text:
# Monopoles and Family Replicated Unification

## 1. Introduction

Trying to look insight the Nature and considering the physical processes at very small distances, physicists have made attempts to explain the well–known laws of low–energy physics as a consequence of the more fundamental laws of Nature. The contemporary physics of the electroweak and strong interactions is described by the Standard Model (SM) which unifies the Glashow-Salam-Weinberg electroweak theory with QCD – theory of strong interactions.

The gauge group of symmetry in the SM is :

$$SMG=SU(3)_\text{c}\times SU(2)_\text{L}\times U(1)_\text{Y},$$
(1)
which describes the present elementary particle physics up to the scale $`100`$ GeV.

Recently it was shown in a number of papers  that the family replicated gauge groups of type :

$$SU(n)^N\times SU(m)^N$$
(2)
play an essential role in construction of renormalizable, asymptotically free, four dimensional gauge theories that dynamically generate a fifth dimension (or fifth and sixth ones). This theory leads to the natural electroweak symmetry breaking, relying neither on supersymmetry nor on strong dynamics at the TeV scale. The new TeV physics is perturbative, and radiative corrections to the Higgs mass are finite. The Higgs scalar is an extended object – pseudo-Nambu-Goldstone boson – and a novel Higgs potential emerges naturally requiring a second light SU(2) doublet scalar.

We see that the family replicated gauge groups provide a new way to stabilize the Higgs mass in the Standard Model.

## 2. Family Replicated Gauge Group

The extension of SM with the Family Replicated Gauge Group (FRGG):

$$G=(SMG)^N=[SU(3)_\text{c}]^N\times [SU(2)_\text{L}]^N\times [U(1)_\text{Y}]^N$$
(3)
was first suggested by C.D.Froggatt and H.B.Nielsen .

In Eq.(3) $`N`$ designates the number of quark and lepton families. If $`N=3`$ (as experiment confirms), then the fundamental gauge group G is:

$$G=(SMG)^3=SMG_{\text{1st\hspace{0.33em}fam.}}\times SMG_{\text{2nd\hspace{0.33em}fam.}}\times SMG_{\text{3rd\hspace{0.33em}fam.}}.$$
(4)
The generalized fundamental group:

$$G_\text{f}=(SMG)^3\times U(1)_\text{f}$$
(5)
was suggested by the fitting of fermion masses of the SM .

Recently a new generalization of FRGG-model was suggested in papers , in which the fundamental group:

$$\begin{array}{c}G_{\text{ext}}=(SMG\times U(1)_{\text{B-L}})^3\\ [SU(3)_\text{c}]^3\times [SU(2)_\text{L}]^3\times [U(1)_\text{Y}]^3\times [U(1)_{\text{(B-L)}}]^3\end{array}$$
(6)
takes into account the see-saw mechanism with right-handed neutrinos, describes all modern neutrino experiments, and gives the reasonable fitting of the SM fermion masses and mixing angles. The group $`G=G_{\text{ext}}`$ contains: $`3\times 8=24`$ gluons, $`3\times 3=9`$ W-bosons and $`3\times 1+3\times 1=6`$ Abelian gauge bosons.

The model is renormalisable: has no anomalies, neither gauge nor mixed.

The gauge group $`G_{\text{ext}}`$ undergoes the spontaneous breakdown (at some orders of magnitude below the Planck scale) by 7 different Higgs fields to the gauge group which is the diagonal subgroup of $`G_{\text{ext}}`$. Therefore, 7 Higgs fields break FRGG-model to the SM. The field $`\varphi _{\text{WS}}`$ corresponds to the Weinberg-Salam theory. Its VEV is known: $`<\varphi _{\text{WS}}>=246`$ GeV, so that we have only 6 free parameters – six VEVs – to fit the experiment in the framework of this model.

Froggatt, Nielsen and Takanishi  have used them with aim to find the best fit to conventional experimental data for all fermion masses and mixing angles in the SM, also to explain the experiments in the neutrino oscillations. The typical fit was encouraging in the crude approximation. Also the neutrino masses were predicted.

Finally, we conclude that, in general, the theory with FRGG-symmetry is successful in describing of the SM experiment.

## 3. Lattice-like Structure of our Space-Time

Having an interest in the fundamental laws of physics, we can consider the two possibilities:

* At the very small (Planck length) distances our space-time is continuous and there exists the fundamental theory with a very high symmetry.
* At the very small distances our space-time is discrete, and this discreteness influences on the Planck scale physics.

The item 2 is an initial (basic) point of view of the present theory, but not an approximation. It is a base of the theory of physical processes proceeding at small distances of order of the Planck scale $`\lambda _\text{P}=M_{\text{Pl}}^1`$:

$$M_{\text{Pl}}=1.2210^{19}\text{GeV}.$$
(7)
In the simplest case we can imagine our (3+1) space–time as a regular hypercubic lattice with a parameter $`a=\lambda _\text{P}`$. Then the lattice artifact monopoles can play an essential role near the Planck scale. But, of course, it is necessary to comment that we do not know (at least on the level of our today knowledge) what lattice-like structure (random lattice, or foam, or string lattice, etc.) plays role in the description of physical processes at very small distances .

The aim of the present paper is also to show that monopoles cannot be seen in the usual SM up to the Planck scale, because they have a huge magnetic charge and are completely confined. Supersymmetry does not help to see monopoles.

We suggest to consider a possibility of the existence of monopoles in our World, extending the Standard Model Group (SMG) to the Family Replicated Gauge Group (SMG)N.

## 4. Renormalisation Group Equations for Electric and Magnetic Fine Structure Constants

J.Schwinger  was first who investigated the problem of renormalisation of the magnetic charge in Quantum ElectroMagnetoDynamics (QEMD), i.e. in the Abelian quantum field theory of electrically and magnetically charged particles (with charges $`e`$ and $`g`$, respectively).

Considering the ”bare” charges $`e_\text{0}`$ and $`g_\text{0}`$ and renormalised (effective) charges $`e`$ and $`g`$, Schwinger obtained:

$$e/g=e_\text{0}/g_\text{0},$$
(8)
what means the absence of the Dirac relation for the renormalised electric and magnetic charges.

But there exists another solution of this problem  which gives:

$$eg=e_\text{0}g_\text{0}=2\pi n,(nZ),$$
(9)
i.e. the existence of the Dirac relation (charge quantization condition) for both, bare and renormalised electric and magnetic charges. Here we have $`n=1`$ for the minimal (elementary) charges.

These two cases lead to the two possibilities for the renormalisation group equations (RGEs) describing the evolution of electric and magnetic fine structure constants:

$$\alpha =\frac{e^2}{4\pi }\text{and}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\frac{g^2}{4\pi },$$
(10)
which obey the following RGEs containing the electric and magnetic beta-functions:

$$\frac{d(\mathrm{log}\alpha (\mu ))}{dt}=\pm \frac{d(\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mu ))}{dt}=\beta ^{(e)}(\alpha )\pm \beta ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }).$$
(11)
In Eq.(11) we have:

$$t=\mathrm{log}(\frac{\mu ^2}{\mu _R^2}),$$
(12)
where $`\mu `$ is the energy scale and $`\mu _\text{R}`$ is the renormalisation point.

The second possibility (with minuses) in Eq.(11) corresponds to the validity of the Dirac relation for the renormalised charges. We believe only in this case considered by authors in paper  where we have used the Zwanziger formalism of QEMD .

In the present paper, excluding the Schwinger’s renormalisation condition (8), we assume only the Dirac relation for running $`\alpha `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$:

$$\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }=\frac{1}{4}.$$
(13)
It is necessary to comment that RGEs (11) are valid only for $`\mu >\mu _{\text{threshold}}=m_{\text{mon}}`$, where $`m_{\text{mon}}`$ is the monopole mass.

If monopole charges, together with electric ones, are sufficiently small, then $`\beta `$-functions can be considered perturbatively:

$$\beta (\alpha )=\beta _\text{2}(\alpha /4\pi )+\beta _\text{4}(\alpha /4\pi )^2+\mathrm{}$$
(14)
and

$$\beta (\stackrel{~}{\alpha })=\beta _\text{2}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/4\pi )+\beta _4(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }/4\pi )^2+\mathrm{}$$
(15)
with (see  and references there)

$$\beta _2=\frac{1}{3}\text{and}\beta _\text{4}=1\text{for scalar particles},$$
(16)
and

$$\beta _2=\frac{4}{3}\text{and}\beta _\text{4}4\text{for fermions}.$$
(17)
For scalar electric and magnetic charges we have:

$$\frac{d(\mathrm{log}\alpha (\mu ))}{dt}=\frac{d(\mathrm{log}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mu ))}{dt}=\beta _2\frac{\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{4\pi }(1+3\frac{\alpha +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{4\pi }+\mathrm{})$$
(18)
with $`\beta _\text{2}=1/3`$, and approximately the same result is valid for fermionic particles with $`\beta _\text{2}=4/3`$. Eq.(18) shows that there exists a region when both fine structure constants are perturbative. Approximately this region is given by the following inequalities:

$$0.2\stackrel{<}{}(\alpha ,\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\stackrel{<}{}1.$$
(19)
Using the Dirac relation (13), we see from Eq.(18) that in the region (19) the two-loop contribution is not larger than 30% of the one-loop contribution, and the perturbation theory can be realized in this case.

It is necessary to comment that the region (19) almost coincides with the region of phase transition couplings obtained in the lattice compact QED .

## 5. Evolution of Running Fine Structure Constants

The usual definition of the SM coupling constants is given in the Modified minimal subtraction scheme($`\overline{\text{MS}}`$):

$$\alpha _\text{1}=\frac{5}{3}\alpha _\text{Y},\alpha _\text{Y}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{cos}^2\theta _{\overline{\text{MS}}}},\alpha _\text{2}=\frac{\alpha }{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta _{\overline{\text{MS}}}},\alpha _\text{3}\alpha _\text{s}=\frac{g_\text{s}^2}{4\pi },$$
(20)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha _\text{s}`$ are the electromagnetic and SU(3) fine structure constants respectively, Y is the hypercharge, and $`\theta _{\overline{\text{MS}}}`$ is the Weinberg weak angle in $`\overline{\text{MS}}`$ scheme. Using RGEs with experimentally established parameters, it is possible to extrapolate the experimental values of three inverse running constants $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$ (here i=1,2,3 correspond to U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) groups of SM) from the Electroweak scale to the Planck scale.

It is well known (see for example ) that (in the absence of monopoles) the one–loop approximation RGEs can be described by the following expressions:

$$\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )=\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu _\text{R})+\frac{b_{\text{ i}}}{4\pi }t,$$
(21)
where slopes $`b_\text{i}`$ are given by the following values:

$$\begin{array}{c}b_\text{i}=(b_\text{1},b_\text{2},b_\text{3})=\\ (\frac{4}{3}N_{\text{gen}}\frac{1}{10}N_\text{S},\frac{22}{3}N_\text{V}\frac{4}{3}N_{\text{gen}}\frac{1}{6}N_\text{S},11N_\text{V}\frac{4}{3}N_{\text{gen}}).\end{array}$$
(22)
The integers $`N_{\text{gen}},N_\text{S},N_\text{V}`$ are respectively the numbers of generations, Higgs bosons and different vector gauge fields.

In SM we have:

$$N_{\text{gen}}=3,N_\text{S}=N_\text{V}=1,$$
(23)
and the corresponding slopes (22) describe the evolutions of $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$.

The precision of the LEP data allows to make the extrapolation of RGEs with small errors up to the Planck scale unless the new physics pops, of course. Assuming that these RGEs for $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$ contain only the contributions of the SM particles up to $`\mu =\mu _{\text{Pl}}M_{\text{Pl}}`$ and doing the extrapolation with one Higgs doublet under the assumption of a ”desert” and absence of monopoles, we have the following result obtained in :

$$\alpha _\text{1}^1(\mu _{\text{Pl}})33.3;\alpha _\text{2}^1(\mu _{\text{Pl}})49.5;\alpha _\text{3}^1(\mu _{\text{Pl}})54.0.$$
(24)
The extrapolation of $`\alpha _{\text{1,2,3}}^1(\mu )`$ up to the point $`\mu =\mu _{\text{Pl}}`$ is shown in Fig.1 as function of the variable $`x=log_{\text{10}}\mu `$ (GeV). In this connection, it is very attractive to consider also the gravitational interaction.

The gravitational interaction between two particles of equal masses M is given by the usual classical Newtonian potential:

$$V_\text{g}=G\frac{M^2}{r}=\left(\frac{M}{M_{\text{Pl}}}\right)^2\frac{1}{r}=\frac{\alpha _\text{g}(M)}{r},$$
(25)
which always can be imagined as a tree–level approximation of quantum gravity.

Then the quantity:

$$\alpha _\text{g}=\left(\frac{\mu }{\mu _{\text{Pl}}}\right)^2$$
(26)
plays a role of the running ”gravitational fine structure constant” and the evolution of its inverse quantity also is presented in Fig.1 together with the evolutions of $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$.

## 6. Dropping of the Monopole Charge in the Family Replicated Gauge Group Model (FRGGM)

In the simplest case, the scalar monopole beta-function in QEMD is (see  and ):

$$\beta (\stackrel{~}{\alpha })=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{12\pi }+(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{4\pi })^2+\mathrm{}=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{12\pi }(1+3\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{4\pi }+\mathrm{}).$$
(27)
From the last equation it follows that the theory of monopoles cannot be considered perturbatively at least for

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }>\frac{4\pi }{3}4.$$
(28)
This limit is smaller for non-Abelian monopoles.

Using the Dirac relation, it is easy to estimate in the simple SM the Planck scale value $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mu _{\text{Pl}})`$ (minimal for $`U(1)_\text{Y}`$ gauge group):

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\mu _{\text{Pl}})=\frac{5}{3}\alpha _\text{1}^1(\mu _{\text{Pl}})/455.5/414.$$
(29)
This value is really very big compared with the estimate (28) and, of course, with the critical coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{crit}}1`$, corresponding to the confinement-deconfinement phase transition in the lattice QED . Clearly we cannot do the perturbation approximation with such a strong coupling $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$.

It is hard for such monopoles not to be confined.

There is an interesting way out of this problem if one wants to have the existence of monopoles, namely to extend the SM gauge group so cleverly that certain selected linear combinations of charges get bigger electric couplings than the corresponding SM couplings. That could make the monopoles which for these certain charge linear combinations couple more weakly and thus have a better chance of being allowed ”to exist”.

An example of such an extension of SM that can impose the possibility of the allowance of monopoles is just Family Replicated Gauge Group Model (FRGGM).

According to the FRGGM, at some point $`\mu =\mu _\text{G}<\mu _{\text{Pl}}`$ (or really in a couple of steps) the fundamental group $`GG_{\text{ext}}`$ undergoes spontaneous breakdown to its diagonal subgroup:

$$GG_{\text{diag.subgr.}}=\{g,g,g||gSMG\},$$
(30)
which is identified with the usual (low-energy) group SMG.

It should be said that in the FRGG-model each family has its own gluons, own W’s, and own photons. The breaking just makes linear combination of a certain color combination of gluons which exists in the SM below $`\mu =\mu _\text{G}`$ and down to the low energies. We can say that the phenomenological gluon is a linear combination (with amplitude $`1/\sqrt{3}`$ for $`N=3`$) for each of the FRGG gluons of the same color combination. Then we have the following formula connecting the fine structure constants of non-Abelian FRGG-model and low energy surviving diagonal subgroup $`G_{\text{diag.subg.}}(SMG)^3`$:

$$\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{diag}}^1=\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{1st\hspace{0.17em} fam.}}^1+\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{2nd\hspace{0.17em} fam.}}^1+\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{3rd\hspace{0.17em} fam.}}^1.$$
(31)
Here i = SU(2), SU(3), and i=3 means that we talk about the gluon couplings.

Assuming that three FRGG couplings are equal to each other, we obtain:

$$\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{diag}}^13\alpha _{\text{i,}\text{one fam.}}^13\alpha _{\text{i,G}}^1.$$
(32)
In contrast to non-Abelian theories, in which the gauge invariance forbids the mixed (in families) terms in the Lagrangian of FRGG-theory, the U(1)-sector of FRGG contains such mixed terms:

$$\frac{1}{g^2}\underset{\text{p,q}}{}F_{\mu \nu ,\text{p}}F_\text{q}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{g_{\text{11}}^2}F_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}F_1^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{g_{\text{12}}^2}F_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}}F_2^{\mu \nu }+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{g_{\text{23}}^2}F_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}F_\text{3}^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{g_{\text{33}}^2}F_{\mu \nu ,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}3}}F_\text{3}^{\mu \nu },$$
(33)
where p,q = 1,2,3 are the indices of three families of the group (SMG)3. Now it is easily seen that if the different families had specific equal electric charges, i.e. equal $`\alpha _{\text{pq}}`$, then taking the diagonal subgroup we get :

$$\alpha _{\text{diag}}^16\alpha _\text{G}^1,$$
(34)
which shows that we can increase electric $`\alpha `$ by a factor 6 replacing it by the electric $`\alpha _{\text{one\hspace{0.17em} fam.}}\alpha _\text{G}`$.

Taking (34), we can get the monopole fine structure constant $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{G}`$ which is smaller by factor 6 in comparison with $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ in the SM. We can estimate at the Planck scale:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G(\mu _{Pl})14/62.3.$$
(35)
But it seems (see below) that in the FRGGM we have at the Planck scale:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_G(\mu _{Pl})1,$$

and the perturbation theory works for $`\beta `$-function of scalar monopoles near the Planck scale.

The conclusion: if one wants monopoles ”to exist”, it is necessary to drive in the direction of a model like FRGG.

## 7. The possibility of Grand Unification Near the Planck Scale

In the AntiGUT-model by Froggatt and Nielsen  the FRGG breakdown was considered at $`\mu _\text{G}10^{18}`$ GeV.

But the aim of this investigation is to show that we can see quite different consequences of the extension of SM to FRGGM if G-group undergoes the breakdown to its diagonal subgroup (i.e. SM) not at $`\mu _\text{G}10^{18}`$ GeV, but at $`\mu _\text{G}10^{14}`$ or $`10^{15}`$ GeV, i.e. before the intersection of $`\alpha _\text{2}^1(\mu )`$ with $`\alpha _\text{3}^1(\mu )`$ at $`\mu 10^{16}`$ GeV.

Then in the region $`\mu _\text{G}<\mu <\mu _{\text{Pl}}`$ we have three $`SMG\times U(1)_{\text{B-L}}`$ groups for three FRGG families. In this region we have a lot of fermions, mass protected or not mass protected, belonging to usual families or to mirror ones. In FRGGM the additional 6 Higgs bosons, with their large VEVs, are responsible for the mass protection of a lot new fermions appearing in the region $`\mu >\mu _\text{G}`$. In this region we designate the total number of fermions $`N_\text{F}`$, which is different with $`N`$.

Also a role of artifact monopoles can be important in the vicinity of the Planck scale. Lattice monopoles are responsible for the confinement in lattice gauge theories what is confirmed by many numerical and theoretical investigations (see review  and papers ). In the compact lattice gauge theory the monopoles are not physical objects: they are lattice artifacts driven to infinite mass in the continuum limit.

In Refs.  we have developed the Higgs Monopole Model (HMM) approximating the lattice artifact monopoles as fundamental pointlike particles described by the Higgs scalar field. Indeed, the simplest effective dynamics describing the confinement mechanism in the pure gauge lattice U(1) theory is the dual Abelian Higgs model of scalar monopoles , . This model considers the following Lagrangian:

$$L=\frac{1}{4g^2}F_{\mu \nu }^2(B)+\frac{1}{2}|(_\mu iB_\mu )\mathrm{\Phi }|^2U(\mathrm{\Phi }),$$
(36)
where

$$U(\mathrm{\Phi })=\frac{1}{2}\mu ^2|\mathrm{\Phi }|^2+\frac{\lambda }{4}|\mathrm{\Phi }|^4$$
(37)
is the Higgs potential of scalar monopoles with magnetic charge $`g`$, and $`B_\mu `$ is the dual gauge (photon) field interacting with the scalar monopole field $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. In this model $`\lambda `$ is the self-interaction constant of scalar fields, and the mass parameter $`\mu ^2`$ is negative.

Considering the renormalization group improvement of the effective Coleman-Weinberg potential , written in Refs.  for the dual sector of scalar electrodynamics in the two-loop approximation for $`\beta `$-functions, we have calculated the U(1) critical values of the magnetic fine structure constant:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{crit}}=g_{\text{crit}}^2/4\pi 1.20$$
(38)
and (by the Dirac relation) electric fine structure constant:

$$\alpha _{crit}=\pi /g_{\text{crit}}^20.208.$$
(39)
These values coincide with the lattice result .

Writing the following RGEs for $`\alpha _\text{i}(\mu )`$ containing beta-functions for the Higgs scalar monopoles:

$$\frac{d(\mathrm{log}\alpha _\text{i}(\mu ))}{dt}=\beta (\alpha _\text{i})\beta ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{i}),\text{i=1,\hspace{0.17em}2,\hspace{0.17em}3,}$$
(40)
we can use the one-loop approximation for $`\beta (\alpha _\text{i})`$ because $`\alpha _\text{i}`$ are small, and the two-loop approximation for dual beta-function $`\beta ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{i})`$ by reason that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\text{i}`$ are not very small near the Planck scale.

It was shown in a number of investigations (see for example  and references there), that the confinement in the SU(n) lattice gauge theory effectively comes to the same U(1) formalism. The reason is the Abelian dominance in their monopole vacuum: monopoles of the Yang-Mills theory are the solutions of the U(1)-subgroups, arbitrary embedded into the SU(n) group. After a partial gauge fixing – Abelian projection by ’t Hooft  – SU(n) gauge theory is reduced to the Abelian $`U(1)^{n1}`$ theory with $`n1`$ different types of Abelian monopoles. Choosing the Abelian gauge for dual gluons, it is possible to describe the confinement in the lattice SU(n) gauge theories by the analogous dual Abelian Higgs model of scalar monopoles.

Using the Abelian gauge by ’t Hooft and taking into account that the direction in the Lie algebra of monopole fields are gauge dependent, we have found in  an average over these directions and obtained the group dependence relation between the phase transition fine structure constants for the groups U(1) and SU(n)/Z$`_\text{n}`$ :

$$\alpha _{\text{n, crit}}^1=\frac{n}{2}\sqrt{\frac{n+1}{n1}}\alpha _{\text{U(1), crit}}^1.$$
(41)
We have calculated this relation using only the one–loop approximation diagrams of non-Abelian theories.

According to Eq.(41), we have the following relations:

$$\alpha _{\text{U(1), crit}}^1:\alpha _{\text{2, crit}}^1:\alpha _{\text{3, crit}}^1=1:\sqrt{3}:3/\sqrt{2}.$$
(42)
Near the Planck scale we are in the vicinity of the critical points .

Finally, taking into account that in the non-Abelian sectors of FRGG we have the Abelian artifact monopoles, we obtain the following RGEs:

$$\frac{d(\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu ))}{dt}=\frac{b_\text{i}}{4\pi }+\frac{N_\text{M}}{\alpha _\text{i}}\beta ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{U(1)}}),$$
(43)
where $`b_\text{i}`$ are given by the following values:

$$\begin{array}{c}b_\text{i}=(b_\text{1},b_\text{2},b_\text{3})=\\ (\frac{4}{3}N_\text{F}\frac{1}{10}N_\text{S},\frac{22}{3}N_\text{V}\frac{4}{3}N_\text{F}\frac{1}{6}N_\text{S},11N_\text{V}\frac{4}{3}N_\text{F}).\end{array}$$
(44)
The integers $`N_\text{F},N_\text{S},N_\text{V},N_\text{M}`$ are respectively the total numbers of fermions, Higgs bosons, vector gauge fields and scalar monopoles in FRGGM considered in our theory.

Approximating artifact monopoles by the Higgs scalar fields with a magnetic charge $`g`$, we have the following Abelian monopole beta-function in the two-loop approximation :

$$\beta ^{(m)}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{U(1)}})=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{U(1)}}}{12\pi }(1+3\frac{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{U(1)}}}{4\pi }).$$
(45)
Using the Dirac relation $`\alpha \stackrel{~}{\alpha }=1/4`$, we have:

$$\beta ^{(m)}=\frac{\alpha _{\text{U(1)}}^1}{48\pi }(1+3\frac{\alpha _{\text{U(1)}}^1}{16\pi }),$$
(46)
and the group dependence relation (41) gives:

$$\beta ^{(m)}=\frac{C_\text{i}\alpha _{\text{i}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}{48\pi }(1+3\frac{C_\text{i}\alpha _{\text{i}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}{16\pi }),$$
(47)
where

$$C_\text{i}=(C_\text{1},C_\text{2},C_\text{3})=(\frac{5}{3},\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}},\frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}).$$
(48)
Finally we have the following RGEs:

$$\frac{d(\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu ))}{dt}=\frac{b_\text{i}}{4\pi }+N_\text{M}\frac{C_\text{i}\alpha _{\text{i}}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{48\pi }(1+3\frac{C_\text{i}\alpha _{\text{i}}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}}{16\pi }),$$
(49)
where $`b_\text{i}`$ and $`C_\text{i}`$ are given by Eqs.(44) and (48), respectively.

In our FRGG model:

$$\begin{array}{c}N_\text{V}=3,N_\text{M}=6\text{ – for i=1,}\hfill \\ N_V=N_M=3\text{ – for i=2,3},\hfill \end{array}$$
(50)
because we have 3 times more gauge fields ($`N=3`$), in comparison with usual SM and one Higgs scalar monopole in each family.

Assuming 6 scalar Higgs bosons ($`N_S=6`$) breaking FRGG to SMG, and the total number of fermions $`N_\text{F}=2N_{\text{tot}}`$ (usual and mirror families), $`N_{\text{tot}}=NN_{\text{gen}}=3\times 3=9`$ (three SMG groups with three generations in each group), we have obtained the evolutions of $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$ near the Planck scale by numerical calculations for $`N_\text{F}=18`$ and $`\mu _\text{G}=10^{14}`$ GeV.

Fig.2 shows the existence of the unification point. We see that in the region $`\mu >\mu _\text{G}`$ a lot of new fermions and a number of monopoles near the Planck scale change the one-loop approximation behaviour of $`\alpha _\text{i}^1(\mu )`$ which we had in SM. In the vicinity of the Planck scale these evolutions begin to decrease, approaching the Planck scale $`\mu =\mu _{\text{Pl}}`$, what means the suppression of the asymptotic freedom in the non-Abelian theories.

Fig.3 demonstrates the unification of all gauge interactions, including gravity (the intersection of $`\alpha _\text{g}^1`$ with $`\alpha _\text{i}^1`$), at

$$\alpha _{\text{GUT}}^127\text{and}x_{\text{GUT}}18.4.$$
(51)
It is easy to calculate that for one family we have:

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\text{GUT, one fam.}}=\frac{\alpha _{\text{GUT, one fam.}}^1}{4}=\frac{\alpha _{\text{GUT}}^1}{46}\frac{27}{24}1.125,$$
(52)
and

$$\alpha _{\text{GUT, one fam.}}0.22,$$
(53)
what means that at the GUT scale electric and monopole charges are not large and can be considered perturbatively.

Here we can expect the existence of \[SU(5)\]3 SUSY, or \[SO(10)\]3 SUSY unification with superparticles of masses:

$$M10^{18.4}\text{GeV}.$$
(54)
The scale $`\mu _{\text{GUT}}=M`$, given by Eq.(54), can be considered as a SUSY breaking scale.

The unification theory with \[SU(5)\]3-symmetry was suggested first by S.Rajpoot .

Considering the predictions of such a theory for the low-energy physics and cosmology, maybe in future we shall be able to answer the question: ”Does the unification of \[SU(5)\]3 SUSY or \[SO(10)\]3 SUSY really exist near the Planck scale?”

## 8. Conclusions

In the present paper we have shown:

* That the existence of monopoles in Nature leads to the consideration of the Family Replicated Gauge Groups of symmetry as an extension of the Standard Model in sense that using of monopoles corresponding to the family replicated gauge fields we can bring the monopole charge down from the unbelievably large value which it gets in the simple SM, according to the Dirac relation.
* If our (3+1)–dimensional space–time is discrete and has a lattice–like structure, then the lattice artifact monopoles play an essential role near the Planck scale if the FRGGM works there. We have approximated these artifact monopoles by the Higgs scalar fields.
* The breakdown of FRGG at $`\mu _\text{G}10^{14}`$ GeV produces a lot of fermions in the region $`\mu _\text{G}<\mu <\mu _{\text{Pl}}`$ which gives the depression of asymptotic freedom near the Planck scale.
* In contrast to the AntiGUT by Froggatt–Nielsen, predicting the absence of supersymmetry and unification up to the Planck scale, these fermions, together with monopoles, lead to the possible existence of unification of all interactions (including gravity) at

$$\mu _{\text{GUT}}=10^{18.4}GeV$$

and

$$\alpha _{\text{GUT}}^1=27.$$
* The possibility of \[SU(5)\]3 SUSY or \[SO(10)\]3 SUSY unifications was discussed in the present investigation.

## 9. Acknowledgements

L.V.L. and D.A.R. thank the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project #02–0217–379, for financial support.

Figure captions

Figure 1. The evolution of three inverse running constants $`\alpha _i^1(\mu )`$, where i=1,2,3 correspond to U(1), SU(2) and SU(3) groups of the SM. The extrapolation of their experimental values from the Electroweak scale to the Planck scale was obtained by using the renormlization group equations with one Higgs doublet under the assumption of a ”desert”. The precision of the LEP data allows to make this extrapolation with small errors. The intersection of the inverse ”gravitational finestructure constant” $`\alpha _\text{g}^1(\mu )`$ with $`\alpha _1^1(\mu )`$ occurs at the point $`(x_0,\alpha _0^1)`$: $`\alpha _0^134.4`$, and $`x_018.3`$, where $`x=\mathrm{log}_{10}\mu (\text{GeV})`$.

Figure 2. The evolution of finestructure constants $`\alpha _{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}^1(\mu )`$ beyond the Standard model in the Family replicated gauge group model (FRGGM) with influence of monopoles near the Planck scale.

Figure 3. The evolution of $`\alpha _{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2},\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}3}}^1(\mu )`$ in the Standard Model (SM) and beyond it. The breakdown of FRGG occurs at $`\mu _G10^{14}`$ GeV. It is shown the possibility of the $`[SU(5)]^3`$ SUSY unification of all gauge interactions, including gravity, at $`\alpha _{GUT}^127`$ and $`x_{GUT}18.4`$, where $`x=\mathrm{log}_{10}\mu `$ (GeV).

Fig.1.

Fig.2.

Fig.3.


format: text

text:
# Duality, monotonocity and the Wigner–Yanase–Dyson metrics

## 1 Introduction

Classical information geometry addresses the differential geometric properties of families of classical probability densities. Quantum information geometry is its noncommutative counterpart, dealing with the geometric structure of families of quantum probabilities. The classical theory has been already explored and extended substantially, to the point of treating the geometric structures of the infinite dimensional Banach manifold of all probability measures equivalent to a given one . All the ingredients of the original Amari’s theory , such as the Fisher metric, the exponential, mixture and $`\alpha `$-connections, have been defined for this general manifold, from which the finite dimensional results follow by restricting them to its finite dimensional submanifolds . In comparison, the quantum version still has “miles to go before sleep” , being so far mostly restricted to the geometry of density matrices on finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. It stands as a proof of the richness of the quantum domain that even this limited setup already offers many challenging problems, completely absent in the classical case.

A central theme in the passage from classical to quantum information geometry is the breakdown of Chentsov’s result  that the Fisher metric is the unique Riemannian metric (up to scalar multiples) on finite dimensional classical information manifolds which is reduced by all Markov morphisms. As proved by Petz , there are infinitely many Riemannian metrics on a matrix space with the property of being reduced by stochastic maps (the quantum analogue of Markov morphisms). Having characterized all these possible monotone metrics in terms of operator monotone functions, Petz’s result opened the way to two different trends: to deal with the whole set of monotone metrics at once and try to find yet other characterizations  or to find out which among them are more natural then the others according to properties beyond monotonicity . This paper is dedicated to the second of these trends. Its general attitude could be rephrase as: if monotonicity is not enough to single out one particular metric, what are the other conditions that should be further imposed in order to obtain a unique metric on the information manifolds of density matrices ? The answer we offer is based on the concept of duality for affine connections with respect to a given metric.

There are two flat connections that can be introduced on information manifolds in a fundamental way: the mixture connection, coming from the linear structure of the manifold itself (either as a subset of $`L^1`$ in the classical case or as a subset of the trace class operators in the quantum case), and the exponential connection, coming from the linear structure of their logarithms. The former, denoted by $`^{(1)}`$ or $`^{(m)}`$, arises naturally when we consider mixed states (classical or quantum), whereas the latter, denoted by $`^{(1)}`$ or $`^{(e)}`$, is intimately related to the concepts of moment generating functionals and partition functions. For infinite dimensional classical manifolds, the exponential connection was rigorously defined in , making use of exponential Orlicz spaces, while the mixture connection is similarly defined in , based on the conjugate Orlicz space of type $`L\mathrm{log}L`$. Of course the nonparametric definitions are designed in such a way that when restricted to finite dimensional submanifolds they reduce to the long standing definitions of the parametric theory . For infinite dimensional quantum information manifolds, the exponential connection was obtained in , using the technique of small perturbations of forms and operators in Hilbert spaces, but the mixture connection poses a much harder problem, which is to some extent still open . Fortunately, the situation is straightforward as far as finite dimensional quantum systems are concerned. Many authors have proposed essentially equivalent definitions for the exponential and mixture connections on manifolds of density matrices . We summarize our views on these definitions for $`^{(1)}`$ and $`^{(1)}`$ in , where we observed that they are flat connections by explicitly constructing affine coordinate systems for each of them.

Two connections are said to be dual with respect to a metric if the combined action of their parallel transport is compatible with the metric (see section 3 below for the technical definition). The same pair of connections can be dual with respect to a multitude of metrics. It is then meaningful to ask, for a given pair of connections, what are the all the possible metrics that make them dual. When we looked at the mixture and the exponential connection on finite dimensional quantum systems, we found in  that the only metrics with this duality property are matrix multiples of the Bogoliubov-Kubo-Mori inner product. Using Petz’s characterization, we then obtained the improved result that the only monotone metrics which make the $`\pm 1`$-connections dual are scalar multiples of the BKM metric. The purpose of the present paper is to investigate the same kind of question for the more general pairs of $`\pm \alpha `$-connections.

In the classical version of Information Geometry, there are two equivalent ways of defining the $`\alpha `$-connections $`^{(\alpha )}`$ on an information manifold $``$, for $`\alpha (0,1)`$. The first approach consists of using the $`\alpha `$-embeddings of the form $`p\frac{2}{1\alpha }p^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}`$ to map $``$ into the sphere of radius $`r`$ in the Banach space $`L^r`$, for $`r=\frac{2}{1\alpha }`$. One then looks at the natural connection on $`L^r`$, that is, the one for which the parallel transport is just the identity map, and its canonical projection onto the sphere of radius $`r`$. The pullback of the latter (again using the $`\alpha `$-embedding) is then defined to be the $`\alpha `$-connection on $``$. For finite dimensional manifolds, this can be traced back to the early works of Amari  and , where they are introduced without explicitly mention of what the target spaces for the $`\alpha `$-embeddings should be. For infinite dimensional information manifolds, one has to explicitly make use of the functional analytic properties of the spaces $`L^r`$ (namely that they are locally convex spaces), in order to unequivocally define what is meant by the canonical projection onto a sphere. This was done in detail for the first time in  and in a slightly different fashion in . In any event, one can prove that

$$^{(\alpha )}=\frac{1+\alpha }{2}^{(1)}+\frac{1\alpha }{2}^{(1)},$$
(1)
which can then be taken as an equivalent definition for $`^{(\alpha )}`$. Proposals for the quantum analogues of $`\alpha `$-connections, for both finite and infinite dimensional manifolds, have appeared in number of papers . They all use the $`\alpha `$-embeddings in one way or another. We present them in section 2, where we review some of their most relevant properties. As it turns out, the $`\alpha `$-embedding definitions are no longer equivalent to (1), that is, to the definition based on the convex mixture of the $`\pm 1`$-connections. We shall have more to say about this point later on in the paper.

As it is well known, the BKM metric is a limiting case of the more general family of Wigner-Yanase-Dyson metrics, denoted by $`g^\alpha `$ (more about this notation later). The WYD metrics made their first appearance in the context of quantum information geometry in the work of Hasegawa . It was later proved that they are monotone for all values of $`\alpha [3,3]`$ . In the spirit of the $`\alpha `$-embeddings discussed above, for which the target spaces are $`L^r`$, with $`r=\frac{2}{1\alpha }`$, we restrict our discussion to the range $`\alpha (1,1)`$, thus corresponding to $`r(1,\mathrm{})`$. It is straightforward to prove that, for each fixed value of $`\alpha `$ in this range, the $`\pm \alpha `$-connections are dual with respect to the metric $`g^\alpha `$ . The formal limits $`\alpha \pm 1`$ lead to the BKM metric and the exponential and mixture connections, for which the duality is established separately .

Following the same technique of , we obtain the converse of this result. We find in section 3 that, for each fixed value of $`\alpha (1,1)`$, the only metrics for which $`^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`^{(\alpha )}`$ are dual are matrix multiples of the WYD metric $`g^\alpha `$. Using Petz’s characterization, we obtain in section 4 that the only monotone metrics on positive definite matrices which make the $`\pm \alpha `$-connections dual are scalar multiples of $`g^\alpha `$.

## 2 The quantum $`\alpha `$-connections

### 2.1 The $`\alpha `$-representation

Following the notation in , let $`^N`$ be a finite dimensional complex Hilbert space, $`(^N)`$ the algebra of operators on $`^N`$, $`𝒜`$ its $`N^2`$-dimensional real vector subspace of self-adjoint operators and $``$ the $`n`$-dimensional submanifold of all invertible density operators on $`^N`$, with $`n=N^21`$. For $`\alpha (1,1)`$, define the $`\alpha `$-embedding of $``$ into $`𝒜`$ as

$`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$ $`:`$ $`𝒜`$
$`\rho {\displaystyle \frac{2}{1\alpha }}\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}.`$
Since $`𝒜`$ is itself a vector space, its tangent vectors consist of the partial derivatives of curves in $`𝒜`$. Therefore we can use the $`\alpha `$-embedding to obtain an explicit representation of the tangent bundle of $``$ in terms of operators in $`𝒜`$, provided we can efficiently take partial derivatives of functions of operators in $`𝒜`$. The noncommutative nature of quantum manifolds makes a full appearance at this point, since the derivative of a matrix with respect its parameters does not necessarily commute with the original matrix. As a result, tools such as the chain rule do not hold in matrix calculus. To overcome this difficulty, at least for functions of density matrices, we make use of the following decomposition. In the sequel, for $`A(^N)`$, let $`𝒞(A)=\{B(^N):[A,B]=0\}`$ denote its commutant.

###### Lemma 2.1 (Hasegawa, 1997)

Let $`𝒮=\rho (\theta )`$ be a smooth manifold of invertible density matrices. Then there exist a anti-selfadjoint operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ such that

$$\frac{\rho }{\theta ^i}=\frac{^c\rho }{\theta ^i}+[\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i],\frac{^c\rho }{\theta ^i}𝒞(\rho ),[\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]𝒞(\rho )^{},$$
(2)
the orthogonality being with respect to the Hilbert-Schmidt inner product in $`(^N)`$. Moreover, for any function F which is differentiable on a neighbourhood of the spectrum of $`\rho `$ we have

$$\frac{F(\rho )}{\theta ^i}=\frac{^cF(\rho )}{\theta ^i}+[F(\rho ),\mathrm{\Delta }_i],\frac{^cF(\rho )}{\theta ^i}𝒞(\rho ),[F(\rho ),\mathrm{\Delta }_i]𝒞(\rho )^{}.$$
(3)
At each point $`\rho `$, consider the subspace of $`𝒜`$ defined by

$$𝒜_\rho ^{(\alpha )}=\{A𝒜:\text{Tr}\left(\rho ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}A\right)=0\}.$$

Using (3) with $`F(\rho )=\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )`$, we obtain

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i}=\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}\frac{^c\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^i}+\frac{2}{1\alpha }[\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_i].$$
(4)
Therefore, it follows from the normalization condition $`\text{Tr}\rho =1`$ and the cyclicity of the trace that

$$\text{Tr}\left(\rho ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\frac{^c\rho }{\theta ^i}+\frac{2}{1\alpha }[\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\right)=0,$$

so that $`\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i}𝒜_\rho ^{(\alpha )}`$.

We can then define the isomorphism

$`(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}`$ $`:`$ $`T_\rho 𝒜_\rho ^{(\alpha )}`$ (5)
$`v(\mathrm{}_\alpha \gamma )^{}(0),`$
where $`\gamma :(\epsilon ,\epsilon )`$ is a curve in the equivalence class of the tangent vector $`v`$. We call this isomorphism the $`\alpha `$-representation of the tangent space $`T_\rho `$. If $`(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ is a coordinate system for $``$, then the $`\alpha `$-representation of the basis $`\{\frac{}{\theta ^1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\theta ^n}\}`$ of $`T_\rho `$ is $`\{\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^1},\mathrm{},\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^n}\}`$. The $`\alpha `$-representation of a vector field $`X`$ on $``$ is therefore the $`𝒜`$-valued function $`(X)^{(\alpha )}`$ given by $`(X)^{(\alpha )}(\rho )=(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}X_\rho `$.

### 2.2 The covariant derivative $`^{(\alpha )}`$

The $`\pm 1`$-connections have a simple definition in terms of their parallel transports, essentially because the $`\pm 1`$-embeddings map $``$ into sets with an affine structure (the density operators themselves in the $`1`$-embedding and their logarithms in the $`1`$-embedding). Once their (flat) parallel transports are defined, it is then a simple matter to find the coefficients of their covariant derivatives, as well as to exhibit affine coordinate systems for them, as explained for instance in the second section of . However, as noted in the introduction, the $`\alpha `$-embeddings can be viewed as a map from $``$ into the positive orthant of the sphere of radius $`r=\frac{2}{1\alpha }`$ in $`𝒜`$ when we equip $`𝒜`$ with the the $`r`$-norm

$$A_r:=\left(\text{Tr}|A|^r\right)^{1/r}.$$

Indeed, we can readily verify that, for any $`\rho `$,

$$\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )_r=\left(\text{Tr}\left|r\rho ^{1/r}\right|^r\right)^{1/r}=r,$$

so that $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )S^r`$, the sphere of radius $`r`$ in $`𝒜`$. More interestingly, it can be shown that the tangent space at a point $`0\sigma S^r`$ is

$$T_\sigma S^r=\{A𝒜:\text{Tr}(A\sigma ^{r1})=0\}$$

(see the second section of  for a quick review of the geometry of spheres in the more general context of uniformly convex Banach spaces). If we put $`\sigma =\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )=r\rho ^{1/r}`$, we find that

$$T_{r\rho ^{1/r}}S^r=\{A𝒜:\text{Tr}(A\rho ^{11/r})=0\}=𝒜_\rho ^{(\alpha )},$$

so that the $`\alpha `$-representation (5) is indeed an isomorphism between tangent spaces, as the push-forward notation suggests.

The sphere $`S^r`$ inherits a natural connection obtained by projecting the trivial connection on $`𝒜`$ (the one where parallel transport is just the identity map) onto its tangent space at each point. For each $`0\sigma S^r`$, the canonical projection from the tangent space $`T_\sigma 𝒜`$ onto the tangent space $`T_\sigma S^r`$ is uniquely given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$ $`:`$ $`T_\sigma 𝒜T_\sigma S^r`$
$`AA\left(r^r\text{Tr}\left[A\sigma ^{r1}\right]\right)\sigma .`$
For $`\sigma =\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )=r\rho ^{1/r}`$, this gives

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{r\rho ^{1/r}}`$ $`:`$ $`T_{r\rho ^{1/r}}𝒜T_{r\rho ^{1/r}}S^r`$
$`AA\left(\text{Tr}\left[\rho ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}A\right]\right)\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}.`$
We can now define the covariant derivative of the $`\alpha `$-connection. Starting with a differentiable vector field $`sS(T)`$, we first push it forward under the $`\alpha `$-embedding along a curve $`\gamma `$ to obtain $`(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\gamma (t))}sT𝒜`$. We then take its covariant derivative with respect to the trivial connection on $`𝒜`$, denoted by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, in the direction of $`(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}v`$, that is, the push-forward of a tangent vector $`vT_\rho `$. The result is a vector in $`T_{r\rho ^{1/r}}𝒜`$, which we then project down to $`T_{r\rho ^{1/r}}S^r`$ using the operator $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{r\rho ^{1/r}}`$ above. Finally, we pull it back to $`T_\rho `$ using $`(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}^1`$ and call it the $`\alpha `$-covariant derivative of the vector field $`s`$ in the direction of the tangent vector $`v`$ at the point $`\rho `$. The formula for all these operations reads like the following.

###### Definition 1

For $`\alpha (1,1)`$, let $`\gamma :(\epsilon ,\epsilon )`$ be a smooth curve such that $`\rho =\gamma (0)`$ and $`v=\dot{\gamma }(0)`$ and let $`sS(T)`$ be a differentiable vector field. The $`\alpha `$-connection on $`T`$ is given by

$$\left(_v^{(\alpha )}s\right)(\rho )=(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}^1\left[\mathrm{\Pi }_{r\rho ^{1/r}}\stackrel{~}{}_{(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\rho )}v}(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\gamma (t))}s\right].$$
(6)
Using the definition (6), we find that the $`\alpha `$-representation of the $`\alpha `$-covariant derivative of the vector field $`/\theta ^j`$ in the direction of the tangent vector $`_i:=/\theta ^i`$ is

$$\left(__i^{(\alpha )}\frac{}{\theta ^j}\right)^{(\alpha )}=\frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}\text{Tr}\left(\rho ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}\frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}\right)\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}.$$
(7)
### 2.3 The $`\alpha `$-parallel transport and the extend manifold $`\widehat{}`$

The $`\alpha `$-parallel transport of a tangent vector from tangent spaces at different points in $``$ is the pull-back of the parallel transport of its $`\alpha `$-representation in $`𝒜`$. The latter, by its turn, consists of identity map followed by the canonical projection onto the $`TS^r`$ at all points along a curve on $`S^r`$. It is obviously path dependent, and therefore no longer flat, like the $`\pm 1`$-parallel transports were. This is a consequence of the fact that among all $`L^p`$-spaces, for $`1p\mathrm{}`$, only the spaces $`L^1`$ and $`L^{\mathrm{}}`$ have spheres which are flat with respect to their trivial connections (recall the shape of the unit circles in $`^2`$ for all the different $`L^p`$-norms).

Now let us consider the extended manifold of faithful weights $`\widehat{}`$ (the positive definite matrices). Observe first that the $`\alpha `$-embedding in this case maps $`\widehat{}`$ to itself. Moreover, for any $`\sigma \widehat{}`$, $`T_\sigma \widehat{}=T_\sigma 𝒜𝒜`$, so that there is no need to do any projection in order to obtain the parallel transport on $`\widehat{}`$ induced by the $`\alpha `$-embedding. We can therefore define the $`\alpha `$-parallel transport on $`\widehat{}`$ simply by

$`\widehat{\tau }_{\sigma _0,\sigma _1}^{(\alpha )}`$ $`:`$ $`T_{\sigma _0}\widehat{}T_{\sigma _1}\widehat{}`$
$`v(\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\sigma _1)}^1\left((\mathrm{}_\alpha )_{(\sigma _0)}v\right),`$
and we find (using (6) without the projection step) that the $`\alpha `$-representation of its covariant derivative is

$$\left(\widehat{}__i^{(\alpha )}\frac{}{\theta ^j}\right)^{(\alpha )}=\frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j},$$
(8)
where $`\theta =\{\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{n+1}\}`$ is any coordinate system for the extended manifold $`\widehat{}`$. Now let $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n+1}\}`$ be a basis for $`𝒜`$. For each $`\sigma \widehat{}`$, we have that $`\sigma ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}𝒜`$, so that there exist real numbers $`\xi =\{\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^{n+1}\}`$ such that

$$\frac{2}{1\alpha }\sigma ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}=\xi ^1X_1+\mathrm{}+\xi ^{n+1}X_{n+1}.$$

Then $`\xi =\{\xi ^1,\mathrm{},\xi ^{n+1}\}`$ is a $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-affine coordinate system for $`\widehat{}`$, since (8) gives

$$\left(\widehat{}__i^{(\alpha )}\frac{}{\xi ^j}\right)^{(\alpha )}=\frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\xi ^i\xi ^j}=\frac{X_j}{\xi ^i}=0.$$

Therefore, $`\widehat{}`$ is $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-flat, even though its submanifold $``$ is not $`^{(\alpha )}`$-flat. We note in passing that the connection $`^{(\alpha )}`$ on the submanifold $``$ is a restriction of the connection $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$, which acts on the larger manifold $`\widehat{}`$, obtained without the use of any metric on $``$, but rather using the canonical projection existing in $`𝒜`$, the target space for the $`\alpha `$-embedding.

We finish this section with a couple of comparative remarks. Definition 6 is the verbatim analogue for finite dimensional quantum systems of the general definition for $`\alpha `$-connections for infinite dimensional classical information manifolds  and are, consequently, the quantum analogue of the original definition by Amari  and Chentsov  as well. Formulae (7) and (8) are special cases of those obtained by Jenčová using an embedding by a more general monotone function $`g`$, which include the $`\alpha `$-embeddings (see respectively line 3, page 150 and line 10, page 149 of ). Finally, quantum $`\alpha `$-connection in the spirit we present here had been hinted before by Hasegawa in \[15, equation 35\] and \[16, equation 16\], although in the less general form of Christoffel’s symbols, which depend on a metric to be defined, as opposed to covariant derivatives and parallel transports, which are therefore more intrinsic. Infinite dimensional quantum $`\alpha `$-connections were proposed in , making heavy use of the geometry of uniformly convex Banach spaces, of which the definitions given here are concrete finite dimensional realizations.

## 3 Duality and the WYD metrics

We recall some purely geometrical definitions of duality, which apply to any statistical manifold, classical or quantum: dual affine connections and dual coordinate systems.

Two connections $``$ and $`^{}`$ on a Riemannian manifold $`(,g)`$ are dual with respect to $`g`$ if and only if

$$Xg(Y,Z)=g(_XY,Z)+g(Y,_X^{}Z),$$
(9)
for any vector fields $`X,Y,Z`$ on $``$ . Equivalently, if $`\tau _{\gamma (t)}`$ and $`\tau _{\gamma (t)}^{}`$ are the respective parallel transports along a curve $`\{\gamma (t)\}_{0t1}`$ on $``$, with $`\gamma (0)=\rho `$, then $``$ and $`^{}`$ are dual with respect to $`g`$ if and only if for all $`t[0,1]`$,

$$g_\rho (Y,Z)=g_{\gamma (t)}(\tau _{\gamma (t)}Y,\tau _{\gamma (t)}^{}Z).$$
(10)
Two coordinate systems $`\theta =(\theta ^i)`$ and $`\eta =(\eta _i)`$ on a Riemannian manifold $`(,g)`$ are dual with respect to $`g`$ if and only if their natural bases for $`T_\rho `$ are biorthogonal at every point $`\rho `$, that is,

$$g(\frac{}{\theta ^i},\frac{}{\eta _j})=\delta _j^i.$$

Equivalently, $`\theta =(\theta ^i)`$ and $`\eta =(\eta _i)`$ are dual with respect to $`g`$ if and only if

$$g_{ij}=\frac{\eta _i}{\theta ^j}\text{and}g^{ij}=\frac{\theta _i}{\eta ^j}$$

at every point $`\rho `$, where, as usual, $`g^{ij}=(g_{ij})^1`$.

The next two theorems establishes the role of potential functions as well as the relation between dual connections and dual coordinate systems for the case of flat manifolds. In the sense used in this paper, a connection $``$ on manifold $``$ is said to be flat if $``$ admits a global $``$-affine coordinate system. This is equivalent to its curvature and torsion both being zero.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Amari, 1985)

When a Riemannian manifold $`(,g)`$ has a pair of dual coordinate systems $`(\theta ,\eta )`$, there exist potential functions $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )`$ such that

$$g_{ij}(\theta )=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}\text{and}g^{ij}=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )}{\eta _i\eta _j}.$$

Conversely, when either potential function $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ or $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ exists from which the metric is derived by differentiating it twice, there exist a pair of dual coordinate systems. The dual coordinate systems and the potential functions are related by the following Legendre transforms

$$\theta ^i=\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )}{\eta _i},\eta _i=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i}$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )+\mathrm{\Phi }(\eta )\theta ^i\eta _i=0$$

###### Theorem 3.2 (Amari, 1985)

Suppose that $``$ and $`^{}`$ are two flat connections on a manifold $``$. If they are dual with respect to a Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $``$, then there exists a pair $`(\theta ,\eta )`$ of dual coordinate systems such that $`\theta `$ is $``$-affine and $`\eta `$ is a $`^{}`$-affine.

Let us now consider the definition of a Riemannian metric for our manifold $``$ of density matrices. Using the $`\alpha `$-representation to obtain a concrete realization of tangent vectors on $``$ in terms of operators in $`𝒜`$, a Riemannian metric on $``$ is deemed to be provided by the smooth assignment of an inner product $`,_\rho `$ in $`𝒜B(^N)`$ for each point $`\rho `$.

For a fixed $`\alpha (1,1)`$, the WYD (Wigner-Yanase-Dyson) metric on $``$ is given by

$$g_\rho ^{(\alpha )}(A,B):=\text{Tr}\left(A^{(\alpha )}B^{(\alpha )}\right),A,BT_\rho .$$
(11)
The symmetry properties of this definition are more apparent if one express it in a coordinate system $`(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ for $``$. By virtue of the decomposition lemma 3, we have that

$`g_{ij}^{(\alpha )}(\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`g_\rho ^{(\alpha )}({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^i}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^j}})=\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha (\rho )}{\theta ^j}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^j}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{1\alpha ^2}}\text{Tr}[\rho ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_i][\rho ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}},\mathrm{\Delta }_j].`$
It is then clear that $`g_{ij}^{(\alpha )}=g_{ji}^{(\alpha )}=g_{ij}^{(\alpha )}`$. Observe also that for the extreme cases $`\alpha \pm 1`$, formula (11) leads to the familiar BKM (Bogoliubov-Kubo-Mori) metric

$$g_\rho ^{(\pm 1)}(A,B)=g_\rho ^B(A,B)=\text{Tr}\left(A^{(1)}B^{(1)}\right)$$
(13)
where $`A^{(\pm 1)},B^{(\pm 1)}`$ are the $`\pm 1`$-representations of the tangent vectors $`A,BT_\rho `$, as explained, for instance, in . In coordinates, the BKM metric assumes the form

$`g_{ij}^B(\theta )`$ $`:=`$ $`g_\rho ^B({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^i}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^j}})=\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{\theta ^j}}\right)`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(\rho {\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{log}\rho }{\theta ^j}}\right)+\text{Tr}[\mathrm{log}\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i][\rho ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j].`$
It follows directly from the definition (11), as has been observed in a number of papers , that the $`\pm \alpha `$-connections are dual with respect to the metric $`g^{(\alpha )}`$ for each fixed value of $`\alpha (1,1)`$ (just as the $`\pm 1`$-connections are dual with respect to the BKM metric). Our purpose is to discover what other metrics have the same property.

As suggested by the statement in theorem 3.2, most of the ingredients of Amari’s theory, such as statistical divergences and the projection theorems \[1, pp. 84-93\], can only be a priori defined for flat manifolds. Only in a later stage, one consider what happens when they are applied to curved submanifolds of flat manifolds. Following this trend, we from now on confine our attention to those metrics on $``$ which are obtained as restrictions of metrics on the extended manifold $`\widehat{}`$, which is $`\widehat{}^{(\pm \alpha )}`$-flat, and treat the latter as our primary objects

Observe first that the WYD metric extends quite naturally to $`\widehat{}`$, simply using the $`\pm \alpha `$-representations of tangent vectors $`\widehat{A},\widehat{B}`$ (that is, the representation induced by the $`\pm \alpha `$-embedding of $`\widehat{}`$ into $`𝒜`$):

$$\widehat{g}_\sigma ^{(\alpha )}(\widehat{A},\widehat{B}):=\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{A}^{(\alpha )}\widehat{B}^{(\alpha )}\right),\widehat{A},\widehat{B}T_\sigma \widehat{}.$$
(15)
It is also obvious that $`\widehat{g}^{(\alpha )}`$ has the same symmetry and duality properties of $`g^{(\alpha )}`$. We now show how $`\widehat{g}^{(\alpha )}`$ can be obtained from a potential function on $`\widehat{}`$.

###### Lemma 3.3

If $`(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^{n+1})`$ is a $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-affine coordinate system for the extended manifold $`\widehat{}`$, then the function

$$\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )=\frac{2}{1+\alpha }Tr\sigma (\theta ),\sigma (\theta )\widehat{}$$
(16)
satisfies

$$\widehat{g}_{ij}^{(\alpha )}(\theta )=\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}.$$
(17)
Moreover,

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }_i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i}$$
(18)
is a $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-affine coordinate system for $`\widehat{}`$.

Proof: Since $`\theta `$ is $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-affine, there exist linearly independent operators $`\{X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n+1}\}`$ such that

$$\mathrm{}_\alpha (\sigma )=\frac{2}{1\alpha }\sigma ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}=\theta ^1X_1+\mathrm{}+\theta ^{n+1}X_{n+1}.$$
(19)
Since the point $`\sigma \widehat{}`$ is fixed in the course of this proof, we omit it from the notation and just write $`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$ for $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (\sigma )`$ and $`\mathrm{}_\alpha (\sigma )`$, respectively. From lemma 3 we obtain that

$$X_i=\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}=\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i],$$
(20)
that is

$$\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}=X_i+[\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{}_\alpha ].$$
(21)
Also, since

$$\mathrm{}_\alpha =\frac{2}{1+\alpha }\sigma ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}=\left(\frac{2}{1+\alpha }\right)\left(\frac{1\alpha }{2}\right)^{\frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}$$

we have that

$$\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}=\left(\frac{1\alpha }{2}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}.$$

So using lemma 3 again we get

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j]`$ (22)
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j]`$
$`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\left(X_j+[\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\mathrm{}_\alpha ]\right)+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j].`$
Now observe that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\alpha }}\text{Tr}\sigma \right)={\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\alpha }}\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\sigma }{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\right)`$ (23)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{1+\alpha }}\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\sigma ^{\frac{1\alpha }{2}}\sigma ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{2}}}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\right)={\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^i}}\left(X_j\mathrm{}_\alpha +\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left(X_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}+X_i{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}+\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\right).`$
Let us now evaluate each of the terms in the last expression separately. For the first one we have

$`\text{Tr}\left(X_j{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(X_j{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}+X_j[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\right)`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(X_j{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}+\mathrm{}_\alpha [X_j,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left(X_j{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}+[\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\mathrm{}_\alpha ]{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}\right),`$
where we have used that facts that $`[A,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]=0`$ for any constant (independent of $`\theta ^i`$) operator $`A`$ and $`\text{Tr}\left([\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\mathrm{}_\alpha ]\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\right)=0`$, since $`\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}`$ commutes with $`\mathrm{}_\alpha `$. Exchanging the roles of the indices $`i`$ and $`j`$ in (24) we find that the second term in (23) gives

$$\text{Tr}\left(X_i\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right).$$
(25)
But

$$\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}=\sigma \frac{^c\mathrm{log}\sigma }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{log}\sigma }{\theta ^j}=\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}.$$

Therefore

$$\text{Tr}\left(X_i\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(X_j\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\right).$$
(26)
As for the third term in (23)

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \text{Tr}& \left(\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i\theta ^j}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{}{\theta ^i}\left\{\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right\}\right)\hfill \\ & =\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{}{\theta ^i}\left\{\left(\frac{1\alpha }{2}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j]\right\}\right)\hfill \\ & =\text{Tr}\{\left(\frac{1\alpha }{2}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}}{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}+\mathrm{}_\alpha \frac{[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_j]}{\theta ^i}\hfill \\ & +\left(\frac{1\alpha }{2}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}\frac{}{\theta ^i}(X_j+[\mathrm{\Delta }_j,\mathrm{}_\alpha ])\}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Now we use lemma 3 once more in

$$\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}}{\theta ^i}=\left(\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }\right)\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }1}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }},\mathrm{\Delta }_i],$$

which inserted back in the last equation gives

$`\text{Tr}\left(\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{^2\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i\theta ^j}}\right)`$ $`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\{\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}({\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}+[\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }},\mathrm{\Delta }_i]){\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}`$ (27)
$`+\mathrm{}_\alpha [[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i],\mathrm{\Delta }_j]+\left({\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\right)^{\frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\mathrm{}_\alpha ^{\frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}\left[[\mathrm{\Delta }_j,[\mathrm{}_\alpha ,\mathrm{\Delta }_i]]\right\}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\alpha }{1\alpha }}\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}{\displaystyle \frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}}\right)`$
Collecting together (24),(26) and (27) we conclude that

$$\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}=\text{Tr}\left(\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right)$$
(28)
On the other hand, by the same argument used to find (24), we have that the WYD in this $`\widehat{}^\alpha `$-affine coordinate system assumes the form

$$g_{ij}^{(\alpha )}(\theta )=\text{Tr}\left(X_j\frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\right)=\text{Tr}\left(\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}\frac{^c\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^j}\right),$$
(29)
which proves the first assertion of the lemma. For the second part of the lemma, we have seen in the previous section that there exists a $`\widehat{}^\alpha `$-affine coordinate system $`\xi =\{\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n+1}\}`$ in terms of which we can write

$$\mathrm{}_\alpha =\xi _1Y^1+\mathrm{}+\xi _{n+1}Y^{n+1},$$

for some other set of linearly independent operators $`\{Y^1,\mathrm{},Y^{n+1}\}`$. Now following the same reasoning that led to (23) we obtain that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha \mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}\right)`$ (30)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left(X_i\mathrm{}_\alpha +\mathrm{}_\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}_\alpha }{\theta ^i}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1\alpha }{2}}\text{Tr}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1+\alpha }{1\alpha }}\right)X_i\mathrm{}_\alpha \right]`$
$`=`$ $`\text{Tr}\left[X_i\left(\xi _1Y^1+\mathrm{}+\xi _{n+1}Y^{n+1}\right)\right]`$
$`=`$ $`\xi _1\text{Tr}\left(X_iY^1\right)+\mathrm{}+\xi _{n+1}\text{Tr}\left(X_iY^{n+1}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\text{Tr}\left(X_iY^j\right)\xi _j.`$ (31)
This means that the coordinate system $`(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ is affinely related to $`(\xi )`$ and therefore it is itself $`\widehat{}^\alpha `$-affine.

We end this section with the next theorem, which is the extension for a general $`\alpha `$-connections of the result proved in  for the case $`\alpha =\pm 1`$.

###### Theorem 3.4

For a fixed value of $`\alpha (1,1)`$, suppose that the connections $`^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`^{(\alpha )}`$ are dual with respect to a Riemannian metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on $`\widehat{}`$. Then there exist a constant (independent of $`\sigma `$) $`(n+1)\times (n+1)`$ matrix $`M`$, such that $`(\widehat{g}_\sigma )_{ij}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}M_i^k(\widehat{g}_\sigma ^{(\alpha )})_{kj}`$, in some $`\alpha `$-affine coordinate system.

Proof: Since the two connections are flat on the extend manifold $`\widehat{}`$, theorem 3.2 tell us that there exist dual coordinate systems $`(\theta ,\eta )`$ such that $`\theta `$ is $`^{(\alpha )}`$-affine and $`\eta `$ is $`^{(\alpha )}`$-affine. Using lemma 3.3, we know that the function $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )=\frac{2}{1+2}\text{Tr}\sigma (\theta )`$ satisfies

$$\widehat{g}_{ij}^{(\alpha )}(\theta )=\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}$$
(32)
and also that

$$\stackrel{~}{\eta }_i=\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^i}$$
(33)
is a another $`\widehat{}^{(\alpha )}`$-affine coordinate system for $`\widehat{}`$. Therefore, the coordinate systems $`(\eta )`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{\eta })`$ are related by an affine transformation, so there must exist a matrix $`M`$ and numbers $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n+1})`$ such that

$$\eta _i=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}M_i^k\stackrel{~}{\eta }_k+a_i.$$
(34)
But from theorem 3.1, there exists a potential function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ such that

$$\widehat{g}_{ij}(\theta )=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}$$

and

$$\eta _i=\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i}.$$

Equation (34) then gives

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}M_i^k\frac{\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^k}+a_i,$$

and differentiating this equation with respect to $`\theta ^j`$ leads to

$$\widehat{g}_{ij}(\theta )=\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )}{\theta ^i\theta ^j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}M_i^k\frac{^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Psi }}_\alpha (\theta )}{\theta ^j\theta ^k}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}M_i^k\widehat{g}_{kj}^{(\alpha )}(\theta ).$$
(35)
## 4 The condition of monotonicity

We have seen in the previous section that requiring duality between the $`^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`^{(\alpha )}`$ connections reduces the set of possible Riemannian metrics on $`\widehat{}`$ to matrix multiples of the WYD metric. Following , we now investigate the effect of imposing a monotonicity property on this set.

Recall that the $`1`$-representation is the limiting case $`\alpha =1`$ of the $`\alpha `$-representations defined in section 2.1. If we use it to define to define a Riemannian metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on $`\widehat{}`$ by means of the inner product $`,_\rho `$ in $`𝒜B(^N)`$, then we say that $`\widehat{g}`$ is monotone if and only if

$$S(A^{(1)}),S(A^{(1)})_{S(\rho )}A^{(1)},A^{(1)}_\rho ,$$
(36)
for every $`\rho `$, $`AT_\rho `$, and every completely positive, trace preserving map $`S:𝒜𝒜`$.

For any metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on $`T\widehat{}`$, define the positive (super) operator $`K_\sigma `$ on $`𝒜`$ by

$$\widehat{g}_\sigma (\widehat{A},\widehat{B})=\widehat{A}^{(1)},K_\sigma \left(\widehat{B}^{(1)}\right)_{HS}=\text{Tr}\left(\widehat{A}^{(1)}K_\sigma \left(\widehat{B}^{(1)}\right)\right).$$
(37)
Note that our $`K`$ is denoted $`K^1`$ by Petz in . Define also the (super) operators, $`L_\sigma X:=\sigma X`$ and $`R_\sigma X:=X\sigma `$, for $`X𝒜`$, which are also positive. The aforementioned characterization of monotone metrics obtained by Petz is the content of the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1 (Petz 96)

A Riemannian metric $`g`$ on $`𝒜`$ is monotone if and only if

$$K_\sigma =\left(R_\sigma ^{1/2}f(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)R_\sigma ^{1/2}\right)^1,$$

where $`K_\sigma `$ is defined in (37) and $`f:R^+R^+`$ is an operator monotone function satisfying $`f(t)=tf(t^1).`$

In particular, the WYD metric is monotone and its corresponding operator monotone function is

$$f_p(x)=\frac{p(1p)(x1)^2}{(x^p1)(x^{1p}1)},$$
(38)
for $`p=\frac{1+\alpha }{2}`$ .

Combining this characterization with our theorem (3.4), we obtain the following improved uniqueness result.

###### Theorem 4.2

If the connections $`^{(\alpha )}`$ and $`^{(\alpha )}`$ are dual with respect to a monotone Riemannian metric $`\widehat{g}`$ on $`\widehat{}`$, then $`\widehat{g}`$ is a scalar multiple of the WYD metric.

Proof: Let $`\theta =(\theta ^1,\mathrm{},\theta ^n)`$ be the $`^{(\alpha )}`$-affine coordinate system of theorem 3.4. Given $`\sigma \widehat{}`$, we have that $`T_\sigma 𝒜`$. In particular, $`\{\frac{\sigma }{\theta ^1},\mathrm{},\frac{\sigma }{\theta ^n}\}`$ is the basis for $`𝒜`$ obtained as the $`1`$-representation of $`\{\frac{}{\theta ^1},\mathrm{},\frac{}{\theta ^n}\}`$. Now let $`K^g`$ and $`K^{(\alpha )}`$ be the kernels of $`\widehat{g}`$ and $`\widehat{g}^{(\alpha )}`$, respectively. Then it follows from theorem 3.4 that

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\theta ^i}},K_\sigma ^g\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\theta ^j}}\right)_{HS}`$ $`=`$ $`\widehat{g}_\sigma ({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^i}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^j}})=(\widehat{g}_\sigma )_{ij}`$ (39)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}M_i^k(\widehat{g}_\sigma ^{(\alpha )})_{kj}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}M_i^k\widehat{g}_\sigma ^{(\alpha )}({\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^k}},{\displaystyle \frac{}{\theta ^j}})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}M_i^k{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\theta ^k}},K_\sigma ^{(\alpha )}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{\theta ^j}}\right)_{HS}.`$
Thus, as operators on $`𝒜`$, the kernels $`K^g`$ and $`K^{(\alpha )}`$ are related by

$$K_\sigma ^g=MK_\sigma ^{(\alpha )}.$$
(40)
Therefore, if $`f^g`$ and $`f^{(\alpha )}`$ are the operator monotone functions corresponding respectively to $`g`$ and $`g^{(\alpha )}`$, from theorem 4.1, we have

$`\left(R_\sigma ^{1/2}f^g(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)R_\sigma ^{1/2}\right)^1`$ $`=`$ $`M\left(R_\sigma ^{1/2}f^{(\alpha )}(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)R_\sigma ^{1/2}\right)^1`$
$`\left(R_\sigma ^{1/2}f^g(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)R_\sigma ^{1/2}\right)M`$ $`=`$ $`\left(R_\sigma ^{1/2}f^{(\alpha )}(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)R_\sigma ^{1/2}\right)`$
$`M`$ $`=`$ $`f^g(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1)^1f^{(\alpha )}(L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1),`$
as everything commutes. Thus, the operator $`M`$ is given as a function of the operator $`L_\sigma R_\sigma ^1`$, but it is itself independent of the point $`\sigma `$, so we conclude that it must be a scalar multiple of the identity operator.

## 5 Discussion

With the result of this paper, we have completed the programme initiated in  of characterizing the BKM and the WYD metrics in terms of the combining requirement of monotonicity and duality. The monotonicity condition has an appealing motivation coming from estimation theory. If we interpret the geodesic distance between two density matrices as a measure of their statistical distinguishability, then (36) tells us that they will become less distinguishable if we introduce randomness into the system under consideration. In other words, their distance decreases under coarse-graining.

As it is, estimation theory is more basic than physics itself, since it does not assume any particular underlying physical process, being just a tool to help analyze statistical data. Nevertheless, the interpretation above carries over to statistical mechanical systems as well, where stochastic (i.e completely positive, trace-preserving) maps appear as a mathematical implementation of the time evolution of a system whose states are described by density matrices . In this case, monotonicity means that the distance between different states decreases under the same time evolution. If it decreases asymptotically to zero for any two points in a certain set of ‘initial’ states, then we are in the presence of a fixed point for the dynamics, or in other words, an equilibrium state. From all this, it seems that imposing a monotonicity condition on the possible Riemannian metrics on a statistical manifold is not at all an artificial technicality.

Our motivation behind Amari’s duality is less general and ultimately rests upon quantum statistical mechanics alone . Recall that the von Neumann entropy for a state $`\rho `$ is defined as

$$S(\rho ):=\text{Tr}(\rho \mathrm{log}\rho )$$
(41)
and that the relative (Kullback-Leibler) entropy of the state $`\rho `$ given the state $`\sigma `$ is

$$S(\rho |\sigma )=\text{Tr}[\rho (\mathrm{log}\rho \mathrm{log}\sigma )]$$
(42)
Now let us choose a set of $`mn`$ observables $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m`$ such that the set $`\{\mathrm{𝟏},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m\}`$ is a basis for $`𝒜`$. Among all possible observables in $`𝒜`$, these ones represent the slow variables of the theory, that is, those whose means we can measure at any given time. Then it is an easy exercise, using the Lagrange multipliers technique, to show that the states which maximize the von Neumann entropy subject to keeping the means of all $`\{Y_i\}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$, constant are the Gibbs states of the form

$$\rho =\mathrm{exp}\left(\theta ^1Y_1+\mathrm{}+\theta ^mY_m\mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{𝟏}\right),$$
(43)
where $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\theta )`$ is determined by the normalization condition $`\text{Tr}\rho =1`$. For example, if $`Y_1=H`$ is the energy operator, then we obtain the so called canonical ensemble, whereas if we have $`Y_1=H,Y_2=N`$ where $`N`$ is the number of particles, we get the grand canonical ensemble. We immediately recognize these states as constituting a $`^{(1)}`$-flat, $`m`$-dimensional, submanifold $`𝒮_m𝒮`$, which is determined by our choice of $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m`$, that is, by our choice of the level of description adopted.

Inasmuch as entropy is negative information, the principle of maximum entropy, advocated in information theory and statistical physics by Jaynes , tells us that, if the only information available about the system under consideration are the means of the random variables $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m`$, then we should take as the state of the system the element in $`𝒮_m`$ with these means. The replacement of the true state $`\rho 𝒮`$ by the one in $`𝒮_m`$ with the same means for $`Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_m`$ is a reflection of our ignorance of what really goes on with the system. It is the least biased choice of state given the information available.

The point of view in statistical dynamics  is somewhat different, in the sense that it regards the same replacement as part of the true dynamics of the system. For instance, the heat transfer in a local region of a fluid happens $`10^8`$ times faster then most chemical reactions , so we can choose to regard the concentrations of the chemicals reacting as the slow variables while all other observables are thermalized (maximum entropy) along each time step in the dynamics. The skill of the scientist using statistical dynamics thus resides in correctly identifying which are the slow variables of the problem at hand and then following the time evolution of the system, which involves, apart from a stochastic dynamics particular to each problem, successive projections onto $`𝒮_m`$.

Information geometry provides a mathematical meaning for this projection . It is well known that the relative entropy (42) is the statistical divergence associated with the dualistic triple $`(g^B,^{(1)},^{(1)})`$ . It then follows from the general theory  that, given an arbitrary point $`\rho 𝒮`$, the point in $`𝒮_m`$ (which is $`^{(1)}`$-flat) that minimizes $`S(\rho |\sigma )`$ is obtained uniquely by following a $`1`$-geodesic from $`\rho `$ that intercepts $`𝒮`$ orthogonally with respect to the BKM metric $`g^B`$. This is equivalent to the projection described above (maximum entropy subject to constant means) precisely because a path preserving the mean parameters (or mixture coordinates) is a $`1`$-geodesic, that is, a straight line for the mixture connection.

However, if $`g`$ is a general monotone metric, with respect to which $`^{(1)}`$ and $`^{(1)}`$ are not necessarily dual, then the relative entropy might fail to be a divergence for $`(g,^{(1)},^{(1)})`$ and nothing guarantees that minimizing $`S(\rho |\sigma )`$ will produce a point in $`𝒮_m`$ connected to $`\rho `$ by a $`1`$-geodesic intersecting $`𝒮_m`$ perpendicularly with respect to $`g`$. Information geometry no longer provides a mathematical implementation for statistical dynamics anymore.

As a final word for this paper, let us mention that a corollary to theorem 4.2 is the fact that the relation (1) does not hold for the quantum $`\alpha `$–connections defined using the $`\alpha `$–representations as in section 2. If it did, a simple calculation shows that $`^{(\alpha })`$ and $`^{(\alpha )}`$ would then be dual with respect to the BKM metric (since the $`\pm 1`$–connections are). But from theorem 4.2, this would imply that the BKM is a scalar multiple of the WYD, which is only true in the extreme cases $`\alpha =\pm 1`$.

Acknowledgements: The result of this paper was first announced during the conference Information Geometry and its Applications, held in Pescara, July 2002. I would like to thank the local organizers, especially P. Gibilisco, for their display of Italian hospitality. I also thank A. Jenčová, H. Hasegawa and R.F. Streater for their comments and suggestions.