text:
# Some properties of generalized connections in quantum gravity

## 1 Introduction

Theories of connections play an important role in the description of fundamental interactions, including Yang-Mills theories and gravity in the Ashtekar formulation . Typically in such cases, the classical configuration space $`𝒜/𝒢`$ of connections modulo gauge transformations is an infinite dimensional non-linear space of great complexity, challenging the usual field quantization techniques.

Having in mind a rigorous quantization of theories of connections and eventually of gravity, methods of calculus in an extension of $`𝒜/𝒢`$ have been developed over the last decade. For a compact gauge group $`G`$, the extension $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ is a natural compact measurable space , allowing the construction of diffeomorphism invariant measures . An extension $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of the space $`𝒜`$ of connections was also considered . In this case one still has to divide by the appropriate action of gauge transformations. Besides being equally relevant for integral calculus, the space $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is particularly useful for the definition of differential calculus in $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$, fundamental in the construction of quantum observables .

These developments rely crucially on the use of Wilson variables (and generalizations), bringing to the foreground the important role of parallel transport defined by certain types of curves. In this contribution we will consider only the case of piecewise analytic curves, for which the formalism was originally introduced, although most of the arguments apply equally well to the more general piecewise smooth case . For both $`\overline{𝒜}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ one considers functions on $`𝒜`$ of the form

$$𝒜AF(h(c_1,A),\mathrm{},h(c_n,A)),$$
(1)
where $`h(c,A)`$ denotes the parallel transport defined by the curve $`c`$ and $`F:G^n\text{}`$ is a continuous function. These functions define (overcomplete) coordinates on $`𝒜`$. In the case of $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ only closed curves – loops – are needed, producing gauge invariant functions, or coordinates on $`𝒜/𝒢`$. For compact $`G`$, the set of all functions (1) is naturally a normed commutative $``$-algebra with identity. Therefore, the norm completion of this $``$-algebra can be identified with the $`C^{}`$-algebra of continuous functions on a compact space called the spectrum of the algebra. This is precisely how the spaces $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$ were originally introduced: $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ is the spectrum of the above algebra in the loop case, and $`\overline{𝒜}`$ is likewise associated with more general open curves. These spaces are natural completions of $`𝒜/𝒢`$ and $`𝒜`$, respectively, and appear as good candidates to replace them in the quantum context .

It turns out that both $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$ can also be seen as projective limits of families of finite dimensional compact manifolds . This projective characterization gives us a great deal of control over the rather complex spaces $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}`$, allowing the construction of measures and vector fields on these spaces, starting from corresponding structures on the members of the projective families .

For the case of $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$, a distinguished group of equivalence classes of loops, called the hoop group $`𝒢`$ , plays an important role: $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ can in fact be seen as the set of all homomorphisms $`𝒢G`$, divided by the action of $`G`$ . As pointed out by Baez , for $`\overline{𝒜}`$ a similar role is played by a certain groupoid. In our opinion however, this groupoid associated to open curves has not yet occupied the place it deserves in the literature, possibly due to the fact that groupoids have been introduced in the current mathematical physics literature only recently. Recall that a groupoid is a category such that all arrows are invertible. Therefore, a groupoid generalizes the notion of a group, in the sense that a binary operation with inverse is defined, the difference being that not all pairs of elements can be composed.

In this contribution we consider the projective characterization of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ using the language of groupoids from the very beginning and show, using this formalism, that the quotient of $`\overline{𝒜}`$ by the action of the gauge group is homeomorphic to $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$. This new proof, establishing directly the equivalence at the projective limit level, is physically more transparent than the proof one can obtain by combination of results by Ashtekar and Lewandowski , Marolf and Mourão  and Baez .

## 2 Projective characterization of $`\overline{𝒜}`$

### 2.1 Edge groupoid

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an analytic, connected and orientable $`d`$-manifold. Let $``$ denote the set of all continuous, oriented and piecewise analytic parametrized curves in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, i.e. continuous maps

$$c:[0,t_1]\mathrm{}[t_{n1},1]\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

such that the images $`c(]t_k,t_{k+1}[)`$ are analytic submanifolds embedded in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`\sigma :\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the map given by $`\sigma (c)=c\left([0,1]\right)`$. The maps $`s`$ (source) and $`r`$ (range) are defined, respectively, by $`s(c)=c(0)`$, $`r(c)=c(1)`$, $`c`$. Given two curves $`c_1,c_2`$ such that $`s(c_2)=r(c_1)`$, let $`c_2c_1`$ denote the natural composition:

$$(c_2c_1)(t)=\{\begin{array}{ccc}c_1(2t),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & t[0,1/2]\hfill \\ c_2(2t1),\hfill & \mathrm{for}\hfill & t[1/2,1].\hfill \end{array}$$

Consider also the operation $`cc^1`$ given by $`c^1(t)=c(1t)`$. Strictly speaking, the composition of parametrized curves is not associative, since the curves $`(c_3c_2)c_1`$ and $`c_3(c_2c_1)`$ are related by a reparametrization. Also, the curve $`c^1`$ is not the inverse of $`c`$. Following Isham, Ashtekar and Lewandowski  and Baez , we describe next an equivalence relation in $``$ such that the corresponding set of equivalence classes is a well defined groupoid , generalizing the hoop group .

Let $`G`$ be a (finite dimensional) connected and compact Lie group and let $`P(\mathrm{\Sigma },G)`$ be a principal $`G`$-bundle over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For simplicity we assume that the bundle is trivial and that a fixed trivialization has been chosen. Let $`𝒜`$ be the space of smooth connections on this bundle. The parallel transport associated with a given connection $`A𝒜`$ and a given curve $`c`$ will be denoted by $`h(c,A)`$.

###### Definition 1

Two elements $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ of $``$ are said to be equivalent if

* $`s(c)=s(c^{}),r(c)=r(c^{})`$
* $`h(c,A)=h(c^{},A)`$, $`A𝒜`$.

Two curves related by reparametrization are equivalent and the same is true for curves $`c`$ and $`c^{}`$ that can be written in the form $`c=c_2c_1`$, $`c^{}=c_2c_3^1c_3c_1`$. For noncommutative G, these two conditions are equivalent to (ii, and therefore the equivalence relation is in fact the same for every noncommutative compact Lie group. We will consider noncommutative groups from now on and denote the set of all above defined equivalence classes by $`𝒢`$. It is clear by (i) that the maps $`s`$ and $`r`$ are well defined in $`𝒢`$. The map $`\sigma `$ can still be defined for special elements called edges. By edges we mean elements $`e𝒢`$ which are equivalence classes of analytic (in all domain) curves $`c:[0,1]\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is clear that the images $`c_1\left([0,1]\right)`$ and $`c_2\left([0,1]\right)`$ of two equivalent analytic curves coincide, and therefore we define $`\sigma (e)`$ as being $`\sigma (c)`$, where $`c`$ is any analytic curve in the classe of the edge $`e`$.

We discuss next the natural groupoid structure on the set $`𝒢`$. We will follow the terminology of category theory and refer to elements of $`𝒢`$ as arrows. Given $`\gamma ,\gamma ^{}𝒢`$ such that $`s(\gamma ^{})=r(\gamma )`$, one defines the composition $`\gamma ^{}\gamma `$ by the composition of elements of $``$. This operation is clearly well defined and is now associative. The points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are called objects in this context. Objects are in one-to-one correspondence with identity arrows: given $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the corresponding identity $`\mathrm{𝟏}_x𝒢`$ is the equivalence class of $`c^1c`$, with $`c`$ such that $`s(c)=x`$. If $`\gamma `$ is the class of $`c`$ then $`\gamma ^1`$ is the class of $`c^1`$. It is clear that $`\gamma ^1\gamma =\mathrm{𝟏}_{s(\gamma )}`$ and $`\gamma \gamma ^1=\mathrm{𝟏}_{r(\gamma )}`$. One therefore has a well defined groupoid, whose set of objects is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and whose set of arrows is $`𝒢`$. As usual, we will use the same notation – $`𝒢`$ – both for the set of arrows and for the groupoid. Notice that every element $`\gamma 𝒢`$ can be obtained as a composition of edges: the groupoid $`𝒢`$ is generated by edges, although it is not freely generated.

For $`x,y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`\mathrm{Hom}[x,y]`$ be the set of all arrows $`\gamma `$ such that $`s(\gamma )=x`$ and $`r(\gamma )=y`$. It is clear that $`\mathrm{Hom}[x,x]`$ is a group, $`x`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is connected, the groupoid $`𝒢`$ is connected, i.e. $`\mathrm{Hom}[x,y]`$ is a non-empty set $`x,y`$. In this case, any two groups $`\mathrm{Hom}[x,x]`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[y,y]`$ are isomorphic. Let us fix a point $`x_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and consider the group $`\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$. This group is precisely the so-called hoop group $`𝒢`$ , whose elements are equivalence classes of piecewise analytic loops. The elements of $`\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$ are called hoops and the identity arrow $`\mathrm{𝟏}_{x_0}`$ will be called the trivial hoop.

Given that $`𝒢`$ is connected, its elements may be written as compositions of elements of $`\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$ and of an appropriate subset of the set of all arrows:

###### Lemma 1

Suppose that an unique arrow $`\gamma _x\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x]`$ is given for each $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\gamma _{x_0}`$ being the trivial hoop. Then for every $`\gamma 𝒢`$ there is a uniquely defined $`\beta \mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$ such that $`\gamma =\gamma _{r(\gamma )}\beta \gamma _{s(\gamma )}^1`$.

This result can be obviously adapted for any connected subgroupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢`$. The converse of this result is the following lemma, where $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }[x_0,x_0]`$ denotes the subgroup of the hoops that belong to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

###### Lemma 2

Let $`F`$ be a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$ and $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a subset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`x_0X`$. Suppose that an unique arrow $`\gamma _x\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x]`$ is given for each $`xX`$, $`\gamma _{x_0}`$ being the trivial hoop. Then the set $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of all arrows of the form $`\gamma _x\beta \gamma _y^1`$, with $`\beta F`$ and $`x,yX`$, is a connected subgroupoid of $`𝒢`$, and the group $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }[x_0,x_0]`$ coincides with $`F`$.

### 2.2 $`\overline{𝒜}`$ as a projective limit

By condition (ii) in definition 1, the parallel transport is well defined for any element of $`𝒢`$. To emphasize the algebraic role of connections and to simplify the notation, we will denote by $`A(\gamma )`$ the parallel transport $`h(c,A)`$ defined by $`A𝒜`$ and any curve $`c`$ in the class $`\gamma `$. Since the bundle $`P(\mathrm{\Sigma },G)`$ is trivial, $`A(\gamma )`$ defines an element of the group $`G`$. For every connection $`A𝒜`$, the map $`𝒢G`$ given by

$$\gamma A(\gamma )$$
(2)
is a groupoid morphism, i.e. $`A(\gamma ^{}\gamma )=A(\gamma ^{})A(\gamma )`$ and $`A(\gamma ^1)=A(\gamma )^1`$. Thus, there is an injective (but not surjective ) map from $`𝒜`$ to the set $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ of all morphisms from $`𝒢`$ to $`G`$. It turns out that $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$, when equipped with an appropriate topology, is homeomorphic to the space $`\overline{𝒜}`$ of generalized connections . This identification can be proved using the fact that $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ is the projective limit of a projective family labeled by graphs in the manifold $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ . In what follows we will rephrase the projective characterization of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ using the language of groupoids. Later on we shall consider the action of local gauge transformations on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ and show, in the context of projective methods, that the quotient of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ by this action is homeomorphic to $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$.

We start with the set of labels for the projective family leading to $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$, using the notion of independent edges .

###### Definition 2

A finite set $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ of edges is said to be independent if the edges $`e_i`$ can intersect each other only at the points $`s(e_i)`$ or $`r(e_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$.

Let $`𝒢\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ be the subgroupoid of $`𝒢`$ freely generated by the independent set $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$, i.e. the subgroupoid whose objects are all the points $`s(e_i)`$ and $`r(e_i)`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and whose arrows are all possible compositions of edges $`e_i`$ and their inverses. Let $``$ denote the set of all such subgroupoids. Clearly, the sets $`\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ and $`\{e_1^{ϵ_1},\mathrm{},e_n^{ϵ_n}\}`$, where $`e_j^{ϵ_j}=e_j`$ or $`e_j^1`$, generate the same subgroupoid. Thus, a groupoid $`L`$ is uniquely defined by a set $`\{\sigma (e_1),\mathrm{},\sigma (e_n)\}`$ of images of a set of independent edges. Notice that the union of the images $`\sigma (e_i)`$ is a graph in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, thus establishing the relation with the more usual approach using graphs . The set $``$ is a directed set, i.e. for any given $`L,L^{}`$ there exists $`L^{\prime \prime }`$ such that both $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ are subgroupoids of $`L^{\prime \prime }`$, $`L^{\prime \prime }L`$ and $`L^{\prime \prime }L^{}`$. This follows from the crucial fact that for every finitely generated subgroupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢`$ there is an element $`L`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }L`$, which can be easily proved in the piecewise analytic case .

Let us now consider the projective family. For each $`L`$, let $`𝒜_L:=\mathrm{Hom}[L,G]`$ be the set of all morphisms from the groupoid $`L`$ to the group $`G`$. The family of spaces $`𝒜_L,L`$, is a so-called compact Hausdorff projective family , meaning that each of the spaces $`𝒜_L`$ is a compact Hausdorff space and that $`L,L^{}`$ such that $`L^{}L`$ there exists a surjective and continuous projection $`p_{L,L^{}}:𝒜_L^{}𝒜_L`$ satisfying

$$p_{L,L^{\prime \prime }}=p_{L,L^{}}p_{L^{},L^{\prime \prime }},L^{\prime \prime }L^{}L.$$
(3)
There is a well defined notion of limit of the family of spaces $`𝒜_L`$ – the projective limit – which is also a compact Hausdorff space. We discuss next some aspects of this construction.

Let $`L=𝒢\{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n\}`$ be an element of $``$. Since the morphisms $`LG`$ are determined by the images of the generators, one gets a bijection $`\rho _{e_1,\mathrm{},e_n}:𝒜_LG^n`$,

$$𝒜_L\overline{A}(\overline{A}(e_1),\mathrm{},\overline{A}(e_n))G^n.$$
(4)
Through this identification with $`G^n`$, the space $`𝒜_L`$ can be seen as a compact Hausdorff space. For $`L^{}L`$ the projection $`p_{L,L^{}}:𝒜_L^{}𝒜_L`$ is defined as the map sending each element of $`𝒜_L^{}`$ to its restriction to $`L`$. Using the maps (4) it is not difficult to see that the projections $`p_{L,L^{}}`$ are surjective and continuous .

The projective limit of the family $`\{𝒜_L,p_{L,L^{}}\}`$ is the subset $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ of the cartesian product X$`{}_{L}{}^{}𝒜_{L}^{}`$ of the elements $`(A_L)_L`$ satisfying the consistency conditions:

$$p_{L,L^{}}A_L^{}=A_L,L^{}L.$$
(5)
The cartesian product is a compact Hausdorff space with respect to the Tychonov product topology. Given the continuity of the projections $`p_{L,L^{}}`$, the projective limit $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a closed subset  and therefore is also compact Hausdorff. The induced topology in $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ is the weakest topology such that all the following projections are continuous:

$`p_L:𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ $``$ $`𝒜_L`$
$`(A_L)_L`$ $``$ $`A_L.`$ (6)
The proof that the projective limit $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ coincides with the set of all groupoid morphisms $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ follows essentially the same steps as the proof of the well known fact that the algebraic dual of any vector space is a projective limit. In what follows we will identify $`𝒜_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$. For simplicity, we will refer to the induced topology on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ as the Tychonov topology.

## 3 Equivalence of the projective characterizations of $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$

In this section we will study the relation between the space of generalized connections considered above and the space $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ of generalized connections modulo gauge transformations, from the point of view of projective techniques. The gauge transformations act naturally on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ and, as expected, the quotient of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ by this action is homeomorphic to $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$. The proof presented here complements previous results  and clarifies the relation between the two spaces. The introduction of the groupoid $`𝒢`$ plays a relevant role in this result.

We start with a brief review of the projective characterization of $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ . In this case the projective family is labeled by certain “tame” subgroups of the hoop group $`𝒢\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$, which are subgroups freely generated by finite sets of independent hoops. We will denote the family of such subgroups by $`𝒮_{}`$. For each $`S𝒮_{}`$ one considers the set $`\chi _S`$ of all homomorphisms $`SG`$, $`\chi _S:=\mathrm{Hom}[S,G]`$. The family $`\{\chi _S\}_{S𝒮_{}}`$ is a compact Hausdorff projective family, whose projective limit is $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$, the set of all homomorphisms $`𝒢G`$ . The space $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ is equiped with a Tychonov-like topology, namely the weakest topology such that all the natural projections

$$p_S:\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\chi _S,S𝒮_{},$$
(7)
are continuous. The group $`G`$ acts continuously on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ :

$$\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times G(H,g)H_g:H_g(\beta )=g^1H(\beta )g,\beta 𝒢.$$
(8)
This action corresponds to the non-trivial part of the action of the group of generalized local gauge transformations (see below). It is a well established fact that the quotient space $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ is homeomorphic to $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ .

Let us consider now the corresponding action of local gauge transformations on generalized connections. The group of local gauge transformations associated with the structure group $`G`$ is the group $`𝒢`$ of all smooth maps $`\mathrm{g}:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$, acting on smooth connections as follows:

$$𝒜A\mathrm{g}^1A\mathrm{g}+\mathrm{g}^1d\mathrm{g},$$

where $`d`$ denotes the exterior derivative. The corresponding action on parallel transports $`A(\gamma )`$ defined by $`A𝒜`$ and $`\gamma 𝒢`$ is given by

$$A(\gamma )\mathrm{g}(x_2)^1A(\gamma )\mathrm{g}(x_1)\mathrm{g}𝒢,$$
(9)
where $`x_1=s(\gamma )`$, $`x_2=r(\gamma )`$. Let us consider the extension $`\overline{𝒢}`$ of $`𝒢`$,

$$\overline{𝒢}=\mathrm{Map}[\mathrm{\Sigma },G]=G^\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{X}_{x\mathrm{\Sigma }}G_x,$$
(10)
of all maps $`\mathrm{g}:\mathrm{\Sigma }G`$, not necessarily smooth or even continuous. This group $`\overline{𝒢}`$ of “generalized local gauge transformations” acts naturally on the space of generalized connections $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$,

$$\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}(\overline{A},\mathrm{g})\overline{A}_\mathrm{g}\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]$$
(11)
where

$$\overline{A}_\mathrm{g}(\gamma )=\mathrm{g}\left(r(\gamma )\right)^1\overline{A}(\gamma )\mathrm{g}\left(s(\gamma )\right),\gamma 𝒢,$$
(12)
generalizing (9). It is natural to consider the quotient of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ by the action of $`\overline{𝒢}`$, since $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ is also made of all the morphisms $`𝒢G`$, without any continuity condition. The group $`\overline{𝒢}`$ is compact Hausdorff and its action is continuous . Therefore $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ is also a compact Hausdorff space.

Let us consider the compact space $`\overline{𝒜}`$ introduced by Baez as the spectrum of a $`C^{}`$-algebra, obtained by completion of a $``$-algebra of functions in $`𝒜`$ . The original $`C^{}`$-algebra can then be identified with the algebra $`C(\overline{𝒜})`$ of continuous functions in $`\overline{𝒜}`$. The group of local gauge transformations acts naturally on $`C(\overline{𝒜})`$ and the subspace $`C^𝒢(\overline{𝒜})C(\overline{𝒜})`$ of gauge invariant functions is also a commutative $`C^{}`$-algebra with identity , whose spectrum we will denote by $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}`$.

One therefore has four extensions of the classical configuration space $`𝒜/𝒢`$, namely $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$, $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}`$, $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$. The first two spaces are tied to the $`C^{}`$-algebra formalism whereas the last two appear in the context of projective methods. As expected, all these spaces are naturally homeomorphic. Let us consider the following diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\overline{𝒜/𝒢}& & \mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G\\ & & \\ & & \\ & & \\ \overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}& & \mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}\end{array}$$

The correspondence between $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ was established by Marolf and Mourão . A generalization of this result produces a homeomorphism between $`\overline{𝒜}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ , which is easily seen to be equivariant, leading to a homeomorphism between $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ . The correspondence between $`\overline{𝒜/𝒢}`$ and $`\overline{𝒜}/\overline{𝒢}`$ follows from results by Baez . In the remaining of this section we will show directly that $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ is homeomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$. The relevance of this new proof of a known result lies in the clear relation established between $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G](\overline{𝒜})`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G(\overline{𝒜/𝒢})`$, without having to rely on the characterization of these spaces as spectra of $`C^{}`$-algebras.

Since $`𝒢\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x_0]`$ is a subgroup of the groupoid $`𝒢`$, a projection from $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$, given by the restriction of elements of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ to the group $`𝒢`$, is naturally defined. We will show that this projection is surjective and equivariant with respect to the actions of $`\overline{𝒢}`$ on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$, thus defining a map $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ which is in fact a bijection. We will also present the more relevant elements of the proof that the latter map and its inverse are continuous. For this we will need some lemmas, whose proofs will appear elsewhere .

We will start by showing that $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ is homeomorphic to $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$, where $`\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ is the subgroup of $`\overline{𝒢}`$ (10) of the elements $`\mathrm{g}`$ such that $`\mathrm{g}(x_0)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Let us fix a unique edge $`e_x\mathrm{Hom}[x_0,x]`$ for each $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`e_{x_0}`$ being the trivial hoop. Let us denote this set of edges by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=\{e_x,x\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$. Consider the map

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }:\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}$$
(13)
where $`\overline{A}\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ is mapped to $`(H,\mathrm{g})\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ such that

$$H(\beta )=\overline{A}(\beta ),\beta 𝒢$$
(14)
and

$$\mathrm{g}(x)=\overline{A}\left(e_x\right),x\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(15)
Consider also the natural action of $`\overline{𝒢}`$ on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ given by

$$\left(\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}\right)\times \overline{𝒢}((H,\mathrm{g}),\mathrm{g}^{})(H_\mathrm{g}^{},\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{g}^{}),$$
(16)
where

$$H_\mathrm{g}^{}(\beta )=\mathrm{g}^{}(x_0)^1H(\beta )\mathrm{g}^{}(x_0),\beta 𝒢$$
(17)
and

$$\mathrm{g}_\mathrm{g}^{}(x)=\mathrm{g}^{}(x)^1\mathrm{g}(x)\mathrm{g}^{}(x_0),x\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(18)
###### Theorem 1

For any choice of the set $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a homeomorphism, equivariant with respect to the action of $`\overline{𝒢}`$.

It is fairly easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is bijective and equivariant: for a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, the map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is clearly well defined and its inverse is given by $`(H,\mathrm{g})\overline{A}`$ where

$$\overline{A}(\gamma )=\mathrm{g}\left(r(\gamma )\right)H\left(e_{r(\gamma )}^1\gamma e_{s(\gamma )}\right)\mathrm{g}\left(s(\gamma )\right)^1,\gamma 𝒢.$$
(19)
It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is equivariant with respect to the action of $`\overline{𝒢}`$ on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ (17, 18) and on $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ (11, 12). It remains to be shown that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a homeomorphism. Recall that the topologies of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]`$ are defined by the projective families $`\{\chi _S\}_{S𝒮_{}}`$ and $`\{𝒜_L\}_L`$ considered previously.

Given $`S𝒮_{}`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`P_S`$ and $`\pi _x`$, respectively, be the projections from $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ to $`\chi _S`$ and $`G_x`$ (the copy of $`G`$ associated with the point $`x`$). Recall that the topology of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ is the weakest topology such that all the maps $`P_S`$ and $`\pi _x`$ are continuous. So, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is continuous if and only if the maps $`P_S\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\pi _x\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are continuous, $`S𝒮_{}`$ and $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Likewise, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ is continuous if and only if all the maps $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1:\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}𝒜_L`$ are continuous, where the projections $`p_L:\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]𝒜_L`$ are defined in (6).

It is straightforward to show that the maps $`\pi _x\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ are continuous: given $`x\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, one just has to consider the subgroupoid $`L=𝒢\left\{e_x\right\}`$ generated by the edge $`e_x\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the homeomorphism (4) $`\rho _{e_x}:𝒜_LG`$. It is clear that $`\pi _x\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ coincides with $`\rho _{e_x}p_L`$, being therefore continuous.

On the other hand, to show that $`P_S\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ are continuous one needs to consider explicitly the relation between the spaces $`𝒜_L`$ and $`\chi _S`$, $`L`$, $`S𝒮_{}`$ .

###### Lemma 3

For every $`S𝒮_{}`$ there exists a connected subgroupoid $`L`$ such that $`S`$ is a subgroup of $`L`$. The projection

$$p_{S,L}:𝒜_L\chi _S$$
(20)
defined by the restriction of elements of $`𝒜_L`$ to $`S`$ is continuous and satisfies

$$P_S\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=p_{S,L}p_L,\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$
(21)
The continuity of the maps $`P_S\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`S𝒮_{}`$, follows immediately from lemma 3. To show that the maps $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ are continuous one needs the converse of lemma 3. Recall that for a given subgroupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢`$, $`\mathrm{Obj}\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ denotes the set of objects of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ (the set of all points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which are range or source for some arrow in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) and that $`\mathrm{Hom}[\mathrm{\Gamma },G]`$ stands for the set of all morphisms $`\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$. We will also denote by $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ the natural projection from $`\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}`$ to the subgroup $`\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ of all maps $`\mathrm{Obj}\mathrm{\Gamma }G`$ such that $`\mathrm{g}(x_0)=\mathrm{𝟏}`$.

###### Lemma 4

For every $`L`$ there exists $`S𝒮_{}`$ and a connected subgroupoid $`\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒢`$, with $`\mathrm{Obj}\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{Obj}L\stackrel{.}{}\{x_0\}`$, such that $`L\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}_\mathrm{\Gamma }[x_0,x_0]=S`$. The natural projection from $`\mathrm{Hom}[\mathrm{\Gamma },G]`$ to $`𝒜_L`$ defines a map

$$p_{L,S}:\chi _S\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}(\mathrm{\Gamma })𝒜_L$$
(22)
which is continuous and such that for an appropriate choice of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ one has

$$p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1=p_{L,S}(p_S\times \mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }).$$
(23)
Given that the projections $`p_S:\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\chi _S`$ and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\mathrm{\Gamma }:\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ are continuous, lemma 4 shows that for every fixed $`L`$ there exists a $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ is continuous, which still does not prove that all the maps $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ are continuous for a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Notice however that the map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}^1`$ is a homeomorphism for any $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$ , from what follows immediately that

###### Lemma 5

The continuity of $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$ is equivalent to the continuity of $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}^1`$, for any other values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}`$.

This lemma, together with lemma 4, shows that, for a given $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, all the maps $`p_L\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$, $`L`$, are continuous, which concludes the proof of theorem 1.

The identification of $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ with $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ now follows easily. Consider a fixed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a homeomorphism equivariant with respect to the continuous action of $`\overline{𝒢}`$, we conclude that $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ is homeomorphic to $`\left(\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}\right)/\overline{𝒢}`$. On the other hand it is clear that

$`\left(\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]\times \overline{𝒢}_{x_0}\right)/\overline{𝒢}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G\right)\times \left(\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}/\overline{𝒢}_{x_0}\right)`$ (24)
$``$ $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G.`$
Thus, as a corollary of theorem 1 one gets that

###### Theorem 2

The spaces $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/\overline{𝒢}`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}[𝒢,G]/G`$ are homeomorphic.

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank José Mourão, Paulo Sá and Thomas Thiemann, for encouragement and helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by CENTRA/UAlg, PRAXIS 2/2.1/FIS/286/94 and CERN/P/FIS/15196/1999.


format: text

text:
# Analytical operator solution of master equations describing phase-sensitive processes

## I Introduction

Master equations, or evolution equations for reduced density operators are of fundamental importance in the treatment of open systems in quantum theory. They are particularly relevant in the field of quantum optics , where generally one has interest in studying the evolution of confined subsystems (a single mode of the electromagnetic field, for instance) “coupled” to external reservoirs. This may model a number of (phase-sensitive or not) processes, such as the decay of a single mode of the field confined in a lossy cavity , as well as amplification processes . Interesting applications of phase-sensitive amplification, for example, are the reduction of noise in lasers through the injection of squeezed vacuum , as well as noise-free amplification via the two-photon correlated-emission-laser .

Nevertheless, complete operator solutions of master equations are not usually presented. Only simple cases such as the decay of a single mode of the field into a vacuum state reservoir ($`T=0`$) or stationary regime cases are the ones normally treated . Instead, master equations are normally transformed into c-number equations either in the number or coherent state representations, for instance. It would be therefore interesting to obtain a direct solution of the master equation while in its operator form.

## II The method

In this paper we show how to solve exactly master equations of the form

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }}{t}=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}\gamma _k\widehat{L}_k(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\right)\widehat{\rho },$$
(1)
where

$`\widehat{L}_1(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}`$ (2)
$`\widehat{L}_2(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^{}`$ (3)
$`\widehat{L}_3(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`2\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}\widehat{a}^2\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^2,`$ (4)
and

$$\widehat{L}_4(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }=2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{a}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},$$
(5)
being $`\widehat{a}`$ and $`\widehat{a}^{}`$ the bosonic annihilation and creation operators. The $`\gamma `$s are in general complex parameters which may represent gain and decay. For the density operator to be Hermitean, it is necessary that

$$\gamma _3=|\gamma _3|e^i\varphi =\gamma _4^{}.$$
(6)
We may now apply the unitary transformation

$$\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{S}(\xi )\widehat{\rho }^{}\widehat{S}^{}(\xi )$$
(7)
where $`\widehat{S}(\xi )`$ is the squeeze operator

$$\widehat{S}(\xi )=\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{\xi ^{}\widehat{a}^2}{2}\frac{\xi \widehat{a}^{}^2}{2}\right),$$
(8)
with $`\xi =r\mathrm{exp}(i\phi )`$. If we now substitute Eq.(7) into Eq.(1), we obtain an equation for the transformed density operator $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$, or

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }^{}}{t}=\left(\underset{k=1}{\overset{4}{}}\gamma _k\widehat{L}_k(\widehat{b},\widehat{b}^{})\right)\widehat{\rho }^{},$$
(9)
where

$$\widehat{b}=\widehat{S}(\xi )^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{S}(\xi )=\mu \widehat{a}+\nu \widehat{a}^{},$$
(10)
with

$$\mu =\mathrm{cosh}(r),\nu =\mathrm{sinh}(r)\mathrm{exp}(i\phi ).$$
(11)
We proceed in rewriting Eq.(9) in terms of the original creation and annihilation operators as

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\widehat{\rho }^{}}{t}}=`$ $`\widehat{L}_1(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }^{}\left(\gamma _1\mu ^2+\gamma _2|\nu |^2+\mu \nu |\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+\mu \nu ^{}|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }\right)+`$ (15)
$`\widehat{L}_2(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }^{}\left(\gamma _1|\nu |^2+\gamma _2\mu ^2+\mu \nu |\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+\mu \nu ^{}|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }\right)+`$
$`\widehat{L}_3(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }^{}\left(\gamma _1\mu \nu ^{}+\gamma _2\mu \nu ^{}+\mu ^2|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+(\nu ^{})^2|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }\right)+`$
$`\widehat{L}_4(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\widehat{\rho }^{}\left(\gamma _1\mu \nu +\gamma _2\mu \nu +\nu ^2|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+\mu ^2|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }\right).`$
We note that one can choose $`\varphi `$ and $`r`$ in such a way that the last two terms in Eq.(15) become zero. The appropriate choices for these parameters are

$$\phi =\varphi ,$$
(16)
and

$$\text{tanh}(2r)=\frac{2|\gamma _3|}{\gamma _1+\gamma _2}.$$
(17)
With the above choice of parameters, then we can write Eq.(15) as

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }^{}}{t}=\left[\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\widehat{L}_1(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\widehat{L}_2(\widehat{a},\widehat{a}^{})\right]\widehat{\rho }^{},$$
(18)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1=\gamma _1\mu ^2+\gamma _2|\nu |^2+\mu \nu |\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+\mu \nu ^{}|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi },$$
(19)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=\gamma _1|\nu |^2+\gamma _2\mu ^2+\mu \nu |\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }+\mu \nu ^{}|\gamma _3|e^{i\varphi }.$$
(20)
It follows from the relations above that

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=\gamma _1\gamma _2,$$
(21)
and

$$\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=(\gamma _1+\gamma _2)\text{sech}(2r).$$
(22)
We now write the new master equation (18) in a more convenient form

$$\frac{\widehat{\rho }^{}}{t}=\left(\widehat{J}_1+\widehat{J}_2+\widehat{J}_32\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\right)\widehat{\rho }^{},$$
(23)
where we have defined the following super-operators

$$\widehat{J}_1\widehat{\rho }^{}=2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }^{}\widehat{a}^{},$$
(24)
$$\widehat{J}_2\widehat{\rho }^{}=2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{\rho }^{}\widehat{a},$$
(25)
and

$$\widehat{J}_3\widehat{\rho }^{}=(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2)(\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}\widehat{\rho }^{}+\widehat{\rho }^{}\widehat{a}^{}\widehat{a}),$$
(26)
From the equations above, we can write the formal solution of Eq.(23) as

$$\widehat{\rho }^{}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2t)\mathrm{exp}\left[\left(\widehat{J}_1+\widehat{J}_2+\widehat{J}_3\right)t\right]\widehat{\rho }^{}(0).$$
(27)
It is not difficult to show that the superoperators $`\widehat{J}_1`$, $`\widehat{J}_2`$ and $`\widehat{J}_3`$ obey the following commutation relations

$$[\widehat{J}_2,\widehat{J}_1]\widehat{\rho }^{}=\left[\frac{4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}\widehat{J}_34\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\right]\widehat{\rho }^{},$$
(28)
$$[\widehat{J}_1,\widehat{J}_3]\widehat{\rho }^{}=2\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\right)\widehat{J}_1\widehat{\rho }^{},$$
(29)
and

$$[\widehat{J}_2,\widehat{J}_3]\widehat{\rho }^{}=2\left(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2\right)\widehat{J}_2\widehat{\rho }^{}.$$
(30)
In order to disentangle the exponential in Eq.(27), we propose the ansatz

$$\widehat{\rho }^{}(t)=\mathrm{exp}(2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2t)\mathrm{exp}[f_3(t)]\mathrm{exp}[f_2(t)\widehat{J}_2]\mathrm{exp}[f_0(t)\widehat{J}_3]\mathrm{exp}[f_1(t)\widehat{J}_1(t)]\widehat{\rho }^{}(0)$$
(31)
By inserting $`\widehat{\rho }^{}(t)`$ in Eq.(31) above into equation in Eq.(23), we obtain the following system of differential equations for the functions $`f_i`$:

$$\frac{df_0}{dt}+\frac{4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}f_2=1,$$
(32)
$$\frac{df_1}{dt}\mathrm{exp}[2(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2)]=1,$$
(33)
$$\frac{df_2}{dt}+2\frac{df_0}{dt}f_2+(\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2)+4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2f_2^2=1,$$
(34)
and

$$\frac{df_3}{dt}4\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2f_2=0.$$
(35)
Although the system is a non-linear one, its solution is rather straightforward. In order to have the condition $`\widehat{\rho }^{}(t=0)=\widehat{\rho }^{}(0)`$ satisfied, we should have $`f_i(0)=0`$ ($`i=0,1,2,3`$) as initial conditions for the set of Eqs.(32)-(35). The result is

$$f_0=\frac{\kappa }{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}t+\frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1+\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa }\right),$$
(36)
$$f_1=f_2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)},$$
(37)
and

$$f_3=2\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2t\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa }\right),$$
(38)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)=(1\mathrm{exp}[2\kappa t])\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2`$.

By finally defining the dimensionless superoperators

$$\widehat{L}_{}\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}^{},\widehat{L}_+\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}^{}\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}},\widehat{L}_3\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}^{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}\widehat{\rho }+\widehat{\rho }\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}^{}\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}+\widehat{\rho },$$
(39)
where the superoperators $`\widehat{L}_{}`$, $`\widehat{L}_+`$ and $`\widehat{L}_3`$ obey the commutation relations $`[\widehat{L}_{},\widehat{L}_+]\widehat{\rho }=\widehat{L}_3\widehat{\rho }`$ and $`[\widehat{L}_3,\widehat{L}_\pm ]\widehat{\rho }=\pm 2\widehat{L}_\pm \widehat{\rho }`$, we can write the solution of (1) in the form,

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=e^{\kappa t}e^{\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\widehat{L}_+}\left[\frac{\kappa e^{\kappa t}}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\right]^{\widehat{L}_3}e^{\frac{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_1}{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\widehat{L}_{}}\widehat{\rho }(0),$$
(40)
where in (39) we have defined

$$\underset{¯}{\overset{^}{b}}=\widehat{S}(\xi )\widehat{a}\widehat{S}^{}(\xi )=\mu \widehat{a}\nu \widehat{a}^{},$$
(41)
which should be compared with Eq. (10). Note that if in Eq. (40) we set the parameters $`\xi =0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }_2=0`$ we recover the usual solution for a dissipative cavity at zero temperature as well as for the phase insensitive case.

We have therefore obtained the full solution of the master equation for $`\widehat{\rho }^{}`$ \[see Eq.(23)\], given by (40). We remind that we still have to apply the transformation in Eq.(7) in order to recover the original density operator $`\widehat{\rho }`$.

It would be appropriate now to show which interesting cases could be easily treated by employing our solution. For instance, if we make $`\gamma _1=\gamma (\overline{n}+1)/2`$, $`\gamma _2=\gamma \overline{n}/2`$, $`\gamma _3=\gamma M^{}/2`$ and $`\gamma _4=\gamma M/2`$, we will obtain the standard equation describing the decay of a bosonic field into a phase-sensitive reservoir . If on the other hand $`\gamma _1=𝒜\overline{n}/2`$ and $`\gamma _2=𝒜(\overline{n}+1)/2`$, but keeping $`\gamma _3=𝒜M^{}/2`$ and $`\gamma _4=𝒜M/2`$, we will have the standard equation describing phase-sensitive amplification . The constants $`\gamma `$ and $`𝒜`$ represent decay and gain, respectively, and $`M`$ ($`\overline{n}`$) are connected with phase-sensitive (or not) reservoir fluctuations. Each of this two cases are relevant in the problems of field decay and in the reduction of noise in lasers . We remark that our operator solution turns unnecessary the convertion of the master equation into sometimes cumbersome c-number equations.

Let us finally consider as an example an initial density matrix of the form

$$\widehat{\rho }(0)=\widehat{S}(\xi )|00|\widehat{S}^{}(\xi ),$$
(42)
or a squeezed vacuum state. After inserting it into (40) it is easy to show that the density operator of the field at a time $`t`$ may be written as

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=\frac{\kappa }{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\right]^m|m,\xi m,\xi |,$$
(43)
where $`|m,\xi =\widehat{S}(\xi )|m`$ are the squeezed number states . We may now to follow the state’s evolution in phase space, using for instance the $`Q`$-function , defined as

$$Q(t)=\frac{1}{\pi }\beta |\widehat{\rho }(t)|\beta ,$$
(44)
where $`|\beta `$ is a coherent state. In our case the $`Q`$-function is given by

$$Q(t)=\frac{1}{\pi }\frac{\kappa }{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\underset{m=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}{\kappa +\mathrm{\Gamma }(t)}\right]^m|\beta |m,\xi |^2,$$
(45)
with

$$\beta |m,\xi =\mathrm{exp}(|\beta |^2/2)\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}G_{nm}(\beta ^{})^n,$$
(46)
and where

$$G_{nm}=\{\begin{array}{cc}(1)^{n+m/2}\left(\frac{m!}{\mathrm{cosh}r}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}r}{2}\right)^{n+m/2}_{l=0}\frac{\left(\frac{4}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r}\right)^l}{(2l)!\left(\frac{n}{2}l\right)!\left(\frac{m}{2}l\right)!}\hfill & \text{if }n,m\text{ even}\hfill \\ (1)^{n+m/23/2}\left(\frac{m!}{\mathrm{cosh}^3r}\right)^{1/2}\left(\frac{\mathrm{tanh}r}{2}\right)^{(n+m)/21}_{l=0}\frac{\left(\frac{4}{\mathrm{sinh}^2r}\right)^l}{(2l+1)!\left(\frac{n1}{2}l\right)!\left(\frac{m1}{2}l\right)!}\hfill & \text{if }n,m\text{ odd}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}\hfill \end{array}$$
(47)
In figure 1 it is illustrated the $`Q`$-function in (45) for different times. At $`t=0`$ we have the $`Q`$ function of the initial squeezed vacuum state. As time goes on, thermal fluctuations of the reservoir cause a “spread” of the $`Q`$ function, associated to the increase in the quadrature noise. Nevertheless, due to the phase-sensitive properties of the reservoir, the noise assymmetry characteristic of squeezed states is somehow preserved, as it may be seen in figure 1.

## III Conclusions

To summarize, we have presented an alternative way of treating problems involving certain types of master equations. Our operator solution may be useful to retrieve any sort of information related to the evolution of sub-systems having specific initial conditions. This contrasts with the usual approaches, where only partial information, such as mean values of amplitudes and/or diffusion coefficients is normally obtained.

Note added in proof: While preparing the answer to the referee, we became aware of the paper by Dung and Knöll  where they also solve Eq. (1) but using Fokker-Planck equations instead. We would like to stress that our method of solving the master equation (1) is considerably more straightforward and simple.

###### Acknowledgements.

The authors would like to thank the Mexican Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) and the Brazilian Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for support.


text:
# Isospin Symmetry Breaking in 𝜌→𝜋𝛾 Decay 1footnote 11footnote 1This work is partially supported by NSF of China through C.N. Yang.

## I Introduction

In hadron physics, the isospin symmetry or charge symmetryMiller90  is broken by inequality of the light quark masses, especially $`m_um_d`$, and electromagnetic interaction of hadrons. This breaking of isospin symmetry induces various measurable physics effects such as $`\pi ^0\eta `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }^0`$ mixing, $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay, etc. It is common knowledge that the effects of isospin breaking can be omittd in the isospin conservation processes. However, this argument is not always right. The purpose of this letter is to show that a large isospin breaking effect is in isospin conservation decay $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ (so-called hidden isospin symmetry breaking effect). Thus the real branching ratio for this decay should be much larger than datum cited by PDG-2000PDG2000  and charged mode.

The anomalous-like radiative decays of light flavour vector mesons have been observed by several group: The branching ratio for charged $`\rho `$ is $`B(\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma )=(4.5\pm 0.5)\times 10^4`$ccho . The branching ratios for $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ decays were first obtained in refs.Dru84 ; Dolinsky89 ; Dolinsky91  by using the data of $`e^+e^{}`$ collider in Neutral Detector, but the triangle anomaly contribution of QCD was ignored in their analysis. Benayoun et al. has reanalyzed the $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ decay to a pseudoscalar meson plus a photon via taking into account the triangle anomaly contributionBenayoun96 . The authors use two models ($`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$)Benayoun93 ; Benayoun95  to fit data. It is a bit surprising that they found two local minima for both two model fits, one with $`\chi ^2/N_{df}0.5`$ (solution A) and another one with $`\chi ^2/N_{df}0.7`$ (solution B). To see table 1, where phase $`\mathrm{\Phi }_V`$ of vector mesons is defined via $`e^+e^{}\pi ^0\gamma `$ cross section (equation (1) of ref.Benayoun96 ). Although the solution A has smaller $`\chi ^2/N_{df}`$, and the phase difference $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\varphi \mathrm{\Phi }_\rho `$ is found around $`210^{}`$ in the solution A, close to expectation from the quark model ($`180^{}`$), the $`\rho ^0`$ branching ratio is much larger than expected from the charged mode or from SU(3) symmetry. Thus the authors took the solution B as final result for agreeing with isospin symmetry. However, this conclusion is incorrect. In this paper let us see what happens there.

The paper is organized as follows: In section 2, we first give the formula of the transition amplitude for $`\rho ,\omega \pi \gamma `$. Then we will prove this formula via two independent methods: effective field theory approach and mixed propagator approach. In section 3, we will provide final numeric results, and a brief conclusion.

## II Transition amplitude for $`V\pi \gamma `$

The transition matrix element for vector mesons decay to a pion and a photon is

$`<\pi (k)\gamma (q_1)|V(q_2)>=if_{V\pi \gamma }ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_{1\mu }ϵ_\nu ^{}q_{2\alpha }e_\beta ,`$ (1)
where $`e_\mu `$ and $`ϵ_\mu `$ are polarized vector of vector mesons and photon respectively. At the large $`N_c`$ limit and chiral limit, if we ignore possible contribution from resonance exchange, the exact isospin symmetry implies

$`f_{\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma }=f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)},`$ (2)
where the superscript $`\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}(0)^{\prime \prime }`$ denotes absence of the resonance exchange. A complete consideration for $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega ^0`$ decays should include the contribution from the following resonance exchange,

$`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\rho ^2)f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}}{m_\rho ^2m_\omega ^2+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }},`$
$`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(c)}`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}}{m_\omega ^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }},`$ (3)
where the momentum-dependent $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(q^2)`$ is defined in the following effective lagrangian. The relations in equation (II) holds more generally. In the other words, the couplings $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}`$ and $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}`$ can include corrections beyond large $`N_c`$ limit and chiral limit. Meanwhile, the relation (2) will be broken, but this breaking is slight. This point can be checked by using datum of $`\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma `$ decay and $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ decay if we believe $`f_{\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma }=f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}`$.

It must be point out that the equation (II) is a non-perurbative results instead of a perturbative expression. In the rest of this section we will prove it by two independent methods: effective field theory approach and mixed propagator approach, respectively.

### II.1 Effective field theory approach

The most general effective lagrangian concerning $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ decays as follow

$`=_0+_I+_2+_{\mathrm{ChPT}}+_{\mathrm{WZW}},`$ (4)
where $`_{\mathrm{ChPT}}`$ is lagrangian of chiral perturbative theory, $`_{\mathrm{WZW}}`$ is Wess-Zumino-Witten lagrangian, $`_0`$ and $`_I`$ are lagrangians of free fields and interaction for vector mesons respectively, $`_2`$ is counterterm lagrangian for $`_0`$ and $`_I`$ 444An effective theory is renormalized if number of coupling constant in the effective lagrangian is infinite, e.g., Chiral Perturbative Theory. Here we focus on the most general effective lagrangian, thus it can be treated as renormalized one.. Explicitly, $`_0`$ and $`_I`$ can be written as follows

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\mu \rho _\nu ^i_\nu \rho _\mu ^i)(^\mu \rho ^{i\nu }^\nu \rho ^{i\mu }){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(_\mu \omega _\nu _\nu \omega _\mu )(^\mu \omega ^\nu ^\nu \omega ^\mu )`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{m}_\rho ^2\rho _\mu ^i\rho ^{i\mu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\stackrel{~}{m}_\omega ^2\omega _\mu \omega ^\mu +\mathrm{},`$
$`_I`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^4q}{(2\pi )^4}}e^{iqx}\{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(q^2)(g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{q_\mu q_\nu }{q^2}})\omega ^\mu (x)\rho ^{0\nu }(q)+iϵ^{ijk}f_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)\rho _i^\mu (q)\pi _j(x)_\mu \pi _k(x)`$ (5)
$`+ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }ϵ^{ijk}f_{\omega 3\pi }(q^2)\omega _\mu (q)_\nu \pi _i(x)_\alpha \pi _j(x)_\beta \pi _k(x)+ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }f_{\rho \pi \gamma }(q^2)q_\mu \rho _\nu ^i(q)_\alpha A_\beta (x)\pi _i(x)`$
$`+ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }f_{\omega \pi \gamma }(q^2)q_\mu \omega _\nu (q)_\alpha A_\beta (x)\pi ^0(x)+\mathrm{}\}.`$
Several remarks are related to lagrangian (II.1):

1. Focusing on any low energy effective theory, a general knowledge is that any coupling should be momentum-dependentWY00 . In lagrangian (II.1) this truth has been exhibited via momentum-dependence of form factors $`f_{\rho \pi \pi }(q^2)`$, $`f_{\omega 3\pi }(q^2)`$, etc.. All these form factors should be real function of vector meson four-momentum square, $`q^2`$. So that the unitarity of $`S`$-matrix prevents us from taking complex mass square in on-shell transition amplitude.
2. $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\rho `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_\omega `$ in $`_0`$ are not physical masses of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$, since they will be shifted due to $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing 555Of course, there should be other possible mechanism which can also cause mass splitting of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$. In this paper, however, we only provide a heuristical discussion. Thus we ignore other ingredients here.. The physical masses of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ correspond to poles in their type I complete propagators (fig. 1) 666Due to effective lagrangian (II.1), the complete propagators of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ receive two kinds of contribution. One is from $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing and another is from meson loops. We label them as type I and type II contribution respectively. In addition, the renormalization does not shift the pole of propagator, thus the pole in type I complete propagators is same to one in complete propagators considering both two kinds of contributions., in which we have considered contribution from $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing completely:

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(\rho )\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{I})}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{q^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(q^2)}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(\omega )\mu \nu }^{(\mathrm{I})}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{q^2\stackrel{~}{m}_\omega ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(q^2)}}.`$ (6)
These type I complete propagators give the physical masses of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ as follows

$`m_\rho ^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_\rho ^2+\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\rho ^2),m_\omega ^2=\stackrel{~}{m}_\omega ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2).`$ (7)
It is well-known that physical mass obtained from the pole of complete propagator should be equal to one obtained from orthogonal rotating $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ to their mass eigenstates.
3. When we write interaction lagrangian (II.1), we have conveniently assumed that widths of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ are generated dynamically by pion loops. This assumption can be released, and it does not affect the following formal discussion.

In Heisenberg picture, the transition matrix (1) can be expressed in terms of LSZ reducation formulaLSZ55

$`<\pi (k)\gamma (q_1),out|V(q_2),in>`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`i^3(Z_3^{(\rho )}Z_3^{(\pi )}Z_3^{(\gamma )})^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^4xd^4yd^4z\frac{e^{ikx}}{\sqrt{(2\pi )^32\omega _\stackrel{}{𝐤}}}\underset{\lambda ,\sigma }{}\frac{ϵ_{\stackrel{}{𝐪}_1\lambda }^\mu e^{iq_1y}}{\sqrt{(2\pi )^32\omega _{\stackrel{}{𝐪}_1}}}\frac{e_{\stackrel{}{𝐪}_2\sigma }^\nu e^{iq_2z}}{\sqrt{(2\pi )^32\omega _{\stackrel{}{𝐪}_2}}}}`$
$`\times (_x^2+m_\pi ^2)_y^2(_z^2+m_\rho ^2)(0|T\{\pi (x)A_\mu (y)V_\nu (z)\}|0)_\mathrm{H},`$
where $`Z_3`$ are renormalization constant of wave function, and the subscript “H” denotes in Heisenberg picture. The above expression can be transformed to interaction picture via

$`(0|T\{\pi (x)A_\mu (y)V_\nu (z)\}|0)_\mathrm{H}=<0|T\{\pi (x)A_\mu (y)V_\nu (z)e^{i{\scriptscriptstyle d^4x^{}(_I+_{\mathrm{ChPT}}+_{\mathrm{WZW}})(x^{})}}\}|0>_\mathrm{I},`$ (9)
where the subscript “I” denotes in interaction picture.

In the language of Feymann diagram, the non-perturbative results can be obtained by summing all diagrams of perturbative expansion (fig. 2). Here we focus on $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay, and the discussion for $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ is similar. In fig. 2, every “$``$” denotes contribution from all potential meson loops. Thus the renormalization of mass and wave function of $`\rho ^0`$ and $`\omega `$ is necessary. It should be pointed out that every bold solid line or bold dash line 777We should distinguish bold bold solid line from bold solid line in fig. 2. The former is defined as complete propagator of $`\rho ^0`$ while the latter is defined as type I complete propagator of $`\rho ^0`$, in fig. 2 is defined in fig. 1. It means that the effect of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing has been included completely via summing all diagrams of fig. 2.

There are two kinds of contributions to $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. They are shown in the fig. 2-a) and 2-b), and respectively correspond to nonresonant contribution and contribution of resonance exchange. Renormalization of mass and wave function of external line $`\rho ^0`$ is present in both of fig. 2-a) and 2-b), while one of internal line $`\omega `$ is present in fig. 2-b) only. For external boson line, Dyson has shwon at adiabatic limitDyson51 ,

$`(q^2m^2)\mathrm{\Delta }__F(q^2)|_{q^2=m^2}iZ_3^{\frac{1}{2}},`$ (10)
where $`\mathrm{\Delta }__F(q^2)`$ denotes chain approximation to the exact propagator, in which the mass renormalization has been performed. This relation hold all of external $`\rho ^0,\pi ^0`$ and photon fields. Meanwhile, the renormalization of mass and wave function of internal line $`\omega `$ yields its complete propagator as follow

$`\mathrm{\Delta }_{(\omega )\mu \nu }^{(c)}(q^2)={\displaystyle \frac{ig_{\mu \nu }}{q^2m_\omega ^2+i\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (q^2)\sqrt{q^2}}}.`$ (11)
Here the dynamical width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (q^2)`$ is generated by pion loops. It can be also determined by unitarity of $`S`$-matrix.

According to the above discussion, the LSZ reducation formula (8) becomes

$`<\pi ^0(k)\gamma (q_1),out|\rho ^0(q_2),in>=if_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(c)}(q_2^2)|_{q_2^2=m_\rho ^2}ϵ^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta }q_{1\mu }ϵ_\nu ^{}q_{2\alpha }e_\beta ,`$ (12)
where the superscript “(c)” denotes non-perturbative coupling,

$`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(c)}(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{f}_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }(q^2)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(q^2)\overline{f}_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}(q^2)}{q^2m_\omega ^2+i\sqrt{q^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (q^2)}}.`$ (13)
In eq. (13), $`\overline{f}_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }(q^2)`$ and $`\overline{f}_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }(q^2)`$ denote renormalized form factors (momentum-dependent coupling), which include meson loop correction. Labeling them by a superscript “(0)” and taking $`q^2`$ to mass shell of $`\rho `$, eq. (13) is just the first equation of eq. (II). The similar discussion holds for the second equation of eq. (II). So that we finish the prove for eq. (II) in effective field theory formalism.

### II.2 Mixed propagator approach

Alternatively, there is another well-known quantum mechanics method to deal with the $`\rho \omega `$ mixing problem: the approach of mixed propagatorCB87 ; renard . This approach was developed even before discovery of QCD. The vector meson propagator is given by (Renard representation)

$`D_{\mu \nu }(q^2)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^4xe^{iq.x}0|T\{V_\mu (x)V_\nu (0)\}|0}`$ (14)
$`=`$ $`D(q^2)g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{q^2}}(D(0)D(s))q_\mu q_\nu `$
where $`sq^2`$, and the propagator function $`D(s)`$ is written in the following way

$$D(s)=\frac{1}{sW(s)}.$$
(15)
For multi-vector-meson channels, $`W(s)`$ is complex mass-square matrix with non-zero off-diagonal elements in general.

In order to define physical states measured by experiment, let us consider the single vector meson resonance channel case first. The $`D_{\mu \nu }`$ of eq. (14) is now the ordinary propagator of a vector meson. The reaction amplitude for a process by the medium of this vector meson resonance reads

$$J_1^\mu D_{\mu \nu }J_2^\nu =(J_1J_2)\frac{1}{sW(s)}$$
(16)
where $`J_1^\mu `$ and $`J_2^\nu `$ represent some currents and $`q_\mu J_{1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}^\mu =0`$. The reaction probability is

$$\sigma (s)||^2|\frac{1}{sW(s)}|^2$$
(17)
The meson resonance mass measured in the experiment is real and is determined by the location of the maximum of $`\sigma (s)`$peak in real $`s`$axis. Then the resonance mass is determined by the following equation

$$\frac{}{s}|sW(s)|^2=0$$
(18)
Consequently, the mass-square of the resonance, $`M^2`$, is determined by the solution of above equation, i.e.,

$$s=[ReW\frac{1}{4}\frac{}{s}(W^{}W+WW^{})](1\frac{}{s}ReW)^1M^2(s).$$
(19)
Now return to $`\rho ^0\omega `$ two channel case, $`W(s)`$ and hence $`M^2(s)`$ are complex and real $`2\times 2`$ matrices respectively. The mass determination equation for physical resonance states should read

$$det[sM^2(s)]=0.$$
(20)
The physical states then are the eigenvectors of the real mass-matrix $`M^2`$. Following refsCB87 ; renard  and using Breit-Wigner approximation, we have

$`W=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{\rho _I}^2i\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\rho _I}\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)& \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)\hfill & m_{\omega _I}^2i\sqrt{s}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\omega _I}& \end{array}\right)`$ (23)
where $`m_{\rho _I}`$ and $`m_{\omega _I}`$ are masses of $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ in isospin basis. Considering Im$`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }`$ is small and hence ignorableOC98 , we get

$`ReW=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_{\rho _I}^2\hfill & \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)& \\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)\hfill & m_{\omega _I}^2& \end{array}\right)`$ (26)
Then, in $`ReW/s`$, only off-diagonal elements of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }/s`$ left. Generally, for a broad class of models $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)`$ at $`(\rho ,\omega )`$resonance energy region can be determined by taking VMD-type $`\rho \omega `$ mixing Lagrangian $`_{\rho \omega }=f_{\rho \omega }\rho ^{\mu \nu }\omega _{\mu \nu }`$ ( $`V^{\mu \nu }=^\mu V^\nu ^\nu V^\mu ,V=\rho ,\omega `$). It leads to $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(s)=f_{\rho \omega }s`$ which satisfies $`\mathrm{\Pi }(s=0)_{\rho \omega }=0`$ required by generic consideration in ref.O'Connell94 . Thus, we have

$$\frac{}{s}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }=f_{\rho \omega }=\frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }}{s}|_{sm_\rho ^2}6.7\times 10^311(ReW/s)1.$$
(27)
where $`|\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }|4000MeV^2`$O'Connell94  has been used in the estimation. Furthermore, noting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega /m_\omega 1`$, we have

$`M^2=\left(\begin{array}{cc}m_{\rho _I}^2\frac{(s\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ^2)}{s}& \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }\frac{1}{2}(m_{\rho _I}^2+m_{\omega _I}^2)\frac{}{s}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }\\ \mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }\frac{1}{2}(m_{\rho _I}^2+m_{\omega _I}^2)\frac{}{s}\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }& m_{\omega _I}^2\end{array}\right)`$ (30)
where the off-diagonal elements of $`M^2`$ matrix represent the $`\rho \omega `$ mixing in the isospin basis. The physical $`\rho `$ and $`\omega `$ are eigenstates of $`M^2`$. In other words, $`M^2`$ matrix can be diagonalized by the unitary $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`C`$:

$`CM^2C^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}m_\rho ^2\hfill & 0& \\ 0\hfill & m_\omega ^2& \end{array}\right)`$ (33)
where

$`C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1\hfill & \eta & \\ \eta \hfill & 1& \end{array}\right),\eta ={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(1\frac{1}{2s}(m_\rho ^2+m_\omega ^2))}{(m_\omega ^2m_\rho ^2)}}.`$ (36)
Consequently, the solutions physical state condition of eq. (20) are follows

$`|\rho _p^0`$ $`=`$ $`|\rho _I^0\eta |\omega _I,\rho _p^0|=|\rho _p^0^{}`$
$`|\omega _p`$ $`=`$ $`|\omega _I+\eta |\rho _I^0,\omega _p|=|\omega _p^{}.`$ (37)
Under this transformation, we have

$`CWC^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}z_\rho \hfill & T& \\ T\hfill & z_\omega & \end{array}\right)`$ (40)
where $`z_\rho =m_\rho ^2im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho ,z_\omega =m_\omega ^2im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$, and $`T=\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }\eta (z_\omega z_\rho )`$ are all defined in the physical state basis. The propagator function in the physical basis $`D^P`$ reads

$`D^P(s)`$ $`=`$ $`C(sW)^1C^{}=(sCWC^{})^1`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}(sz_\rho )^1\hfill & (sz_\rho )^1T(sz_\omega )^1& \\ (sz_\omega )^1T(sz_\rho )^1\hfill & (sz_\omega )^1& \end{array}\right)`$
$``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{ccc}D_{\rho \rho }^P\hfill & D_{\rho \rho }^PTD_{\omega \omega }^P& \\ D_{\omega \omega }^PTD_{\rho \rho }^P\hfill & D_{\omega \omega }^P& \end{array}\right).`$ (46)
For $`VX`$-vertex ($`V=\rho ,\omega `$ and $`X`$ represents other particles), $`f_{VX}^F`$ denotes the corresponding form-factor, $`f_{VX}^P`$ and $`f_{VX}^0`$ denote the coupling constants in the physical basis and in the isospin basis respectively.

Since generally $`D_{\rho \omega }^P=D_{\omega \rho }^P0`$, the form factor is different from the corresponding coupling constant, i.e., $`f_{VX}^Ff_{VX}^P`$. From Fig.1, we have

$$D_{VV}^Pf_{VX}^F=D_{V\rho }^Pf_{\rho X}^P+D_{V\omega }^Pf_{\omega X}^P,$$
(47)
with

$`f_{\rho X}^P`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho X}^{(0)}\eta f_{\omega X}^{(0)}f_{\omega X}^P=f_{\omega X}^{(0)}+\eta f_{\rho \gamma }^{(0)}.`$ (48)
In terms of eqs. (43) and (48) the time-like EM pion form-factor is given, in the $`\rho \omega `$ interference region, by

$`F_\pi (s)`$ $`=`$ $`1+[f_{\rho \gamma }^PD_{\rho \rho }^Pf_{\rho \pi \pi }^F+f_{\omega \gamma }^PD_{\omega \omega }^Pf_{\omega \pi \pi }^F]`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\rho \gamma }^Pf_{\rho \pi \pi }^P}{sz_\rho }}+{\displaystyle \frac{f_{\omega \gamma }^Pf_{\omega \pi \pi }^P}{sz_\omega }}+{\displaystyle \frac{(f_{\rho \gamma }^Pf_{\omega \pi \pi }^P+f_{\omega \gamma }^Pf_{\rho \pi \pi }^P)T}{(sz_\rho )(sz_\omega )}}`$
$`=`$ $`1+(f_{\rho \gamma }^Pf_{\rho \pi \pi }^P+{\displaystyle \frac{(f_{\rho \gamma }^Pf_{\omega \pi \pi }^P+f_{\omega \gamma }^Pf_{\rho \pi \pi }^P)T}{z_\rho z_\omega }})({\displaystyle \frac{1}{sz_\rho }}+\xi e^{i\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{sz_\omega }}),`$
with

$`\xi e^{i\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}\eta {\displaystyle \frac{(\eta +\frac{1}{3})T}{z_\rho z_\omega }}][1+{\displaystyle \frac{(\eta +\frac{1}{3})T}{z_\rho z_\omega }}]^1,`$ (50)
where $`f_{\rho \gamma }^{(0)}=3f_{\omega \gamma }^{(0)}`$ and $`f_{\omega \pi \pi }^{(0)}=0`$ have been used, and $`\varphi `$ is Orsay phase. Using $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }4000MeV^2`$O'Connell94  in eq. (50), we obtain that $`\xi 0.012`$ and $`\varphi `$ is equal to about $`100^o101^o`$ as $`s`$ varies from $`m_\rho ^2`$ tp $`m_\omega ^2`$. These predictions are in good agreement with experimental dataBEMO98 ; OC98 , and hence the mixed propagator approach is legitimate to describe the $`\rho \omega `$ mixing effects in the pion EM-form factor.

Now, we study the anomalous-like $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ and $`\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ decays in terms of the mixed propagator approach. Namely, taking $`X=\pi ^0\gamma `$ in eq. (47), we have

$`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^F`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}\eta f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{m_\rho ^2m_\omega ^2+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega }}f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)},`$
$`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^F`$ $`=`$ $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}+\eta f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}+{\displaystyle \frac{T}{m_\omega ^2m_\rho ^2+im_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho }}f_{\rho \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)},`$ (51)
where eqs.(II.2) and (43) have been used. Considering $`|\eta |0.006<<1`$ and $`T\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }`$, we finally obtain eq.(II) in mixed propagator formalism.

## III Numeric result and Conclusion

The $`\omega \pi ^+\pi ^{}`$ decay suggests that the on-shell amplitude $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\rho ^2)`$ is around -4000MeV2 which is indeed very small for the most isospin conservation processes. However, for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ we can see that $`m_\rho ^2m_\omega ^2+im_\omega \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega (18624+6577i)`$MeV2 is also small due to narrow width of $`\omega `$. Taking $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\rho ^2)4000`$MeV2 and combining with eq. (2), we have $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }/f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}1.6`$ at large $`N_c`$ limit and chiral limit. Therefore, the hidden isospin breaking process $`\rho ^0\omega \pi ^0\gamma `$ indeed plays significant role in $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. In addition, $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }/f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}0.99`$ is obtained, so that the contribution from $`\rho ^0`$ exchange in $`\omega `$ decay can be omitted due to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\rho \mathrm{\Gamma }_\omega `$ and eq. (2).

For predicting branching ratio for $`\rho ^0`$ decay precisely, the precise on-shell $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing amplitude is needed. The investigation of $`\rho ^0\omega `$ mixing has been an active subjectCB87 ; BEMO98 ; OC98 ; WY00 . In ref.OC98  the on-shell mixing amplitude has been determined as $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)=[(3500\pm 300)+(300\pm 300)i]`$MeV2 in the pion form factor in the timelike region, but in this fit effect of “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling is omitted. We quote this result as $`R_1`$. Meanwhile, the ref.WY00  provided a complete theoretical study on this mixing, which included the effect of “direct” $`\omega \pi \pi `$ coupling, and is up to the next to leading order of $`N_c^1`$ expansion. The result is $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)=[(3956\pm 280)+(1697\pm 130)i]`$MeV2, and we quote this result as $`R_2`$. Then using $`B(\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma )=(4.5\pm 0.5)\times 10^4`$ and $`B(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )=(8.5\pm 0.5)\times 10^2`$ and assuming $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}=f_{\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma }`$, we obtain 888This result includes meson loop correction, since here we using $`B(\rho ^\pm \pi ^\pm \gamma )`$ and $`B(\omega \pi ^0\gamma )`$ to fit $`f_{\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma }`$ and $`f_{\omega \pi ^0\gamma }^{(0)}`$ instead of using eq. (2).

$`B(\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=\{{\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{(11.05\pm 1.84)\times 10^4\mathrm{for}R_1}{(12.25\pm 1.52)\times 10^4\mathrm{for}R_2}}`$ (52)
Here we have used $`\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\rho ^2)m_\rho ^2\mathrm{\Pi }_{\rho \omega }(m_\omega ^2)/m_\omega ^2`$. The above results strongly support the fit of the solution A in table 1 instead of the solution B. In fact, from viewpoint of experiment, the solution A is also better than the solution B (because of smaller $`\chi ^2`$ and reasonable phase difference). Therefore, we conclude that the branching ratio for $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ is

$`B(\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma )=(11.67\pm 2.00)\times 10^4.`$ (53)
Here our phenomenological estimates (eq. (52)) are kept as references instead of averaging them and experimental fit.

Finally, it is interesting to estimate the contribution of $`\omega `$ exchange in $`\rho ^0\eta \gamma `$ decay. This process itself is isospin breaking due to electromagnetic interaction. The exact isospin symmetry implies $`f_{\rho ^0\eta \gamma }^{(0)}/f_{\omega \eta \gamma }^{(0)}=3`$. Hence similar argument gives $`f_{\rho ^0\eta \gamma }/f_{\rho ^0\eta \gamma }^{(0)}1.06`$ and $`B(\rho ^0\eta \gamma )/B(\omega \eta \gamma )0.5`$. This result agrees with current experimental fits, $`B(\rho ^0\eta \gamma )=(2.4\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{+0.8}{0.9})\times 10^4`$ and $`B(\omega \eta \gamma )=(6.5\pm 1.0)\times 10^4`$PDG2000 .

To conclude, we show that a hidden effect of isospin symmetry breaking plays essential role in $`\rho ^0\pi ^0\gamma `$ decay. The transition amplitude is derived by effective field theory approach and mixed propagator approach respectively. The result yielded by two independent method is matched each other. Our result is also supported by some experimental evidences. It indicates that the current datum for this process in PDG should be corrected.


text:
# QCD Signatures of Narrow Graviton Resonances in Hadron Colliders

## I Introduction

The search for particles beyond the Standard Model is one of the key issues of the upcoming ATLAS and CMS experiments at LHC. If these particles are generated from quarks and gluons, characteristic signatures are expected from genuine QCD effects such as parton showering. As a specific example we study the narrow graviton resonances predicted by the Randall-Sundrum model . As opposed to the concept of Large Extra Dimensions , where a continuous spectrum of Kaluza-Klein states is predicted, the Randall-Sundrum model predicts a series of narrow heavy graviton resonances. Both models lead to a modification of the gravitation potential at small distances $`R`$. While in case of two large extra dimensions the precision reachable at LHC ($`R=4.5\mu `$m ) is roughly comparable to present mechanical experiments ($`R=218\mu `$m ), signatures for the Randall-Sundrum type of gravitons can only be seen in TeV-scale collider experiments.
Recently, in the context of the Randall-Sundrum model the signatures of narrow graviton resonances at TeV-scale have been studied in Ref. . Here the processes $`ggGe^+e^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}Ge^+e^{}`$ are of interest as their leptonic final states provide a clean and simple way to identify the heavy graviton resonance $`G`$. The main experimental signature for such a spin-2 graviton resonance is the characteristic angular distribution of the produced $`e^+e^{}`$ pair. As the extraction of the angular distribution is quite difficult even with high luminosity, further characteristic signatures are desirable to make conclusive statements.
One possibility of such a complementary signature is the $`p_{}`$ spectrum ($`p_{}`$ is the transverse momentum with respect to the beam direction) of the reconstructed graviton resonance $`G`$. The production mechanism is given by a characteristic mixture of $`gg`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion processes. As those processes are highly energetic, the initial-state partons will radiate off a large amount of other partons, leading to a $`p_{}`$ spectrum which is different for $`gg`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ initial states. Especially, the larger color charge of the gluon will lead to more radiation and a larger average $`p_{}`$ in the former process. So by studying the $`p_{}`$ spectrum, one can check the ratio of $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ events producing the resonance in question and compare that to the prediction of a certain model, in our case the Randall-Sundrum model.

## II Physical Subprocesses

The partonic subprocesses of interest to discover the narrow graviton resonance $`G`$ are $`ggGl^+l^{}`$ and $`q\overline{q}Gl^+l^{}`$, as depicted in Fig. 1 a,b. The relevant Standard Model background is the $`l^+l^{}`$ pair production from virtual $`Z^0`$ bosons and photons, see Fig. 1 c,d, and their interference. The interference with the narrow graviton resonance can be completely neglected since the mass of the graviton, if existent, has to lie far above the $`Z^0`$ mass.

For the cross sections (a) and (b) of the processes depicted in Fig. 1 we reproduce in accordance with Ref. :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{(a)}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N_c}}{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4s^2}{2048\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{1+10x+42x^2+64x^3+32x^4}{(sm_G^2)^2+m_G^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^2}}`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma ^{(b)}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^4s^2}{1024\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{x(1+x)(1+2x+2x^2)}{(sm_G^2)^2+m_G^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_G^2}}.`$ (2)
Here we define as in Ref.  $`x=t/s`$. We set in accordance with Ref.  $`\kappa =\sqrt{2}x_1k/(\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}m_G)`$, where $`k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.01`$ and $`x_1=3.8317`$ is the first zero of the Bessel function $`J_1(x)`$ of order 1. Higher zeros of the Bessel function $`J_1(x)`$ generate the series of heavy graviton resonances that the Randall-Sundrum model predicts. In the analysis here we will, however, restrict ourself to the first one. The total width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_G`$ of the spin-2 graviton $`G`$ with mass $`m_G`$ is determined by the sum of the following partial decay widths :

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(GV\overline{V})`$ $`=`$ $`\delta {\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2m_G^3}{80\pi }}(14r_V)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \frac{13}{12}}+{\displaystyle \frac{14}{3}}r_V+4r_V^2\right)`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Gf\overline{f})`$ $`=`$ $`N_c{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2m_G^3}{320\pi }}(14r_f)^{3/2}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8}{3}}r_f\right)`$ (5)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(Ggg)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2m_G^3}{20\pi }}`$ (6)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(G\gamma \gamma )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\kappa ^2m_G^3}{160\pi }}.`$ (7)
$`V`$ is a massive vector boson ($`V=Z^0,W^\pm `$) with mass $`m_V`$ and $`r_V=m_V^2/m_G^2`$. For identical particles $`\delta =1/2`$ and for distinguishable particles $`\delta =1`$. $`f`$ is a fermion with mass $`m_f`$ and $`N_c`$ its number of colors, if there are any, otherwise $`N_c=1`$. Furthermore, we set $`r_f=m_f^2/m_G^2`$. In case of the width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(GV\overline{V})`$ we reproduce the result of Ref. , in all other cases the ones of Ref. .

## III Event Generator Implementation

In order to study graviton production in a reasonably realistic framework, a single excited graviton $`G`$ has been introduced to the Pythia 6.1 event generator . The $`G`$ mass and the dimensionless coupling parameter $`\kappa m_G=\sqrt{2}x_1k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}`$ can be set freely. Partial decay widths are given as above, and add up to a total width used for the resonance Breit-Wigner. The production processes $`ggG`$ and $`q\overline{q}G`$ are included, with relevant angular distribution for the subsequent decays of $`G`$ to a fermion pair (while other decays currently are isotropic only). The basic process is embedded in the standard Pythia framework of initial- and final-state QCD parton showers, underlying event activity (multiple interactions and beam remnants), fragmentation to hadrons and unstable particle decays. For $`G`$ decays to lepton pairs, the most notable effect may be the initial-state radiation of gluons off the incoming quarks and gluons, that gives a $`p_{}`$ recoil to the produced $`G`$.

## IV Simulation of the characteristic $`p_{}`$ spectrum

We present as an example a simulation for the ATLAS experiment at LHC with $`E_{\mathrm{cm}}=14`$ TeV. In the following we have to investigate how well the hypothetical graviton mass can be reconstructed from the lepton pairs. A comprehensive study using the ATLFAST program  has been performed in Ref.  for $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs. Here we want to add the experimental width for $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs. For the graviton masses we use the same mass window as in Ref. , i.e 500 GeV $`<m_G<`$ 2200 GeV. As mentioned in Ref.  it will not be possible to detect gravitons with masses larger than about 2200 GeV at the ATLAS experiment in the scenario discussed here. On the other hand, already existing bounds limit the minimum graviton mass to $`m_G>`$ 500 GeV . It should be noted that the choice for the coupling constant lies on the lower edge, in fact the allowed region favors rather $`k/\overline{M}_{\mathrm{Pl}}=0.1`$ than 0.01  leading to a cross section which would be two order of magnitudes larger than the one we have assumed here, but then the graviton resonances would be no longer narrow. In this sense our estimates are conservative. As we are only interested in the principle effect we use here an approximative parameterization for the resolution of the ATLAS detector. For the electrons the following formula is used (see Ref.  pp. 114-115):

$$\left(\frac{\sigma (E)}{E}\right)_{\mathrm{electrons}}^2\frac{(0.1)^2\mathrm{GeV}}{E}+(0.005)^2.$$
(8)
For the the muons, the combined ATLAS detector resolution for $`p_{}`$ measurement, using both the muon spectrometer and the inner tracking detectors, is about $`2\%`$ below $`p_{}=100`$ GeV, about $`4\%`$ at 300 GeV and about 7% at 1000 GeV (see Ref.  p. 242).

Furthermore, in order to have realistic trigger conditions, we take $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs into account only if both of them have a pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.5`$. Both of them must in addition have a transverse energy larger than 20 GeV, or one of the two electrons has to have an $`E_{}`$ of at least 30 GeV (see Ref.  p. 392). For the muon pairs we adopt corresponding conditions: both of them must have a pseudorapidity $`|\eta |<2.4`$, and both must have a transverse momentum $`p_{}`$ larger than 6 GeV or one of them must have a $`p_{}`$ of at least 20 GeV (see Ref.  p. 392). The number of muon-pair events is thus originally larger than the number of electron-pair events. The limited detector resolution leads to a smearing of the reconstructed graviton mass which can be fitted by a Gaussian distribution. The width of this Gaussian distribution defines the experimental width $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$. Fig. 2 shows the experimental graviton-mass resolution $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ reconstructed from $`e^+e^{}`$ and $`\mu ^+\mu ^{}`$ pairs using the parameterizations given above. The values presented here for the $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs agree roughly with the ones shown in Ref.  using the ATLFAST routine.

It has to be stated that in all cases the experimental width exceeds by far the physical width given by the lifetime of the graviton resonance . But this is inessential for the forthcoming simulations as the results depend only weakly on the precise value of the experimental width and, furthermore, in this paper we only intend to show the principal effect. As a result, it is seen that the resolution for the electrons is nearly an order of magnitude better than for the muons, therefore, in the following we will concentrate ourselves on the electrons only. Only in cases where the statistical error will overwhelm the experimental resolution the muons might provide additional evidence. As a next step we simulate the $`p_{}`$ spectrum for the two hypothetical graviton masses $`m_G=500`$ GeV and $`m_G=2000`$ GeV. For the simulations we use the width from Fig. 2. The $`p_{}`$ distribution is created from initial-state parton showering only. The final-state parton shower complicates the situation only through photon bremsstrahlung. We have checked that these latter effects are small.
Fig. 3 shows the $`p_{}`$ spectrum for $`m_G=500\mathrm{GeV}`$ (top) and $`m_G=2000\mathrm{GeV}`$ (bottom) split in the contributions $`ggGe^+e^{}`$, $`q\overline{q}Ge^+e^{}`$ and the Standard Model background $`q\overline{q}Z/\gamma e^+e^{}`$. To reduce the Standard Model background a window of $`3\times \mathrm{\Gamma }_m`$ around the resonance maximum is taken. It is seen that for smaller resonance masses the contribution from gg fusion becomes dominant, but in both cases the maximum of the $`p_{}`$ spectrum for the processes with a $`q\overline{q}`$ initial state (including the SM background) lies at considerable smaller values than the one for the gg-fusion process. Therefore, the characteristic shape of the $`p_{}`$ spectrum allows to draw conclusions about the ratio of $`q\overline{q}`$ versus $`gg`$-processes and provides a cross check whether the underlying theoretical model is correct.

To quantify this we regard in Fig. 4 the average $`p_{}`$, i.e. $`\sqrt{p_{}^2}`$. The triangles show the total average $`p_{}`$, where all processes including the SM background contribute. For the errors we use the parameterization in Eq. 8 for the electrons plus a statistical error given by the root of the number of events. For the simulation we assume a luminosity of $`=100\mathrm{fb}^1`$. This is the high luminosity planned for the ATLAS detector . One sees that even for the highest mass values for the graviton mass, i.e. $`m_G=2200\mathrm{GeV}`$ the pure $`q\overline{q}`$ fusion hypothesis lies outside the 1 $`\sigma `$ range of the combined $`q\overline{q}`$ and $`gg`$ fusion hypothesis. Furthermore, one observes that for values smaller than $`m_G=1200\mathrm{GeV}`$ the gg fusion is so dominant that the total average $`p_{}`$ nearly coincides with the one of gg fusion only. The average $`p_{}`$ of the Standard Model background alone lies a bit above the $`q\overline{q}G`$ processes. The difference between the two $`q\overline{q}`$-induced processes mainly comes from the $`q\overline{q}Z/\gamma `$ parton shower being matched to first order matrix elements at large $`p_{}`$ . A careful study of the $`p_{}`$ spectrum as a whole will be very helpful to distinguish possible Randall-Sundrum graviton resonances from pure $`q\overline{q}`$ based exotic resonances like a $`Z^{}`$.
The characteristic features of the $`p_{}`$ spectrum may also be at help to enhance the angular distribution of the $`ggGe^+e^{}`$ channel relative to the $`q\overline{q}Ge^+e^{}`$ channel by cutting out $`e^+e^{}`$ pairs with low $`p_{}`$. The full information content is available in the doubly differential distribution of $`p_{}`$ and $`e^+e^{}`$ decay angle together (Eq. LABEL:angle). A complete analysis of this issue, e.g. using a likelihood analysis is, however, beyond the scope of this article.

## V Matrix elements versus showering formalism

The $`p_{}`$ spectrum described in the previous chapter has been generated by the parton showering formalism. As this is only an approximation, it is important to check how well it models the description by a full matrix element calculation. For this purpose we consider the next to leading order graviton production matrix elements.

Fig. 5 shows the NLO contributions to graviton production for the processes $`g(k_1)+g(k_2)g(k_j)+G`$ and $`q(k_1)+\overline{q}(k_2)g(k_j)+G`$. For the Mandelstam variables we define $`s=(k_1+k_2)^2`$, $`t=(k_1k_j)^2`$, and $`u=(k_2k_j)^2`$, see Fig. 6, where $`k_j`$ denotes the momentum of the outgoing parton jet. Then we have the relation $`m_G^2=s+t+u`$. In the following we use the shorthand notation $`k=k_1+k_2`$. The gluon polarization tensor is noted by $`ϵ^{A\rho }(k_j)`$ and the graviton polarization tensor by $`ϵ^{\mu \nu }(k_{gr})`$, where $`k_{gr}=kk_j`$ is the graviton’s four-momentum. For the processes $`q\overline{q}Gg`$ the amplitude reads:

Mqq¯Gg=i2gκv¯(k2)tA[1tγμ(

k

/
1

k

/
j)γρk2ν\displaystyle M_{q\bar{q}\to Gg}=\frac{i}{2}g\kappa\bar{v}(k_{2})t^{A}\Bigg{[}\frac{1}{t}\gamma_{\mu}(\parbox[b]{6.00006pt}{$k$}\parbox[b]{5.50003pt}{ \raisebox{-0.86108pt}{$/$}}_{1}-\parbox[b]{6.00006pt}{$k$}\parbox[b]{5.50003pt}{ \raisebox{-0.86108pt}{$/$}}_{j})\gamma_{\rho}k_{2\nu} (9)
+1uγρ(

k

/
2

k

/
j)γμk1ν2sγσ(kkjgμρgνσ\displaystyle\qquad+\frac{1}{u}\gamma_{\rho}(\parbox[b]{6.00006pt}{$k$}\parbox[b]{5.50003pt}{ \raisebox{-0.86108pt}{$/$}}_{2}-\parbox[b]{6.00006pt}{$k$}\parbox[b]{5.50003pt}{ \raisebox{-0.86108pt}{$/$}}_{j})\gamma_{\mu}k_{1\nu}-\frac{2}{s}\gamma^{\sigma}\Bigg{(}k\cdot k_{j}g_{\mu\rho}g_{\nu\sigma} (10)
$`+g_{\rho \sigma }k_{j\mu }k_\nu g_{\mu \sigma }k_{j\nu }k_\rho g_{\mu \rho }k_{j\sigma }k_\nu )`$ (11)
$`+g_{\mu \rho }\gamma _\nu ]u(k_1)ϵ^{A\rho }(k_j)ϵ^{\mu \nu }(k_{gr}).`$ (12)
Here we reproduce the results of Ref. . For the differential cross section we obtain in agreement with Ref. :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{q\overline{q}Gg}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\kappa ^2}{64s}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{N_c^2}}[4{\displaystyle \frac{t^2+u^2}{s^2}}+9{\displaystyle \frac{t+u}{s}}`$ (15)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{t^2}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u^2}{t}}\right)+3\left(4+{\displaystyle \frac{t}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{u}{t}}\right)`$
$`+4s({\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}})+{\displaystyle \frac{2s^2}{tu}}]`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\alpha _s\kappa ^2}{64s^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{N_c^21}{N_c^2}}F(s,t,u)`$ (16)
The cross sections for the processes $`qgqG`$ and $`\overline{q}g\overline{q}G`$ can be obtained from this by a simple rotation of the Mandelstam variables:

$$\frac{d\sigma _{qgGq}}{dt}=\frac{d\sigma _{\overline{q}gG\overline{q}}}{dt}=\frac{\alpha _s\kappa ^2}{64s^2N_c}F(t,s,u).$$
(17)
For the amplitude of the process $`ggGg`$ one gets using gauge invariance (where the gauge dependent terms of the inner gluon propagator vanish identically):

$`M_{ggGg}={\displaystyle \frac{\kappa g}{2}}f^{ABC}\{{\displaystyle \frac{1}{t}}G_{\alpha \beta }^\sigma (k_j,k_1,k_1k_j)`$ (18)
$`\times [k_2(k_1k_j)C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }+D_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }(k_2,k_1k_j)]`$ (19)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{u}}G_{\rho \alpha }^\sigma (k_2,k_j,k_2k_j)`$ (20)
$`\times [k_1(k_2k_j)C_{\mu \nu ,\beta \sigma }+D_{\mu \nu ,\beta \sigma }(k_1,k_2k_j)]`$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{s}}G_{\beta \rho }^\sigma (k_1,k_2,k_1+k_2)`$ (22)
$`\times [k_j(k_1+k_2)C_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \sigma }+D_{\mu \nu ,\alpha \sigma }(k_j,k_1+k_2)]`$ (23)
$`+[C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \beta }(k_2k_1)_\alpha +C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \alpha }(k_jk_2)_\beta `$ (24)
$`+C_{\mu \nu ,\beta \alpha }(k_1+k_j)_\rho +F_{\mu \nu ,\rho \beta \alpha }(k_2,k_1,k_j)]\}`$ (25)
$`\times ϵ^{\alpha A}(k_j)ϵ^{\beta B}(k_1)ϵ^{\rho C}(k_2)ϵ^{\mu \nu }(k_{gr}).`$ (26)
Here the following definitions are used:

$`C_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }`$ $`=`$ $`2g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\nu \rho }`$ (27)
$`D_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma }(k_1,k_2)`$ $`=`$ $`2(g_{\mu \sigma }k_{1\nu }k_{2\rho }+g_{\mu \rho }k_{1\sigma }k_{2\nu }`$ (29)
$`g_{\rho \sigma }k_{1\mu }k_{2\nu })`$
$`F_{\mu \nu ,\rho \sigma \lambda }(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ $`=`$ $`2(g_{\mu \lambda }g_{\rho \sigma }(k_1k_2)_\nu `$ (32)
$`+g_{\mu \rho }g_{\sigma \lambda }(k_2k_3)_\nu `$
$`+g_{\mu \sigma }g_{\lambda \rho }(k_3k_1)_\nu )`$
$`G_{\rho \sigma \lambda }(k_1,k_2,k_3)`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\rho \sigma }(k_1k_2)_\lambda +g_{\sigma \lambda }(k_2k_3)_\rho `$ (34)
$`+g_{\lambda \rho }(k_3k_1)_\sigma .`$
Furthermore, for the spin-sums over the polarization tensors one gets:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{5}{}}}ϵ_{\mu \nu }^s(k_g)ϵ_{\rho \sigma }^s(k_g)`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\mu \rho }\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\nu \sigma }+\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\mu \sigma }\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\nu \rho }{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\rho \sigma }`$ (35)
$`\stackrel{~}{\eta }_{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`g_{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{k_{g\mu }k_{g\mu }}{m_G^2}}`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{s=1}{\overset{3}{}}}ϵ_\mu ^{sA}(k_i)ϵ_\nu ^{sB}(k_i)`$ $`=`$ $`\delta ^{AB}\left(g_{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{k_{i\mu }n_{i\nu }+k_{i\nu }n_{i\mu }}{k_in_i}}\right)`$ (37)
$`n_in_i`$ $`=`$ $`0;(i=1,2,j).`$ (38)
For the partonic cross section for the process $`ggGg`$ we obtain then in agreement with Ref. :

$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\sigma _{ggGg}}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N_c\kappa ^2\alpha _s}{4s^2(N_c^21)}}[4(s+t+u)`$ (40)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(s^2+t^2+u^2+st+su+tu)^2}{stu}}],`$
which shows the symmetry under the exchange of all three gluons with each other. These cross sections are implemented into the event generator Pythia 6.1 as well. Next we consider the ratio of the NLO matrix elements versus the LO matrix elements plus parton showering. For $`p_{}`$ values larger than $`100\mathrm{GeV}`$ where soft effects and NNLO contributions are negligible this ratio should actually become equal to one in a certain range. Below $`100\mathrm{GeV}`$ a resummation procedure would have to be applied to tame the $`p_{}0`$ divergence of the NLO matrix elements, as is already implicit in the shower formalism. The situation is slightly complicated by the fact that the basic subprocesses that initiate the parton showering processes are only $`q\overline{q}G`$ and $`ggG`$, see Fig. 1, whereas the NLO matrix elements contain processes with $`qg`$ and $`\overline{q}g`$ initial parton states as well.

The shower branchings effectively induce such initial states, see Fig. 7, so there is no fundamental conflict, but more a practical issue of comparing different classification schemes. In general, one would have to share the $`qg/\overline{q}g`$ NLO contributions between the $`q\overline{q}`$ and the $`gg`$ shower processes.

We note however, that a $`qgqG`$ graph with a $`ggG`$ vertex (Fig. 7b) would receive contributions from t-channel gluon exchange, while the same graph with a $`q\overline{q}G`$ vertex (Fig. 7a) would instead contain u-channel quark exchange. The fact that the $`qgqG`$ cross section is strongly peaked at small $`t`$, and not at small $`u`$, indicates that $`qgqG`$ predominantly contributes to the $`ggG`$ graph and only little to $`q\overline{q}G`$. Fig. 8 shows the ratio $`\sigma (q\overline{q}Gg)/\sigma (q\overline{q}G+PS)`$ versus $`p_{}`$. It is seen that for $`p_{}`$ lower than $`400`$ GeV we find a good agreement between NLO matrix elements and the LO+parton shower, as the ratio here is nearly equal to one, as predicted by the reasoning above.

Fig. 9 shows that it is also reasonable to assign the $`qg/\overline{q}g`$ mixed initial states to the $`ggG`$ plus shower processes: If we only consider the ratio $`\sigma (ggGg)/\sigma (ggG+PS)`$ one sees that in the range 100 GeV $`<p_{}<`$ 400 GeV the matrix elements account for only 50% of the whole cross section coming from parton showering at some values of $`p_{}`$. If one adds the quark-gluon matrix elements, however, the ratio is nearly equal to one up to 600 GeV. Therefore we find that the parton showering formalism is in good agreement with the cross section given by NLO matrix elements in the $`p_{}`$ range between 100 GeV and 400 GeV. Below 100 GeV the shower formalism should give a trustworthy $`p_{}`$ spectrum. Then the range we need for the analysis of the narrow graviton resonances is covered, see Fig. 4.

## VI Summary

The $`p_{}`$ spectrum is a supportive signature for the detection of narrow graviton resonances at LHC. It gives additional hints on the underlying production processes and may help to verify or to exclude certain scenarios such as the Randall-Sundrum model, because it is sensitive to a characteristic mixture of $`gg`$ and $`q\overline{q}`$ processes in graviton production unique for the corresponding model. Furthermore, we have shown that the parton showering formalism at TeV collider energies still gives a correct approximation of the predictions of matrix element calculations, so that the approximations in the parton showering formalism are justified also in this kind of processes yet experimentally untested.