text:
# Charged Higgs Production in the 1 TeV Domain as a Probe of Supersymmetric Models *footnote **footnote *Partially supported by EU contract HPRN-CT-2000-00149

## I Introduction

In the last few years, a considerable effort has been devoted to the precise formulation of the theoretical predictions for electroweak effects in pair production at future lepton colliders. In particular, the considered center of mass (c.m.) energies have been those that represent the final goal of two proposed future machines, roughly one TeV for LC  and three TeV for CLIC . The main motivation of the various investigations has been the fact that, within the electroweak sector of the SM, for c.m. energies of the few TeV size, it has been realized  that unexpectedly large virtual effects arise at the one loop level, that could make the validity of this (relatively) simple perturbative calculation highly debatable. These terms have the analogous dependence on energy as those originally determined in QED by Sudakov ; at one loop, they can either be of squared logarithmic (leading) (DL) or of linear logarithmic (subleading) (SL) kind, and their numerical effect in several observables breaks the ”safety” few percent limit (fixed by the aimed ( one percent) experimental accuracy) when one enters the few (2-3) TeV region, making the request of a higher order calculation to become imperative in that range.

Within the SM framework a resummation to all orders actually exists to next-to subleading order for final massless fermion pairs, and to subleading order for general massive final pairs . In the (particularly relevant) case of massive final fermions a comparison (to subleading logarithmic accuracy) between one-loop and resummed expansions has been performed . The results indicate that, for c.m. energies entering the few (2-3) TeV range, the discrepancies between the two approximations become intolerably (i.e. beyond a relative ten percent) large. On the contrary, for energies in the one TeV region, no appreciable difference shows up: to subleading order, the one-loop description appears there adequate. The question remains that of whether possible next-to subleading (for instance constant) terms might play a role.

For massive (third generation) final quark pairs, this problem was investigated in an “effective” way , trying to fit the exact one-loop calculation of a simple class of diagrams with a logarithmic expansion also containing an additional constant. The result was that, in the one TeV region, this fit was adequately describing the exact calculation, with the logarithmic coefficients exactly predicted by the Sudakov expansion and a constant term given by the fit. The size of this term was (relatively) “large”, about one half of the logarithmic contribution, with opposite sign (thus decreasing the overall effect). The apparent conclusion was that, in that energy range, a one-loop Sudakov expansion implemented by an extra constant term seems to be able to reproduce the exact calculation with an accuracy that is largely sufficient, at the expected experimental precision level of a relative one percent.

As a comment on the previous conclusion, it can be noticed that the possible experimental determination of the separate logarithmic and constant terms would not lead to any new information in the SM, since all the various coefficients will depend on the (fixed) known values of the SM parameters. In this sense, accurate measurements of massive (and massless) fermion pair production at LC in the one TeV region can only provide, in the SM framework, another experimental test of the validity of the model.

A natural question that arises at this stage is that of whether similar, or different, conclusions can be drawn for the simplest supersymmetric generalization of the SM that can still be treated perturbatively, i.e. the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. This model and its Sudakov expansion has been actually already considered to subleading logarithmic accuracy in a number of papers, to the one-loop level for massless and massive fermion pairs  and resumming to all orders for sfermion and Higgs production . In the latter case, a comparison between the one-loop and the resummed expansion has also been performed under the assumption of a relatively light SUSY scenario, showing that, in strict analogy with the SM situation, the two calculations are essentially identical in the one TeV region, while deep differences show up in the (2,3) TeV energy range. No effort was made to try to estimate the size of a possible next to subleading term in the one-loop expansion in the one TeV region from a fit to the exact calculation, analogous to that performed in  for the SM case.

The aim of this paper is precisely that of studying the feasibility and the possible advantages of performing an effective logarithmic one-loop expansion, implemented by a next-to subleading term, in the energy region around 1 TeV, for the MSSM. We anticipate that a preliminary necessary condition will be that of a light SUSY scenario, in which all the SUSY masses relevant for the considered process are supposed to be not heavier than a few hundred GeV. This means that the starting picture will be one where SUSY has already been discovered via direct production of (at least some) sparticles, so that a number of SUSY masses is already known and fixed. This is not obviously true for other quantities of the model, like for instance $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ or other parameters of the Higgs sector.

The purpose of our investigation will be that of showing that one fundamental differences will arise in the MSSM analysis with respect to the SM case. Our conclusion will be in fact that the coefficient of the SUSY Sudakov logarithm and the next to subleading term will exhibit a drastically different dependence on the parameter of the model, so that their possible experimental identification might lead to quite valuable information. In particular, we shall reconsider, in this new spirit, the possibility of a determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, that is the only SUSY parameter on which the coefficient of the SUSY Sudakov (linear) logarithm depends, as already shown in previous papers . Also, we shall show that it is possible to investigate separately the dependence on the next to subleading term on the remaining SUSY parameters in the light scenario that we have assumed. In fact, we shall also show in some detail what is the range of SUSY parameters that may be considered ”light”, from the point of view of a Sudakov expansion like ours, in the one TeV region.

We should anticipate at this point the reason why we insist in calling the remaining, non logarithmic component of the asymptotic one-loop expansion ”next to subleading” term. In fact, we shall show that this remaining component cannot be rigorously considered as a constant in the investigated TeV region. To reproduce completely the exact calculation, one must add to the constant component an extra non logarithmic energy dependent quantity. As we shall show, though, this extra component is, at the expected level of accuracy, fairly ”small”. The consequence of its presence will be fully taken into account and will generate a realistic error in the determination of the SUSY parameter that we shall pursue.

As a first process to be examined in this spirit, we have chosen that of charged Higgs pair production. The main reason for this choice is that, from the point of view of the involved parameters, this is the simplest process to be considered in the MSSM. Our goal is that of moving in future papers to more complicated processes, following a logical chain that introduces gradually new parameters not already derived in this effective way. In order to provide a self-consistent and rigorous calculation device, we have completed a one loop code that contains all the relevant diagrams, in the approximation of treating all fermions as massless, with the exception of the third generation quarks. We have verified that the complete code does reproduce the correct(known) asymptotic logarithmic (DL and SL) behaviour. This complete code has been used to derive an effective next-to subleading Sudakov expansion, with which it has been imposed to it to agree to the few permille level. The code, that has been named SESAMO (Supersymmetric Effective Sudakov Asymptotic MOde), is already available for use .

Technically speaking, this paper will be organized as follows: Sec. II will contain the relevant asymptotic one loop expansions of the process. Sec. III will contain the comparison of the complete one loop calculation with the proposed effective fit as a function of the SUSY parameters. In Sec. IV, the determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ and the study of the effect of the remaining parameters on the next-to subleading term will be examined and exhibited. A final discussion of our results in Sec. V will conclude the paper.

## II Calculation of the process at one loop

A complete description of the scattering amplitude of the considered process at one loop requires the calculation of several classes of diagrams. To make our treatment as self-consistent as possible, we shall follow the notations used in a previous reference  and write:

$`A(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$ $`=`$ $`A^{\mathrm{Born}}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})+A^{c.t.}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$ (3)
$`+A^{s.e.}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})+A^{in}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$
$`+A^{fin}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})+A^{box}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})+A^{QED}`$
It is convenient to normalize the general amplitude in the following way:

$$A=\frac{2e^2}{q^2}\overline{v}(e^+)(p/)(a_LP_L+a_RP_R)u(e^{})$$
(4)
where $`P_{L,R}=(1\gamma ^5)/2`$ and $`p^\mu `$ is the outgoing $`H^{}`$ momentum, so that one writes the Born terms as:

$$a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{Born}}=1\frac{(12s_W^2)}{4s_W^2c_W^2}\eta g_{e\lambda }$$
(5)
with $`g_{eL}=2s_W^21,g_{eR}=2s_W^2`$ and $`\eta \frac{q^2}{q^2M_Z^2}`$.

The remaining quantities represent the one-loop perturbative modifications of the tree level expression. More precisely, $`A^{c.t.}`$ is the contribution from the usual ”counter-terms” that cancel all the ultraviolet divergences of the process. In our chosen on-shell renormalization scheme, in which the inputs are $`\alpha _{QED}(0)`$, $`M_W`$ and $`M_Z`$, they are given by proper gauge boson self-energies, computed at the corresponding physical masses. Their explicit expressions are known (see e.g. ), and to save space we shall note write them here. $`A^{s.e.}`$ contains the various internal self-energy corrections; $`A^{in,fin}`$ describe the initial and final vertex modifications and $`A^{box}`$ the box contributions. Their ”fine” structure is summarized in Appendix, where the various components of the separate terms are listed. The related complete set of Feynman diagrams is too large (more than 200 diagrams) to be drawn here; it can be found e.g. in a recent paper . In our treatment, we have discarded those components that give contributions that vanish with the initial lepton mass, which reduces somehow our numerical calculations; (actually, we treated all fermions as massless, with the exception of the third family quarks). In our approach, ultraviolet divergences are produced both by self-energies and by vertices that include all external self-energies (we followed the definition proposed by Sirlin ). We checked that all the ultraviolet divergences in the scattering amplitude are mutually canceling. Finally, $`A^{QED}`$ represents our choice of the electromagnetic component. In this preliminary paper, we were mostly interested in the ”genuine” electroweak SUSY contributions at very high energies. For this reason, we treated all those virtual contributions with photons that would generate infrared divergences by introducing an ”effective” fictitious photon mass $`M_\gamma =M_Z`$. With this choice, our $`A^{QED}`$ will contain in fact the difference between these ”effective” terms and the conventional (massless photon) ones (with the usual request of adding the effects of real photon radiation when computing the cross section). This gives a contribution to the observables that, for our specific purposes, can be considered as ”known” since it does not involve any SUSY component, and will therefore not be included in our code at least at the moment. Its addition would not represent a problem, but would not add anything to the specific investigation of this paper, that is rather devoted to the ”unknown” component of the scattering amplitude.

In this spirit, we shall now write the overall logarithmic contributions to the scattering amplitude that arise at one loop in a proper configuration of ”asymptotic” energy. These are by definition the leading terms of an expansion made in a region where all the relevant (external and internal) masses are sufficiently smaller than the c.m. energy in a way that we shall try to make more quantitative in the following Section. In full generality, such logarithmic terms can be of two different origins. The first ones are linear logarithms of renormalization group (RG) origin, generated by gauge boson self-energies and representing the ”running” of the gauge coupling constants. Their expressions are known, and we shall write them explicitely but separately from the remaining terms. They do not contain any SUSY parameter, but must be carefully taken into account in our approach. The second ones are the genuine electroweak logarithms, nowadays generally called ”of Sudakov type”. They can be of quadratic and of linear kind; the quadratic ones come from vertices with single $`W,Z,\gamma `$ exchange and from boxes with two $`W`$ exchange and do not contain any SUSY parameter; the linear ones come from the remaining vertices and boxes and contain SUSY contributions only from vertices. A very special feature of the supersymmetric model that we have investigated and of the process that we have considered is that the only SUSY parameter that ”effectively” appears in the various linear logarithms is $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, of Yukawa origin, produced by the final vertices with ($`b,t`$) exchange, that depends on the specific combination $`[m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ]`$ (SUSY mass parameters $`M_i`$, that could enter other vertex diagrams, would appear in the form $`\mathrm{log}(q^2/M_i^2)`$, $`\sqrt{q^2}`$ is the c.m. energy, but with a suitable change of scale they can always be shifted into a constant term, as we shall show and discuss).

In Appendix we list the various logarithmic contributions coming from different diagrams. The convention that we have followed is that of keeping $`M_W`$ as the scale of the double $`\mathrm{log}^2q^2`$ coming from two $`W`$ boxes and single $`W`$ vertices. For all the remaining logarithms we have chosen a common scale $`M_Z`$, with the exception of the Yukawa vertex where the most natural scale appears to us to be that of the top mass $`m_t`$. This choice is arbitrary, it is only dictated by our personal taste and feelings. The consequence of this choice will be that of fixing the numerical value of the ”next-to subleading” term. A pragmatic attitude would be that of verifying that, with this choice, both the logarithmic and the next-to subleading terms remain acceptably ”small” at the one loop level. This, as we shall show, will happen in fact and with this ”a posteriori” justification we shall retain our choice of scales.

From a glance to the Appendix one also sees that the linear $`\mathrm{log}q^2`$ belong to two separate classes: the so-called ”universal” and the ”not universal” ones. The latter are produced by boxes and depend on the c.m. scattering angle $`\vartheta `$. We have already discussed in a previous paper  their different relevance at the one loop level, and we shall not insist here on these features. We can, though, recall the observed fact  that these $`\vartheta `$ dependent non universal terms are the only ones that contribute at logarithmic level the forward-backward asymmetries at one loop. Since they do not contain any SUSY parameter, as we said, there will be no relevant logarithmic contribution containing SUSY parameters to the forward-backward asymmetry of $`H^+H^{}`$ production. The same conclusion can be derived for the longitudinal polarization asymmetry that is known to provide only information on the initial state as shown in the previous reference . For this reason, we shall concentrate our numerical analysis on the total cross section of the process.

After this rather technical presentation, we are now ready to present the concrete numerical analysis. With this aim, we shall now summarize our previous discussion giving the asymptotic relative effect on the cross section of the process, by writing it in the form:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(q^2)=\frac{\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}+1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}}}{\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}}}$$
(6)
where in $`\sigma ^{\mathrm{Born}+1\mathrm{l}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{p}}`$ we are retaining only the genuine one loop terms $`𝒪(\alpha /\pi )`$ and not the second order terms coming from the square of the one loop contributions since these mix with the genuine two loop contributions.

The logarithmic expansion of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has been derived analytically and is given by the expression

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{2\pi s_W^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{1+2s_W^4}{1+4s_W^4}})\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_W^2}}`$ (11)
$`({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2c_W^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{1+2s_W^4+8s_W^6}{1+4s_W^4}})\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}`$
$`({\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{4\pi s_W^2M_W^2}})(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{m_t^2}}`$
$`+({\displaystyle \frac{\alpha }{3\pi s_W^2c_W^2}})({\displaystyle \frac{1116s_W^2+32s_W^4+72s_W^6}{1+4s_W^4}})\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}`$
$`+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$
where the fourth line contains all single logarithms with the exception of those of Yukawa origin (third line). The last term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ is the difference between the full one loop result and its asymptotic Sudakov expansion including all the double and single logarithms, and will be called the next-to subleading term.

## III Validity of the Sudakov expansion

The aim of this Section is that of investigating whether there exists a region of energy and of parameters where the rigorous calculation at one loop can be reproduced by the effective Sudakov expansion Eq.(11), and to determine the relevant features of the next-to subleading term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$. In order to avoid confusion, we anticipate that our analysis will be divided into two different sectors. In the first one, summarized in this Section, we shall study the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ on the c.m. energy for given values of the parameters of the chosen MSSM model. In the second one, we shall study the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ on the MSSM parameters for a fixed energy chosen at the representative 1 TeV value. To proceed with our analysis, we must now define the MSSM parameters that we shall use as input of the calculations. We retained the following five free parameters:

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta ,\mu ,M_A,M_2,M_S$$
(12)
i.e. the ratio of the two vevs, the Higgs bilinear coupling, the CP odd Higgs mass, the universal gaugino mass and the universal sfermion mass. For this preliminary analysis, we allowed ourselves the simplifications of using the GUT relation $`M_1=\frac{5}{3}\mathrm{tan}^2\vartheta _WM_2`$ and of setting the trilinear couplings $`A_u=A_d=0`$. We computed the Higgs spectrum with the code FeynHiggsFast  and obtained the masses of charginos, neutralinos and sfermions by numerical diagonalization of their mixing matrices. We retained sfermion mixing only in the case of the third generation.

For the purposes of this paper, we have chosen to work in an energy region between 800 GeV and 1 TeV, considering 1 TeV as an ambitious conceivable final goal of the future LC. In our study, we shall assume that a number of precise measurements can be performed in that energy range, and we will show what could be the theoretical implications for the model in a particular region of its couplings and of its masses. Clearly, all the obtained informations and bounds on the various mass parameters could be easily rescaled if the analysis were performed in a lower (e.g. 600-800 GeV) energy interval.

The first problem that we address is that of determining the range of massive MSSM parameters for which the Sudakov expansion for $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q^2)`$ reproduces the rigorous calculation with a simple and understandable expression for the next-to subleading term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$. For the latter, the simplest possibility would be provided by a constant, and from our previous SM experience , we would be prepared to the appearance in this case of a relatively ”large” (i.e. compared to the logarithmic component) quantity. We cannot exclude, though, a priori the necessity of including an extra, energy dependent term, that should vanish at very large $`\sqrt{q^2}`$, but could be numerically relevant and complicated in the considered energy range. If this turned out to be the case, the practical validity of the Sudakov expansion would be unavoidably reduced, since every tentative effective fit to the data would be complicated and affected by large errors, and we shall return on this statement in the description of the derivation of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, to be shown in the forthcoming Section.

Given the fact that we have to deal with four massive parameters, we have performed four different analyses, in each one of which three parameters were fixed at values that we considered ”light” with respect to the chosen energy range, and one parameter was allowed to vary. In all these analyses we fixed $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ at the value $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =20`$, that can be considered as an average value in the range that we have explored, roughly $`2\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$ (we shall discuss later on the reasons of this choice of the upper value). Fixing different values of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ does not change the results of the four analyses, that we chose in the following way:

1. variable $`\mu `$, fixed $`M_A=200`$ GeV, $`M_2=100`$ GeV, $`M_S=350`$ GeV;
2. variable $`M_A`$, fixed $`\mu =300`$ GeV, $`M_2=100`$ GeV, $`M_S=350`$ GeV;
3. variable $`M_2`$, fixed $`\mu =300`$ GeV, $`M_A=200`$ GeV, $`M_S=350`$ GeV;
4. variable $`M_S`$, fixed $`\mu =300`$ GeV, $`M_A=200`$ GeV, $`M_2=100`$ GeV;

The choices of the fixed values of the parameters in the four analyses are dictated by practical reasons and could be reasonably varied. The relatively small value of $`M_2`$ corresponds to the request of having relatively light charginos and neutralinos, although higher values $`(300\text{GeV})`$ for $`M_2`$ would still be acceptable, as shown by Fig. (2). For $`M_A`$, the same considerations apply in order to avoid resonance formation. $`M_S`$ can vary in a larger range without apparent problems, and therefore it was fixed at a relatively higher value.

We are now ready to discuss the results of our analyses. This was performed by computing numerically the quantity $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q^2)`$ with the specific code (SESAMO) that we have built for our purposes and which is, we repeat, available for use. From the computed quantity we then subtracted all the logarithms of Eq.(11) and obtained the remaining, next-to subleading term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$.

An important preliminary remark must be made at this point. The final goal of our analysis is that of showing that a complete one-loop expression can be reproduced by a (relatively simple) Sudakov expansion. But a necessary condition to make this search useful is also that the one-loop expansion is reliable. To guarantee this condition, we shall have to verify that the complete expression of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(q^2)`$ (i.e. the full one-loop correction) remains acceptably small in the investigated energy region, with e.g. an upper bound that we could fix quantitatively at the relative ten percent value. Only after this check, our next analysis could be considered as meaningful.

We are now ready to show the results of the four considered cases, which are the following ones:

1) Case (a): variable $`\mu `$

We allowed $`\mu `$ to vary from an initial value of 300 GeV to final values of approximately 400 GeV (below 300 GeV, we encountered problems in the determination of the sfermion mass eigenstates whose discussion seems to us beyond the purposes of this preliminary analysis). The full one-loop effect, computed at the representative value $`\sqrt{q^2}=1\text{TeV}`$, remains always very small (below two percent). The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ in the interval $`800\text{GeV}\sqrt{q^2}1\text{TeV}`$ are shown in Fig. (3). One sees that the term is changing by an amount roughly equal to five percent of its central value when moving from the beginning to the end of the interval. Numerically, this corresponds to a two permille effect that can be considered as ”fairly small” under our expected experimental conditions of a one percent accuracy. When $`\mu `$ becomes larger than roughly $`380\text{GeV}`$, the simplicity of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ is lost and a complicated energy dependence appears which is due to a resonance effect: when we increase $`\mu `$, one of the two charginos and two neutralinos become progressively heavier with masses $`\mu `$. When $`\mu 400`$ GeV, we begin to see a kinematical threshold at $`800`$ GeV that produces a bump in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ well visible in the figure. Of course, the bump shifts to the right as $`\mu `$ is further increases. One observes also from Fig. (3) that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ is scarcely affected by variations in $`\mu `$ (about half percent when $`\mu `$ varies from $`300`$ to $`400`$ GeV) and, as a consequence, it does not appear to be a promising candidate for testing virtual MSSM effects generated by this specific parameter.

We repeated our analysis changing only the sign of $`\mu `$. The obtained curves are practically (in agreement with our previous statement) identical with those corresponding to positive $`\mu `$ values. For this reason, we shall restrict ourselves from now on to considering conventionally the $`\mu >0`$ scenario.

2) Case (b): variable $`M_A`$

We have varied $`M_A`$ starting from an initial value of $`200\text{GeV}`$ up to approximately $`400\text{GeV}`$. The full (negative) one-loop effect at $`1\text{TeV}`$ remains systematically below a relative two percent. As $`M_A`$ increases, the basic change in the spectrum of SUSY particles is that both $`H^+`$ and $`H^0`$ become heavier with approximately $`M_{A^0}M_{H^0}M_{H^+}`$. This means that in the plots we have to take into account the kinematical constraint $`\sqrt{q^2}2M_{H^+}`$. In Fig. (4) we show the behaviour of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ for $`200\text{GeV}<M_A<400\text{GeV}`$. Once again, we notice that in the considered energy interval $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ remains ”essentially” constant, with relative extreme variations of five percent (or less) from its central value. This simple pattern would be lost for larger $`M_A`$ values $`>400\text{GeV}`$, due to the aforementioned Higgs production threshold. One notices in this case that the dependence of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ on $`M_A`$ is sizable: to a variation of $`M_A`$ from $`200`$ to $`300\text{GeV}`$ there corresponds a variation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ of almost two percent, that would be visible at the proposed LC.

3) Case (c): variable $`M_2`$

Here, we vary $`M_2`$ from $`100\text{GeV}`$ to $`400\text{GeV}`$. The full one-loop effect at $`1\text{TeV}`$ is again very small (below two percent) and negative. In the considered range of variation of $`M_2`$, there are one chargino and one neutralino with masses increasing approximately as $`M_2`$ and reaching the $`400`$ GeV value at which some resonance structure can be observed in the plots of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ shown in Fig. (5). It can be noticed that, for $`M_2`$ larger than about $`360`$ GeV, the shape of this function is definitely not constant with energy and clear bumps can be seen, due to resonance effects associated to the heavy gauginos. As in the case of $`\mu `$, we observe that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ has very small sensitivity to the variations of $`M_2`$ (about two permille variation for a $`100\text{GeV}`$ shift in $`M_2`$).

4) Case (d): variable $`M_S`$

We have varied $`M_S`$ from $`100\text{GeV}`$ to about $`400\text{GeV}`$. The full one-loop effect is again very small and negative (below $`34`$ percent). The values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ shown in Fig. (6) are again essentially (up to a relative $`5`$ percent) constant in the considered energy interval. One sees that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ is sensitive to $`M_S`$: $`100\text{GeV}`$ of variation in this parameter corresponds to $`1.5`$ percent variation in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$.

To summarize, we have considered the range of validity of a logarithmic Sudakov expansion with an extra next-to subleading term which is ”essentially” constant in a certain domain of the massive MSSM parameters, for c.m. energies in the range $`800\text{GeV}1\text{TeV}`$. In our approach, to be ”essentially” constant means to be well approximated by the central value, with a few permille error. We have verified that this requirement is met for values of all the parameters below, approximately, $`350\text{GeV}`$. This gives a quantitative illustration of how ”light” the MSSM parameters should be in order that a typically asymptotic expansion like the Sudakov one that we investigate might hold at energies in the $`1\text{TeV}`$ range. We can remark that, as matter of fact, the validity of the expansion corresponds to values of the masses meeting the naive request $`M_i^2/q^210^1`$. This remains true even if several resonances appear close to $`\sqrt{q^2}/2`$. In other words the energy dependence of this process appears to be reasonably flat in the considered domain. We also conclude that the values of the ”essentially” constant components are relatively ”large” and of opposite sign (positive) with respect to the (negative) logarithmic contribution (roughly, they are of comparable size, although always smaller than the logarithmic ones). As a result of this cancellation the overall one-loop effect is sensibly reduced, becoming systematically of few percent size. This situation reproduces exactly the one that we met in the analogous study of the SM case, even if the number of free parameters in the MSSM is so much larger.

A final question that we asked ourselves was that of whether the approximate constancy of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ could be due to the relative smallness of the investigated energy domain. To answer this question, we have extended our analysis to very large $`\sqrt{q^2}`$ values up to $`10\text{TeV}`$, for an illustrative fixed set of MSSM parameters

$$\mathrm{tan}\beta =30,\mu =300,M_A=200,M_2=100,M_S=350,$$
(13)
The results are shown in Fig. (7). One sees that for energies beyond $`2\text{TeV}`$ the values of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ remain practically (i.e. to less than one permille) constant. Although we already know that at such energies the one-loop approximation is probably not valid, we consider this result as a check of the asymptotic validity of the expansion (and also of the numerical code that we have used).

In conclusion, we have seen that in the $`1\text{TeV}`$ range a 1-loop Sudakov expansion with an ”essentially” constant term is valid for the defined ”light” SUSY scenario. The fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ is not rigorously constant is expected to produce therefore reasonably ”small” effects, that we shall try to evidentiate in full detail in the forthcoming Section 4.

## IV Study of the MSSM parameters

### A Determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$

The first question that we address is the relevance of the Sudakov expansion for the problem of determining $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ under the assumption that the mass scales are in the “safe” range that we have just discussed. In other words, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ is only approximately constant and we want to understand quantitatively how much this can affect an attempt to determine $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the logarithmic slope of the cross-section, in which it appears in the combination shown in Eq.(11).

With this aim, we begin by subtracting explicitly from $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ all the “known” logarithms, i.e. all the terms in the Sudakov expansion with the exception of the Yukawa contribution. Therefore, we define the quantity

$`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`F(\mathrm{tan}\beta )\mathrm{log}q^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2),`$ (14)
$`F(\mathrm{tan}\beta )`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{3\alpha }{4\pi s_\mathrm{w}^2M_W^2}}(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta ).`$ (15)
If, in a definite scenario, the shape of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ turned out to be flat, then it would be conceivable to approximate it by a term that is constant with respect to $`q^2`$. In such a simple case, we could try to fit the measured values of the residual effect $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}(q^2)`$ with a logarithmic expansion in $`q^2`$ of the form

$$A_{\mathrm{fit}}\mathrm{log}q^2+B_{\mathrm{fit}}.$$
(16)
The result of the fit, $`A_{\mathrm{fit}}`$, can be compared with $`F`$ at the value of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ we are working. The difference $`\delta F=A_{\mathrm{fit}}F`$ is an error in the estimate of $`F`$ that has two components: $`\delta F=\delta _{\mathrm{stat}}F+\delta _{\mathrm{sys}}F`$. The first term, $`\delta _{\mathrm{stat}}F`$ is simply due to the fact that we assume a certain finite experimental precision on each measurement. The second term, $`\delta _{\mathrm{sys}}`$ is the most important and is a systematic error due to the fact that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ is not constant with respect to the energy. For instance, if $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ were exactly energy independent, we would find $`\delta _{\mathrm{sys}}F=0`$. The error $`\delta F`$ can be converted into an error on the estimate of the interesting parameter $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. If $`\delta F/F`$ is enough narrow to allow a linearized analysis, then we have simply

$$\frac{\delta F}{F}=\frac{\mathrm{tan}\beta F^{}}{F}\frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }$$
(17)
or

$$\frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{tan}^4\beta +(m_t/m_b)^2}{\mathrm{tan}^4\beta (m_t/m_b)^2}\frac{\delta F}{F}$$
(18)
The zero in the denominator corresponds to the value $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =\sqrt{m_t/m_b}6.2`$ at which the function $`F`$ attains its maximum and the sensitivity to $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is the smallest due to the flatness of $`F`$. Notice also that for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ beyond $`1520`$, we have

$$\frac{\delta F}{F}\frac{1}{2}\frac{\delta \mathrm{tan}\beta }{\mathrm{tan}\beta }$$
(19)
In the following discussion we shall analyze in a quantitative way the feasibility of such a procedure in the framework of specific scenarios. With this aim, we have assumed the existence of 10 equally spaced experimental measurements in the range $`800\text{GeV}1\text{TeV}`$ with a relative 1 percent precision and have generated them by means of our numerical code (if only $`N`$ points are available, all the numerical results concerning the statistical component of the error on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ must be increased by a factor $`\sqrt{10/N}`$).

L: Very Light SUSY

$$(L)\text{variable}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mu =300,M_A=250,M_2=100,M_S=350.$$
(20)
The full effect at 1 TeV is given in Fig. (8). showing that it remains below a 10 percent for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta 40`$. The curves for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ are given in Fig. (9) showing that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ depends effectively on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, remaining ”essentially” constant in the considered energy range. The plot of the relative error in the determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ is shown in Fig. (10). As we said, the extra error bars are due to the fact that $`A`$ is determined with a statistical error due to the assumed 1% accuracy in the cross section measurements. One sees that the main source of error is actually due to the departure of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ from its constant value.

We have subsequently considered two more scenarios, defined as:

A: Light SUSY

Here, we increase the masses in the gaugino sector.

$$(A)\text{variable}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mu =300,M_A=250,M_2=200,M_S=350.$$
(21)
B: Light SUSY with larger $`\mu `$

$$(B)\text{variable}\mathrm{tan}\beta \mu =400,M_A=250,M_2=200,M_S=350.$$
(22)
In Fig. (11) we combine the results for the various scenarios. In the figure, we have also shown the vertical lines corresponding to the safe perturbative bound corresponding to a 10% full one loop effect. One can see that, for $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ larger than $`20`$, a determination of this parameter to better than a relative $`40`$ percent would be possible. For values larger than $`30`$, the error would be reduced below a remarkable $`10`$ percent limit. This would remain true even in the worst case of relatively heavy SUSY scenario (3) with e.g. $`M_A=250\text{GeV}`$, and would represent to our knowledge a valuable possibility of determining this fundamental MSSM parameter in the region of high values where it is known  that accurate measurements are rather difficult.

### B Visible effect of the remaining parameters

Our logical scheme for extracting information from charged Higgs production would now proceed in the following way. Once the proposed determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from measurements of the slope of the cross section were completed, we would return to the remaining term $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}(q^2)`$ and estimate the effects on it of the remaining parameters assuming a precise measurement at a fixed energy, typically $`1\text{TeV}`$. A preliminary request will be that of taking into account the error on the previous determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$. Following the illustrations of Section 3, we shall optimistically assume that $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ has been determined at a ”convenient” value, i.e. one where the relative error is of the ten percent size. For purposes of illustration, we shall chose $`\mathrm{tan}\beta =30\pm 3`$ from now on. Using this value as a given input, we can examine which information on the remaining parameters can be obtained from the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$. This determination will be affected by two sources: a purely experimental one from the measurement at $`1\text{TeV}`$, treated under the usual assumptions, and the input error on $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ measured from the slope. It is not difficult to see (e.g. looking at Fig. (9) and considering Eq.(11)) that the latter will affect the determination of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ by a tolerably small (few permille) error. We shall take it into account in what follows within qualitative limits, not to make this indicative treatment too involved.

The plan of our forthcoming study has been remarkably helped by the observation that we already made, which shows that, in practice, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ remains ”essentially” unaffected by variations of $`\mu `$ and of $`M_2`$ in the considered ”light” scenario. This simplifies our approach, reducing it to the ”essential” parameters, that are $`M_A`$ and $`M_S`$. We have thus fixed $`\mu ,M_2`$ at conventional values ($`\mu =400\text{GeV}`$, $`M_2=100\text{GeV}`$) and drawn the contour and the surface plots in the ($`M_S,M_A`$) variables shown by Figs.12,13.

A few, necessarily qualitative, comments are now appropriate e.g. from a glance to Fig.12. The various curves correspond to variations of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ at 1 TeV. The spacing between two curves is a shift in $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ of 5 permille, which corresponds roughly to one half or our expected error on this quantity and, in our Figure, defines a certain bi-dimensional ”tube” whose slope and width depend on the parameter domain and fix the corresponding domain bounds on ($`M_A,M_S`$). One notices that, independently of the value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$, there would be a kind of orthogonal situation. For small ($`4`$ percent) $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ values, one would feel the effect of $`M_S`$ with a certain accuracy (of about $`50\text{GeV}`$) without practical effect from $`M_A`$. For larger $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$ values, the opposite situation would appear, and effects of $`M_A`$ could be felt to the previous (about $`50\text{GeV}`$) accuracy. These accuracies are certainly much worse than the expected precisions on $`M_A`$, $`M_S`$ from direct production (roughly, a relative 1-2 percent). However, in our opinion, these curves could still be rather meaningful for a possible non trivial consistency test of the model. Assuming in fact that both $`M_A`$ and $`M_S`$ have been determined in a range between $`200`$ and $`350\text{GeV}`$ with a precision of, say, five GeV, the point in the ($`M_A,M_S`$) plane that corresponds to these values must lie on the ”correct” curve that corresponds to the measured value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{rem}}`$. In Fig.12 we have drawn for illustration purposes two points that correspond to typical couples of ”light” values $`M_A=250\text{GeV},M_S=330\text{GeV}`$ and $`M_A=330\text{GeV},M_S=250\text{GeV}`$ with the corresponding assumed experimental error. One sees that a measurement of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the relative one percent accuracy would be of scarce use for $`M_A=330\text{GeV},M_S=250\text{GeV}`$, but would provide a quite stringent test of the model for the symmetrical couple of values. Thus, depending on the experimental results on these masses, the relevance and the motivations of the previous analysis at one TeV might become definitely enhanced.

## V Conclusions

The main conclusions that may be drawn from our analysis of the charged Higgs production process are, in our opinion, the following

1) For this process, in the $``$ 1 TeV energy region, an effective one-loop description with a Sudakov expansion implemented by an ”essentially” constant next-to subleading term reproduces the rigorous calculation in a ”light” SUSY scenario where all the relevant mass parameters of the process are roughly below the common $`350\text{GeV}`$ value. The overall one-loop effect remains systematically under control (below a safe few percent limit) in this region and seems to provide a reliable description of the process.

2) A satisfactory determination of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from an accurate measurement of the slope of the cross section in a region close to and below 1 TeV would be possible for large values ($`20`$) of $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$, with an error that takes realistically into account the ”small” deviations of the next-to subleading term from a constant value.

3) The next-to subleading term ”essentially” depends, once given $`\mathrm{tan}\beta `$ from the measured slope, only on the two mass parameters $`M_A`$, $`M_S`$. Depending on the measured values of the parameters, this could provide a simple but rather stringent test of the MSSM.

4) For the purposes of a test of the MSSM, the charged Higgs production process exhibits special simplicity features that make it, in our opinion, a very promising candidate. This property would suggest to extend our study to cases of non minimal SUSY models, in particular models whose Higgs couplings and structure are either different or richer. We have completed our examination using the dedicated code SESAMO; our next step will be that of generalizing our analysis to the similar case of neutral Higgs production. This will require an extension of our code, on which work is already in progress.

## A List of contributions and asymptotic expressions.

In this Appendix we give the list of the various one loop diagrams that have to be retained for a practical computation (for example we discard all diagrams that contribute proportionally to the light lepton and quark masses). We follow the decomposition given in eq.(3).

Gauge boson self-energies

These are the standard and supersymmetric bubbles and seagull diagrams involving gauge bosons ($`\gamma ,Z,W`$), goldstones, ghosts, Higgses, fermions, charginos, neutralinos and sfermions. They contribute the quantities $`A^{c.t.}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$ and $`A^{s.e.}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$, as explained in refs..

Initial vertices

The diagrams contributing $`A^{in}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$ are vertices with three internal lines sketched in Fig. (1) and external $`e^\pm `$ self-energies. The list of vertices $`(a,b,c)`$ is: ($`e,\gamma ,e`$), ($`e,Z,e`$), ($`\nu ,W,\nu `$), ($`W,\nu ,W`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{e},\chi ^0,\stackrel{~}{e}`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu _e},\chi ^+,\stackrel{~}{\nu _e}`$), ($`\chi ^0,\stackrel{~}{e},\chi ^0`$), ($`\chi ^+,\stackrel{~}{\nu _e},\chi ^+`$).

final vertices

The diagrams contributing $`A^{fin}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{}`$) are vertices sketched in Fig. (1) and external $`H^\pm `$ bubbles as well as seagull diagrams involving the gauge boson-gauge boson-scalar-scalar couplings. The list of vertices ($`a,b,c`$) is: ($`H,\gamma ,H`$), ($`H,Z,H`$), ($`H,W,H`$), ($`W,H,W`$), ($`f,f^{},f`$), ($`\chi ,\chi ,\chi `$), ($`H,H,Z`$), ($`H,H,H`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{f^{}},\stackrel{~}{f}`$), where $`H`$ and $`\chi `$ represent either charged or neutral states. The list of seagull diagrams $`(a,b)`$ is $`(H^+\gamma )`$, $`(H^+Z)`$, $`(H^0W)`$, $`(h^0W)`$, $`(A^0W)`$.

boxes

The contributions to $`A^{box}(e^+e^{}H^+H^{})`$ are box diagrams denoted clockwise by starting from the line running between $`e^{}`$ and $`e^+`$ according to Fig. (1). The list of boxes $`(a,b,c,d)`$ is: ($`\nu WH^0W`$), ($`e\gamma H^+\gamma `$), ($`eZH^+Z`$), ($`eZH^+\gamma `$), ($`e\gamma H^+Z`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\chi ^+\chi ^0\chi ^+`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{e}\chi ^0\chi ^+\chi ^0`$), ($`\chi ^0\stackrel{~}{e_L}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{e_L}`$), ($`\chi ^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\stackrel{~}{e_L}\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\chi ^+\chi ^0\stackrel{~}{e_L}`$), ($`\stackrel{~}{e_L}\chi ^0\chi ^+\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$).

Asymptotic expressions

The complete expressions have been included in the code SESAMO. Below we only give the results involving leading (DL) and subleading (SL) logarithms.

Using the normalizations defined in Eq.(4), we can write:

$$a_\lambda =a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{Born}}+\frac{\alpha }{\pi }(\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{e}.}+\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}+\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fin}})$$
(A1)
where $`\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{e}.}`$, $`\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ and $`\delta a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{fin}}`$ are the one-loop corrections to $`a_\lambda ^{\mathrm{Born}}`$.

The asymptotic contributions from the intermediate $`\gamma ,Z`$ self-energies are:

$$\delta a_L^{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{e}.}\frac{12s_W^2+12s_W^4}{16s_W^4c_W^4}\mathrm{log}q^2\delta a_R^{\mathrm{s}.\mathrm{e}.}\frac{11}{8c_W^4}\mathrm{log}q^2$$
(A2)
those from initial $`e^+e^{}`$ lines:

$`\delta a_L^{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64s_W^4c_W^4}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32s_W^4c_W^2}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_W^2}}\right)`$ (A3)
$`\delta a_R^{\mathrm{in}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8c_W^4}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)`$ (A4)
and those from final $`H^+H^{}`$ lines and boxes:

$`\delta a_L^{\mathrm{fin}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64s_W^4c_W^4}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32s_W^4c_W^2}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_W^2}}\right)`$ (A5)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{32s_w^4c_W^2M_W^2}}(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )\mathrm{log}q^2`$ (A6)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16s_W^4c_W^4}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1cos\vartheta }{1+cos\vartheta }}\mathrm{log}q^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4s_W^4}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1cos\vartheta }{2}}\mathrm{log}q^2`$ (A7)
$`\delta a_R^{\mathrm{fin}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8c_W^4}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_Z^2}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16s_W^2c_W^2}}\left(2\mathrm{log}q^2\mathrm{log}^2{\displaystyle \frac{q^2}{M_W^2}}\right)`$ (A8)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{3}{16s_w^2c_W^2M_W^2}}(m_t^2\mathrm{cot}^2\beta +m_b^2\mathrm{tan}^2\beta )\mathrm{log}q^2`$ (A9)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4c_W^4}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1cos\vartheta }{1+cos\vartheta }}\mathrm{log}q^2`$ (A10)
where $`\vartheta `$ is the c.m. angle between initial $`e^{}`$ and final $`H^{}`$ momenta.


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

There have been much activities exploring the relation between string theory and noncommutative geometry . There have been attempts to explain noncommutativity on D-brane through the study of open strings in the presence of background fields .

D-brane can be alternatively described by the “boundary state” of the closed string channel description . The boundary state can be interpreted as a source for a closed string emitted by a D-brane. By introducing the background field $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ in the string $`\sigma `$-model one obtains mixed boundary conditions for strings. Mixed boundary conditions have been used for studying many properties of D-branes in the background fields .

We proceed to study closed superstrings in the spacetime which is compactified on tori. In a special coordinate system, which we call it “closed string frame”, compactification reveals the noncommutativity of the spacetime through closed strings. In other words, by using the boundary state for a closed superstring, we observe the noncommutativity effects on a Dp-brane with background field wrapped on tori. We shall see that, $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ duality group relates coordinates of the spacetime and of the closed string frame.

In the first part of this paper, we study the closed superstring, its T-duality, its quantization and the noncommutativity effects on it in the noncommutative compact spacetime. In the second part, the boundary state equations of closed superstring will be studied.

## 2 T-duality and closed string frame

The solution of the equation of motion extracted from the string action can be written as the following mode expansion

$`X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=X_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )+X_R^\mu (\tau \sigma ),`$ (1)
$`X_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )=\xi _L^\mu +2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{a}_n^\mu e^{2in(\tau +\sigma )},`$ (2)
$`X_R^\mu (\tau \sigma )=\xi _R^\mu +2\alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }_R^\mu (\tau \sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}a_n^\mu e^{2in(\tau \sigma )}.`$
In the non-zero constant background $`B`$-field we can write

$`\xi _L^\mu =(1+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu x_L^\nu ,`$ (3)
$`\xi _R^\mu =(12\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu x_R^\nu ,`$
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_L^\mu =(1+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu p_L^\nu ,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Pi }_R^\mu =(12\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu p_R^\nu ,`$
$`\stackrel{~}{a}_n^\mu =(1+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu \stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\nu ,`$ (5)
$`a_n^\mu =(12\pi \alpha ^{}B)_\nu ^\mu \alpha _n^\nu ,`$
where $`B_\nu ^\mu =g^{\mu \lambda }B_{\lambda \nu }`$ and the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ also is constant. Again the equations (1) and (2) satisfy the equation of motion. Assume that all directions of the spacetime are compactified on tori. According to the equations (3)-(5) we can write

$`X^\mu =\overline{X}^\mu +2\pi \alpha ^{}B_\nu ^\mu \overline{X}^\nu ,`$ (6)
$`X^\mu =\overline{X}^\mu +2\pi \alpha ^{}B_\nu ^\mu \overline{X}^\nu ,`$
where $`X^\mu `$ , the T-dual coordinate of $`X^\mu `$, has definition

$`T_\mu :X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=X_L^\mu X_R^\mu ,`$ (7)
and $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ and its T-dual coordinate $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ are

$`\overline{X}^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=\overline{X}_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )+\overline{X}_R^\mu (\tau \sigma ),`$
$`\overline{X}^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=\overline{X}_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )\overline{X}_R^\mu (\tau \sigma ).`$ (8)
Therefore, the mode expansions of the left and the right moving parts of $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ and $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ are

$`\overline{X}_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )=x_L^\mu +2\alpha ^{}p_L^\mu (\tau +\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu e^{2in(\tau +\sigma )},`$ (9)
$`\overline{X}_R^\mu (\tau \sigma )=x_R^\mu +2\alpha ^{}p_R^\mu (\tau \sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}\sqrt{2\alpha ^{}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\alpha _n^\mu e^{2in(\tau \sigma )}.`$
Let us denote the coordinate system $`\{\overline{X}^\mu \}`$ as “closed string frame”. These coordinates and their T-dual coordinates can be written as

$`\overline{X}^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }X_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ^{},`$ (10)
$`\overline{X}^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ,`$ (11)
where there are $`X_\mu =g_{\mu \nu }X^\nu `$ and $`X_\mu ^{}=g_{\mu \nu }X^\nu `$. Therefore, the coordinates of the closed string frame and their T-dual are linear combinations of $`\{X^\mu \}`$ and their T-dual coordinates $`\{X^\mu \}`$. The coefficients of combinations are the elements of the open string metric and the noncommutativity parameter

$`G^{\mu \nu }=\left((g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^1g(g2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^1\right)^{\mu \nu },`$ (12)
$`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2\left((g+2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^1B(g2\pi \alpha ^{}B)^1\right)^{\mu \nu }.`$
For the ordinary spacetime i.e., $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, there are $`\overline{X}^\mu =X^\mu `$ and $`\overline{X}^\mu =X^\mu `$. Also for the strong background $`B`$-field, $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ is a linear combination of the T-dual coordinates $`\{X^\mu \}`$. In this case $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ appears as a linear combination of $`\{X^\mu \}`$. In other words, we have

$`\overline{X}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}(B^1)^{\mu \nu }X_\nu ^{},`$
$`\overline{X}^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}(B^1)^{\mu \nu }X_\nu .`$ (13)
In the zero slope limit  i.e., when $`\alpha ^{}`$ and the closed string metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ go to zero like $`\alpha ^{}ϵ^{1/2}`$, $`g_{\mu \nu }ϵ`$, where $`ϵ0`$, and $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is fixed, we also obtain the above equations.

From the equations (10) and (11) we obtain

$`x^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\xi _\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\xi _\nu ^{},`$ (14)
$`x^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\xi _\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\xi _\nu ,`$
$`\alpha _n^\mu =(G^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta )^{\mu \nu }a_{n\nu },`$ (15)
$`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\mu =(G^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta )^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{a}_{n\nu },`$
where there are $`x^\mu =x_L^\mu +x_R^\mu `$ , $`x^\mu =x_L^\mu x_R^\mu `$ , $`\xi ^\mu =\xi _L^\mu +\xi _R^\mu `$ and $`\xi ^\mu =\xi _L^\mu \xi _R^\mu `$.

Imposing the worldsheet supersymmetry in the equation (10) or (11) gives the following relations for the worldsheet fermions

$`\overline{\psi }^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ^{},`$ (16)
$`\overline{\psi }^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ^{}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\psi _\nu ,`$
where $`\psi ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{}^\mu \\ \psi _+^\mu \end{array}\right)`$ is worldsheet spinor and $`\psi ^\mu =\left(\begin{array}{c}\psi _{}^\mu \\ \psi _+^\mu \end{array}\right)`$ is its T-dual spinor. Similar definitions also hold for the spinors $`\overline{\psi }^\mu `$ and $`\overline{\psi }^\mu `$. For the ordinary spacetime i.e., $`\theta ^{\mu \nu }=0`$, we have $`\overline{\psi }^\mu =\psi ^\mu `$ and $`\overline{\psi }^\mu =\psi ^\mu `$. For the strong background $`B`$-field and also in the zero slope limit, the spinors $`\{\overline{\psi }^\mu \}`$ are equivalent to the spinors $`\{\psi ^\mu \}`$ and also $`\{\overline{\psi }^\mu \}`$ are equivalent to $`\{\psi ^\mu \}`$. Note that $`\psi ^\mu `$ and $`\overline{\psi }^\mu `$ satisfy the equation of motion i.e., $`_+\psi _{}^\mu =_{}\psi _+^\mu =_+\overline{\psi }_{}^\mu =_{}\overline{\psi }_+^\mu =0`$. Furthermore, we have $`\psi _{\pm \mu }=g_{\mu \nu }\psi _\pm ^\nu `$.

Assume that all coordinates $`\{X^\mu \}`$ are compacted on tori with radii $`\{R_\mu \}`$ therefore,

$`X^\mu (\sigma +\pi ,\tau )X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu ,`$ (17)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu =\alpha ^{}(\mathrm{\Pi }_L^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_R^\mu )=n^\mu R_\mu ,(\mathrm{no}\mathrm{sum}\mathrm{on}\mu ).`$ (18)
In this case the momentum of the closed string is quantized i.e.,

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =\mathrm{\Pi }_L^\mu +\mathrm{\Pi }_R^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{m^\mu }{R_\mu }}.`$ (19)
The integers $`n^\mu `$ and $`m^\mu `$ are winding number and momentum number of the closed string around the compact direction $`X^\mu `$. Therefore, we have the identification

$`\xi ^\mu \xi ^\mu +2\pi \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu .`$ (20)
Note that the dual coordinate $`X^\mu `$ also is compact

$`X^\mu (\sigma +\pi ,\tau )X^\mu (\sigma ,\tau )=2\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu =2\pi m^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\alpha ^{}}{R_\mu }},`$ (21)
therefore, its compactification is on a circle with radius $`\alpha ^{}/R_\mu `$ . This compactification gives the identification

$`\xi ^\mu \xi ^\mu +2\pi \alpha ^{}\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu .`$ (22)
From the identifications (20) and (22) we obtain the following identifications

$`x^\mu x^\mu +2\pi L^\mu ,`$ (23)
$`x^\mu x^\mu +2\pi \alpha ^{}p^\mu .`$
These imply that the coordinates $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ and $`\overline{X}^\mu `$ also are compact. The equation (10) or (11) gives $`L^\mu `$ and $`p^\mu `$ as

$`L^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi }}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu ,`$ (24)
$`p^\mu =G^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Pi }_\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\nu .`$
Therefore, $`L^\mu `$ and $`p^\mu `$ are linear combinations of the closed string momentum numbers and winding numbers. The fact that $`L^\mu `$ depends on the momentum numbers and $`p^\mu `$ depends on the winding numbers, are consequences of the noncommutativity. Under the T-duality there is the exchange $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\mu \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu ,`$ which leads to the exchange

$`T_\mu :p^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}L^\mu .`$ (25)
The light-cone components of the worldsheet supercurrent have the forms

$`J_+=G_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }_+^\mu _+\overline{X}^\nu ,`$ (26)
$`J_{}=G_{\mu \nu }\overline{\psi }_{}^\mu _{}\overline{X}^\nu .`$
Also the superconformal generators for the R$``$R sector of superstring are

$`L_m^{(\alpha ,d)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}G_{\mu \nu }:\alpha _{mn}^\mu \alpha _n^\nu :+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}{\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}(2nm)G_{\mu \nu }:d_{mn}^\mu d_n^\nu :+{\displaystyle \frac{5}{8}}\delta _{m,0},`$ (27)
$`F_m^{(\alpha ,d)}={\displaystyle \underset{nZ}{}}G_{\mu \nu }\alpha _n^\mu d_{m+n}^\nu .`$
The open string metric explicitly appears in these operators. Similar relations also hold for the left parts of the virasoro operators i.e., for $`\stackrel{~}{L}_m^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{d})}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_m^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{d})}`$, and for the NS$``$NS sector.

$`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ Duality relation

Now we discuss $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ duality relation between the spacetime and the closed string frame. In this subsection, let the metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ be Euclidean. For $`d`$-dimensional toroidal compactification duality group is $`O(d,d;𝐑)`$ . The elements $`hO(d,d;𝐑)`$ preserve the form of the matrix $`J`$ i.e.,

$`h^TJh=J\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{𝟎}& \mathrm{𝟏}_{d\times d}\\ \mathrm{𝟏}_{d\times d}& \mathrm{𝟎}\end{array}\right).`$ (30)
Define 20-dimensional vectors $`\overline{R}`$ and $`R`$ as $`\overline{R}^m=\left(\begin{array}{c}\overline{X}\\ \overline{X}^{}\end{array}\right)`$ and $`R^m=\left(\begin{array}{c}X\\ X^{}\end{array}\right)`$. The equations (10) and (11) imply that these vectors to have the relation $`\overline{R}^m=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mn}R_n`$, where $`R_m=\overline{𝒢}_{mn}R^n`$. The $`20\times 20`$ matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mn}`$ and $`\overline{𝒢}_{mn}`$ are

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mn}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G^1& \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\theta \\ \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}\theta & G^1\end{array}\right),\overline{𝒢}_{mn}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}g& 0\\ 0& g\end{array}\right),`$ (35)
where $`m,n\{1,2,\mathrm{},20\}`$. The equations (10) and (11) also give $`\overline{R}_m`$ as $`\overline{R}_m=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}R^n`$, where the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}`$ is

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{mn}=𝒢_{mp}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{pq}\overline{𝒢}_{qn},𝒢_{mn}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}G& 0\\ 0& G\end{array}\right).`$ (38)
The open string metric $`G`$ is, $`G_{\mu \nu }=(g(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2Bg^1B)_{\mu \nu }`$. Using the identity $`G^1\frac{1}{(2\pi \alpha ^{})^2}\theta G\theta =g^1`$, we observe that, the matrix $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is orthogonal and belongs to the duality group $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$. That is $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^T)^{mp}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{pn}=\delta _n^m`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Gamma }^T)^{mp}J_p^q\mathrm{\Gamma }_{qn}=J_n^m`$. In fact, these imply that the closed string frame and the spacetime are related to each other by $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ duality rotation.

The square length of the vector $`\overline{R}`$ and the inner product $`G_{\mu \nu }\overline{X}^\mu \overline{X}^\nu `$ are preserved. Therefore, for the left and the right moving sectors of closed string, the square length also is preserved i.e., $`g_{\mu \nu }X_A^\mu X_A^\nu =G_{\mu \nu }\overline{X}_A^\mu \overline{X}_A^\nu `$, where $`A\{L,R\}`$.

The equations (24) can be written as $`\left(\begin{array}{c}p\\ \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}L\end{array}\right)^m=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{mn}\left(\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Pi }\\ \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right)_n`$. Note that $`\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}L^\mu `$ and $`\frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ are momenta of closed string in the dual spaces $`\{\overline{X}^\mu \}`$ and $`\{X^\mu \}`$, respectively. Therefore, the total momentum vectors in these $`20`$-dimensional spaces also are related to each other by $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ duality group.

The (10,10) Lorentzian momenta $`(p_L^\mu ,p_R^\mu )`$, for $`g_{\mu \nu }=\delta _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\alpha ^{}=\frac{1}{2}`$, form an even self-dual Lorentzian lattice , i.e., the Lorentzian length is even

$`p_L^2p_R^2=2m^\mu n_\mu ,`$ (39)
where $`p_A^2=G_{\mu \nu }p_A^\mu p_A^\nu `$ and $`A\{L,R\}`$. To obtain the equation (31), we assumed that all directions of the spacetime to have the same radius of compactification. Note that all even self-dual $`(d,d)`$ Lorentzian lattices are related by $`O(d,d;𝐑)`$ rotations . Since the momenta $`(p_L^\mu ,p_R^\mu )`$ transform as vectors under $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ group, Hamiltonian in the closed string frame is invariant. More properties of the above duality group can be found in the Ref..

Quantization

The quantization of the bosonic part gives the following equations

$`[\xi ^\mu ,\mathrm{\Pi }^\nu ]=[\xi ^\mu ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^\nu ]=ig^{\mu \nu },`$ (40)
which can be written as

$`[x^\mu ,p^\nu ]=[x^\mu ,{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha ^{}}}L^\nu ]=iG^{\mu \nu }.`$ (41)
Also the oscillators satisfy the relations

$`[\alpha _m^\mu ,\alpha _n^\nu ]=[\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_m^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_n^\nu ]=m\delta _{m+n,0}G^{\mu \nu }.`$ (42)
The quantization of the fermionic part leads to the relations

$`\{b_r^\mu ,b_s^\nu \}=\{\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{b}_s^\nu \}=\delta _{r+s,0}G^{\mu \nu },`$ (43)
$`\{d_m^\mu ,d_n^\nu \}=\{\stackrel{~}{d}_m^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{d}_n^\nu \}=\delta _{m+n,0}G^{\mu \nu }.`$
where $`(b_r^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{b}_r^\mu )`$ and $`(d_n^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{d}_n^\mu )`$ are oscillators of the spinor $`\overline{\psi }^\mu `$ in the NS$``$NS and R$``$R sectors, respectively. The quantization of the worldsheet fields in the closed string frame, explicitly depends on the open string metric.

Note that for the variables in the coordinate system $`\{X^\mu \}`$, raising, lowering or contraction of indices can be done by the metrics $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`g^{\mu \nu }`$, while for the variables in the closed string frame, such as $`\{x^\mu ,x^\mu ,p^\mu ,L^\mu ,\alpha _n^\mu ,b_r^\mu ,d_m^\mu ,\mathrm{}\}`$, indices can be raised, lowered or contracted by the open string metrics $`G_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`G^{\mu \nu }`$.

## 3 Boundary conditions of closed superstring

Now we develop the boundary state formalism for a Dp-brane with background field. Assume that the $`B`$-field has non-vanishing components only along the brane directions i.e., $`B_{i\alpha }=B_{ij}=0`$ and $`B_{\alpha \beta }0`$. Therefore, the bosonic boundary state equations are

$`(G^{\alpha \beta }_\tau X_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }_\sigma X_\beta )_{\tau =0}|B_b=0,`$ (44)
$`(\delta X^i)_{\tau =0}|B_b=0.`$
The set $`\{X^\alpha \}`$ shows the brane directions and the set $`\{X^i\}`$ shows the directions perpendicular to the brane. Since the ghost and the super-ghost parts of the boundary state are independent of the background field, we do not study them.

The boundary conditions on the fermionic degrees of freedom should be imposed on both R$``$R and NS$``$NS sectors. Worldsheet supersymmetry requires the two sectors to satisfy the boundary conditions

$`\left(G^{\alpha \beta }(\psi _\beta i\eta \psi _{+\beta }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }(\psi _\beta +i\eta \psi _{+\beta })\right)_{\tau =0}|B_f,\eta =0,`$ (45)
$`(\psi _{}^i+i\eta \psi _+^i)_{\tau =0}|B_f,\eta =0,`$
where $`\eta =\pm 1`$ used to make GSO projection easily.

In terms of oscillators the bosonic part of the boundary state equations becomes

$`(G^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Pi }_\beta +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^2}}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\beta )|B_b=0,`$ (46)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i|B_b=0,`$ (47)
$`(\xi ^iy^i)|B_b=0,`$ (48)
$`\left((G^1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta )^{\alpha \beta }a_{n\beta }+(G^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha ^{}}}\theta )^{\alpha \beta }\stackrel{~}{a}_{n\beta }\right)|B_b=0,`$ (49)
$`(a_n^i\stackrel{~}{a}_n^i)|B_b=0.`$ (50)
The set $`\{y^i\}`$ indicates the transverse coordinates of the brane. The equations (36) and (37) reveal the effects of the noncommutativity of the brane on the closed superstring boundary state. The equation (38) describes the relation between the momentum (the momentum numbers) of the closed string and its winding numbers . This equation implies that the noncommutativity and compactness of spacetime are coupled to each other. The lack of one of them leads to $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\alpha =0`$, which means that the emitted closed string propagates perpendicular to the brane. The second equation of (24) and the equation (38) give

$`p^\alpha =0,`$ (51)
that is, in the closed string frame, the closed string is emitted perpendicular to the brane. Also the first equation of (24) and the equation (39) lead to

$`L^i=0,`$ (52)
which means in the closed string frame, the closed string can not wrap around the compact direction $`\overline{X}^i`$.

The boundary state equations (36) and (37) in the closed string frame have the forms

$`(_\tau \overline{X}^\alpha )_{\tau =0}|B_b=0,`$ (53)
$`(_\sigma \overline{X}^i)_{\tau =0}|B_b=0,`$
$`(\overline{\psi }_{}^\alpha i\eta \overline{\psi }_+^\alpha )_{\tau =0}|B_f,\eta =0,`$
$`(\overline{\psi }_{}^i+i\eta \overline{\psi }_+^i)_{\tau =0}|B_f,\eta =0.`$
Apparently these equations have the form of the boundary state equations of the brane without background field. Since in mode expansions of these equations the oscillators depend on the background field, these equations describe the boundary conditions of a closed string emitted from a brane with background field. The equations (43) and (44) directly can be extracted from the first and the second equations of (45).

## 4 Conclusions

We found a compact coordinate system (i.e., $`\{\overline{X}^\mu \}`$) such that each coordinate and its T-dual coordinate are related to the spacetime coordinates and the T-dual coordinates of the spacetime by the noncommutativity. Similar relations also hold for the fermions of the worldsheet $`\{\overline{\psi }^\mu \}`$. A novel feature is to cause the closed string state to have momentum which is a linear combination of its spacetime momentum and its winding numbers. In this frame the quantization of the worldsheet bosons and fermions is much similar to the zero $`B`$-field case that is, the closed string metric should be changed by the open string metric. This change also takes place for the supercurrent and the superconformal generators. We saw that the spacetime and the closed string frame are related to each other by $`O(10,10;𝐑)`$ duality rotation.

We observed the effects of noncommutativity and compactification in the boundary state equations of a closed superstring emitted from a noncommutative wrapped brane. In the closed string frame, the closed string propagates perpendicular to the brane. In this coordinate system the boundary conditions of the closed superstring appear similarly to the case without $`B`$-field.


text:
# References

hep-th/0212269
AEI 2002-104

BMN Gauge Theory as a Quantum Mechanical System

N. Beisert, C. Kristjansen, J. Plefka and M. Staudacher
Max-Planck-Institut für Gravitationsphysik
Albert-Einstein-Institut
Am Mühlenberg 1, D-14476 Golm, Germany
nbeisert,kristjan,plefka,matthias@aei.mpg.de

Abstract

We rigorously derive an effective quantum mechanical Hamiltonian from $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory in the BMN limit. Its eigenvalues yield the exact one-loop anomalous dimensions of scalar two-impurity BMN operators for all genera. It is demonstrated that this reformulation vastly simplifies computations. E.g. the known anomalous dimension formula for genus one is reproduced through a one-line calculation. We also efficiently evaluate the genus two correction, finding a non-vanishing result. We comment on multi-trace two-impurity operators and we conjecture that our quantum-mechanical reformulation could be extended to higher quantum loops and more impurities.

In  a modified, simpler version of the AdS/CFT duality between IIB string theory and $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric gauge theory was considered. It involves taking a limit on both sides of the correspondence. On the string side the Penrose limit of the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$S5 background results in the so-called plane-wave background , while the limit on the gauge theory side leads to the consideration of operators of large $`R`$-charge $`J`$ in conjunction with a large $`N`$ limit. After identification of the correct operators  it is possible to relate and match, for various massless and massive states, the mass spectrum of free plane-wave string excitations  to the planar scaling dimensions of the corresponding Berenstein-Maldacena-Nastase (BMN) operators.

It is natural to study the extension of the BMN correspondence to the case of interacting strings. On the gauge theory side, this involves the consideration of corrections to the planar limit. It was demonstrated in  that such corrections indeed survive the BMN limiting procedure. As far as the scaling dimensions of BMN operators are concerned, the corrections turned out to be finite. Much work  has also been undertaken to develop a string field theory approach, which should eventually permit to obtain the string corrections to the free mass formula of plane-wave states. A recent effort to derive the gauge theory results  for genus one from string theory has been reported in . An alternative, more heuristic approach, which is conceptionally and methodologically interpolating between string and gauge theory has been pursued in refs. .

In order to unearth its relationship to string theory, it is important to understand the structure of BMN gauge theory as completely as possible. It is widely suspected (see most of the above references) that the formalism underlying the limit is essentially one-dimensional and should therefore resemble the description of a quantum mechanical system. In this note we shall demonstrate, in the example of two impurities and on the one-loop level, but to arbitrary order in the topological expansion, that this is indeed the case. In fact, we will derive the parts of the Hamiltonian relevant to our situation directly from the gauge theory. Aside from providing this conceptual insight, we shall also show how the rather laborious computations of  can be significantly simplified and extended. An important first hint of this hidden simplicity was discovered by Janik , and we will complete and considerably extend his arguments. For steps towards directly deriving a Hamiltonian from $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory by dimensional reduction, see .

Recall  that the BMN suggestion leads to a double-scaling limit of the $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory: The $`R`$-charge $`J`$ and the number of colors $`N`$ tend to infinity such that the effective quantum loop counting parameter $`\lambda ^{}=g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N/J^2`$ and the effective genus counting parameter $`g_2^2=J^4/N^2`$ stay finite. The quantities of physical interest are the anomalous dimensions of the BMN operators. In  it was conjectured that physical quantities involving string interactions should not depend on $`g_2`$ but instead on an effective string coupling constant $`g_2\sqrt{\lambda ^{}}`$. This also appears to be implicit in the work of . It would seem to imply that at the one-loop ($`𝒪(\lambda ^{}`$)) level no corrections from genera higher than one should be allowed. Our new procedure allows us to easily perform a genus two calculation of the one-loop anomalous dimensions, which would have been horrendously complicated with the previous methods. We will find a non-vanishing result below, which appears to disprove the just mentioned conjecture.

The scalar BMN operators are made from the three complex scalar fields $`Z,\varphi ,\psi `$ of the gauge theory. They are obtained by modifying charge $`J`$ BPS ($`k+1`$)-trace operators $`TrZ^{J_0}TrZ^{J_1}\mathrm{}TrZ^{J_k}`$ (where $`J=J_0+J_1+\mathrm{}+J_k`$) by doping them with a number of “impurities” $`\varphi ,\psi `$:

$$𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}=Tr(\varphi Z^p\psi Z^{J_0p})TrZ^{J_1}\mathrm{}TrZ^{J_k}$$
(1)
where $`0pJ_0`$. Here we will only consider the simplest case of two impurities. At the classical level the doped operators have conformal dimension $`J+2`$. This dimension gets corrected once interactions are turned on: The operators are no longer protected if the impurities are inserted into the same trace. However, it is possible to find linear combinations of the $`𝒪_\alpha `$ ($`\alpha `$ is a multi-index) which have a definite conformal dimension. Conformal scaling operators are characterized by being eigenstates of the dilatation operator $`D`$ with eigenvalue $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, which equals their conformal dimension. In the planar limit it is possible to consider single trace operators alone and the corrections are given by the BMN prediction . For a precise definition of these operators at finite $`J`$ see . When one takes into account non-planar contributions single-trace operators no longer suffice  and we have to find the appropriate linear combinations in the class of multi-trace operators in eq.(1).

The matrix elements of the dilatation operator in the BMN basis can be read off from the two-point functions of the BMN operators. With $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ multi-indices we can write a one-loop two-point function of BMN operators as

$$𝒪_\alpha (x)\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}(0)=\frac{1}{|x|^{2(J+2)}}\left(S_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}+T_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}\mathrm{log}(|x\mathrm{\Lambda }|^2)\right)$$
(2)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a (divergent) renormalization constant (see e.g. ). Here $`S_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ is the tree level mixing matrix while $`T_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ encodes the interactions. As pointed out in references  the one-loop dilatation operator matrix element, $`D_\alpha ^\beta `$, defined by $`D𝒪_\alpha =D_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }𝒪_{\beta }^{}`$, can be expressed as

$$D_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=(J+2)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+T_{\alpha \overline{\gamma }}(S^1)^{\overline{\gamma }\beta }.$$
(3)
The matrix elements $`S_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ can be identified as expectation values in a zero-dimensional Gaussian complex matrix model and efficiently evaluated using matrix model techniques . We write:

$$S_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=𝒪_\alpha \overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}$$
(4)
where all fields appearing in $`𝒪_\alpha (x)`$ have been replaced with space-time independent fields. At the one-loop level a similar simplification can be achieved in the case of $`T_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ by making use of an effective vertex inside the matrix model correlator which captures the sum of all contributing one-loop Feynman diagrams . More precisely, one has

$$T_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=𝒪_\alpha H\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}$$
(5)
where

$$H=\frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}{8\pi ^2}:(Tr[\overline{Z},\overline{\varphi }][Z,\varphi ]+Tr[\overline{Z},\overline{\psi }][Z,\psi ]+Tr[\overline{\varphi },\overline{\psi }][\varphi ,\psi ]):$$
(6)
In the correlator, two of the legs of $`H`$ connect to $`𝒪_\alpha `$ and the other two to $`\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}`$. The normal ordering symbol : : means that pairwise contractions between fields inside $`H`$ are to be omitted. The remaining fields are contracted among each other by free matrix model correlators. The order in which the contractions are performed is irrelevant, so one may first contract the effective vertex with $`𝒪_\alpha `$. At this point one notices that the fields which are generated after the contraction are again given by a linear combination of the operators $`𝒪`$:

$$H𝒪_\alpha =H_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒪_{\gamma }^{}.$$
(7)
By making use of (4) the one-loop correlator (5) is readily evaluated

$$T_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}=(H𝒪_\alpha )\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}=H_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }𝒪_\gamma \overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}=H_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\gamma }S_{\gamma \overline{\beta }}^{}.$$
(8)
Comparing this to eq.(3) we find

$$D_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }=(J+2)\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+H_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }.$$
(9)
We see that the matrix $`H_\alpha ^\beta `$ is the one-loop part of the dilatation matrix $`D_\alpha ^\beta `$ and conclude that the two matrices have the same eigenvectors. Thus diagonalizing the matrix $`H`$ will immediately give us the anomalous dimension of the BMN operators. In particular, we will never need to know the explicit form of the tree level mixing matrix $`S_{\alpha \beta }`$. Furthermore, the eigenvectors $`\widehat{𝒪}_\alpha `$ of $`H`$ can be identified with the BMN operators up to normalization constants $`C_\alpha `$. It is obvious from conformal field theory that the eigenoperators of the dilatation operator have orthogonal correlators

$$\widehat{𝒪}_\alpha \widehat{\overline{𝒪}}_{\overline{\beta }}=\delta _{\alpha \overline{\beta }}|C_\alpha |^2.$$
(10)
In other words they are orthogonal with respect to the inner product induced by the mixing matrix $`S_{\alpha \overline{\beta }}`$ at tree-level. To obtain the normalization constants $`C_\alpha `$, however, would require the knowledge of the tree-level mixing matrix.

Let us, as described above, consider the action of the effective vertex $`H`$ on the general state eq.(1); performing the Wick contractions one finds that $`H:=H_0+H_++H_{}`$ with

$`H_0𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{4\pi ^2}}\left[𝒪_{p+1}^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}2𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}+𝒪_{p1}^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}\right],`$ (11)
$`H_+𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J_{k+1}=1}{\overset{p1}{}}}\left(𝒪_{pJ_{k+1}}^{J_0J_{k+1},J_1,\mathrm{},J_{k+1}}𝒪_{p1J_{k+1}}^{J_0J_{k+1},J_1,\mathrm{},J_{k+1}}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{J_{k+1}=1}{\overset{J_0p1}{}}}\left(𝒪_{p+1}^{J_0J_{k+1},J_1,\mathrm{},J_{k+1}}𝒪_p^{J_0J_{k+1},J_1,\mathrm{},J_{k+1}}\right),`$
$`H_{}𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}J_i\left(𝒪_{J_i+p}^{J_0+J_i,J_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times J_i,\mathrm{},J_k}𝒪_{J_i+p1}^{J_0+J_i,J_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times J_i,\mathrm{},J_k}\right)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2}{4\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}J_i\left(𝒪_{p+1}^{J_0+J_i,J_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times J_i,\mathrm{},J_k}𝒪_p^{J_0+J_i,J_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times J_i,\mathrm{},J_k}\right).`$
Here we have neglected boundary terms and interactions involving both impurities at the same time. In the BMN limit these will not contribute. The states $`𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}`$ are not orthogonal in the gauge theory, but this is not necessary for finding the spectrum of $`H`$. We observe that the special multi-trace states $`𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}`$ form a complete set as far as the action of the operator $`H`$ is concerned. $`H_0`$ is trace-number conserving, and $`H_+`$ and $`H_{}`$ respectively increase and decrease the number of traces by one. (Clearly we have $`H_{}𝒪_p^{J_0}=0`$). Interestingly, we see that the set of BPS type two-impurity operators $`Tr(\varphi Z^{J_1})Tr(\psi Z^{J_2})TrZ^{J_3}\mathrm{}`$ completely decouples. We can now imagine the $`J_i`$ to be very large so that we can view $`x:=p/J`$ and $`r_i:=J_i/J`$ as continuous variables, allowing us to formulate the spectral problem directly in the BMN limit. We therefore replace the discrete states eq.(1) by a set of continuum states

$$𝒪_p^{J_0,J_1,\mathrm{},J_k}|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k$$
(12)
spanning a Hilbert space, where

$$x[0,r_0],r_0,r_i[0,1]\text{and}r_0=1(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k).$$
(13)
Clearly the states eq.(12) are invariant under arbitrary permutations $`\pi `$Sk of the trace numbers: $`|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=|x;r_{\pi (1)},\mathrm{},r_{\pi (k)}`$. Now it is easy to derive the continuum limit of eqs.(11). Defining

$$H=\frac{\lambda ^{}}{4\pi ^2}h,\lambda ^{}=\frac{g_{\mathrm{YM}}^2N}{J^2}\text{and}g_2=\frac{J^2}{N}$$
(14)
the action of $`h:=h_0+g_2h_++g_2h_{}`$ on the continuum states in eq.(12) can be written as

$`h_0|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ $`=`$ $`_x^2|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k,`$ (15)
$`h_+|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^x}𝑑r_{k+1}_x|xr_{k+1};r_1,\mathrm{},r_{k+1}`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{r_0x}}𝑑r_{k+1}_x|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_{k+1},`$
$`h_{}|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}r_i_x|x+r_i;r_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times r_i,\mathrm{},r_k`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}r_i_x|x;r_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times r_i,\mathrm{},r_k.`$
We note that this Hamiltonian manifestly terminates at $`𝒪(g_2)`$. There are no contact terms.

We will now first diagonalize our states w.r.t. the trace-number conserving, free Hamiltonian $`h_0`$, which is exact iff $`g_2=0`$. The $`(k+1)`$-trace eigenstates (with $`n`$ integer) are

$$|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=\frac{1}{\sqrt{r_0}}_0^{r_0}𝑑xe^{2\pi inx/r_0}|x;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k,$$
(16)
they obey

$$h_0|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}^{(0)}|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k$$
(17)
with “energy” eigenvalues (i.e. anomalous dimensions)

$$E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}^{(0)}=4\pi ^2\frac{n^2}{r_0^2}.$$
(18)
For multi-trace states the spectrum is continuous, while single-trace states (where $`k=0`$ and $`r_0=1`$), corresponding to the original BMN operators , have a purely discrete spectrum. Now we can proceed to evaluate the topological corrections to the energies by standard quantum mechanical perturbation theory.

Let us evaluate the action of the interaction piece $`h^{}=h_++h_{}`$ of our Hamiltonian on the free eigenstates. From eqs.(15),(16) we find for the trace-creation and trace-annihilation operators

$`h_+|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=`$
$`{\displaystyle _0^{r_0}}𝑑r_{k+1}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4m\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi n\frac{r_{k+1}}{r_0}\right)}{\sqrt{r_0}\sqrt{r_0r_{k+1}}\left(mn\frac{r_0r_{k+1}}{r_0}\right)}}|m;r_1,\mathrm{},r_{k+1},`$
$`h_{}|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4r_im\mathrm{sin}^2\left(\pi m\frac{r_i}{r_0+r_i}\right)}{\sqrt{r_0}\sqrt{r_0+r_i}\left(mn\frac{r_0+r_i}{r_0}\right)}}|m;r_1,\mathrm{},\text{ }\times r_i,\mathrm{},r_k.`$
Note that $`r_0=1(r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k)`$ is defined to be the size of the first trace of the operator on the left-hand side of the equations.

The one-loop anomalous dimensions of the BMN operators equal, up to a factor of $`\lambda ^{}/4\pi ^2`$, the eigenvalues of the operator $`h`$:

$$h|\widehat{n};r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}|\widehat{n};r_1,\mathrm{},r_k.$$
(20)
As discussed above, the exact eigenstates $`|\widehat{n};r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ correspond, up to normalization, to the diagonalized BMN operators. At $`g_2=0`$ we have already diagonalized the Hamiltonian, therefore we can proceed to evaluate the energies as an expansion in the genus counting parameter. As our perturbation $`h^{}`$ is entirely off-diagonal, energies determined by non-degenerate perturbation theory will be given as a series in the square of the perturbation parameter $`g_2`$ in accordance with the nature of the gauge theory genus expansion

$$E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}=\underset{h=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}g_2^{2h}E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}^{(h)}.$$
(21)
Correspondingly, the exact eigenstates $`|\widehat{n};r_1,\mathrm{},r_k`$ are linear combinations of the bare states $`|m;s_1,\mathrm{},s_l`$. The mixing coefficients are power series in $`g_2`$. The free Hamiltonian $`h_0`$ immediately gives us the energies at the spherical level, *cf.* (17). Higher genera contributions can be obtained by quantum mechanical perturbation theory.

At this point it seems convenient to introduce a scalar product on the space of states.

$$n;s_1,\mathrm{}s_l|m;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k=\delta _{k,l}\delta _{m,n}\underset{\pi S_k}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\delta (s_ir_{\pi (i)})$$
(22)
This will be used only as a tool to isolate certain matrix elements of the Hamiltonian by the following representation of the unit operator

$$1=\underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{1}{k!}\underset{0r_0,r_1,\mathrm{},r_k1}{}d^kr\underset{n=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_kn;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k|.$$
(23)
It enables us to write compact expressions for the corrections to the eigenvalues. With this scalar product our Hamiltonian is not Hermitian. The scaling dimensions, however, have to be real and it is not hard to see that they are: Letting $`H`$ act on $`\overline{𝒪}_{\overline{\beta }}`$ instead of $`𝒪_\alpha `$ in (8) we get $`T=SH^{}`$ and thus $`H=SH^{}S^1`$ which implies that $`H=\lambda /4\pi ^2h`$ has real eigenvalues. Clearly, the eigenvalues and eigenvectors of $`h`$ are independent of the definition of a scalar product. Using the scalar product and eq. (S0.Ex11) one easily writes down the matrix elements of the interaction $`h^{}=h_++h_{}`$ in the momentum basis, for instance

$`m;r|h^{}|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(1r)^{3/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4m}{n\frac{m}{1r}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi nr),`$
$`n|h^{}|m;r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{(1r)^{1/2}}}{\displaystyle \frac{4n}{n\frac{m}{1r}}}\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi nr).`$ (24)
The corrections to the energy of a general state $`|\alpha `$ are then given by standard formulas of quantum mechanical perturbation theory. The first two non-vanishing orders of non-degenerate perturbation theory give

$`E_{|\alpha }^{(1)}\alpha |\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }h^{}|\alpha ,`$
$`E_{|\alpha }^{(2)}\alpha |\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha |h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }h^{}|\alpha `$ (25)
$`E_{|\alpha }^{(1)}\alpha |h^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha })^2h^{}|\alpha .`$
Here the free propagator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{|\alpha }=\frac{1|\alpha \alpha |}{E_{|\alpha }^{(0)}h_0}.$$
(26)
Some technical complications potentially arise due to the fact that the free spectrum eq.(18) is degenerate as was first noticed in  (*cf.* discussion after eq.(31)).

We now calculate the energy shift at genus one and two. Determining the energy shift at genus one is a one-line computation

$$E_{|n}^{(1)}=\underset{0}{\overset{1}{}}𝑑r\underset{m=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}n|h^{}|m;r\frac{1}{4\pi ^2\left(n^2\frac{m^2}{(1r)^2}\right)}m;r|h^{}|n=\frac{1}{12}+\frac{35}{32\pi ^2n^2}$$
(27)
and implies a correction to the anomalous dimension in agreement with the result of references . This computation was originally performed in , however, it relied on the assumption that there are no $`𝒪(g_2^2)`$ contact-terms in $`h`$; this fact is manifest in our formalism.

Having convinced ourselves of the simplicity of this method we proceed to genus two, *cf.* eq.(S0.Ex14). Using (S0.Ex13) one readily computes

$$n|h^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n})^2h^{}|n=\frac{1}{120}+\frac{1}{32\pi ^2n^2}\frac{21}{256\pi ^4n^4}.$$
(28)
The computation of the first term of (S0.Ex14) splits into two parts, namely a contribution from a single-trace channel and a contribution from a triple-trace channel (corresponding to the number of traces of the BMN operators changing as 1-2-1-2-1 and 1-2-3-2-1 respectively).

For the evaluation of the contribution from the single-trace channel term one needs the matrix elements:

$`l|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{n}}n|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|l,`$
$`n|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{6(nl)}}+{\displaystyle \frac{l^6l^4n^2+6l^2n^42n^6}{4\pi ^2n(ln)^3l^2(n+l)^2}}.`$ (29)
Using these yields

$$E_{|n}^{(2),\mathrm{single}}=\frac{1}{2688}+\frac{107}{9216\pi ^2n^2}\frac{695}{12288\pi ^4n^4}\frac{3785}{8192\pi ^6n^6}.$$
(30)
Turning to the final computation of the triple-trace channel contribution we note the intermediate formulas

$`l;s_1,s_2|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|n`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{n(1s_1s_2)s_1s_2}}n|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|l;s_1,s_2,`$ (31)
$`n|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|l;s_1,s_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{s_1s_2(1s_2)^3}{\sqrt{1s_1s_2}}}n\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi ns_2)\left(n+{\displaystyle \frac{l}{1s_1s_2}}\right)`$
$`\times {\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{m^2\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi m\frac{s_1}{1s_2})}{\left(m^2n^2(1s_2)^2\right)^2\left(m^2l^2(\frac{1s_2}{1s_1s_2})^2\right)}}`$
$`+(s_1s_2).`$
The single-trace state $`|n`$ and the triple-trace state $`|l;s_1,s_2`$ are degenerate if $`n=\pm \frac{l}{(1s_1s_2)}`$ which can happen only for $`n>1`$. The matrix element (31) is easily seen to vanish for $`n=\frac{l}{1s_1s_2}`$. However for $`n=\frac{l}{1s_1s_2}`$ it is finite For $`n>1`$ this observation casts some doubt on the use of non-degenerate perturbation theory; however, for $`n=1`$ there clearly is no problem . The above sum can be performed with the help of the formula

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{sin}^2(\pi kx)}{k^2b^2}=\frac{\pi }{2b}\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\pi bx)\mathrm{sin}(\pi b(1x))}{\mathrm{sin}(\pi b)}$$
(32)
for $`0x1`$ and $`b`$ non-integer. After some algebra using Mathematica one obtains

$`E_{|n}^{(2),\mathrm{triple}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{l=\mathrm{}}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{0s_1+s_21}{}}𝑑s_1𝑑s_2{\displaystyle \frac{n|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|l;s_1,s_2l;s_1,s_2|h^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{|n}h^{}|n}{4\pi ^2\left(n^2\frac{l^2}{(1s_1s_2)^2}\right)}}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{13}{40320}}{\displaystyle \frac{47}{2560\pi ^2n^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{97}{768\pi ^4n^4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{385}{16384\pi ^6n^6}}+{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑s_0f_n(s_0).`$
The function that remains to be integrated is

$$f_n(s_0)=\frac{(1s_0)^2s_0(15+4\pi ^2s_0^2)\mathrm{cot}(\pi ns_0)}{256\pi ^3n^3}.$$
(34)
For $`n=1`$ the integral is finite and easily evaluated to be

$$_0^1𝑑r_0f_1(r_0)=\frac{\zeta (3)}{128\pi ^4}\frac{45\zeta (3)}{512\pi ^6}+\frac{15\zeta (5)}{128\pi ^6}$$
(35)
For $`n>1`$ there are poles at $`s_0=\frac{m}{n}`$, $`1mn1`$. These are related to the above discussed degeneracy of the single-trace state $`|n`$ with the triple-trace states $`|m;s_1,s_2`$ where $`s_0=1s_1s_2=\frac{m}{n}`$. Deferring this problem to future work, we proceed by regulating the integral by a principle value prescription. We find the same result as eq.(35) except for the replacement $`\pi \pi n`$. In total we get for the one-loop two-torus contribution

$`E_{|n}^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{11}{46080}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^2n^2}}+\left({\displaystyle \frac{521}{12288}}{\displaystyle \frac{\zeta (3)}{128}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^4n^4}}`$ (36)
$`+\left({\displaystyle \frac{5715}{16384}}{\displaystyle \frac{45\zeta (3)}{512}}+{\displaystyle \frac{15\zeta (5)}{128}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi ^6n^6}}.`$
Our derivation of $`E_{|n}^{(2)}`$ is rigorous only for $`n=1`$; it would be important to more carefully examine the validity of this formula for $`n>1`$.

As we discussed in the beginning, the various terms do not cancel, and thus $`E_{|n}^{(2)}0`$, disproving the idea that the genus counting parameter $`g_2^2`$ should always be accompanied by a factor of $`\lambda ^{}`$. However, interestingly, the $`n`$-independent, constant terms do cancel. This suggests, together with the result of the sphere and the torus, that the exact energy might scale as

$$E_{|n}4\pi ^2n^2\underset{h=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}c_h\left(\frac{g_2^2}{4\pi ^2n^2}\right)^h\mathrm{for}n\mathrm{},$$
(37)
where the $`c_h`$ are numerical constants: $`c_0=1,c_1=\frac{1}{12},c_2=\frac{11}{6!2^4},\mathrm{}`$.

We can also find the scaling dimensions of multi-trace operators from our formalism. The result (38) was first derived, using different methods, in . Some extra care has to be taken due to the continuous spectrum of multi-trace operators, cf. eq.(18). In particular, multi-trace operators are delta-function normalized, see eq.(22). A straightforward repetition of perturbation theory, as in eq.(S0.Ex14), for multi-trace operators reveals that the relevant contribution, proportional to the normalizing delta function, results solely from the disconnected channels. The latter are defined as the contributions where the external traces without impurities do not participate in the interaction. Assuming that no subtleties arise from divergences of connected channels (as we have explicitly verified for genus one) we find

$$E_{|n;r_1,\mathrm{},r_k}^{(h)}=r_0^{4h2}E_{|n}^{(h)}.$$
(38)
It would be important to more carefully investigate this issue in the framework of our formalism.

Clearly it should be interesting to extract further information from our Hamiltonian formulation. In particular, it would be exciting to solve the eigenvalue problem in the WKB limit, as this might lead to non-perturbative insights into the genus expansion, and, in consequence, to non-perturbative results on plane-wave strings, cf. eq.(37). It will also be very interesting to understand the terms one needs to add to the Hamiltonian in order to include the effects of radiative corrections beyond one loop, and of more than two impurities. We do not see any reason why this should not be possible, and therefore conjecture that BMN gauge theory can quite generally be reformulated as a quantum mechanical system.

Many of the above methods and insights are already present in the more difficult case of finite $`J`$. The novel “BMN” way of looking at $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory is beginning to lead to startling progress beyond the admittedly somewhat artificial limit of infinitely large $`R`$-charges. In particular, in  it was shown that finite $`J`$ versions of BMN operators can be rigorously defined, and should be considered to be generalizations of the simplest unprotected field in $`𝒩=4`$, the so-called Konishi scalar. They are the “next to best thing to BPS operators”, as they are, in a rather precise sense, “almost protected”. This discovery has lead to a fresh look at the representation theory of $`𝒩=4`$ operators, and to explicit results for anomalous dimensions of whole families of operators . In this context we should mention a very interesting, recent paper by Minahan and Zarembo . In a spirit conceptually very close to the present work they are considering the planar, one-loop diagonalization of more complicated operators with many impurities, uncovering some of the structures (e.g. Bethe-Ansatz) found in integrable spin chains. One could therefore hope that currently known results are just the beginning of the discovery of an integrable sector in $`𝒩=4`$ gauge theory. As is frequently the case for two-dimensional integrable systems, such structures might exist both on the lattice (here: finite $`J`$) and in the continuum limit (here: $`J\mathrm{}`$).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Stefano Kovacs for interesting discussions. N.B. dankt der *Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes* für die Unterstützung durch ein Promotionsförderungsstipendium.