text:
# Diffeomorphisms and spin foam models

## I Introduction

Spin foam models are an attempt to describe the geometry of spacetime at the quantum level. They give a construction of transition amplitudes between initial and final spatial geometries labeled by spin network states. A spin foam is a 2-dimensional cell complex $`F`$ with polygonal faces labeled by representations $`j_f`$ and edges labeled by intertwining operators $`i_e`$. Given a spin foam we associate an amplitude $`A_f,A_e`$ and $`A_v`$ to the faces, edges and vertices of the spin foam respectively. They depend only locally on the spins $`j_f`$ and intertwiners $`ı_e`$, e-g the vertex amplitude is computed using the spins labeling the faces incident to that vertex and intertwiners on incident edges. The amplitude of a spin foam is then computed as the product of these local weights :

$$Z_F(j_f,i_e)=\underset{fF_2}{}A_f(j)\underset{eF_1}{}A_e(j,ı)\underset{vF_0}{}A_v(j,ı).$$
(1)
The corresponding partition function associated to the two dimensional cell complex $`F`$ is given by summation over all admissible spins and intertwiners

$$Z(F)=\underset{\{j_f\},\{ı_e\}}{}Z(j_f,ı_e).$$
(2)
Spin foams can be understood to be dual to triangulations. The vertex of a spin foam is dual to a codimension $`0`$ simplex. We can therefore think about the amplitude $`A_v`$ as the ‘bulk’ term, interpreted as corresponding to the discrete version of the amplitude $`e^{iS}`$. The edges and faces amplitudes are dual to codimension $`1`$ and $`2`$ simplices and we will refer to them as the discrete measure of integration. There is so far a general consensus on the form of the vertex amplitudes, in 3d they are given by the 6-j symbol PR  and by the 10-j symbol in 4d BC .

However, there are some open debates on the possible measures one should use in the state sum. A measure for 4d euclidean gravity was first proposed in Depietrietal  by DePietri et al. using group field theory technics. This measure is such that the summation (2) diverges if we do not have a positive cosmological constant. Another proposal was made later in perez  by Perez and Rovelli and it was shown that this measure leads to convergent amplitudes perezalone . Numerical studies of these models and some others were made by Baez et al. in BaezC , we refer the reader to this paper for a more detail account of this issue. It is a key issue since the infinite versus finite models have very different properties. Let us remark that the divergence of the partition function is not a good reason to discard the corresponding models since we are interested in correlation functions or transition amplitudes which are ratio of divergent amplitudes and could be well defined. In this paper we will address this issue first in the context of three dimensional gravity.

In retrospect, the very first spin foam model was the Ponzano–Regge model of 3-dimensional riemannian quantum gravity PR . In this model, the vertex amplitude is given by the 6-j symbol, one of its key property is the fact that its semi-classical asymptotics is governed by the exponential of the Regge action. The measure was uniquely determined in order to obtain a partition function invariant under refinement of the triangulation. This choice of measure is such that the partition function is divergent and it is only after a regularization and the division by an ad hoc divergent factor sometimes called the anomaly that the state sum is formally independent of the choice of triangulation. In the original paper of Ponzano-Regge the division by this infinite factor was required in order to have a well defined continuum limit of the partition function. In all subsequent papers on this model the same reason for the overall factor was always advocated.

Our aim in this paper is to explain this divergence as the infinite gauge volume of a remaining gauge symmetry. This symmetry is the translational part of the local Poincaré symmetry and is classically equivalent to the diffeomorphism symmetry. It is clear that the choice of a triangulation (or a spin foam) breaks the full covariance of the theory, however this does not mean that there is no residual action of the diffeomorphism group on a fixed spin foam. We show in three dimensions that indeed there is a residual action of the diffeomorphism group which acts at the vertices of the fixed triangulation. This result is in fact known to specialist of Regge calculus Rocwill . We also prove that the infinite anomaly factor is necessary in order to divide out the volume of this residual symmetry group.

The plan of the paper is as follows. In section II, we recall the classical gauge symmetries of 3d gravity and show how they are related to each other. In section III, we present the construction of the Ponzano-Regge model, using a discretization of the partition function. We insist on the way the gauge symmetries are implemented at this level. In particular we describe how to implement the translational symmetry. In section IV, we relate the divergence of the Ponzano-Regge model with the volume of the translational symmetry and carry a gauge fixing procedure. In section V, we conclude with a discussion on the general implications of these results for higher dimensional models. We argue that we can generally expect a residual action of diffeomorphisms on spin foams, leading to a physical interpretation of the divergences. We discuss the consequences of this observation for the finite spin foam models.

## II Classical gauge symmetries in 3D gravity

In this part we recall the different gauge symmetries of the classical action of 3d gravity, and how they are related together. We consider the first order formalism for 3d gravity. The field variables are the triad frame field $`e_\mu ^i`$ ($`i=1,2,3`$) and the spin connection $`\omega _\mu ^i`$. The metric is reconstructed as usual from the triad $`g_{\mu \nu }=e_\mu ^i\eta _{ij}e_\nu ^j`$ where $`\eta =(+,+,+)`$ for euclidean gravity and $`\eta =(,+,+)`$ for lorentzian gravity. In the following, we will denote by $`e^i,\omega ^i`$ the one forms $`e_\mu ^idx^\mu ,\omega _\mu ^idx^\mu `$. We also introduce the $`SU(2)`$ Lie algebra generator $`J_i`$, taken to be $`i/2`$ times the Pauli matrices, satisfying $`[J_i,J_j]=ϵ_{ijk}\eta ^{kl}J_l`$, where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ is the antisymmetric tensor. The trace is such that $`\mathrm{tr}(J_iJ_j)=\frac{1}{2}\delta _{ij}`$. One can thus define the Lie algebra valued one-forms $`e=e^iJ_i`$ and $`\omega =\omega ^iJ_i`$. The action is

$$S[e,\omega ]=\frac{1}{2}_Mϵ_{ijk}e^iF^{jk}(\omega )=_M\mathrm{tr}(eF(\omega )),$$
(3)
where $``$ is the antisymmetric product of forms and $`F(\omega )=d\omega +\omega \omega `$ is the curvature of $`\omega `$. The equations of motion of this theory are

$`d_\omega e=0,`$ (4)
$`F(\omega )=0,`$ (5)
where $`d_\omega =d+\omega `$ denotes the covariant derivative.

Classically, this theory has three kind of symmetries. First, it is invariant under local Lorentz gauge symmetry:

$`\delta _X^L\omega `$ $`=`$ $`d_\omega X,`$
$`\delta _X^Le`$ $`=`$ $`[e,X],`$ (6)
parametrized by a Lie algebra element $`X`$. It is also invariant under diffeomorphism, for a vector field $`\xi ^\mu `$, the action is

$`\delta _\xi ^De=d(ı_\xi e)+ı_\xi (de),`$
$`\delta _\xi ^D\omega =d(ı_\xi \omega )+ı_\xi (d\omega ),`$ (7)
where $`ı_\xi `$ denotes the interior product. These are the usual gauge symmetries of gravity. However this theory admits another symmetry that we call translational symmetry, given by

$`\delta _\varphi ^T\omega `$ $`=`$ $`0,`$
$`\delta _\varphi ^Te`$ $`=`$ $`d_\omega \varphi ,`$ (8)
for $`\varphi `$ in the Lie algebra. As seen by inserting this transformation in the action (3), this symmetry is due to the Bianchi identity $`d_\omega F=0`$. These three types of symmetries are not all independent, one can see that

$`\delta _\xi ^De`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{(i_\xi \omega )}^Le+\delta _{(i_\xi e)}^Te+i_\xi (d_\omega e),`$ (9)
$`\delta _\xi ^D\omega `$ $`=`$ $`\delta _{(i_\xi \omega )}^L\omega +\delta _{(i_\xi e)}^T\omega +i_\xi (F(\omega )).`$ (10)
If one uses the equations of motion (4) and (5), one clearly sees that on-shell we have

$`\delta _\xi ^D=\delta _{(i_\xi \omega )}^L+\delta _{(i_\xi e)}^T.`$ (11)
This shows that on-shell, the diffeomorphism symmetry is recovered as a combination of Lorentz and translational symmetry, for field dependent parameters of transformation $`X=ı_\xi \omega ,\varphi =ı_\xi e`$. Note that the combination $`\delta ^L+\delta ^T`$ is in fact a local Poincaré gauge symmetry. Lets denote by $`P_i`$ the generators of the translations, they commute between themselves and satisfy $`[J_i,P_j]=ϵ_{ijk}\eta ^{kl}P_l`$. We can introduce a Poincaré connection $`A=\omega ^iJ_i+e^iP_i`$. The symmetry $`\delta ^L+\delta ^T`$ is just the local Poincaré gauge symmetry for this connection.

## III Gauge symmetries in discrete quantum gravity

In this section we recall briefly the discretization procedure leading to the Ponzano-Regge model for 3d euclidian quantum gravity. We emphasize the implementation of gauge symmetries and explain how the translational symmetry arises at the level of this model. We are interested in the computation of the partition function of 3 dimensional gravity, i-e formally

$$Z=DeD\omega e^{iS(e,\omega )}.$$
(12)
In order to do this computation we will first choose a triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, discretize the action with respect to this triangulation and then compute the discretized path integral. The continuum limit is then obtained by refining the triangulation. This methodology and the resulting computation are not new, they have been considered and refined several time in the literature Ooguri ; Nielsen ; KF , our approach will be very close to the treatment in KF . The new point of our approach is to insist on the fact that when we compute the partition function (12), and more generally transition amplitudes, one integrates over all $`e`$ and $`A`$ modulo gauge transformations. In the continuum one usually uses the Fadeev-Popov procedure. In the discrete approach what one should do is identify the residual gauge symmetries that are left after choosing the triangulation, and divide out the volume of this residual discrete gauge symmetry. In the following we do the proper analysis and find that there is a residual Lorentz gauge symmetry acting at the vertices of the dual triangulation and  a residual translational symmetry associated with the vertices of the triangulation.

### III.1 Discretized model

The action (3) can be discretized in order to formulate a discretized version of 3d quantum gravity. One considers a triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the manifold where all the edges are oriented. The triad $`e`$ is a 1-form and as such it is naturally integrated on one dimensional structures. We integrate it along the edges $`e\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the triangulation, and replace it by the collection of Lie-algebra elements $`X_e`$ obtained in this way. To discretize the connection field, one considers the dual 2-complex $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. One can naturally consider the holonomy of the connection (which is a 1-form) along the edges $`e^{}`$ of the dual two complex. This assigns a group element $`g_e^{}`$ to each dual edge $`e^{}`$. The discretized curvature is obtained as the holonomy of the connection around a whole dual face $`f^{}`$, i-e as the ordered product of corresponding group elements living on the dual edges

$$g_f^{}=\stackrel{}{}_{e^{}f^{}}g_e^{}.$$
(13)
To be more precise, in order to define this holonomy we chose a vertex of the dual triangulation $`v^{}`$ and chose a path $`P_{v^{},f^{}}`$ in the dual triangulation which starts at $`v^{}`$, goes to a point on $`f^{}`$, goes around the face and come back by the same initial path. The path should be oriented in a way compatible with the orientation of the edge $`e`$ dual to $`f^{}`$. Different choices of initial points $`v^{}`$ or different choices of pathes $`P_{v^{},f^{}}`$ are equivalent, since the corresponding group elements we obtain are related by transformations $`g_f^{}g_0g_f^{}g_0^1`$, which are gauge transformations, as will be proved in the following. If we take the logarithm of this group element (13), we get a Lie algebra element111We restrict the Lie algebra element $`Z`$ to be in the region around $`0`$ in which $`\mathrm{exp}`$ is an isomorphism between this region and the group. $`Z_f^{}`$ such that $`g_f^{}=e^{Z_f^{}}`$. We denote this Lie algebra element by $`Z_e`$ for simplicity, this is valid since there is a one to one correspondence between edges of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and dual faces. So within this discretization the dynamical variables are $`(X_e,g_e^{})`$, and the action is simply expressed as

$$S[X_e,g_e^{}]=\underset{e}{}\mathrm{tr}(X_eZ_e).$$
(14)
The partition function is

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta })=_{𝔤^E}\underset{e}{}dX_e_{G^E^{}}\underset{e^{}}{}dg_e^{}e^{i_e\mathrm{tr}(X_eZ_e)},$$
(15)
where $`𝔤`$ denotes the Lie algebra, $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ denote the number of edges in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$. It is clear that this partition function does not depend on the choice of the orientation, since both $`X_e`$ and $`Z_e`$ change sign if we change the orientation of $`e`$. Before calculating this discretized partition function, we are going to show how the gauge symmetries of the classical action are reflected in this discretization.

### III.2 Discrete gauge symmetries

Since $`g_e^{}`$ is the holonomy of the connection along the dual edge $`e^{}`$, the gauge group acts by left and right multiplication at the vertices of the dual lattice

$$g_e^{}k_{s(e^{})}^1g_e^{}k_{t(e^{})},$$
(16)
where $`s(e^{})`$ (resp. $`t(e^{})`$) denotes the source (resp. the target) of the edge $`e^{}`$. Since $`g_f^{}`$ is a product of edges group elements (see eq.13) starting and ending at the same vertex $`v^{}`$, the gauge group acts by conjugation on this variables. The discrete action (14) is invariant under the transformation

$`Z_e`$ $``$ $`g_v^{}^1Z_eg_v^{},`$ (17)
$`X_e`$ $``$ $`g_v^{}^1X_eg_v^{}.`$ (18)
This is the implementation of the classical local Lorentz transformation (6) at the level of the discrete model.

The continuum translational transformation is

$$\delta e=d\varphi +[\omega ,\varphi ]$$
(19)
where $`\varphi `$ is a zero-form valued in the Lie algebra. We have seen that $`e`$ is naturally integrated on the edges of the triangulation, $`X_e=_ee`$. The 0-form $`\varphi `$ is naturally discretized at the vertices of the triangulation in terms of a collection of Lie algebra elements $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v`$. We therefore expect the discrete transformation to be

$$\delta X_e=\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{s(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}].$$
(20)
Recall that we choose an orientation of the edges, so it is clear that the discretization of $`d\mathrm{\Phi }`$ leads to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}`$. We define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ to be an integrated version of $`\omega `$ on $`e`$ starting from $`v`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v_{v\stackrel{e}{}}\omega +\mathrm{}$$
(21)
in the limit where all edges lengths are small. This explains why we have a plus sign for $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{s(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}]`$ and a minus sign for $`[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]`$ . One can isolate the action at a vertex

$$\delta X_e=\mathrm{\Phi }_v[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,\mathrm{\Phi }_v].$$
(22)
The expression (22) corresponds to the integrated version of the classical translational symmetry (II). The problem in this expression is that the connection $`\omega `$ has originally been discretized by integrating on the dual edges $`e^{}`$, and there is therefore no natural discrete expression for the integration $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ of $`\omega `$ on the original edge $`e`$. To see how to deal with this problem, we examine the Bianchi identity which is at the origin of this symmetry, and show how this identity holds at the discretized level.

Classically, the Bianchi identity is

$$dF+[\omega ,F]=0.$$
(23)
This is an identity about 3-forms. Integrated on a 3d volume $`V`$, this leads to

$$0=_VF+_V[\omega ,F]$$
(24)
One can consider a vertex of the original triangulation and the surface of dual 2-faces surrounding it. If the triangulation is regular, this surface $`S`$ has the topology of a 2-sphere and one can consider the integrated Bianchi identity (24) on the interior $`B`$ of this 2-sphere. Decomposing $`B`$ as the disjoint union of cones obtained by linking each dual face to the central vertex, one can rewrite it

$$_SF+_B[\omega ,F]=\underset{ev}{}Z_e+\underset{ev}{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,Z_e]$$
(25)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ is an integrated version of $`\omega `$ on the edge $`e`$ surrounded by the corresponding cone. Note that we also choose to define $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ as the integration of $`\omega `$ along $`e`$ starting from $`v`$, which means along an edge outgoing from the interior of $`B`$, which is necessary to integrate in this way the Bianchi identity. From this argument we expect that the element $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ appearing in the translational symmetry (22) can be given by the understanding of the discrete Bianchi identity. Our analysis is closed to the one already given in Nielsen  by Kawamoto et al. In our computation their statements are made precise by a careful analysis of the origin of the discrete Bianchi identity.

To do so, we begin by observing that if one considers the dual faces surrounding the vertex, it exists an order on the faces $`f_1\mathrm{}f_n`$ and a collection of group elements $`g_{f_i^{}}`$ representing their curvature such that222Remember that we had some freedom to chose a vertex in the dual triangulation and a path connecting this vertex to the dual face. We need to use this freedom in order for the identity (26) to be true. We don’t spell out the details of the construction as it is standard, and more or less obvious from a drawing.

$$\stackrel{}{\underset{i=1..n}{}}g_{f_i^{}}=1$$
(26)
One can now take the logarithm of this expression

$$\mathrm{ln}\left(\stackrel{}{\underset{ev}{}}e^{Z_e}\right)=0$$
(27)
In the case of an abelian group, this expression is just $`Z_e=0`$, which corresponds to the discretized version of the abelian Bianchi identity $`dF=0`$. However in the general case of a non-abelian group, taking the logarithm leads to a more complicated result which has to be expressed using the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. In the appendix A, we show (see eq. (73)) that the logarithm (27) can be rewritten as

$$\underset{ev}{}\left(Z_e+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,Z_e]\right)=0,$$
(28)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ is a Lie algebra element explicitly given in terms of the $`Z_e`$ on the edges meeting at the vertex $`v`$

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v=\underset{e^{}v,e^{}e}{}Z_e+\underset{e^{},e^{\prime \prime }v}{}c_{ee^{}e^{\prime \prime }}[Z_e^{},Z_{e^{\prime \prime }}]+\mathrm{},$$
(29)
the dots stand for higher commutator terms constructed in terms of $`Z_e`$ and $`c_{ee^{}e^{\prime \prime }}`$ are explicit coefficients given in (74). See (70) for the complete formal expression of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$ including all higher commutators. The expression (28) is the Bianchi identity at the discretized level, and its construction provides an expression for the elements $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v`$.

It is now clear that due to the discretized Bianchi identity, the discretized action is invariant under the symmetry

$`\delta X_e=\mathrm{\Phi }_v[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,\mathrm{\Phi }_v]\text{if}ve`$
$`\delta X_e=0\text{if}ve`$ (30)
for $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v`$ a Lie algebra element associated to the vertex $`v`$. The variation of the discretized action under this transform is

$`\delta S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{ev}{}}\mathrm{tr}(\mathrm{\Phi }_vZ_e[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,\mathrm{\Phi }_v]Z_e)`$ (31)
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{tr}\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_v\left({\displaystyle \underset{ev}{}}Z_e+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^v,Z_e]\right)\right]=0`$ (32)
In the first equality we use cyclicity of the trace and the last equality is due to the discretized Bianchi identity (28). The action is invariant under the transform (30) which is the discrete action of the translational symmetry. We have only considered the action at one vertex but this can be extended for all the vertices of the triangulation, the transformation is parametrized by a Lie algebra element $`\mathrm{\Phi }_v`$ for each vertex.

## IV Gauge symmetries and divergences

In this part we complete the construction of the Ponzano-Regge model, taking into account the infinite volume of the translational gauge symmetry.

### IV.1 Division by the gauge volume

We have seen that the local Lorentz gauge symmetry is parameterized by group elements acting at the vertices of the dual $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, while the translational symmetry is parameterized by Lie algebra elements acting at the vertices of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If we denote by $`V`$ (resp. $`V^{}`$) the number of vertices of the triangulation (resp. the dual complex), one has to divide the naive (non gauge fixed) discretized partition function by the total gauge volume $`Vol(G)^V^{}\times Vol(𝔤)^V`$. $`Vol(G)`$ denotes the volume of the Lorentz group, it is finite for euclidean gravity333It is infinite in the case of lorentzian gravity $`G=SL(2,R)`$ but we can take care of it by appropriate regularization, see 3dLorentz . In this paper we restrict ourselves to euclidean gravity for simplicity, but considering the lorentzian case will not really change our discussion. $`G=SU(2)`$. $`Vol(𝔤)`$ denotes the infinite volume of the Lie algebra. Dividing by the gauge volume, the partition function (15) is rewritten

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{Vol(G)^V^{}\times Vol(𝔤)^V}_{G^E^{}}\underset{e^{}}{}dg_e^{}_{𝔤^E}\underset{e}{}dX_ee^{i_e\mathrm{tr}\left(X_eZ_e\right)}.$$
(34)
One can find a choice of measures on the Lie algebra and the group

$`dX`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}r^2dr\mathrm{sin}\varphi d\varphi d\psi ,`$ (35)
$`dg`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi ^2}}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^2d\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi d\varphi d\psi .`$ (36)
such that $`V(G)=1`$, and

$$_𝔤𝑑Xe^{i\mathrm{tr}(XZ)}=\delta (e^Z),$$
(37)
where $`\delta `$ is the delta function on the group for the measure (36)444Strictly speaking, the equation (37) is true only when $`Z`$ is around $`0`$.. It is expanded on the characters of the representations of $`G`$ using Plancherel decomposition

$$\delta (g)=\underset{j}{}d_j\chi ^j(g),$$
(38)
where $`\chi ^j`$ designs the character of the spin $`j`$ representation. The integrals over group elements in the partition function (34) are performed using the relations on the integrations of product of matrices of representations. The resulting contributions are given by Wigner $`3j`$-symbols on the dual edges, which recombine into $`6j`$ symbols associated to tetrahedra. One thus get the Ponzano-Regge model

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta })=\frac{1}{[Vol(𝔤)]^V}\underset{\{j_e\}}{}\underset{e}{}d_{j_e}\underset{t}{}\{6j\}.$$
(39)
This expression was interpreted originally by Ponzano and Regge as a partition function for discrete 3d gravity. In terms of simplicial geometry, an edge carrying a spin $`j`$ is interpreted as an edge of length $`j+1/2`$, from the fact that the asymptotic of the $`6j`$-symbol leads to the Regge action for the tetrahedra with lengths $`j+1/2`$, and the original observation due to Wigner that the asymptotic of the square of the $`6j`$-symbol is interpreted as the classical probability to have a tetrahedron with lengths $`j+1/2`$. The equation (39) is purely formal since both the spin state sum and the volume of the Lie algebra are infinite. We therefore need to introduce a cut-off in order to regularize this expression. Our prescription is to restrict the Lie algebra elements to be $`|X_e|<k`$. This has for consequence to restrict the summation in the state sum over a finite number of spins. This can be seen from the Kirillov correspondence between representations and coadjoint orbits in the Lie algebra. The character of the spin $`j`$ representation is expressed by the Kirillov formula

$$\chi ^j(e^Z)=\frac{_{𝒪_j}e^{i\mathrm{tr}(ZX)}d_j\stackrel{}{X}}{_{𝒪_0}e^{i\mathrm{tr}(ZX)}d_0\stackrel{}{X}}$$
(40)
where $`𝒪_j`$ is the sphere of radius $`2j+1`$ and $`d_j\stackrel{}{X}`$ the measure such that the volume of $`𝒪_j`$ is equal to $`2j+1`$. This shows that restricting the Lie algebra elements by $`|X|<k`$ restricts the representations to $`2j+1<k`$ i-e $`j\frac{k2}{2}`$. With this cut, the volume of the Lie algebra becomes finite and equal to $`V(k)=\frac{k^3}{3}`$ with our choice of measure (35). This can be also obtained from the cut-off on the representations in the Plancherel formula (38), since for large $`k`$

$$V(k)=_{|X|<k}𝑑Xe^{i\mathrm{tr}(X0)}\underset{d_j<k}{}d_j^2\frac{k^3}{3}.$$
(41)
The renormalized partition function is thus obtain by sending the cut-off to infinity

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta })=\underset{k\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{\{d_{j_e}<k\}}{}\underset{v}{}\frac{1}{V(k)}\underset{e}{}d_{j_e}\underset{t}{}\{6j\}.$$
(42)
The partition function for another triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ obtained by refinement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is formally such that $`Z(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})=Z(\mathrm{\Delta })`$. In the original paper of Ponzano-Regge, the renormalization by $`V(k)^V`$ was motivated by the requirement to have invariance under refinement. Our argumentation shows that this is not just an ad-hoc renormalization, but it arises from the division of the volume of the translational symmetry acting at the vertices.

### IV.2 Gauge fixing procedure

In this part, we carry a precise Fadeev-Popov gauge fixing procedure for the translational symmetry. To do so, we choose a maximal tree $`T`$ in the 1-skeleton of the triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. A maximal tree is a graph touching every vertex of the triangulation, without forming a closed loop. The main property of a maximal tree is that it exists an unique path in $`T`$ between any two vertices. A natural way to gauge fix the symmetry is to impose that all $`X_e`$ on $`T`$ are zero. Since a maximal tree with $`V`$ vertices contains $`V1`$ edges, this gauge fixing procedure will fix all the symmetry except a global translation. We isolate one of the vertices in the tree (called the root). This induces an order in the tree and an orientation on the edges, each edge being oriented along the direction of the path from the root to each vertex. Each edge has thus a source $`s(e)`$ and a target $`t(e)`$. Moreover each vertex $`v`$ can be unambiguously associated to the edge $`e`$ such that $`v=t(e)`$. The (inverse of the) Fadeev-Popov determinant for this procedure is

$$\mathrm{\Delta }^1=_{𝔤^E}[\underset{e}{}d\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\underset{eT}{}\delta (\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{s(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}]).$$
(43)
To compute the F-P determinant, we have to compute the jacobian of the transformation, or equivalently the wedge product of all the $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{t(e)}`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{t(e)}=\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{s(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{s(e)}].$$
(44)
One can see that the variable $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}`$ for an external edge $`e`$ appears only in $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{t(e)}`$, thus we have

$$d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}_{t(e)}=d\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\right)+\mathrm{}$$
(45)
where the dots are for terms that will give zero when taking the wedge product with others $`d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$, since this product does not contain $`d\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}`$. This reasoning apply for all external edges, and can be continued for other edges. In particular we have

$$d\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)},\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}]\right)=(1+|\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)}|^2)d\mathrm{\Phi }_{t(e)}$$
(46)
where $`|\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)}|^2`$ denotes the square of the norm of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)}`$ as Lie algebra element. Therefore one gets for the F-P determinant

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\underset{eT}{}(1+|\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)}|^2)$$
(47)
From now we denote $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e=\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{t(e)}`$. The partition function on the triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for a gauge fixing along the tree $`T`$ becomes

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta },T)=\underset{e\mathrm{\Delta }/T}{}𝑑X_e\underset{e^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}𝑑g_e^{}\left(\underset{eT}{}(1+|\mathrm{\Omega }_e|^2)\right)e^{i\mathrm{tr}(_{e\mathrm{\Delta }/T}X_eZ_e)},$$
(48)
where the $`Z_e`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ depend on the group elements. The integration on the remaining $`X_e`$ variables can be performed, leading to

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta },T)=\underset{e^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}𝑑g_e^{}\left(\underset{eT}{}(1+|\mathrm{\Omega }_e|^2)\right)\underset{e\mathrm{\Delta }/T}{}\delta (e^{Z_e})$$
(49)
Now one can prove that if the $`Z_e`$ are zero on $`\mathrm{\Delta }/T`$, as imposed by the delta functions, then the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ are zero on the maximal tree $`T`$ and the F-P determinant reduces to 1. Consider an edge $`e`$ in $`T`$, one of its vertices $`v`$ and the corresponding $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$. $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ is defined (see (70)) in terms of the $`Z`$ variables of all edges meeting at $`v`$. Suppose first that this vertex is an external vertex of $`T`$, which means that $`e`$ is the only edge of $`T`$ meeting it. All other edges $`e^{}`$ meeting it are in $`\mathrm{\Delta }/T`$ and the $`\delta `$ functions impose $`Z_e^{}=0`$ for them. In that case, the only non-zero variable in the explicit expression (70) of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ is $`Z_e`$, it is thus clear that all the commutators vanish. So, for this external vertices, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ is zero. Moreover if we consider the Bianchi identity (28) at this vertex, separating, in the sum, $`e`$ from the other edges meeting, it says

$$Z_e+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e,Z_e]+\underset{e^{}e}{}(Z_e^{}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_e^{},Z_e^{}])=0$$
(50)
As $`Z_e^{}=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e=0`$, this identity gives $`Z_e=0`$. Thus for all external vertices and corresponding edges of $`T`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e=0`$ and $`Z_e=0`$. If one removes all these edges from the tree, one is left with new external vertices, for which the same reasoning apply. The procedure can be extended to the whole tree and all the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_e`$ and $`Z_e`$ are zero on the tree. The F-P determinant is thus one and the partition function is rewritten

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta },T)=\underset{e^{}\mathrm{\Delta }^{}}{}𝑑g_e^{}\underset{e\mathrm{\Delta }/T}{}\delta (e^{Z_e}).$$
(51)
At the level of the discretized partition function, the gauge fixing of the $`X_e`$ variables to zero for $`eT`$ is translated into a projection on the spins $`j_e=0`$ for the edges of the tree $`T`$

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta },T)=\underset{\{j_e\}}{}\left(\underset{eT}{}\delta _{j_e,0}\right)\underset{e}{}d_{j_e}\underset{t}{}\{6j\}.$$
(52)
In the triangulation, this has the following consequences : if we set $`j_e=0`$ for an edge $`e`$ belonging to $`n`$ triangular faces, each of these faces is suppressed, and the two other edges of each face are identified. We call this move the collapse of the edge $`e`$. One can see that this is a topological move, so if we perform the collapse of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ along any tree $`T`$ and we denote the resulting triangulation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$, this triangulation is equivalent to the original one. The relevance of this definition lies in the fact that

$$Z(\mathrm{\Delta },T)=Z(\mathrm{\Delta }_T).$$
(53)
Note that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_T`$ is well-defined555as a generalized triangulation since the tree structure prevents us to try to collapse an edge previously collapsed due to the identification arising in the process. Note also that it still remains a global translational symmetry acting at the vertex which was the root of the tree, and which has to be gauge fixed. Finally, the result is formally independent of the choice of a maximal tree : $`Z(\mathrm{\Delta }_T)=Z(\mathrm{\Delta }_T^{})`$. This is clear since on one hand different choices of trees amounts to different choices of gauge and it is usually expected that after gauge fixing the theory is BRST invariant, expressing the fact that all the gauge fixings are equivalent. On the other hand, we have seen that the collapsed triangulations along different trees are topologically equivalent, leading to the same conclusion.

### IV.3 Positive cosmological constant case

We consider now the case of gravity with positive cosmological constant. The euclidian space with positive cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a 3-sphere of radius $`1/\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. This is a space of finite volume $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}`$ (computed for the normalized Haar measure for $`S^3`$). In such a space, the maximum geodesic length is obtained for the half-perimeter of a great circle, namely $`L_{max}=\pi /\sqrt{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$. Since a maximum length exists in such space, we expect that to be translated at the level of the quantum model as a cut-off in the allowed spins. Also in the discrete models, the translational symmetry acts at the vertices by translation in the spacetime. In a positive cosmological constant space, the volume accessible by translation is finite and equal to the volume of the space. As the space is of finite volume, it acts as a cut-off for the translational symmetry, since it forbids arbitrary large translations of the vertices. We therefore expect a finite gauge volume corresponding to the volume of the space $`1/\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}`$.

These two expectations concerning the cut-off on the lengths and the finite gauge volume are precisely what happens in the Turaev-Viro modelTV . The Turaev-Viro model is obtained as a deformation of the Ponzano-Regge model using the quantum group $`\mathrm{SU}_q(2)`$ instead of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)`$. It depends on an additional parameter $`k`$ such that $`q=e^{2i\pi /k}`$. This parameter can be linked in several ways with the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. First it is well-known that the spins of the representations of $`\mathrm{SU}(2)_q`$ are strictly smaller than $`\frac{k1}{2}`$. This is clear since the quantum dimension of the spin $`j`$ representation

$$[d_j]_k=\frac{\mathrm{sin}\left(\pi (2j+1)/k\right)}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi /k)}$$
(54)
is zero when $`j=\frac{k1}{2}`$. We have seen that the length for an edge carrying a spin $`j`$ is given by $`j+1/2`$, so from the point of view of the Turaev-Viro model, the maximum length is $`L_{max}=\frac{k}{2}`$. If we identify it with the maximum geodesic length in the 3-sphere of radius $`\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ we get $`k=\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{L}}`$. This interpretation of the level $`k`$ can also be done using the link between Turaev-Viro for $`q=e^{2i\pi /k}`$ and Chern-Simons theory at level $`k`$ KFvol . The same interpretation is also manifest in the asymptotic of the quantum 6j-symbol Mizoguchi  which leads to the exponential of the Regge action with cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\pi ^2/k^2`$.

It is well known that the triangulation independence of the Turaev-Viro model requires the multiplication of the state sum by the factor $`Vol(\mathrm{SU}(2)_q)^V`$ where

$$Vol(\mathrm{SU}(2)_q)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{(k2)/2}{}}[d_j]_k^2=\frac{k}{2\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi /k)}$$
(55)
For a small cosmological constant (large $`k`$), it behaves as

$$Vol(\mathrm{SU}_q(2))\frac{k^3}{2\pi ^2}\frac{4\pi }{\mathrm{\Lambda }^{3/2}}.$$
(56)
which scales as the volume of the 3-sphere for cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is not a surprise if we interpret $`Vol(SU(2)_q)`$ as the volume of the translational group acting at the vertex.

One can notice that despite the fact that the quantum dimension $`[2j+1]_k`$ for large $`k`$ is asymptotic to the dimension of the classical representation $`2j+1`$, the large $`k`$ behavior of the gauge volume is different in the Turaev-Viro model and in the Ponzano-Regge regularization

$$\underset{j=1}{\overset{(k2)/2}{}}[d_j]_k^2\sim ̸\underset{j=1}{\overset{(k2)/2}{}}d_j^2$$
(57)
This fact seems puzzling but can be understood geometrically. We have seen that the LHS is interpreted as the volume of a 3-sphere while the RHS is the volume of a 3-ball.

## V Discussion

In this paper we have proven that a carefully discretized spin foam model for 3-dimensional gravity possess not only the usual Lorentz gauge symmetry, but also a local translational symmetry, acting at the vertices of the triangulation, and parameterized by Lie algebra elements. At the classical level, this symmetry is related to the diffeomorphism symmetry, so we can interpret this result as the existence of a residual action of the diffeomorphism group on 3-dimensional triangulated space-time.

We have shown that the volume of this symmetry is infinite and scales with the number of vertices of the 3-dimensional triangulation. If we correctly quantize the theory via path integral we have to divide out this infinite gauge volume. The prescription we obtain for the regularized partition function after the division by the volume of the gauge group is the same as the one proposed a long time ago by Ponzano and Regge. However, in their paper and in all subsequent paper on the subject, the infinite volume factor was required in order to implement the continuum limit. Our result prove that the requirement of gauge invariance is enough to explain this factor and the fact that the partition function possess the correct continuum limit is a consequence of this requirement without any further renormalisation. We also show that gauge fixing this symmetry amounts to compute the partition function on a collapsed triangulation.

So what does this example teach us on higher dimensional spin foam models? We can think of spin foam models as discretized models of gravity where the vertices of the spin foam are dual to higher dimensional simplices, the edges of the spin foam are dual to codimension 1 simplices and the faces of the spin foam are dual to codimension 2 simplices. The representation labels $`j`$ are carried by the codimension 2 simplices. They are therefore interpreted as a length ($`ll_pj`$) in 3 dimensions and an area ($`Al_p^2j`$) in 4 dimensions. The first lesson from 3 dimensions, is that we can expect a non trivial residual action of the diffeomorphisms on the spin foam. The corresponding remaining diffeomorphisms will not change the connectivity of the spin foam but will act on its representation labels. This is not a new idea, it was advocated a long time ago in the context of Regge calculus by Rocek and Williams Rocwill . In the context of Regge triangulation, the labels are carried by the edges of the triangulation and they proved that around the flat solution there is an action of the diffeomorphism at the vertices of the triangulation. This can be easily understood as follows. Suppose we have a Regge triangulation of flat space time. To obtain such a triangulation, one can first triangulate $`^4`$ and then put as Regge labels on the edges the lengths of the edges measured with the flat metric. Now by action of a diffeomorphism on $`^4`$ we can translate one vertex of the triangulation without moving the others. This will gives us an other Regge triangulation which differs from the first one by a relabeling of the edges surrounding the vertex. This triangulation described the same piecewise linear geometry. This indicates that Regge triangulation still carry a residual action of the diffeomorphism group. It was proven by Rocek and Williams that such transformations leave the Regge action invariant.

In the 4d case, the situation in spin foam models is different from Regge calculus. First, the labels are carried by the faces of the triangulation, instead of the edges. Second, if we interpret spin foams as evolving spin networks as was first done in the literature ReisRov , there is no obvious relation with piecewise linear geometry. However one can still make a link between the discretized partition function and spin foam models KF , and try to interpret translational symmetry as in 3d, in terms of variation of the spin labels. At the classical level, one can consider the bivector field $`B^{IJ}=e^Ie^J`$, where $`e^I`$ is the frame field. This is a 2-form and its natural discretization on a triangulation is on faces, and is given by $`B_f^{IJ}=E_1^IE_2^J`$, where $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ are the discretization of the frame field $`e`$ along two edges of the face $`f`$. Now at the discretized level, the spin $`j_f`$ carried by the face $`f`$ can be interpreted as the norm of the simple bivector $`B_f`$. In 3d we interpreted the remaining diffeomorphism symmetry as changing the lengths of the edges, keeping the geometry fixed. We want to argue that a similar interpretation survive in 4d. It has been shown by Horowitz Hor  that in the first order formalism of gravity, we can trade off diffeomorphism for translational symmetry in any dimension. Around flat space, this translational symmetry acts only on the continuous frame field as $`\delta e^I=d_\omega \mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^I`$ is a 0-form field. The resulting transformation on the bivector field $`B^{IJ}=e^Ie^J`$ is $`\delta B^{IJ}=d_w\mathrm{\Psi }^{IJ}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Psi }^{IJ}=\mathrm{\Phi }^{[I}e^{J]}`$ is a frame dependent parameter of transformation. This is a 1-form, naturally discretized on the edges of the triangulation. One therefore expect the translational symmetry to act on the discretized $`B`$ field at edges of the triangulation. This leads to an action of this transformation on the 3-cells of the spin foam. This is consistent with the fact that the Bianchi identity responsible for this symmetry is a 3-form discretized along the 3-cells of the spin foam. In the light of what happens in 3d, one expects a divergence for each 3-cell of the spin foam if the diffeomorphism symmetry is not broken and if the geometry we are integrating contains flat space. That’s exactly the type of divergences which is occurring in some of the spin foam models first proposed in Depietrietal  and analyzed in perez . This open the possibility to give a physical interpretation of these divergences as coming from a residual action of the diffeomorphisms. Of course in 4 dimensions this is only a plausibility argument so far and it deserves more study.

This argumentation therefore raise the question of the meaning of finite spin foam models. There are two different types of spin foam model which have a convergent sum over spins. The first type of model is obtained when we consider euclidean gravity with a positive cosmological constant, in that case the sum over spin is restricted to be finite (the spins cannot be bigger than the cosmological constant in Planck units). There is still an action of the diffeomorphism group in 3-dimensions, but since the 3-sphere has a finite volume the volume of this group is finite. This is consistent with the interpretation that a positive cosmological constant suppress spacetimes with large volumes. This is extensively used in the context of dynamical triangulation for instance, where a positive cosmological constant is needed to make the summation convergent. In 4 dimension the inclusion of a positive cosmological constant in the euclidean theory will also lead to convergent spin foam models. We can argue in the same way that this doesn’t mean that the diffeomorphism group do not act on the spin foams but only that the volume of the symmetry group is finite in that case. In this case we therefore have a physical interpretation of the finiteness of the model. It is important to note that adding a cosmological constant help us only if its positive and if the spacetime is euclidean. If we consider lorentzian gravity with any cosmological constant or euclidean gravity with a negative cosmological constant we cannot expect any convergence of the models since the volume of the corresponding homogeneous spaces are all infinite in these cases and so will be the volume of the residual translational group.

The second kind of convergent models were first considered in perez  and correspond to a different choices of edge amplitudes. This is interpreted as a different choice of measure in spin foams, as we discussed in the introduction. Since we expect an action of diffeomorphisms on spin foam we have to understand why this action does not translate in the amplitude by an infinite factor. In these models there is no parameter we can vary which can be interpreted as a cosmological constant so we cannot really argue that the convergence possess a clear physical interpretation. An interpretation of the finiteness of the amplitude is that diffeomorphism symmetry is broken in these model. This means that we expect these models to assign different amplitudes to gauge equivalent solutions. This can be explicitly checked in three dimensions where a modification of the measure of spin foam models similar to the one done in 4-dimension can be achieved nonpert . One possible interpretation for that could be that these models are in fact gauged fixed models and should not carry a representation of the diffeomorphism group. This is however unlikely, since a Fadeev-Popov gauge fixing procedure generally involves a highly non-local determinant. The amplitude of finite spin foam models are expressed as a product of local weights (cf eq. 1) which cannot be interpreted as a Fadeev-Popov determinant. In BaezC  numerical simulation showed that the amplitude of the finite model are dominated by the spins $`0`$ and $`1/2`$ and for all practical purpose the summation over spins can be restricted these ones. In the spin foam model, the amplitude associated with a spin foam where a given face is carrying the spin $`0`$ is equal to the amplitude of the spin foam where this faces as been collapsed. So we can interpret the amplitude $`A(S)=_{j=0,1/2}A(j)`$ of a given spin foam $`S`$ as a sum over all spin foams included in $`S`$

$$A(S)=\underset{S^{}S}{}\alpha ^{N_0}\beta ^{N_1}\gamma ^{N_2},$$
(58)
where $`N_0,N_1,N_2`$ denotes the number of $`0,1,2`$ cells of the spin foams and $`\alpha =A_v(j=1/2)`$, $`\beta =A_e(j=1/2)`$, $`\gamma =A_f(j=1/2)`$ in the notation of (1). As such, the finite spin foam models are similar to dynamical triangulations models with a fixed edge lengths $`j=1/2`$. In dynamical triangulations, $`\beta =1`$ and the parameters $`\alpha ,\gamma `$ can be freely tuned, they depend on the Newton coupling constant, the cosmological constant and the scale of the lattice spacing Ambjorn . It is known that dynamical triangulations models do not carry a representation of the diffeomorphisms. However, in the limit where $`S`$ becomes infinite we can tune the parameters of the theory to recover a continuum limit in some region of phase space and restore in this limit the action of diffeomorphisms.

So the finite spin foam models have features very similar to dynamical triangulations models, namely they break the action of diffeomorphism. It does not go along the line of the spin foam philosophy which is to keep most of the symmetry of the continuum theory in the intermediate triangulation dependant levels. So far this requirement has been focused on local Lorentz symmetry but we have argued in this paper that there is the possibility to even fulfill this requirement for the local Poincaré symmetry or diffeomorphism. One reason for this requirement is the hope that it would help to get a final theory with the correct symmetries when we get rid of the triangulation dependance. This can be of course disputed and one can argue that the symmetry is restored in the coarse grain limit even if it is not implemented at the microscopic level. There is no very good reason yet to prefer one mechanism over the other. However, we still think that finite models have undesirable features. First, they behave much alike dynamical triangulation models which is not bad by itself but then it seems hard to expect spin foam to do better than what has been done in this context. The second point is that in dynamical triangulations models the parameters are freely tuned and this is important to restore diffeomorphism symmetry in the coarse grain limit. This is not a feature of spin foam models so far.

In order to conclude, we have showed in this paper that there is a residual action of translational symmetry on an individual spin foam and that this explains the infinity or ‘anomaly’ of the Ponzano-Regge model. We have argued that such a residual action of translational symmetry should be expected for higher dimensional models. This would give a physical meaning to the divergences observed in the 4D model proposed in Depietrietal . On the contrary we have disputed the relevance of the finite spin foam models proposed in perez . Our argumentation is by no mean conclusive since it contains hypothesis and unresolved issues but we hope that it will launch a fruitful and successful debate on this issues.

Acknowledgments : We thank A. Ashtekar for relevant questions on the gauge fixing procedure. We thank H. Pfeiffer and A. Perez for discussions. D. L. is supported by a MENRT grant and Eurodoc program from Région Rhône-Alpes. L. F. is supported by CNRS and an ACI-Blanche grant.

## Appendix A Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula

In this section we recall how to formally obtain the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula. In particular we obtain the expression (28) used in the text. We are interested in the computation of the expression

$$X=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{Z_1}e^{Z_2}\mathrm{}e^{Z_N}\right)$$
(59)
for $`Z_1,\mathrm{}Z_N`$ Lie algebra elements. One can expand the exponentials

$$X=\mathrm{ln}\left[\left(\underset{p_1}{}\frac{Z_1^{p_1}}{p_1!}\right)\left(\underset{p_2}{}\frac{Z_2^{p_2}}{p_2!}\right)\mathrm{}\left(\underset{p_N}{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N}}{p_N!}\right)\right]$$
(60)
Isolating the term $`p_1=p_2=\mathrm{}=p_N=0`$ one can rewrite it

$$X=\mathrm{ln}\left[1+\underset{\stackrel{p_1\mathrm{}p_N}{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_N1}}{}\frac{Z_1^{p_1}}{p_1!}\frac{Z_2^{p_2}}{p_2!}\mathrm{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N}}{p_N!}\right]$$
(61)
Expanding now the logarithm one gets

$$X=\underset{k=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k1}}{k}\left(\underset{\stackrel{p_1\mathrm{}p_N}{p_1+\mathrm{}+p_N1}}{}\frac{Z_1^{p_1}}{p_1!}\frac{Z_2^{p_2}}{p_2!}\mathrm{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N}}{p_N!}\right)^k$$
(62)
Expanding the term to the power $`k`$, one gets a sum over all the ways to take the orderer product of $`k`$ terms in the sum, namely

$$X=\underset{k=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k1}}{k}\underset{^k}{}\left[\frac{Z_1^{p_1^1}}{p_1^1!}\frac{Z_2^{p_2^1}}{p_2^1!}\mathrm{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N^1}}{p_N^1!}\right]\left[\frac{Z_1^{p_1^2}}{p_1^2!}\frac{Z_2^{p_2^2}}{p_2^2!}\mathrm{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N^2}}{p_N^2!}\right]\mathrm{}\left[\frac{Z_1^{p_1^k}}{p_1^k!}\frac{Z_2^{p_2^k}}{p_2^k!}\mathrm{}\frac{Z_N^{p_N^k}}{p_N^k!}\right]$$
(63)
where the sum is over the set $`^k`$

$$^k=\left\{p_i^j,i=1\mathrm{}N,j=1\mathrm{}k\right|\underset{i}{}p_i^j1j\}$$
(64)
One thus obtains an expression of $`X`$ as a polynome in the $`Z_i`$. Each monome is obtained as a product of $`k`$ subterms, the condition $`_ip_i^j1j`$ states that each of these subterms is non-empty. $`X`$ is a Lie algebra element, while each monome in the sum at the LHS is generically an element of the universal enveloping algebra $`U(𝔤)`$. The Lie algebra element of $`U(𝔤)`$ are characterized by the fact one can give $`U(𝔤)`$ a coproduct such that the Lie algebra elements are the primitive elements of this coproduct. One can apply at both sides of the equation a projector $`\pi :U(𝔤)𝔤`$ which projects on the Lie algebra elements of $`U(𝔤)`$. It exists different projectors of this type, we will use the most common namely the Dynkin projector. It is defined in the following way, consider a monome which is written as $`x_1x_2\mathrm{}x_M`$ for $`x_i𝔤`$ the projector is defined

$$\pi (x_1\mathrm{}x_M)=\frac{1}{M}[[[\mathrm{}[[x_1,x_2],x_3]\mathrm{}]x_{M1}],x_M]$$
(65)
In particular, we have for $`M2`$

$$\pi (x_1\mathrm{}x_M)=\frac{M1}{M}[\pi (x_1\mathrm{}x_{M1}),x_M]$$
(66)
This is this projector which allows to express the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula in terms of commutators of the originals $`Z_I`$. Consider one of the monome, i-e fix $`k`$ and a set of indices $`p_i^j`$. We consider the action of this projector

$$\pi \left[\left(Z_1^{p_1^1}Z_2^{p_2^1}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^1}\right)\left(Z_1^{p_1^2}Z_2^{p_2^2}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^2}\right)\mathrm{}\left(Z_1^{p_1^k}Z_2^{p_2^k}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^k}\right)\right]$$
(67)
The size of the monome is denoted $`M=_{i,j}p_i^j`$. First, if the monome is of size $`M=1`$, this means that there is only one subterm (recall the subterms are asked to be non-empty), hence $`k=1`$, and the projector acts as the identity. Now we consider the general case $`M2`$. To use the expression (66), we need to understand what is the last term of the monome. We know that the $`k`$-th subterm is non-empty since $`_ip_i^k1`$. We pick up the last non-zero element in the sequence $`p_1^k\mathrm{}p_N^k`$ and denote it $`p_{i_0}^k`$. This means that the monome ends with the element $`Z_{i_0}`$ and that the action of $`\pi `$ on it is expressed as a commutator

$$[\frac{M1}{M}\pi \left(Z_1^{p_1^1}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^1}\mathrm{}Z_1^{p_1^k}\mathrm{}Z_{i_01}^{p_{i_01}^k}Z_{i_0}^{p_{i_0}^k1}\right),Z_{i_0}]$$
(68)
The total projection of all the monomes of size $`M2`$ of (63) can be rewritten as a sum of commutators of a Lie algebra element with a single $`Z_{i_0}`$

$$\underset{i_0}{}[\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_0},Z_{i_0}]$$
(69)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_0}`$ is defined by

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_0}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{+\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(1)^{k1}}{k}\underset{_{i_0}^k}{}\left(\underset{i,j}{}\frac{1}{p_i^j!}\right)\left(\frac{_{i,j}p_i^j}{_{i,j}p_i^j+1}\right)\pi \left[Z_1^{p_1^1}Z_2^{p_2^1}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^1}Z_1^{p_1^2}Z_2^{p_2^2}\mathrm{}Z_N^{p_N^2}\mathrm{}Z_1^{p_1^k}Z_2^{p_2^k}\mathrm{}Z_{i_0}^{p_{i_0}^k}\right]$$
(70)
where the set of indices $`_{i_0}^k`$ is

$`p_i^j|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i^j1,i=1..N,j=1..k1`$ (71)
$`p_i^k|{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}p_i^k0,i=1..i_0`$ (72)
This set $`_{i_0}^k`$ means that we have taken the set $`^k`$ but cut the indices in the last subterm $`k`$ at order $`i_0`$ and drop the condition $`p_i1`$. Putting together the results for $`M=1`$ and $`M2`$ we get

$$X=\mathrm{ln}\left(e^{Z_1}\mathrm{}e^{Z_N}\right)=\underset{i_0}{}Z_{i_0}+[\mathrm{\Omega }_{i_0},Z_{i_0}]$$
(73)
One can estimate the first terms in the complicated expression of the $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k<i}{}}Z_i`$ (74)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{i<j<k}{}}[Z_i,Z_j]{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}{\displaystyle \underset{k<i<j}{}}[Z_i,Z_j]+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[Z_i,Z_k]`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}`$


format: text

text:
# Correlation functions of scattering matrix elements in microwave cavities with strong absorption

## 1 Introduction

The correlation hole as seen in the Fourier transform of the stick spectrum of a closed Hamiltonian quantum system is particularly sensitive to long range spectral correlations, typical for random matrix models. This behavior in turn is indicative of chaos in the classical equivalent of the system via the quantum chaos conjecture . Extensive work on the detection of such correlations using the correlation hole has been done in molecular physics , nuclear physics , and in the analysis of spectra from microwave cavities  and optical resonators . As the energy spectrum often is not available, Jost and Lombardi have early focused attention on the analysis of intensity spectra (see e.g. ).

The Fourier transform $`\widehat{\sigma }_\alpha (t)`$ of the intensity spectrum $`\sigma _\alpha (E)=_i\alpha _i^2\delta (EE_i)`$ for a system with eigenenergies $`E_i`$ and a state with amplitudes $`\alpha _i`$ yields

$$\widehat{c}_A(t)=\left|\widehat{\sigma }_\alpha (t)\right|^2=\underset{i}{}\alpha _i^4+\underset{ij}{}\alpha _i^2\alpha _j^2\mathrm{}^{2\pi \mathrm{}(E_iE_j)t}.$$
(1)
The inverse participation ratio $`_i\alpha _i^4`$ is $`3/(N+2)`$ for a random state. Averaging over a Gaussian orthogonal ensemble (GOE) in the large $`N`$-limit leads to $`N\widehat{c}_A(t)=3b(t)`$. Here $`N`$ is the dimension of the matrices and $`b(t)`$ is the two-point form factor of the GOE . For the corresponding stick spectrum $`1b(t)`$ is obtained instead. For intensity spectra the correlation hole is thus reduced to $`1/3`$ of its full value. This reduction makes the detection of the correlation hole difficult. Reference  discusses different ways to overcome this basic problem, which becomes more acute if cross sections are considered. Indeed, in the case of cross sections, the use of auto-correlation functions was shown to be of very limited efficiency.

The cross correlations of independent intensity spectra, by contrast, display the full correlation hole. Indeed, performing the GOE average we find, instead of an inverse participation ratio, the product of two vector norms, i.e.

$$\widehat{c}_C(t)=\widehat{\sigma }_1^{}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_2(t)=\underset{i}{}\alpha _i^2\beta _i^2+\underset{ij}{}\alpha _i^2\beta _j^2\mathrm{}^{2\pi \mathrm{}(E_iE_j)t},$$
(2)
where $`\beta _i`$ refers to the component of the second state. Therefore the cross correlation behaves as $`1b(t)`$.

This simple fact has led to a detailed study of the possibility to observe the correlation hole in correlation functions of total and partial cross sections . To allow a comparison with regular systems, the Poisson orthogonal ensemble (POE) was used. It combines random, statistically independent eigenvalues  with orthogonally invariant eigenvectors . The POE does not have the universal implications of the GOE, both because the assumptions about spectral statistics are less well founded, and because we easily may encounter situations of preferred coordinate systems. Nevertheless, it is the best random matrix model for integrability that is available. Indeed cross correlations prove to be the tool of choice to detect the correlation hole. Clearly the main interest of such an analysis results when the total absorption, i.e. the sum over all transmission coefficients, is fairly large, which implies that the average total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is large compared to the mean level spacing $`d`$.

In the present paper we analyze the total cross sections of several normal-conducting microwave resonators with two antennas, obtained from measurements of the scattering matrix (S-matrix) via the optical theorem. The spectra of the studied systems exhibit different types of statistics, ranging from POE to GOE behavior. The wall absorption is significant and either comparable to or much larger than the transmission of the antennas. This leads us from resonances with small overlap to such with very strong overlap. Absorption channels are not directly accessible to experiments.

Our experiments address two interesting and quite general questions: On one hand, we test the use of cross-correlation functions to identify the effect of correlations in the spectrum of a chaotic Hamiltonian in the case of overlapping resonances. The results of reference  are compared with the data. On the other hand, we investigate whether absorption has to be included in terms of many weak or few strong channels, or whether the two cases cannot be distinguished. For this purpose we extend the results of  to include an infinite number of weak channels, which we shall show to cause an exponential decay of the correlation functions.

In section 2 we recall some basics of random matrix scattering theory and some results of  that are essential to our analysis, and we discuss the effect of a large number of channels with small absorption. In the following section the experimental setup and the studied billiards are explained. In sections 4 and 5 we shall see that the signatures of chaos are more pronounced in the cross correlation than in the auto correlation. Further we show that a description of absorption in terms of many channels is essential to obtain agreement with the experiment even in cases where the total absorption is of order one.

## 2  Basics of scattering theory and theoretical developments for absorption channels

There is an exact correspondence between the stationary classical wave equation of an ideal quasi-two-dimensional microwave cavity and the stationary Schrödinger equation for a two-dimensional quantum billiard of the same shape. This correspondence includes the scattering situation, by taking the antennas explicitly into account , and ultimately even absorption phenomena.

The S-matrix for this situation is frequently used to describe resonant scattering arising e.g. in nuclear, atomic or mesoscopic systems :

$$S(E)=1\mathrm{}V^T\frac{1}{EH_{\mathrm{eff}}}V,H_{\mathrm{eff}}=H_{\mathrm{int}}\frac{\mathrm{}}{2}VV^T.$$
(3)
Here, $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ is the Hamiltonian describing the closed billiard, and $`V`$ is a $`N\times M`$ matrix, which couples the $`N`$ interior wave functions to $`M`$ decay channels. For each antenna we need one channel or column vector, where the components $`V_{ja}`$ are proportional to the amplitude of the billiard eigenfunction at the position of the antenna,

$$V_{ja}\mathrm{\Psi }_j(\stackrel{}{r}_a),$$
(4)
provided that the diameter of the antennas is small compared to the wavelength. This approximation may only be used in regions far from any thresholds, and the proportionality “constant” typically varies slowly with frequency . If symmetry-equivalent positions of the antennas are avoided, then typically the column vectors of $`V`$ are approximately orthogonal to each other. Though not essential, this assumption simplifies the theoretical analysis.

It is convenient to work in the eigenbasis of the closed system $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$. Then the scattering matrix depends on the eigenvalues of $`H_{\mathrm{int}}`$ and on the coupling amplitudes, defined in equation (4). The analysis of the experiment is carried out in the framework of random matrix theory, where chaos is represented by a GOE and integrability by a POE. The two ensembles differ only in the distributions of the eigenvalues, while orthogonal invariance implies in both cases that the columns of the matrix $`V`$ are distributed according to the invariant measure of the orthogonal group. In practice we use independent random Gaussian variables for the matrix elements, an approximation which becomes valid for large $`N`$.

We first present some elementary results of scattering theory using the notation of . From equation (3) the cross sections are derived as

$$\sigma _{ab}(E)=\left|\delta _{ab}S_{ab}(E)\right|^2.$$
(5)
Note that the experimental setup allows to measure $`S_{ab}`$ directly. This avoids the difficulties related to the measurement of total cross sections. The optical theorem establishes a linear relation between the S-matrix elements and the total cross sections:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)}(E)=2(1\mathrm{Re}S_{aa}).$$
(6)
The first quantity to study is the average S-matrix. The average can be a spectral average (denoted by $`\mathrm{}`$), an ensemble average $`(\overline{\text{}\mathrm{}})`$, or a combination of both. For the average S-matrix all these averages must coincide. In  it has been shown that

$$\overline{S_{aa}(E)}=\frac{1\kappa _a}{1+\kappa _a},$$
(7)
if $`\overline{S(E)}`$ is real and diagonal in the block of observable channels. The $`\kappa _a`$ are real and positive parameters and relate to the coupling constants $`V_{ja}`$ and the transmission coefficients $`T_a`$, respectively, via

$$\kappa _a=\frac{\pi }{2d}V_{ja}^2,T_a=\frac{4\kappa _a}{(1+\kappa _a)^2}.$$
(8)
The analysis will be performed in terms of correlation functions in the time domain,

$$\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}](t)=\frac{1}{L}\left\{\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)}(t)\widehat{\sigma }_{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}(t)\right\},$$
(9)
where $`\widehat{\sigma }`$ are Fourier transforms of the cross sections. The Fourier transforms are taken over a window of size $`L`$. It should be large compared to the average level distance $`d`$ but sufficiently small so that the average S-matrix may be assumed constant.

Note that due to the optical theorem (6) the correlation function between total cross sections is equal to the correlation function between the corresponding S-matrix elements:

$$\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}](t)=\widehat{C}[S_{aa},S_{bb}^{}](|t|).$$
(10)
For the GOE the correlation function can be calculated exactly, as will be shown below. For the general case we rely on the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation (RBWA) .

The rescaling is necessary, as soon as the transmission coefficients are not extremely small. In the standard Breit-Wigner approximation, the average width of the resonances is given by:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{2d}{\pi }\underset{c=1}{\overset{M}{}}\kappa _c.$$
(11)
Yet Ericson showed that in the limit of many channels of comparable coupling strength, the correlation function of S-matrix elements or cross sections is proportional to $`\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Gamma }_Ct)`$. According to this derivation  $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_C`$ should be equal to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, but actually

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_C=\frac{d}{2\pi }\underset{c=1}{\overset{M}{}}T_c$$
(12)
gives the correct value for the correlation width. The two expressions coincide only in the limit where $`_{c=1}^MT_c1`$. Thus the standard Breit-Wigner approximation is not valid in the range we are interested in. Fortunately, it turns out that the rescaling $`\kappa _cT_c/4`$ compensates for this defect up to rather strong overlaps . The rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation has already been applied in the regime of non-overlapping resonances , but without mentioning the difference to the usual Breit-Wigner result.

In the case of the correlation functions (10), we first write the S-matrix elements (3) in terms of the standard Breit-Wigner approximation. Then we plug this into equation (9) and average over the spectrum of $`H_0`$. At last we perform the rescaling to obtain

$$\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}](t)=T_aT_b\left\{g_ag_b\mathrm{}^{Gt}g_a\mathrm{}^{Gt/2}g_b\mathrm{}^{Gt/2}b_2(t)\right\},$$
(13)
with $`G=_{c=1}^MT_cg_c`$. The normalized squared amplitudes $`V_{ia}^2/V_{ia}^2`$ are replaced by random variables $`g_c`$. Due to the orthogonal invariance of the ensembles considered, these variables are assumed to be Porter-Thomas distributed . Note that different situations may occur in the case of symmetries or integrable dynamics.

We account for wall absorption by introducing $`M_W`$ additional channels. The transmission summed over all of them must equal the wall absorption,

$$T_W=\underset{c=1}{\overset{M_W}{}}T_{M_A+c},$$
(14)
where $`M_A=2`$ is the number of antennas. If $`M_W`$ is small, the correlation functions depend on all transmission coefficients individually, and no simplification is possible. However, if $`M_W`$ is large, we may use that asymptotically

$$\widehat{C}[S_{ab},S_{cd}^{}](t)\mathrm{}^{T_Wt}\widehat{C}[\stackrel{~}{S}_{ab},\stackrel{~}{S}_{cd}^{}](t)\text{as}M_W\mathrm{},\underset{c>M_A}{\mathrm{max}}(T_c)0,$$
(15)
where $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{ab}`$ describes the scattering system with only $`M_A`$ channels, obtained by eliminating the last $`M_W`$ columns in the coupling matrix $`V`$ (see equation (3)). For the rescaled Breit-Wigner result (13) this proposition follows from the central limit theorem.

For later use we produce the result for the correlation function in the case of two antennas with equal transmission coefficients $`T_1=T_2=T_A`$. If the absorption in the walls is taken into account in the many channel limit via equation (15), the ensemble averages in equation (13) involve two random variables $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ only. Assuming that both are uncorrelated Porter-Thomas variables, and using that $`G=T_A(g_1+g_2)+T_W`$, one can evaluate the ensemble integrals analytically. This yields

$$\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}](t)=T_A^2\mathrm{}^{T_Wt}\left\{(1+2\delta _{ab})(1+2T_At)^3(1+T_At)^4b_2(t)\right\}.$$
(16)
In the GOE case, expression (15) can also be verified for the VWZ integral , which gives an analytical expression for the exact correlation function in equation (10). The Fourier transform of the VWZ integral reads :

$$C[S_{ab},S_{cd}^{}](t)=\frac{1}{4}_{\mathrm{max}(0,t1)}^tr(tr)(r+1t)\underset{e=1}{\overset{M}{}}\left[1T_e(tr)\right]U(r),$$
(17)
where

$`U(r)`$ $`=`$ $`2{\displaystyle _0^{r^2}}x{\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ab}\delta _{cd}\mathrm{\Delta }_a\mathrm{\Delta }_c+(\delta _{ac}\delta _{bd}+\delta _{ad}\delta _{bc})\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}}{(t^2r^2+x)^2\sqrt{x(x+2r+1)}\sqrt{_{e=1}^M(1+2T_er+T_e^2x)}}},`$ (18)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_a`$ $`=`$ $`2T_a\sqrt{1T_a}\left({\displaystyle \frac{r+T_ax}{1+T_a(2r+T_ax)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{tr}{1T_a(tr)}}\right),`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{ab}`$ $`=`$ $`2T_aT_b({\displaystyle \frac{T_aT_bx^2+[T_aT_br+(T_a+T_b)(r+1)1]x+r(2r+1)}{(1+2T_ar+T_a^2x)(1+2T_br+T_b^2x)}}`$ (20)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(tr)(r+1t)}{[1T_a(tr)][1T_b(tr)]}}).`$
We split the products occurring in expressions (17) and (18) and consider that part running over the absorption channels. In the asymptotic limit of equation (15), we find

$`{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{M_W}{}}}\left[1T_{M_A+c}(tr)\right]\mathrm{}^{T_W(tr)}`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{c=1}{\overset{M_W}{}}}[1+2T_{M_A+c}r+T_{M_A+c}^2x]^{1/2}\mathrm{}^{T_Wr},`$ (22)
The $`r`$-dependent exponentials cancel, which proves our conjecture for the GOE case.

It will be useful to investigate the effect of the number of absorption channels $`M_W`$ on the correlation function. For this purpose, we assume the total wall absorption to be fixed, $`T_W=1`$, and distributed equally among the absorption channels $`T_{M_A+c}=T_W/M_W`$. Figure 1(a) shows the behavior of the auto-correlation function for the case of two antennas with $`T_A=T_1=T_2=0.26`$ for different values of $`M_W`$. Note the significant changes in the shapes of the curves when $`M_W`$ is varied. There are two previous microwave experiments where the channel number dependence of the auto-correlation function was studied. The first one by Doron et al.  failed to see any difference between exponential and algebraic decay behavior . However, in the more recent work by Alt et al.  an algebraic decay of the auto-correlation function was observed.

In figure 1(b) we compare the exact result with the result from the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation for $`M_W=\mathrm{}`$ using the same values for $`T_A`$ and $`T_W`$ as in figure 1(a). The difference between the RBWA and the exact result is very small. This permits us to use the much simpler and more flexible RBWA in the analysis of our experimental data. For larger values of $`T_A`$ the RBWA is less accurate than in the example above, but it can still be used to determine $`T_W`$ reliably from the auto-correlation function. The accuracy of the RBWA is discussed in detail in reference .

## 3 Experiment

Since the experiment is described in detail elsewhere , we concentrate on the aspects relevant in the present context. Reflection and transmission measurements have been performed in microwave cavities of various shapes. All cavities are flat, with top and bottom plate parallel to each other. The cavities are quasi-two-dimensional for frequencies $`\nu <\nu _{max}=c/(2h)`$ ($`h`$: height of the billiard). In this regime there is a complete equivalence between the stationary wave equation and the corresponding stationary Schrödinger equation, where the $`z`$ component of the electric field corresponds to the quantum mechanical wave function,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)+E\mathrm{\Psi }(x,y)=0,E=\left(\frac{2\pi \nu }{c}\right)^2,$$
(23)
with Dirichlet boundary conditions. The antennas consisted of copper wires with a diameter of $`1`$mm, projecting $`l_p=2`$ or $`4`$mm into the resonator. An Agilent 8720ES vector network analyzer was used to determine the complete S-matrix. Measurements were taken in the frequency range from $`1`$ to $`16`$GHz with a resolution of $`0.5`$MHz.

The unwanted contribution of the cables to the S-matrix was removed by standard calibration procedures. It was not possible, however, to get rid of the contribution of connectors and antennas in this way. This posed a problem in particular for the reliable determination of the phase, which is vital for the cross correlation measurements. Therefore, the phase shift from the antennas was determined from a reference measurement, where the cavity was removed, and only the antennas and the supporting top plate were present. We checked that the average S-matrix is in good approximation real and diagonal.

Four different cavities were used, which are presented in table 1. The rectangular and the Robnik billiard both have fixed geometries. Therefore, no ensemble average can be taken for these systems. Instead, we performed 10 measurements with different antenna positions on each system. By this we obtained 10 spectra of essentially the same system (it is slightly altered by the change of the antenna positions), but with different intensities for each of the resonances.

The billiard with threefold symmetry has been discussed in detail in . It is composed of an outer part and an insert, both with $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry. By rotating the insert we get an ensemble of systems all displaying $`C_3`$ symmetry. However, configurations with $`C_{3v}`$ symmetry have been avoided. We performed 30 measurements with different rotation angles and fixed antenna positions. The two antenna positions were in symmetry equivalent or non-equivalent positions, alternatively.

The fully chaotic billiard is a variant of the $`C_3`$ billiard, where the insert was placed out of the center avoiding any symmetry. We performed 50 measurements for different positions of the insert. The classical dynamics for the latter two billiards is completely chaotic.

As described in section 2, the transmission coefficients $`T_A`$ of the antennas are obtained from the average S-matrix (see equations (7) and (8)). In figure 2 the results for $`T_A`$ as a function of frequency are shown for the rectangular and the fully chaotic billiard. One notices a strong frequency dependence of the coupling. Such a behavior is typical for wire antennas. For each system, the two antennas yield approximately the same transmission coefficients. In view of the frequency dependence of $`T_A`$ and a comparable one of $`T_W`$ to be discussed in section 4, we examined frequency intervals with a width of 1 GHz to assure that the average S-matrix and the total absorption are approximately constant.

The frequency dependence of the wall absorption is mainly due to the skin effect . The additional width acquired by the resonances is

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_W(\alpha )=\frac{8\pi ^2}{c^2}\nu ^2\frac{\delta (\nu )}{h}\left(1+\frac{hL}{2A}\xi (\alpha )\right),\delta (\nu )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\pi \mu _0\sigma \nu }},$$
(24)
where $`\delta (\nu )`$ is the so-called skin depth, and $`\mu _0`$ and $`\sigma `$ are the susceptibility and the conductance of the cavity walls, respectively. The dimensionless quantity $`\xi (\alpha )`$ is of order one. It depends on the particular resonances, indexed by $`\alpha `$.

To describe the wall absorption within our statistical model, we consider the average $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W`$ and the variance $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_w)^2`$ of the absorption width. The number of absorption channels $`M_W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ (with equal transmission coefficients) can be determined taking into account that in the statistical model $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_W`$ is the sum of $`M_W^{\mathrm{eff}}`$ random Porter-Thomas variables. In order to reproduce the average absorption width and its variance, it must hold:

$$\frac{1}{M_W^{\mathrm{eff}}}=\frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }_W)^2}{\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_W^2}\left(\frac{hL}{2A}\right)^2(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi )^2,$$
(25)
where $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\xi )^2`$ is the variance of $`\xi (\alpha )`$ as it fluctuates for different resonances. As $`\xi (\alpha )`$ is of order one, its variance cannot be larger. Therefore, $`M_W^{\mathrm{eff}}[2A/(hL)]^2`$, which is greater than $`200`$ for the studied cavities. This is certainly indistinguishable from an infinite number of channels.

## 4 Auto-correlation function

In this section we examine the Fourier transform of the auto-correlation function $`\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)}](t)`$ as given in equation (9). Figure 3 shows logarithmic plots of the auto-correlation functions for the rectangular and the fully chaotic billiard together with the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation for GOE and POE - assuming an infinite number of weakly coupled channels for the absorption in the walls (see equation (16)). The results for the rectangular billiard do not allow us to distinguish between GOE and POE behavior due to their large fluctuations. At most we can see a hint of the fact that the auto-correlation function for rectangular billiards tends to 2.25 instead of 3 as $`t0`$. For rectangular billiards the squared amplitudes (entering into equation (13)) are not Porter-Thomas distributed, leading to an auto-correlation function that is closer to the prediction for GOE than to the one for POE.

The ensemble averaged auto-correlation function of the fully chaotic billiards shows much smaller fluctuations, of course, and we observe a very good agreement with the GOE prediction. The correlation hole can be seen in particular in the linear plot shown in the inset of figure 3(b). However, the correlation hole is reduced to $`1/3`$ of its full value (see section 1), and the difference to integrable systems may be even smaller.

The experimental auto-correlation function follows the theoretical curve for an infinite number of absorption channels over five orders of magnitude. Then the auto correlation deviates from the theoretical curve. This is a consequence of the finite frequency interval used in the Fourier transform. The long-time behavior is dominated by the Welch filter applied. Comparison with figure 1 shows that more than 100 weakly coupled channels have to be assumed to explain this behavior, but the simplifying assumption of infinitely many channels is in accordance with the experiment as well. Further, we observe that the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation is sufficient to describe the experimental results.

As the antenna transmission $`T_A`$ has been obtained independently, the wall transmission $`T_W`$ can be determined by fitting the experimental auto-correlation function with the corresponding rescaled Breit-Wigner expression. This procedure works well for a large frequency range, and all results presented in this paper have been obtained in this way. In the low frequency regime, however, a two-parameter fit of the auto-correlation function, treating both $`T_W`$ and $`T_A`$ as free parameters, yielded somewhat better results. Figure 4 shows the frequency dependence of $`T_W`$, as determined from the auto-correlation function, both for the rectangular and for the fully chaotic billiard.

## 5 Cross-correlation function

We now present cross-correlation functions $`\widehat{C}[\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(a)},\sigma _{\mathrm{tot}}^{(b)}](t)`$ of the total cross sections, which are equivalent to the ones of the respective diagonal S-matrix elements, see equation (10). Figure 5 shows $`\widehat{C}[\sigma _{tot}^{(a)},\sigma _{tot}^{(b)}]/T_A^2`$ for the fully chaotic billiard. The dotted and the dashed lines correspond to the expectation from the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation.

Even after averaging over 50 realizations, the fluctuations are still quite strong. Therefore we apply a smoothing over an interval of size $`\mathrm{ln}2/T_W`$, leading to the smooth behavior displayed in figure 5(b). All results presented below are smoothed in this way.

Figure 6 shows the smoothed results for the fully chaotic billiard both in linear and logarithmic plots for three different frequency regimes. In contrast to the expectation for integrable systems, the cross correlation is suppressed for small times $`t`$. The measurement thus clearly exhibits the correlation hole expected for chaotic systems. In particular the logarithmic plots demonstrate that the experimental results are in good agreement with the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation for the GOE over several orders of magnitude, and clearly distinguishable from the POE expectations. For higher frequencies the absorption increases, resulting in a higher value for $`T_W`$ and thus a sharper decline of the cross correlation.

As an example for an integrable system, we present the cross-correlation function for the rectangular billiard in figure 7(a) together with the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation for the GOE and the POE. The difference to chaotic systems is clearly seen. The discrepancy of our results from the POE is not surprising, because the antennas disturb the system, leading to a shift of resonance positions and thus to correlations in the spectrum. The intermediate situation is shown in figure 7(b) for the Robnik billiard with mirror symmetry and non-symmetric antenna positions. For $`\lambda =0.4`$ the classical phase space of the Robnik billiard is chaotic , apart from possible tiny stability islands . Additionally, the theoretical result for the superposition of two GOE is plotted as dash-dotted line. In this case the two-point form factor $`b_2(t)`$ for the GOE in equation (16) has to be replaced by $`b_2(2t)`$.

In systems with point symmetries caution is commanded with respect to the antenna positions, because the amplitudes at symmetric antenna positions are strongly correlated. This is illustrated in figure 8 showing the cross correlation for the billiard with $`C_3`$ symmetry both for symmetric and asymmetric antenna positions. In addition to the POE and GOE curves, the rescaled Breit-Wigner expectation for the $`C_3`$ billiard is shown. For the two-point form factor in equation (16) the results from reference  are used:

$$b_2^{C3}(t)=\frac{1}{3}\left(b_2^{GOE}(3t)+2b_2^d\left(\frac{3t}{2}\right)\right),$$
(26)
where $`b_2^{GOE}(t)`$ is the two-point form factor for the singlet GOE spectrum and

$$b_2^d(t)=\mathrm{}^{8\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }t^2}+2\mathrm{}^{4\pi ^2\mathrm{\Delta }t^2}b_2^{GUE}(t)$$
(27)
is the one for the doublet GUE spectrum. The parameter $`\mathrm{\Delta }=0.125`$ accomodates the splitting of the doublet spectrum due to symmetry breaking.

For asymmetric antenna positions, a good correspondence between experiment and theory is found, but for symmetric positions there are dramatic deviations. In the ideal case one would expect a result which is much closer to the auto-correlation function, but small deviations from symmetry induce uncontrollable variations.

## 6 Summary and Outlook

We have measured the diagonal S-matrix elements of two channels as a function of frequency for a variety of different microwave cavities with and without symmetries, and with integrable or chaotic classical dynamics. They displayed different amounts of resonance overlap and antenna coupling. Via the optical theorem the diagonal S-matrix elements contain the same information as the total cross sections.

We discuss the experimental results in terms of auto-correlation and cross-correlation functions in the time domain. The wall absorption of the billiards is expressed in terms of unmeasurable channels. We find that an exponential decay of correlations, corresponding to infinitely many channels, describes the experimental results adequately. Comparison with the rescaled Breit-Wigner approximation for random matrix models shows good agreement with experiment, if we use the wall absorption as a fit parameter. The cross correlation was expected to display the difference between integrable and chaotic systems more clearly than the auto correlation. Indeed, our experiments confirm that the correlation hole is more pronounced in the cross-correlation function.

Due to the optical theorem, total cross sections are accessible via the measurement of reflection matrix elements for microwave cavities. This is in contrast to particle scattering experiments, where total cross sections can only be measured in exceptional cases and their measurement in two different entrance channels is even more difficult. In these experiments only partial cross sections are available. Theory  suggests that the correlation hole should be best observable in correlations between cross sections without any coinciding channel indices. The simplest case of this type is the cross-correlation function of different elastic cross sections.

U Kuhl is thanked for numerous suggestions and helpful discussions. Discussions took place at a workshop at the Centro Internacional de Ciencias in Cuernavaca, Mexico, in 2001. TG thanks the EU Human Potential Program contract HPRN-CT-2000-00156 for financial support. THS acknowledges support by CONACyT grant 25192-E, and by DGAPA (UNAM) grant IN-109000. The experiments were supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

## References