text:
# Experimental study for Yuen-Kim protocol of quantum key distribution with unconditional secure

## I Introduction

It is well known that quantum key distribution is one of the most interesting subjects in quantum information science, which was pioneered by C.Bennett and G.Brassard in 1984. In the original paper of Bennett, single photon communication was employed as implementation of quantum key distribution. However, despite that it is not essential in great idea of Bennett, many researchers employed single photon communication scheme to realize BB84, B92. Because of the difficulties of single photon communication in practical sense, it was discussed whether one can realize a secure key distribution guaranteed by quantum nature based on light wave communication or not.

In 1998, H.P.Yuen and A.Kim proposed another scheme for key distribution based on communication theory(signal detection theory). This scheme corresponds to an implementation of secret key sharing which was information theoretically predicted by Maurer, et al. However, Yuen’s idea was found independently from Maurer’s discussion. In the first paper of Yuen-Kim, they showed that if noises of Eve(eavesdropper) and Bob(receiver) are statistically independent, secure key distribution can be realized even if they are classical noises, in which they employed a modification of B92 protocol. Following YK’s first paper, a simple experimental demonstration of YK protocol based on classical noise was reported, and recently YK scheme with 1 Gbps and 10 km long fiber system based on quantum shot noise was demonstrated. However, these schemes are not unconditional secure. That is, ability of signal detection of Eve can be superior to that of Bob. As a result, an interesting question arises ” Is it possible to create a system with current technology that could provide a communication in which always Bob’s error probability is superior to that of Eve?”

In proceedings paper of QCM and C 2002, Yuen and his coworker reported that YK protocol can be unconditional secure, even if one uses conventional optical communication system. This is interesting result for engineer, and will open a new trend of quantum cryptography.

In this report, we simulate practical feature of Yuen-Kim protocol for quantum key distribution with unconditional secure, and propose a scheme to implement them using our former experimental setup.

## II Yuen-Kim protocol

### II.1 Basis

A fundamental concept of Yuen-Kim protocol follows the next remark.
Remark: If there are statistically independent noises between Eve and Bob, there exist a secure key distribution based on communication.
They emphasized that the essential point of security of the key distribution is detectability of signals. This is quite different with the principle of BB-84, et al which are followed by no cloning theorem. That is, BB-84 and others employ a principle of disturbance of quantum states to give a guarantee of security, but YK protocol employs a principle of communication theory. It was clarified that this scheme can be realized as a modification of B-92. However, this scheme allows us use of classical noise, and it cannot provide unconditional secure. Then, Yuen and his coworker showed that YK scheme is to be unconditional secure in which a fundamental theorem in quantum detection theory was used for his proof of security as follows.
Theorem: (Helstrom-Holevo-Yuen)
Signals with non commuting density operators cannot be distinguished without error.
So if we assign non commuting density operators for bit signals 1 and 0, then one cannot distinguish without error. When the error is 1/2 based on quantum noise, there is no way to distinguish them. So we would like to make such a situation on process between Alice and Eve. To do so, a new version of YK scheme was given as follows:

* The sender(Alice) uses an explicit key(a short key:$`K`$, expanded into a long key:$`K^{}`$ by use of a stream cipher) to modulate the parameters of a multimode coherent state.
* State $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_0=|\alpha /\sqrt{2}_1|\alpha /\sqrt{2}_2`$ is prepared. Bit encoding can be represented as follows:

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_b`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\{iJ_z\varphi _b\}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0`$ (1)
$`=`$ $`|e^{i\varphi _b/2}\alpha /\sqrt{2}_1|e^{i\varphi _b/2}\alpha /\sqrt{2}_2`$
where $`J_z=(a_{}^{}{}_{1}{}^{}a_1a_{}^{}{}_{2}{}^{}a_2)/2`$.
* Alice uses the running key $`K^{}`$ to specify a basis from a set of M uniformly distributed two-mode coherent state.
* The message $`X`$ is encoded as $`Y_K^{}(X)`$. This mapping of the stream of bits is the key to be shared by Alice and Bob. Because of his knowledge $`K^{}`$, Bob can demodulate from $`Y_K^{}(X)`$ to $`X`$.

### II.2 Security

Here, let us introduce the original discussion on the security. The ciphering angle $`\varphi _\nu `$ could have $`k`$ in general as discrete or continuous variable determined by distribution of keys. A ciphered two mode state may be

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{bk}=\mathrm{exp}\{iJ_z(\varphi _b+\varphi _k)\}|\mathrm{\Psi }_0$$
(2)
The corresponding density operator for all possible choices of $`k`$ is $`\rho _b`$, where $`b=1`$ or $`0`$. The problem is to find the minimum error probability that Eve can achieve in bit determination. To find the optimum detection process for discrimination between $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _0`$ is the problem of quantum detection theory. The solution is given by

$$<P_e>=\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\mathrm{min}}(p_1Tr\rho _1\mathrm{\Pi }_0+p_0Tr\rho _0\mathrm{\Pi }_1)$$
(3)
As an example of encoding to create $`<P_e>=P_e(E)=1/2`$ which is the error probability of Eve, Yuen et al suggested certain modulation scheme. In that case, closest values of a given $`k`$ can be associated with distinct bits from the bit at position $`k`$, and two closest neighboring states represent distinct bits which means a set of base state. In this scheme, they assumed that one chooses a set of basis state(keying state for 1 and 0) for bits without overlap. The error probability for density operators $`\rho _1`$ and $`\rho _0`$ becomes 1/2, when number of a set of basis state increases. Asymptotic property of the error probability depends on the amplitude of coherent state.

## III Simplified modulation scheme in YK protocol

### III.1 Basic protocol

Original scheme of YK protocol in the above can be realized by practical devices. To apply them to fiber communication system, we would like to realize them by intensity modulation/direct detection scheme. If one does not want to get perfect YK scheme, one can more simplify the implementation of YK protocol.

From a fundamental principle in quantum detection theory, we can construct non-commuting density operators from sets based on non-orthogonal states when one does not allow overlap of the selection of a set of basis state for 1 and 0. On the other hand, when we allow overlap for selection of a set of basis state, one can use orthogonal state to construct the same density operators for 1 and 0. That is, $`\rho _1=\rho _0`$. However, in this case, unknown factor for Eve is only an initial short key, and a stream of bits that Eve observed is perfectly the same as those of Alice and Bob, though Eve cannot estimate the bits at that time. This gives still insecure situation. So, here, we employ a combination of non-orthogonality and overlap selection in order to reduce the number of basis sets.

Let us assume that the maximum amplitude is fixed as $`\alpha _{max}`$. We divide it into 2M. So we have M sets of basis state$`\{(A_1,A_2),(B_1,B_2),\mathrm{}\}`$. Total set of basis state is given as shown in Fig.1. Each set of basis state is used for $`\{1,0\}`$, and $`\{0,1\}`$, depending on initial keys.

$`SetA_1:0`$ $``$ $`|\alpha _{(1)},1|\alpha _{(M/2+1)}`$ (4)
$`SetA_2:0`$ $``$ $`|\alpha _{(M/2+1)},1|\alpha _{(1)}`$ (5)
So the density operators for 1 and 0 for Eve are

$$\rho _1=\rho _0=\frac{1}{2}(|\alpha _{(1)}\alpha _{(1)}|+|\alpha _{(M/2+1)}\alpha _{(M/2+1)}|)$$
(6)
For the sets of $`\{B_1,B_2\}`$, $`\{C_1,C_2\}`$,$`\mathrm{}`$, let us assign 0 and 1 by the same way as Eqs(4),(5). In this case, Eve cannot get key information, but she can try to know the information of quantum states used for bit transmission. So this is the problem for discrimination of 2M pure states. The error probability is given by

$$<P_e>=\underset{\mathrm{\Pi }}{\mathrm{min}}(1p_iTr\rho _i\mathrm{\Pi }_i)$$
(7)
Although we have many results for calculation of optimum detection problems, to solve this problem is still difficult at present time, because the set of states does not have complete symmetric structure. So we here give the lower bound and tight upper bound. The lower bound is given by the minimum error probability:$`P_e^{}(2)`$ for signal set $`\{|\alpha _{(1)},|\alpha _{(2)}\}`$ which are neighboring states. It is given as follows:

$$P_e^{}(2)=\frac{1}{2}\left(1\sqrt{1\mathrm{exp}[|\alpha _1\alpha _2|^2]}\right)$$
(8)
The upper bound is given by applying square root measurement for 2M pure states. The numerical properties are shown in Fig.2-(a). Thus if M increases, then her error for information on quantum states increases. In this case, pure guessing corresponds to $`(2M1)/(2M)`$. The error probability of Bob, however, is independent of the number of set of basis state, and it is given as follows:

$$P_e(B)=\frac{1}{2}(1\sqrt{1|\alpha _1|\alpha _{M/2+1}|^2})$$
(9)
We emphasize that Eve cannot get key information in this stage, because the information for 1 and 0 are modulated by the way of Eqs(4),(5). Furthermore, this scheme can send 2M bits by M sets of basis state.

Let us apply the original scheme such that M bits are sent by M sets of basis state. In this case, Eve will try to get key information, so the density operators for Eve become mixed states $`\rho _1`$, $`\rho _0`$ consisting of set of states which send 1 and 0, respectively. The numerical properties are shown in Fig.2-(b). Both schemes have almost same security, but the latter can only send M bits by M sets of basis state. In other word, the number of sets is reduced to 1/2 in the former scheme.

## IV Primary design of experimental set

In implementing YK protocol by conventional fiber communication system, we use here our proposed system. Figure 3 shows the experimental setup. The laser diode serves as 1.3$`\mu `$m light source. A pattern generator provides a signal pulse string to send keys. A modulator which selects basis state follows a driver of laser diode. The selector gives selection of amplitude and assignment of 1 and 0, and is controlled by initial keys. The laser driver is driven by output signals of modulator. The optical divider corresponds to Eve. The case 1 is a type of “opaque”, and the case 2 is a type of “translucent”. The channel consists of 10 Km fiber and ATT. We can change the distance equivalently from 10 Km to 200Km by ATT.

The speed of pulse generator to drive laser diode is 311Mbps, 622Mbps, and 1.2Gbps. The detector of Bob is InGaAs pin photo loaded by 50$`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ register, and it is connected to an error probability counter which can apply to 12 Gbps. The dark current is 7$`nA`$ and the minimum received power of our system is about -30 dBm.

In this system, the problem for degree of security is only power advantage of Eve which will be set in near transmitter(Alice). When the eavesdropping is opaque, the error probability of Bob increases drastically, and the error probability counter shows almost 1/2, which means that the error of Eve is also 1/2. In this case, problem of communication distance is not so important. We can detect the existence of Eve in any distance of channel. When the eavesdropping is translucent, Eve has to take only few power($`\eta <<1)`$ from the main stream of bits sequence in order to avoid the power level disturbance. In this case, the error of Bob does not increase. As a result, Alice and Bob cannot detect the existence of Eve. The secure communication distance depends on the error probabilities of Bob and Eve. Let $`\kappa `$ be transparency of channel from Alice to Bob. The detectability for Bob in this experiment setup depends on the signal distance(amplitude difference between two states as basis state): $`\kappa (\alpha _{max}/2)`$ for $`\{|\kappa \alpha _{(1)},|\kappa \alpha _{(M/2+1)}\}`$, and that of Eve depends on the signal distance: $`\eta \times \alpha _{max}/(2M)`$. Here we assume that $`\kappa =\eta `$, and the total loss is 20dB which corresponds to 100 Km. Since our receiver requires about -30 dBm, the transmitter is -10 dBm. When M increases, sufficiently the error of Eve increases.

## V Conclusions

We examined a simulation of YK protocol based on intensity modulation/direct detection fiber communication system, and showed a design of implementation of secure system based on our experimental setup which was used to demonstrate the first version of implementation of YK protocol. We will soon report complete demonstration in experiment by the above system.


format: text

text:
# Contents

## 1 Symplectic and Poisson structures

A symplectic structure on a manifold $`M`$ is defined by a non-degenerate closed two-form $`\omega `$. In a vicinity of an arbitrary point one can consider coordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{2n})`$ such that $`\omega =_{i=1}^ndx^idx^{i+n}`$. Such coordinates are called Darboux coordinates. To a symplectic structure corresponds a non-degenerate Poisson structure $`\{,\}`$. In Darboux coordinates $`\{x^i,x^j\}=0`$ if $`|ij|n`$ and $`\{x^i,x^{i+n}\}=\{x^{i+n},x^i\}=1`$. The condition of closedness of the two-form $`\omega `$ corresponds to the Jacobi identity $`\{f,\{g,h\}\}+\{g,\{h,f\}\}+\{h,\{f,g\}\}=0`$ for the Poisson bracket. If a symplectic or Poisson structure is given, then every function $`f`$ defines a vector field (the Hamiltonian vector field) $`𝐃_f`$ such that $`𝐃_fg=\{f,g\}=\omega (𝐃_f,𝐃_g)`$.

A Poisson structure can be defined independently of a symplectic structure (see below). In general it can be degenerate, i.e., there exist non-constant functions $`f`$ such that $`𝐃_f=0`$. In the case when a Poisson structure is non-degenerate (corresponds to a symplectic structure), the map from $`T^{}M`$ to $`TM`$ defined by the relation $`f𝐃_f`$ is an isomorphism.

One can straightforwardly generalize these constructions to the supercase and consider symplectic and Poisson structures (even or odd) on supermanifolds. An even (odd) symplectic structure on a supermanifold is defined by an even (odd) non-degenerate closed two-form. In the same way as the existence of a symplectic structure on an ordinary manifold implies that the manifold is even-dimensional (by the non-degeneracy condition for the form $`\omega `$), the existence of an even or odd symplectic structure on a supermanifold implies that the dimension of the supermanifold is equal either to $`(2p.q)`$ for an even structure or to $`(m.m)`$ for an odd structure. Darboux coordinates exist in both cases. For an even structure, the two-form in Darboux coordinates $`z^A=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^{2p};\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _q)`$ has the form $`_{i=1}^pdx^idx^{p+i}`$ $`+_{a=1}^q\epsilon _ad\theta _ad\theta _a`$, where $`\epsilon _a=\pm 1`$. For an odd structure, the two-form in Darboux coordinates $`z^A=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^m;\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _m)`$ has the form $`_{i=1}^mdx^id\theta _i`$.

The non-degenerate odd Poisson bracket corresponding to an odd symplectic structure has the following appearance in Darboux coordinates: $`\{x^i,x^j\}=0`$, $`\{\theta _i,\theta _j\}=0`$ for all $`i,j`$ and $`\{x^i,\theta _j\}=\{\theta _j,x^i\}=\delta _j^i`$. Thus for arbitrary two functions $`f,g`$

$$\{f,g\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{f}{x^i}\frac{g}{\theta _i}+(1)^{p(f)}\frac{f}{\theta _i}\frac{g}{x^i}\right),$$
(1.1)
where we denote by $`p(f)`$ the parity of a function $`f`$ (e.g., $`p(x^i)=0`$, $`p(\theta _j)=1`$). Similarly one can write down the formulae for the non-degenerate even Poisson structure corresponding to an even symplectic structure.

A Poisson structure (odd or even) can be defined on a supermanifold independently of a symplectic structure as a bilinear operation on functions (bracket) satisfying the following relations taken as axioms:

$$p\left(\{f,g\}\right)=p(f)+p(g)+\epsilon ,$$
(1.2)
$$\{f,g\}=\{g,f\}(1)^{(p(f)+\epsilon )(p(g)+\epsilon )},$$
(1.3)
$$\{f,gh\}=\{f,g\}h+\{f,h\}g(1)^{p(g)p(h)}\text{ (Leibniz rule)},$$
(1.4)
$$\{f,\{g,h\}\}(1)^{(p(f)+\epsilon )(p(h)+\epsilon )}+\text{cycl.}=0\text{ (Jacobi identity)},$$
(1.5)
where $`\epsilon `$ is the parity of the bracket ($`\epsilon =0`$ for an even Poisson structure and $`\epsilon =1`$ for an odd one). The correspondence between functions and Hamiltonian vector fields is defined in the same way as on ordinary manifolds: $`𝐃_fg=\{f,g\}`$. Notice a possible parity shift: $`p(𝐃_f)=p(f)+\epsilon `$. Every Hamiltonian vector field $`𝐃_f`$ defines an infinitesimal transformation preserving the Poisson structure (and the corresponding symplectic structure in the case of a non-degenerate Poisson bracket).

Notice that even or odd Poisson structures on an arbitrary supermanifold can be obtained as “derived” brackets from the canonical symplectic structure on the cotangent bundle, in the following way.

Let $`M`$ be a supermanifold and $`T^{}M`$ be its cotangent bundle. By changing parity of coordinates in the fibres of $`T^{}M`$ we arrive at the supermanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. If $`z^A`$ are arbitrary coordinates on the supermanifold $`M`$, then we denote by $`(z^A,p_B)`$ the corresponding coordinates on the supermanifold $`T^{}M`$ and by $`(z^A,z_B)`$ the corresponding coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$: $`p(z^A)=p(p_A)=p(z_A)+1`$. If $`(z^A^{})`$ are another coordinates on $`M`$, $`z^A=z^A(z^{})`$, then the coordinates $`z_A`$ transform in the same way as the coordinates $`p_A`$ (and as the partial derivatives $`/z^A`$):

$$p_A^{}=\frac{z^B(z^{})}{z^A^{}}p_B\text{ and }z_A^{}=\frac{z^B(z^{})}{z^A^{}}z_B.$$
(1.6)
One can consider the canonical non-degenerate even Poisson structure $`\{,\}_0`$ (the canonical even symplectic structure) on $`T^{}M`$ defined by the relations $`\{z^A,z^B\}_0=\{p_C,p_D\}_0=0`$, $`\{z^A,p_B\}_0=\delta _B^A`$, and, respectively, the canonical non-degenerate odd Poisson structure $`\{,\}_1`$ (the canonical odd symplectic structure) on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ defined by the relations $`\{z^A,z^B\}_0=\{z_C,z_D\}_0=0`$, $`\{z^A,z_B\}_0=\delta _B^A`$.

Now consider Hamiltonians on $`T^{}M`$ or on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ that are quadratic in coordinates of the fibres. An arbitrary odd quadratic Hamiltonian on $`T^{}M`$ (an arbitrary even quadratic Hamiltonian on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$):

$$𝔖(z,p)=𝔖^{AB}p_Ap_B(p(𝔖)=1)\text{ or }𝔖(z,z_{})=𝔖^{AB}z_Az_B(p(𝔖)=0),$$
(1.7)
satisfying the condition that the canonical Poisson bracket of this Hamiltonian with itself vanishes:

$$\{𝔖,𝔖\}_0=0\text{ or }\{𝔖,𝔖\}_1=0$$
(1.8)
defines an odd Poisson structure (an even Poisson structure) on $`M`$ by the formula

$$\{f,g\}_{\epsilon +1}^𝔖=\{f,\{𝔖,g\}_\epsilon \}_\epsilon .$$
(1.9)
The Hamiltonian $`𝔖`$ which generates an odd (even) Poisson structure on $`M`$ via the canonical even (odd) Poisson structure on $`T^{}M`$ ($`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$) can be called the master Hamiltonian. The bracket (1.9) is a “derived bracket”. The Jacobi identity for it is equivalent to the vanishing of the canonical Poisson bracket for the master Hamiltonian. One can see that an arbitrary Poisson structure on a supermanifold can be obtained as a derived bracket.

What happens if we change the parity of the master Hamiltonian in (1.9)? The answer is the following. If $`𝔖`$ is an even quadratic Hamiltonian on $`T^{}M`$ (an odd quadratic Hamiltonian on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$), then the condition of vanishing of the canonical even Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_0`$ (the canonical odd Poisson bracket $`\{,\}_1`$) becomes empty (it is obeyed automatically) and the relation (1.9) defines an even Riemannian metric (an odd Riemannian metric) on $`M`$.

Formally, odd symplectic (and odd Poisson) geometry is a generalization of symplectic (Poisson) geometry to the supercase. However, there are unexpected analogies between the constructions in odd symplectic geometry and in Riemannian geometry (see  and later below). The construction of derived brackets could explain close relations between odd Poisson structures in supermathematics and the Riemannian geometry (see ).

The construction of the derived bracket (without the name) and the elaboration of the unified viewpoint for different geometries in terms of derived brackets are due to T. Voronov . Derived brackets (under this name) were independently introduced and studied in . It has to be noted that in the physical literature the relations of the type (1.9) for brackets of different parity were considered in  and , where they were used for obtaining derived brackets on Lagrangian surfaces. This approach was considered later in  and essentially developed in , where constructions involving generalized “higher order” even and odd Poisson brackets appeared.

In what follows we consider second order differential operators on an odd symplectic supermanifold and study their geometric properties. Some of our constructions can be automatically considered in the case of a general odd Poisson structure.

## 2 Odd Laplacians on functions

### 2.1 Definition and properties

In ordinary symplectic geometry the symplectomorphisms of $`M^{2n}`$ (the diffeomorphisms preserving the two-form $`\omega `$) preserve the volume form $`𝝆_\omega =\omega ^n`$ (Liouville’s theorem). What is the situation in the supercase? In spite of the fact that differential forms are not objects of integration on supermanifolds (see details in ), the Liouville theorem still holds in even symplectic geometry. One can see that the coordinate volume form $`𝝆=𝒟z`$ in Darboux coordinates defines a global volume form that is preserved under symplectomorphisms. The situation is drastically different for an odd symplectic structure. Let $`z^A=(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n,\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ be Darboux coordinates. Consider, for example, the transformation $`x^12x^1`$, $`\theta _1\frac{1}{2}\theta _1`$ to another Darboux coordinates. The Berezinian of this transformation is equal to $`4`$, hence the coordinate volume $`𝒟z`$ form is not preserved. One can prove (see below) that on an odd symplectic supermanifold there is no volume form invariant w.r.t. all symplectomorphisms.

Let $`𝝆`$ be an arbitrary volume form on an odd symplectic supermanifold. Consider the linear differential operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ on functions such that its action on a function $`f`$ is equal (up to a coefficient) to the divergence $`\mathrm{div}_𝝆𝐃_f`$ of the Hamiltonian vector field $`𝐃_f`$ w.r.t. to the volume form $`𝝆`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆f:=\frac{1}{2}(1)^{p(f)}\mathrm{div}_𝝆𝐃_f=\frac{1}{2}(1)^{p(f)}_{𝐃_f}\mathrm{log}𝝆=\frac{1}{2}(1)^{p(f)}\frac{_{𝐃_f}𝝆}{𝝆}.$$
(2.1)
Let $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n;\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ be Darboux coordinates and let $`𝝆=\rho (x,\theta )𝒟(x,\theta )`$ in these coordinates. It follows from (1.1) that

$$𝐃_f=\frac{f}{x^i}\frac{}{\theta _i}+(1)^{p(f)}\frac{f}{\theta _i}\frac{}{x^i}.$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆f=\mathrm{\Delta }_0f+\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{log}\rho ,f\},$$
(2.2)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0f=\frac{^2f}{x^i\theta _i}.$$
(2.3)
We come to the odd Laplacian on functions, a second order differential operator depending on the volume form.

Notice that (2.1) defines the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ in terms of the Poisson bracket. This expression defines a linear operator on functions for an arbitrary Poisson structure, even or odd. It is an operator of the second order for an odd Poisson structure and an operator of the first order for an even Poisson structure. In the even case this operator of the first order is a Poisson vector field (the divergence of the Poisson bivector) specifying the so-called Weinstein’s modular class of an even Poisson manifold .

If $`𝝆`$ and $`𝝆^{}`$ are two volume forms, $`𝝆^{}=g𝝆`$, then

$$\mathrm{div}_𝝆^{}f\mathrm{div}_𝝆f=\frac{_{𝐃_f}g}{g}=\{f,\mathrm{log}g\}.$$
(2.4)
In particular, the existence of a “canonical” volume form $`𝝆_\omega `$ preserved under all symplectomorphisms would imply that the operator (2.1) is a first order differential operator given by the r.h.s. of (2.4), because (2.1) would evidently vanish for $`𝝆=𝝆_\omega `$. On the other hand, by (2.2) and (2.3), $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ is a second order differential operator. Thus we have proved that on an odd symplectic supermanifold there is no canonical volume form.

This should be compared with the even Poisson situation where Weinstein’s modular class (see above) is the obstruction to the existence of a volume form invariant under all Hamiltonian flows, and it vanishes in the (even) symplectic case. We see that the situation with the odd bracket (symplectic or not) is more complicated.

Now consider the properties of the odd Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$.

One can see that for an arbitrary odd Poisson supermanifold the Leibniz rule for the second derivatives takes the following form for the odd Laplacian:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆(fg)=\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆fg+(1)^{p(f)}\{f,g\}+(1)^{p(f)}f\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆g.$$
(2.5)
In other words, the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ generates the Poisson structure.

We have already mentioned that (2.5) has a straightforward analogue in Riemannian geometry: $`\mathrm{\Delta }(fg)=g\mathrm{\Delta }f+df,dg+f\mathrm{\Delta }g`$, where $`,`$ is the scalar product given by the Riemannian metric and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the Beltrami–Laplace operator corresponding to the metric (see details in ).

Another very important property of the odd Laplacian (on an arbitrary odd Poisson supermanifold) is that it preserves the Poisson bracket:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆\{f,g\}=\{\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆f,g\}+(1)^{p(f)+1}\{f,\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆g\}.$$
(2.6)
Now let us return to the canonical odd symplectic structure on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ (see the first section). We consider the case when $`M`$ is a usual $`n`$-dimensional manifold. The base manifold $`M`$ is a Lagrangian $`(n.0)`$-dimensional surface in the $`(n.n)`$-dimensional odd symplectic supermanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. This example can be considered as the basic example of an odd symplectic supermanifold 111For a usual symplectic manifold $`E`$ and a Lagrangian surface $`L`$ in it there exists a symplectomorphism between the cotangent bundle $`T^{}L`$ and, in general, only a tubular neighborhood of $`L`$ in $`E`$. The triviality of topology in odd directions allows to identify the cotangent bundle $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}L`$ to a purely even Lagrangian surface in an odd symplectic supermanifold $`E`$ with the whole supermanifold $`E`$ if $`L`$ coincides with the underlying manifold of $`E`$ (see  for details)..

Functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ encode multivector fields on $`M`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}f(x,\theta )=f(x)+f^i(x)\theta _i+f^{ik}(x)\theta _i\theta _k+\mathrm{}T=f(x)+f^i(x)_i+f^{ik}(x)_i_k+\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}$$
(2.7)
The odd Poisson bracket of functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponds to the Schouten bracket (“skew-symmetric concomitant”) of multivector fields.

To every diffeomorphism of $`M`$ naturally corresponds the induced symplectomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$, but in general one can consider symplectomorphisms that do not correspond to diffeomorphisms of the base and destroy the cotangent bundle structure (see the next section).

Let us now analyze the meaning of an odd Laplacian (2.1) on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. Let $`(x^i)`$ be arbitrary coordinates on $`M`$ and $`(x^i,\theta _j)`$ the corresponding Darboux coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. Let $`𝝈=𝒟(x)`$ and $`𝝆=𝒟(x,\theta )`$ be the coordinate volume forms on $`M`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ respectively. Then the odd Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ is given by the formula (2.3). It is obvious from (2.3) that in this case the action of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ on functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponds to the divergence of multivector fields on $`M`$ with respect to the coordinate volume form $`𝝈`$. Every volume form on $`M`$ has a local appearance as a coordinate volume form (in some local coordinate system). On the other hand, it follows from (1.6) that the determinant of an arbitrary coordinate transformation $`xx^{}=x^{}(x)`$ on $`M`$ is equal to the square root of the Berezinian of the corresponding coordinate transformation $`(x,\theta )(x^{},\theta ^{})`$:

$$\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(x^{},\theta ^{})}{(x,\theta )}=\mathrm{Ber}\left(\begin{array}{cc}\frac{x^i^{}}{x^i}& \\ 0& \frac{x^i}{x^i^{}}\end{array}\right)=\left(det\left(\frac{x^i^{}}{x^i}\right)\right)^2.$$
(2.8)
Hence we come to important conclusions: (a) to every volume form $`𝝈`$ on $`M`$ corresponds a volume form $`𝝆=𝝈^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$; (b) $`\mathrm{div}_𝝈T=\mathrm{\Delta }_{𝝈^2}f`$, where we identify multivector fields on $`M`$ with functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ by (2.7); (c) for a volume form $`𝝆=𝝈^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ holds the condition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=0,$$
(2.9)
because the square of the divergence operator on multivector fields equals zero.

These relations make a bridge between odd symplectic geometry and classical vector calculus. They are closely related with the geometric meaning of the Batalin–Vilkovisky formalism (see ).

What can we say about $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$ in the general case?

For an arbitrary odd Poisson supermanifold the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$ is a Poisson vector field: $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2(fg)=(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2f)g+f(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2g)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$ preserves the Poisson bracket. This follows from relations (2.5), (2.6). Under a change of volume form $`𝝆𝝆^{}=g𝝆`$ this Poisson vector field changes by a Hamiltonian vector field:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^{}^2\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=𝐃_{H(𝝆^{},𝝆)}\text{ where }H(𝝆^{},𝝆)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆\sqrt{g}.$$
(2.10)
This relation leads to a non-trivial groupoid structure .

For an odd symplectic supermanifold one can always pick a volume form $`𝝆`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=0`$, namely, as we have shown above, one can identify the symplectic supermanifold with $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}L`$ for an purely even Lagrangian surface $`L`$ by a suitable symplectomorphism and then choose $`𝝆=𝝈^2`$, yielding (2.9). Hence, it follows from (2.10) that for odd Laplacians on a symplectic supermanifold the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$ is always a Hamiltonian vector field.

###### Definition 2.1.

A volume form $`𝛒`$ on an odd symplectic supermanifold $`E`$ is called normal if in a vicinity of an arbitrary point there exist Darboux coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ such that $`𝛒`$ is the coordinate volume form in these Darboux coordinates: $`𝛒=𝒟(x,\theta )`$.

The volume form $`𝝆=𝝈^2`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ in (2.9) is a normal volume form by definition. If a volume form $`𝝆`$ is normal, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=0`$, by the definition of the odd Laplacian (2.2). Does the Hamiltonian field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$ has to be equal to zero for every volume form $`𝝆`$? As it follows from (2.10), the answer is, generally, no. Does the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=0`$ implies that $`𝝆`$ is a normal volume form? We will give a detailed analysis in the next sections, where we will study the canonical odd Laplacian acting on semidensities. Now two words about where odd Laplacians come from.

### 2.2 Where an odd Laplacian comes from

Odd Laplacians have appeared in mathematical physics for the first time around 1981 in the pioneer works by Batalin and Vilkovisky  for the purpose of constructing a Lagrangian version of the BRST quantization (the “BV-formalism”). Batalin and Vilkovisky introduced an odd Laplacian acting on functions on an odd symplectic supermanifold as $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\frac{^2}{x^i\theta _i}`$, where $`(x^i,\theta _i)`$ are some Darboux coordinates. (The invariant definition (2.1) of an odd Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$ depending on a volume form $`𝝆`$ was given later in .) The following very important properties of this operator were fixed in their works (see ). If $`(x^{},\theta ^{})`$ are another Darboux coordinates, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ denote the odd Laplacians (2.3) in the Darboux coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ and $`(x^{},\theta ^{})`$ respectively, then

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}+\frac{1}{2}\{\mathrm{log}\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(x^{},\theta ^{})}{(x,\theta )},\}$$
(2.11)
and

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0\left(\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(x^{},\theta ^{})}{(x,\theta )}\right)^{1/2}=0\text{ (“Batalin–Vilkovisky identity”)}.$$
(2.12)
The property (2.11) of the operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ is closely related with the invariant expression (2.2) for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho `$. The second property (2.12), which was stated in  (in a non-explicit form it also appeared in ), is highly non-trivial. This identity is deeply related with the existence of canonical odd Laplacian on semidensities (see the next section).

The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ was introduced in  for the purpose of formulating the so-called Batalin–Vilkovisky quantum master equation, which is the equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_0\sqrt{f(x,\theta )}=0$$
(2.13)
on the function $`f(x,\theta )=\mathrm{exp}\frac{i𝒮(x,\theta )}{\mathrm{}}`$, where $`𝝆=𝒟(x,\theta )`$ is a coordinate volume form in the space of fields and antifields ($`(x,\theta )`$ are Darboux coordinates). The master action $`𝒮(x,\theta )`$ defines a measure element on Lagrangian surfaces corresponding to gauge choice. This measure is gauge invariant if the master equation is satisfied (see ). Using the identity $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\mathrm{exp}g=(\mathrm{\Delta }_0g+1/2\{g,g\})\mathrm{exp}g`$, we can rewrite the quantum master equation (2.13) as $`4\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Delta }_0𝒮+\{𝒮,𝒮\}=0`$ and taking $`\mathrm{}0`$ we arrive at the Batalin–Vilkovisky classical master equation: $`\{𝒮,𝒮\}=0`$. The geometrical meaning of the master equation was studied in  and most notably by A. S. Schwarz in . In particular, the following result was obtained. Suppose $`𝝆`$ is a normal volume form. Then there are implications:

$$\text{the volume form }𝝆^{}=f(x,\theta )𝝆\text{ is normal }\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆\sqrt{f}=0\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^{}^2=0.$$
(2.14)
In this statement the master equation is not formulated invariantly, but it stands between two invariant conditions. The exact statement about the relations between the three conditions in (2.14) will be formulated in the next section in the language of semidensities.

## 3 Canonical odd Laplacian on semidensities

### 3.1 Definition of the canonical Laplacian

A density of weight $`t`$ on a supermanifold is a function of local coordinates such that under a change of variables it is multiplied by the $`t`$-th power of the Berezinian of transformation. We will consider semidensities (densities of weight $`t=\frac{1}{2}`$) on an odd symplectic supermanifold.

First of all, let us consider again the supermanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ for a usual manifold $`M`$, with the canonical symplectic structure. Recall that functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ encode multivector fields on $`M`$ (see (2.7)). Our claim  is that semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ encode differential forms on $`M`$.

Indeed, let $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ be arbitrary local coordinates on the manifold $`M`$. Let $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n`$ $`;\theta _1,\mathrm{},\theta _n)`$ be the corresponding Darboux coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. In the same way as multivector fields on $`M`$ can be identified with functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$, differential forms on $`M`$ can be identified with functions on the supermanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$ obtained from the tangent bundle $`TM`$ by changing parity of coordinates in the fibres. If $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n,\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^n)`$ are the coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$ corresponding to coordinates $`(x^1,\mathrm{},x^n)`$ on $`M`$ ($`p(\xi ^k)=1`$), then a differential form $`\omega _0(x)+dx^i\omega _i(x)+\mathrm{}`$ can be identified with the function $`\omega (x,\xi )=\omega _0(x)+\xi ^i\omega _i(x)+\mathrm{}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$.

Recall that given a volume form $`𝝈=\sigma (x)𝒟x=\sigma (x)dx^1\mathrm{}dx^n`$ on $`M`$ the Hodge operator transforms a multivector field on $`M`$ corresponding to the function $`f(x,\theta )`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ to the differential form on $`M`$ corresponding to the function $`\omega (x,\xi )`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$, where

$$\omega (x,\xi )=\mathrm{exp}(i\xi ^i\theta _i)f(x,\theta )\sigma (x)\mathrm{\Delta }\theta $$

(a “Fourier transform”). (In a conventional language it is a contraction of a top order form with a multivector, but the language of integrals is more flexible.) It follows that without a volume form, the Hodge operator acts on multivector densities of weight $`t=1`$ on $`M`$ transforming them into differential forms on $`M`$, and vice versa.

On the other hand, from (2.8) it follows that under canonical transformations on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ induced by changes of coordinates of $`M`$ a density on $`M`$ transforms as a semidensity on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$.

Hence we come to a 1-1-correspondence between differential forms on $`M`$ (functions on $`\mathrm{\Pi }TM`$) and semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$, as follows222In these considerations we assume that the manifold $`M`$ is orientable and an orientation is chosen.:

$$\omega (x,\xi )𝒔=s(x,\theta )\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\theta )}=\left(\mathrm{exp}(i\xi \theta )\omega (x,\xi )\mathrm{\Delta }\xi \right)\sqrt{D(x,\theta )}$$
(3.1)
(This map for the first time appeared in  in a non-explicit way.) For example, if $`M`$ is a two-dimensional manifold, then $`f(x)f(x)\theta _1\theta _2\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\theta )}`$, $`\omega _1dx^1+\omega _2dx^2(\omega _1\theta _2\omega _2\theta _1)\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\theta )}`$, $`\omega dx^1dx^2`$ $`\omega \sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }(x,\theta )}`$

The relation (3.1) between forms on $`M`$ and semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ suggests that there exists a linear operator on semidensities on odd symplectic supermanifolds corresponding to the exterior differential.

###### Definition 3.1 ().

Let $`𝐬`$ be a semidensity on an odd symplectic supermanifold $`E`$. We assign to it a semidensity $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐬`$ by the following formula: if $`𝐬=s(x,\theta )\sqrt{𝒟(x,\theta )}`$ in some Darboux coordinates, then in the same coordinates

$$\mathrm{\Delta }𝒔:=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0s(x,\theta )\right)\sqrt{𝒟(x,\theta )}=\frac{^2s}{x^i\theta _i}\sqrt{𝒟(x,\theta )}.$$
(3.2)
We call this operator the canonical Laplacian on semidensities. (See  for details.)

In the case of $`E=\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ one can see from (3.1) that this definition gives exactly the de Rham exterior differential:

$$\omega 𝒔_\omega \mathrm{\Delta }𝒔_\omega =𝒔_{d\omega }.$$
(3.3)
Of course, this relation is not a proof that the operator given by (3.2) is well-defined for a general odd symplectic supermanifold $`E`$, because though one might consider $`E`$ as $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ for some manifold $`M`$ the identification (3.1) fails under symplectomorphisms which are not induced by diffeomorphisms of $`M`$.

To prove that the canonical operator is well-defined by formula (3.2) one has to prove that the r.h.s. of (3.2) indeed defines a semidensity, i.e., under an arbitrary transformation from Darboux coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ to another Darboux coordinates $`(x^{},\theta ^{})`$ we have

$$\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_0s\right)\left(\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(x,\theta )}{(x^{},\theta ^{})}\right)^{1/2}=\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}\left(s\left(\mathrm{Ber}\frac{(x,\theta )}{(x^{},\theta ^{})}\right)^{1/2}\right),$$
(3.4)
where we denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^{}`$ the “coordinate” odd Laplacians (2.3) in the Darboux coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ and $`(x^{},\theta ^{})`$, respectively.

Notice (see  for details) that every transformation from Darboux coordinates $`(x,\theta )`$ to new Darboux coordinates $`(x^{},\theta ^{})`$ can be represented as the composition of transformations of the following types:

transformations corresponding to $`x^{}=x^{}(x)`$:

$$x^{}=x^{}(x),\theta _i^{}=\frac{x^i}{x^i^{}}\theta _i,$$
(3.5)
transformations identical on the surface $`\theta =0`$:

$$x^{}(x,\theta )|_{\theta =0}=x,\theta ^{}(x,\theta )|_{\theta =0}=\theta ,$$
(3.6)
transformations identical on even coordinates:

$$x^{}=x,\theta _i^{}=\theta _i+\alpha _i\text{such that}_i\alpha _j_j\alpha _i=0.$$
(3.7)
It is sufficient to check condition (3.4) for transformations (3.5), (3.6) and (3.7) separately. For transformations (3.5) it follows from the identity (2.8). The Berezinian of transformation (3.7) equals $`1`$, hence (3.4) is satisfied. One can show that transformation (3.6) is induced by a Hamiltonian vector field (see ), hence and it is sufficient to check it infinitesimally.

Infinitesimal transformations are generated by odd functions (Hamiltonians) via the corresponding Hamiltonian vector fields. To an odd Hamiltonian $`Q(z)`$ corresponds the infinitesimal canonical transformation $`\stackrel{~}{z}^A=z^A+\epsilon \{Q,z^A\}`$ generated by the vector field $`𝐃_Q`$. The action of it on a semidensity $`𝒔`$ can be expressed by a “differential” $`\delta _Q(s\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }z})=\mathrm{\Delta }_0Qs\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }z}\{Q,s\}\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }z}`$, because $`\delta s=\epsilon \{Q,s\}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{\Delta }z=\epsilon \delta \mathrm{Ber}(z/\stackrel{~}{z})\mathrm{\Delta }z=\epsilon 2\mathrm{\Delta }_0Q\mathrm{\Delta }z`$ for the infinitesimal transformation generated by $`Q`$. Using $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0^2=0`$ and equation (2.5), we come to the commutation relation $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0\delta _Q=\delta _Q\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$. Thus condition (3.4) is satisfied for infinitesimal transformations.

### 3.2 Properties of the canonical Laplacian

The canonical Laplacian obviously obeys the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$.

Let $`𝝆`$ be an arbitrary volume form on an odd symplectic supermanifold. Then it is easy to check using (2.2), (2.5) and (2.6) that the canonical Laplacian on semidensities $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ obeys the following condition:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(f\sqrt{𝝆})=\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆f\right)\sqrt{𝝆}+(1)^{p(f)}f\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆},$$
(3.8)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆`$ is the Laplacian (2.2) on functions. Using (2.4) one can rewrite this relation in the following way, for the semidensity $`𝒔=\sqrt{𝝆}`$:

$$[\mathrm{\Delta },f]𝒔(\mathrm{\Delta }f(1)^{p(f)}f\mathrm{\Delta })𝒔=_{𝐃_f}𝒔,$$
(3.9)
where $`_{𝐃_𝐟}`$ is the Lie derivative along the Hamiltonian vector field $`𝐃_f`$. Notice that (3.9) holds for an arbitrary semidensity $`𝒔`$, not only for an even non-degenerate semidensity $`𝒔=\sqrt{𝝆}`$ corresponding to a volume form $`𝝆`$. This relation is very important for the study of Laplacians on semidensities on arbitrary odd Poisson supermanifolds (see ).

If $`𝝆`$ is an arbitrary volume form, then by applying the canonical Laplacian to the semidensity $`𝒔=\sqrt{𝝆}`$ we can obtain a “derived” function $`H=\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}/\sqrt{𝝆}`$. It turns out that the Hamiltonian vector field $`𝐃_H`$ corresponding to $`H`$ is nothing but the vector field $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2`$:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2f=\{\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}}{\sqrt{𝝆}},f\}.$$
(3.10)
(Compare this formula with (2.10).)

It is evident that if the form $`𝝆`$ is normal, then by definition

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}=0.$$
(3.11)
This is just an invariant expression for the Batalin–Vilkovisky identity (2.12)

Now let us return to the relation between differential forms on $`M`$ and semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$, and to its generalization for arbitrary odd symplectic supermanifolds.

We call a semidensity $`𝒔`$ closed or exact if $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝒔=0`$ or $`𝒔=\mathrm{\Delta }𝒓`$ respectively. The condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$ for the canonical Laplacian corresponds to $`d^2=0`$ for the exterior differential.

Equations (3.1), (3.3) and (3.9) allow the translation of formulae of vector calculus on $`M`$ into formulae for semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ (see ). For example, under the map (3.1) the “interior multiplication” of a differential form $`\omega `$ by a multivector field $`T`$ transforms into the usual product of the semidensity $`𝒔_\omega `$ with the function corresponding to the multivector field. Hence, equation (3.9) corresponds to the formula for the Lie derivative of a differential form along a multivector field (a generalization of Cartan’s homotopy formula).

Consider in more details the following two constructions which do not appear naturally in classical calculus of forms. (Below we use familiar formal properties of the Fourier transform.)

a) If $`a=a_i(x)dx^i`$ is a $`1`$-form on $`M`$ and a semidensity $`𝒔=s(x,\theta )\sqrt{𝒟(x,\theta )}`$ on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponds to another form $`\omega `$, then one can see that the semidensity $`a_i\frac{s}{\theta _i}\sqrt{D(x,\theta )}`$ corresponds to the form $`a\omega `$. (Compare with the familiar relation between the differentiation and multiplication by a coordinate for the classical Fourier transform.) Consider the following generalization. Let $`a=a_idx^i`$ be a one-form on $`M`$ with odd coefficients (we have to allow “external odd parameters” for this). For an arbitrary semidensity $`𝒔=s(x,\theta )\sqrt{D(x,\theta )}`$ consider a new semidensity $`𝒔^{}`$, which we denote by $`a𝒹𝒔`$, given by the formula $`𝒔^{}=a𝒹𝒔:=s(x,\theta _i+a_i)\sqrt{D(x,\theta )}`$. It is a well-defined operation, because the coefficients $`a_i`$ have the same transformation law as the variables $`\theta _i`$. (Notice that the Berezinian of the transformation $`(x^i,\theta _i)(x^i,\theta _i+a_i)`$ equals $`1`$.) Respectively, if the semidensity $`𝒔`$ corresponds to a differential form $`\omega =\omega _k`$, then we denote by $`a𝒹\omega `$ the differential form such that the semidensity $`a𝒹𝒔`$ corresponds to $`a𝒹\omega `$. One can see that

$$a𝒹\omega =\underset{p=0}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{1}{p!}\underset{p\mathrm{times}}{\underset{}{a\mathrm{}a}}\omega _{kp},(k=0,\mathrm{},n).$$

We obtain an action of the abelian supergroup of differential one-forms “with odd values” (i.e., $`\mathrm{\Pi }\mathrm{\Omega }^1(M)`$) in the spaces of semidensities and differential forms (see ).

b) Let $`\omega =\omega _k`$ and $`\omega ^{}=\omega _k^{}`$ be differential forms on $`M^n`$ such that their top-degree components $`\omega _n`$ and $`\omega _n^{}`$ are non-zero, and let the semidensities $`𝒔`$ and $`𝒔^{}`$ correspond to $`\omega `$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ respectively. Then we can define a new form $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }:=\omega \omega ^{}`$ such that the corresponding semidensity is equal to $`\sqrt{𝒔𝒔^{}}`$. The condition $`\omega _n0`$, $`\omega _n^{}0`$ for the top-degree components makes the square root operation uniquely defined.

The 1-1 correspondence between forms on $`M`$ and semidensities on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ is defined using the cotangent bundle structure on the odd symplectic supermanifold $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. Bearing in mind that every odd symplectic manifold $`E`$ with an underlying manifold $`M`$ is symplectomorphic to $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ (see  and the footnote in subsection 2.1), let us analyze the relation between semidensities on $`E`$ and differential forms on $`M`$. The map (3.1) is not invariant under arbitrary symplectomorphisms of the total symplectic supermanifold $`E=\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. In other words, if $`L`$ is an arbitrary $`(n.0)`$-dimensional Lagrangian surface in $`E`$, then the correspondence between semidensities on $`E`$ and differential forms on $`L`$ depends on an identifying symplectomorphism, i.e. a symplectomorphism $`\phi :\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}LE`$ such that $`\phi |_L=\mathrm{id}`$.

Consider the following symplectomorphisms of an odd symplectic supermanifold $`E=\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$:

symplectomorphisms induced by diffeomorphisms of $`M`$ (3.12)
(these symplectomorphisms preserve the cotangent bundle structure), symplectomorphisms “adjusted to $`M`$”, i.e. identical on $`M`$:

$$\phi :\phi ^{}\omega =\omega ,\phi |_M=\mathrm{id}$$
(3.13)
(they destroy the cotangent bundle structure except for $`\phi =\mathrm{id}`$), symplectomorphisms corresponding to closed one-forms on $`M`$:

$$\phi ^{}x^i=x^i,\phi ^{}\theta _i=\theta _i+\alpha _i(x),(_i\alpha _j_j\alpha _i=0)$$
(3.14)
where $`(x^i,\theta _i)`$ are coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponding to some coordinates $`(x^i)`$ on $`M`$ and $`\alpha =\alpha _i(x)dx^i`$ is a closed one-form on $`M`$ with odd values (these symplectomorphisms move the Lagrangian surface $`M`$; notice that an arbitrary $`(n.0)`$-dimensional Lagrangian surface $`L`$ is given by the equations $`\theta _i\alpha _i(x)=0`$ where $`\alpha _i(x)dx^i`$ is a closed odd-valued one-form). It might be worth noting that symplectomorphisms of $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ form a supergroup.

One can prove that an arbitrary symplectomorphism of $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ can be represented as the composition of symplectomorphisms (3.12), (3.13) and (3.14) (see ). (Compare this statement with the statement that an arbitrary transformation of Darboux coordinates can be represented as the composition of transformations (3.5), (3.6) and (3.7)).

Notice that every adjusted symplectomorphism (3.13) has the following appearance:

$$\begin{array}{c}x^ix^i+f^i(x,\theta ),\mathrm{where}f^i(x,\theta )=O(\theta )\\ \theta _i\theta _i+g_i(x,\theta ),\mathrm{where}g_i(x,\theta )=O(\theta ^2)\end{array}$$
(3.15)
where $`(x^i,\theta _i)`$ are the Darboux coordinates on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponding to coordinates $`x^i`$ on $`M`$. One can show that there exists a Hamiltonian $`Q(x,\theta )=Q^{ik}(x,\theta )\theta _i\theta _k`$ that generates this transformation, i.e., (3.15) can be included in a $`1`$-parameter family of transformations defined by the differential equation $`\dot{z}=\{Q,z\}`$ (see  for details).

Comparing (3.15) with (3.1) we arrive at an important conclusion:

###### Proposition 3.1.

The top-degree component of the form corresponding to a semidensity on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ does not change under any symplectomorphism adjusted to $`M`$. In other words, a semidensity on an odd symplectic supermanifold $`E`$ defines a volume form (density) for all $`(n.0)`$-dimensional Lagrangian surfaces 333A relation between semidensities on $`E`$ and densities on Lagrangian surfaces can be defined for arbitrary Lagrangian surfaces (see  and )..

Now consider a closed semidensity on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$. To it corresponds a closed differential form on $`M`$. It follows from (3.9) and (3.13) that the action of an adjusted symplectomorphism (3.15) changes the semidensity and the corresponding form by an exact semidensity and an exact form respectively. Hence, we arrive at another important conclusion:

###### Proposition 3.2.

To a closed semidensity on $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ corresponds a cohomology class of differential forms on $`M`$ independently of the bundle structure. If two closed semidensities $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐬^{}`$ coincide on $`M`$ and differ by an exact semidensity, then there exists an adjusted symplectomorphism $`\phi :\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}M`$ such that $`\phi ^{}𝐬=𝐬^{}`$.

Propositions 3.1 and 3.2 were stated and proved in  and in , but in the work  semidensities do not appear explicitly.

Based on the concept of semidensities, the properties of the canonical Laplacian and the above Propositions we will now analyze the statements (2.14) concerning the Batalin–Vilkovisky formalism.

### 3.3 Master equation on semidensities

The claim is that the Batalin–Vilkovisky master equation (2.13) is an equation on the semidensity $`𝐬=\sqrt{f(x,\theta )𝛒}`$. A solution of the Batalin–Vilkovisky quantum master equation is a closed semidensity: $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐬=0`$.

Suppose $`E`$ is an odd symplectic supermanifold with the compact connected orientable underlying manifold $`M`$. $`E`$ can be identified with $`\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}L`$ for every closed $`(n.0)`$-dimensional Lagrangian submanifold $`L`$ (see  for details) and any two identifications differ by an adjusted symplectomorphism. An arbitrary $`(n.0)`$-dimensional closed Lagrangian surface $`L`$ is given by a closed one-form on $`M`$ (see (3.14)).

Let us now rewrite the implications (2.14) in terms of semidensities:

$$𝝆\text{ is a normal volume form}\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}=0\mathrm{\Delta }_𝝆^2=0.$$
(3.16)
The first implication follows from the definition of the canonical operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The second implication follows from equation (3.10). Let us analyze to what extent these conditions are equivalent. Let $`𝝆`$ be a volume form such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^2=0`$. By (3.10), then it follows that $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}=\nu \sqrt{\rho }`$, where $`\nu `$ is an odd constant. (If external odd parameters are not allowed, then, of course, $`\nu =0`$. Our analysis takes into consideration possible “odd moduli”.) This odd constant is the obstruction to the condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}=0`$, i.e. to the closedness of the semidensity $`\sqrt{𝝆}`$.

Suppose $`\nu =0`$. Then the master equation $`\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{𝝆}=0`$ is satisfied. Consider in this case an arbitrary closed $`(n.0)`$-dimensional Lagrangian surface $`L`$ and an arbitrary identifying symplectomorphism $`\phi :E\mathrm{\Pi }T^{}L`$. Under the map (3.1) to every closed semidensity $`\sqrt{\rho }`$ on $`E`$ corresponds a closed differential form $`\omega =\omega _0+\omega _1+\mathrm{}+\omega _n`$ on $`L`$, where the top degree form $`\omega _n`$ defines a volume form on $`L`$. The closed $`0`$-form $`\omega _0`$ is a constant. It is easy to see from (3.1) and (3.14) that the value of this constant (up to a sign) does not depend on the choice of the Lagrangian surface and on the choice of the identifying symplectomorphism. The top degree form, clearly, depends on the Lagrangian surface but does not depend on the identifying symplectomorphism (by Proposition 3.1). On the other hand, all other closed forms $`\omega _k`$ ($`1<k<n`$) can be eliminated by a suitable choice of the identifying symplectomorphism.

We have arrived, finally, to the following theorem:

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`E^{n.n}`$ be an odd symplectic supermanifold with the closed orientable compact underlying manifold $`M`$. Let $`\rho `$ be a volume form on $`E^{n.n}`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\rho ^2=0`$. To this volume form corresponds an odd constant $`\nu `$. If this odd constant is equal to zero, then the volume form defines a closed semidensity $`𝐬=\sqrt{\rho }`$, a solution of the Batalin–Vilkovisky quantum master equation. To a closed semidensity corresponds a constant $`c`$ defined by the zero cohomology class of the differential form corresponding to the semidensity $`𝐬`$. If this constant is equal to zero, then the volume form $`𝛒`$ is normal.

## 4 Discussion

The existence of Darboux coordinates that can locally make flat every surface in an odd symplectic supermanifold together with the absence of an invariant volume form make odd symplectic geometry a poor candidate for finding local invariants if no extra structure is provided. Hence the existence of the canonical odd Laplacian (3.2) looks mysterious. We shall to explain this fact briefly . (See details in )

Consider an arbitrary $`n`$-th order linear operator acting on functions or densities of some weight $`t`$ on an arbitrary manifold (or supermanifold). One can consider its principal symbol, i.e., the coefficients at the highest order derivatives. It is a contravariant tensor field of rank $`n`$. In the case of an $`n`$-th order operator $`\widehat{A}`$ acting on densities of weight $`t`$, the adjoint operator $`\widehat{A^{}}`$ acting on densities of weight $`1t`$ can be defined by the equation $`𝒔_1(\widehat{A}𝒔_2)=(\widehat{A^{}}𝒔_1)𝒔_2`$, where $`𝒔_2`$ is an arbitrary density of weight $`t`$ and $`𝒔_1`$ is an arbitrary density of weight $`1t`$. Hence in the case of an operator $`\widehat{A}`$ acting on semidensities ($`t=1/2`$) the operators $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{A}^{}`$ act on the same space. Assuming that the coefficients are real, the operators $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\widehat{A}^{}`$ have the same principal symbol. One can consider the principal symbol of $`\widehat{A}\widehat{A}^{}(1)^n`$, which is a tensor field of rank $`n1`$. It is the so-called subprincipal symbol of the operator $`\widehat{A}`$.

Let us consider the canonical operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on an odd symplectic supermanifold in arbitrary coordinates (not necessary Darboux coordinates). The highest order coefficients make the principal symbol, which is here the tensor of rank $`2`$ defining the odd symplectic structure. (More precisely it is the tensor $`𝔖^{AB}`$ that defines the master Hamiltonian (1.8).) It is easy to see that if $`\widehat{A}`$ is an arbitrary linear differential operator of the second order on semidensities having the principal symbol defined by the odd symplectic structure, then the subprincipal symbol of this operator is equal to $`[\widehat{A},f]_{𝐃_f}`$. Hence it follows from (3.9) that the subprincipal symbol of the canonical Laplacian $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is equal to zero. The coefficients at the first derivatives are fixed by this condition. In fact, these two conditions on the principal symbol and subprincipal symbol are equivalent to the equation (3.9). An arbitrary linear operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$ on semidensities obeying the condition (3.9) is equal to $`\mathrm{\Delta }+C`$, where $`C`$ is a scalar (a zero-order operator). The condition $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}\sqrt{𝝆}=0`$ for an arbitrary normal volume form fixes this scalar $`C=0`$ according to (3.11): hence, on an odd symplectic supermanifold there is no distinguished volume form, but there is a distinguished class of normal volume forms.

Acknowledgment: I am deeply grateful to Th. Voronov for encouraging me to write this paper and for essential editorial help.


text:
# The Present Status on 𝜎 and 𝜅 Meson Properties

## 1 Introduction

The iso-singlet scalar $`\sigma `$ meson was introduced theoretically in the linear $`\sigma `$ model, and its existence was first suggested in one-boson-exchange potential model of nuclear forces. The importance of $`\sigma `$ was stressed in relation with dynamical chiral symmetry breaking of QCD. However, its existence had been neglected phenomenologically for many years, being based on the negative results of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift analyses.

Recently the $`\pi \pi `$ phase shift was reanalyzed by many groups including ours and the existence of light $`\sigma (450`$-$`600)`$ was strongly suggested. The result of the previous analysis with no $`\sigma `$ existence was pointed out to be not correct, since in this analysis there is no consideration on the cancellation mechanism between $`\sigma `$ amplitude and non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude, which is guaranteed by chiral symmetry.

On the other hand, it is remarkable that, in contrast with the spectra of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, the clear peak structure has been observed in mass region of $`m_{\pi \pi }500`$ MeV in the various $`\pi \pi `$ production processes, such as $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$, $`p\overline{p}3\pi ^0`$, $`D^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}\pi ^{}`$ and $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\nu _\tau `$, and this structure is shown to be well reproduced by the Breit-Wigner amplitude of $`\sigma `$ meson.

Thus, presently firm evidences of $`\sigma `$ seem to be accumulated, and the column of $`\sigma `$ in particle data group table is corrected as “$`f_0(600)`$ or $`\sigma `$” in the newest’02 edition in place of $`f_0(400`$–1200) or $`\sigma `$ in the ’96–’00 editions. There are now hot controversies on the existence of $`I=1/2`$ scalar $`\kappa `$ meson, to be assigned as a member of $`\sigma `$ nonet. Reanalyses of $`K\pi `$ scattering phase shift suggest existence of the $`\kappa (900)`$, while no $`\kappa `$ is insisted in ref. ?. The existence of $`\kappa `$ is again suggested strongly in $`K\pi `$ production process of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, similarly to the case of $`\sigma `$.

In the analyses of the $`\pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi `$) production processes mentioned above, the amplitudes are parametrized by a coherent sum of the Breit-Wigner amplitudes including $`\sigma `$ (or $`\kappa `$) and the non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi `$) production amplitude. This parametrization method is called VMW method.

Recently there have been raised some criticisms on the VMW method, especially in relation to the consistency with $`\pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi `$) scattering phase shift. However, as will be clarified in §3, we emphasize that the production amplitude is, in principle, independent from the scattering amplitude and that the analyses of production processes should be done independently of scattering processes. Also it is shown that our method of analyses, VMW method, is consistent with all the constraints from unitarity and chiral symmetry.

In this paper we review both of the $`\pi \pi `$($`K\pi `$) scattering and production processes relevant to $`\sigma `$ meson ($`\kappa `$ meson), and report the present status of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ meson properties. The phase motion of the production amplitude is also examined, and the above criticisms on VMW method will be clarified not to be correct.

## 2 Experimental Evidences for $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$

($`\pi \pi `$ scattering) We first review our reanalysis of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift $`\delta `$ obtained by CERN-Munich. The $`\delta `$ of $`I=0`$ $`S`$ wave amplitude, $`\delta _S^0`$, is fitted by Interfering Amplitude method, where the total $`\delta _S^0`$ below $`m_{\pi \pi }1`$GeV is represented by the sum of the component phase shifts,

$`\delta _S^0`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _\sigma +\delta _{BG}+\delta _{f_0}.`$ (2.1)
The $`\delta _\sigma `$ is from $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner amplitude and $`\delta _{f_0}`$ is from $`f_0(980)`$ Breit-Wigner

amplitude with narrow width. The $`\delta _{BG}`$ is from non-resonant repulsive $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude, and is taken phenomenologically of hard-core type, $`\delta _{BG}=p_1r_c`$ ($`p_1=\sqrt{s/4m_\pi ^2}`$ being the CM momentum of $`\pi `$).

The experimental $`\delta _S^0`$ passes through 90 at $`\sqrt{s}(=m_{\pi \pi })900`$MeV. This is explained by the cancellation between attractive $`\delta _\sigma `$ and repulsive $`\delta _{BG}`$. The result of the fit is given in Fig. 1. The mass and width of $`\sigma `$ is obtained as $`m_\sigma =585\pm 20`$MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma =385\pm 70`$MeV.

Note that the above cancellation is shown to come from chiral symmetry in the linear $`\sigma `$ model (L$`\sigma `$M): The $`\pi \pi `$ scattering $`A(s,t,u)`$ amplitude in L$`\sigma `$M is given by

$`A(s,t,u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(2g_{\sigma \pi \pi })^2}{m_\sigma ^2s}}2\lambda ={\displaystyle \frac{sm_\pi ^2}{f_\pi ^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{f_\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(sm_\pi ^2)^2}{m_\sigma ^2s}},`$ (2.2)
as a sum of the $`\sigma `$ amplitude $`A_\sigma `$, which is strongly attractive, and of the non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude $`A_{\pi \pi }`$ due to the $`\lambda \varphi ^4`$ interaction, which is stongly repulsive. They cancel with each other following the relation of L$`\sigma `$M, $`g_{\sigma \pi \pi }=f_\pi \lambda =(m_\sigma ^2m_\pi ^2)/(2f_\pi )`$, and the small $`𝒪(p^2)`$ Tomozawa-Weinberg (TW) amplitude and its correction are left. The $`A_\sigma (A_{\pi \pi })`$ corresponds to $`\delta _\sigma `$($`\delta _{BG}`$).

Actually, as shown in Fig. 2, our theoretical curves for $`\delta _{NR}^0`$ and $`\delta _{NR}^2`$, obtained by unitarizing the respective Born amplitudes, given by $`A_{\pi \pi }`$, $`A(t,s,u)`$ and $`A(u,t,s)`$, in L$`\sigma `$M are consistent with our $`\delta _{BG}`$ of hard core type in our phase shift analysis, and with experimental $`\delta _0^2`$, respectively.

Thus, it is shown that the $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner amplitude with non-derivative ($`𝒪(p^0)`$) $`\pi \pi `$-coupling requires at the same time the strong ($`𝒪(p^0)`$) repulsive $`\pi \pi `$ interaction to obtain the small $`𝒪(p^2)`$ TW amplitude, satisfying chiral symmetry. This is the origin of $`\delta _{BG}`$ in our phase shift analysis.

There was an argument that a broad resonance with mass 1GeV, denoted as $`f_0(1000)`$ or $`ϵ(900)`$, instead of light $`\sigma `$, exists. We already investigated this possiblity. The fit with $`r_c=0`$ corresponds to the conventional analyses without the repulsive $`\delta _{BG}^{Non.Res.}`$. Actually the pole position of “$`\sigma `$” of this fit, $`\sqrt{s}=970i320`$, is very close to $`\sqrt{s}=1046i250(910i350)`$MeV of $`f_0(1000)`$($`ϵ(900)`$). The resulting $`\chi ^2`$ is $`\chi ^2/N_F=163.4/31`$ (See Fig. 1). When we take into account the cancellation mechanism of chiral symmetry by including $`\delta _{BG}^{Non.Res.}`$, as was done in the present analysis, $`\chi ^2/N_F=23.6/30`$ is obtained. The greatly improved $`\chi ^2`$ strongly suggests the $`\sigma (600)`$, rather than $`f_0(1000)`$.

($`K\pi `$ scattering) The similar cancellation is also expected to occur in $`K\pi `$ scattering since $`K`$ has also a property of Nambu-Goldstone boson. The $`I=1/2`$ $`S`$ wave phase shift $`\delta _S^{1/2}`$ is parametrized by introducing the $`\kappa `$ Breit-Wigner phase shift $`\delta _\kappa `$ and its compensating repulsive non-resonant $`K\pi `$ phase shift $`\delta _{BG}^{Non.Res}`$ as $`\delta _S^{1/2}=\delta _\kappa +\delta _{BG}^{Non.Res}+\delta _{K_0^{}(1430)}`$. The fit to $`\delta _S^{1/2}`$ below 1.6 GeV by LASS gives the mass and width of $`\kappa `$ meson as $`m_\kappa =905\stackrel{+65}{30}`$ MeV and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa =545\stackrel{+235}{110}`$ MeV.

($`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$) Following VMW method, the production amplitude is represented by a sum of Breit-Wigner amplitudes of $`\sigma `$ and $`f_2(1275)`$ and the non-resonant background. The $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ mass spectra clearly shows a peak structure, which is explained by a Breit-Wigner amplitude of $`\sigma `$ with $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(482\pm 3,325\pm 10)`$MeV. This is quite in contrast with the situation in the $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ spectra of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, where the no direct $`\sigma `$ peak is observed because of the cancellation mechanism of chiral symmetry. The similar result is obtained by BES with $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(390\stackrel{+60}{36},282\stackrel{+77}{50})`$ MeV.

($`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\mathrm{"}\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\pi \pi `$) The $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ spectra of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\pi \pi `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\pi \pi `$, $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(2S)\pi \pi `$, $`\psi (2S)J/\psi \pi \pi `$, $`J/\psi \varphi \pi \pi `$ and $`\varphi K\overline{K}`$ are commonly fitted by the amplitude by VMW method, which is a coherent sum of $`\sigma `$ Breit Wigner amplitude $`_\sigma `$ and non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude $`_{2\pi }`$. The $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(526\stackrel{+48}{37},301\stackrel{+145}{100})`$ is obtained with $`\chi ^2/N_F=86.5/(15037)=0.77`$. The double peak structure in $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(3S)\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(1S)\pi \pi `$ is explained by the interference between the $`_{2\pi }`$ with constant phase and the $`_\sigma `$ with moving phase.

($`p\overline{p}3\pi ^0`$) The $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mass distribution and the cos$`\theta `$ distributions in $`m_{\pi \pi }`$ around $`K\overline{K}`$ threshold and 1.5 GeV are fitted by the amplitude of a superposition of $`\pi ^0R`$ amplitudes with $`R=\sigma ,f_0(980,1300,1500)`$ and $`f_2(1275,1565)`$. The total amplitude symmetrized for three identical $`\pi ^0`$ shows a peak in $`m_{\pi \pi }700`$MeV, which is explained by the contribution from $`\sigma `$ Breit Wigner amplitude with $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(540\stackrel{+36}{29},385\stackrel{+64}{80})`$.

($`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$, $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ ) The E791 adopted VMW method in our words, and the Dalitz plot of $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ is analyzed by the amplitude of a coherent sum of the $`\sigma `$ and the other relevant Breit Wigner amplitudes and the non-resonant $`3\pi `$ amplitude. The $`\pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ mass distribution shows a clear peak structure in $`m_{\pi \pi }500`$ MeV region, which is explained by $`\sigma `$ contribution with $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(478\stackrel{+24}{23}\pm 17,324\stackrel{+42}{40}\pm 21)`$MeV. The $`\sigma \pi ^+`$ decay is a main mode in this channel, and its fraction is $`46.3\pm 9.0\pm 2.1\%`$.

Similarly the Dalitz plot of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ is analyzed by VMW method and the existence of $`\kappa (800)`$ is strongly suggested with $`(m_\kappa ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )=(797\pm 19\pm 42,410\pm 43\pm 85)`$MeV. The $`\kappa \pi ^+`$ decay is a main mode in this channel, and its fraction is $`47.8\pm 12.1\pm 3.7\%`$, which is almost equal to the fraction of $`\sigma \pi ^+`$ in $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$. This fact suggests the $`\sigma (500)`$ and $`\kappa (800)`$ belong to the same nonet.

($`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\nu _\tau `$) The $`3\pi `$ mass distribution of $`\tau ^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^0\pi ^0\nu _\tau `$ by CLEO is explained mainly by $`a_1(1260)`$. It is remarkable that the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ mass distributions show clear peak structures of $`\sigma `$, while $`\pi ^{}\pi ^0`$ mass distributions show clear peak of $`\rho `$. Branching fractions of $`\rho \pi ^0\nu _\tau `$ and $`\sigma \pi ^{}\nu _\tau `$ are 60.19$`\%`$ and $`18.76\pm 4.29\%`$, respectively. The $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )`$ are (555,540)MeV.

## 3 Method of Analyses of $`\pi \pi /K\pi `$ Production Processes

(Essence of VMW method) The analyses of $`\pi \pi /K\pi `$ production processes quoted in the previous section are done following the VMW method. Here we explain our basic physical picture on strong interactions and the essential point of this method.

The strong interaction is a residual interaction of QCD among all color-neutral bound states of quarks($`q`$), anti-quarks($`\overline{q}`$) and gluons($`g`$). These states are denoted as $`\varphi _i`$, and the strong interaction Hamiltonian $`_{\mathrm{strong}}`$ is described by these $`\varphi _i`$ fields. It should be noted that, from the quark physical picture, unstable particles as well as stable particles, if they are color-singlet bound states, should be equally treated as $`\varphi _i`$-fields on the same footing.

$`_{\mathrm{strong}}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\mathrm{strong}}(\varphi _i)`$
$`\{\varphi _i\}`$ $`=`$ $`\{\mathrm{color}\mathrm{singlet}\mathrm{bound}\mathrm{states}\mathrm{of}q,\overline{q}\mathrm{and}g\}.`$ (3.1)
The time-evolution by $`_{\mathrm{strong}}(\varphi _i)`$ describes the generalized $`S`$-matrix. Here, it is to be noted that, if $`_{\mathrm{strong}}`$ is hermitian, the unitarity of $`S`$ matrix is guaranteed.

The bases of generalized $`S`$-matrix are the configuration space of these multi-$`\varphi _i`$ states.

$`\begin{array}{c}S\mathrm{matrix}\mathrm{bases}\hfill \\ \{\mathrm{multi}\varphi _i\mathrm{states}\}\hfill \end{array}`$ $`=`$ $`\left\{\begin{array}{c}|\omega \pi \pi ,\underset{¯}{|\omega \sigma ,|\omega f_2,|b_1\pi ,\mathrm{},|J/\psi },\hfill \\ |N\pi ,(|N\pi \pi )_{Non.Res.},\underset{¯}{|\mathrm{\Delta },|\mathrm{\Delta }\pi ,|\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma ,\mathrm{}},\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\mathrm{}\hfill \end{array}\right\},`$ (3.7)
where the states relevant for $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ decay and $`N\pi `$ scattering are respectively shown in 1st and 2nd lines as examples. The states including unstable particles shown with underlines are equally treated with non-resonant states $`|\omega \pi \pi `$ and $`|N\pi ,|N\pi \pi `$. The relevant $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ decay process has the 3-body final state $`\omega \pi \pi `$. This process is described by a coherent sum of amplitudes for various 2-body decays, $`J/\psi \omega \sigma `$, $`J/\psi \omega f_2(1275)`$, $`J/\psi b_1(1235)\pi ,\mathrm{}`$, and for a non-resonant 3-body($`\omega \pi \pi `$) decay. These respective decay amplitudes correspond to different non-diagonal elements of the generalized $`S`$-matrix, and have independent coupling strengths.))) The strengths and phases of respective amplitudes are considered to be determined by quark dynamics. However, we treat them independent in phenomenological analyses.  The $`_{\mathrm{strong}}`$ induces the various final state interaction, reducing to the strong phases of the corresponding amplitudes. (See Fig.3.)

The remaining problem is how to treat unstable particles, as there is no established field-theoretical method for this problem. In VMW method unstable particles are treated intuitively by the replacement of propagator,

$`\mathrm{Stable}\mathrm{particle}`$ $`\mathrm{Unstable}\mathrm{particle}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\sigma ^2siϵ}}`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{Strong}\mathrm{Int}.}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{m_\sigma ^2sim_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)}},`$ (3.8)
where we take the case of $`\sigma `$ as an example.

The effective $`\omega \pi \pi `$ amplitude is given by a coherent sum of all those decay amplitudes,

$`𝓕_{𝝎𝝅𝝅}`$ $`=`$ $`_{\omega \sigma }+_{\omega f_2}+_{b_1\pi }+\mathrm{}+_{\omega (\pi \pi )_{Non.Res.}},`$ (3.9)
$`_{\omega \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`r_\sigma e^{i\theta _\sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{m_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma }{m_\sigma ^2sim_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)}}{}_{out}{}^{}\omega \sigma |J/\psi _{in}^{}`$
$`_{\omega f_2}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{f_2}e^{i\theta _{f_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{f_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}N_{\pi \pi }(s,\mathrm{cos}\theta )}{m_{f_2}^2sim_{f_2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{f_2}(s)}}{}_{out}{}^{}\omega f_2|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$
$`_{\omega b_1}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{b_1}e^{i\theta _{b_1}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_{b_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1}}{m_{b_1}^2sim_{b_1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{b_1}(s)}}{}_{out}{}^{}\omega b_1|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`_{\omega (\pi \pi )}^{Non.Res.}`$ $`=`$ $`r_{2\pi }^{N.R.}e^{i\theta _{2\pi }^{N.R.}}{}_{out}{}^{}\omega (2\pi )_{N.R.}|J/\psi _{in}^{},`$ (3.10)
where $`_{\omega \sigma }`$ corresponds to the generalized $`S`$ matrix element $`{}_{out}{}^{}\omega \sigma |J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, $`|_{in}({}_{out}{}^{}|`$ denoting $`in(out)`$-state of scattering theory. The $`r_\sigma `$ represents the corresponding coupling strength and the $`\theta _\sigma `$ comes from the $`\omega \sigma `$ rescattering (the final state interaction). The extra Breit-Wigner factor comes from the prescription Eq. (3.8). Similarly, $`_{\omega f_2}`$, $`_{\omega b_1}`$ and $`_{\omega (\pi \pi )}^{Non.Res.}`$ correspond to the generalized $`S`$ matrix elements, $`{}_{out}{}^{}\omega f_2|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, $`{}_{out}{}^{}\omega b_1|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$ and $`{}_{out}{}^{}\omega (2\pi )_{N.R.}|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, respectively, and they have mutually-independent couplings, $`r_{f_2}`$, $`r_{b_1}`$ and $`r_{2\pi }^{N.R.}`$, and strong phases, $`\theta _{f_2}`$, $`\theta _{b_1}`$ and $`\theta _{2\pi }^{N.R.}`$. $`N_{\pi \pi }`$ is angular function of $`f_2\pi \pi `$ $`D`$ wave decay.

(Relation between scattering and production amplitudes, and chiral constraint) In $`\pi \pi `$ scattering the derivative-coupling property of Nambu-Goldstone $`\pi `$-meson requires the suppression of the amplitude $`𝒯_{\pi \pi }`$ near threshold,

$`𝒯_{\pi \pi }`$ $``$ $`p_{\pi 1}p_{\pi 2}m_\pi ^20\mathrm{at}s4m_\pi ^2.`$ (3.11)
This chiral constraint requires, as was explained in §2, the strong cancellation between the $`\sigma `$ amplitude $`𝒯_\sigma `$ and the non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude $`𝒯_{2\pi }`$, which means the strong constraints, $`r_{2\pi }r_\sigma `$, $`\theta _\sigma \theta _{2\pi }`$, in the corresponding formulas to Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10). The amplitude has zero close to the threshold and no direct $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner peak is observed in $`\pi \pi `$ mass spectra.

On the other hand, for general $`\pi \pi `$ production processes the parameters $`r_i`$ and $`\theta _i`$ are independent of those in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, since they are concerned with different $`S`$-matrix elements. Especially we can expect in the case of “$`\sigma `$-dominance”, $`r_\sigma r_{2\pi }`$, the $`\pi \pi `$ spectra show steep increase from the $`\pi \pi `$ threshold, and the $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner peak is directly observed. This situation seems to be realized in $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ and $`D^+\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$.

Here we should note that the chiral constraint on $`r_\sigma `$ and $`r_{2\pi }`$ does not work generally in the production processes with large energy release to the $`\pi \pi `$ system. We explain this fact in case of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ decays. Here we take $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ as an example. We consider a non-resonant $`\pi \pi `$ amplitude of derivative-type $`_{\mathrm{der}}`$,

$`_{\mathrm{der}}`$ $``$ $`P_\psi p_{\pi 1}P_\psi p_{\pi 2}/M_\psi ^2,`$ (3.12)
where $`P_\psi (p_{\pi i})`$ is the momentum of $`J/\psi `$ (emitted pions).))) The equation (3.12) is obtained by the chiral symmetric effective Lagrangian, $`_d=\xi _d_\mu _\nu \psi _\lambda \omega _\lambda (_\mu \pi _\nu \pi +_\mu \sigma _\nu \sigma )`$. The possible origin of this effective Lagrangian is discussed in ref.?. There occurs no one $`\sigma `$-production amplitude, cancelling the $`2\pi `$ amplitude, in this Lagrangian.  This type of amplitude satisfies the Adler self-consistency condition, $`0`$ when $`p_{\pi 1\mu }0`$, and consistent with the general chiral constraint. However, this zero does not appear in low energy region of actual $`s`$-plane. At $`\pi \pi `$ threshold (where $`s=4m_\pi ^2`$), $`p_{\pi 1\mu }=p_{\pi 2\mu }`$ and $`P_\psi p_{\pi i}/M_\psi =E_{\pi i}(M_\psi m_\omega )/2`$ ($`E_{\pi i}`$ being the energy of emitted pion), and thus,

$`_{\mathrm{der}}`$ $``$ $`((M_\psi m_\omega )/2)^2m_\pi ^2\mathrm{at}s4m_\pi ^2.`$ (3.13)
The amplitude (3.12) is not suppressed near $`\pi \pi `$ threshold, and correspondingly there is no strong constraint between $`r_\sigma e^{i\theta _\sigma }`$ and $`r_{2\pi }e^{i\theta _{2\pi }}`$ leading to the threshold suppression. This is quite in contrast with the situation in $`\pi \pi `$ scattering, Eq. (3.11).

(“Universality” of $`𝒯_{\pi \pi }`$ : threshold behavior) Conventionally all the production amplitudes $`_{\pi \pi }`$, including the $`\pi \pi `$ system in the final channel, are believed to take the form proportional to $`𝒯_{\pi \pi }`$ as

$`_{\pi \pi }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha (s)𝒯_{\pi \pi };\alpha (s):\mathrm{slowly}\mathrm{varying}\mathrm{real}\mathrm{function},`$ (3.14)
where $`\alpha (s)`$ is supposed to be a slowly varying real function. This implies that $``$ and $`𝒯`$ have the same phases and the same structures (the common positions of poles, if they exist). The equation (3.14) is actually applied to the analyses of various production processes, and it was the reason of overlooking $`\sigma `$ for almost 20 years in the 1976 through 1994 editions of Particle Data Group tables.

The equation (3.14) is based on the belief that low energy $`\pi \pi `$ chiral dynamics is also applicable to $`\pi \pi `$ production processes with small $`s`$, leading to the threshold suppression of spectra, as in Eq. (3.11), in all production processes because of the Adler zero in $`𝒯_{\pi \pi }`$. This is apparently inconsistent with experimental data.

So, in order to remove the Adler zero at $`s=s_0`$ and to fit the experimental spectra, one is forced to modify the form of $`\alpha (s)`$ by multiplying artificially the rapidly varying factor $`1/(ss_0)`$ without any theoretical reason.

When the scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$ is unitarized by $`N/D`$ method, Adler zero in $`N`$ leads to the factor $`ss_0`$ in the imaginary part of $`D`$. Then, in ref. ?, following Eq. (3.14), in addition to the (above mentioned) artificial factor in $`\alpha (s)`$, it is insisted that this $`D`$ function with the factor $`ss_0`$ in its imaginary part should be applied to all the $`\pi \pi `$ production amplitudes $``$. However, such a requirement on $``$ has no relation with the Adler self-consistency condition which predicts the zero in total $``$. Moreover, that is not generally valid since in its approach only the $`\pi \pi `$ dynamics, that is, the final state interaction between two stable $`\pi `$ mesons is considered, and the various final state interactions, as expalined in Fig. 3, are not taken into account. In the case of $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$, the emitted pion energy is of order $`M_\psi `$, and the new dynamics in $`J/\psi `$ energy region, which is beyond the scope of chiral dynamics, must also be considered. This is overlooked in Eq. (3.14).

Here I should like to stress the physical meaning of an example, Eq. (3.12), that Adler zero condition, even in the isolated final $`2\pi `$ system, does not necessarily lead to the threshold suppression. This implies that the above mentioned ad hoc prescription to get rid of the undesirable zero near threshold of $``$ becomes not necessary, if we take the new dynamics duely into account.

## 4 Phases of Production Amplitudes

(Generalized $`S`$ matrix and phase of production amplitude) It is often discussed that in order to confirm the existence of a resonant particle, it is necessary to observe the corresponding phase motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 180^{}`$ of the amplitude like the case of $`\rho `$ meson. In the $`\pi \pi P`$ wave amplitude a clear phase motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 180^{}`$ due to $`\rho `$ meson Breit-Wigner amplitude is observed. However, in the case of $`\sigma `$ meson, because of the chiral cancellation mechanism (explained in §2), and because of its large width, the $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner phase motion $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 180^{}`$ cannot be observed directly in the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude. While, in $`\pi \pi `$ production processes the amplitudes are the sum of various $`S`$ matrix elements as explained in Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10), and correspondingly the pure $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner phase motion may be generally difficult to be observed. However, only in some exceptional cases, when the amplitude is dominated by $`\sigma `$, the $`\sigma `$ phase motion may be directly observed.

On the other hand, as was mentioned at the end of §3, conventionally it is widely believed that all the $`\pi \pi `$ production amplitude $``$ have the same phase as that of $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$.

However, this belief (or Eq. (3.14)) comes from the incorrect application of elastic unitarity condition, which is not applicable to production processes, where the freedom of various strong phases, $`\theta _\sigma `$, $`\theta _{b_1}`$, $`\theta _{f_2}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ (in Eqs. (3.9) and (3.10)) allowed in generalized unitarity condition, is overlooked in Eq. (3.14).

Because of the effect of the above strong phases, generally $``$ have different phases from $`𝒯`$. $``$ have the same phase as $`𝒯`$ only in very limited cases when the final $`\pi \pi `$ (or $`K\pi `$) systems are completely isolated in strong interaction level. For 3-body decays such as $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi (K^{}K\pi )`$ and $`D^{}\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+(K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+)`$, the above condition is not satisfied. Actually, the large strong phases in $`J/\psi `$ and $`D`$ decays are suggested experimentally. In order to reproduce the experimental branching ratio of $`J/\psi 1^{}0^{}`$ decays (that is, $`J/\psi \omega \pi ^0,\rho \pi ,K^{}\overline{K},\mathrm{}`$,) it is necessary to introduce a large relative strong phase $`\delta _\gamma =arg\frac{a_\gamma }{a}=80.3^{}`$ between the effective coupling constants of three gluon decay $`a`$ and of one photon decay $`a_\gamma `$. A similar result is also obtained in $`J/\psi 0^{}0^{}`$ decays. A large relative phase between $`I=3/2`$ and $`I=1/2`$ amplitudes of $`DK\pi `$ decays is observed: $`\delta _{3/2}(m_D)\delta _{1/2}(m_D)=(96\pm 13)^{}`$, (while in $`BD\pi ,D\rho ,D^{}\pi `$ decays rather small relative phases are obtained). By considering these results we expect not small strong phases $`\theta _\sigma `$, $`\theta _{b_1}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$ coming from $`\sigma \omega ,b_1\pi ,\mathrm{}`$ rescatterings in $`J/\psi `$ decays.))) It is often argued that the amplitude of $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$ (or $`D\pi ^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ ) near $`\pi \pi `$ threshold must take the same phase as the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase, since in this energy region the $`m_{\omega \pi }(M_\psi )`$ is large, and $`\pi \pi `$ decouples from $`\omega `$ in final channel. And this phase constraint is argued to come from $`\pi \pi `$ elastic unitarity condition. However, according to the work $`M_\psi `$ is not sufficiently large for making $`\pi \pi `$ decouple from $`\omega `$, and the $`\pi \pi `$ elastic unitarity constraint actually does not work in the amplitude Eq. (3.9).

(cos $`\theta `$ distribution in $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$) In relation to this argument Minkowski and Ochs raise a criticism concerning the existence of light-mass $`\sigma `$-pole in $`J/\psi \omega \pi \pi `$:

The cos$`\theta `$ distribution is obtained in $`m_{\pi \pi }`$=250$``$750MeV by DM2. They apply partial wave expansion(PWA) including $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves to obtain the cross section as $`\frac{d\sigma }{d\mathrm{\Omega }}|S|^2+10(3\mathrm{c}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{s}^2\theta 1)Re(SD^{})+𝒪(|D|^2),`$ ($`S(D)`$ is the $`\pi \pi `$ S(D)-wave component), where the cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta `$ term is proportional to $`Re(SD^{})`$. Then, if the $`D(S)`$ is dominated by $`f_2(1270)(\sigma )`$ contribution, the angular distribution would vary with a sign change of the cos$`{}_{}{}^{2}\theta `$ term (from $`+`$ to $``$). Actually, contradictorily to this anticipation, the data do not show any sign change below 750 MeV, and they conclude that there is no indication for a Breit-Wigner resonance at 500 MeV.

However, (according to our preliminary analyses,) in this energy region there is almost no contribution from $`f_2(1275)`$, and actually the $`l2`$ partial waves mainly come from $`b_1(1235)`$ contribution, $`J/\psi \pi b_1`$ and $`b_1\omega \pi `$. In $`m_{\pi \pi }\stackrel{>}{}500`$MeV the direct $`b_1`$ peak is seen in cos $`\theta `$ distribution, and it includes the large higher wave components. This fact means the above PWA does not work well in this energy region. Furthermore, each of the partial waves is expected to show a large phase movement (from $`b_1`$ pole) in the relevant energy region $`m_{\pi \pi }500`$MeV, while in the above criticism the almost constant phase of $`D`$ wave is assumed. Thus, the basic assumption is not applicable, and their criticism is not correct.

Recently a method extracting the $`\sigma `$ phase motion from Dalitz plot data of $`D`$ decays is presented in ref. ?, where the interference between $`f_0(980)`$ (or $`f_2(1275)`$) and the remaining $`S`$-wave component is used to observe the $`\sigma `$ phase motion. Similarly, in the relevant $`J/\psi `$ decays, by using the Dalitz plot data, it may be possible to observe the $`\sigma `$ phase motion, where the interference between $`b_1(1235)`$ Breit-Wigner amplitude and $`\pi \pi `$ $`S`$-wave component is used. The direct $`b_1`$ peak appears in $`m_{\pi \pi }\stackrel{>}{}500`$MeV region of Dalitz plot, and in this energy region the $`S`$-wave phase motion is expected to be determined with good accuracy.)))In case $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(500,350)`$MeV the $`\sigma `$ Breit-Wigner amplitude gives the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta =83^{}(67^{})`$ between $`m_{\pi \pi }`$=450$``$850MeV(500$``$850MeV) which is somewhat larger than the corresponding $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase difference $`\mathrm{\Delta }\delta 63^{}(55^{})`$.

($`pp`$ central collision, $`pppp\pi ^0\pi ^0`$) A partial wave analyses of the $`\pi ^0\pi ^0`$ system produced centrally in $`pp`$ collisions at 450 GeV$`/`$c are done by WA102 and GAMS. A large peak structure around 500 MeV, observed in both $`S`$ and $`D`$ waves, is explained in ref. ? by the one pion exchange (OPE).

It should be noted that the relative phase $`\varphi _{S_0^{}}\varphi _{D_0^{}}`$ between $`S_0^{}`$ and $`D_0^{}`$ amplitudes))) The relative phase between $`S_0^{}`$ and $`D_1^{}`$ in the relevant energy region is different from that between $`S_0^{}`$ and $`D_0^{}`$. The $`D_1^\pm `$ components explain the $`\varphi `$ distribution, which suggests the pomerons have vector components.  in Fig. 4 is apparently different from the corresponding scattering phase $`\delta _0^0\delta _2^0`$, (shown by solid line in the figure) where $`\delta _0^0`$ and $`\delta _2^0`$ are isosinglet $`S`$ and $`D`$ wave $`\pi \pi `$ phase shifts, respectively. (As shown in Fig.1, $`\delta _0^0`$ gradually increases from 0 to 90 in $`m_{\pi \pi }=2m_\pi `$ through $`900`$ MeV, and $`\delta _2^0`$ dominated by $`f_2(1275)`$ is almost 0 in this energy region.) Thus, it is experimentally confirmed that the phase of $`\pi \pi `$ production amplitude $``$ is different from $`\pi \pi `$ scattering amplitude $`𝒯`$ in this process.

As shown in Fig.4, in both experiments, the $`\varphi _{S_0^{}}\varphi _{D_0^{}}`$ is not constant, and shows some structure around $`0.50.6`$ GeV, which seems to suggest the $`\sigma `$ contribution interfering with the background which may come from OPE. In VMW method the $``$ is given by
$`=r_{BG}(s)e^{i\theta _{BG}}+r_\sigma e^{i\theta _\sigma }\frac{m_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)}{m_\sigma ^2sim_\sigma \mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma (s)},`$ where the 1st(2nd) term represents the background($`\sigma `$ BW) amplitude. An example of the mass spectra, $`||^2/\rho (s)`$ ($`\rho (s)`$ being $`\pi \pi `$ state density $`p_1(s)/(8\pi \sqrt{s})`$), and the phase $`Arg`$ is shown in Fig. 5. Here we use $`r_{BG}^2(s)=a(\sqrt{s}2m_\pi ^0)^b\mathrm{exp}(c\sqrt{s}ds)\times \rho (s)`$, which is used in ref.?, ?, and the parameters are selected by inspection of experimental mass and phase distributions. Experimental data in this process seem to be consistent with the existence of $`\sigma `$ meson.

($`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$ and $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ ) The $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ spectra of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$ by FOCUS is dominated by $`P`$ wave from $`\overline{K}^0`$ interfering with a small $`S`$ wave. Through the angular analysis this $`S`$ wave component has almost constant phase $`\delta =\frac{\pi }{4}`$ in mass region of $`\kappa `$ meson, $`m_{K\pi }=0.81.0`$GeV. This $`\delta `$ is suggested, by Minkowski and Ochs, to be the same as the $`K\pi `$ scattering phase shift by LASS in this mass region. Based on this result, they critisize the analysis of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ by E791, where, as explained in §2, the $`\kappa `$ Breit Wigner amplitude is applied and it has large phase motion in this mass region. They stated “Such a result (of E791) appears to contradict the above FOCUS result.”

However, this criticism is again premature because the effect of strong phases allowed in generalized unitarity condition is overlooked. In $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$ the final $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ is isolated in strong interaction level. Thus, as we explained in the first part of this section, the amplitude has the same phase as $`K\pi `$ scattering amplitude due to Watson theorem. However, $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ is a three body decay of heavy meson and $`K^{}\pi ^+`$ is not isolated in final channel, and the rescattering effects from various elements of generalized $`S`$ matrix, such as, $`{}_{out}{}^{}\overline{\kappa }^0\pi ^+|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, $`{}_{out}{}^{}\overline{K}^0\pi ^+|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, $`{}_{out}{}^{}\overline{K}_2^0\pi ^+|J/\psi _{in}^{}`$, $`\mathrm{}`$, must be taken into account. In 2-body decays of $`D`$, $`J/\psi `$ ($`B`$) mesons, the large (small) strong phase is suggested. Thus, the phases of the above matrix elements are considered to be not small. Thus, total amplitude of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ has generally different phase from that of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$.

Finally we should add a comment on $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$ in relation to $`K_{l4}`$ decay $`K^+\pi ^+\pi ^{}e^+\nu `$. The latter process is analyzed by Shabalin by using SU(3) linear $`\sigma `$ model, where the effect of direct $`\sigma `$ production, $`K^+\sigma e^+\nu `$ (successively $`\sigma \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$), explains the large width obtained experimentally (which is twice as large as the prediction by soft pion limit). At the same time this amplitude has the same phase as the $`\pi \pi `$ scattering phase shift. The $`\sigma `$ Breit Wigner phase motion is not observed due to Watson theorem, but its large decay width suggests the $`\sigma `$ production in this process. As can be seen in this example, the $`\kappa `$ phase motion is not observed in $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\mu ^+\nu `$, but this fact does not mean no $`\kappa `$-existence. The analysis of $`D^+K^{}\pi ^+\pi ^+`$ by E791 does not contradict with FOCUS result, and strongly suggests the $`\kappa `$(800) existence.

## 5 Concluding Remarks

The masses and widths of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ mesons quoted in the text are summarized in Table I. The peak structures of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ meson productions are directly observed in these $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ production processes. It is remarkable that a clear peak structure from $`\kappa `$ production is observed in $`K\pi `$ mass spectra of $`J/\psi K^0K^{}\pi ^+`$ by BES, which is added in the table.

The peak structures mentioned above are fitted well by the Breit-Wigner amplitudes of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ following VMW method, independently from the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ scattering. The criticisms on this method come from the confusion of the 3-body production processes with 2-body scattering process, and are not correct.

The recent belief that phases of all the $`\pi \pi `$ production amplitude $``$ is the same as that of $`𝒯`$ also comes from the same kind of confusion, and thus, is not correct. The 3- (or multi-) body production processes including $`\pi \pi `$ or $`K\pi `$ system in the final channels are considered as superpositions of various two- (or more) bodies processes, which correspond to the different elements of general $`S`$-matrix. Thus, the total amplitude generally has different phase from that of the $`\pi \pi `$ and $`K\pi `$ scatteirng amplitudes.

The observed peak structures are considered as the strong evidences of $`\sigma `$ and $`\kappa `$ existence. Presently their existence seems to be established with the property $`(m_\sigma ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\sigma )=(500,300)`$MeV and $`(m_\kappa ,\mathrm{\Gamma }_\kappa )=(800,400)`$MeV, respectively.

The author would like to express his gratitudes to Prof. S. F. Tuan for useful information. He also thanks to Prof. M. Oka, Prof. S. Ishida , Prof. K. Takamatsu and Prof. T. Tsuru for discussions, and to Dr. T. Ishida for making figures.