text:
# Scalar Field Theory on Fuzzy 𝑆⁴

## 1 Introduction

To access the physics of field theories in the strong coupling regime non-perturbative methods are necessary. These typically involve the reduction of the field theory to a model with a finite number of degrees of freedom and the use of numerical methods to sample the possible configurations. The now standard method in this regard is lattice field theory. It has been developed in the last twenty years into a refined tool .

However, resorting to a lattice is not the only possible method of reducing a field theory to a finite number of degrees of freedom. An alternative is what has become known as the fuzzy approach -, see  for a review.

In this approach one takes the underlying space in the form of its algebra of functions and seeks a sequence of non-commutative algebras with finite dimensional representations, whose limiting form reproduces the commutative algebra. The elements of the algebra can then be represented by matrices and will play the role of scalar fields in an approximation to field theory. Dirac and Yang-Mills fields on fuzzy spaces have also been considered. These involve projective modules over the algebra . The method has further been extended to superspace and a fuzzy supersphere has been constructed .

As a non-perturbative approach to field theory the fuzzy scheme is very different from the lattice one and many new features emerge. The most surprising is perhaps the phenomenon of UV/IR mixing  where a residue of the microscopic non-commutativity remains in the commutative limit. This can be eliminated by suitably modifying the original action of the model.

The most intensely studied example in the fuzzy approach is the so called fuzzy sphere, $`S_F^2`$, which is realized as the matrix algebra of dimension $`L+1`$, denoted here $`Mat_{L+1}`$, with the inner product333 Note that $`(M,M)=M^{}M=M^2`$ where $`||||`$ is the $`C^{}`$ norm on $`Mat_{L+1}`$. $`(M,N)=\frac{Tr}{L+1}(M^{}N)`$, where $`M`$ and $`NMat_{N+1}`$ and the geometry is specified through the set of derivations $`_i=AdL_i`$ that correspond to the adjoint action of the generators $`L_i`$ of SU(2) (with spin $`s=L/2`$). For scalar fields only the Laplacian (or sequence of Laplacians parametrized by the matrix size) plays a role and the geometry is specified by a choice of Laplacian. Choosing the Laplacian to be $`^2`$ gives us a round sphere. One can therefore view the round fuzzy sphere, $`S_F^2`$, in the spirit of Connes  as the triple ($`Mat_{L+1}`$, $`^2`$, $`(,)`$) i.e. given by the algebra $`Mat_{L+1}`$ together with the differential operator $`^2`$ and the inner product $`(M,N)=\frac{Tr}{L+1}(M^{}N)`$. More generally one could consider a non-round sphere by utilizing an alternative expression for the Laplacian.

For $`S_F^2`$ the algebra $`Mat_{L+1}`$ can be viewed as generated by $`X_i=\frac{R}{\sqrt{s(s+1)}}L_i`$, which satisfy

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}X_i=R^2\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(1)
The $`X_i`$ satisfy the commutation relations

$$[X_i,X_j]=\frac{iR}{\sqrt{s(s+1)}}ϵ_{ijk}X_k$$
(2)
and become commutative in the large $`L`$, fixed $`R`$, limit so that we recover the commutative algebra of functions on $`S^2`$. If instead one scales $`R`$ with $`L`$ one can obtain the non-commutative plane .

The construction above can be carried out for any $`\mathrm{P}^N`$  and will be reviewed from the above point of view in the next section. One can imagine carrying the prescription out more generally by specifying the family of matrices and Laplacians such that one recovers the approximated space up to isospectral equivalence. However, examples beyond the most symmetric spaces have not yet been constructed in this way.

The known constructions (to date) of matrix approximations to continuum spaces are almost exclusively coadjoint orbits and their products. The one apparent exception444See also the related construction of fuzzy even  and odd  spheres. is $`S^4`$ (see ). This is an especially important example since it is the most natural replacement of $`^4`$ in studies of Euclidean quantum field theory. It is also unusual in that $`S^4`$ does not admit a symplectic structure and hence a fuzzy version of it could not be achieved by quantization of the classical space. It is, therefore, important to clarify in what sense a matrix approximation to $`S^4`$ exists.

We will demonstrate that the matrix algebra approximation of $`S^4`$ under discussion is really a matrix version of $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ in disguise. The desired $`S^4`$ emerges from a Kaluza-Klein type construction in the fuzzy context.

Curiously, the space $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ has recently been considered  in the context of higher dimensional quantum hall liquids and perhaps some of the techniques developed here may be of use in this context.

The structure of the paper is as follows: In section 2 we present an overview of the fuzzy approach in the case of $`\mathrm{P}^N`$. In section 3 we show that $`S^4`$ emerges from a matrix construction as the matrix size is sent to infinity. In section 4 we study the representation content of the matrix algebra and give our solution to the problem of suppressing non-$`S^4`$ modes. As a side product of our construction we are able to find the projector necessary to eliminate non-$`S^4`$ modes. Section 5 gives our prescription for the scalar field action where the non-$`S^4`$ modes are dynamically suppressed. One can see from the general discussion that it corresponds to a $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ model where the maximal $`SO(6)`$ symmetry is reduced to an $`SO(5)`$ symmetry. Geometrically the model corresponds to a Kaluza-Klein type space which is an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ with the radii of the $`S^2`$ fibres being sent to zero as the energy scale of the unwanted modes is sent to infinity. Section 6 gives our conclusions.

## 2 Construction of $`\mathrm{P}_F^N`$

We begin by reviewing the construction of $`\mathrm{P}_F^N`$. For this one takes the $`L`$ fold symmetric tensor product of the fundamental representation of $`SU(N+1)`$, which in terms of Young tableaux is the denoted

$$𝐝_𝐋^𝐍=\underset{L}{\underset{}{\text{    }\mathrm{}\text{    }}}$$
(3)
where $`d_L^N=\frac{(L+N)!}{N!L!}`$. The sequence of matrix algebras under consideration will then be $`Mat_{d_L^N}`$ which will be endowed with the inner product $`(M,N)=\frac{Tr}{d_L^N}(M^{}N)`$ with $`M`$ and $`NMat_{d_L^N}`$.

The geometry has not as yet been specified since a sequence of differential operators is not yet given. When the geometry is specified by a Laplacian, the number of eigenvalues of that Laplacian, less than a cutoff momentum scale $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, increases with the cutoff as $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^d`$. Since the total number of degrees of freedom in the matrix algebra is $`(d_L^N)^2`$ and our cutoff is $`L`$, we can deduce the dimension of the space being approximated via

$$d=2\underset{L\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{ln}d_L^N}{\mathrm{ln}L}=2N$$
(4)
which is consistent with $`\mathrm{P}^N`$.

If we choose our differential operators to be built from the generators, $`T_a`$, of $`SU(N+1)`$ in the $`𝐝_L^N`$ representation and the generators $`T_a^R`$ in the complex conjugate representation, with these latter operators acting on matrices on the right, then matrices are equivalent to the product representation

$$\underset{L}{\underset{}{\text{    }\mathrm{}\text{    }}}\overline{\underset{L}{\underset{}{\text{    }\mathrm{}\text{    }}}}$$
(5)
which can be expanded in terms of $`SU(N+1)`$ representations to yield the expansion of matrices in terms of polarization tensors. For example for $`SU(4)`$ with $`L=3`$ we have

$$\overline{\text{      }}=\text{                  }$$

and the expansion:

$$\text{            }\text{                  }=\mathrm{𝟏}\text{             }\text{                 }\text{                     }$$
(6)
In the special case of $`SU(2)`$, for example with $`L=3`$, we have

$$\overline{\text{      }}=\text{      }$$

and the decomposition

$$\text{      }\text{      }=\mathrm{𝟏}\text{     }\text{       }\text{         }$$
(7)
and we see that the expansion is in terms of integer angular momentum and is cut off at $`l=3`$. In general for the $`L`$-fold symmetric tensor product representation, the angular momentum will be cutoff at $`l=L`$ and as $`L\mathrm{}`$ we recover all of the representations corresponding to functions on $`S^2`$. Similarly in the $`L\mathrm{}`$ limit of the $`SU(N+1)`$ case we recover $`\mathrm{P}^N`$.

Fuzzy $`\mathrm{P}^N`$ would then, by analogy with $`S_F^2`$, be considered as the triple ($`Mat_{d_L^N}`$, $`^2`$, $`(,)`$) where now the sequence of matrices is that of dimension555To avoid confusion in the case of $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ we sill simply denote $`d_L^3`$ by $`d_L`$. $`d_L^N=\frac{(L+N)!}{N!L!}`$, $`^2=(AdT_a)^2`$ with as before $`(M,N)=\frac{Tr}{d_L^N}(M^{}N)`$, where $`M`$ and $`NMat_{d_L^N}`$.

A scalar field action on $`\mathrm{P}^N`$ would then correspond to

$$S[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{Tr}{d_L^N}[\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }^2\mathrm{\Phi }+V(\mathrm{\Phi })]$$
(8)
The $`\varphi ^4`$ model of this type on $`S_F^2`$ has been analyzed in  and is currently being studied numerically as a testing ground for the feasibility of the numerical approach.

## 3 Construction of $`S_F^4`$

Let us now turn to the construction of $`S_F^4`$. For this observe that $`X_a=\frac{R}{\sqrt{5}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$, with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ the Dirac matrices including $`\gamma _5`$, satisfy

$$\underset{a=1}{\overset{5}{}}X_aX_a=R^2\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(9)
This gives us a matrix approximation to the defining equation of $`S^4`$ in $`^5`$ and is the direct analogue of (1) for $`S_F^2`$. To get our sequence of matrices approximating $`S^4`$ we are led to consider representations of the group $`Spin(5)`$ (or equivalently $`Sp(2)`$). In the above we have used the defining four dimensional representation $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$ of $`Spin(5)`$. We can therefore consider the irreducible representation obtained from the $`L`$ fold symmetric tensor product of this representation i.e. the $`Spin(5)`$ representation $`(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$ which will contain a set of five matrices: $`J_a`$, $`a=1,\mathrm{},5`$ which can be realized as the symmetrization of $`L`$ copies of the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ matrices in the $`Spin(5)`$ fundamental representation:

$$J_a=\left(\underset{Ltimes}{\underset{}{\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}}}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\mathrm{}\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{}+\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Gamma }_a\right)_{sym}.$$
(10)
where the subscript $`sym`$ indicates that we are projecting onto the irreducible totally symmetrized representation. These matrices satisfy the relation

$$J_aJ_a=L(L+4)\mathrm{𝟏}$$

so that we can define a sequence of matrices666We do not cumber the notation by making the dependence on $`L`$ explicit., $`X_a`$, given by

$$X_a=\frac{R}{\sqrt{L(L+4)}}J_a$$
(11)
The algebra generated by these functions will become commutative in the infinite $`L`$ limit (see the discussion associated with eq. (18)) and since in the commutative case it is easy to check that the five co-ordinate functions $`x_a`$ (satisfying $`x_a^2=R^2`$) generate $`C^{\mathrm{}}(S^4)`$ we will recover $`S^4`$ in the limit.

If we return to the matrices arising at level $`L=1`$, we see that the $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ are not sufficient to form a basis for all matrices, but rather, to get a basis, we need to include the matrices $`\sigma _{ab}=\frac{1}{2i}[\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\mathrm{\Gamma }_b]`$. We can now expand any $`4\times 4`$ matrix in terms of the 16 matrices $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{\Gamma }_a,\sigma _{ab}\}`$. In this approximation (i.e. $`L=1`$) a matrix representing a function on $`S^4`$ will be of the form

$$F=F_0\mathrm{𝟏}+F_a\mathrm{\Gamma }_a$$
(12)
and our cutoff angular momentum on $`S^4`$ will again be $`l=1`$ (as it was at the corresponding $`L=1`$ approximation to $`S^2`$). However, a matrix product of two such functions will involve a non-zero coefficient of $`\sigma _{ab}`$ and in the absence of arbitrary such coefficients the algebra does not close. These parameters will have no corresponding counterparts in the expansion of functions on commutative $`S^4`$. One option as argued by Ramgoolam  is to project out such terms, in which case one is left with a non-associative algebra. This involves additional complications and does not seem particularly suited to numerical work. In addition the necessary projector must be constructed. We will return to this point in a concluding section where we will, in fact, give the projector.

An alternative is to include arbitrary coefficients of $`\sigma _{ab}`$ (demanding an associative algebra) and attempt to suppress such coefficients of unwanted terms, by making their excitation improbable in the dynamics. In this approach our algebra will be a full matrix algebra and obviously associative. The principal task of this paper will therefore be to give a prescription for suppressing the additional modes that arise in this extended algebra.

From a physics point of view the matrices are to play the role of our scalar fields which will be sampled in a Monte-Carlo simulation. We will therefore be seeking an appropriate scalar field action which suppresses the non-$`S^4`$ modes in a probabilistic sense in our simulations.

A successful method of suppressing the unwanted modes would be to add to the scalar action a term $`S_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ which is positive for any $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and zero only for matrices that correspond to functions on $`S^4`$, and non-zero for those that do not. The modified action would therefore be of the form $`S[\mathrm{\Phi }]+hS_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$. The parameter $`h`$ should then be chosen large and positive. The probability of any given matrix configuration then takes the form

$$𝒫[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{S[\mathrm{\Phi }]hS_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]}}{Z}$$
(13)
where

$$Z=d[\mathrm{\Phi }]\mathrm{e}^{S[\mathrm{\Phi }]hS_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]}$$
(14)
is the partition function of the model.

We will show that this can be achieved by choosing $`S_I[\varphi ]=\frac{Tr}{d_L}(\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{\Delta }_I\mathrm{\Phi })`$ with $`d_L=\frac{(L+1)(L+2)(L+3)}{6}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_I`$ a positive operator. It can be interpreted as a modification of the Laplacian which is zero on matrices corresponding to $`S^4`$.

From (4) we see that the dimension of the space being approximated by this sequence of matrices is in fact six and not four. We will further see that the entire model, when the unwanted degrees of freedom are included, corresponds to a fuzzy version of $`\mathrm{P}^3`$. $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ is an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ and the parameter $`h`$ can be related to the radius of the $`S^2`$ fibres over $`S^4`$ with the radius being sent to zero as $`h\mathrm{}`$ . In this sense we will have a fuzzy Kaluza-Klein type space whose low energy limit is $`S^4`$.

## 4 The representation content and Laplacian

The matrices $`\frac{\sigma _{ab}}{2}`$ with $`a,b=1,\mathrm{},5`$ are the generators of $`Spin(5)`$ in the fundamental representation. If we further identify $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a=\sigma _{a6}=\sigma _{6a}`$, then the set $`\frac{\sigma _{AB}}{2}`$ with $`A,B=1,..,6`$ are the generators of $`Spin(6)`$ in its fundamental representation $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})`$. We can similarly identify $`J_{AB}`$ in the $`L`$ fold symmetric tensor product representation, by replacing $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_a`$ in (10) by $`\frac{\sigma _{AB}}{2}`$. The resulting set $`J_{AB}`$ satisfy the algebra:

$$[J_{AB},J_{CD}]=ı\left(\delta _{AC}J_{BD}+\delta _{BD}J_{AC}\delta _{AD}J_{BC}\delta _{BC}J_{AD}\right)$$
(15)
and generate the $`Spin(6)`$ irreducible representation $`(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$ with dimension $`d_L=\frac{(L+1)(L+2)(L+3)}{6}`$. The subset $`J_{ab}`$, are $`Spin(5)`$ generators in the $`(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$ representation and the subset $`J_{a6}=\frac{J_a}{2}`$ transform as a vector under $`Spin(5)`$ in this representation.

We can therefore view the $`4\times 4`$ matrix algebra as the tensor product $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\overline{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ if we take a $`Spin(5)`$ point of view or as $`(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})\overline{(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}`$ from a $`Spin(6)`$ perspective. Similarly, for the $`L`$ dependent sequence of matrices777 Note, for $`Spin(5)`$ we have $`\overline{(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})}=(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$ while for $`Spin(6)`$ we have $`\overline{(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})}=(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$. one can take either a $`Spin(5)`$ or $`Spin(6)`$ view of the matrix algebra. The dimension of both sequences of representations is $`d_L=\frac{(L+1)(L+2)(L+3)}{6}`$ and the sequence of matrix algebras under consideration is $`Mat_{d_L}`$. From (4) we see that this sequence is one associated with an approximation to a six rather than four dimensional space. Since $`Spin(6)=SU(4)`$ the natural geometry associated with the $`Spin(6)`$ approach is that of a fuzzy approximation to $`\mathrm{P}^3`$.

In fact all the representations under consideration here can also be considered as representations of $`Spin(6)=SU(4)`$. Note, the $`L`$ fold symmetric tensor product representation $`(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})`$ of $`Spin(6)`$ is precisely the representation

$$\underset{L}{\underset{}{\text{    }\mathrm{}\text{    }}}$$

or equivalently the $`(L,0,0)`$ representation of $`SU(4)`$.

In this sequence of representations the $`Spin(5)`$ generators $`J_{ab}`$ are still of the form

$$J_{ab}=\frac{1}{4i}[J_a,J_b]\text{a,b=1,…,5}$$
(16)
as can be seen from (15). It is easy to verify that

$$J_{ab}J_{ab}=L(L+4)\mathrm{𝟏}.$$
(17)
So the commutator of the coordinate matrices defined in (11) is given by

$$[X_a,X_b]=4iR^2\frac{J_{ab}}{L(L+4)}.$$
(18)
In the $`L\mathrm{}`$ with $`R`$ fixed the right hand side of (18) goes to zero, and the coordinates commutes. We still have retained the constraint (9), we recover commutative $`S^4`$.

We have not as yet defined a geometry. For this, as discussed above, we need a Laplacian. From the above discussion is is clear there are now two available candidates, the quadratic Casimir operator of $`SO(6)`$ or that of $`SO(5)`$, which are respectively:

$`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(AdJ_{AB})^2`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(AdJ_{ab})^2`$ (20)
If we chose the $`SO(6)`$ Casimir (which is equally the $`SU(4)`$ Casimir) we are imposing the geometry of a round $`\mathrm{P}^3`$. But of course for a round $`S^4`$ $`SO(5)`$ symmetry is all we need.

If we take the $`Spin(5)`$ point of view then an arbitrary matrix can be considered as an element of the vector space $`(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})\overline{(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})}`$ which reduces under $`Spin(5)`$ as:

$$(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}(n,m).$$
(21)
with the dimension of $`(n,m)`$ being

$$dim(n,m)=\frac{1}{6}\left(2n+3\right)\left(2m+1\right)\left(n(n+2)m(m+1)\right).$$
(22)
Only the representations $`(n,0)`$ correspond to functions on $`S^4`$, all others are non-$`S^4`$ representations.

Equivalently taking the $`Spin(6)`$ point of view one has the $`Spin(6)`$ reduction

$$(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})(\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2},\frac{L}{2})=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}(n,n,0)$$
(23)
where

$$dim(n,n,0)=\frac{1}{6}\left(2n+3\right)\left(n+1\right)^2\left(n+2\right)^2.$$
(24)
Furthermore, one can see that the $`SO(6)`$ representation $`(n,n,0)`$ breaks up as a sum of $`SO(5)`$ representations and we have:

$$(n,n,0)=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}(n,m).$$
(25)
One can gain more insight into the role of these representations and the above decompositions by thinking of the above arguments in terms of polarization tensors.

In our context, an arbitrary matrix, which plays the role of a scalar field, can be decomposed into a sum of orthonormal polarization tensors where the set of polarization tensors carry the representation content (21). Thus an arbitrary matrix $`MMat_{d_L}`$, can be decomposed as

$$M=\underset{n=0}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{mn}{}M_{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{n+m}}^{(n,m)}𝒱_{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_{n+m}}^{(n,m)}$$
(26)
where

$$𝒱_{a_1,a_2\mathrm{},a_{m+n}}^{(n,m)}\text{the }SO(5)\text{ IRR }(n,m)mn$$
(27)
are the polarization tensors. These are in fact appropriately symmetrized $`n`$-th order polynomial of $`J_a`$ and $`J_{ab}`$, with traces removed and with the order of $`J_{ab}`$ being $`m`$. Those that correspond to functions on $`S^4`$ are therefore the $`𝒱^{(n,0)}`$ and are matrix versions of the $`S^4`$ spherical harmonics and the direct analogues of the $`\widehat{Y}_{lm}`$ of  but in an orthogonal basis.

In fact, the decomposition (26) corresponds to the $`SU(4)`$ decomposition:

$`𝐝_𝐋\overline{𝐝_𝐋}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}+\mathrm{}+𝐃_{𝐧\mathrm{𝟏}}+𝐃_𝐧`$
where $`\mathrm{D}_\mathrm{n}=dim(n,0,n)=\frac{1}{12}(2n+3)(n+1)^2(n+2)^2`$ with $`𝐃_𝐧`$ further decomposed under $`Spin(5)`$ as

$$𝐃_𝐧=\underset{m=0}{\overset{n}{}}(n,m).$$
(28)
For example the $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}`$ breaks up as $`\mathrm{𝟏𝟓}=\mathrm{𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟏𝟎}`$ which corresponds to the decomposition of $`J_{AB}`$ into $`J_a`$ and $`J_{ab}`$. Similarly the $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}`$ decomposes as $`\mathrm{𝟖𝟒}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟒}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}+\mathrm{𝟑𝟓}^{}`$ and so on.

Let us now discuss the eigenvalues of the Casimirs on the above representations. We have

$`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}𝒱^{(n,m)}`$ $`=`$ $`2n(n+3)𝒱^{(n,m)}`$ (29)
$`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}𝒱^{(n,m)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{n(n+3)+m(m+1)\right\}𝒱^{(n,m)}.`$ (30)
We see that the operator

$$\mathrm{C}_I=2\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}$$
(31)
has eigenvalues

$$\mathrm{C}_I𝒱^{(n,m)}=2m(m+1)𝒱^{(n,m)}$$
(32)
and is precisely the operator we require to separate the wanted $`S^4`$ modes from the unwanted modes. We are therefore in a position to fix the geometry for our fuzzy space in a fashion which will suppress the non-$`S^4`$ modes. The desired Laplacian will be

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_h=\frac{(\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}+h\mathrm{C}_I)}{2R^2}$$
(33)
The eigenmatrices of this operator are then the polarization tensors $`𝒱^{(n,m)}`$ and we have the eigenvalue equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_h𝒱^{(n,m)}=\left\{\frac{n(n+3)+hm(m+1)}{R^2}\right\}𝒱^{(n,m)}$$
(34)
From the spectrum we see that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_h`$ has positive spectrum for $`h(1,\mathrm{})`$ for all values of $`L`$. In fact for $`L`$ finite the permitted values of $`h`$ are slightly larger and one can choose $`h[(L+2)/(L+1),\mathrm{})`$.

Furthermore now that we have identified a Laplacian type operator which distinguishes between the $`S^4`$ and non-$`S^4`$ modes we can further identify the projector that removes the unwanted modes from an arbitrary matrix. It is simply

$$𝒫_{S^4}=\underset{n=1}{\overset{L}{}}\underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}\lambda _{n,m}}{\lambda _{n,0}\lambda _{n,m}}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{L}{}}\frac{2m(m+1)\mathrm{C}_I}{2m(m+1)}$$
(35)
where $`\lambda _{n,m}`$ are the eigenvalues of $`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}`$ of (30).

As mentioned the choice of $`\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}`$ as Laplacian fixes the geometry to be that of a round $`\mathrm{P}^3`$. Choosing the linear combination (33) of the two Casimirs (19) and (20) still corresponds to a fuzzy approximation of $`\mathrm{P}^3`$, We are doing a continuous deformation of its geometry. The set of eigenmatrices and the function algebra is unchanged, only the Laplacian and its eigenvalues are deformed in a continuous fashion. It will no longer correspond to a round $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ but rather to a squashed $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ with $`SO(5)`$ rather than $`SO(6)`$ symmetry. We will make the geometry more explicit in a subsequent article .

We now see that choosing the modification of the action to be of the form

$$S_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]=\frac{Tr}{d_L}(\mathrm{\Phi }\mathrm{C}_I\mathrm{\Phi })$$
(36)
has precisely the desired properties, i.e. of being zero on matrices corresponding to functions on $`S^4`$ and otherwise positive. So when the parameter $`h`$ is made arbitrarily large the non-$`S^4`$ modes are suppressed.

## 5 Scalar field theory on fuzzy $`4`$-sphere

In this section we will summarize the prescription for working with a scalar field on $`S_F^4`$. We begin with the round scalar field theory on $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ given by the action,

$`S_0[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{d_L}}Tr\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4R^2}}[J_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }]^{}[J_{AB},\mathrm{\Phi }]+V[\mathrm{\Phi }]\right).`$ (37)
To this we add, the $`SO(6)`$ non-invariant but $`SO(5)`$ invariant term

$`S_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{R^4}{d_L}}Tr{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^2}}\left([J_{ab},\mathrm{\Phi }]^{}[J_{ab}\mathrm{\Phi }]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }]^{}[J_{AB}\mathrm{\Phi }]\right)`$ (38)
so that we have the overall action $`S[\mathrm{\Phi }]=S_0[\mathrm{\Phi }]+hS_I[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$. This prescription is equivalent to taking the Laplacian which specifies the geometry to be

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J_{AB},[J_{AB},]]+h([J_{ab}[J_{ab},]]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[J_{AB},[J_{AB},]])\right)`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^2}}\left([J_a,[J_a,]]+{\displaystyle \frac{(1+h)}{2}}([J_{ab}[J_{ab},]][J_a,[J_a,]])\right)`$
or equivalently

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_h`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2R^2}}\left(\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}+h(2\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)})\right)`$ (40)
which gives a stable theory for all $`L`$ if $`h(1,\mathrm{})`$.

This form (40) is an interpolation between $`SO(5)`$ and $`SO(6)`$ Casimirs and the Laplacian is proportional to the $`SO(6)`$ Casimir for $`h=0`$ and the $`SO(5)`$ Casimir for $`h=1`$. The values of $`h`$ of interest to us are those large and positive since in the quantization of the theory following Euclidean functional integral methods, the states unrelated to $`S^4`$ then become highly improbable; this is a direct consequence of (34) and the expression (13) for the probability $`𝒫[\mathrm{\Phi }]`$.

Note: we have not specified the potential of the model since the above prescription is independent of the potential. The most obvious model to consider would be a quartic potential, since this is relevant to the Higgs sector of the standard model.

## 6 Conclusions

We have presented a solution to the elimination of non-$`S^4`$ modes in the fuzzy approach to $`S^4`$. The solution was to modify the Laplacian of the scalar action. The modification was to choose the overall Laplacian to be a perturbation of the round one on $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ retaining only the $`SO(5)`$ symmetry of $`S^4`$ and proportional to $`\mathrm{C}_I=2\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(5)}\mathrm{C}_2^{SO(6)}`$. The resulting Laplacian operator, which specifies the geometry in the fuzzy models, takes the form (39) or (40) and has spectrum

$$\lambda _{n,m}=\frac{n(n+3)+hm(m+1)}{R^2}n=0,1,\mathrm{},L\text{and}mn.$$
(41)
It is a positive operator for all $`L`$ if $`h(1,\mathrm{})`$.

From our study of the representation content in section 4 it was possible to construct the projector $`𝒫_{S^4}`$, eq. (35), which eliminates the non-$`S^4`$ modes. This is precisely the projector necessary for the non-associative algebra discussed in . We have not pursued this algebra due to its complications.

As we will see in a subsequent article , using coherent state techniques it is possible to extract the metric (and hence the geometry) of the above spaces from the Laplacian. We will in fact show that the space in all cases is $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ and that this space can be viewed as either the orbit $`SU(4)/U(3)`$ or the orbit $`Spin(5)/SU(2)\times U(1)`$. It therefore in general permits an $`SO(5)`$ invariant metric when viewed as a $`Spin(5)`$ orbit, but this can be expanded to a maximal $`SO(6)`$ invariance, which we refer to as the round $`\mathrm{P}^3`$. When we have only $`SO(5)`$ symmetry we have what we call a squashed $`\mathrm{P}^3`$. In fact it is possible to show that $`\mathrm{P}^3`$ is locally the direct product $`S^4\times S^2`$ and globally an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`S^4`$ and that the parameter $`h`$ is a measure of the size of the $`S^2`$ fibres. In fact

$$\frac{R_{S^2}^2}{R^2}=\frac{1}{1+h}$$
(42)
so the value $`h\mathrm{}`$ corresponds to shrinking the $`S^2`$ fibres to zero size, while $`h1`$ corresponds to making the fibres infinitely large.

Acknowledgments: It is a pleasure to thank A.P. Balachandran, Brian Dolan, Oliver Jahn, Xavier Martin, Peter Presnajder and Badis Ydri for helpful discussions.


format: text

text:
# BRST quantization of Matrix Chern-Simons Theory

## 1 Introduction

The cubic matrix models were invented as a possible approach to the problem of formulating string or $``$ theory in a background invariant framework. They also provide a matrix formulation of certain quantum deformed extensions of loop quantum gravity. The basic philosophy that motivates these theories is that quantum and classical theories of gravity which are background independent can, in most if not all of the known cases, be constructed by modifying topological field theories. The idea is then to construct matrix models that extend a matrix form of Chern-Simons theory.

The quantization of these theories faces certain issues due to the fact that the action is presented in a first order form, which means that they define theories on phase spaces rather than configuration spaces. These theories also have gauge symmetries and constraints that must be taken into account correctly. In this letter we present an approach to quantization based on the standard $`BRST`$ method. We carry out the quantization in detail for the case of Matrix Chern-Simons theory, with and without couplings to fermions, and show that it leads to results which are direct extensions of the usual results for Chern-Simons theory. These results should be directly extendable to the cubic matrix models.

While these results are encouraging, we must, however, mention another important issue that we do not solve in this paper. This is to give a genuinely background independent quantization of the cubic matrix models. What we describe here is instead a background dependent quantization of a theory whose classical formulation is background independent. This is because in a $`BRST`$ formalism the quantum theory is defined relative to a given background, which is a solution to the classical equations of motion of the theory. Whether there is a form of the quantum theory that is well defined at the more fundamental, background independent, level, which unifies the particular background dependent quantum theories, remains an open question111One of us has explored an approach to a background independent quantum theory based on a hidden variable theory, and stochastic quantization. Other authors have also noted that matrix models are in some sense automatically hidden variables theories, in that quantum theory can be defined from their classical statistical mechanics. Whether there is a less radical approach to background independent quantization of matrix models is an open question..

In the next section we review Matrix Chern-Simons theory. We discuss the symmetries of the theory and give several examples including a possible matrix version of $`2+1`$ gravity and a supersymmetric model. The main technical work of the paper is in section 3, where we discuss gauge fixing, ghosts, the $`BRST`$ and anti-$`BRST`$ transformations. In section 4 we show that pure Matrix Chern-Simons theory has also a vector supersymmetry, and use this to discuss the form of the effective action, with and without fermions.

## 2 Matrix Chern-Simons theory

### 2.1 The Cubic matrix model

We consider an action $`S[A]`$ where $`A=A_a\tau ^a`$, the $`A_a`$ being $`N\times N`$ matrices and the $`\tau ^a`$ the generators of a Lie algebra $`𝒢`$ in a given representation. We can also use a superLie algebra, in which case we need to use the supertrace instead of the trace and the supercommutators between elements of the $`𝒢`$ algebra. We will use the indices $`i,j,k`$ for the $`N\times N`$ indices and $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma `$ for the $`𝒢`$ representation. We introduce the cubic matrix model:

$$S[A]=Tr_{N\times N}A_\alpha ^\beta [A_\beta ^\gamma ,A_\gamma ^\alpha ]=Tr_𝒢A_i^j[A_j^k,A_k^i]$$
(1)
where $`Tr_𝒢`$ is the trace for the $`𝒢`$ representation and $`Tr_{N\times N}`$ the trace for $`N\times N`$ matrices. The action can also be written as

$$S[A]=\left(Tr_𝒢\tau ^a\tau ^b\tau ^c\right)\left(Tr_{N\times N}A_a[A_b,A_c]\right)=\frac{1}{3}\phi ^{abc}Tr_{N\times N}A_a[A_b,A_c]$$
(2)
where $`\phi ^{abc}=3/2Tr_𝒢\tau ^a[\tau ^b,\tau ^c]`$ is the usual structure constant $`f^{bc}_a`$ with the third index raised by the metric $`\eta ^{ab}=Tr(\tau ^a\tau ^b)`$: $`\phi ^{abc}=\eta ^{ad}f^{bc}_d`$

This cubic action $`S`$ has two global symmetries. First, it is invariant under the global action of the group $`G`$ generated by $`𝒢`$:

$$A_i^jR^1(g)A_i^jR(g)$$
(3)
where $`R(g)`$ is the representation matrix of the group element $`gG`$. $`g`$ acts on the generators $`\tau ^a`$ by conjugation. The infinitesimal version of this symmetry is

$$\delta A_i^j=ϵ[A_i^j,u]\text{ with }u𝒢$$
(4)
The second symmetry is an invariance under rotation by the group $`G_N=GL_N(𝐑)`$:

$$A_\alpha ^\beta M^1A_\alpha ^\beta M\text{ or equivalently }A_aM^1A_aM$$
(5)
for $`MG_N`$. The infinitesimal variation is then given by a $`N\times N`$ matrix $`m`$:

$$\delta A_a=ϵ[A_a,m]$$
(6)
Next, we can look at the classical solutions $`X`$ of the action $`S`$. They are given by the equation

$$\phi ^{abc}[X_b,X_c]=0$$
(7)
Let point out that the set of solutions is invariant under both $`G`$ and $`G_N`$ rotations. We can study the fluctuations of our matrix around the new background given by $`X`$ by introducing the new action

$$S_X[A]=S[X+A]S[X]=\phi ^{abc}\left(Tr_{N\times N}A_a[X_b,A_c]+\frac{1}{3}Tr_{N\times N}A_a[A_b,A_c]\right)$$
(8)
The $`G_N`$ symmetry now reads

$$M^1(X_a+A_a)M=M^1X_aM+M^1A_aM=X_a+A_a^{(M)}$$
(9)
so that $`S_X`$ has a $`G_N`$ gauge symmetry given by

$$A_aA_a^{(M)}=M^1A_aM+M^1[X_a,M]_N$$
(10)
which shows that the background $`X_a`$ takes the role of a derivation, similarly to the differential calculus in Non-Commutative Geometry. In this setting, $`A_a`$ behaves like $`G_N`$ gauge field. Let nevertheless point out that if $`X_a=0`$ then it is not a gauge field anymore but behaves simply like a $`G_N`$ matter field.

The action $`S_X`$ also has a $`G`$ gauge symmetry given by

$$A_i^jA_i^j{}_{}{}^{(g)}=g^1A_i^jg+g^1[X_i^j,g]_𝒢$$
(11)
Here too, $`A_i`$ behaves like a $`G`$ gauge field when $`X_i^j0`$ and like a matter field otherwise. An interesting configuration is when $`(X_a)_i^j`$ is a diagonal $`N\times N`$ matrix, so that the diagonal fields $`A_i^i`$ are gauge fields and the off-diagonal elements $`A_i^j`$ are the matter fields.

### 2.2 Examples

Matrix Chern-Simons theory is the particular case when we choose $`G=SU(2)`$. Then the generators are

$$\tau _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\tau _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& i\\ i& 0\end{array}\right)\tau _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(12)
Then the structure constants are given by the antisymmetric tensor $`\phi ^{abc}=iϵ^{abc}`$ and the metric $`\eta ^{ab}=\delta ^{ab}`$ is trivial. The classical solutions are sets of three matrices $`X_1,X_2,X_3`$ which commute with each other. Then the action $`S_X`$ looks like a discrete version of the usual Chern-Simons action. More precisely, after a triple compactification  achieved through a special choice of background solutions $`X`$ in a large matrix limit, the trace reproduces the integration over a 3\_torus and the matrix Chern-Simons action exactly reproduces the usual Chern-Simons field theory.

Another similar example is given by the choice $`G=SL(2,R)`$. Then the generators would be

$$\tau _1=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\tau _2=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)\tau _3=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right)$$
(13)
Then the structure constants are once again given by the antisymmetric tensor $`\phi ^{abc}=ϵ^{abc}`$ but the metric now has a $`(,+,+)`$ signature instead of the previous $`(+,+,+)`$.

One can also investigate a supersymmetric extension of $`SU(2)`$ by considering the superalgebra $`𝒢=osp(1|2)`$. This introduces odd-Grassmann generators and a spinor degree of freedom. This adds the fermionic term:

$$S^{fermions}=Tr_{N\times N}\varphi _B[A_a,\varphi _A](\tau ^a)_A^B$$
(14)
where $`\varphi `$ is the spinor and $`A,B=\pm 1/2`$ the spinor indices. We can choose the classical solution to have components only in the $`su(2)`$ generators so that we get fermionic degrees of freedom behaving like matter fields. Let us point out that this is not the classical supersymmetric extension of the Chern-Simons action. Indeed, the usual supersymmetry is coupled to the Poincare group whereas, in our case, it is an extension of the Lorentz symmetry: we couple it to the frame rotations and not to the translations.

We can also turn to groups larger than $`SU(2)`$. An interesting example is given by $`SL(2,C)`$, which is the complexification of $`SU(2)`$. Indeed its generators are the $`J^a=\tau ^a`$ and the $`K^a=i\tau ^a`$. Let’s take $`A=A_a\tau ^a+iE_a\tau ^a`$ and write the cubic action choosing the fundamental $`2\times 2`$ representation of $`SL(2,C)`$:

$$S[A]=ϵ^{abc}\left(Tr_{N\times N}(E_a[A_b,A_c])+Tr_{N\times N}(E_a[E_b,E_c])\right)+iϵ^{abc}\left(Tr_{N\times N}(E_a[A_b,E_c])+Tr_{N\times N}(A_a[A_b,A_c])\right)$$
(15)
The first term here looks very much like the $`EF+EEE`$ action of $`2+1`$d gravity with cosmological constant (obtained by rescaling the matrix $`E`$). Indeed after (triple) compactification, we indeed find back exactly that action. The $`i`$ term is the extra term coming in Witten’s reformulation of $`2+1`$d gravity as a $`SL(2,C)`$ Chern-Simons theory .

### 2.3 Symmetries and the physical Interpretation

We can notice that in addition to the global gauge symmetries, there are local versions of the gauge symmetries (3) and (5). The action $`S`$ is further invariant under the transformations

$$A_i^jg_i^1A_i^jg_j$$
(16)
and

$$A_\alpha ^\beta M_\alpha ^1A_\alpha ^\beta M_\beta $$
(17)
One has a nice interpretation of the local gauge symmetry (16) in the context of M-theory . The matrix $`(A_i^j)_{1i,jN}`$ represents the interactions (due to open strings) between $`N`$ D0-branes (or equivalently $`N`$ points). And one has a local gauge symmetry $`G`$ at each of these points, which gives (16).

One also has “translation” symmetries:

$$A_aA_a+\lambda _aId_NA_i^jA_i^j+\lambda _i^jId_G$$
(18)
The link between the matrix models and the usual physical actions goes usually through compactification procedures  which creates dimensions and a space-time out the matrix in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$. Then, one finds back for example the usual Chern-Simons theory on a 3d manifold out of the Matrix CS model described above . In this context, the translation symmetries (18) really become the symmetry by translation in the emerging space-time.

Nevertheless, it would be interesting to give a meaning to the matrix models for $`N`$ finite without talking about the possible infinite matrix limit. In sight of the expression (8), one automatically thinks about a potential link with non-commutative geometry (see  for example) with $`X`$ being the Dirac operator governing differential calculus. However, the $`A=A_a\tau ^a`$ do not form an algebra whose product could help us construct the actions $`S`$ or $`S_X`$. Still, there is some hope in using the algebra of $`2\times 2`$ matrices to translate the matrix model into the spectral triple language. We could then make the gauge group $`SU(2)`$ appear as the unitary part of $`_2(C)`$. Or we could say that using the algebra $`_2(R)`$ in the cubic matrix model defined is equivalent to using the algebra $`sp(2)`$. These possibilities will be investigated in future work.

## 3 Gauge fixing the cubic action

One interesting and necessary step in studying the actions (1) or (8) is to gauge fix them. In our case, we study the gauge fixing of the $`G_N`$ group since it is the apparent gauge symmetry of the action (8). Nevertheless, the same techniques work perfectly for the gauge fixing of the $`G`$ symmetry.

The first gauge fixing procedure which comes at one’s mind is choosing a representant for each orbit under the action by $`G_N`$ conjugation 222One can carry out the BRST analysis in that case the same way as in the case of the Landau gauge which we present. Let us choose a section $`s`$ of the orbits of $`\theta ^aA_a`$, where $`\theta ^a`$ is a fixed vector. Then the gauged fixed action is
$$\stackrel{~}{S}=\frac{1}{6}Tr(A_a[A_b,A_c])+Tr(W(\theta ^aA_as(\theta ^aA_a)))+Tr(U[\theta ^aA_a,V]]).$$
The residual BRST symmetry is the same as in equation (26) and ensures invariance of the path integral under change of section.. However, a more physically interesting choice is the Landau gauge, in which we find back the usual features of the analysis of the Chern-Simons action.

### 3.1 Landau gauge

We choose a discrete equivalent of the Landau gauge $`_aA^a=0`$ as gauge fixing condition:

$$Tr_𝒢[X,A]_N=[X_a,A^a]_N=0\text{ where the metric is }\eta ^{ab}=Tr(\tau ^a\tau ^b)$$
(19)
Let first look at the gauge fixing of the initial action $`S`$. To calculate the ghost term arising from the break of the $`G_N`$ symmetry, we calculate the variation of $`[X,A]`$ under a small gauge transformation (5) given by $`M=e^m=1+m+\mathrm{}`$:

$$\delta _m[X_a,A^a]=[X_a,[A^a,m]]$$
(20)
so that the ghost term introduces two odd-Grassmann valued $`N\times N`$ matrices $`U`$ and $`V`$:

$$Tr_{N\times N}(U[X_a,[A^a,V]]_N)=Tr_{N\times N}Tr_𝒢(U[X,[A,V]_N]_N)$$
(21)
Now the entire gauge fixed part action reads

$$\stackrel{~}{S}=S+S^{ghost}=\frac{1}{2}\times \frac{1}{3}Tr(A_a[A_b,A_c])+Tr(W[X_a,A^a])+Tr(U[X_a,[A^a,V]])$$
(22)
where the even-Grassmann $`N\times N`$ matrix $`W`$ enforces the gauge fixing condition. Through this procedure, we can introduce a background $`X`$ in the background independent action $`S`$.

The gauge fixing of the action $`S_X`$ is very similar to the one of $`S`$. Indeed, the variation of the gauge fixing condition is now

$$\delta _m[X_a,A^a]=[X_a,[X^a+A^a,m]]$$
(23)
so that it is sufficient to replace $`A`$ by $`X+A`$ in the previous calculations:

$$S_X^{ghost}[A,W,U,V]=Tr_{N\times N}\left(W[X^a,A_a]\right)+Tr_{N\times N}\left(U[X^a,[X_a+A_a,V]]\right)$$
(24)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{S}_X=S_X+S_X^{ghost}=\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{abc}\left(Tr(A_a[X_b,A_c])+\frac{1}{3}Tr(A_a[A_b,A_c])\right)+Tr(W[X_a,A^a])+Tr(U[X_a,[X^a+A^a,V]])$$
(25)
The resulting action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_X`$ has the exact same structure as the gauge-fixed Chern-Simons action  and we can similarly find the BRST transformations under which $`\stackrel{~}{S}_X`$ is invariant. In the following paragraph, we are going to write down the BRST generators in the case of $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$, keeping in mind that they can be easily generalized to $`\stackrel{~}{S}_X`$ by changing $`A`$ into $`X+A`$ in the different formulas.

### 3.2 BRST transformations

The gauge fixed action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ is invariant under the following BRST transformations where $`ϵ`$ is a odd-Grassmann valued number:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\delta A_a& =& [A_a,V]ϵ\\ \delta U& =& Wϵ\\ \delta V& =& V^2ϵ\\ \delta W& =& 0\end{array}$$
(26)
It is simply a gauge transformation for the initial action $`S`$ and it is easy to check the ghost part $`S_{ghost}`$ is also invariant under these transformations. Thus, we can introduce the BRST charge $`Q_{+1}`$ acting as:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}Q_{+1}A_a& =& [A_a,V]\\ Q_{+1}U& =& W\\ Q_{+1}V& =& V^2\\ Q_{+1}W& =& 0\end{array}$$
(27)
We can then rewrite the ghost part of the action as

$$S^{ghost}=Tr_{N\times N}\left(U[X^a,Q_{+1}A_a]\right)Tr_{N\times N}\left(A_a[X^a,Q_{+1}U]\right)$$
(28)
from which it is straightforward to check the invariance under $`Q_{+1}`$.

We can also write down the action as if we had done an integration by parts on the ghost term. Then, the gauge fixing part of the action reads:

$$S^{ghost}=Tr_{N\times N}\left((W\{U,V\})[X^a,A_a]\right)Tr_{N\times N}\left(V[X^a,[A_a,U]]\right)$$
(29)
The action written in this form has a similar BRST invariance as above. It is generated by what we call the anti-BRST operator $`Q_1`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}Q_1A_a& =& [A_a,U]\\ Q_1U& =& U^2\\ Q_1V& =& W+\{U,V\}\\ Q_1W& =& [U,W]\end{array}$$
(30)
We have the following commutation relations between the BRST charges:

$$Q_{+1}^2=0Q_1^2=0\{Q_{+1},Q_1\}=0$$
(31)
Moreover, we can assign the ghost number 0 to $`A`$ and $`W`$, -1 to $`U`$ and +1 to $`V`$. Then, $`Q_{+1}`$ increases the ghost number by an unit, and $`Q_1`$ decreases it by an unit.

## 4 The effective action

Once we have gauged fixed the action, one would like to compute its loop expansion and the resulting effective action. In this section, we will restrict ourself to the study of the Matrix Chern-Simons model $`G=SU(2)`$. One can not apply the usual techniques of perturbative expansion for the gauge fixed action $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ for it doesn’t have any quadratic term. On the other hand, one can use the action $`\stackrel{~}{S}_X`$ since the background $`X`$ introduces propagators for the matrix $`A`$ and the ghost matrices $`U,V`$. Moreover, the introduction of the matrix $`W`$ allows to invert the quadratic terms in order to derive the propagator of the $`A`$ matrices. More precisely, let’s note $`x_a=[X_a,.]`$. As the $`X_a`$ matrices commute, the morphisms $`x_a`$ also commute. Then, the matrix correlating the $`A`$ and $`W`$ is:

$$C=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}0& x_3& x_2& x_1\\ x_3& 0& x_1& x_2\\ x_2& x_1& 0& x_3\\ & & & \\ x_1& x_2& x_3& 0\end{array}\right)$$
(32)
whose inverse is the propagator $`P=C^1=RC`$ where we have introduce the matrix $`R=(x_1^2+x_2^2+x_3^2)^1`$. The propagator of the ghost is simply the matrix $`R`$ and we have two types of 3-vertices $`AAA`$ and $`UVA`$. Then, one can easily check by hand that the only 1-loop and 2-loop corrections are only of the type $`A[A,A]`$ and that all other possible terms are canceled. This comes from an additional symmetry of the matrix Chern-Simons action, similar to the so-called vector supersymmetry (VSUSY) of the ordinary Chern-Simons theory. This symmetry is special to the case $`G=SU(2)`$ (and also $`G=SU(1,1)`$) for which $`\phi ^{abc}=ϵ^{abc}`$ ($`a,b,c=1,2,3`$). In the continum limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ in which we recover the full Chern-Simons theory, it protects the theory from infrared effects and contributes to the finiteness (or disappearing depending of the regularization scheme) of the quantum corrections. The symmetry for $`\stackrel{~}{S}_X`$ (25) reads with $`\alpha =1,2,3`$:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _\alpha A_a& =& ϵ_{a\alpha b}[X_b,V]ϵ_\alpha \\ \delta _\alpha U& =& A_\alpha ϵ_\alpha \\ \delta _\alpha V& =& 0\\ \delta _\alpha W& =& [X_\alpha +A_\alpha ,V]ϵ_\alpha \end{array}ϵ_\alpha R$$
(33)
In fact, this supersymmetry also exists for $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ (22) and reads:

$$\{\begin{array}{ccc}\delta _\alpha A_a& =& ϵ_{a\alpha b}[X_b,V]ϵ_\alpha \\ \delta _\alpha U& =& A_\alpha ϵ_\alpha \\ \delta _\alpha V& =& 0\\ \delta _\alpha W& =& [A_\alpha ,V]ϵ_\alpha \end{array}ϵ_\alpha R$$
(34)
It is not difficult to see that, as in ordinary Chern-Simons theory, the only term that can appear in the effective action which is invariant under local gauge, $`BRST`$ and vector supersymmetry transformations is the original action itself. The result can then only be a correction in the coupling $`k`$.

We may also consider the inclusion of fermions, through a term such as

$$I^\mathrm{\Psi }=Tr\left(\mathrm{\Psi }^A[X_a,\mathrm{\Psi }^B]\right)\tau _{AB}^a.$$
(35)
Such a term can be introduced by considering the cubic matrix model associated to the superalgebra $`osp(1|2)`$. It is not hard to see that it breaks the vector supersymmetry. Then, the theory also knows about a background metric, formed by $`q^{ab}=Tr\tau ^a\tau ^b`$. The remaining $`BRST`$ invariance then allows the appearance of a Yang-Mills like term in the effective action, of the form,

$$S_{1loop}=cTr\left([X_a,X_b][X_c,X_d]\right)q^{ac}q^{bd}$$
(36)
So long as $`N`$ is finite this term need not be considered part of the fundamental action, but only as a part of the effective theory governing low energy phenomena. But if we take $`N\mathrm{}`$ then it may become necessary to introduce this as a fundamental term in the action, as in continuum Chern-Simons-Yang-Mills theory.

## 5 Conclusions

The results of this, fairly straightforward technical paper, are interesting first of all for the project of basing $``$ theory on a cubic matrix model; we see that the $`BRST`$ quantization does suffice to base a perturbative quantization of these theories around backgrounds defined by classical solutions to their field equations. Moreover the fact that, as expected, the results mirror those of ordinary Chern-Simons theory, with and without coupling to fermions confirms the physical picture behind the loop/string duality postulated in . The basic physical idea there is that, as in the case of topologically massive gauge theories in $`2+1`$ dimensions, these theories will have two phases, one background dependent and one background independent. In the latter the degrees of freedom on the toroidal compactifications will be Chern-Simons like, which means that the perturbation theory of the matrix models is independent of the metric structure defined by the toroidal compactification. As it results it generates an extension of loop quantum gravity of the kind described in . However, in the other phase, the degrees of freedom include (topologically) massive quanta of $`3d`$ Yang-Mills theories which, in the case of compactifications of the kind described in  become modes of strings333We note that this is similar to the physical picture of Kogan et al but realized precisely in the context of a matrix model.. The possibility that both behaviors can arise as different phases of a single matrix theory is the dynamical basis of the conjecture that loop quantum gravity, at least with certain choices of representation labels, and string theory, may be dual descriptions of the same theory.

## Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Yi Ling and Fotini Markopoulou for conversations during the course of this work. We are very grateful for support by the NSF through grant PHY95-14240 and gifts from the Jesse Phillips Foundation.


text:
# 1 Introduction.

## 1 Introduction.

The possibility of (large) extra space dimensions has attracted much research interest in the context of both string and effective field theories. In general the latter can be successfully used for many theoretical/phenomenological studies in this direction. However, it is generally thought that a more complete and consistent picture of the high energy physics is that brought by string theory. It is thus desirable to obtain viable field theory models as direct constructions of string theory. For this purpose, recent chiral D-brane string constructions with branes located at singularities  or models with D-branes intersecting at non-trivial angles  have brought in a new approach, alternative to that of (earlier) heterotic string compactifications. Finding out which of these approaches is more successful in obtaining in the low energy limit models close to the Standard Model (SM) or its minimal supersymmetric extension (MSSM) is a rather difficult problem. This is due to the large variety of different string vacua. For this reason, identifying some generic “predictions” of string compactifications may provide an useful approach to identifying viable string models.

In the following some phenomenological implications of the D-brane models are addressed. To obtain chiral D-brane models one uses either models with D-brane at singularities or with intersecting branes. These share some common properties: a low value for the string scale is allowed, the gauge symmetry contains direct products of groups $`U(N_\alpha )\times U(N_\beta )`$ with $`U(N_\alpha )`$ to arise from the stack “$`\alpha `$” of $`N`$ individual $`U(1)`$ branes; fermions can transform as bi-fundamental representations of these groups; $`U(1)`$ group factors in addition to the non-Abelian SM gauge group are a generic presence and the $`U(1)`$ of hypercharge emerges as a linear combination of these. Other characteristics are more model dependent, for example the models may be supersymmetric or non-supersymmetric . The latter requires fixing a low value for the string scale, to avoid re-introducing the hierarchy problem.

D-branes models with a spectrum somewhat close to that of the SM include constructions with D4 branes and D5 or D6 branes intersecting at non-trivial angles. In the following we address the specific class of models with intersecting D6-branes of , although some of the results are more general. The models are constructions with D6 branes wrapping a 3-cycle on a six torus (orientifolded) type II-A string theory. It involves four stacks $`\alpha =a,b,c,d`$ of D6-branes with gauge groups $`U(3)_a`$, $`U(2)_b`$, $`U(1)_c`$ and $`U(1)_d`$, containing inside the Minkowski space and wrapping each of the remaining three dimensions of the branes on a different torus $`T^2`$. We denote by $`n_{\alpha i},(m_{\alpha i})`$, i=1,2,3, $`\alpha =a,b,c,d`$ the number of times each brane $`D6_\alpha `$ is wrapping around the x(y)-coordinate of the $`ith`$ torus. This construction with four stacks is the minimal one which can accommodate a fermionic spectrum similar to that of the SM case (plus three generations of right-chiral neutrinos). However, the gauge symmetry contains in addition to the non-Abelian part of the SM gauge group four additional $`U(1)_\alpha `$, $`\alpha =a,b,c,d`$ which emerge from the four stacks of branes considered. Such $`U(1)`$’s are a generic presence in models with intersecting branes and they play a central role in the discussion below. (Similar considerations apply to D5 brane models  which are type II-B compactifications on an orbifold $`T^2\times T^2\times (T^2/Z_N)`$).

An important feature of the models considered is the presence in the 4D action of the couplings $`c_i^\alpha B_iF_\alpha `$, where $`F_\alpha `$ is the field strength of a $`U(1)_\alpha `$ field and $`B_i`$ is a 4D RR two-form. The couplings emerge, in the case of D6 branes from $`C_5F`$ integrated over a three-cycle of the six-torus. Such couplings together with the kinetic term for $`F_\alpha `$ and $`B_i`$ can be re-written as a kinetic term for a $`U(1)`$ field together with an associated mass term. This is possible because the scalar dual to the $`B_i`$ two-form is “eaten” by the $`U(1)_\alpha `$ field which thus becomes massive . The procedure does not require a Higgs mechanism or a Higgs field be present in the spectrum. Note that the mechanism requires the coupling $`B_iF_\alpha `$, but not $`\eta F_\alpha F_\alpha `$ coupling. For a $`U(1)`$ field with a Green-Schwarz coupling $`BF`$, being anomalous (in four dimensions) is not a necessary condition to acquire a mass, and anomaly free $`U(1)`$’s can become massive. In previous (heterotic) string models anomalous $`U(1)`$ also had a Green-Schwarz term and only these became massive. Further, since there is no Higgs mechanism, the initial (or combinations thereof) $`U(1)_\alpha `$ may survive as a perturbatively exact global symmetry of the models.

This observation can be useful for phenomenological purposes. For example the presence of $`U(1)_a`$ as a global symmetry ensures that baryon number is conserved, thus avoiding proton decay, a generic problem in models with a low string/UV cut-off scale. For this class of models (diagonal) lepton number is also an exact symmetry and Majorana neutrino masses are forbidden. Dirac neutrino masses are allowed and neutrino oscillations can take place (only the sum $`L_e+L_\mu +L_\tau `$ is an exact symmetry).

An important aspect of D6- and D5-brane models is that of the relation between anomaly cancellation and global and local tadpole cancellation. In these models non-Abelian gauge anomalies are cancelled by the requirement of global tadpole cancellation. $`U(1)_\alpha G_\beta G_\beta `$ mixed anomalies are cancelled by a Green Schwarz mechanism together with tadpole cancellation requirement. Finally, cubic anomalies are cancelled by the Green Schwarz mechanism. One can draw the conclusion that tadpole cancellation is crucial for the overall consistency of these models. For a study of local anomalies in the context of type II B string constructions and their implications see reference .

Apart from ensuring anomaly cancellation, global tadpole cancellation imposes an additional condition such that for a $`U(N)`$ group the number of fundamental representations be equal to that of anti-fundamental representations. This requirement applies even to $`U(2)`$ and $`U(1)`$ gauge groups with the consequence of restricting the way we assign the quarks and leptons as $`U(2)`$ doubles and/or anti-doublets. If all quarks were doublets and leptons anti-doublets, then the above condition would not be respected. The only possibility to equal the number of doublets and anti-doublets is to have two families of quarks as $`U(2)`$ doublets, with the third one and with the leptons as $`U(2)`$ anti-doublets. This only works for three generations and thus elegantly relates the number of colours to that of generations .

For the D6-brane models of  that we address in the following, the aforementioned couplings $`c_i^\alpha B_iF_\alpha `$ bring mass terms for three of the initial four $`U(1)_\alpha `$. However  one linear combination of these $`U(1)`$ remains massless, because its coupling to any RR two-form field $`B_i`$ vanishes, independent of the parameters of the model. An additional appropriate condition imposed on these allows one to identify the generator of this massless $`U(1)`$ with that of hypercharge, which remains a gauge symmetry of the model. The couplings $`_{i,\alpha }c_i^\alpha B_iF_\alpha `$ provide a mass term in the action of the structure

$$(M^2)_{\alpha \beta }=g_\alpha g_\beta M_S^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}c_i^\alpha c_i^\beta ,c_i^\alpha =N_\alpha n_{\alpha j}n_{\alpha k}m_{\alpha i},ijki,\alpha ,\beta =a,b,c,d.$$
(1)
where $`g_\alpha `$ is the coupling of associated $`U(1)_\alpha `$, $`c_i^\alpha `$ result from integrating for D6 branes over 3-cycle $`C_iF_\alpha `$ with $`C_i`$ RR 5-form, and $`M_S`$ is the string scale defined up to an overall (volume dependent) factor. The eigenvalues of this mass matrix (squared masses) are positive  irrespective of the parameters of the models. The masses (relative to the string scale) and associated eigenvectors of the three massive $`U(1)`$ fields can be computed explicitly . Generic results for the masses are within a factor of 10 above and below the string scale respectively, with the third mass of the order of $`M_S`$. A fourth $`U(1)`$ field remains massless, and this is identifiable with the $`U(1)_Y`$ of hypercharge after an additional (model building) constraint on the wrapping numbers.

The next step is that of including the effects of the electroweak symmetry breaking. For this we considered the minimal Higgs content predicted in this class of models  which is at least two Higgs doublets222This is a somewhat generic feature in string models .. Such effects bring small corrections to the massive $`U(1)`$ fields computed in the absence of EW symmetry breaking, since they are suppressed by $`\eta <v>^2/M_S^2`$. There is however a more important aspect to be addressed. The mass of the $`Z`$ boson itself receives corrections from mixing with the additional $`U(1)`$ fields, since the Higgs sector is also charged under $`U(1)_{b,c}`$. Since the masses of the $`U(1)`$ fields are essentially of string origin, induced by their initial couplings to $`B_i`$ fields, the mass of $`Z`$ boson will itself receive such a correction in addition to its SM value. The correction to the mass of the $`Z`$ boson can be computed as an expansion in $`\eta `$ (see details in )

$$M_Z^2=M_0^2\left[1+\eta \xi _{21}+\eta ^2\xi _{31}+\mathrm{}\right]$$
(2)
with $`M_0`$ the SM $`Z`$ boson mass and $`\xi _{21}`$ given by (for $`\xi _{31}`$ see Appendix of )

$`\xi _{21}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\beta _1^2[2\beta _1g_y^2\nu n_{c1}(1+^2)(36g_a^2+g_y^2^2)\beta _2n_{a2}\nu ]^2+4\beta _1^2\beta _2^4ϵ^2(36g_a^2+g_y^2^2)^2`$ (3)
$`+9\beta _2^4[g_y^2n_{b1}\nu ^2+12g_a^2[3n_{b1}\nu n_{c1}(1+^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\theta )]]^2\left\}\right[5184\beta _1^2\beta _2^2ϵ^2g_a^4n_{c1}^2(1+^2)^2]^1`$
where $`=g_d/g_c`$ and $`n_{a2}`$ are model parameters, $`n_{c1}`$ and $`n_{b1}`$ are either 0 or $`\pm 1`$ function of the model, $`\nu =1,1/3`$, $`\beta _{1,2}=1,1/2`$, $`g_a^2=g_{QCD}^2/6`$ and $`g_y`$ is the hypercharge coupling. $`\theta `$ is a mixing angle in the Higgs sector (which does not affect significantly the predictions). Correction (2) must be compatible with electroweak scale measurements, and this may be ensured using $`\rho `$-parameter constraints. From this a lower bound on the allowed values of the string scale $`M_S`$ emerges. This bound should not be too large compared to the TeV scale because the models we address are non-supersymmetric and one would otherwise re-introduce a hierarchy problem. Detailed calculations show that generic lower bounds on $`M_S`$ are within the range $`1.55`$ TeV  and are to a great extent parameter-independent.

The analysis so far has ignored the fact that the coefficients $`c_i^\alpha `$ in eq.(1) depend on the normalisation of the kinetic terms of RR fields $`B_i`$. In a canonical normalisation of the latter, extra volume factors $`\xi _i`$ appear in the definition of $`c_i^\alpha `$. If equal for the three torii $`\xi _i=\xi _j`$, $`i,j=1,2,3`$ (this can be easily respected if the ratio of the radii is the same for all torii) the volume factors can be “absorbed” in the re-definition of the string scale $`M_S`$, as we already did in eq.(1). Therefore the lower bounds on $`M_S`$ that we found in the region $`1.55`$ TeV are subject to such additional corrections, difficult to evaluate numerically on string theory grounds.

One can take this analysis a step further  by using the bounds on (the re-scalled) $`M_S`$ compatible with $`\rho `$ parameter constraints to obtain lower bounds on $`U(1)`$ masses. These will be independent of the volume factors mentioned and represent a prediction in this class of models. Of particular importance and experimental relevance is that of mixing of $`Z`$ eigenvector with any of the massive $`U(1)`$ fields, induced after electroweak symmetry breaking. This is usually of order $`10^3`$  or possibly less . Therefore, computing the eigenvectors corresponding to the mass eigenstates after electroweak symmetry breaking is necessary , which also helps identify specific signatures of the $`Z^{}`$ bosons and compare them with other models.

Our results are presented in Table 1 and show that $`Z^{}`$ bosons in the TeV-region may be present in these models. The bounds are somewhat larger than those of their counterparts in (heterotic) string models or extensions of SM (MSSM) which are in the range  of: $`Z_{SM}^{}`$ boson defined to have the same couplings to fermions as the SM Z boson: $`809`$ GeV, $`Z_{LR}`$ of $`SU(3)_c\times SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R\times U(1)`$: 564 GeV; $`Z_\chi `$ of $`SO(10)SU(5)\times U(1)_\chi `$: 545 GeV; $`Z_\psi `$ of $`E_6SO(10)\times U(1)_\psi `$: 146 GeV.

So far we only outlined part of the phenomenological implications of the D6 brane models. For a full picture of the viability of the models there are additional issues to be addressed. These include the values of the gauge couplings at the TeV scale and the extent to which these can be compatible with the electroweak scale measurements. One potential drawback of the models discussed here is that unification of the gauge couplings is not possible (given the non-supersymmetric spectrum). However this is a more generic problem, manifest in all models with a low string scale, whether supersymmetric or not . In the absence of unification, one should then ensure that the ratio of the couplings at the string scale is that obtained from the RG flow using low energy values as input. This is relevant since the value of gauge couplings at the string scale depends ultimately on the volume each $`D6`$ brane is wrapping, bringing additional constraints on the models. There is one final complication because threshold effects induced by additional momentum states can affect significantly the value of the couplings , making the whole analysis rather difficult.

The class of models considered here for the phenomenological analysis is free of tachyons and RR tadpoles, but the models are non-supersymmetric and there will in general be NSNS tadpoles, which is generic in these constructions. For the D6-brane models addressed one may also ask how one could achieve a low value for the string scale. Since the models are non-supersymmetric, theory should fix this value in the few TeV region. (We have seen from the numerical analysis that low energy constraints as $`\rho `$ parameter can be accommodated with a TeV string scale, which is welcome for the viability and consistency of the models). However, for the D6 brane models yielding the SM fermionic spectrum there is no dimension transverse to all the intersecting branes, to allow one to predict the right value of 4D Planck scale. The problem is not present in the D5 brane models mentioned in this talk, which yield similar results for the $`U(1)`$ masses and bounds on $`M_S`$ from the $`\rho `$ parameter . One solution for the D6-brane models to have a low string scale was suggested in . The idea is to construct intersecting D6 branes wrapped on 3-cycles localised in a small region of a Calabi-Yau manifold. By enlarging the dimensions of the Calabi-Yau which are transverse to the set of D6 branes the 4D Planck mass is recovered even for low (“TeV-scale”) values of $`M_S`$. This would not require enlarging the size of (local) 3-cycles (and would not bring about unobserved light Kaluza-Klein modes that would appear in such case).

To conclude, the class of D6 and D5 brane models addressed provide an interesting alternative to previous heterotic constructions and are successful in deriving the symmetry and the fermionic spectrum of the SM. They may thus provide us an understanding of the string embedding of the Standard Model. While such models are intensively studied at the string level, their phenomenological viability was not investigated systematically. Our attempt to address it in ,  (see also recent ) shows that for a suitable choice of model parameters, the models may be able to comply with the low energy constraints considered there.

Acknowledgements: The author thanks L. E. Ibáñez, F. Quevedo and N. Irges for their collaboration. Helpful discussions on related topics with S. Förste, G. Honecker, R. Rabadán and A. Uranga are acknowledged. This work was supported by PPARC (U.K.).


text:
# Comparison of the Gamma-Ray Burst Sensitivity of Different Detectors

## 1 Introduction

The gamma-ray burst missions that have flown in the past 15 years have reported that bursts are hard (e.g., BATSE—Preece et al. 2000; Mallozzi et al. 1995) or soft (e.g., Ginga—Strohmayer et al. 1998). However these missions had different sensitivities to hard and soft bursts, and have reported the threshold burst intensities using a variety of different measures, such as peak flux or energy fluence measured over different energy bands. To synthesize the results of these mission (and determine whether they are mutually consistent), and to compare the capabilities of past, current, and proposed missions, we need common measures of burst intensity and hardness, and we need to express a burst detector’s capabilities in terms of those common measures.

I propose to characterize bursts by the peak photon flux integrated over 1–1000 keV averaged over one second, and by the spectrum’s peak energy $`E_p`$ during this one second. The peak energy $`E_p`$ is the energy of the maximum of $`N(E)E^2`$ (proportional to $`\nu F_\nu `$)—the energy flux per logarithmic energy (frequency) band; $`E_p`$ is a first order measure of the spectral hardness. The choice of peak photon flux (as opposed to energy fluence, energy flux, or total photon fluence) is based not on the physics of bursts (i.e., theories of fundamental burst properties) but on detector triggers: most detectors trigger on a statistically significant increase in the count rate over a specified energy band. The detection threshold is the minimum peak count rate for which the detector would have triggered. Even though detectors trigger on the count rate in different energy bands, the peak count rate can be translated into the peak photon flux over a fiducial energy band with knowledge of the burst spectrum and the detector’s energy response. Note that the count rate is a detector-dependent quantity while the photon flux is an intrinsic description of the burst photons arriving in the Solar System. Therefore, the peak photon flux over a common energy band provides a convenient instrument-independent measure of burst intensity.

Because few bursts have lightcurves where the maximum flux is constant over seconds, the peak photon flux will depend on the accumulation time $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$, the time resolution with which the flux is measured. Although most detectors trigger on a variety of accumulation times, $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s is usually included in a detector’s set of accumulation times. In addition, a detector’s sensitivity for one value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ can be translated into the average sensitivity for other values using an ensemble of burst lightcurves (Band 2002). Therefore I use $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s for this work.

Many studies have presented results using peak photon fluxes in the 50–300 keV band, principally because this was main trigger band of the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE) on the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory (CGRO). While any fiducial energy band can be used, particularly soft transient events, such as the recently-discovered X-Ray Flashes (XRFs, which may or may not be related to classical gamma-ray bursts—Heise et al. 2001), will produce little flux in the 50–300 keV band. Therefore I choose to use the 1–1000 keV band because most burst detectors operate within this broad band, and most bursts have $`E_p`$ in this band.

This study focuses predominantly on a comparison of the sensitivity of a number of detectors. In §2 I discuss the methodology used in this comparison, while §3 presents the relevant information about each detector. The results and their implications are discussed in §4.

## 2 Methodology

I assume that the burst spectrum can be described by the “GRB” function (Band et al. 1993),

$`N(E)=`$ $`N_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\text{100 keV}}}\right)^\alpha \mathrm{exp}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{E}{E_0}}\right]`$ $`;EE_b`$ (1)
$`N_0\left({\displaystyle \frac{E_b}{\text{100 keV}}}\right)^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta \alpha \right]\left({\displaystyle \frac{E}{\text{100 keV}}}\right)^\beta `$ $`;E>E_b`$
where $`E_b=(\alpha \beta )E_0`$ $`\text{and }E_p=(\alpha +2)E_0.`$
$`N(E)`$ has units of photons s-1 keV-1 cm-2. I compare the sensitivity of different detectors by holding $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ fixed, and varying $`E_p`$. To compare spectra with different values of $`E_p`$ I use the integral of $`N(E)`$ over a broad energy band

$$F=_{E_l}^{E_h}N(E)𝑑E$$
(2)
where $`E_l=1`$ keV and $`E_h=1000`$ keV. Fig. 1 compares the fluxes in the 50–300 keV and 1–1000 keV bands as a function of $`E_p`$ for different sets of $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. As can be seen, the 1–1000 keV flux includes more photons for small $`E_p`$.

The sensitivity of a detector to a burst with a particular spectral shape depends on its burst trigger and hardware properties such as the detector area $`A`$, the fraction of the detector that is active $`f_{\mathrm{det}}`$, the fraction of the coded mask that is open $`f_{\mathrm{mask}}`$, and the efficiency $`ϵ(E)`$. If the detector does not have a coded mask, then $`f_{\mathrm{mask}}=1`$. Most gamma-ray detectors do not have a one-to-one mapping between a photon’s energy and the energy channel the detector assigns a detected count. If the incoming photon spectrum is binned in energy, the relationship between the photon energy bins and the detector’s energy channels is a detector response matrix (DRM) with off diagonal elements and not a simple detector efficiency for each energy bin. However, since I calculate the count rates over broad energy bands, the DRM can be approximated by a detector efficiency function $`ϵ(E)`$.

The typical burst trigger looks for a statistically significant increase in the detector’s count rate above the background in the energy band between $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ in a time bin $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. The significance of the increase is measured in units of the expected fluctuation scale of the background, i.e., the square root of the expected number of background counts. The count rate increase is assumed to result from the burst flux. In most cases I model the background (counts s-1 keV-1 cm-2) as

$$B(E)=ϵ(E)\mathrm{\Omega }f_{\mathrm{mask}}N_B(E)+B_{\mathrm{int}}$$
(3)
where $`N_B(E)`$ is the diffuse high energy background (Gruber 1992), $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the average solid angle of the sky as seen from the detector plane (calculated from the corrected formulae in Sullivan 1971), $`f_{\mathrm{mask}}`$ is the fraction of the coded mask that is open, and $`B_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the internal background. Note that the aperture flux resulting from the diffuse background is detected with the detector’s efficiency $`ϵ(E)`$. This background model is clearly a simplification because it does not attempt to model explicitly the background induced by the particle flux, scattering off the spacecraft and the Earth’s atmosphere, and activation of the detector and its environs; many of these effects are included in $`B_{\mathrm{int}}`$. At higher energies (e.g., $`100`$ keV) the instrument walls may become transparent, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ may increase; this effect is not considered here. Nonetheless, this model gives an approximate magnitude and energy dependence. In some cases I use the observed background rates.

The trigger has a preset threshold significance

$$\sigma _0=\frac{Af_{\mathrm{det}}f_{\mathrm{mask}}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{E_1}^{E_2}ϵ(E)N_T(E)𝑑E}{\sqrt{Af_{\mathrm{det}}\mathrm{\Delta }t_{E_1}^{E_2}B(E)𝑑E}}$$
(4)
where $`N_T(E)`$ is the peak burst flux at the threshold, and $`f_{\mathrm{det}}`$ is the fraction of the detector plane that is active. In eq. 4 the numerator is the number of counts from the burst and the denominator is the square root of the number of counts expected from the background rate. Therefore, the broadband photon flux at the detector’s threshold is

$$F_T=\frac{_{E_l}^{E_h}N_T(E)𝑑E}{_{E_1}^{E_2}ϵ(E)N_T(E)𝑑E}\frac{\sigma _0\sqrt{_{E_1}^{E_2}B(E)𝑑E}}{f_{\mathrm{mask}}\sqrt{Af_{\mathrm{det}}\mathrm{\Delta }t}}.$$
(5)
Note that the ratio of integrals over $`N_T`$ eliminates the unknown normalization $`N_0`$ in eq. 1, and results in the inverse of the average efficiency. I vary the spectral shape of $`N_T(E)`$ by varying $`E_p`$, holding $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ fixed. The resulting $`F_T(E_p)`$ compares different detectors.

For each detector I need information about the detector and about the burst trigger. For the detector I need the area $`A`$, the detector efficiency $`ϵ(E)`$, the fraction of the detector that is active $`f_{\mathrm{det}}`$, the fraction of the coded mask that is open $`f_{\mathrm{mask}}`$, the average solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, and the internal background $`B_{\mathrm{int}}`$; for the trigger I need the effective threshold significance $`\sigma _0`$ and the trigger energy band $`E_1`$$`E_2`$. Most detector papers present a plot of $`ϵ(E)`$; I model $`ϵ(E)`$ as a series of power laws between representative values of $`E`$. Detectors use triggers with a variety of trigger times $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ and energy ranges (defined by $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$). The goal of this study is to compare detectors with different energy responses and triggering on different energy bands, and not to study the effect of different trigger times. Almost all detectors include $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1 s among their set of trigger times, and this will be the value used here.

In the next section I present the detectors in this study; Table 1 summarizes some of the detector parameters. I use a detector’s maximum sensitivity, even if achieved over only a small region within the field-of-view (FOV).

## 3 The Detectors

### 3.1 CGRO’s BATSE

BATSE consisted of eight modules, each with two types of detectors: the Large Area Detector (LAD) for burst detection, localization and monitoring; and the Spectroscopy Detector (SD) for spectral analysis. Thus the LADs are relevant to this study. The LADs were built around large (2025 cm2), flat NaI(Tl) crystals. The LADs in the eight modules were parallel to the faces of a regular octahedron. The LAD effective area curve is found in Fishman et al. (1989). The LADs operated in the 20–2000 keV band, but usually triggered in the 50–300 keV band.

BATSE triggered as a whole when two or more LADs each triggered on an increase greater than $`\sigma _0=5.5`$. Therefore the sensitivity depended on the second most brightly illuminated detector for which the cosine of the angle to the source (the factor by which the flux is diminished) varied between 1/3 (when the burst was along the normal to the most brightly illuminated detector) and 0.8165 (when the burst was exactly between two detectors). Note that this analysis ignores the effects of scattering off of the spacecraft and the Earth’s atmosphere. In this study I use the maximum sensitivity in the detector’s FOV. Thus for BATSE the required significance is equivalent to $`\sigma _0=5.5/0.8165=6.74`$.

### 3.2 BeppoSAX’s WFC

BeppoSAX’s Wide Field Cameras (WFCs) were two anti-parallel coded mask detectors which pointed perpendicular to the axis of the Narrow Field Instruments (Jager et al. 1997). The detector plane was a 25.5$`\times `$25.5 cm2 multi-wire proportional counter that was active over 0.8 of its area. Only 1/3 of the 1 mm2 mask pixels were open, but because of the supports for the mask pixels, the actual open area of an open pixel was $`0.9\times 0.9`$ mm2. Because the mask and the detector plane were almost exactly the same dimension, the spatial sensitivity was triangular; I present the sensitivities at the center.

The WFC did not trigger on-board, but instead the rates in 1 s and 8 s time bins were analyzed on the ground. Subsequently the rates accumulated over 1, 5 and 20 minutes were also searched for transients. A $`\sigma _0=4`$ increase in the count rate from one WFC unit triggered further analysis: the set of time bins with the highest signal-to-noise ratio were used to create an image, and a point source with a 5.5$`\sigma `$ significance was required to consider the burst real (J. Heise, personal communication, 2002). Thus for the analysis here $`\sigma _0=4`$.

### 3.3 BeppoSAX’s GRBM

The Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor on BeppoSAX consisted of the four 1136 cm2 area, 1 cm thick CsI(Na) shields around the Phoswich Detection System (Feroci et al. 1997; Amati 1999); detecting bursts was the secondary role of these shields. For most of the mission the system triggered when the 40–700 keV rate in two detectors accumulated over $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s increased by more than $`\sigma _0=4`$ (Feroci et al. 1997; Amati 1999).

The average background count rate in the trigger band for each detector was $`1000`$ cts/s, and I use this rate rather than model the background count rate. The effective areas of the four detectors differed because of material that was in front of them, but I model them as having been identical. Because the count rate must have increased by $`\sigma _0=4`$ in two detectors, the most sensitive point in the GRBM’s FOV for the on-board trigger was between the normal to two adjoining detectors, that is, at an angle of 45$`\mathrm{°}`$ from each detector normal. Thus the effective significance was $`\sigma _0=4\sqrt{2}=5.66`$.

The ultimate GRBM burst database is the result of a search on the ground with a variety of trigger criteria (Guidorzi 2001) utilizing the rates in the 40–700 keV and the $`>100`$ keV bands from different sets of detectors. The background was estimated either as a constant rate calculated from count rates before the burst or as a linear fit to count rates before and after the burst. These complicated trigger criteria might lower the sensitivity curve by $`1/3`$. However, in the figure I show only the sensitivity for the on-board trigger.

### 3.4 HETE-2’s WXM

The Wide-field X-ray Monitor (WXM) is the primary detector on the High Energy Transient Explorer II (HETE-2) for the localization of gamma-ray bursts (Kawai et al. 2002). The WXM consists of two coded mask X-ray detector units sensitive to the burst’s position in one dimension; the units’ orientations are orthogonal to each other, providing a two-dimensional position. Each WXM unit has a coded mask 18.7 cm above two position-sensitive proportional counters (PSPCs). The mask is 1/3 open. The geometric area of each PSPC is $`8.35\times 12.`$ cm2, and they are separated by a gap of 1 cm. The detectors operate over the 2–25 keV band. I use the background count rate of $`700`$ for both detectors provided by Kawai et al. (2002). A variety of triggers are used, with different trigger significances; I use $`\sigma _0=5.9`$ for the $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s accumulation in the rate summed over both detectors. A burst must be imaged after a rate trigger, effectively raising the significance for the detection of a burst, but I do not attempt to model this effect.

### 3.5 HETE-2’s FREGATE

The FREGATE (Atteia et al. 2002) is a set of 4 NaI(Tl) detectors on HETE-2. The FREGATE’s goals are a) the detection of bursts for localization by the imaging cameras, b) burst spectroscopy and c) monitoring hard X-ray transient sources. Each detector has a circular area of 39.6 cm2. The active area is exposed to the sky without a coded mask, and the FREGATE has no localization capabilities. The shield around each NaI crystal extends 2.7 cm above the front surface of the crystal (J.-L. Atteia, private communication, 2003), reducing both the FOV and the aperture flux. The detector has a diameter of 7.1 cm, while the shield has an inner diameter of 8.0 cm. The detectors are sensitive in the 6–400 keV band, and triggers on the 6–40 keV, 6–80 keV, 32–400 keV, and $`>400`$ keV count rates. The rates from one set of two detectors are combined into a summed rate, and the rates from the other set of two detectors are combined into a second summed rate. False triggers are eliminated by requiring a rate increase of 4.5$`\sigma `$ in both summed rates.

### 3.6 Swift’s BAT

The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) is Swift’s gamma-ray instrument. The BAT will detect the gamma-ray burst, localize it, and instruct the spacecraft to slew so that the burst location is in the much smaller FOV of the X-ray and optical telescopes coaligned with the BAT. The BAT will use a two step trigger: first, it will detect an increase in the count rate, and second, it will image the burst. Only if the count rate increase originates from a point source will the event be considered an astrophysical transient. Here I consider only the count rate trigger.

The BAT will consist of a rectangular detector plane of 32,768 CZT detectors, each 4$`\times `$4 mm2; because of the packaging of the detectors, the total active area of 5243 cm2 is spread over $`7200`$ cm2. A D-shaped coded mask with a total area of 3.2 m2 and 5$`\times `$5 mm2 cells will be one meter above the detector plane. I use an efficiency curve provided by C. Markwardt (personal communication, 2002).

My formula for the average solid angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ seen by the detector plane is for a rectangular mask above a rectangular detector plane; the BAT has a more complicated geometry. To calculate $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ I assume the mask is 120$`\times `$250 cm2 and the detector plane is 60$`\times `$120 cm2. Only a fraction $`0.72`$ of this detector plane is active, but the dimensions of the region over which the active area is spread are required. Note that $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is used to calculate the background rate, and the threshold flux is proportional to the square root of the background; therefore the result will not be very sensitive to small errors in $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ resulting from this approximation.

The Swift rate trigger will be very flexible, utilizing many different energy bands, background estimates, and accumulation times (E. Fenimore, personal communication, 2002). These different triggers will use different significances. To compare the sensitivity as a function of energy of different detectors, I consider only $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1 s, and I use the energy bands currently planned (see Table 1; D. Palmer, personal communication, 2002). Although the rate triggers for $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$=1 s may first trigger on $`\sigma _06`$, the requirement that a new source appear in the image of the source image effectively raises $`\sigma _0`$ to $`8`$. Note that the BAT will trigger not only on the rate from the entire detector plane, but also on the rate from subsets, increasing the sensitivity in the partially-coded FOV (E. Fenimore, personal communication, 2002). The maximum sensitivity will be at the center of the fully-coded region normal to the BAT.

### 3.7 GLAST’s GBM

The Gamma-ray Burst Monitor (GBM) planned for the Gamma-ray Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) will consist of 12 NaI detectors to cover the 5–1000 keV band and two BGO detectors to cover the 1–30 MeV band. The purpose of the GBM is to detect bursts in or near the FOV of the Large Area Telescope (LAT), GLAST’s main instrument, and to characterize the bursts. Since the LAT is a high energy gamma-ray detector, the sensitivity to particularly hard bursts is relevant. Here I focus on the sensitivity of the NaI detectors, which will be built around flat 127 cm2 NaI(Tl) crystals that will each view $``$half the sky (von Kienlin et al. 2000). The two BGO detectors will provide spectral coverage between the NaI detectors and the LAT, but will not be useful for detecting bursts (as I have verified with this paper’s methodology).

Included among the variety of burst triggers for the NaI detectors will be BATSE-like triggers where two or more detectors must trigger. The orientation of the 12 detectors has not been finalized, but the smallest angle between two detectors will be of order $`30\mathrm{°}`$, and thus the most sensitive points in the FOV will have an angle to the second most brightly illuminated detector of $`15\mathrm{°}`$. Since $`\mathrm{cos}(15\mathrm{°})1`$ I use the threshold significance of $`\sigma _0=4.5`$. The trigger will use the standard BATSE energy band of 50–300 keV, as well as other energy bands. By experimenting with a variety of energy bands I find that the sensitivity is maximized for 10–100 and 50–300 keV; these energy bands are used in Figure 8.

### 3.8 EXIST

The Energetic X-ray Imaging Survey Telescope (EXIST) is currently proposed to be a free-flying mission to detect gamma-ray bursts and conduct a hard X-ray sky survey (Grindlay et al. 2002). EXIST will carry three identical telescopes, each of which will consist of 9 coded mask modules. The modules’ detector planes will be canted with respect to each other by 10–12.5°. A module’s detector plane will be 3000 cm2 of CZT in front of a CsI anticoincidence shield. The CZT detectors will be 5–10 mm thick, increasing the high energy efficiency relative to Swift; I use the efficiency curve for 5 mm thick CZT in my calculations. Additional CsI planes will form 90 cm high collimator walls between the modules. The active CsI shielding can also be used as a high energy gamma-ray burst detector, but its effects will not be considered here. A curved coded mask will arch over all of a telescope’s 9 modules 150 cm above the detector planes.

To determine a telescope’s sensitivity I calculate the sensitivity for a single module, and then consider how the modules’ sensitivity add together over the sky for a single telescope. The fully-coded regions of all 9 modules in a telescope do not overlap. The maximum sensitivity for the current design is 1.92 times the sensitivity of a single module.

## 4 Discussion

### 4.1 Detector Comparison

The maximum sensitivities for the different detectors are presented in Figures 2–9; the fraction of a detector’s FOV at or near the maximum sensitivity varies from detector to detector. The sensitivity decreases away from the detector’s normal because of the projection of the detector plane to the burst (proportional to the cosine of the inclination angle). In the partially coded region of a coded mask detector the detector’s walls shadow part of the detector plane. In addition, the background induced by the particle flux, which is modelled crudely in my study, varies over an orbit, raising and lowering the sensitivity. Thus the curves in Figures 2–9 will shift up and down (mostly up) for different angles to the detector and for different parts of the spacecraft’s orbit.

Nonetheless, the curves are a measure of the relative sensitivities of the different detectors. The GBM’s NaI detectors will be less sensitive than the BATSE LADs for bursts with $`E_p>100`$ keV because they will have much less area, although the GBM’s low energy efficiency will give it a comparable sensitivity for bursts with low $`E_p`$. With significantly less area that the BATSE LADs, the FREGATE is less sensitive for bursts with $`E_p>70`$ keV. However, the FREGATE’s low energy sensitivity (down to 6 keV) increases its sensitivity to detect particularly soft bursts relative to BATSE. Also, FREGATE triggers on a variety of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$ while BATSE triggered on only one value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }E`$. EXIST will be more sensitive than Swift because the aperture flux (per detector area) is almost a factor of 2 smaller while the detector area is larger. Note that although the total detector area of just one of EXIST’s three telescopes will be 27,000 cm2, no point in the FOV is in the fully coded region of all 9 modules. These relative sensitivities are also affected by the trigger significance required of a rate increase.

The energy dependence of the detector efficiency affects the energy dependence of the sensitivity. CZT has high efficiency below $`100`$ keV and then decreases, while NaI’s efficiency peaks at $`100`$ keV and remains high until $`1`$ MeV. Thus the sensitivity of the BATSE LADs (which were NaI detectors) and the GBM NaI detectors decreases significantly for $`E_p<100`$ keV, while the sensitivity of the CZT detectors (Swift and EXIST) decrease much less for low $`E_p`$. EXIST will use thicker CZT detectors than Swift, which will increase the high energy efficiency, and thus EXIST’s high energy sensitivity is greater than Swift’s by more than would be predicted by the increase in area.

A lower low energy cutoff also increases the low energy sensitivity since more of the spectrum can be detected. This explains the comparable low energy sensitivities of FREGATE and Swift, even though Swift’s effective area will be much larger than FREGATE’s: FREGATE is sensitive above 6 keV and Swift’s spectrum will begin at $`15`$ keV.

As expected, the trigger energy bands also affect the energy sensitivity. The cusps evident in the curves for FREGATE, Swift, GBM and EXIST result from high ($``$50–150 keV) and low ($``$15–50 keV) trigger bands. Figure 10 shows the sensitivity of the four trigger energy bands proposed for Swift.

### 4.2 Implications

Gamma-ray bursts will populate the $`E_p`$$`F_T`$ plane shown in Figures 2–9. Thus the detector sensitivities shown on these figures show which burst populations the detectors will detect. FREGATE is more sensitive below $`E_p=100`$ keV than BATSE, particularly for bursts without a high energy tail (i.e., for $`\beta <3`$). Thus BATSE did not trigger on X-Ray Flashes (XRFs), transients with low $`E_p`$ (many of the XRFs Beppo-SAX’s WFC detected are untriggered events in the BATSE data—Kippen et al. 2002), whereas the FREGATE has detected XRFs. Mallozzi et al. (1995) showed that on average bursts become softer as they become fainter. Kippen et al. show that the XRFs detected by Beppo-SAX appear to be the low intensity extension of the Mallozzi et al. trend.

A comparison of the BATSE and Swift sensitivities (Figures 2 and 7) indicates that on the 1 s timescale Swift may not detect fainter bursts with $`E_p>100`$ keV, but it will detect soft bursts (e.g., XRFs) that are a factor of $`2`$ fainter than BATSE’s threshold. Swift will trigger on timescales both shorter and longer than the 64 ms, 256 ms and 1.024 s timescales on which BATSE triggered, and thus will detect fainter bursts with certain types of lightcurves (e.g., short bursts).

## 5 Summary

I have presented a method of comparing the energy sensitivities of different gamma-ray burst detectors. Since the emphasis is on the energy sensitivity, I assume that all detectors trigger on a $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=1`$ s accumulation time; the sensitivity for different accumulation times can be estimated from an ensemble of burst lightcurves (Band 2002). I propose presenting the intensity of a burst in a common unit: the peak photon flux integrated over the 1–1000 keV band. The threshold peak flux $`F_T`$ can then be calculated for each detector for a particular spectral shape. The peak energy $`E_p`$ (the energy of the maximum of $`E^2N_E\nu f_\nu `$) is the first order measure of a spectrum’s hardness. Thus a plot of $`F_T`$ vs. $`E_p`$ is a useful summary of a detector’s sensitivity.

An application of this methodology shows that the sensitivity of BATSE and Swift are approximately equal above $`E_p100`$ keV, while Swift will be more sensitive for bursts with lower values of $`E_p`$. As expected for smaller NaI detectors, the GBM-NaI system will be much less sensitive than BATSE was for $`E_p>100`$ keV. FREGATE is surprisingly sensitive to soft bursts because it detects photons down to 6 keV. Finally, with its large area, EXIST will be more sensitive than previous detectors.

I would like to thank L. Amati, J.-L. Atteia, M. Briggs, N. Gehrels, J. Grindlay, C. Guidorzi, J. Heise, J. Hong, N. Kawai, C. Markwardt, J. Norris and R. Preece for discussions and comments upon this work.