text:
# The non-abelian Born-Infeld action at order 𝐹⁶

## 1 Introduction

Consider a flat D-brane in type II string theory. The bosonic massless degrees of freedom of an open string ending on the D-brane are a $`U\left(1\right)`$ gauge field, associated to excitations of the string longitudinal to the brane, and neutral scalar fields, associated to transverse excitations of the brane. The effective action for these massless degrees of freedom for slowly varying field strengths is known up to all orders in the string length $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$. It is the Born-Infeld action 222The Dp-brane tension we denote $`T_p`$, and $`\alpha \{0,1,\mathrm{},p\}`$. We choose the static gauge and we leave out the transverse scalars for reasons to be explained below.:

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`T_p{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma \sqrt{det(\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+2\pi \alpha ^{}F_\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta })}}.`$ (1)
Expanding this action in the field strength, we obtain a Maxwell action with higher order corrections in $`\alpha ^{}F`$.

When $`N`$ D-branes coincide, the massless degrees of freedom of open strings beginning and ending on them are a $`U\left(N\right)`$ gauge field, and a number of scalar fields in the adjoint of the gauge group. The extra degrees of freedom come from strings stretching from one D-brane to another that become massless when these D-branes coincide. A problem that seems to appear naturally by analogy with the abelian case, is to write down the effective action for these massless degrees of freedom, for slowly varying field strengths. In fact, we know the first terms of such a non-abelian Born-Infeld (NBI) action exactly. From string scattering amplitudes  and a three-loop betafunction calculation , we know that the expansion of the NBI lagrangian in powers of the field strengths begins with 333We put $`2\pi \alpha ^{}=1`$ from now on, ignore the overall factor $`T_p`$, and an additive constant.:

$``$ $`=`$ $`Tr({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _1}`$ (2)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}F^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F^{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\alpha _4\alpha _1}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}F^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _4\alpha _1}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}}F^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F^{\beta _1\beta _2}F_{\beta _2\beta _1}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}}F^{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\beta _1\beta _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F_{\beta _2\beta _1}`$
$`+𝒪\left(F^6\right)).`$
Through this order, this coincides with the expansion of the symmetrized trace action :

$`𝒮`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{p+1}\sigma Str\left(det\sqrt{\delta _\alpha {}_{}{}^{\beta }+F_\alpha ^\beta }\right)},`$ (3)
where the prescription is to formally expand the square root and the determinant in $`F`$ first, then to symmetrize over all orderings of the field strength factors, and finally to perform the trace.

There is some ambiguity in the expression of the NBI action in terms of field strengths and their covariant derivatives, since $`[D_\alpha ,D_\beta ]F_{\gamma \delta }=i[F_{\alpha \beta },F_{\gamma \delta }]`$. One could rewrite expression (2) by assembling the second with the third term (and the fourth with the fifth) at the cost of introducing extra $`[D,D]FFF`$ terms. The all order proof  of the symmetric trace formula is only claimed to be valid up to this type of terms, and therefore pertains only to the sum of the coefficients of the second and third terms (and likewise for the fourth and fifth), which in fact also follows from specialising to the abelian case. Nevertheless it is remarkable that, to fourth order, the symmetric trace gives the complete expression for the superstring (though not for the bosonic string), and thus it deserves to be investigated in detail at higher orders. In this paper, we will embed the symmetric trace hypothesis into a more general action. Since we are approximating the NBI at string tree level, we do keep the restriction of considering only an overall trace in the fundamental over the gauge group factors. Expanding for ‘slowly varying field strengths’ is admittedly ambiguous, and an unambiguous order would add the number of $`F`$’s to twice the number of $`D`$’s. We will not include the most general possibility, but limit ourselves to a subset adapted to the exploratory program that we propose in the next section: all terms where the covariant derivatives occur in antisymmetric combinations, and can therefore be written purely in terms of the field strengths, are included in our analysis, but symmetric derivative combinations are not. In other words, we adopt here the definition that acceleration terms are expressed as symmetrized products of covariant derivatives.

A direct calculation of the $`F^6`$ terms would imply the study of a 6-gluon open string amplitude or a 5-loop $`\beta `$-function. Both are technically very involved. In the next we will develop a simpler approach which will allow us to determine the $`F^6`$ term to a large extent.

## 2 Wrapped D-branes and the NBI action

### Magnetic field strengths on tori

In this section, we map out our testing ground for any proposal for the NBI action. Consider $`N`$ coinciding D$`2n`$-branes, wrapped around a $`T^{2n}`$ torus. Switch on constant magnetic fields in the Cartan subalgebra (CSA) of the $`U\left(N\right)`$ gauge group. These correspond to embedded D-branes of lower dimension. Choose the magnetic fields to be blockdiagonal in the Lorentz indices, for simplicity. The plan  is now to compare the spectrum for small fluctuations around this background as predicted by string theory, with the spectrum predicted by the proposed non-abelian Born-Infeld. Since we only want to consider the (originally) massless degrees of freedom of the open string, we decouple the massive modes by sending $`\alpha ^{}0`$. To maintain the relevance of the non-linear corrections to Yang-Mills theory prescribed by the NBI, we crank up the magnetic field to keep $`\alpha ^{}F`$ constant.

### Perturbative string theory spectrum

To write down the spectrum for the low-lying modes predicted by perturbative string theory, we need some notation. Suppose we restrict to the situation in which we have only 2 D$`2n`$-branes 444We will do this throughout this paper. The rationale is that perturbative string theory as well as the linear analysis we perform is only sensitive to the interactions between each pair of D-branes .. Since the magnetic background is in a CSA, we can diagonalize it, and associate a magnetic field strength to each of the two branes, $`_{2i1,2i}^{\left(1\right)}`$ and $`_{2i1,2i}^{\left(2\right)}`$. We chose the background to be blockdiagonal in the Lorentz indices. T-dualizing along the 2, 4, …, $`2n`$ directions, we end up with two D$`n`$-branes at angles given by:

$$\mathrm{tan}\gamma _i^{\left(n\right)}=_{2i1,2i}^{\left(n\right)}.$$
(4)
Then the modes of the open string connecting the two D$`n`$-branes, which correspond to the off-diagonal gauge field modes in the directions $`2k1,2k`$, $`k\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$, have a spectrum 555The modes of the scalar fields and the fermions have a similar spectrum, and we do not expect them to provide any additional information  .:

$`M_k^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left(2m_i+1\right)ϵ_i2ϵ_k,`$ (5)
$`ϵ_i`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _i^{\left(1\right)}\gamma _i^{\left(2\right)}.`$ (6)
The details of how to compute this spectrum can be found in  and some handy formulas are in .

### Yang-Mills analysis

To gain some intuition for how this spectrum comes about and to prepare for the treatment in the case of the effective action, we take a look at the Yang-Mills approximation to the problem. Consider then the Yang-Mills truncation of the non-abelian Born-Infeld action. We can study the same background as before, and determine the spectrum of the fluctuations around the background in this approximation. This was done in full detail in  . The result is:

$$M_k^2=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left\{\left(2m_i+1\right)\left(_{2i1,2i}^{\left(1\right)}_{2i1,2i}^{\left(2\right)}\right)\right\}2\left(_{2k1,2k}^{\left(1\right)}_{2k1,2k}^{\left(2\right)}\right)$$
(7)
where for convenience, we chose $`_{2i1,2i}^{\left(1\right)}>_{2i1,2i}^{\left(2\right)}`$. It is clear that for small field strengths the string spectrum (5) reduces to the Yang-Mills spectrum (7), as expected.

The Yang-Mills spectrum can be argued for as follows. An endpoint of a string ending on one of these D-branes behaves as an electric charge in a magnetic field. The corresponding Landau problem has a harmonic oscillator spectrum with frequency proportional to the magnetic field. The other endpoint of the string acts as a particle with the opposite charge. This makes intuitive the fact that for the global motion of the string, the difference between the field strengths on the two branes acts as spacing of the energy levels. The zero-point energy, moreover, can be attributed to a Zeeman splitting of the energy levels due to the fact that different combinations of the gauge field in directions $`2k1,2k`$ have spin $`\pm 1`$ under the $`SO\left(2\right)`$ associated to these directions.

### String theory as rescaled YM

String theory adds a non-linearity to this spectrum that can for instance be intuitively understood in the T-dual picture, where magnetic fields are interchanged for rotated branes. (See  and  for instance.) For our purposes, the important observation is that the string spectrum is merely a rescaled Yang-Mills spectrum. Denoting

$`f_i^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_{2i1,2i}^{\left(1\right)}+_{2i1,2i}^{\left(2\right)}\right),`$ (8)
$`f_i^3={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left(_{2i1,2i}^{\left(1\right)}_{2i1,2i}^{\left(2\right)}\right),`$ (9)
the spectrum is rescaled by a factor

$`\alpha _i^2{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_i}{2f_i^3}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{arctan}\left(\frac{2f_i^3}{1+\left(f_i^0\right)^2\left(f_i^3\right)^2}\right)}{2f_i^3}}`$ (10)
for field strength fluctuations in directions $`2i1,2i`$.

A clearcut question is then, whether a proposal for the NBI action reproduces this rescaled Yang-Mills spectrum predicted by perturbative string theory. This was investigated in detail for the Str-prescription in  (expanding on the initial explorations in  and ). For the simplest case, on $`T^2`$, the symmetrized trace prescription yielded a spectrum with the same structure as the Yang-Mills spectrum, but with incorrect spacings. The disagreement shows up from third order on, confirming the veracity of the $`F^2`$ and $`F^4`$ terms. This clearly demonstrates that the Str-prescription is too crude an approximation to the NBI to yield the correct mass spectrum on our testing ground. For $`T^4`$, the situation remained unclear since the complete spectrum predicted by the Str-action remained undetermined. For BPS configurations on $`T^4`$, the Str-action reproduces precisely the right spectrum, but for other settings, it seems highly unlikely that the Str-prescription would lead to the correct results. On $`T^6`$, the Str would probably not yield the right spectrum even for BPS configurations .

The spectrum as predicted by string theory is a rescaled Yang-Mills spectrum, compare equations (5) and (7). Therefore, we will assume that the action relevant for this physical situation, should yield a rescaled Yang-Mills action for the fluctuations, meaning that it can be brought back to a Yang-Mills action by a suitable coordinate transformation. This is certainly the simplest and perhaps the most natural way to reproduce the desired string theory results. In these circumstances it seems less natural to allow in the Lagrangian terms containing derivatives that cannot be written as combinations of field strengths. Not in the least, they would make it much more difficult in practice to obtain results for the spectrum, since one would be trying to diagonalize higher order operators. As indicated before, to obtain this rescaled Yang-Mills action we do include terms to the action corresponding to all possible orderings and Lorentz contractions of field strengths. There might be an a posteriori justification for this approach, if one could prove that for the fluctuation eigenfunctions – they can explicitly be written down in terms of theta-functions as in  – other kinds of derivative terms are suppressed.

From the formula for the rescaling factor, we expect only terms in the lagrangian with an even number of field strengths to contribute in our backgrounds. For this reason, we do not consider terms with an odd number of field strengths.

### BPS conditions

As already pointed out in , the translation of the BPS conditions in string theory in terms of the background field strength in the effective action might provide an additional handle on the NBI action. Concretely, in section 6 we will investigate what constraints on the NBI follow from the demand that self-dual configurations on $`T^4`$ should solve the equations of motion.

These constraints on the action are a priori independent from the ones obtained from the analysis along the line discussed in the previous subsection. They turn out to provide an independent check on some of the results obtained with the rescaled YM program, and also to give additional constraints on the NBI action.

## 3  The NBI at order $`F^4`$

We start by carrying out the program proposed above at the first non-trivial level, the $`F^4`$ terms in the non-abelian Born-Infeld. This will serve to illustrate the method we use in a simple setting. Moreover, it will turn out that the straightforward spectral analysis, under the assumptions we make, is able to replace a four point function computation in open string theory, or a three-loop beta-function computation in a non-linear $`\sigma `$-model approach, demonstrating the power of our method.

The most general lagrangian we can write down under the stated restrictions (see page 1, 1, 2) is then:

$``$ $`=`$ $`Tr(`$
$`a_1^2F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}`$
$`+a_1^4F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F^{\alpha _4\alpha _1}+a_2^4F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F^{\alpha _4\alpha _1}`$
$`+a_1^{2,2}F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F^{\beta _2\beta _1}+a_2^{2,2}F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F^{\beta _2\beta _1}).`$
At this low order, it is easy to check that these are indeed the only linearly independent terms. At higher order the analysis becomes untransparant. In section 4, we will therefore introduce a diagrammatic representation for these terms.

The symmetric trace prescription would relate the coefficients in equation (LABEL:action24) by $`a_2^4=2a_1^4=4a_1^{2,2}=8a_2^{2,2}`$ and the determinant formula sets this equal to $`\frac{a_1^2}{3}`$. Let us see how this result comes about by imposing the correspondence of the spectrum with equation(7) with the rescaling factor (10). First of all, we demand that the abelian action be reproduced if we restrict to a $`U\left(1\right)`$ subgroup. The 3 constraints this yields on the coeficients are easy to determine and they are listed in appendix C equation (39). Next, we determine the action quadratic in off-diagonal gauge field fluctuations, in a background blockdiagonal in the Lorentz indices. We restrict to a $`U\left(2\right)`$ subgroup since we always work with 2 branes only. The action for the quadratic fluctuations in this background is given in appendix D equations (48) and (49), for second and fourth order respectively. Its structure is as follows:

$`^{(2,4)}`$ $`=`$ $`c_i^{\mathrm{kin}}(f,a)\left(\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2\right)`$ (12)
$`c_i(f,a)\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}c_{ij}(f,a){\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}(\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+`$
$`\text{ }\delta _1F_{2i,2j1}^{\left(a\right)})^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2)`$
$`+c_{ij}^{\mathrm{nym}}(f,a)\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\delta _1F_{2j1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)`$
$`2c_i^{\mathrm{quad}}(f,a)\delta _2F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(3\right)}f_i^3,`$
where (see appendix D) in $`c(.,.)`$-coefficients $`f`$ represent the background field strength values, $`a`$ stands for the coefficients $`a_n^k`$ of equation (LABEL:action24),

$`\delta _1F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`D_\alpha \delta A_\beta D_\beta \delta A_\alpha ,`$ (13)
$`\delta _2F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`i[\delta A_\alpha ,\delta A_\beta ],`$ (14)
$`D_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\alpha +i[A_\alpha ,.],`$ (15)
and the superscript $`\left(a\right)`$ runs over two orthogonal non-CSA $`SU\left(2\right)`$ components.

The different lines are treated as follows:

* The first line is the kinetic term. The first step in the comparison with the Yang-Mills action is a rescaling of the fluctuations of the gauge potentials such that the kinetic term has the standard normalisation:

$`\delta A_n`$ $`=`$ $`b_i^1\delta a_n\text{ for }n\{2i1,2i\},`$ (16)
$`c_i^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ $`=`$ $`b_i^2.`$ (17)
* The second line represents the deformation energy of the modes in directions $`2i1,2i`$. By a rescaling of the space coordinates,

$`X_n`$ $`=`$ $`b_i\gamma _ix_n\text{ for }n\{2i1,2i\},`$ (18)
$`c_i`$ $`=`$ $`\gamma _i^2b_i^4,`$ (19)
it is brought to the standard Yang-Mills form with a rescaled background potential

$$a_n=b_i\gamma _iA_n\text{ for }n\{2i1,2i\}.$$
(20)
* In the third line, the rescalings above destroy the Yang-Mills structure unless, when $`c_{ij}0`$, we have that $`\gamma _i=\gamma _j\left(=\gamma \right)`$. This being granted, the overall factor agrees with the Yang-Mills value provided

$$c_{ij}=b_i^2b_j^2\gamma ^2.$$
(21)
* The fourth line is absent from the Yang-Mills action. In accordance with our assumptions we put their coefficients $`c_{ij}^{\mathrm{nym}}`$ to zero.
* The fifth line contains the terms linear in the second order fluctuation $`\delta _2F_{\mu \nu }=[\delta A_\mu ,\delta A_\nu ]`$. They have to follow the same scaling as the second line, but in fact this is not an independent condition. If the Yang-Mills structure of the third line is imposed, this follows from the fact that fluctuations of the background configuration that are gauge transformations leave the action unchanged.
* Additional terms arise, with the structure $`\delta _1F_{2j,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\delta _1F_{2i1,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\delta _1F_{2j1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\delta _1F_{2i1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}.`$ Partial integration can be combined with the Lie-algebraic structure of these terms to absorb them into the second, fourth and fifth lines.

Summarising: the non-Yang-Mills terms have to be put to zero, and then $`c_i\left(c_i^{\mathrm{kin}}\right)^2=\gamma ^2`$should be independent of $`i`$, and $`c_i\left(c_i^{\mathrm{kin}}\right)^1`$should equal the required scaling factor $`\alpha _i^2`$ of equation (10). These demands uniquely fix (after normalizing $`a_1^2=1/4`$) all coefficients in the action (LABEL:action24):

$`a_1^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}},`$ (22)
$`a_2^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},`$ (23)
$`a_1^{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{48}},`$ (24)
$`a_2^{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{96}},`$ (25)
which matches the action, eq. (2), predicted by the computation of scattering amplitudes, a betafunction calculation, and the symmetric trace prescription.

## 4 Group theory and contractions

### Diagrams

The implementation of our program at order 4 in the previous section starts from the most general action consisting of terms that could be written in terms of field strengths alone. This action is easy to write down in low orders, but at higher order, a more systematic approach is called for. In this section we will describe an attempt to bring some systematics into the classification of the different terms at order 2,4, and 6 by using permutation group theory. The explicit examples will be taken from order 6, and we will also give results at order 4, but the scheme carries over to all orders.

Let us consider some typical terms in the action at order 6:

$`Tr\left(F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F^{\alpha _4\alpha _1}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F^{\beta _2\beta _1}\right)\mathrm{and}`$ (26)
$`Tr\left(F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F^{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F^{\alpha _4\alpha _1}F^{\beta _2\beta _1}\right).`$ (27)
The interplay between the Lorentz index contractions and the group theory trace can be encoded in different ways. A pictorial way is to associate a diagram to each such term, by drawing points on the corners of a regular hexagon, indicating the position of the $`F`$-factors in the trace, and lines (with arrows, which will however soon be dropped) connecting the different points, indicating the Lorentz contractions. The terms given in equations (26-27) are then represented by figure 1,

where the left most $`F`$ in the trace is represented by the upper left corner of the hexagon.

An alternative description, geared towards the permutation group considerations that follow, goes as follows. Label the first index on the 6 field strengths from $`1`$ to $`6`$. Then the sequence of indices in the second position is a permutation of the first index. We will denote this permutation $`i(.)`$, and use it to label the diagram. The permutations corresponding to (26-27) are $`\left(1234\right)\left(56\right)`$ and $`\left(1425\right)\left(36\right)`$ in a cycle notation666i.e., for the second example, $`i(5)=1,i(1)=4,i(4)=2`$ etc.. Obviously, each term at order 6 can be represented by one (or more) of the $`6!=720`$ possible permutations.

### Conjugacy classes

The complex linear combinations of diagrams are taken as a representation space for the permutation group of 6 elements. The action of $`S_6`$ on this representation space is by conjugation, as we now explain. The action of the permutation group consists of reshuffling the vertices of the diagrams, which is the same as reshuffling F’s in the trace. The action of a permutation $`g`$ on the vertices becomes, after relabeling:

$`g\left(F_{1,i\left(1\right)}\mathrm{}F_{6,i\left(6\right)}\right)`$ $``$ $`F_{g^1\left(1\right),i\left(g^1\left(1\right)\right)}\mathrm{}F_{g^1\left(6\right),i\left(g^1\left(6\right)\right)}`$ (28)
$`=`$ $`F_{1,gig^1\left(1\right)}\mathrm{}F_{6,gig^1\left(6\right)}.`$ (29)
Evidently, the set of diagrams within one conjugation class is invariant under this action. As far as this representation of the permutation group on the diagrams is concerned, we can study each conjugation class separately. Each of these representations separately is in fact a (transitive) representation by permutation of diagrams.

The arrows on the diagrams can be dropped. Two diagrams that are the same up to the orientation of a loop are equivalent 777One can easily see that this equivalence relation is compatible with the action of the group. since they correspond to the same term in the action (up to an unimportant sign): reversing the arrow in a loop amounts to flipping the order of the indices in all the field strengths connected by that loop.

### An induced representation

Now we analyse the representation of the permutation group on each conjugation class. Consider a specific conjugation class, choose a diagram (without the arrows) and label it $`i_1`$. The chosen diagram is invariant under a subgroup of the permutation group (acting by conjugation as above). The invariance group of $`i_1`$ we call $`H_1`$. For both our examples (26-27) the invariance group is isomorphic with $`_4_2_2`$.

It is clear that every other diagram $`i`$ in the conjugacy class can be reached by the action of some group element $`g`$, namely $`i=gi_1g^1`$. Every $`gh`$ with $`hH_1`$ yields that same diagram $`i`$. Therefore the set of diagrams within a conjugacy class is the same as the set of the left cosets with respect to the invariance group (of a diagram in that conjugacy class). The action of the group on this set of cosets is the left regular action. This representation is the representation induced  by the trivial representation of $`H_1`$ on $`S_6`$. Via Fröbenius’ character formula we can then decompose this induced representation in irreducible ones, using the character table of $`S_6`$. This decomposition provides an inroad into the structure of the terms in the NBI, at order $`F^6`$ and potentially beyond. Note that if we had picked a different diagam $`i_2`$ in the same conjugacy class to start with, we would have $`i_2=gi_1g^1`$ for some $`gS_6`$. The invariance group $`H_2=gH_1g^1`$ would yield an equivalent construction to the previous one. Therefore, $`H_1H^{cc}`$ is uniquely associated to a conjugacy class (c.c.). The results for the invariance groups are summarized in table 1 888The symbol $``$ in table 1 does not denote a direct product. It is easy to deduce from the context how the product of subgroups should be taken. The subgroups are ordered as follows. First the cyclic permutation within a loop, then the permutation of loops of equal length, finally the orientation reversal. For loops of length 2, this last group is trivial., for the relevant conjugacy classes999We momentarily explain why other conjugacy classes are irrelevant.. The split into irreducible representations is assembled in table 2.

### Cyclicity and double cosets

At this stage a term in the Lagrangian corresponds to several diagrams, since the trace is cyclic: a cyclic permutation corresponds to a rotation of the diagrams. We denote the subgroup of $`S_6`$ corresponding to these rotations as $`N=Z_6^c`$ (where $`c`$ stands for cyclicity). Then it should be clear that the cosets $`gH`$ within the double coset $`NgH`$ correspond to equivalent diagrams. We finally obtain therefore, that inequivalent diagrams correspond to double cosets $`NgH`$.

To count these double cosets in the left regular representation on the $`H`$-cosets, it is sufficient to count $`Z_6^c`$ invariants within each irreducible component of the representation. To do that, we can use Fröbenius reciprocity and the character tables for $`S_6`$ and $`Z_6^c`$.

The results then at order 6 are the following. Conjugacy classes of $`S_6`$ with a cycle of length 1, we do not consider since a field strength contracted with itself yields a term equal to zero in the action. We have only four conjugacy classes left then. The number of double cosets in each of these conjugacy classes is summarized in table 2, along with the decomposition into irreducible representations.

The diagrams corresponding to these invariants are drawn and labelled in appendix A.

As we already indicated, this analysis generalizes to any order and gives therefore a systematic way to count the number of unknown coefficients in the NBI action including terms written using field strengths only, at any given order.

### Invariant linear combinations

In the previous analysis, we split the representation space into conjugacy classes, next into inequivalent irreducible representations, and we determined the number of double cosets within an irreducible representation. Now we would like to write down explicitly these $`Z_6^c`$ invariants in terms of the diagrams, which translates directly into terms in the action at order 6.

For most of the irreducible representations, the number of corresponding invariants is larger than one. Lacking a criterium to decide which linear combinations are most suitable, we made the following arbitrary choice. Corresponding to a specific irreducible representation of the permutation group, there is a Young diagram and a Young symmetrizer: acting with this Young symmetrizer on a specific diagram yields automatically a vector in that irrep. The resulting vector can then simply be symmetrised with respect to the $`Z_6^c`$ cyclic group. The result of this procedure is one of the sought after invariants. We have recorded in table 5 (in the appendix B) a complete101010We have not bothered to include the results of this analysis for the terms with Lorentz contraction structure \[3 3\]. The reason is that, for the backgrounds we have studied, these terms give no contribution to the quadratic action for the fluctuation, and therefore these terms remain completely arbitrary. set of combinations obtained in this way, together with the $`S_6`$ irrep in which they are found. Each line involves a choice of starting diagram, for which we found no good criterium (like an a priori guarantee to give a linearly independent combination).

Alternatively, one may project on a generically reducible subspace formed by the sum of equivalent $`S_6`$ representations using the minimal projection operator  $`e\left(\right)`$ associated to a specific irrep $``$. For example in the $`\left[6\right]`$ class the projection on the $`\left[42\right]`$ representations yields a reducible representation, $`\left[42\right]\left[42\right]`$. Each of these contains two $`Z_6^c`$ invariants. Acting with $`e\left(\right)`$ on a few (arbitrarily chosen) diagrams yields vectors from this reducible space, and it is easy to pick out specific $`Z_6^c`$ invariants. Since this seems to offer no particular advantages (each choice of basis for the resulting invariants seems arbitrary), we do not dwell on this further.

We pause here a moment to return to the results obtained in section 3. If we carry out the group theory analysis described in the previous paragraphs at order 4, we obtain the results in table 3.

In the part of the NBI action purely in terms of field strengths at order four only two of the four potential fourth–order invariants are actually present:

$`_{NBIF^4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_2^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}\left(I_1^4{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}I_1^{22}\right).`$ (30)
The group theory that we introduced will similarly simplify the form of the NBI action at order 6. At this stage we performed only the first step, providing a catalogue of combinations that are in the different irreps, as recorded in table 5 in the appendix. We now proceed to impose the data from the known string spectra.

## 5 A NBI at order 6

#### Reality

A first, fairly trivial constraint on the action comes from the demand that the action be real. The complex conjugate of a term represented by a diagram, is given by the term corresponding to the mirror diagram. This can easily be seen using the hermiticity of the Lie algebra generators. We conclude that diagrams that are mirror to each other have complex conjugate coefficients. The diagrams that are mirrorsymmetric have real coefficients 111111This mirror-operation is the only group operation represented on all double cosets. .

Note that all diagrams at order 4 were mirrorsymmetric, and therefore they all necessarily had real coefficients. This is not true at sixth order. However, it turns out that, apart from the general structure as described for the fourth order calculation in equation (12), an additional term is present at sixth order, that is off-diagonal in the $`SU\left(2\right)`$ components of the field fluctuations. The rescaled Yang–Mills requirement puts this to zero. This annihilates the imaginary parts of the complex conjugate coefficients so that, as a conclusion, also at sixth order all coefficients are real.

#### String spectrum data

In section 3 we executed our program of demanding a rescaled Yang-Mills action for the action quadratic in the fluctuations on our testing ground. It was succesful there in determining the coefficients of the NBI at order 4 that we know to be correct. In this section, as discussed previously, we explore which constraints are found on the NBI if we extend this analysis to order 6.

The action for the quadratic fluctuations at order 6 has virtually the same structure as that discussed in detail for order 4 in section 3. We follow the same route and rescale the action by $`c_i^{\mathrm{kin}}`$ and demand that the action is a rescaled YM action with appropriate rescaling factor. The constraints from gauge invariance (see section 3) were not imposed a priori, but were used as a check on the computation. The result is a large set of linear equations for the coefficients $`a_m^{nnn}`$ of the different terms in the action (see eq. 37). Of these, 21 are independent, leaving 10 out of 31 (see table 2) of the coefficients in the general sixth order action undetermined.

Of these 10 undetermined coefficients, 3 are the coefficients of the invariants in class \[3 3\]: for the background we consider these invariants give vanishing contribution as we now argue121212 It is obvious that this argument extends to very many higher order terms with a structure that factorises with Lorentz contractions of an odd number of field strengths.. The background (see section 2) has block-diagonal fieldstrengths, and therefore the Lorentz contraction of three background fields is frustrated and vanishes131313The same argument eliminates terms arising from $`\delta _2F`$, see equation 43.. Consequently, the quadratic variations could only arise when the Lorentz contraction structure is $`\left(\delta _1F\right)`$ times $`\left(\delta _1F\right)`$. But this also vanishes, since the $`k`$ sum in $`_k^i_j^k`$ will contain only one term, and is hence diagonal in $`ij`$. We ignore this terms in the sequel, and continue with the remaining 28 terms of table 5 in appendix B, 7 combinations out of 28 having arbitrary coefficients.

To present the result in detail, we make a change of basis. We still base our choice of combinations of diagrams on the permutation group considerations of section 4. We remind the reader that in many cases, a given irrep occurs more than once, and in addition a given irrep usually contains two invariants. For such cases, the choice of basis for specific invariants is a priori quite arbitrary, and what was written in table 5 is a ‘raw’ choice. With hindsight, this choice can be improved, and the result is recorded in table 4. The following changes were made:

* If the value of coefficients for a given representation is completely fixed141414We are here taking into account the requirements from reality and the rescaled Yang–Mills ansatz, not the ‘BPS’ conditions. See further for the incorporation of those., this combination was chosen as one of the basis vectors. The other basis vectors (which therefore have zero coefficients) were taken to be orthogonal with the natural metric for the diagrams. This is the case for the $`\left[42\right]`$ and $`\left[321\right]`$ irreps in all classes, as well as for the $`\left[6\right]`$. Whereas this last fact is obvious (it corresponds to the abelian case), the general reason for the other ones is unclear.
* If the values of the coefficients are fixed numbers for some, and arbitrary parameters for other combinations, we have separated the basis accordingly. This is the case for all the $`\left[2^3\right]`$ irreps, where for each class a single combination is fixed, and for the $`\left[31^3\right]`$ likewise.
* The stand–alone $`\left[21^4\right]`$ invariant (which has arbitrary coefficient as well) is not touched.

In table 4, we have again listed the potential cyclic invariants in the group-theoretic classification, in the changed basis. The resulting sixth order terms in the action are

$`^{\left(6\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{720}}I_6^6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6480}}I_{42}^6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5760}}I_{321}^6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{720}}I_{222}^6`$ (31)
$`+\lambda _1I_{222}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}+\lambda _2I_{222}^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}+\lambda _3I_{222}^{{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime \prime }\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}+\lambda _4I_{3111}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}+\lambda _5I_{21111}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{480}}I_6^{42}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3240}}I_{42}^{42}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{11520}}I_{321}^{42}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{360}}I_{222}^{42}+\lambda _6I_{222}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}42}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5760}}I_6^{222}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{25920}}I_{42}^{222}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2880}}I_{222}^{222}+\lambda _7I_{222}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}222}}.`$
It is clear that the resulting expression displays a remarkable amount of structure, but we have not been able to penetrate beyond the obvious.

An important check on the arbitrariness is provided by the fact that some commutator combinations can not possibly contribute in the restricted class of background that we investigated. These are, in an obvious notation (see appendix D if an explanation is needed)

$`Tr\left[F_1F_1^{}\right]\left[F_2F_2^{}\right]\left[F_3F_3^{}\right],`$ (32)
$`Tr\left[F_1F_1^{}\right]\left[F_2F_2^{}\right]\left[F_3F_4\right],`$ (33)
$`Tr\left[F_1F_2\right]\left[F_3F_4\right]\left[F_5F_6\right],`$ (34)
$`Tr\left[F_1F_2\right]\left[F_3F_5\right]\left[F_4F_6\right],`$ (35)
$`Tr\left[F_1F_2\right]\left[F_2F_5\right]\left[F_4F_6\right].`$ (36)
The reason is obvious: the quadratic variation of these products of three commutators always has one commutator left, and vanishes since the background is abelian.151515It is less obvious that the (independent) combination $`F_1F_{[2}F_{|3|}F_4F_5F_{6]}`$ (leaving the label 3 out of the antisymmetrisation) also does not contribute: here the block-diagonal nature of the background is involved. This is in fact the invariant $`I_{21111}^{{}_{}{}^{}\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}6}}`$ with coefficient $`\lambda _5`$. We have no short explanation for the seventh invariant, with $`\lambda _3`$. The first line corresponds to $`\lambda _7`$, the second to $`\lambda _6`$. The last three lines generate through linear combinations the $`\left[3111\right]`$–invariant with $`\lambda _4`$, as well as the $`\left[222\right]`$ invariants with $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$.

## 6 BPS configurations

Turning on magnetic fields usually breaks all supersymmetry with as a result that the D-brane configuration becomes unstable. This can already be seen from the massformulae, eqs. (5) and (7), which exhibit the generic presence of tachyonic modes in the spectrum. However, it was noticed in  that for very specific choices of the background some supersymmetry survives.

We will first formulate this in the T-dual picture. We take two D$`p`$-branes, one of them in the $`(2,4,\mathrm{},2p)`$ direction and the other one rotated over an angle $`\gamma _1`$ in the (2 3) plane, over an angle $`\gamma _2`$ in the (4 5) plane, …, over an angle $`\gamma _p`$ in the $`\left(2p\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}p+1\right)`$ plane. Searching for common directions in the supersymmetry charge and the rotated charge gives BPS configurations which are summarized below.

| $`p`$ | BPS angle | susy’s | BPS magnetic fields |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2 | $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$ | 8 | $`f_1^3=f_2^3`$ |
| 3 | $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2+\gamma _3`$ | 4 | $`f_1^3=f_2^3+f_3^3+f_1^3f_2^3f_3^3`$ |
| 4 | $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2+\gamma _3+\gamma _4`$ | 2 | $`f_1^3=f_2^3+f_3^3+f_4^3+f_1^3f_2^3f_3^3+`$ |
|  |  |  | $`f_1^3f_3^3f_4^3+f_1^3f_2^3f_4^3f_2^3f_3^3f_4^3`$ |
|  | $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2`$, $`\gamma _3=\gamma _4`$ | 4 | $`f_1^3=f_2^3`$, $`f_3^3=f_4^3`$ |
|  | $`\gamma _1=\gamma _2=\gamma _3=\gamma _4`$ | 6 | $`f_1^3=f_2^3=f_3^3=f_4^3`$ |

We assumed that none of the angles are zero. In the table we list the conditions on the angles, the number of preserved supercharges and finally the T-dual picture where the condition on the angles is translated, using eqs. (6) and (4), into a condition on the magnetic fields. For simplicity we took the magnetic field entirely in the $`\sigma _3`$ direction, i.e. $`f_i^0`$ in equation (8) vanishes.

Though the conditions on the angles are linear, they translate for two cases into non-linear conditions on the magnetic fields. In fact, when switching on the $`U\left(1\right)`$ part of the magnetic field, one always gets such corrections. At first sight one would expect this to give a crucial handle on the NBI. Indeed, BPS configurations should solve the equations of motion with as a result that the non-linear conditions relate different orders in the NBI. However all backgrounds considered above are in the torus of $`U\left(2\right)`$ and thus insensitive to different ordenings in the equations of motion. In fact they all solve the equations of motion of the abelian Born-Infeld action and as a consequence those arising from our action through order $`F^6`$ as well. There is one case where we do have a good guess for the general BPS condition: rotated D2-branes or D4-branes with magnetic fields. In that case the obvious guess for the full non-abelian BPS condition is self-duality of the magnetic field.

In , some arguments were put forward to sustain the claim that self-dual static magnetic backgrounds solving the equations of motion while simultanously minimizing the energy is equivalent to demanding that the whole NBI for such configurations collapses to the leading Yang-Mills term. It was shown that the symmetrized trace prescription does share this property. Implementing this assumption in our case gives five conditions on the general form of the action at sixth order. It turns out that three of these are dependent on the previously implemented rescaled Yang–Mills conditions, thus providing a consistency check on both our results and the proposal in . The remaining two take an extremely simple form in terms of the coefficients in eq. (31), viz.

$`\lambda _3`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1440}},`$
$`\lambda _7`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _1{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _2}{4}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _6}{2}}.`$
Note that different Lorentz contraction structures are connected161616 Selfduality, $`F_{\mu \nu }=\epsilon _{\mu \nu }{}_{}{}^{\rho \sigma }F_{\rho \sigma }^{}/2`$, implies that $`F_{\mu \rho }F^\rho {}_{\nu }{}^{}+F_{\nu \rho }F^\rho {}_{\mu }{}^{}=\eta _{\mu \nu }F_{\rho \sigma }F^{\sigma \rho }/2`$. Repeatedly using this, allows us to rewrite all terms of class 6 and 4 2 in terms of the five elements of the class 2 2 2.. As far as the permutation group structure is concerned, the conditions are pure $`\left[222\right]`$.

What about the full non-abelian version of the non-linear BPS conditions? While the first order correction to the linear relations can easily be deduced from the fact that they should solve the equations of motion through order $`F^3`$, nothing can be said to all orders yet. A more detailed study of these BPS configurations and their consequences for the NBI, has to wait for a better understanding of supersymmetry in the NBI .

## 7 Conclusions

In this paper, we made a first systematic attempt to determine corrections to the Str-terms in the NBI action. The physical testing ground on which we worked, were D-branes wrapped on tori with magnetic backgrounds turned on. Central in an important part of our analysis is the fact that the spectrum for open strings stretching between these D-branes as predicted by perturbative string theory differs by a mere rescaling from the YM-approximation to the spectrum. We made two bold assumptions to proceed in unknown territory. The first was that we did not take along all possible derivative corrections to the NBI. This was inspired partly by practical motives, partly by the second assumption, namely, that the action quadratic in the fluctuations in this background obtained from the NBI should be a rescaled YM action. Under these assumptions we were able to put severe constraints on the NBI action. A weak a posteriori argument is that this method yields correct results at order 4. More encouraging is the fact that this approach yields constraints that are compatible with the constraints we obtained from analysing BPS configurations – this was not evident from the outset.

By construction, this action heals a severe default of the Str NBI action, pointed out in   and , namely that it doesn’t predict the correct spectrum for open strings on our testing ground. A direct calculation of the terms at order 6 of the NBI via six point functions in string theory or a five loop beta-function calculation in a non-linear $`\sigma `$–model would be welcome, of course, to see whether our assumptions are valid. As long as this calculation is not available, other methods to get a grip on the NBI are worth study. A natural extension of our ideas is to just enlarge the testing ground by looking at other compactification manifolds, and by looking at different, possibly electric backgrounds. It could help also if we could gain more insight into the relative norms of the linear combinations of diagrams corresponding to double cosets, for instance, to see whether there might be a systematic expansion for the NBI – although this is perhaps asking for too much 171717We thank J. de Boer for a discussion on this point..

There are of course alternative techniques that are more complementary to our approach. The most promising route to obtain a grip on the non-abelian Born-Infeld might be via supersymmetry. Simply by noethering one can try to modify ten dimensional YM with non-linear corrections and modify the supersymmetry transformation rules accordingly. In the abelian case this fixes e.g. uniquely the fourth order term in the BI action . Because of the severely restricted form of the supersymmetry algebra in ten dimensions, it might even be181818This was suggested to us by Savdeep Sethi. that the BI action is the only supersymmetric deformation of abelian YM. Continuing this line of thought, it should be clear that a similar analysis should be performed in the non-abelian case. A good starting point would be the BPS conditions in higher dimensions in section 6 – they provide a hint of how to modify the supersymmetry variations. It seems important to us to carry out this program in the maximum of ten dimensions, because the supersymmetry algebra is largest there and therefore puts (much) stronger restrictions on the form of the action. For lower dimensions some partial results for a supersymmetric non-abelian extension of Born-Infeld theory are available .

Closely linked to the idea of a supersymmetric action on the brane is the idea of the construction of an action invariant under $`\kappa `$–symmetry . This approach starts from the observation that the form of the Wess-Zumino term, which describes the coupling of the gauge fields to the Ramond-Ramons bulkfields, is severely restricted, even in the non-abelian case. As the variation of the Wess-Zumino term under the $`\kappa `$-transformations has to be cancelled by the variation of the NBI, one gets a recursive method to construct the NBI. This program was already carried out through quartic order in the Yang-Mills field strength, and including all fermion bilinear terms up to terms cubic in the field strength . The ordenings are indeed completely fixed by requiring $`\kappa `$-invariance. Surprisingly, it was found that at such low order, deviations of the symmetrized trace proposal do already appear.

Another route to the NBI derives from the study of the equivalence of non-commutative and commutative Born-Infeld actions via the Seiberg-Witten map. In this way one obtains constraints on derivative corrections to the Born-Infeld action. It would be interesting to see whether this can teach us anything about the NBI action, as claimed in .

Solutions to different non-abelian extensions of Born-Infeld theory, not necessarily related to string theory have been studied. The non-linearity of the action often leads to a smoothing out of solutions to an ordinary YM or Maxwell action. It could be interesting to study what kind of corrections can be expected from more general proposals for non-abelian extensions of Born-Infeld theory, including ours.

## Acknowledgements

We thank Eric Bergshoeff, Jan de Boer, Mees de Roo, Savdeep Sethi and Pierre van Baal for useful discussions. A.S. and W.T. are supported by the European Commission RTN programme HPRN-CT-2000-00131, in which A.S. is associated to the university of Leuven. The work of J.T. is supported in part by funds provided by the U.S. Department of Energy under cooperative research agreement DE-FC02-94ER40818. J.T. moreover thanks the Vrije Universiteit Brussel and the FWO Vlaanderen for support during the first stages of this work.

## Appendix A Drawing diagrams

We draw here all the diagrams corresponding to the double cosets as introduced in section 4. 191919In fact, it was intuitively easy to see, even before we knew the group theory from section 4 that drawing all different diagrams was sufficient to enumerate all different terms in the action.

In (37) we give a few examples in our ansatz for the action that should leave no ambiguity as to which terms in the action the diagrams correspond to. The upper index on $`a_m^{nnn}`$ indicates the class, the lower index the number of the diagram:

$`=Tr(\mathrm{}`$ (37)
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+a_3^6F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\alpha _6\alpha _1}F_{\alpha _4\alpha _5}F_{\alpha _5\alpha _6}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+a_4^6F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\alpha _6\alpha _1}F_{\alpha _5\alpha _6}F_{\alpha _4\alpha _5}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+a_{14}^6F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _4\alpha _5}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _3}F_{\alpha _6\alpha _1}F_{\alpha _3\alpha _4}F_{\alpha _5\alpha _6}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+a_1^{2,4}F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F_{\beta _2\beta _3}F_{\beta _3\beta _4}F_{\beta _4\beta _1}`$
$`+`$ $`\mathrm{}+a_3^{2,2,2}F_{\alpha _1\alpha _2}F_{\beta _1\beta _2}F_{\gamma _1\gamma _2}F_{\alpha _2\alpha _1}F_{\beta _2\beta _1}F_{\gamma _2\gamma _1}`$
$`+`$ $`O\left(F^8\right).`$
## Appendix B Table

The table in this appendix records the result of the construction of a basis of invariants based on permutation group analysis. The notation is as follows.

The first five lines correspond to the class of terms with three times a double contraction of Lorentz indices, labeled class 222. The second column gives the permutation group class in the standard cycle notation, and the third gives the corresponding invariant. The combination is written as a weighted sum of diagrams $`i_n`$, the latter labeled in the order given in figure 2 (see appendix A). In the following lines, this information is given for the classes of terms with Lorentz contractions following the patterns $`42`$ and $`6`$ respectively. For the invariant linear combinations we just give the coefficients, again corresponding to the figures (3 and 4) in the preceding appendix.

## Appendix C Abelian constraint

We know the Born-Infeld action for the gauge group $`U\left(1\right)`$. After expanding the determinant and the square root it looks as follows:

$`^6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \alpha }`$ (38)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \gamma }F^{\gamma \delta }F_{\delta \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}\left(F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }\right)^2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \gamma }F^{\gamma \delta }F_{ϵ\zeta }F^{\zeta \iota }F_{\iota \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}}F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \alpha }F^{\gamma \delta }F_{\delta \zeta }F^{\zeta \iota }F_{\iota \gamma }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}}\left(F^{\alpha \beta }F_{\beta \alpha }\right)^3`$
$`+O\left(F^8\right).`$
From this we derive the following constraints on the coefficients in our general ansatz:

$`a_1^2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}},`$
$`a_1^4+a_2^4`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}},`$
$`a_1^{2,2}+a_2^{2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}},`$ (39)
up to fourth order, and

$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{14}{}}}a_i^6`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{9}{}}}a_i^{2,4}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{32}},`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{5}{}}}a_i^{2,2,2}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{384}},`$ (40)
at sixth order.

## Appendix D Some Technical details

### Action quadratic in fluctuations
in a magnetic background

We split the field strength in background and fluctuations, $`F=+\delta F`$, and the fluctuations into a part linear in the gauge field fluctuations and a part quadratic in the gauge field fluctuations:

$`F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`_\alpha A_\beta _\beta A_\alpha +i[A_\alpha ,A_\beta ],`$ (41)
$`\delta F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`\delta _1F_{\alpha \beta }+\delta _2F_{\alpha \beta },`$ (42)
$`\delta _1F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`D_\alpha \delta A_\beta D_\beta \delta A_\alpha ,`$ (43)
$`\delta _2F_{\alpha \beta }`$ $`=`$ $`i[\delta A_\alpha ,\delta A_\beta ],`$ (44)
$`D_\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`_\alpha +i[A_\alpha ,.].`$ (45)
We substitute $`F=+\delta _1F+\delta _2F`$ into the action up to order $`F^6`$ and restrict to the terms quadratic in the fluctuations. We’ll get terms proportional to $`\delta _2F`$ and terms proportional to $`\left(\delta _1F\right)^2`$.

### Terms proportional to $`\delta _2F`$

When we choose $``$ in the CSA we can write the terms proportional to $`\delta _2F`$ as:

$`_2^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\beta \alpha }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\beta \gamma }^{\gamma \delta }_{\delta \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\delta _2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\alpha \beta }^{\delta \gamma }_{\delta \gamma }`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\delta _2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\beta \gamma }^{\gamma \delta }_{\delta \zeta }^{\zeta \iota }_{\iota \alpha }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{16}}\delta _2F^{\alpha \beta }_{\beta \alpha }^{\gamma \delta }_{\delta \zeta }^{\zeta \iota }_{\iota \gamma }`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\delta _2F^{\gamma \delta }_{\delta \zeta }^{\zeta \iota }_{\iota \gamma }^{\alpha \beta }_{\beta \alpha }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{64}}\delta _2F_{\alpha \beta }^{\beta \alpha }\left(^{\gamma \delta }_{\gamma \delta }\right)^2.`$
This part of the action naturally has the same coefficients as the abelian action.

### Terms proportional to $`(\delta _1F)^2`$

The $`U\left(2\right)`$ components of $`\delta _1F`$ (see eq. (43) are denoted as in $`\delta _1F=_{n=1,2}\delta _1F^{\left(n\right)}\sigma _n`$ and the background splits likewise as $`=^0+^3\sigma _3`$. For the Lorentz index contraction we use a shorthand notation indicating the sequence(s) of contractions, easily understood and generalised from the following hypothetical example:

$$A_{\mu _1\mu _2}B_{\mu _3\mu _1}C_{\nu _1\nu _2}D_{\mu _2\mu _3}E_{\nu _2\nu _1}A_1B_3C_1^{}D_2E_2^{}.$$

Our calculation to order four gives for the off-diagonal fluctuations:

$`_1^{\left(2\right)}=`$ $`2a_1^2\left(\delta _1F_1^1\delta _1F_2^1+\delta _1F_1^2\delta _1F_2^2\right)`$
$`+`$ $`2\left(\delta _1F_1^1\delta _1F_2^1+\delta _1F_1^2\delta _1F_2^2\right)\left[\left(4a_1^4+4a_2^4\right)_3^0_4^0+4a_1^4_3^3_4^3\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2\left(\delta _1F_1^1\delta _1F_3^1+\delta _1F_1^2\delta _1F_3^2\right)\left[\left(2a_1^4+2a_2^4\right)_2^0_4^0+\left(2a_1^4+2a_2^4\right)_2^3_4^3\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2(\delta _1F_1^1\delta _1F_2^1+\delta _1F_1^2\delta _1F_2^2)\times `$
$`\left[\left(2a_1^{2,2}+2a_2^{2,2}\right)_1^{}^0_2^{}^0+\left(2a_1^{2,2}2a_2^{2,2}\right)_1^{}^3_2^{}^3\right]`$
$`+`$ $`2\left(\delta _1F_1^1\delta _1F_1^{}^1+\delta _1F_1^2\delta _1F_1^{}^2\right)\left[\left(4a_1^{2,2}+4a_2^{2,2}\right)_2^0_2^{}^0+\left(4a_2^{2,2}\right)_2^3_2^{}^3\right].`$
The corresponding expressions for the general form (with our restrictions) of the action at order $`F^6`$ are not very illuminating, and we refrain from giving them explicitely.

### Background blockdiagonal in Lorentz indices

After filling in the background we obtain, from the quadratic terms:

$`^{\left(2\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2`$ (48)
$`\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\left(\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2\right)`$
$`2\delta _2F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(3\right)}f_i^3,`$
and from the quartic terms we find:

$`^{\left(4\right)}`$ $`=`$ $`8[\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{0,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2][(a_1^4+a_2^4)\left(f_i^0\right)^2+a_1^4\left(f_i^3\right)^2`$ (49)
$`+(2a_1^{2,2}+2a_2^{2,2})\left(f_k^0\right)^2+(2a_1^{2,2}2a_2^{2,2})\left(f_k^3\right)^2]`$
$`+8\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2[(3a_1^4+3a_2^4+4a_1^{2,2}+4a_2^{2,2})\left(f_i^0\right)^2`$
$`\text{ }+\left(a_1^4+a_2^4+4a_2^{2,2}\right)\left(f_i^3\right)^2`$
$`\text{ }+(2a_1^4+2a_2^4)\left(f_k^0\right)^2+(2a_1^{2,2}2a_2^{2,2})\left(f_k^3\right)^2]`$
$`+8{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}[\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i,2j1}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2+\left(\delta _1F_{2i,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)^2]\times `$
$`\times \left[\left(a_1^4+a_2^4\right)\left(f_i^0\right)^2+\left(a_1^4\right)\left(f_i^3\right)^2+\left(a_1^{2,2}+a_2^{2,2}\right)\left(f_k^0\right)^2+\left(a_1^{2,2}a_2^{2,2}\right)\left(f_k^3\right)^2\right]`$
$`+8\left(\delta _1F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(a\right)}\delta _1F_{2j1,2j}^{\left(a\right)}\right)[(a_1^4+a_2^4+4a_1^{2,2}+4a_2^{2,2})f_i^0f_j^0`$
$`\text{ }+(a_1^4+a_2^4+4a_2^{2,2})f_i^3f_j^3]`$
$`+\delta _2F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(3\right)}f_i^3\left[6\left(f_i^0\right)^2+2\left(f_i^3\right)^2\left(f_k^0\right)^2\left(f_k^3\right)^2\right]`$
$`+\delta _2F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(3\right)}f_i^0\left(2f_k^0f_k^3\right)`$
$`+8{\displaystyle \underset{ij}{}}\delta _2F_{2i1,2i}^{\left(3\right)}f_i^3\left[\left(a_1^4+a_2^4\right)f_i^0f_j^0+\left(a_1^4+a_2^4\right)f_i^3f_j^3\right].`$
The sixth order calculation is analogous, the results are omitted.


format: text

text:
# Singularities in the optical response of cuprates.

\[

## Abstract

We argue that the detailed analysis of the optical response in cuprate superconductors allows one to verify the magnetic scenario of superconductivity in cuprates, as for strong coupling charge carriers to antiferromagnetic spin fluctuations, the second derivative of optical conductivity should contain detectable singularities at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{spin}}`$, $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{spin}}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the amplitude of the superconducting gap, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is the resonance energy of spin fluctuations measured in neutron scattering. We argue that there is a good chance that these singularities have already been detected in the experiments on optimally doped $`YBCO`$.

\]

The pairing state in cuprate superconductors is predominantly made out of Cooper pairs with d$`_{x^2y^2}`$-symmetry. This salient universal property of all high $`T_c`$ materials entails constraints on the microscopic mechanism of superconductivity. However, it does not uniquely determine it, leading to a quest for experiments which can identify ”fingerprints” of a specific microscopic mechanism of d-wave superconductivity, a strategy similar to the one used in conventional superconductors .

Several resent experiments were interpreted as an indirect evidence that d$`_{x^2y^2}`$ pairing in cuprates is produced by an exchange of collective spin fluctuations peaked at or near antiferromagnetic momentum $`𝐐=(\pi ,\pi )`$ . In particular, the distance between the peak and the dip in the fermionic spectral function, $`A_𝐤(\omega )`$, in ARPES experiments coincides with the frequency $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ of the resonance peak measured in neutron scattering . This is exactly what one should expect for fermions interacting with a resonating spin collective mode  (for phonon mediated superconductors, this is known as the Holstein effect ). Similarly, a peak-dip structure of the SIS tunneling conductance with peak-dip distance roughly consistent with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ has been obtained in the measurements on break junctions by Zasadzinski et al. for various doping values . Carbotte et al. analyzed optical conductivity $`\sigma (\omega )`$ in magnetically mediated $`d`$-wave superconductors and argued that $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ can be extracted from the measurements of the second derivative of $`\sigma (\omega )`$.

In this paper we reexamine the behavior of the optical conductivity in superconductors with quasiparticles strongly coupled to their own collective spin modes. Our results partly agree and partly disagree with those by Carbotte et al. (see below). The key prediction of this paper, however, is novel: we argue that by measuring the frequency derivatives of the conductivity, one can not only verify the magnetic scenario, but, in principle, also independently determine both $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the same experiment.

Our argument goes as follows. For a superconductor, the real part of the conductivity, $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, has a $`\delta `$\- functional piece due to the presence of the superconducting condensate. A nonzero $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ at a finite frequency is only possible if fermions have a finite lifetime. More precisely, one of the two fermions exited in a process causing the AC conductivity should have a finite scattering rate, while another should be able to propagate, i.e., its energy should be larger than $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For clean, phonon-mediated superconductors, there are two sources for fermionic decay (see Fig. 1). One is a direct four-fermion interaction, which yields a threshold in the imaginary part of the self-energy, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }\left(\omega \right)`$, at $`\omega =3\mathrm{\Delta }`$ \- the minimal energy necessary to pull all three fermions in the final state out of the condensate of Cooper pairs. Another is the interaction between an electron and an optical phonon. It yields the onset of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }\left(\omega \right)`$ at $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p`$ is the frequency of an optical phonon  (for simplicity, we assumed that the phonon propagator has a single pole). For the values of the coupling constant used to interpret the tunneling data in strongly coupled conventional superconductors like $`Pb`$ , $`\mathrm{\Omega }_p>2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., the onset of conductivity is at $`3\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }=4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ ($`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for dirty superconductors ), while the signatures of phonon-assisted damping only show up at higher frequencies, and are uncorrelated with the behavior of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ near $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

For spin-mediated superconductivity, the situation is different. In the one-band model for cuprates, which we adopt, the underlying interaction is solely a Hubbard-type four-fermion interaction. Spin excitations appear as collective modes of fermions, and their velocity $`v_s`$ is comparable to $`v_F`$. For $`v_sv_F`$, the low frequency spin dynamics is dominated by a decay process into a particle-hole pair and is purely relaxational in the normal state, with nearly featureless $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\omega )`$ . (for phonon superconductors the relaxation is also present but is strongly reduced due to a smallness of the sound velocity compared to $`v_F`$ ).

Below $`T_c`$, fermions acquire a gap, and spin-decay becomes impossible for energies below $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The direct four-fermion interaction process in Fig. 1b then yields a threshold in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ at $`3\mathrm{\Delta }`$ which gives rise to a singularity in the conductivity at $`\omega =4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . If $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\omega )`$ remained featureless, this would be the only effect. However, several authors have demonstrated that the residual attraction in a $`d`$-wave superconductor binds a particle and a hole into a spin exciton at an energy $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s<2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This effect gives rise to a peak in $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\omega )`$ at $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ and makes it look like the spectral function for optical phonons. Accordingly, the conductivity acquires another threshold at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. Formally, this is analogous to the phonon case, but in distinction to phonons, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s<2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s<4\mathrm{\Delta }`$, i.e., in clean systems, the lower threshold corresponds to the scattering by a spin exciton. Moreover, since both effects are due to the same underlying interaction, (the diagram in Fig. 1b is just the first term in the series of graphs which constitute the spin-mediated scattering process shown in Fig 1b) the ratio $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the relative intensity of the singularities in $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ at $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ are correlated. This correlation is a “fingerprint” of the spin-fluctuation mechanism. We will argue that there are strong indications that both singularities have been observed in the measurements of the optical conductivity in $`\mathrm{YBCO}`$ , and their position and relative intensity are in reasonable agreement with the theory.

Before we proceed with the calculations, a comment is in order. In the above discussion we neglected the momentum dependence of the $`d`$-wave gap. Meanwhile, the computations of the optical conductivity involve averaging of the lifetime over the Fermi surface . It is then a’priori unclear whether the angular dependence of the $`d`$-wave gap with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )\mathrm{cos}2\theta `$ affects the positions of the two thresholds in the conductivity. Carbotte et al argued  that it does, and the singularity at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ (which they only considered) is determined by some averaged $`|2\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )|\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We argue that averaging reduces strengths of the singularities but doesn’t shift their positions. Our argument is two-fold. First, we explicitly demonstrate below that the singularity in the conductivity occurs at a frequency equal to the maximum value of the gap. Second, two of us and Finkel’stein argued earlier  that for spin-mediated $`d`$-wave superconductivity, $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )`$ is at its maximum at hot spots (points at the Fermi surface separated by $`𝐐`$. These are precisely the Fermi points which determine the position of the excitonic pole in $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\omega )`$. Accordingly, the singularity in conductivity entirely comes from fermions near hot spots, and the threshold frequency $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ involves a maximum value of the gap and the resonance spin frequency at momentum $`𝐐`$. The same argumentation implies that $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ threshold also involves a maximum value of the gap. Note for clarification that we are only considering here the singularities in the conductivity at $`\omega >2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The regular part of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ is not necessary confined to hot spots. In particular, for $`\omega \mathrm{\Delta }`$ the optical response is dominated by nodal quasiparticles for which $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ is nonzero down to the lowest frequencies.

We now proceed with the calculations. The real part of the optical conductivity in a superconductor is given by

$$\sigma _1(\omega )=\mathrm{Re}\frac{i}{\omega +i\delta }𝑑\theta \mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (\theta ,\omega )$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma (\theta ,\omega )`$ is the fully renormalized current-current correlator. In Matsubara frequencies, it is given by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma \left(i\omega _n\right)`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\beta }}{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}{\displaystyle }{\displaystyle \frac{d^2k}{\left(2\pi \right)^2}}[G_𝐤(i\omega _n+i\omega _m)\text{ }G_𝐤\left(i\omega _m\right)`$ (3)
$`+F_𝐤(i\omega _n+i\omega _m)\text{ }F_𝐤\left(i\omega _m\right)],`$
and the normal and anomalous Green’s functions are

$`G_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(i\omega _m)+\epsilon _𝐤}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^2(i\omega _m)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^2(i\omega _m)\epsilon _𝐤^2}},`$ (4)
$`F_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(\omega _m)}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤^2(i\omega _m)\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤^2(i\omega _m)\epsilon _𝐤^2}},`$ (5)
(we adsorbed a bare $`i\omega _m`$ term into $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$. In principle, $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$ is modified by vertex corrections related to $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }/dk`$ , but for spin-mediated scattering these corrections are small (see below).

As an input for the computation of $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma `$ we need the forms of the fermionic self-energy $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$ and the anomalous vertex $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$. We obtained these forms in Ref. by deriving and solving a set of Eliashberg equations within the spin-fermion model. This model adequately describes the interaction between low-energy fermions and their collective spin degrees of freedom at energies smaller than $`E_F`$. The full dynamical spin susceptibility peaked at (or near) $`𝐐`$ mediates $`d_{x^2y^2}`$ superconductivity. As discussed, this susceptibility is by itself affected by low-energy fermions via a decay process into a particle and a hole, and has to be computed together with the fermionic self-energy and the pairing vertex.

The justification of the Eliashberg approach for the spin-mediated superconductivity was discussed earlier , and we just quote the result: at strong dimensionless spin-fermion coupling $`\lambda `$, vertex corrections and $`v_F^1d\mathrm{\Sigma }/dk_{}`$, where $`k_{}`$ is the component of the momentum transverse to the Fermi surface, are small compared to $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }/d\omega `$ by $`\mathrm{log}\lambda /\lambda `$. In what follows we will neglect these corrections, i.e., approximate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_𝐤(i\omega _m)`$ by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐤(i\omega _m)=\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\omega _m,\theta )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(i\omega _m,\theta )`$.

As our goal is to study the singularities in $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$, we first perform calculations assuming that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are independent on $`\theta `$ (i.e. that the superconducting gap is flat near the hot spots), and then analyze the results for a true $`d`$-wave gap. For a flat gap, the momentum integration in Eq. (3) is straightforward. Substituting $`k`$ integration by integration over $`\epsilon _k`$, and performing it, we obtain at $`T=0`$ and $`\omega 0`$

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma \left(i\omega _n\right)𝑑\omega _m^{}𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}+\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+D_+D_{}}{D_+D_{}(D_++D_{})}$$
(6)
Here $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm =\mathrm{\Sigma }(i\omega _\pm ,\theta )`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm =\mathrm{\Phi }(i\omega _\pm ,\theta )`$, and $`D_\pm =(\mathrm{\Phi }_\pm ^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_\pm ^2)^{1/2}`$, where $`\omega _\pm =\omega ^{}\pm \omega /2`$. The conductivity is obtained by converting this expression to the real axis . The singular piece in $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ near $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ can be obtained without a precise knowledge of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$: the only information we need is that in a $`d`$-wave superconductor, $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(𝐐,\omega )`$ has a $`\delta `$-functional singularity at $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. This is what we found solving a set of three Eliashberg equations. Using this as an input and applying a spectral representation for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }`$ (which for a given $`\chi ^{\prime \prime }(Q,\omega )`$ are described by a conventional set of two Eliashberg equations), we obtain that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\prime \prime }(\omega )`$ are zero up to $`\omega =\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, and undergo finite jumps at this frequency. By Kramers-Kronig relation, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ diverge as $`|\mathrm{log}(\omega \omega _0)|`$ where $`\omega _0=\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. The prefactor is the same for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$. Substituting these forms of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ into (3) we obtain after simple algebra that the conductivity emerges above $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ as $`ϵ^{1/2}/\mathrm{log}^2ϵ`$, where $`ϵ=\omega (2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s)`$. This singularity obviously causes a divergence in the derivatives of the conductivity at $`ϵ=+0`$.

In Fig.2 we show the result for the conductivity obtained by numerically solving Eq.(3) using $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ from Ref.. We clearly see the expected threshold at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. The insert shows the behavior of the relaxation rate $`1/\tau (\omega )=(4\pi /\omega _{pl}^2)Re[1/\sigma (\omega )]`$ where $`\omega _{pl}`$ is the plasma frequency. Observe that $`1/\tau (\omega )`$ is linear in $`\omega `$ over a rather wide frequency range. This agrees with the earlier study of the normal state conductivity .

We next demonstrate that the position of the singularity is not affected by the angular dependence of the gap. Indeed, let the maximum value of the gap correspond to $`\theta =0`$ and symmetry related points. At deviations from $`\theta =0`$ both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ decrease. The decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is obvious, the decrease of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is due to the fact that resonance is a feedback from superconductivity, and its frequency scales as $`(\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta ))^{1/2}`$. Since both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ are maximal at a hot spot, we can expand $`\omega _0(\theta )=\mathrm{\Delta }(\theta )+\mathrm{\Delta }_s(\theta )`$ as $`\omega _0(\theta )=\omega _0a\theta ^2`$, where $`a>0`$. The singular pieces in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\omega )`$ then behave as $`|\mathrm{log}(\omega _0\omega a\theta ^2)|`$. Substituting these forms into (3) and integrating over $`\theta `$, we find that the conductivity itself and its first derivative are continuous at $`\omega =2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, but the second derivative of the conductivity diverges as $`d^2\sigma /d\omega ^21/(|ϵ|\mathrm{log}^2ϵ)`$ where, we remind, $`ϵ=\omega (2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s)`$. We see that the singularity is weakened by the angular dependence of the gap, but it is still located at exactly $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$.

The same reasoning is also applied to a region near $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We found that the singularity at $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is also weakened by the angular dependence of the gap, but is not shifted and still should show up in the second derivative of the conductivity.

We now discuss the second derivative of the conductivity in more detail. In Fig.3 we present our numerical results for $`W(\omega )=\frac{d^2}{d^2\omega }(\omega \mathrm{Re}\sigma ^1(\omega ))`$ which effectively measures second derivative of conductivity (we followed Ref  and used the same $`W(\omega )`$ as for phonon superconductors). We clearly see that there is a sharp maximum in $`W(\omega )`$ near $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ followed by a deep minimum. We also see that $`W(\omega )`$ has extra extrema at $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and, also, at $`2\omega _0=2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. The last peak is a secondary effect due to a singularity in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }(\omega )`$ at $`\omega =\omega _0`$: $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ is singular when the frequencies of both fermions in the polarization bubble exceed $`\omega _0`$.

The experimental result for $`W(\omega )`$ in YBCO is shown in the insert. We see that the theoretical and experimental plots of $`W(\omega )`$ look rather similar, and the relative intensities of the peaks are at least qualitatively consistent with the theory. By the reasons which we display below, we identify $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ with the deep minimum in $`W(\omega )`$. This yields $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. Identifying the extra extrema in the experimental $`W(\omega )`$ with $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, respectively, we obtain $`4\mathrm{\Delta }130\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$, and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_s150\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. We see that three sets of data are self-consistent and yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }30\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s4045\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$. The value of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is in good agreement with tunneling measurements , and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ agrees well with the resonance frequency extracted from neutron measurements . We caution, however, that determination of a second derivative of a measured quantity is a very subtle procedure. The good agreement between our theory and the experiment is promising but have to be verified in further experimental studies. Nevertheless, our calculation clearly demonstrates the presence and observability of these ”higher harmonics” of the optical response at $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$.

So far we considered only the singular part of $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$. In Fig.4 we compare our results for $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ (ignoring the contributions from the nodes) directly with the experimental data by Puchkov et al. for optimally doped YBa<sub>2</sub>Cu<sub>3</sub>O<sub>6+δ</sub>. We used $`\lambda =1`$ and the overall energy scale $`\overline{\omega }`$ which yield $`\mathrm{\Delta }30\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s45\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ as the solution of the Eliashberg set, and also $`\omega _p=1.2\times 10^4cm^1`$, similar to that in . We see that the frequency dependence of the conductivity at high frequencies agrees well with the data. The measured conductivity drops at about $`100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ in rough agreement with $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s100\mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{V}`$ in our theory. As in earlier studies , to match the magnitude of the conductivity, we had to add the constant $`7\times 10^4\mathrm{\Omega }`$ cm to $`(\sigma _1(\omega ))^1`$. We view the good agreement between theory and experiment at $`\omega >2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ is predominantly an indication that the momentum dependence of the fermionic dynamics becomes irrelevant at high frequencies, and fermions from all over the Fermi surface behave as if they were at hot spots. The insert to Fig.4 shows $`\sigma _1^1(\omega )`$. We see that it is linear over a substantial frequency range.

We emphasize, however, that this linearity is only an intermediate asymptotic. At the highest $`\omega `$, our theory yields $`\sigma _1(\omega )\omega ^{1/2}`$. The lower boundary for $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ behavior decreases with increasing $`\lambda `$. For optimally doped $`Bi2212`$, $`\lambda `$ is somewhat larger than in $`YBCO`$ as $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, and we expect a more pronounced $`\omega ^{1/2}`$ behavior at high frequencies. This trend is consistent with the data of Ref.. This issue, however, requires further study as $`\sigma _1(\omega )\omega ^{1/2}`$ at intermediate frequencies was also obtained in Ref. assuming a strongly momentum dependent scattering rate.

Finally, we comment on the position of the $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ peak and compare our results with those by Carbotte et al.. Theoretically, at $`T=0`$ and in clean limit, the maximum and minimum in $`W(\omega )`$ are at the same frequency. We found, however, that at finite $`T`$, they quickly move apart. We present the theoretical temperature dependence of $`W(\omega )`$ in Fig 3. Carbotte et al.  focused on the maximum in $`W(\omega )`$ and argued that it is located at $`\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ instead of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. We also found that the maximum in $`W(\omega )`$ shifts to a lower frequency with increasing temperature, already at $`T`$ where the temperature dependence of the gap may be neglected. On the other hand, the minimum in $`W(\omega )`$ moves very little with increasing $`T`$ and virtually remains at the same frequency as at $`T=0`$. This is our reasoning to use the minimum in $`W(\omega )`$ as a much more reliable feature for the comparison with experiments. This reasoning is in agreement with recent conductivity data on optimally doped $`Bi2212`$ $`W(\omega )`$ extracted from these data shows strong downturn variation of the maximum in $`W(\omega )`$ with increasing temperature, but the minimum in $`W(\omega )`$ is located at around $`110meV`$ for all temperatures.

Finally, we briefly consider whether one can extract a resonance spin frequency from the measurements of the Raman intensity in a $`d`$wave superconductor. The Raman intensity is given by

$$R(\omega )=\mathrm{Im}𝑑\theta V^2(\theta )\mathrm{\Pi }_R(\omega ,\theta )$$
(7)
where $`V(\theta )`$ is Raman matrix element, and $`\mathrm{\Pi }_R`$ is same bubble as for conductivity, but with a different sign of the anomalous $`FF`$ term. The latter is a consequence of the fact that Raman vertices are scalar and do not change sign under $`k>k`$. Performing the integration over quasiparticle energies in the same way as for conductivity we obtain in Matsubara frequencies

$$\mathrm{\Pi }_\sigma \left(i\omega _n\right)𝑑\omega _m^{}𝑑\theta \frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}+D_+D_{}}{D_+D_{}(D_++D_{})}$$
(8)
For mostly studied $`B_{1g}`$ scattering, the Raman vertex has the same angular dependence as the $`d`$-wave gap, i.e., $`V(\theta )\mathrm{cos}\left(2\theta \right)`$ . Straightforward computations then show that for a $`d`$wave gas, $`R(\omega )\omega ^3`$ at low frequencies, and diverges as $`\omega `$ approaches $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ first as $`|\omega 2\mathrm{\Delta }|^{1/2}`$, and then, in the immediate vicinity of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$, as $`\mathrm{log}|\omega 2\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ . At larger frequencies $`R(\omega )`$ gradually decreases. At strong coupling, we performed the same analysis as for conductivity and found that the sign change of the $`FF`$ term in the bubble, compared to that for conductivity, has a drastic effect: near $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, singular contributions from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_+\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ terms in Eq.(8) cancel each other. As a result, for a flat gap, only the second derivative of $`R(\omega )`$ diverges at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$. For a quadratic variation of a gap near its maximum, the singularity is even weaker and shows up only in the third derivative of $`R(\omega )`$. Obviously, this is a much weaker effect than that for conductivity, and its determination requires a high quality of the experiment. Notice, however, that due to the closeness of hot spots to $`(0,\pi )`$ and related points, at which $`v_F`$ vanishes, the actual smearing of the singularity due to the angular integration may be less drastic than in our theory and the singularity in $`R(\omega )`$ at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$ may possibly be extracted from the data.

To conclude, in this paper we examined the singularities in the optical conductivity in a $`d`$-wave superconductors assuming that the pairing is mediated by overdamped spin fluctuations. We argued that $`\sigma _1(\omega )`$ should have singularities at $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, $`4\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`2\mathrm{\Delta }+2\mathrm{\Delta }_s`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the maximum value of the $`d`$wave gap, and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_s<2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the resonance spin frequency. The experimental detection of these singularities would be a strong argument in favor of the magnetic scenario. We argued that there is a good possibility that all three singularities have actually been detected in recent data on $`YBCO`$.

It is our pleasure to thank D. N. Basov, G. Blumberg, J.C. Campuzano, J. Carbotte, P. Coleman, O. Dolgov, P. Johnson, M. Norman, D. Pines, E. Schachinger, S. Shulga and J. Zasadzinski for useful conversations. We are also thankful to D. N. Basov, C. Homes, M. Strongin and J. Tu for sharing unpublished results with us. The research was supported by NSF DMR-9979749 (Ar. A and A. Ch.) and by the Ames Laboratory, operated for the U.S. DoE by Iowa State University under contract No. W-7405-Eng-82 (J.S).