observable. Computing the commutator between physical states $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$,

$$<\psi |[Q_a,𝒪]|\varphi >=<\psi |[d^3xJ_a^0,𝒪]|\varphi >=<\psi |[d^3x(J_a^0_iF_a^{i0}),𝒪]|\varphi >=0$$
(30)
where the second equality follows from locality of $`𝒪`$ and the third from Gauss’ law

$$_iF_a^{i0}=j_a^0+gf_{abc}A_{ib}F_c^{i0}=J_a^0$$
(31)
acting on physical states. The term $`j_a^0`$ denotes the non-gluonic charge.

Eq.(30) implies that all local observables, in the physical space, commute with the color charges, that is, $`G`$ is a non-Abelian superselection rule. In particular it implies that (local) color charges cannot be observable quantities. Therefore the fact that color charges are not observable is not a dynamical question, in the sense that it does not depend on the detailed dynamics of non-Abelian gauge theory but simply on the fact that current conservation occurs in a particular form, namely the current is the divergence of an antisymmetric tensor. Unobservability of color charges is therefore a trivial consequence of non-Abelian gauge symmetry. The deep question is of course why there is an exactly conserved color gauge symmetry.

It is possible that the second of the confinement statements, the existence of just color singlets, may also be a “kinematical” consequence of gauge symmetry, although the situation here is not so obvious. The existence of a non-Abelian superselection rule implies that the superselection sectors are labelled by the eigenvalues of the Casimir operators. For all except the singlet sector, there will be more than one vector corresponding to the same physical state. Hence if non-singlet states were to exist, their description would imply a departure from the usual quantum mechanical framework. Namely there would not exist a complete commuting set of observables and the description of scattering experiments, for example, would require special care because the computed matrix elements would depend on the initial and final vector representatives chosen among the physically equivalent multiplet vectors. A description using direct integral spaces or some other form of averaging over initial and final physically equivalent vectors would be mandatory to obtain unambiguous predictions.

If color is an unbroken symmetry, the question of confinement is not whether any colored states are going to be found, because color charges are unobservable anyway, but whether the colorless objects one sees are real singlets or some sort of balanced admixture of hidden color states. It is here however that non-generic strata play a role. The quadratic condition $`f_{bca}a_c^k\left(x\right)e_a^k\left(x\right)=0`$ means exactly that the (gluonic) charge associated to excitations around a nongeneric background is zero. Therefore if the background belongs to a non-generic stratum, the perturbative vacuum for example, the gluonic low lying excitations around this background must be singlets. Nothing is said, of course, concerning excitations around generic states or non-gluonic states.

### 3.3 Suppression of non-symmetric fluctuations and wave functional enhancements

For quantized gravitational fluctuations around a symmetric background spacetime, it has been found that the effect of quadratic constraints is to suppresses transitions to configurations of lower symmetry. This led some authors  to conjecture that the amplitude of the Schrödinger functional would display particular enhancements (or suppressions) near the singularities. This was illustrated by studying finite-dimensional examples of the Schrödinger equation in configuration spaces with conical singularities.

However, for gauge theories, there is not always suppression of fluctuations to configurations of lower symmetry. The degeneracy space of the quadratic form $`J^{\prime \prime }`$ (Eq.28) characterizes the fluctuations with the same symmetry as the background $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$. But, in addition to this manifold with the same symmetry as $`(\overline{A},\overline{E})`$, there are other solutions, with different symmetry, leading to the conical singularity. For an initial condition in some stratum, it is known that classical solutions remain in the same stratum, but quantum fluctuations will in principle explore all the solutions compatible with the linear and quadratic constraints. Therefore, the conjecture of enhancement near conical singularities may indeed be true, but it does not necessarily follows from the theory described above.

In the next section, by studying an approximation to the ground state functional of SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories, one finds additional circumstantial evidence for enhancements near particular classes of non-generic strata.

## 4 Nongeneric strata in SU(2) and SU(3) gauge theories

### 4.1 Ground state functionals in gauge theories

Using an approximation to the ground state functional, it will be found that some field configurations, corresponding to reducible strata, concentrate the ground state measure. The approximation to the ground state functional is based on an expansion of the path integral representations

$$\psi _0\left(\chi \right)𝒟\chi \left(\tau \right)\delta \left(\chi \left(0\right)\chi \right)e^{_{\mathrm{}}^0L_E(\chi \left(\tau \right),\frac{d}{dt}\chi \left(\tau \right))𝑑\tau }$$
(32)
or

$$\left|\psi _0\left(\chi \right)\right|^2=\frac{1}{N}𝒟\chi \left(\tau \right)\delta \left(\chi \left(0\right)\chi \right)e^{_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}L_E(\chi \left(\tau \right),\frac{d}{dt}\chi \left(\tau \right))𝑑\tau }$$
(33)
where $`\chi `$ denotes the finite or infinite-dimensional set of configuration space variables, and $`L_E`$ is the Euclidean action. Making the change of variables

$$\chi \left(\tau \right)=\chi +z\left(\tau \right)$$
(34)
adding a term $`z\left(\tau \right).J\left(\tau \right)`$ to the Euclidean Lagrangian $`L_E=c\left(\frac{d}{dt}\chi \right)^2+V\left(\chi \right)`$, separating the terms quadratic or less than quadratic in $`z\left(\tau \right)`$ from higher order terms

$`L_E(\chi \left(\tau \right),{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dt}}\chi \left(\tau \right))+z\left(\tau \right).J\left(\tau \right)`$
$`=`$ $`V\left(\chi \right)z\left(\tau \right).\left(c{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\tau ^2}}+S\left(\chi \right)\right)z\left(\tau \right)\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right).z\left(\tau \right)+G\left(z\left(\tau \right)\right)`$
and computing the Gaussian integrals for the fluctuations around each configuration $`\chi `$, the following representation is obtained for $`\left|\psi _0\left(\chi \right)\right|^2`$

$$\left|\psi _0\left(\chi \right)\right|^2=\frac{e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau G({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{J\left(\tau \right)}})}}e^{\frac{1}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{c\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}+S\left(\chi \right)}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right)}}e^{2\sqrt{c}L\left(\chi \right)\sqrt{S\left(\chi \right)}L\left(\chi \right)}}{\sqrt{det\frac{1}{4\sqrt{cS\left(\chi \right)}}}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau G({\scriptscriptstyle \frac{}{J\left(\tau \right)}})}}e^{\frac{1}{4}{\scriptscriptstyle 𝑑\tau \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right){\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1}{c\frac{^2}{\tau ^2}+S\left(\chi \right)}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right)}}}|_{J=0}$$
(36)
where

$$L=\frac{i}{4\sqrt{c}}𝑑\tau \frac{1}{\sqrt{S\left(\chi \right)}}e^{\left|\tau \right|\sqrt{\frac{S\left(\chi \right)}{c}}}\left(\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)J\left(\tau \right)\right)$$
(37)
the evaluation of the Gaussian integrals requiring $`S\left(\chi \right)>0`$. In the $`J0`$ limit, $`L`$ reduces to

$$L_0=\frac{i}{2}\frac{1}{S\left(\chi \right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)$$
(38)
Expanding $`\mathrm{exp}\left(𝑑\tau G(\frac{}{J\left(\tau \right)})\right)`$, successive approximations to the ground state are obtained. Of particular interest is the leading term

$$\left|\psi _0\left(\chi \right)\right|_{(0)}^2=\left(det\frac{1}{4\sqrt{cS\left(\chi \right)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{\sqrt{c}}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)\frac{1}{S\left(\chi \right)}\sqrt{S\left(\chi \right)}\frac{1}{S\left(\chi \right)}\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\chi \right)\right\}$$
(39)
which differs from a perturbative estimate in the fact that, around each point of the wave functional, a different expansion point is chosen, which is $`\chi `$ itself. In the functional integral representation of the ground state, the wave functional is the integrated effect of paths coming from the infinite past to the point $`\chi `$ at $`t=0`$. Because near $`\chi `$ the difference $`z\left(\tau \right)\chi `$ is small, the leading term will contain accurate information from all paths in the neighborhood of $`\chi `$, and will be inaccurate only regarding non-harmonic contributions to the paths far away from $`\chi `$. For many problems, like the quartic or exponential oscillators one finds that, up to a shift of parameter values, the leading term is already practically indistinguishable from the exact ground state.

For non-Abelian gauge fields one uses the Schrödinger formulation for quantum fields . $`𝒜_i^\alpha (\tau ,x)`$ is the space-time Euclidean vector potential, $`A_i^\alpha \left(x\right)=𝒜_i^\alpha (0,x)`$ the time-zero field, $`_i^\alpha (\tau ,x)=ϵ_{ijk}\left(_j𝒜_k^\alpha \frac{g}{2}f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }𝒜_j^\beta 𝒜_k^\gamma \right)`$ the nonabelian curvature field and $`B_i^\alpha \left(x\right)=ϵ_{ijk}\left(_jA_k^\alpha \frac{g}{2}f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_j^\beta A_k^\gamma \right)`$ its time-zero counterpart. The time-zero fields are the canonical variables and the chromoelectric fields the conjugate momenta. Making the change of variables

$$𝒜_i^\alpha (\tau ,x)=A_i^\alpha \left(x\right)+\varphi _i^\alpha (\tau ,x)$$
(40)
the Euclidean Lagrangian is

$$L_E=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{}{\tau }\varphi _i^\alpha \right)^2\frac{1}{2}\left(_i^\alpha \right)^2$$
(41)
To construct the ground state approximation according to Eq.(39), notice that

$$_i^\alpha (\tau ,x)=B_i^\alpha \left(x\right)+ϵ_{ijk}D_j\left(A\right)_{\alpha \beta }\varphi _k^\beta (\tau ,x)ϵ_{ijk}f_{\alpha \beta \gamma }\varphi _j^\beta (\tau ,x)\varphi _k^\gamma (\tau ,x)$$
(42)
with

$$D_j\left(A\right)_{\alpha \beta }=_j\delta _{\alpha \beta }gf_{\alpha \beta \gamma }A_j^\gamma \left(x\right)$$
(43)
Using (39), the leading term for the ground state functional is

$$\psi _0\left(A\right)_{(0)}=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\frac{1}{2}d^3xB_k^\alpha \left(A\left(x\right)\right)\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{R\left(A\left(x\right)\right).R\left(A\left(x\right)\right)}}\right)_{kk^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}B_k^{}^\alpha ^{}\left(A\right)\right\}$$
(44)
where the following operator has been defined

$$R\left(A\right)_{nn^{}}^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}=ϵ_{nmn^{}}D_m\left(A\right)^{\alpha \alpha ^{}}$$
(45)
### 4.2 SU(2)

If $`G=SU(2)`$, the isotropy groups and the structure groups of the maximal subbundles are :

|  | $`S_A`$ | $`H_A^{^{}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | $`_2`$ | $`SU(2)`$ |
| 2 | $`U\left(1\right)`$ | $`U\left(1\right)`$ |
| 3 | $`SU\left(2\right)`$ | $`_2`$ |

(46)
There are three strata. Stratum 1 is the generic stratum. The other two are reducible strata.

For particular classes of fields, the leading ground state approximation, described above, may be given a simple explicit form, which allows us to test the role of the different strata on the construction of low energy states. Low-energy states are expected to be associated to fields which, at least locally, are slowly varying. Therefore a natural subclass to be studied is the one of constant non-abelian fields $`A_i^\alpha \left(x\right)=A_i^\alpha `$ restricted to a finite space volume $`V`$. Consider the matrix

$$M_{ij}^{(2)}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{3}{}}A_i^\alpha A_j^\alpha $$
(47)
Being symmetric, this matrix may be diagonalized by a space rotation. As a result, without loss of generality, $`\{A_1^\alpha ,A_2^\alpha ,A_3^\alpha \}`$ is a set of orthogonal vectors and the $`SU\left(2\right)`$ coordinates may be chosen such that

$$A_1^\alpha =(a_1,0,0)A_2^\alpha =(0,a_2,0)A_3^\alpha =(0,0,a_3)$$
(48)
Then

$$B_1^\alpha =g(a_2a_3,0,0)B_2^\alpha =g(0,a_3a_1,0)B_3^\alpha =g(0,0,a_1a_2)$$
(49)
Using a standard representation for the fractional powers of positive operators

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{R\left(A\right).R\left(A\right)}}=\frac{1}{\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}\frac{1}{\lambda +R\left(A\right).R\left(A\right)}$$
(50)
and computing

$$B(\lambda +R.R)B^T$$

one obtains

$$\begin{array}{c}\psi _0\left(A\right)_{(0)}=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{Vg}{2\pi }_0^{\mathrm{}}d\lambda \lambda ^{\frac{1}{2}}[(a_1,a_2,a_3)^2(a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2)\\ +\lambda (a_1^4(a_2^2+a_3^2)+a_2^4(a_1^2+a_3^2)+a_3^4(a_1^2+a_2^2))\\ +\lambda ^2(a_2^2a_3^2+a_1^2a_3^2+a_1^2a_2^2)]\\ \times [4(a_1a_2a_3)^2+\lambda (\lambda +a_1^2+a_2^2+a_3^2)^2]^1\}\end{array}$$
(51)
This function is peaked at the zeros of the exponent, which only occur when two of the $`a^{}s`$ vanish. For example for $`a_1=0`$ the exponent $`\sigma (a_1,a_2,a_3)`$ in $`\psi _0\left(A\right)_{(0)}=\mathrm{exp}\{\frac{Vg}{2}\sigma (a_1,a_2,a_3)\}`$ becomes

$$\sigma (0,a_2,a_3)=\frac{a_2^2a_3^2}{\sqrt{a_2^2+a_3^2}}$$
(52)
the function depicted in Fig.1. As a consequence, for this class of fields, the ground state functional is peaked both near strata of type $`2`$ and $`3`$. Three remarks are in order at this point:

(i) When two of the constants vanish (for example $`a_1=a_2=0`$), the chromomagnetic fields in (49) also vanish. Therefore a point strictly on the plane ($`a_1=a_2=0`$) might be identified by a gauge transformation to the origin. However by choosing ($`a_1=0,a_2=\epsilon ,a_3=\frac{K}{\epsilon }`$) one obtains, for small $`\epsilon `$, $`\sigma (0,a_2,a_3)\epsilon K`$ and $`B_1^\alpha =g(K,0,0)`$. Therefore arbitrarily large chromomagnetic fields exist with high probability near the plane ($`a_1=a_2=0`$). The holonomy group is generated by $`\sigma _1`$ with centralizer $`U\left(1\right)`$. This justifies the statement that there is a $`U\left(1\right)`$ stratum acting as a concentrator of the ground state measure.

(ii) The same reasoning implies that large field fluctuations are to be expected in the non-perturbative vacuum and this approximate ground state functional provides a dynamical view of the vacuum condensates.

(iii) On the other hand, one should not expect all fields in the non-generic strata to act as concentrators of the ground state measure. A counter example would be a $`U\left(1\right)`$ field with a fast space variation. Therefore, as stated before, a simple reasoning based on suppression of transitions by the quadratic constraints cannot be the whole story.

Similar remarks apply to the role played by the nongeneric strata in $`SU\left(3\right)`$, to be discussed below. That is, in each case, one identifies the subspace where the ground state functional is peaked and then finds the corresponding nontrivial neighboring stratum, as in (i) above.

### 4.3 SU(3)

For $`G=SU(3)`$ the isotropy groups and the structure groups of the maximal subbundles are :

|  | $`S_A`$ | $`H_A^{^{}}`$ |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1 | $`_3`$ | $`SU\left(3\right)`$ |
| 2 | $`U\left(1\right)`$ | $`U\left(2\right)`$ |
| 3 | $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ | $`U(1)\times U(1)`$ |
| 4 | $`U\left(2\right)`$ | $`U\left(1\right)`$ |
| 5 | $`SU\left(3\right)`$ | $`_3`$ |

(53)
There are five strata. Stratum 1 is the generic stratum. All others are reducible strata. Denote by $`𝒵`$ the gauge group transformations with values in the center, $`\stackrel{\mathrm{~}}{𝒲}=𝒲/𝒵`$ and $``$ the space (stratum 1) of irreducible connections. Then $`/\stackrel{\mathrm{~}}{𝒲}`$ is an open dense set in $`𝒜/𝒲`$, the complement (the space of reducible connections) being nowhere dense. Most gauge theory studies restrict themselves to $`/\stackrel{\mathrm{~}}{𝒲}`$. However, we will see in a while that, like in SU(2), there are important contributions from the non-generic strata to low-lying states. In addition and contrary to the SU(2) case, this structure is not unique, several possible non-equivalent configurations being possible.

As before one makes a local analysis and considers fields that are constant in a finite volume $`V`$. Again, the symmetric matrix

$$M_{ij}^{(3)}=\underset{\alpha =1}{\overset{8}{}}A_i^\alpha A_j^\alpha $$
(54)
may be diagonalized by a space rotation. $`\{A_1^\alpha ,A_2^\alpha ,A_3^\alpha \}`$ is then a set of three orthogonal vectors in an eight-dimensional space and there are several independent choices. The stratification of the octet space by SU$`\left(3\right)`$ orbits, characterizes the independent choices. However, what is important here is not only SU(3) geometrical independence but to characterize the choices that lead to qualitatively different ground state functionals.

(i) Let the only non-zero components be

$$A_1^1=a_1A_2^2=a_2A_3^3=a_3$$
(55)
This case is identical to the one studied for SU(2), being the measure concentrated now near a stratum with isotropy $`U\left(1\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$

(ii) Let the non-zero components be

$$A_1^1=a_1A_2^2=a_2A_3^8=a_8$$
(56)
The only non-zero component of the chromomagnetic field is

$$B_3^3=ga_1a_2$$
(57)
and

$$B(\lambda +R.R)B^T=\frac{a_1^2a_2^2}{\lambda +a_1^2+a_2^2}$$
(58)
In this case, all the fields belong to a $`U\left(1\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ stratum and the measure being concentrated near $`a_1=0`$ or $`a_2=0`$, with the choice $`a_1=\epsilon ,a_2=\frac{K}{\epsilon }`$ (with $`\epsilon `$ small) as before, one proves the existence of $`U\left(1\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ fields with large measure. This example shows that not all nongeneric fields are concentrators of the measure. On the other hand, it seems that whenever the measure is peaked, there is a nearby nongeneric stratum field.

(iii) If the non-zero components are

$$A_1^4=a_4A_2^5=a_5A_3^8=a_8$$
(59)
$$B_1=g\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}a_5a_8\frac{\lambda _4}{2}B_2=g\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}a_4a_8\frac{\lambda _5}{2}B_3=\frac{g}{2}a_4a_5\left(\frac{\lambda _3}{2}+\sqrt{3}\frac{\lambda _8}{2}\right)$$
(60)
then

$`B(\lambda +R.R)B^T`$ (61)
$`=`$ $`4\left\{\begin{array}{c}\left(16a_4^2a_5^2+12a_5^2a_8^2+12a_4^2a_8^2\right)\lambda ^2\\ +\left(16a_4^2a_5^4+16a_4^4a_5^2+12a_5^4a_8^2+9a_5^2a_8^4+12a_4^4a_8^2+9a_4^2a_8^4\right)\lambda \\ +12a_4^4a_5^2a_8^2+12a_4^2a_5^4a_8^2+9a_4^2a_5^2a_8^4\end{array}\right\}\times `$ (68)
$`\left\{\begin{array}{c}16\lambda ^3+\left(32a_5^2+32a_4^2+24a_8^2\right)\lambda ^2\\ +\left(16a_4^4+16a_5^4la+9a_8^4+32a_4^2a_5^2+24a_8^2a_4^2+24a_5^2a_8^2\right)\lambda +48a_5^2a_8^2a_4^2\end{array}\right\}^1`$
and one has the following limits:

For $`a_4=0`$

$$B(\lambda +R.R)B^T=\frac{12a_5^2a_8^2}{4\lambda +4a_5^2+3a_8^2}$$
(69)
For $`a_5=0`$

$$B(\lambda +R.R)B^T=\frac{12a_4^2a_8^2}{4\lambda +4a_4^2+3a_8^2}$$
(70)
For $`a_8=0`$

$$B(\lambda +R.R)B^T=\frac{4a_4^2a_5^2}{\lambda +a_4^2+a_5^2}$$
(71)
For $`a_4=a_8=\epsilon `$ and $`a_5=\frac{K}{\epsilon }`$ ($`\epsilon `$ small) the holonomy group is $`SU\left(2\right)`$ (V-spin), the centralizer is $`U\left(1\right)`$ (generated by $`\sqrt{3}\lambda _3\lambda _8`$) and, from (71), it follows that this $`U\left(1\right)`$ field is near a point of high measure. If $`a_8=0`$ with the same conditions for $`a_4`$ and $`a_5`$, then it would be a field in a $`U\left(1\right)\times U\left(1\right)`$ stratum.

(iv) Finally if

$$A_1=0A_2=a_2\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda _4+\frac{\lambda _1}{2}\right)A_3=a_3\left(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}\lambda _5+\frac{\lambda _2}{2}\right)$$
(72)
$$B=g\sqrt{3}a_2a_3\frac{\lambda _8}{2}$$
(73)
then

$`B(\lambda +R.R)B^T`$
$`=`$ $`12{\displaystyle \frac{a_2^2a_3^2\left(4\lambda ^2+9\lambda \left(a_2^2+a_3^2\right)+18a_2^2a_3^2\right)}{\left(4\lambda +3a_2^2+3a_3^2\right)\left(\lambda ^2+3\lambda \left(a_2^2+a_3^2\right)+6a_2^2a_3^2\right)}}`$
All fields in this example belong to a stratum with isotropy group $`U\left(2\right)`$. The measure is peaked near $`a_2=0`$ or $`a_3=0`$ and with $`\left(a_2=\epsilon ,a_3=\frac{K}{\epsilon }\right)`$ one finds nontrivial $`U\left(2\right)`$ fields near the maximum of the measure.

In conclusion, one sees that there are geometrical independent choices which lead to ground state functionals with measures concentrated near each one of the non-generic strata 2 to 4. Low-lying physical states being represented by quantum fluctuations around the ground state functional one also concludes that, at least in the leading order approximation of the expansion leading to Eq.(44), there may be distinct classes of excitations around each type of non-generic strata. This is a much richer structure than the one implied by the perturbative vacuum (stratum 5). On the other hand the high probability that is assigned to large chromomagnetic fluctuations in the ground state functional is consistent with the phenomenological evidence for the existence of non-trivial vacuum condensates in the QCD vacuum .

## 5 Conclusions

By formulating, in the Hamiltonian formalism, the (primary) constraint as the zero set of a momentum map, a clear view is obtained of the dual role of gauge invariance and constraints, as well of the singularity structure of the stratified orbit space in gauge theories. Some physical consequences of these results are the need to impose quadratic constraints on perturbation theory and the natural singlet structure of excitations around non-generic backgrounds. These are important roles for the nongeneric strata both in classical and quantum theory. In addition, the role of nongeneric strata on the structure of anomalies has been discussed in the past.

As a further role for nongeneric strata, there are conjectures concerning enhancements of the lowest lying Schrödinger functional near these strata. The study of finite-dimensional examples with conical singularities provided support for this conjecture . Here, using a non-perturbative approximation to the ground-state functional in $`SU\left(2\right)`$ and $`SU\left(3\right)`$ gauge theory, more circumstantial evidence was provided for this conjecture. In addition to the concentration of the measure near nongeneric strata, there is also the possibility of a multiplicity of distinct excitations associated to each stratum type.

Strata of gauge groups $`G`$ and the structure groups $`H`$ of subbundles have been studied in the past in the context of symmetry breaking from to $`G`$ to $`H`$(see for example Ref.). Symmetry breaking corresponds to a reduction to a subbundle associated to the subgroup. The possibility of making this reduction depends on the global structure of the base manifold $`M`$. This problem is not addressed here, because we have been concerned mostly with a local analysis. Furthermore in our discussion of non-trivial vacuum backgrounds, no symmetry breaking is implied. All equivalent directions in the functional (44) are equiprobable and the full gauge symmetry is preserved.