format: text

text:
# Dimensional Reduction of a Lorentz and CPT-violating Maxwell-Chern-Simons Model

## I  Introduction

In a common sense, it is generally settled that a “good” Quantum Field Theory (QFT) must respect at least two symmetries: the Lorentz covariance and the CPT invariance. The traditional framework of a local QFT, from which one derives the Standard Model that sets the physics inherent to the fundamental particles, satisfies both these symmetries. In the beginning of 90´s, a new work  proposing a correction term to the conventional Maxwell Electrodynamics, that preserves the gauge invariance despite breaking the Lorentz, CPT and parity symmetries, was first analyzed. The correction term, composed by the gauge potential, $`A_\mu ,`$ and an external background 4-vector, $`v_\mu ,`$ has a Chern-Simons-like structure, $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }v_\mu A_\nu F_{\kappa \lambda }`$, and is responsible by inducing an optical activity of the vacuum - or birefringence - among other effects. In this same work, however, it is shown that astrophysical data do not support the birefringence and impose stringent limits on the value of the constant vector $`v_\mu ,`$ reducing it to a negligible correction term. Similar conclusions, also based on astrophysical observations, were also confirmed by Goldhaber & Timble . Some time later, Colladay and Kostelecky  adopted a quantum field theoretical framework to address the issue of CPT- and Lorentz-breakdown as a spontaneous violation. In this sense, they constructed an extension to the minimal Standard Model, which maintains unaffected the $`SU(3)\times SU(2)\times U(1)`$ gauge structure of the usual theory, and incorporates the CPT-violation as an active feature of the effective low-energy broken action. They started from a usual CPT- and Lorentz-invariant action as defining the properties of what would be an underlying theory at the Planck scale , which then suffers a spontaneous breaking of both these symmetries. In the broken phase, there rises the effective action, endowed with breakdown of CPT and Lorentz symmetries, but conservation of covariance under the perspective of the observer inertial frame. The Lorentz invariance is spoiled at the level of the particle-system, which can be viewed in terms of the non-invariance of the fields under boost and Lorentz rotations (relative inertial observer-frames). This covariance breakdown is also manifest when analyzing the dispersion relations, extracted from the propagators.

Investigations concerning the unitarity, causality and consistency of a QFT endowed with violation of Lorentz and CPT symmetries (induced by a Chern-Simons term) were carried out by Adam & Klinkhamer . As result, it was verified that the causality and unitarity of this kind of model can be preserved when the fixed (background) 4-vector is space-like, and spoiled whenever it is time-like or null. A consistency analysis of this model, carried out in the additional presence of a scalar sector endowed with spontaneous symmetry breaking (SSB) , has confirmed the results obtained in ref. , that is: the space-like case is free from unitarity illnesses, which arise in the time- and light-like cases.

The active development of Lorentz- and CPT-violating theories in $`D=1+3`$ has come across the inquiry about the structure of a similar model in 1+2 dimensions and its possible implications. In order to study a planar theory, endowed with Lorentz- and CPT-violation, one has decided to adopt a dimensional reduction procedure, that is: one starts from the original Chern-Simons-like term, $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }v_\mu A_\nu F_{\kappa \lambda }`$, promoting its systematic reduction to $`D=1+2,`$ which yields a pure Chern-Simons term and a Lorentz non-invariant mixing term. Our objective, therefore, is to achieve a planar model, whose structure is derived from a known counterpart defined in 1+3 dimensions, and to investigate some of its features, like propagators, dispersion relations, causality, stability and unitarity.

More specifically, one performs the dimensional reduction to 1+2 dimensions of the Abelian gauge invariant model with non-conservation of the Lorentz and CPT symmetries ,  induced by the term $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }v_\mu A_\nu F_{\kappa \lambda }`$, resulting in a gauge invariant Planar Quantum Electrodynamics (QED3) composed by a Maxwell-Chern-Simons gauge field $`\left(A_\mu \right),`$ by a scalar field $`\left(\phi \right),`$ a scalar parameter $`\left(s\right)`$ without dynamics (the Chern-Simons mass), and a fixed 3-vector $`\left(v^\mu \right)`$. Besides the MCS sector, this Lagrangian has a massless scalar sector, represented by the field $`\phi `$, which also works out as the coupling constant in the Chern-Simons-like structure that mixes the gauge field to the 3-vector, $`v^\mu `$ (where one gauge field is replaced by $`v^\mu `$). This latter term is the responsible by the Lorentz noninvariance. Therefore, the reduced Lagrangian is endowed with three coupled sectors: a MCS sector, a massless Klein-Gordon sector and a mixing Lorentz-violating one. As it is well-known, the MCS sector breaks both parity and time-reversal symmetries, but preserves the Lorentz and CPT ones. The scalar sector preserves all discrete symmetries and Lorentz covariance, whereas the mixing sector, as it will be seen, breaks Lorentz invariance (in relation to the particle-frame), keeps conserved parity and charge-conjugation symmetries, but may break or preserve time-reversal symmetry. This implies that it may occur both conservation (for a purely space-like $`v^\mu `$) and violation (for $`v^\mu `$ time-like and light-like) of the CPT invariance.

In short, this paper is outlined as follows. In Section II, one accomplishes the dimensional reduction, that leads to the reduced model. Having established the new planar Lagrangian, one then devotes some algebraic effort for the derivation of the propagators of the gauge and scalar fields, which requires the evaluation of a closed algebra composed by eleven projector operators, displayed into Table I. In Section III, we investigate the stability and the causal structure of the theory. One addresses the causality looking directly at the dispersion relations extracted from the poles of the propagators, which reveal the existence of both causal and non-causal modes. All the modes, nevertheless, present positive definite energy (positivity) relative to any Lorentz frame, which implies an overall stability. In Section IV, we accomplish the unitarity analysis, based on the matrix residue evaluated at the poles of the propagators. The unitarity of the overall model is ensured in the case one adopts a purely space-like background-vector, $`v^\mu `$. In Section V, we present our Concluding Comments.

## II The Dimensionally Reduced Model

One starts from the Maxwell Lagrangian***Here one has adopted the following metric conventions: $`g_{\mu \nu }=(+,,,)`$ in $`D=1+3,`$ and $`g_{\mu \nu }=(+,,)`$ in $`D=1+2`$. The greek letters (with hat) $`\widehat{\mu },`$ run from 0 to 3, while the pure greek letters, $`\mu ,`$ run from 0 to 2. in 1+3 dimensions supplemented by a term that couples the dual electromagnetic tensor to a fixed 4-vector, $`v^\mu ,`$ as it appears in ref. :

$$_{1+3}=\left\{\frac{1}{4}F_{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}F^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }}+\frac{1}{2}ϵ^{\widehat{\mu }\widehat{\nu }\widehat{\kappa }\widehat{\lambda }}v_{\widehat{\mu }}A_{\widehat{\nu }}F_{\widehat{\kappa }\widehat{\lambda }}+A_{\widehat{\nu }}J^{\widehat{\nu }}\right\},$$
(1)
with the additional presence of the coupling between the gauge field and the external current, $`A_{\widehat{\nu }}J^{\widehat{\nu }}.`$ This model (in its free version) is gauge invariant but does not preserve Lorentz and CPT symmetries relative to the particle frame. For the observer system, the Chern-Simons-like term transforms covariantly, once the background also is changed under an observer boost: $`v^{_{\widehat{\mu }}}v^{\widehat{\mu }^{^{}}}=\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{ }\alpha }^\mu v^\alpha `$. In connection with the particle-system, however, when one applies a boost on the particle, the background 4-vector is supposed to remain unaffected, behaving like a set of four independent numbers, which configures the breaking of the covariance. This term also breaks the parity symmetry, but maintain invariance under charge conjugation and time reversal. To study this model in 1+2 dimensions, one performs its dimensional reduction, which consists effectively in adopting the following ansatz over any 4-vector: (i) one keeps unaffected the temporal and also the first two spatial components; (ii) one freezes the third spacial dimension by splitting it from the body of the new 3-vector and requiring that the new quantities $`\left(\chi \right)`$, defined in 1+2 dimensions, do not depend on the third spacial dimension: $`__3\chi 0.`$ Applying this prescription to the gauge 4-vector, $`A^{\widehat{\mu }},`$ and to the fixed external 4-vector, $`v^{\widehat{\mu }},`$ and to the 4-current, $`J^{\widehat{\mu }}`$, one has:

$`A^{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $``$ $`(A^\mu ;\text{ }\phi ),`$ (2)
$`v^{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $``$ $`(v^\mu ;\text{ }s),`$ (3)
$`J^{\widehat{\mu }}`$ $``$ $`(J^\mu ;\text{ }J),`$ (4)
where: $`A^{\left(3\right)}=\phi ,`$ $`v^{\left(3\right)}=s,`$ $`J^{(3)}=J`$ and $`\mu =0,1,2`$. According to this process, there appear two scalars: the scalar field, $`\phi ,`$ that exhibits dynamics, and $`s,`$ a constant scalar (without dynamics). Carrying out this prescription for eq. (1), one then obtains:

$$_{1+2}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{2}_\mu \phi ^\mu \phi \frac{s}{2}ϵ_{\mu \nu k}A^\mu ^\nu A^k+\phi ϵ_{\mu \nu k}v^\mu ^\nu A^k\frac{1}{2\alpha }\left(_\mu A^\mu \right)^2+A_\mu J^\mu +\phi J,$$
(5)
where the last free term represents the gauge-fixing term, added up after the dimensional reduction. The scalar field, $`\phi ,`$ exhibits a typical Klein-Gordon massless dynamics and it also appears as the coupling constant that links the fixed $`v^\mu `$ to the gauge sector of the model, by means of the new term: $`\phi ϵ_{\mu \nu k}v^\mu ^\nu A^k.`$ In spite of being covariant in form, this kind of term breaks the Lorentz symmetry in the particle-frame, since the 3-vector $`v^\mu `$ is not sensitive to particle Lorentz boost, behaving like a set of three scalars.

The Lagrangian (1), originally proposed by Carroll-Field-Jackiw , has the property of breaking parity symmetry, even though conserving time reversal and charge conjugation symmetries, resulting in nonconservation of the CPT symmetry. Simultaneously, the Lorentz invariance is spoiled, since the fixed 4-vector $`v^\mu `$ breaks the rotational and boost invariances. On the other hand, the reduced model, given by eq.(5), does not necessarily jeopardize the CPT conservation, which depends truly on the character of the fixed vector $`v^\mu `$. As it is known, the parity transformation $`\left(𝒫\right)`$ in 1+2 dimensions is characterized by the inversion of only on of the spatial axis: $`x^\mu \stackrel{𝒫}{}x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =(x_o,x,y),`$ the same being valid for the 3-potential: $`A^\mu \stackrel{𝒫}{}A^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =(A_0,A^{\left(1\right)},A^{\left(2\right)}).`$ The time-reversal transformation $`\left(𝒯\right)`$ must keep unchanged the dynamics of the system, so that one must have: $`x^\mu \stackrel{\tau }{}x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =(x_o,x,y),`$ $`A^\mu \stackrel{\tau }{}A^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =(A_0,A^{\left(1\right)},A^{\left(2\right)})`$, while the charge conjugation determines: $`x^\mu \stackrel{𝒞}{}x^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =x^\mu ,`$ $`A^\mu \stackrel{𝒞}{}A^{}_{}{}^{}\mu =A^\mu .`$ One knows that the Chern-Simons term breaks both parity and time-reversal symmetries and keeps conserved the charge conjugation, which assures the global CPT invariance. The new term, $`\phi \epsilon _{\mu \nu k}v^\mu ^\nu A^k,`$ however, will manifest a non-symmetric behaviour before $`𝒯`$-transformation: there will occur conservation if one works with a purely space-like external vector $`\left(v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v})\text{ }\right)`$, or breakdown, if $`v^\mu `$ is purely time-like. Under parity and charge conjugation transformations, in turn, this term will evidence non-invariance for any adopted $`v^\mu `$, thereby one can state that it will occur CPT conservation when $`v^\mu `$ is purely space-like, and CPT violation otherwise. Here, the field $`\phi `$ was considered as having a scalar character under the parity transformation. Yet, if this field behaves like a pseudo-scalarThe adoption of a pseudo-scalar field can be justified by looking at the vector character of the potential ($`\stackrel{}{A}\stackrel{𝒫}{}\stackrel{}{A}`$) before the dimensional reduction. If one assumes that the field $`\phi `$ maintains the same behaviour of its ancestral $`\left(A_3\right)`$, one has a pseudo-scalar., the CPT conversation will be assured for a purely time-like $`v^\mu `$. For a light-like $`v^\mu ,`$ there will always occur time-reversal non-invariance, and consequently, CPT violation.

Neglecting divergence terms, one can write the linearized free action in an explicitly quadratic form, namely:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1+2}=d^3x\frac{1}{2}\left\{A^\mu [M_{\mu \nu }]A^\nu \phi \mathrm{}\phi +\phi \left[ϵ_{\mu \alpha \nu }v^\mu ^\alpha \right]A^\nu +A^\mu \left[ϵ_{\nu \alpha \mu }v^\nu ^\alpha \right]\phi \right\},$$
(6)
which can also appear in the matrix form:

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{1+2}=d^3x\frac{1}{2}\left(\begin{array}{cc}A^\mu & \phi \end{array}\right)\left[\begin{array}{cc}M_{\mu \nu }& T_\mu \\ T_\nu & \mathrm{}\end{array}\right]\left(\begin{array}{c}A^\nu \\ \phi \end{array}\right).$$
(7)
The action (7) has as nucleus a square matrix, $`P,`$ composed by the quadratic operators of the initial action. The mass dimension of the physical parameters and tensors are: $`\left[A^\mu \right]=\left[\phi \right]=1/2,`$ $`\left[v^\mu \right]=\left[s\right]=1,\left[T_\mu \right]=\left[M_{\mu \nu }\right]=2.`$ Here, some definitions are necessary:

$`M_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }+sS_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}\omega _{\mu \nu },\text{ }T_\nu =S_{\mu \nu }v^\mu ,`$ (8)
$`S_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\epsilon _{\mu \kappa \nu }^\kappa ,\text{ }\theta _{\mu \nu }=\eta _{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu },\text{ }\omega _{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mathrm{}}},`$ (9)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$, $`\omega _{\mu \nu },S_{\mu \nu }`$ stand respectively for the transverse, longitudinal and Chern-Simons dimensionless projectors, while $`M_{\mu \nu }`$ is the quadratic operator associated to the MCS sector. The inverse of the square matrix $`P,`$ given at the action (7), yields the propagators of the gauge and the scalar fields, which are also written in a matrix form, the propagator-matrix $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }\right)`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }=P^1=\frac{1}{\left(\mathrm{}M_{\mu \nu }T_\mu T_\nu \right)}\left[\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{}& T_\nu \\ T_\mu & M_{\mu \nu }\end{array}\right],$$
(10)
The propagator of the gauge field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}`$, and of the scalar field, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{22},`$ are written as:

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }+sS_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}\omega _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}T_\mu T_\nu \right]^1,`$ (11)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M_{\mu \nu }}{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }+sS_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}\omega _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}T_\mu T_\nu \right]^1,`$ (12)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\right)^\mu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_\nu }{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }+sS_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}\omega _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}T_\mu T_\nu \right]^1,`$ (13)
$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}\right)^\nu `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T_\mu }{\mathrm{}}}\left[\mathrm{}\theta _{\mu \nu }+sS_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{\alpha }}\omega _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}}}T_\mu T_\nu \right]^1,`$ (14)
while the terms $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{12},`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}`$ are related to the mixed propagators $`A_\mu \phi `$, $`\phi A_\mu `$ that indicate a scalar mediator turning into a gauge mediator and vice-versa. Here, for future purposes, it is useful to present the inverse of the tensor $`M_{\mu \nu },`$ that is, the propagator of the pure MCS Lagrangian:

$$\left(M_{\mu \nu }\right)^1=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}+s^2}\theta ^{\nu \mu }\frac{s}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}S^{\nu \mu }+\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{}}\omega ^{\nu \mu },$$
(15)
To perform the inversion of the operator above, one needs to define some new operators, since the ones known so far do not form a closed algebra, as it is shown below:

$`S_{\mu \nu }T_\text{ }^\nu T^\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{}v_\mu T^\alpha \lambda T^\alpha _\mu =\mathrm{}Q_\mu ^{\text{ }\alpha }\lambda \mathrm{\Phi }_{\text{ }\mu }^\alpha ,`$ (16)
$`Q_{\mu \nu }Q^{\alpha \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`T^2v^\alpha v_\mu =T^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{ }\mu }^\alpha ,`$ (17)
$`Q_{\mu \nu }\mathrm{\Phi }^{\nu \alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`T^2v_\mu ^\alpha =T^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^{\text{ }\alpha },`$ (18)
where the new operators are:

$$Q_{\mu \nu }=v_\mu T_\nu ,\text{ }\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }=v_\mu v_\nu ,\text{ }\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }=v_\mu _\nu ,\text{ }\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }=T_\mu _\nu ,$$
(19)
and,

$$\lambda \mathrm{\Sigma }_\mu ^\mu =v_\mu ^\mu ,\text{ }T^2=T_\alpha T^\alpha =(v^2\mathrm{}\lambda ^2).$$
(20)
Their mass dimension are: $`\left[\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\mu \nu }\right]=2,`$ $`\left[Q_{\mu \nu }\right]=3,`$ $`\left[\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu }\right]=2,\left[\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu }\right]=3`$.

Three of these new terms exhibit a non-symmetric structure, which leads to their consideration in pairs, namely: $`Q_{\mu \nu },Q_{\nu \mu };`$ $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Sigma }_{\nu \mu };`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Phi }_{\nu \mu }.`$ The inversion of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}`$ will be realized following the traditional prescription, $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}^1\right)_{\mu \nu }\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\nu \alpha }=\delta _\mu ^\alpha ,`$ where the operator $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\nu \alpha }`$ is composed by all the possible tensor combinations (of rank two) involving $`T_\mu ,v_\mu ,_\alpha .`$ In such way, the proposed propagator will consist, at a first glance, of eleven terms:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\nu \alpha }=a_1\theta ^{\nu \alpha }+a_2\omega ^{\nu \alpha }+a_3S^{\nu \alpha }+a_4\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\nu \alpha }+a_5T^\nu T^\alpha +a_6Q^{\nu \alpha }+a_7Q^{\alpha \nu }+a_8\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\nu \alpha }+a_9\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\alpha \nu }+a_{10}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\nu \alpha }+a_{11}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\alpha \nu },$$
(21)
which are displayed in Table I, where one observes explicitly the closure of the operator algebra.

θμνωμνSμνΛμνTμTνQμνQνμΣμνΣνμΦμνΦνμθναθμ α0Sμ α
Λμα+-λΣμαTμTαQμ α
Q μα+-λΦμα0
Σ  μα+-λω  μα0Φ μαωνα0ωμ α0λΣμα00λΦμαΣμ αλω μαΦ μα0SναSμ α0θμ αQμ α
λΦμ  α+-Q μα
λΣμ  α+-ΛμαTμTα0μTα0
(ωμ +α- Σα )μΛνα
Λμα+-λΣα  μλΣ μαQ μαv2Λμ α00v2Q μαλΛμ αv2Σ μαλQ μα0TνTαTμTα0
Qμ  α+-λΦ  μα0T2TμTαT2Qμα0000T2Qμ αQνα
Qμ  α+-λΦ  μαλΦ μαTμTαv2Qμ α00v2TμTαλQμ αv2μTαλTμTα0QανQ μα0
Λμ  α+-λΣ  μα0T2Q μαT2Λ μα0000T2Σ μαΣνα
Σμ+α-λωμαλωμ αΦμ αv2Σμ α00v2Φμ αλΣμαv2Λμ αλΦμ α0Σαν0Σ μα0λΛμ α00λQ μαΛμ αv2Λμ αQμ α0ΦναΦμ α0
(Σμ  α+-λωμ)α0T2Φμ αT2Σμα0000T2ωμαΦαν0Φ μα0λΦ μα00λTμTαΦα μλΦ μαTμTα0Table I: Multiplicative operator algebra fulfilled by θωSΛ,TTQΣ,and Φ. The products are supposed to be in the ordering “row times column”.subscriptmissing-subexpressionfragmentsθ𝜇𝜈fragmentsω𝜇𝜈fragmentsS𝜇𝜈fragmentsΛ𝜇𝜈fragmentsT𝜇T𝜈fragmentsQ𝜇𝜈fragmentsQ𝜈𝜇fragmentsΣ𝜇𝜈fragmentsΣ𝜈𝜇fragmentsΦ𝜇𝜈fragmentsΦ𝜈𝜇fragmentsθ𝜈𝛼fragmentsθ𝜇 𝛼0fragmentsS𝜇 𝛼
Λμα+-λΣμαfragmentsT𝜇T𝛼fragmentsQ𝜇 𝛼
Q μα+-λΦμα0
Σ  μα+-λω  μα0fragmentsΦ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsω𝜈𝛼0fragmentsω𝜇 𝛼0fragments𝜆Σ𝜇𝛼00fragments𝜆Φ𝜇𝛼fragmentsΣ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsλω 𝜇𝛼fragmentsΦ 𝜇𝛼0fragmentsS𝜈𝛼fragmentsS𝜇 𝛼0fragmentsθ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsQ𝜇 𝛼
λΦμ  α+-Q μα
λΣμ  α+-ΛμαfragmentsT𝜇T𝛼0fragments𝜇T𝛼0
(ωμ +α- Σα )μfragmentsΛ𝜈𝛼
Λμα+-λΣα  μfragments𝜆Σ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsQ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsv2Λ𝜇 𝛼00fragmentsv2Q 𝜇𝛼fragmentsλΛ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsv2Σ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsλQ 𝜇𝛼0fragmentsT𝜈T𝛼fragmentsT𝜇T𝛼0
Qμ  α+-λΦ  μα0fragmentsT2T𝜇T𝛼fragmentsT2Q𝜇𝛼0000fragmentsT2Q𝜇 𝛼fragmentsQ𝜈𝛼
Qμ  α+-λΦ  μαfragments𝜆Φ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsT𝜇T𝛼fragmentsv2Q𝜇 𝛼00fragmentsv2T𝜇T𝛼fragmentsλQ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsv2𝜇T𝛼fragmentsλT𝜇T𝛼0fragmentsQ𝛼𝜈fragmentsQ 𝜇𝛼0
Λμ  α+-λΣ  μα0fragmentsT2Q 𝜇𝛼fragmentsT2Λ 𝜇𝛼0000fragmentsT2Σ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsΣ𝜈𝛼
Σμ+α-λωμαfragmentsλω𝜇 𝛼fragmentsΦ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsv2Σ𝜇 𝛼00fragmentsv2Φ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsλΣ𝜇𝛼fragmentsv2Λ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsλΦ𝜇 𝛼0fragmentsΣ𝛼𝜈0fragmentsΣ 𝜇𝛼0fragmentsλΛ𝜇 𝛼00fragmentsλQ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsΛ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsv2Λ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsQ𝜇 𝛼0fragmentsΦ𝜈𝛼fragmentsΦ𝜇 𝛼0
(Σμ  α+-λωμ)α0fragmentsT2Φ𝜇 𝛼fragmentsT2Σ𝜇𝛼0000fragmentsT2ω𝜇𝛼fragmentsΦ𝛼𝜈0fragmentsΦ 𝜇𝛼0fragmentsλΦ 𝜇𝛼00fragmentsλT𝜇T𝛼fragmentsΦ𝛼 𝜇fragmentsλΦ 𝜇𝛼fragmentsT𝜇T𝛼0Table I: Multiplicative operator algebra fulfilled by 𝜃𝜔𝑆Λ,𝑇𝑇𝑄Σ,and Φ. The products are supposed to be in the ordering “row times column”.\mathrel{\mathop{\begin{tabular}[]{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline\cr&$\theta_{\mu\nu}$&$\omega_{\mu\nu}$&$S_{\mu\nu}$&$\;\Lambda_{\mu\nu}$&$T_{\mu}T_{\nu}$&$Q_{\mu\nu}$&$Q_{\nu\mu}$&$\Sigma_{\mu\nu}$&$\Sigma_{\nu\mu}$&$\Phi_{\mu\nu}$&$\Phi_{\nu\mu}$\\
\hline\cr$\theta^{\nu\alpha}$&$\theta_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$S_{\mu}$ ${}^{\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\Lambda_{\mu}^{{\rm\ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Sigma_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$Q_{\text{ }\mu}^{\alpha}+$\\
$-\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Phi_{\mu}^{{\rm\ \ }\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$0$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\Sigma_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}+$\\
$-\lambda\square\omega_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$0$&$\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\\
\hline\cr$\omega^{\nu\alpha}$&$0$&$\omega_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Sigma_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Phi_{\mu}^{{\rm\ \ }\alpha}$&$\Sigma_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$\lambda\omega_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr$S^{\nu\alpha}$&$S_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$-\square\theta_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$Q_{\mu}$ ${}^{\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\lambda\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\square Q_{\text{ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\lambda\Sigma_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\Lambda_{\mu}^{{\rm\ \ }\alpha}\square$\end{tabular}$&$-T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\partial_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\square(\omega_{\mu}$ ${}^{\alpha}+$\\
$-$ $\Sigma^{\alpha}$ ${}_{\mu})$\end{tabular}$\\
\hline\cr$\;\Lambda^{\nu\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\Lambda_{\mu}^{{\rm\ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Sigma{}_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Sigma{}_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$-Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$v^{2}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$v^{2}Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$\lambda\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$v^{2}\Sigma_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$\lambda Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr$T^{\nu}T^{\alpha}$&$T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\square Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\lambda\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$0$&$T^{2}T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$T^{2}Q_{\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$T^{2}Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$\\
\hline\cr$Q^{\nu\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$\frac{\lambda}{\square}\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$-T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$v^{2}Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$v^{2}T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$\lambda Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$v^{2}\partial_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$\lambda T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr$Q^{\alpha\nu}$&$Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\square\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\lambda\Sigma_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$0$&$T^{2}Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$T^{2}\Lambda_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$T^{2}\Sigma_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$\\
\hline\cr$\Sigma^{\nu\alpha}$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\Sigma_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}+$\\
$-\lambda\omega_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}$\end{tabular}$&$\lambda\omega_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$-\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$v^{2}\Sigma_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$v^{2}\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$\lambda\Sigma_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}$&$v^{2}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$\lambda\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr$\Sigma^{\alpha\nu}$&$0$&$\Sigma_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\lambda\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$\lambda Q_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$\square\Lambda_{\mu}$ ${}^{\alpha}$&$v^{2}\Lambda_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$\square Q_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr$\Phi^{\nu\alpha}$&$\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$0$&$\begin{tabular}[]{l}$\square(\Sigma_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}+$\\
$-\lambda\omega_{\mu}{}^{\alpha})$\end{tabular}$&$0$&$T^{2}\Phi_{\mu}^{\text{ \ }\alpha}$&$T^{2}\Sigma_{\mu}{}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$0$&$\square T^{2}\omega_{\mu}^{\alpha}$\\
\hline\cr$\Phi^{\alpha\nu}$&$0$&$\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$\lambda\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$0$&$0$&$\lambda T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$\square\Phi^{\alpha}$ ${}_{\mu}$&$\lambda\Phi_{\text{ \ }\mu}^{\alpha}$&$\square T_{\mu}T^{\alpha}$&$0$\\
\hline\cr\end{tabular}}\limits_{\text{Table I: Multiplicative operator algebra fulfilled by }\theta\text{, }\omega\text{, \thinspace}S\text{,\thinspace\ }\Lambda\text{,}TT\text{, }Q\text{, }\Sigma\text{,and }\Phi\text{. The products are supposed to be in the ordering ``row times column''.}}}

Using the data contained in Table I, one finds out that the gauge-field propagator assumes the form:

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{}+s^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (\mathrm{}+s^2)\lambda ^2s^2}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\omega ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{s}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}S^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}T^\mu T^\nu `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{s}{(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}Q^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{s}{(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}Q^{\nu \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda s^2}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda s^2}{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\nu \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{s\lambda }{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{s\lambda }{\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2)}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\nu \mu },`$
where: $`=(\mathrm{}^2+s^2\mathrm{}T^2).`$

By the same procedure, one evaluates the mixed propagator, $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\right)^\alpha =\frac{T_\nu }{\mathrm{}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{11}\right)^{\nu \alpha }`$, which can be written in the following form:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{12}\right)^\nu =\frac{1}{}\left[T^\nu +sv^\nu \frac{s\lambda }{\mathrm{}}^\nu \right],$$
(22)
whereas the propagator $`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}\right)^\nu `$, in turn, results equal to:

$`\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{21}\right)^\nu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{}}\left[T^\nu +sv^\nu {\displaystyle \frac{s\lambda }{\mathrm{}}}^\nu \right],`$

In order to compute the propagator of the scalar field,

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}\right)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}\left[1\frac{1}{\mathrm{}}T_\mu \left(M_{\mu \nu }\right)^1T_\nu \right]^1,$$
(23)
one makes use of the inverse of the tensor $`M_{\mu \nu }`$, given by eq. (15), so that: $`T_\mu (M^1)^{\mu \nu }T_\nu =\left(\mathrm{}+s^2\right)^1T^2.`$ In such a way, a compact scalar propagator arises:

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_{22}\right)\text{ }=\frac{\mathrm{}+s^2}{}$$
(24)
In momentum-space, the photon propagator takes the final expression:

$`A^\mu \left(k\right)A^\nu \left(k\right)`$ $`=`$ $`i\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{k^2s^2}}\theta ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha (k^2s^2)(k)+s^2(v.k)^2}{k^2(k^2s^2)(k)}}\omega ^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{s}{k^2(k^2s^2)}}S^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{s^2}{(k^2s^2)(k)}}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }`$ (27)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(k^2s^2)(k)}}T^\mu T^\nu +{\displaystyle \frac{s}{(k^2s^2)(k)}}Q^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{s}{(k^2s^2)(k)}}Q^{\nu \mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{is^2(v.k)}{k^2(k^2s^2)(k)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\mu \nu }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{is^2(v.k)}{k^2(k^2s^2)(k)}}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\nu \mu }{\displaystyle \frac{is(v.k)}{k^2(k^2s^2)(k)}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{is(v.k)}{k^2(k^2s^2)(k)}}\mathrm{\Phi }^{\nu \mu }\},`$
while the scalar and the mixed propagators read as:

$$\text{ }\phi \phi \text{ }=\frac{i}{(k)}\left[k^2s^2\right],$$
(28)
$$A^\alpha \left(k\right)\phi =\frac{i}{(k)}\left[T^\alpha +sv^\alpha \frac{s(v.k)}{k^2}k^\alpha \right],$$
(29)
$$\phi A^\alpha \left(k\right)=\frac{i}{(k)}\left[T^\alpha +sv^\alpha \frac{s(v.k)}{k^2}k^\alpha \right],$$
(30)
where: $`(k)=[k^4(s^2v.v)k^2(v.k)^2].`$ By the above expressions, one notes that the factor $``$ is present on the denominator of all propagators, in such a way the scalar and the gauge field will share the pole structure, and consequently, the physical excitations associated with the poles of $`(k).`$ This common dependence on $`1/`$ also amounts to similarities on the causal structure of the scalar and gauge sectors of this model, as it will de discussed in Section III.

## III  Dispersion Relations, Stability and Causality Analysis

Some references in literature ,, have dealt with the issue of stability, causality and unitarity concerning to Lorentz- and CPT-violating theories. The causality is usually addressed as a quantum feature that requires the commutation between observables separated by a space-like interval, which one calls microcausality in field theory . In this section, however, one analyzes causality under a classical tree-level perspective, in which it is related to the positivity of a usual Lorentz invariant, $`k^2.`$ The starting-point of all investigation is the propagator, whose poles are associated to dispersion relations (DR) that provide informations about the stability and causality of the model. The causality analysis is then related to the sign of the propagator poles, given in terms of $`k^2,`$ in such a way one must have $`k^20`$ in order to preserve it (circumventing the existence of tachyons). In the second quantization framework, stability is related to the energy positivity of the Fock states for any momentum. Here, stability is directly associated with the energy positivity of each mode read off from the DR.

The field propagators, given by eqs. (27, 29, 28), present three families of poles at $`k^2`$:

$$k^2=0;\text{ }k^2s^2=0;\text{ }k^4(s^2v.v)k^2(v.k)^2=0,$$
(31)
from which one straightforward infers the DR derived from the Lagrangian (5), namely:

$$k_{0\left(1\right)}^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2;\text{ }k_{0\left(2\right)}^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2+s^2;\text{ }k_{0\left(3\right)}^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2+\frac{1}{2}[(s^2v.v)\pm \sqrt{(s^2v.v)^2+4(v.k)^2}].$$
(32)
The first dispersion relation, $`k_0=\pm \stackrel{}{|k}|,`$ stands for a massless photon mode, which carries no degree of freedom, since the Lagrangian (5) involves a massive photon. The second DR represents the Chern-Simons massive mode, $`k_0=\pm \sqrt{s^2+|\stackrel{}{k}|^2},`$ which propagates only one degree of freedom (in the Maxwell-Chern-Simons electrodynamics the scalar magnetic field encloses all information of the electromagnetic field, which justifies the existence of a single degree of freedom). These first two poles apparently respect the causality condition, since $`k^20`$ for them. Once the causality is set up, the stability comes up as a direct consequence.

Concerning the third DR, corresponding to the roots of $`(k)`$, it may provide both massless and massive modes for some specific $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-values, but in general, the mode is massive. By remembering that $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ is the transfer momentum, whose values are generally integrated from zero to infinity, one concludes it does not make much sense to fix any value for $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ in order to obtain a particular dispersion relation. Remarking that the term $`(k)`$ is ubiquitous in the denominator of all propagators, as it is explicit in eqs. (27),(28), (29), one concludes the causal structure entailed to the poles of $`1/`$ will be common to these three propagators. Specifically, for a purely space-like 3-vector, $`v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v}),`$ this DR is written as,

$$k_{0\pm }^2=\stackrel{}{k}^2+\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2\right)\pm \sqrt{(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2)^2+4(\stackrel{}{v}.\stackrel{}{k})^2}\right].$$
(33)
A simple analysis of this expression indicates that both $`k_{0+}^2`$ and $`k_0^2`$ are positive-energy modes for any $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-value (and for any Lorentz observer), which assures the stability of these modes. This fact may suggest that the causal structure of the space-like sector of this model remains preserved, as it was observed by Adam & Klinkhamer  in the context of the 4-dimensional version of this theory, that is endowed with a dispersion relation very similar to eq. (33) (this conclusion was also supported by the attainment of a group velocity, associated to this mode, smaller than 1). Concerning the pole analysis, although, we have $`k_+^2>0`$ for arbitrary $`\stackrel{}{k}`$ and $`k_{}^2<0`$ (unless $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{k}=0`$, which implies $`k_{}^2=0`$). So, while the mode $`k_+^2`$ preserves the causality and stability, the mode $`k_{}^2`$, in spite of assuring stability, will be in general non-causal, preserving causality only when $`\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{v}`$ or $`\stackrel{}{k}=0.`$

In the case of a purely time-like 3-vector, $`v^\mu =(v_0,\stackrel{}{0}),`$ the DR assumes the form:

$$k_{0\pm }^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+2\stackrel{}{k}^2\right)\pm \sqrt{s^4+4v_o^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}\right],$$
(34)
where one observes a similar behaviour: the mode $`k_{0+}^2`$ will exhibit stability and causality, while the mode $`k_0^2`$ will present energy positivity (for arbitrary $`\stackrel{}{k}`$-value) whenever the condition, $`s^2v_0^2>0`$, is fulfilled. From now on, one must assume the validity of this condition, so that the mode $`k_0^2`$ can be taken stable. This latter mode is non-causal for any $`\stackrel{}{k}0.`$ Assuming the coefficients for Lorentz violation are small near the Chern-Simons mass $`\left(s^2v_0^2,|\stackrel{}{v}|^2\right),`$ we obtain an entirely causal theory (at least at zero order in $`v^2/s^2).`$ This is consistent with some results  concerning some quantum theories containing Lorentz-violating terms, which evidence the preservation of causality when the breaking factors are small.

Hence, the modes $`k_{0\pm }^2`$ exhibit positive energy both in space- and time-like cases, which also implies these two modes can be written as an expansion in terms of positive and negative frequency terms. This separation allows the definition of particles and antiparticles states, a necessary condition for the quantization of this theory. Nevertheless, the existence of non-causal modes, both in time- and space-like case, may be seen already at classical level, as a prediction on the impossibility to realize a consistent quantization of this model, an issue that will be properly addressed when one analyses the unitarity at these non-causal poles. Therefore, the existence of quantization illness will be solved by investigating the unitarity of the model, matter to be discussed in the next section.

In a Lorentz covariant framework, $`k^2`$ is a Lorentz scalar, which assures a unique value for all Lorentz frames. In such a way, if $`k^2`$ represents a causal mode for one observer, so it will be for all ones. The fact that $`k^2`$ has not a positive definite value in an arbitrary Lorentz frame is a unequivocal indicative of the Lorentz covariance breakdown.

## IV Unitarity Analysis

In order to analyze the unitarity of the model at tree-level, one has adopted the method which consists in saturating the propagators with external currents. The fact that our model possesses two sectors (the scalar and gauge one) implies that we must saturate the scalar-propagator and the gauge-propagator individually. In such a way, we write the two saturated propagators, namely:

$`SP_{A_\mu A_\nu }`$ $`=`$ $`J^\mu A_\mu (k)A_\nu (k)\text{ }J^\nu ,`$
$`SP_{\phi \phi }`$ $`=`$ $`J^{}\phi \phi J,`$
where the gauge current $`J^\mu `$ must obey the conservation law valid for the gauge sector of the systemBy applying the differential operator, $`_\mu ,`$ on the equation of motion derived from Lagrangian (5), there results the following equation (see ref. ) for the gauge current: $`_\mu J^\mu =\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\mu v_\nu _\rho \phi `$, which reduces to the conventional current-conservation law, $`_\mu J^\mu =0`$, whenever $`v^\mu `$ is constant or has a null rotational $`(\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \rho }_\mu v_\nu =0)`$., whereas the scalar current, $`J,`$ is not subject to any constraint. The unitarity analysis is based on the residues of $`SP,`$ precisely: the unitarity is ensured whenever the imaginary part of the residues of $`SP`$ at the poles of each propagator is positive. It is easy to notice that the saturated propagator in the momentum-space is the current-current transition amplitude.

### A Scalar Sector

We can initiate our analysis by the scalar sector, whose saturated amplitude is given by: $`SP_{\phi \phi }=J^{}\phi \phi J,`$ or more explicitly:

$`SP_{\phi \phi }=J^{}{\displaystyle \frac{i(k^2s^2)}{(k)}}J.`$

This expression presents two poles, $`k_+^2,k_{}^2`$, the roots of $`(k)=0.`$ At the purely time-like case, $`v^\mu =(v_0,\stackrel{}{0}),`$ these poles are exactly the ones given by eq. (34): $`k_\pm ^2=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[s^2\pm \sqrt{s^4+4v_o^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}\right]`$. Evaluating the residues of $`SP_{\phi \phi }`$ at the pole $`k_+^2`$ one achieves a positive imaginary result, while at the pole $`k_{}^2`$ a positive result appears only when the condition $`\stackrel{}{k}^2<(v_0^2+s^2)`$. In such a way, one concludes that the unitarity of the scalar sector, in the time-like case, is not assured. Considering now the purely space-like case, $`v^\mu =(0,\stackrel{}{v}),`$ the poles of $`SP_{\phi \phi }`$ are given by eq. (33): $`k_\pm ^2=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2\right)\pm \sqrt{(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2)^2+4(\stackrel{}{v}.\stackrel{}{k})^2}\right]`$. The residues associated with these two poles exhibit a positive definite imaginary part, so that one can state that the unitarity of the scalar sector, at the space-like case, is generically preserved.

### B Gauge-Field sector

The continuity equation, $`_\mu J^\mu =0,`$ in the k-space is read as: $`k_\mu J^\mu =0`$; it allows us to write the current in the form: $`J^\mu =(j^0,0,\frac{k_0}{k_2}j^{(0)}).`$ The conservation constraint, $`j^{(2)}=\frac{k_0}{k_2}j^{(0)},`$ appears whenever one adopts $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_2)`$ as the momentum. The current conservation law also reduces to six the number of terms of the photon propagator that contributes to the evaluation of the saturated propagator:

$$SP_{A_\mu A_\nu }=J_\mu ^{}(k)\left\{\frac{i}{D}\left(\mathrm{}g^{\mu \nu }sS^{\mu \nu }s^2\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}T^\mu T^\nu s\mathrm{}Q^{\mu \nu }+s\mathrm{}Q^{\nu \mu }\right)\right\}J_\nu (k),$$
(35)
where: $`D=\mathrm{}(\mathrm{}+s^2).`$ Writing this expression in the momentum-space, one obtains:

$$SP_{A_\mu A_\nu }=J^\mu (k)\left\{iB_{\mu \nu }\right\}J^\nu (k),$$
(36)
where: $`D=k^2(k^2s^2),`$ with: $`\left(k\right)=k^4(s^2v.v)k^2(v.k)^2`$.

#### 1 Time-like case:

We start by analyzing the unitarity in the case corresponding to a time-like background-vector: $`v^\mu =(v_0,\stackrel{}{0}).`$ In this situation, the 2-rank tensor $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ can be put in the form:

$$B_{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{1}{D(k)}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}k^2(s^2v_0^2)& \begin{array}{c}ik^{\left(2\right)}(sv_0^2s^2k^2)\end{array}& ik^{\left(1\right)}(s+v_0^2s^2k^2)\\ ik^{\left(2\right)}(s+v_0^2s^2k^2)& \begin{array}{c}k^2(+v_0^2k_2^2)\end{array}& isk^{\left(0\right)}v_0^2k^2k^{\left(1\right)}k^{\left(2\right)}\\ ik^{\left(1\right)}(sv_0^2s^2k^2)& \begin{array}{c}isk^{\left(0\right)}v_0^2k^2k^{\left(1\right)}k^{\left(2\right)}\end{array}& k^2(+v_0^2k_1^2)\end{array}\right],$$
(37)
where: $`=k^4(s^2v_0^2)k^2k_0^2`$.

For the pole $`k^2=0,`$ with $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_0)`$, we have the following residue matrix:

$$B_{\mu \nu }|_{(k^2=0)}=\frac{1}{s^2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& \begin{array}{c}isk_0\end{array}& 0\\ isk_0& 0& isk_0\\ 0& \begin{array}{c}isk_0\end{array}& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(38)
which is reduced to a null matrix when saturated with the conserved current, $`J^\mu =(j^0,0,\frac{k_0}{k_2}j^{(0)}),`$ implying also a null saturation $`(SP=0)`$. This fact indicates that the mode associated with the pole $`k^2=0`$ carries no physical degree of freedom, and further, it does not jeopardize the unitarity.

For the pole $`k^2=s^2,`$ with $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_2)`$, the matrix takes the form,

$$B_{\mu \nu }|_{(k^2=s^2)}=\frac{1}{s^2k_2^2}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}s^2k_0^2& isk^{\left(2\right)}k_0^2& 0\\ isk^{\left(2\right)}k_0^2& 0& isk_0k_2^2\\ 0& isk_0k_2^2& s^2k_2^2\end{array}\right],$$
(39)
This matrix, whenever saturated with the external current $`J^\mu =(j^0,0,\frac{k_0}{k_2}j^{(0)}),`$ leads to a trivial saturation $`\left(SP=0\right)`$, which is compatible with unitarity requirements. The vanishing of the current-current amplitude at this pole indicates that the massive excitation $`k^2=s^2`$ is not dynamical for the time-like background.

At the pole $`k_+^2=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[s^2+\sqrt{s^4+4v_o^2\stackrel{}{k}^2}\right],`$ the residue matrix reads as:

$$B_{\mu \nu }|_{(k^2=k_+^2)}=\frac{v_0^2}{(k_+^2s^2)(k_+^2k_{}^2)}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}s^2& is^2k^{\left(2\right)}& 0\\ is^2k^{\left(2\right)}& k_2^2& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right],$$
(40)
which has as eigenvalues $`\lambda _1=0,`$ $`\lambda _2=0,`$ $`\lambda _3=k_2^2+s^2`$. Consequently, one has $`SP>0`$ (unitarity preservation). At the pole $`k_{}^2,`$ a similar behaviour occurs: one obtains a residue matrix exactly equal to the one given above. The difference rests only on the coefficient appearing in front of the matrix, in this case: $`\frac{1}{D(k_{})}=v_0^2[(k_{}^2s^2)(k_{}^2k_{}^2)]^1>0`$. The fact that this last coefficient results positive indicates that the unitarity is also preserved at the pole $`k^2=`$ $`k_{}^2`$, once one has the same eigenvalues. Here, the situation presents a peculiarity with respect to its $`\left(1+3\right)`$-dimensional counterpart: according to the analysis of the works ,, for a time-like background vector, the gauge sector is always plagued by ghost states which cannot be removed by any gauge choice. They actually spoil the unitarity.

#### 2 Space-like Case:

In this case, taking $`v^\mu =(0,0,v)`$, the tensor $`B_{\mu \nu }`$ is given as follows:

$$B_{\mu \nu }(k)=\frac{1}{D(k)}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}k^2(v^2k_1^2)& isk^{\left(2\right)}k^2v^2k_0k^{\left(1\right)}& ik^{\left(1\right)}(ssk^2v^2)\\ isk^{\left(2\right)}k^2v^2k_0k^{\left(1\right)}& k^2(+v^2k_0^2)& isk_0(+v^2k^2)\\ ik^{\left(1\right)}(s+sk^2v^2)& isk_0+iskv^2k_0& k^2(+v^2s^2)\end{array}\right],$$
(41)
where: $`=k^4(s^2v^2)k^2v^2k_2^2`$.

For the pole $`k^2=0,`$ with $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_0),`$ one obtains the same matrix attained in the time-like case, given by eq. (38). Exactly by the same reasons presented at this former section, one can assert that the unitarity is preserved at this pole.

For the pole $`k^2=s^2,`$ with $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_2)`$, the resulting matrix is identical to one given by eq. (39), so that the conclusions established in the time-like case are also valid here. The vanishing of the saturated propagator at the pole $`k^2=s^2`$, in both cases, indicates that the massive excitation $`k^2=s^2`$ is not dynamical in our model.

For the pole $`k_+^2=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}\left[\left(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2\right)\pm \sqrt{(s^2+\stackrel{}{v}^2)^2+4(\stackrel{}{v}.\stackrel{}{k})^2}\right],`$ with $`k^\mu =(k_0,0,k_2),`$ the residue matrix is reduced to:

$$B_{\mu \nu }|_{(k^2=k_+^2)}=\frac{v^2}{(k_+^2s^2)(k_+^2k_{}^2)}\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& k_0^2& isk_0\\ 0& isk_0& s^2\end{array}\right],$$
(42)
where: $`(k_+^2k_{}^2)=\sqrt{\left(s^2+v^2\right)^2+4v^2k_2^2}`$. The eigenvalues of this matrix are: $`\lambda _1=0,`$ $`\lambda _2=0,`$ $`\lambda _3=k_0^2+s^2`$, which leads to a positive saturation $`\left(SP>0\right),`$ and then unitarity is guaranteed at this pole. For the pole $`k_{}^2,`$ unitarity is also ensured, this may be seen in an exactly similar way to the one performed in the time-like case.

Taking into account all results concerning the gauge sector of this model, one concludes that the unitarity is preserved in both time- and space-like cases (at all the poles of the gauge propagator) without any restriction. Considering the restriction on the unitarity of the scalar sector at the time-like case, one can state that our entire model preserves unitarity only in the space-like case. It is also interesting to note that the unitarity of the gauge sector is guaranteed even at the non-causal poles $`k_{}^2`$, which confirms the consistency of our model. This fact can be understood remembering that the modes $`k_{}^2,`$ in spite of being non-causal, are stable ones.

## V Concluding Comments

We have accomplished the dimensional reduction to 1+2 dimensions of a gauge invariant, Lorentz and CPT-violating model, defined by the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term, $`ϵ^{\mu \nu \kappa \lambda }v_\mu A_\nu F_{\kappa \lambda }`$. One then obtains a Maxwell-Chern-Simons planar Lagrangian in the presence of a Lorentz breaking term and a massless scalar field. Concerning this reduced model, the CPT symmetry is conserved for a purely space-like $`v^\mu `$, and spoiled otherwise. The propagators of this model are evaluated and exhibit a common causal structure (bound to the dependence on $`1/)`$. The poles of the propagators are used as starting point for the analysis of causality, stability and unitarity. Concerning the dispersion relations, one verifies that the modes have positive definite energy, which ensures stability. The causality is assured for all modes of the theory, except for $`k_{}^2`$ (both in space- and time-like case). In connection with the unitarity of this model, one has analyzed the scalar and the gauge sectors separately, by means of the saturation of the residue matrix. The gauge sector has revealed to be unitary for time- and space-like background vectors, whereas the scalar sector has showed to preserve unitarity only in the space-like case. We should now pay attention to a special property of 3-space-time dimensions, namely: the absence of ghosts in the gauge-field spectrum for a time-like, $`v^\mu `$. Unitarity is a relevant matter and an essential condition for a consistent quantization of any theory. Once the unitarity is here ensured, this model may become a useful and interesting tool to analyze planar systems (including Condensed-Matter ones) with anisotropic properties.

A new version of this work  may address the dimensional reduction of a gauge-Higgs model  in the presence the Carroll-Field-Jackiw term. In this case, the reduced model will be composed by two scalar fields (one stemming from the dimensional reduction, the other being the Higgs scalar), by a Maxwell-Chern-Simons-Proca gauge field, and by the Lorentz-violating mixing term. The introduction of the Higgs sector may shed light on new interesting issues concerning planar systems, like the investigation of vortex-like configurations in the framework of a Lorentz-breaking model.

Another natural investigation consists in studying the solutions to the classical equations of motion (the extended Maxwell equations) and wave equations (for the potential $`A^\mu `$) corresponding to the reduced Lagrangian. It is possible that such equations reveal a similar structure (but more complex) to the MCS conventional Electrodynamics, since the reduced Lagrangian indeed contains the MCS sector. The solution to these equations may unveil some interesting aspects, such as the property of anisotropy (induced by a space-like background, $`\stackrel{}{v}`$) in the interaction potential derived from such equations. This issue is actually being investigated and we shall report on it in a forthcoming paper .

## VI Acknowledgments

Manoel M. Ferreira Jr is grateful to the Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas Físicas - CBPF, for the kind hospitality. J. A. Helayël-Neto acknowledges the CNPq for financial support. The authors are grateful to Álvaro L. M. de Almeida Nogueira, Marcelo A. N. Botta Cantcheff and Gustavo D. Barbosa for relevant discussions.


text:
# Average path length in random networks

## Abstract

Analytic solution for the average path length in a large class of random graphs is found. We apply the approach to classical random graphs of Erdös and Rényi $`(ER)`$ and to scale-free networks of Barabási and Albert $`(BA)`$. In both cases our results confirm previous observations: small world behavior in classical random graphs $`l_{ER}\mathrm{ln}N`$ and ultra small world effect characterizing scale-free $`BA`$ networks $`l_{BA}\mathrm{ln}N/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}N`$. In the case of scale-free random graphs with power law degree distributions we observed the saturation of the average path length in the limit of $`N\mathrm{}`$ for systems with the scaling exponent $`2<\alpha <3`$ and the small-world behaviour for systems with $`\alpha >3`$.

During the last few years random, evolving networks have become a very popular research domain among physicists 0a ; 0b ; 1 ; 2 . A lot of efforts were put into investigation of such systems, in order to recognize their structure and to analyze emerging complex properties. It was observed that despite network diversity, most of real web-like systems share three prominent features: small average path length ($`APL`$), high clustering and skewed degree distribution 0a ; 0b ; 1 ; 2 ; 14 . Several network topology generators have been proposed to embody the fundamental network characteristics 22 ; 12 ; 15 ; 16 . Due to extensive numerical simulations there were created and analyzed realistic models of real networks especially basing on preferential attachment rule introduced by Barabási and Albert 1 ; 2 ; 22 . The most basic issues within the scope of network investigation are structural: connectivity distributions 22 ; 16 ; 11 , correlation analyzes (including clustering) 5a ; 7 ; 20  and finally estimations of the $`APL`$ 7a ; 8 ; 9 ; 9a . The last characteristics is of great importance for network studies as it delivers basic information on a type of network geometry. It is clear, that a better understanding of network topology is of great importance for modern network designing and indirectly affects such crucial fields like information processing in different communication systems (including the Internet) 26 ; 27 ; 28 ; 30 , disease or rumor transmission in social networks 33 ; 34 ; 35  and network optimization 29 ; 31 ; 46 . All these processes become more efficient when the mean distance between network sites is smaller.

It is well known that random networks such as Erdös and Rényi ($`ER`$) graphs, as well as partially random networks such as Watts-Strogatz small-world models 32 ; 7a , have a very small $`APL`$, which scales as $`l\mathrm{ln}N`$, where $`N`$ describes the network size. In fact, it was expected that the logarithmic size effect on the $`APL`$ is a common property of random networks 8 . Very recently Cohen and Havlin found 9  that random networks with power-law degree distribution $`P(k)k^\alpha `$ and the scaling exponent $`2<\alpha <3`$ exhibit anomalous scaling of the average distance $`l\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}N`$. Such an anomalous scaling is expected to lead to anomalies in diffusion and transport phenomena within the networks. The result is particularly interesting since it is known that most of real networks, including both manmade communication networks like the Internet and natural networks like food or metabolic networks, exhibit scale-free character with the relevant scaling exponents 0a ; 0b ; 1 ; 2 .

The paper presents an analytic theory describing metric features of random networks. It allows to calculate the main network characteristics like: $`APL`$, intervertex distance distribution and the mean number of vertices at a certain distance away from a randomly chosen vertex. We compare our analytic results with numerical simulations performed for $`ER`$ random graphs and for scale-free Barabási and Albert ($`BA`$) networks.

Let us start with the following lemma.

###### Lemma 1

If $`A_1,A_2,\mathrm{},A_n`$ are mutually independent events and their probabilities fulfill relations $`_iP(A_i)\epsilon `$ then

$$P(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}A_i)=1\mathrm{exp}(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}P(A_i))Q,$$
(1)
where $`0Q<_{j=0}^{n+1}(n\epsilon )^j/j!(1+\epsilon )^n`$.

Proof. Using the method of inclusion and exclusion 38  we get

$`P({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}A_i)={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^{j+1}S(j),`$ (2)
with

$`S(j)={\displaystyle \underset{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_jn}{\overset{n}{}}}P(A_{i_1})P(A_{i_2})\mathrm{}P(A_{i_j})`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{j!}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}P(A_i)\right)^jQ_j,`$ (3)
where $`0Q_j(n^j/j!({}_{j}{}^{n}))\epsilon ^j`$. The term in bracket represents the total number of redundant components occurring in the last line of (Average path length in random networks). Neglecting $`Q_j`$ it is easy to see that $`(1P(A_i))`$ corresponds to the first $`(n+1)`$ terms in the MacLaurin expansion of $`\mathrm{exp}(P(A_i))`$. The effect of higher-order terms in this expansion is smaller than $`R<(n\epsilon )^{n+1}/(n+1)!`$. It follows that the total error of (1) may be estimated as $`Q<_{j=1}^nQ_j+R`$. This completes the proof.

Let us notice that the terms $`Q_j`$ in (Average path length in random networks) disappear when one approximates multiple sums $`_{1i_1<i_2<\mathrm{}<i_jn}^n`$ by corresponding multiple integrals. For $`\epsilon =A/n1`$ the error of the above assessment is less then $`A^2\mathrm{exp}(A)/n`$ and may be dropped in the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$.

A random graph with a given degree distribution $`P(k)`$ is the simplest network model 8 . In such a network the total number of vertices $`N`$ is fixed. Degrees of all vertices are independent identically distributed random integers drawn from a specified distribution $`P(k)`$ and there are no vertex-vertex correlations. Because of the lack of correlations the probability that there exists a walk of length $`x`$ crossing index-linked vertices $`\{i,v_1,v_2\mathrm{}v_{(x1)},j\}`$ is described by the product $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{iv_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_1v_2|iv_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_2v_3|v_1v_2}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_{(x1)}j|v_{(x2)}v_{(x1)}}`$ where

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}=\frac{k_ik_j}{kN},$$
(4)
gives a connection probability between vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ with degrees $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$ respectively, whereas

$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij|li}=\frac{(k_i1)k_j}{kN}$$
(5)
describes the conditional probability of a link $`\{i,j\}`$ given that there exists another link $`\{l,i\}`$. It is important to stress that the graph theory distinguishes a walk from a path 45 . A walk is just a sequence of vertices. The only condition for such a sequence is that two successive nodes are the nearest neighbors. A walk is termed a path if all of its vertices are distinct. In fact we are interested in the shortest paths. Let us consider the situation when there exists at least one walk of the length $`x`$ between the vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$. If the walk(s) is(are) the shortest path(s) $`i`$ and $`j`$ are exactly $`x`$-th neighbors otherwise they are closer neighbors. In terms of statistical ensemble of random graphs 5  the probability $`p_{ij}(x)`$ of at least one walk of the length $`x`$ between $`i`$ and $`j`$ expresses also the probability that these nodes are neighbors of order not higher than $`x`$. Thus, the probability that $`i`$ and $`j`$ are exactly $`x`$-th neighbors is given by the difference

$$p_{ij}^{}(x)=p_{ij}(x)p_{ij}(x1).$$
(6)
In order to write the formula for $`p_{ij}(x)`$ we take advantage of the lemma (1)

$`p_{ij}(x)=1Q`$ (7)
$`\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{v_1=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{v_2=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \underset{v_{(x1)}=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\stackrel{~}{p}_{iv_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_{(x1)}j|v_{(x2)}v_{(x1)}}],`$
where $`N`$ is the total number of vertices in a network. A sequence of $`(x+1)`$ vertices $`\{i,v_1,v_2\mathrm{},v_{(x1)},j\}`$ beginning with $`i`$ and ending with $`j`$ corresponds to a single event $`A_i`$ and the number of such events is given by $`n=N^{x1}`$. Putting (4) into (7) and replacing the summing over nodes indexes by the summing over the degree distribution $`P(k)`$ one gets:

$$p_{ij}(x)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{k_ik_j}{N}\frac{k(k1)^{x1}}{k^x}\right]Q.$$
(8)
The assumption underlying (1) is the mutual independence of all contributing events $`A_i`$. In fact, since the same edge may participate in several $`x`$walks there exist correlations between these events. Nevertheless, it is easy to see that the fraction of correlated walks is negligible for short walks ($`xN`$) that play the major role in random graphs showing small-world behavior.

The question is when the term $`Q`$ in (8) may be neglected. To work out the problem let us perform the following reasoning: if $`_{(i,j)}`$ there exists $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }1`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }`$ then $`_{x1}`$ $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{iv_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_1v_2|iv_1}\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{p}_{v_{(x1)}j|v_{(x2)}v_{(x1)}}\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }^x1`$ and $`Q`$ may be ignored. In fact, due to (4) the condition $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}1`$ is not fulfilled for pairs of vertices $`i`$ and $`j`$ possessing large degrees $`k_i`$ and $`k_j`$. The fraction of such pairs may be estimated as

$$_{k_{min}}^{k_{max}}P(k_j)_{\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }kN/k_j}^{k_{max}}P(k_i)𝑑k_i𝑑k_j1.$$
(9)
Using the Chebyshev’s inequality 38  and solving (9) with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{\epsilon }1`$ one gets the condition when $`Q`$ may be dropped

$$\frac{k^2}{k^2}(k^2k^2)N^2.$$
(10)
Due to (6) the probability that both vertices are exactly the $`x`$-th neighbors may be written as

$$p_{ij}^{}(x)=F(x1)F(x),$$
(11)
where

$$F(x)=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{k_ik_j}{N}\frac{(k^2k)^{x1}}{k^x}\right].$$
(12)
Note that averaging (11) over all pairs of vertices one may obtain the intervertex distance distribution $`p(x)=p_{ij}^{}(x)_i_j`$. Now the mean number of vertices at a certain distance $`x`$ away from a randomly chosen vertex $`i`$ can be written as $`z_x=p_{ij}^{}(x)P(k_j)N𝑑k_j`$. Taking only the first two terms of power series expansion of both exponential functions in (11) one gets the relationship obtained by Newman et al. 8  $`z_x=(z_2/z_1)^{x1}z_1`$ that was received assuming a tree-like structure of random graphs.

The expectation value for the $`APL`$ between $`i`$ and $`j`$ is

$$l_{ij}(k_i,k_j)=\underset{x=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}xp_{ij}^{}(x)=\underset{x=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}F(x).$$
(13)
Notice that a walk may cross the same node several times thus the largest possible walk length can be $`x=\mathrm{}`$. The Poisson summation formula allows us to simplify (13)

$$l_{ij}(k_i,k_j)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}k_ik_j+\mathrm{ln}(k^2k)+\mathrm{ln}N\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}(k^2/k1)}+\frac{1}{2},$$
(14)
where $`\gamma 0.5772`$ is the Euler’s constant. The average intervertex distance for the whole network depends on a specified degree distribution $`P(k)`$

$$l=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(k^2k)2\mathrm{ln}k+\mathrm{ln}N\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}(k^2/k1)}+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(15)
The formulas (14) and (15) diverge when $`k^2=2k`$, giving the well-known estimation of percolation threshold in undirected random graphs pc1 ; pc2 .

To test the formula (15) we start with two well known networks: $`ER`$ classical random graphs and scale-free $`BA`$ networks. The choice of these two networks is not accidental. Both models play an important role in the network science 0a ; 0b ; 1 ; 2 . The $`ER`$ model was historically the first one but it has been realized it is too random to describe real networks. The most striking discrepancy between $`ER`$ model and real networks appears when comparing degree distributions. As mention at the beginning of the paper degree distribution follows power-law in most of real systems, whereas classical random graphs exhibit Poisson degree distribution. The only known mechanism driving real networks into scale-free structures is preferential attachment. The simplest model that incorporates the rule of preferential attachment was originally introduced by Barabási and Albert 22 .

Classical $`ER`$ random graphs. For these networks the degree distribution is given by the Poisson function $`P(k)=e^kk^k/k!`$ and the condition (10) is always fulfilled. However, since $`\mathrm{ln}k`$ cannot be calculated analytically for Poisson distribution thus the $`APL`$ may not be directly obtained from (15). To overcome this problem we take advantage of the mean field approximation. Let us assume that all vertices within a graph possess the same degree $`_ik_i=k`$. It implies that the $`APL`$ between two arbitrary nodes $`i`$ and $`j`$ (15) should describe the average intervertex distance of the whole network

$$l_{ER}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}N\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}(pN)}+\frac{1}{2}.$$
(16)
Until now only a rough estimation of the quantity has been known. One has expected that the average shortest path length of the whole ER graph scales with the number of nodes in the same way as the network diameter. We remind that the diameter $`d`$ of a graph is defined as the maximal distance between any pair of vertices and $`d_{ER}=\mathrm{ln}N/\mathrm{ln}(pN)`$ 1 ; 2 . Fig.1 shows the prediction of the equation (16) in comparison with the numerically calculated $`APL`$ in classical random graphs.

Scale-free $`BA`$ networks. The basis of the $`BA`$ model is its construction procedure. Two important ingredients of the procedure are: continuous network growth and preferential attachment. The network starts to grow from an initial cluster of $`m`$ fully connected vertices. Each new node that is added to the network creates $`m`$ links that connect it to previously added nodes. The preferential attachment means that the probability of a new link growing out of a vertex $`i`$ and ending up in a vertex $`j`$ is given by $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}^{BA}=mk_j(t_i)/_lk_l(t_i)`$, where $`k_j(t_i)`$ 42  denotes the connectivity of a node $`j`$ at the time when a new node $`i`$ is added to the network. Taking into account the time evolution of node degrees in $`BA`$ networks one can show that the probability $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}^{BA}`$ is equivalent to (4). Now let us consider the conditional probability $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij|li}`$. Checking the possible time order of the vertices $`i,j,l`$ it is easy to see that in five of $`3!`$ cases $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij|li}=\stackrel{~}{p}_{ij}`$ and in a good approximation we get instead of (8) the result

$$p_{ij}^{BA}(x)=1\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{k_ik_j}{N}\frac{k^2^{x1}}{k^x}\right].$$
(17)
It was found 42  that the degree distribution in $`BA`$ network is given by $`P(k)=2m^2k^\alpha `$, where $`k=m,m+1,\mathrm{},m\sqrt{N}`$, and the scaling exponent $`\alpha =3`$. Putting $`k=2m`$, $`k^2=m^2\mathrm{ln}N`$ and taking into account (17) one gets that the $`APL`$ between $`i`$ and $`j`$ is given by

$$l_{ij}^{BA}(k_i,k_j)=\frac{\mathrm{ln}(k_ik_j)+\mathrm{ln}N+\mathrm{ln}(2m)\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}N+\mathrm{ln}(m/2)}+\frac{3}{2}.$$
(18)
Averaging (18) over all vertices we obtain

$$l_{BA}=\frac{\mathrm{ln}N\mathrm{ln}(m/2)1\gamma }{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}N+\mathrm{ln}(m/2)}+\frac{3}{2}.$$
(19)
Fig.2 shows the $`APL`$ of $`BA`$ networks as a function of the network size $`N`$ compared with the analytical formula (19). There is a visible discrepancy between the theory and numerical results when $`k=4`$. The discrepancy disappears when the network becomes denser i.e. when $`k`$ increases. We suspect that it is the effect of structural correlations that occur within the evolving networks 5a ; x1  and are absent in random graphs used for analytic calculations. The results let us deduce that the correlations become less important in denser networks.

Scale-free networks with arbitrary scaling exponent. Let us consider scale-free random graphs with degree distribution given by a power law, i.e. $`P_\alpha (k)=(\alpha 1)m^{\alpha 1}k^\alpha `$, where $`k=m,m+1,\mathrm{},mN^{1/(\alpha 1)}`$ 9 . Solving (10) for $`P_\alpha (k)`$ one can see that our approach should work for $`\alpha >2`$. Taking advantage of (15) we get that for large networks $`N1`$ the $`APL`$ scales as follows

* $`l2/(3\alpha )+1/2`$ for $`2<\alpha <3`$,
* $`l\mathrm{ln}N/\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{ln}N+3/2`$ for $`\alpha =3`$,
* $`l\mathrm{ln}N/(\mathrm{ln}(m(\alpha 2)/(\alpha 3)1)+1/2`$ for $`\alpha >3`$.

The result for $`\alpha 3`$ is consistent with estimations obtained by Cohen and Havlin 9 . The first case with $`l`$ independent on $`N`$ shows that there is a saturation effect for the mean path length in large networks. Note, that the effect was observed in metabolic networks x .

In conclusion, we presented a theory for metric properties of random networks with arbitrary degree distribution. The approach is applied to get an analytic formula for the $`APL`$ in a large class of undirected random graphs with an arbitrary degree distribution $`P(k)`$. The results are in a very good agreement with numerical simulations performed for $`ER`$ random graphs and for $`BA`$ networks. We observed saturation of $`l`$ in the limit $`N\mathrm{}`$ of scale-free networks with scaling exponents from the range $`2<\alpha <3`$, the small-world behaviour for networks with $`\alpha >3`$ and the ultra small-world behaviour of $`BA`$ model. Our derivations show that the behaviour of $`APL`$ within scale-free networks is even more intriguring than reported in the recent paper of Cohen and Havlin 9 .

Appendix. After finishing the paper we learned about the preprint on this subject written by Dorogovtsev, Mendes and Samukhin metric . Basing on generating function formalism the authors derived a similar formula for the $`APL`$ in random graphs $`l\mathrm{ln}N/\mathrm{ln}(k^2/k1)`$.

Acknowledgments. We are thankful to Sergei Dorogovtsev for critical comments to the preliminary version of this paper. One of us (AF) thanks The State Committee for Scientific Research in Poland for support under grant No. $`2P03B01323`$.