format: text

text:
# A SUPERFLUID GYROSCOPE WITH COLD ATOMIC GASES

## Abstract

A trapped Bose-Einstein condensed atomic gas containing a quantized vortex is predicted to exhibit precession after a sudden rotation of the confining potential. The equations describing the motion of the condensate are derived and the effects of superfluidity explicitly pointed out. The dependence of the precession frequency on the relevant parameters of the problem is discussed. The proposed gyroscope is well suited to explore rotational effects at the level of single quanta of circulation.

After the realization of Bose-Einstein condensation  in magnetically trapped vapours of alkali atoms, cooled down to extremely low temperatures, the superfluid behaviour of these systems has become the object of extensive experimental work. This includes the study of rotational properties, like quantized vortices  and the quenching of the moment of inertia , as well as the reduction of dissipative effects .

The purpose of this work is to show that Bose-Einstein condensed (BEC) gases can be used to realize a quantum gyroscope where the effects of superfluidity show up in a very peculiar way. Superfluid gyroscopes have been already realized with liquid 4He  and 3He  and have been mainly used to investigate the nature of persistent currents in toroidal geometries. Most of experiments with helium gyroscopes operate with many quanta of circulation. Compared to liquid helium, trapped BEC gases are mesoscopic systems in the sense that the healing length, which provides a typical range of dynamic correlations and fixes the size of the vortex core, is smaller, but not extremely smaller than the size of the sample . For the same reason the angular momentum $`N\mathrm{}`$ carried by a single quantized vortex can have visible effects on the global motion of the condensate as we will prove in this letter. A further feature that characterizes these systems is the very peculiar type of confinement which yields new possibilities for exploring superfluid phenomena. Important gyroscopic effects associated with the occurrence of vortex lines have been already observed in trapped BEC gases . The authors of  have succeeded in testing the quantization of the angular momentum of a single vortex line. To this purpose one generates a quadrupole deformation in the plane orthogonal to the vortex axis. The observed precession of the deformation is proportional to the angular momentum carried by the vortex, in accordance with the predictions of theory . Notice that in this experiment the vortex line is not affected by the precession. The authors of  and  have instead observed the precession of a vortex line either displaced or tilted from the symmetry axis of the condensate. In this case the motion of the condensate is not affected at a macroscopic level and the precession involves the change of the density on a more microscopic scale, of the order of the size of the vortex core.

In the present work we discuss the macroscopic precession of the symmetry axis of a deformed condensate caused by the sudden rotation of the trap, in the presence of a quantized vortex line. This precession corresponds to a full rotation of the condensate in 3D, which preserves the intrinsic shape of the system.

The geometry of the proposed gyroscope is illustrated in fig.1. The system consists of a dilute and cold gas of atoms with mass $`m`$ confined by an axi-symmetric trap of harmonic shape:

$$V_{ext}=\frac{m}{2}\left(\omega _{}^2(x^2+y^2)+\omega _z^2z^2\right)$$
(1)
where $`\omega _{}`$ and $`\omega _z`$ are, respectively, the radial and axial trapping frequencies. The trapping potential is characterized by the deformation parameter

$$ϵ=\frac{(\omega _{}^2\omega _z^2)}{(\omega _{}^2+\omega _z^2)}$$
(2)
which will be taken different from zero. As a consequence of this anisotropy the atomic cloud is also deformed. If the atoms are bosons, at very low temperatures they undergo a phase transition associated with the macroscopic occupation of a single-particle state (Bose-Einstein condensation). This happens for temperatures below the critical value $`kT_c=0.94\mathrm{}\omega _{ho}N^{1/3}`$ where $`\omega _{ho}=(\omega _z\omega _{}^2)^{1/3}`$ is the geometrical average of the trapping frequencies and $`N`$ is the number of atoms. Typical values of $`T_c`$ range between $`0.1`$ and $`1\mu K`$. Below $`T_c`$ the system exhibits unique features which have been the object of systematic experimental and theoretical investigation. For our purposes the system should be very cold in order to minimize the dissipative effects produced by the thermal cloud which tend to destabilize the vortex line . For this reason we will discuss here the behaviour of the gas at zero temperature.

Let us consider a Bose-Einstein condensate in equilibrium in the trap, with no angular momentum, and let us suppose that the symmetry axis of the trapping potential is suddenly rotated in the $`xz`$ plane through an angle $`\theta _0`$. After the rotation the gas is no longer in equilibrium and starts oscillating around the new symmetry axis. If the angle of rotation is small the gas will keep its intrinsic shape and the motion will correspond to a periodic oscillation characterized by the angle $`\theta (t)`$, giving rise to the so-called scissors mode . The motion is very different from the one of a classical body because the inertia is strongly suppressed by superfluidity. In particular the oscillation frequency does not vanish when the deformation (2) of the trap becomes small, as one would expect for a classical system.

The calculation of the frequency of the scissors mode requires the solution of a non trivial many-body problem where the interactions among particles and the effects of quantum statistics play an important role. An exact solution of the problem can be obtained for large samples, such that the dimensionless parameter $`Na/a_{ho}`$ is much larger than unity. This limit corresponds to the so-called Thomas-Fermi (TF) regime and is well achieved in many available experimental configurations. Here $`a`$ is the s-wave scattering length (of the order of $`10^210^3\mu m`$) while $`a_{ho}=\sqrt{\mathrm{}/(m\omega _{ho})}`$ is the oscillator length fixed by the geometrical average of the trapping frequencies (of the order of a few microns in standard magnetic traps). In the TF limit, the equilibrium density takes the form of an inverted parabola: $`n(𝐫)=m[\mu V_{ext}(𝐫)]/(4\pi \mathrm{}^2a)`$ for $`\mu V_{ext}`$ and zero elsewhere, where $`\mu =(\omega _{ho}/2)(15Na/a_{ho})^{2/5}`$ is the chemical potential fixed by the normalization of the density. The surface where the density vanishes defines an ellipsoid whose principal radii $`R_{}`$ and $`R_z`$ are determined by the relationship $`\omega _{}^2R_{}^2=\omega _z^2R_z^2=2\mu /m`$. In the Thomas-Fermi limit the equations of motion take the simplified form of the hydrodynamic theory of superfluids . With respect to the equations of classical hydrodynamics they are characterized but the additional constraint of irrotationality. It is worth noticing that the ”hydrodynamic” form of these equations is not the result of collisional processes as happens in classical gases, but is the consequence of superfluidity. These equations admit an analytic solution for the scissors mode with frequency

$$\omega _{scissors}=\sqrt{\omega _{}^2+\omega _z^2}$$
(3)
This mode has recently been observed  confirming the predictions of theory with high accuracy.

Let us discuss now the case in which the condensate has initially an intrinsic angular momentum. This can be due to a quantized vortex aligned along the symmetry axis of the condensate, carrying one unit $`\mathrm{}`$ of angular momentum per particle. The size of the vortex core is fixed by the healing length $`\xi =(2m\mu /\mathrm{}^2)^{1/2}`$ and is always smaller than the size of the condensate. Also in the presence of the vortex the sudden rotation of the trap will excite the scissors mode, but now the oscillation will precess due to the torque

$$\frac{d}{dt}<𝐋>=\frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}<[𝐋,H]>=m<𝐫\times V_{ext}>$$
(4)
produced by the external anisotropic potential (1). Here $`𝐋`$ is the angular momentum operator and the expectation value is taken on the quantum mechanical state of the system. The value of the torque along the $`y`$ axis is $`d<L_y>/dt=m(\omega _{}^2\omega _z^2)N<xz>`$ and differs from zero immediately after the sudden rotation of the trap in the $`xz`$-plane, thereby causing the precession.

In order to derive the equation for the rotation of the condensate we notice that, if the angle of rotation $`\theta _0`$ is small compared to the deformation (2) of the trap, the shape of the sample is preserved. Under this condition the whole motion can be described in terms of two angles: the inclination angle $`\theta `$ and the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$. This is a remarkable feature because gases are highly compressible and their shape can change very easily. The values of $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$ are related to the averages $`<xz>`$ and $`<yz>`$ by the geometrical relations

$$<xz>=\frac{R^2}{7}\frac{\omega _z^2\omega _{}^2}{\omega _z\omega _{}}\theta \mathrm{cos}\varphi ,<yz>=\frac{R^2}{7}\frac{\omega _z^2\omega _{}^2}{\omega _z\omega _{}}\theta \mathrm{sin}\varphi $$
(5)
where $`R=\sqrt{R_{}R_z}`$ and we have assumed $`\theta ϵ`$.

The crucial problem now is to obtain the equations for the averages $`<xz>`$ and $`<yz>`$ in the presence of the vortex. This problem was solved in  where it was shown that, in the Thomas-Fermi limit, the quadrupole operators $`q_\pm =_{k=1}^N(x_k\pm iy_k)z_k`$ excite, respectively, just one collective mode $`\pm >`$ with frequency $`\omega _\pm `$. The solution of the Schrödinger equation, in the presence of a small perturbation generated by these operators, then takes the form

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(t)>=e^{iE_0t/\mathrm{}}[0>+c_+e^{i\omega _+t}+>+c_{}e^{i\omega _{}t}>]$$
(6)
where $`0>`$ is the equilibrium configuration, $`\pm >`$ are eigenstates of the Hamiltonian corresponding to the elementary excitations created by $`q_\pm `$ and the complex parameters $`c_\pm `$ characterize the initial state of the system. One can also show that the strengths of the quadrupole operators $`q_\pm `$ are equal: $`<0q_{}q_+0>=<0q_+q_{}0>`$, while the splitting between the two frequencies takes the simple form

$$\omega _+\omega _{}=\frac{<l_z>}{m<x^2+z^2>}$$
(7)
In eq.(7) the quantity $`<\mathrm{}_z>`$ is the angular momentum per particle in the equilibrium configuration, while the average square radii can be easily evaluated in the Thomas-Fermi limit where one finds $`<x^2>=<y^2>=(2/7)\mu /m\omega _{}^2`$ and $`<z^2>=(2/7)\mu /m\omega _z^2`$. Result (7) holds if the splitting is small compared to the unperturbed value (3) of the collective frequency.

The scenario emerging from the above discussion is quite clear. In the absence of vortices ($`<l_z>=0`$) the two modes $`\pm >`$ are degenerate and their frequency is given by (3). This is a simple consequence of time reversal symmetry. In the presence of the vortex there is a lift of degeneracy which is determined by the angular momentum of the system according to (7) . By expressing the average values $`<xz>`$ and $`<yz>`$ in terms of the expectation values of the operators $`q_\pm `$ and using explicitly eq. (6), one derives the following time dependence for the angles $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$:

$$\theta (t)\mathrm{cos}\varphi (t)=\alpha \mathrm{cos}\omega _+t+\alpha ^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega _+t+\beta \mathrm{cos}\omega _{}t+\beta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\omega _{}t$$
(8)
$$\theta (t)\mathrm{sin}\varphi (t)=\alpha ^{}\mathrm{cos}\omega _+t+\alpha \mathrm{sin}\omega _+t+\beta ^{}\mathrm{cos}\omega _{}t\beta \mathrm{sin}\omega _{}t$$
(9)
where the real coefficients $`\alpha `$, $`\alpha ^{}`$, $`\beta `$ and $`\beta ^{}`$ depend on the initial conditions for $`\theta `$ and $`\varphi `$. For example the normal modes $`\pm >`$ can be separately excited by choosing $`\alpha =\theta _0`$, $`\alpha ^{}=\beta =\beta ^{}=0`$ and $`\beta =\theta _0`$, $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}=0`$ respectively. In both cases the inclination angle $`\theta `$ remains constant, $`\theta (t)=\theta _0`$, while the azimuthal angle $`\varphi `$ precesses according to the laws $`\omega _+t`$ and $`\omega _{}t`$, respectively.

In the most relevant case of a sudden rotation in the $`xz`$ plane, the initial conditions instead correspond to $`\theta (0)=\theta _0,\theta ^{}(0)=\varphi (0)=\varphi ^{}(0)=0`$. In this case the parameters of eqs.(8-9) are $`\alpha =\beta =\theta _0/2`$, $`\alpha ^{}=\beta ^{}=0`$ and the solutions take the form

$$\varphi (t)=\frac{(\omega _+\omega _{})t}{2}$$
(10)
and

$$\theta (t)=\theta _0\mathrm{cos}\left[\frac{(\omega _++\omega _{})t}{2}\right]$$
(11)
The simultaneous excitation of the $`\pm >`$ modes is easily understood by noticing that the rotation of the trap produces a change in the external potential of the form $`\delta V_{ext}=m(\omega _{}^2\omega _z^2)\theta _0xz`$. This gives rise to a perturbative term in the Hamiltonian, proportional to the combination $`(q_++q_{})`$ of the quadrupole operators introduced above. Equations (10) and (11) show that the scissors oscillation, characterized by the frequency $`(\omega _++\omega _{})/2\omega _{scissors}`$, undergoes a precession $`d\varphi /dt`$ fixed by the splitting (7). The relative precession can be expressed in the form

$$\frac{\omega _+\omega _{}}{\omega _++\omega _{}}=\frac{7}{2}\frac{<\mathrm{}_z>}{\mathrm{}}\frac{\lambda ^{5/3}}{(1+\lambda ^2)^{3/2}}\left(15N\frac{a}{a_{ho}}\right)^{2/5}$$
(12)
where $`\lambda =\omega _z/\omega _{}=\sqrt{(1ϵ)/(1+ϵ)}`$ and we have used the Thomas-Fermi result for $`<x^2>`$ and $`<z^2>`$. The precession frequency $`d\varphi /dt`$, and hence the ratio (12), depends explictly on the value of the angular momentum per particle which, in the case of a single quantized vortex aligned along the symmetry axis of the condensate, is given by $`<\mathrm{}_z>=\mathrm{}`$. The ratio (12) depends also on the shape of the trap. This provides further flexibility to optimize the visibility of the precession. In typical experimental configurations the Thomas-Fermi combination $`(15Na/a_{ho})^{2/5}`$ is of the order of $`10^2`$ so that for a highly elongated trap ($`\lambda 1`$) the relative precession is small. For values of $`\lambda `$ closer to unity the ratio (12) becomes larger. With suitable choices of the parameters of the trap the precession can be easily of the order of 1 Hz and should be consequently observable by imaging the atomic cloud at different times.

In conclusion we have shown that Bose-Einstein condensed gases confined in harmonic traps can be used to realize a quantum gyroscope characterized by two important superfluid effects: the reduced value of the inertia of the sample and the quantization of the angular momentum associated with the vortex. The proposed gyroscope is characterized by the precession of the symmetry axis of the condensate around the symmetry axis of the confining trap, the precession frequency being fixed by the angular momentum carried by the vortex line. The experimental realization of the proposed gyroscope would provide a further tool to explore the intriguing features exhibited by rotating Bose-Einstein condensed gases, including the stability  and the life time  of vortex lines.

It is a pleasure to thank E. Cornell, J. Dalibard, A. Fetter, R. Packard, J. Reppy, E. Varauqaux and J. Vinen for useful comments and discussions. I also like to thank the hospitality of the Lorentz Center in Leiden and of the Newton Institute in Cambridge. This research is supported by the Ministero della Ricerca Scientifica e Tecnologica (MURST).

FIGURE CAPTION:

Schematic picture of the BEC gyroscope. The condensate is suddenly rotated with respect to the symmetry axis of the trap ($`z`$-th axis) and exhibits precession in the presence of a quantized vortex line.


text:
# Heat trace asymptotics with transmittal boundary conditions and quantum brane-world scenario

## 1 Motivations

It is well known that the regularized one-loop effective action in Euclidean quantum field theory is given by the following formal expression

$$W^{\text{reg}}=\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{log}det(D)_{\text{reg}}=\frac{\mu ^{2s}}{2}_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑tt^{s1}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{exp}(tD)),$$
(1)
where we have introduced the (zeta-function) regularization parameter $`s`$, which should be set to zero after calculations. The parameter $`\mu `$ of the dimension of mass makes the effective action (1) dmensionless for any $`s`$. The value of $`\mu `$ is to be fixed by a normalization condition. The operator $`D`$ is a partial differential operator which appears in the quadratic part of the classical action. We assume that $`D`$ is a second order operator of Laplace type and that there is an asymptotic series

$$\mathrm{Tr}(f\mathrm{exp}(tD))\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}t^{\frac{nm}{2}}a_n(f,D)$$
(2)
as $`t0`$. Here $`m`$ is the dimension of the underlying manifold $`M`$ and $`f`$ is a smearing (or localizing) function. Near $`s=0`$ the regularized effective action behaves as

$$W^{\text{reg}}\frac{1}{2s}a_m(1,D)+O(s^0).$$
(3)
Therefore, the heat kernel coefficient $`a_m`$ provides complete information on the one-loop divergences. In most of the cases that one considers, the coefficients $`a_n`$ are locally computable; equivalently, this means that the counter-terms are local. If the operator $`D`$ is conformally covariant, then $`a_m`$ also defines the trace anomaly in the stress-energy tensor.

The heat kernel asymptotics on (smooth) manifolds with or without a boundary have been studied in some detail. Relatively less is known about the case when there are some kinds of “non-smoothness” inside the manifold. Only the cases of point-like singularities, either conical  or delta-function ones , have attracted considerable attention. We also mention a related work .

In the present paper we deal with the heat kernel asymptotics for the case when the operator $`D`$ has a “non-smoothness” on a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of co-dimension one. Such kind of singularities appear in many problems of quantum field theory as, e.g. the Casimir energy calculations. The case when the metric is smooth across $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has been studied recently by Bordag and Vassilevich  and by Moss . In the present paper we allow normal derivatives of the metric to jump on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This study is motivated by (and has applications in) the brane-world scenario  which operates with the metric of the type

$$(ds)^2=(dx^5)^2+e^{\alpha |x^5|}(ds_4)^2,$$
(4)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant and where $`(ds_4)^2`$ is a line element on four-dimensional hypersurface. Due to the presence of the absolute value of the 5th coordinate in (4), the normal derivative of the metric jumps on the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ defined by the vanishing of the coordinate $`x^5`$. It is also assumed that the bulk action is supplemented by a surface term concentrated on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This model can be further generalized to allow for a more general line element and a more general singular surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. One can also imagine a similar construction in dimension $`m`$ other than $`5`$, though the codimension of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will be always supposed to be $`1`$. It is clear that the quadratic part of the classical matter action for a quite general class of the brane-world models should be of the form

$$S_2=_Md^5x\sqrt{g}\varphi D\varphi ,$$
(5)
where $`\varphi `$ describes the bulk field fluctuations, and the operator $`D`$ is111Note that in the present paper we neglect possible derivative terms in the surface action for simplicity

$$D=(^2+E(x))+U\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$
(6)
Here $``$ is a suitable covariant derivative, and $`E(x)`$ and $`U(x)`$ are endomorphisms (matrix valued fields). Let $`h`$ be the determinant of the induced metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then $`\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a delta function defined such that

$$_M𝑑x\sqrt{g}\delta _\mathrm{\Sigma }f(x)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }𝑑x\sqrt{h}f(x).$$
(7)
We shall assume that $`D`$ is smooth on $`M\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. On the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we shall only assume that the leading symbol (metric) of $`D`$ is continuous; the normal derivatives of the metric are not assumed to be continuous on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Furthermore, we shall impose no assumption of continuity on the remaining tensors ($`E`$, curvature, etc.) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Let $`x^m`$ be a smooth function so the equation $`x^m=0`$ defines the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and so $`dx^m0`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is convenient to introduce a coordinate system on $`M`$ such that in a neighbourhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$

$$(ds)^2=(dx^m)^2+g_{ab}dx^adx^x.$$
(8)
The spectral problem for $`D`$ on $`M`$ as it stands is ill-defined owing to the discontinuities (or singularities) on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It should be replaced by a pair of spectral problems on the two sides $`M^\pm `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ together with suitable matching conditions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In order to find such matching conditions, we consider an eigenfunction $`\varphi _\lambda `$ of the operator (6):

$$D\varphi _\lambda =\lambda \varphi _\lambda .$$
(9)
It is clear that $`\varphi _\lambda `$ must be continuous on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$:

$$\varphi |_{x^m=+0}=\varphi |_{x^m=0}.$$
(10)
Otherwise, the second normal derivative of $`\varphi _\lambda `$ would create a $`\delta ^{}`$ singularity on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which is absent on the right hand side of (9). Let us integrate (9) over a small cylinder $`𝒞=C^{m1}\times [ϵ,+ϵ]`$

$$_𝒞d^mx\sqrt{g}\left(_m^2\varphi _\lambda \left[_a^2\varphi _\lambda +(E+\lambda )\varphi _\lambda \right]\right)+_Cd^{m1}x\sqrt{h}U\varphi _\lambda =0.$$
(11)
We now take the limit as $`ϵ0`$. Since the expression in the square brackets in (11) is bounded, the contribution that this term makes vanishes in the limit. We obtain

$$0=_Cd^{m1}x\sqrt{h}\left(_m\varphi _\lambda |_{x^m=+0}+_m\varphi _\lambda |_{x^m=0}+U\varphi _\lambda \right).$$
(12)
Since $`C`$ and $`\lambda `$ are arbitrary, we conclude that a proper matching condition for the normal derivatives is

$$_m\varphi |_{x^m=+0}+_m\varphi |_{x^m=0}+U\varphi =0.$$
(13)
A more mathematically careful construction of these transmittal boundary conditions will be given in subsequent sections.

There have been already many works devoted to the quantization of bulk fields222Not to be mixed with quantum effects of the so-called “brane matter” which is confined on the singular surface in the brane-world scenario (see e.g. ). However, the heat kernel expansion, divergences and renormalization have not been discussed to a considerable order of generality.

Here is a brief guide to this paper; a more expanded discussion is given in Section 2 after the necessary notation has been introduced. In Section 2, we give a more precise statement of transmittal boundary conditions and discuss the geometry of operators of Laplace type. In section 3 we consider a smooth structure and the gluing construction. The invariance theory is developed in section 4. Section 5 deals with reduction of the transmittal problem to Dirichlet and Neumann boundary value problems. In section 6, we construct a transmittal problem for the de Rham complex. We use this problem to complete the calculation of several first heat kernel coefficients. The coefficient $`a_4`$ is calculated in section 7. In section 8 we calculate $`a_5`$ for a restricted class of transmittal problems and discuss applications to the brane-world scenario. Appendix contains some technical details.

## 2 Introduction

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a codimension $`1`$ hypersurface of a compact smooth manifold which divides $`M`$ into two manifolds $`M^\pm `$. This means that

$$M:=M^+_\mathrm{\Sigma }M^{}$$

is the union of two compact manifolds $`M^\pm `$ along their common boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We assume given a Riemannian metric which is continuous on $`M`$ and smooth when restricted to $`M^\pm `$. Let $`V`$ be a smooth vector bundle over $`M`$ and let $`D^\pm `$ be operators of Laplace type on $`V^\pm :=V|_{M^\pm }`$; no further conditions are placed on $`D^\pm `$ apart from the assumption that the leading symbols agree on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The operators $`D^\pm `$ determine canonical connections $`{}_{}{}^{\pm }`$ on $`V^\pm `$, see equation (16) below. Let $`U`$ be an auxiliary endomorphism of $`V_\mathrm{\Sigma }:=V|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`\nu `$ be the inward unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M^+`$ and let $`\varphi :=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$ be a pair of smooth sections to $`V^\pm `$. We define the transmittal operator

$$_U\varphi =\{\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}\{(_\nu ^+\varphi ^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }(_\nu ^{}\varphi ^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }U\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}.$$
(14)
An elliptic boundary condition for a $`q^{th}`$ order operator on a vector bundle of dimension $`r`$ must involve $`\frac{1}{2}qr`$ conditions. We set $`q=2`$ as we are considering operators of Laplace type. Neumann and Dirichlet boundary conditions involve $`\frac{1}{2}2r=r`$ conditions. Transmittal boundary conditions fulfil this counting condition; since we have two vector bundles $`V^\pm `$, we must specify $`\frac{1}{2}2(2r)=2r`$ conditions which is what the vanishing of the operator in equation (14) imposes:

$$\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{ and }_\nu ^+\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{_\nu ^{}\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}+U\{\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}.$$

Let $`D:=(D^+,D^{})`$ act on $`\varphi :=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$ in the natural fashion. We restrict the domain of $`D`$ to pairs $`\varphi `$ so that $`_U\varphi =0`$. Let $`D__U`$ be the realization of $`D`$ on this domain and let $`e^{tD__U}`$ be the associated fundamental solution of the heat equation. Let $`f=(f^+,f^{})`$ where the $`f^\pm `$ are smooth on $`M^\pm `$ and where $`f^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=f^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; no matching is assumed for the normal derivatives of $`f`$. Let

$$a(f,D,U)(t):=\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}\{fe^{tD__U}\}$$

be the heat trace. If the $`D^\pm `$ are formally self-adjoint, and if $`U`$ is self-adjoint, then $`D__U`$ self-adjoint. Thus we can find a discrete spectral resolution $`\{\lambda _i,\varphi _i\}`$ where the $`\{\varphi _i\}`$ form a complete orthonormal basis for $`L^2(V)`$, where $`D^\pm \varphi _i^\pm =\lambda _i\varphi _i^\pm `$, and where $`_U\varphi =0`$. We then have:

$$a(f,D,U)(t)=_ie^{t\lambda _i}_Mf(\varphi _i,\varphi _i).$$
(15)
###### Assumption 2.1

There exists a full asymptotic series as $`t0`$:

$$a(f,D,U)(t)_{n0}t^{(nm)/2}a_n(f,D,U)$$

where the heat trace coefficients $`a_n(f,D,U)`$ are locally computable, i.e. there are local invariants $`a_n(x^\pm ,D^\pm )`$ defined on $`M^\pm `$ and local invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(y,f,D,U)`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so that:

$`a_n(f,D,U)=a_n^+(f,D)+a_n^{}(f,D)+a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)\text{ where}`$
$`a_n^\pm (f,D)=_{M^\pm }f(x^\pm )a_n(x^\pm ,D^\pm )\text{ and}`$
$`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(y,f,D,U).`$
We remark that Assumption 2.1 has been established by  if the leading symbol (i.e. the metric) is smooth.

Before discussing the interior invariants $`a_n^\pm `$, we must describe the geometry of operators of Laplace type. The operators $`D^\pm `$ determine natural connections $`^\pm `$ and natural $`0^{th}`$ order operators $`E^\pm `$ so that

$$D^\pm =\{\mathrm{Tr}(^\pm ^\pm )+E^\pm \}.$$

If we choose a system of local coordinates and a local frame, we can express:

$$D^\pm =(g^{\pm ,\mu \nu }_\mu _\nu +A^{\pm ,\mu }_\mu +B^\pm )$$

where we adopt the Einstein convention and sum over repeated indices. Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\pm `$ be the Christoffel symbols of the metrics $`g^\pm `$. The connection $`1`$ forms $`\omega ^\pm `$ of $`^\pm `$ and the endomorphisms $`E^\pm `$ are then given by

$`\omega _\delta ^\pm =\frac{1}{2}g_{\nu \delta }^\pm (A^{\pm ,\nu }+g^{\pm ,\mu \sigma }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mu \sigma }^\pm {}_{}{}^{\nu }I)\text{ and}`$
$`E^\pm =B^\pm g^{\pm ,\nu \mu }(_\nu \omega _\mu ^\pm +\omega _\nu ^\pm \omega _\mu ^\pm \omega _\sigma ^\pm \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\nu \mu }^\pm {}_{}{}^{\sigma });`$ (16)
see  for further details. Let indices $`i`$, $`j`$, $`k`$, and $`l`$ range from $`1`$ to $`m`$ and index a local orthonormal frame for the tangent bundle of the manifold. Let $`R_{ijkl}^\pm `$ be the components of the curvature tensor of the Levi-Civita connection; with our sign convention the Ricci tensors $`\rho ^\pm `$ and the scalar curvatures $`\tau ^\pm `$ are given by:

$$\rho _{ij}^\pm :=R_{ikkj}^\pm \text{ and }\tau ^\pm :=\rho _{ii}=R_{ijji}.$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^\pm `$ be the components of the curvature tensors of the connection $`^\pm `$. The interior invariants have been computed previously in the smooth context. They vanish if $`n`$ is odd and have been determined explicitly for $`n=0,2,4,6,8,10`$ \- see for example . The presence of the junction discontinuity along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not affect the interior invariants $`a_n^\pm `$ and consequently we may apply these results to see that:

###### Theorem 2.2

The invariants $`a_n^\pm `$ vanish if $`n`$ is odd. We have:

1. $`a_0^\pm (f,D)=(4\pi )^{m/2}_{M^\pm }f\mathrm{Tr}(I)`$.
2. $`a_2^\pm (f,D)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}_{M^\pm }f\mathrm{Tr}(\tau ^\pm I+6E^\pm )`$.
3. $`a_4^\pm (f,D)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{360}_{M^\pm }f\mathrm{Tr}\{60E_{;kk}^\pm +60R_{ijji}^\pm E^\pm +180E^\pm E^\pm `$
. $`+30\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^\pm \mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}^\pm +(12\tau _{;kk}^\pm +5(\tau ^\pm )^22|(\rho ^\pm )^2|+2|(R^\pm )^2|)I\}`$.

We now introduce some additional notation to describe the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let indices $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, and $`d`$ index a local orthonormal frame $`\{e_a\}`$ for the tangent bundle of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; we complete this frame to a frame for the tangent bundle of $`M`$ by letting $`e_m:=\nu `$ be the inward unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M^+`$. Let $`\nu ^\pm :=\pm \nu `$ be the inward unit normals of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M^\pm `$ and let

$$L_{ab}^\pm :=(_{e_a}^\pm e_b,\nu ^\pm )|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

be the associated second fundamental forms. Let

$$\omega _a:=_a^+_a^{}.$$

Since the difference of two connections is tensorial, $`\omega _a`$ is a well defined endomorphism of $`V_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The tensor $`\omega _a`$ is chiral; it changes sign if the roles of $`+`$ and $``$ are reversed. Since we can describe the matching condition on the normal derivatives in the form:

$$(_{\nu ^+}^+\varphi ^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }+(_\nu ^{}^{}\varphi ^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=U\varphi |_\mathrm{\Sigma },$$

the tensor field $`U`$ is non-chiral as it is not sensitive to the roles of $`+`$ and $``$. The main result of this paper is the following Theorem which determines the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ for $`n=0,1,2,3`$; the invariant $`a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a bit more combinatorially complex and the formula for this invariant is discussed in Section 7.

###### Theorem 2.3

1. $`a_0^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=0`$.
2. $`a_1^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=0`$.
3. $`a_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{2f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})I6fU\}`$.
4. $`a_3^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{384}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{\frac{3}{2}f(L_{aa}^+L_{bb}^++L_{aa}^{}L_{bb}^{}+2L_{aa}^+L_{bb}^{})I`$

$`+3f(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{}L_{ab}^{}+2L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})I+9(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})I`$

$`+48fU^2+24f\omega _a\omega _a24f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})U24(f_{;\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})U\}`$.

We can now give a more complete outline to the paper than was given in the introduction. In Section 3, we give an alternate formulation of transmittal boundary conditions in terms of $`C^1`$ structures that will be convenient when considering conformal variations. In Section 4, we use invariance theory and dimensional analysis to prove the following result which gives the general form that the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ have:

###### Lemma 2.4

There exist universal constants so that:

1. $`a_0^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=0`$.
2. $`a_1^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=_\mathrm{\Sigma }c_1f\mathrm{Tr}(I)`$
3. $`a_2^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{d_1f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})I+d_2(f_{;\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})I+d_3fU\}`$.
4. $`a_3^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{384}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{c_2(L_{aa}^+L_{bb}^{})I+c_3(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})I`$

$`+c_4(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}^+f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})I+c_5(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}}^{})I`$
. $`+c_6(E^++E^{})+c_7(R_{ijji}^++R_{ijji}^{})I+c_8(\rho _{mm}^++\rho _{mm}^{})I`$
. $`+d_4f(L_{aa}^+L_{bb}^++L_{aa}^{}L_{bb}^{}+2L_{aa}^+L_{bb}^{})I+d_5f(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{}L_{ab}^{}+2L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})I`$
. $`+d_6(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})I+d_7fU^2+d_8f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})U`$
. $`+d_9(f_{;\nu ^+}^++f_{;\nu ^{}}^{})U+e_1f\omega _a\omega _a\}`$.

If we suppose that the operator $`D`$ is smooth and that the localizing function $`f`$ is smooth on all of $`M`$, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ plays no role and thus the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vanish. We use this observation to show in Lemma 4.1 that the coefficients $`c_i`$ must vanish. In Section 5 we recall formulas for the heat trace invariants on manifolds with boundary; see Lemma 5.1. We use these formulas to determine the coefficients $`d_j`$, see Lemma 5.3 for details. In Section 6, we construct a transmittal problem for the de Rham complex and use the resulting local index theorem to show that the one remaining unknown coefficient has the value $`e_1=24`$; this completes the proof of Theorem 2.3. We remark that Moss  used different methods to show that $`e_1=24`$. In Section 7, we perform a similar analysis to determine the invariant $`a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The value of the coefficients $`c_1`$, $`d_1`$, $`d_2`$, $`d_3`$, $`c_5`$, $`c_6`$, $`c_7`$, and $`c_8`$ agrees with the values calculated previously in  using other methods.

## 3 Glueing constructions

We use the geodesic flow to identify a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M^+`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times [0,\epsilon )`$ and a neighborhood of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`M^{}`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times (\epsilon ,0]`$ for some $`\epsilon >0`$ so that the curves $`t(y,t)`$ are unit speed geodesics normal to the boundary $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$. We define a canonical smooth structure on $`M=M^+M^{}`$ by glueing along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times \{0\}`$. Note that the metric then takes the form:

$${}_{}{}^{\pm }ds^2=g_{ab}^\pm (y,t)dy^ady^b+dtdt.$$

We can use $`U`$ to define a canonical $`C^1`$ structure on $`V`$. Let $`s_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a local frame for $`V|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We use parallel transport along the geodesic normals to define a local frame $`s^{}`$ for $`V^{}`$ near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so $`_\nu s^{}=0`$. We twist a corresponding parallel frame over $`V^+`$ to define a local frame $`s^+`$ for $`V^+`$ near $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ so $`_\nu s^+=Us^+`$. We glue $`s^+`$ to $`s^{}`$ over $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to define a $`C^1`$ structure for $`V`$ over $`M`$ which is characterized by the property that $`_\nu ^+_\nu ^{}=U`$. We then have that $`_U\varphi =0`$ if and only if $`\varphi C^1(V)`$. When studying variations of the form $`D(\epsilon ):=e^{\epsilon f}D`$ we will fix the $`C^1`$ structure or equivalently choose $`U(\epsilon )`$ so the transmittal boundary condition $`_U(\epsilon )`$ is independent of $`\epsilon `$.

Suppose that the bundles $`V^\pm `$ are equipped with Hermitian inner products and that the operators $`D^\pm `$ are formally self-adjoint. This means that the associated connections $`^\pm `$ are unitary and the endomorphisms $`E^\pm `$ are symmetric. Suppose that $`U`$ is self-adjoint. Let $`\varphi :=(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$ and $`\psi :=(\psi ^+,\psi ^{})`$ satisfy transmittal boundary conditions. Since $`\nu `$ is the inward unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M^+`$ and the outward unit normal of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M^{}`$, we may integrate by parts to show that $`D`$ is self-adjoint by computing:

$`(D\varphi ,\psi )_{L^2}(\varphi ,D\psi )_{L^2}`$
$`=`$ $`_{M^+}\{(\varphi _{;ii}^+,\psi ^+)(\varphi ^+,\psi _{;ii}^+)\}+_M^{}\{(\varphi _{;ii}^{},\psi ^{})(\varphi ^{},\psi _{;ii}^{})\}`$
$`=`$ $`_{M^+}\{(\varphi _{;i}^+,\psi ^+)(\varphi ^+,\psi _{;i}^+)\}_{;i}+_M^{}\{(\varphi _{;i}^{},\psi ^{})(\varphi ^{},\psi _{;i}^{})\}_{;i}`$
$`=`$ $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{(\varphi _{;\nu }^+\varphi _{;\nu }^{},\psi )(\varphi ,\psi _{;\nu }^+\psi _{;\nu }^{})\}`$
$`=`$ $`_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{(U\varphi ,\psi )(\varphi ,U\psi )\}=0.`$
## 4 Invariance Theory

We begin by giving the proof of Lemma 2.4. We assign degree $`1`$ to the tensors $`\{L^\pm ,U,\omega \}`$ and assign degree $`2`$ to the tensors $`\{R^\pm ,\mathrm{\Omega }^\pm ,E^\pm \}`$. We increment the degree by $`1`$ for every explicit covariant derivative which appears. Dimensional analysis shows that the integrands $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be built universally and polynomial from monomials which are homogeneous of weighted degree $`n1`$ and which are non-chiral. The structure group is $`O(m1)`$. We use H. Weyl’s theorem on the invariants of the orthogonal group to write down a spanning set; product formulas then yield the coefficients are dimension free except for the normalizing factor of $`(4\pi )^{m/2}`$. $``$

Thus to determine the formulas for the $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we must determine the unknown coefficients in Lemma 2.4. We shall use the various functorial properties of these invariants in the calculation. We begin our evaluation with:

###### Lemma 4.1

We have $`c_1=c_2=c_3=c_4=c_5=c_6=c_7=c_8=0`$.

Proof: Suppose we take $`U=0`$ and let $`(f,D)`$ be smooth on all of $`M`$. Then the hypersurface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ plays no role and thus the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ vanish in this setting. The terms indexed by these coefficients $`c_1`$, $`c_2`$, $`c_3`$, $`c_4`$, $`c_5`$, $`c_6`$, $`c_7`$, and $`c_8`$ survive and thus these coefficients must vanish. $``$

## 5 Manifolds with boundary

Let $`M_0`$ be a smooth Riemannian manifold with smooth boundary $`M_0`$ and let $`D_0`$ be an operator of Laplace type over $`M_0`$. Let

$$_D\varphi :=\varphi |_{M_0}\text{ and }_S\varphi :=(_\nu \varphi +S\varphi )|_{M_0}.$$

The operator $`_D`$ defines Dirichlet boundary conditions and the operator $`_S`$ defines Robin boundary conditions. Let $`D_{}`$ be the realization of $`D`$ with the associated boundary condition. If $`f`$ is a smooth function on $`M`$, then

$`\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(fe^{tD_{_{D/S}}})_{n0}t^{(nm)/2}a_n(f,D,_{D/S})\text{ where}`$
$`a_n(f,D,_{D/S})=a_n^M(f,D)+a_n^{M_0}(f,D,_{D/S})`$
are given by local formulas. The interior invariants $`a_n^M(f,D)`$ can be calculated using Theorem 2.2. Formulas if $`n5`$ are known for the invariants $`a_n^M(f,D,_{D/S})`$ for $`n5`$; see for example . These results yield the following:

###### Lemma 5.1

1. $`a_0^M(f,D,_{D/S})=0`$.
2. $`a_1^M(f,D,_D)=(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{4}_M\mathrm{Tr}(I)`$.
3. $`a_1^M(f,D,_S)=(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{4}_M\mathrm{Tr}(I)`$.
4. $`a_2^M(f,D,_D)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}_M\mathrm{Tr}\{2fL_{aa}I3f_{;m}I\}`$.
5. $`a_2^M(f,D,_S)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{6}_M\mathrm{Tr}\{f(2L_{aa}I+12S)+3f_{;m}I\}`$.
6. $`a_3^M(f,D,_D)=(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{384}_M\mathrm{Tr}\{96fE+f(16R_{ijji}`$
. $`8R_{amma}+7L_{aa}L_{bb}10L_{ab}L_{ab})I30f_{;m}L_{aa}I+24f_{;mm}I\}`$.
7. $`a_3^M(f,D,_S)=+(4\pi )^{(1m)/2}\frac{1}{384}_M\mathrm{Tr}(96fE+f(16R_{ijji}8R_{amma}`$
. $`+13L_{aa}L_{bb}+2L_{ab}L_{ab})I+f(96SL_{aa}+192S^2)+f_{;m}(6L_{aa}I+96S)`$
. $`+24f_{;mm}I\}`$.
8. $`a_4^M(f,D,_D)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{360}_M\mathrm{Tr}\{f(120E_{;m}+120EL_{aa})`$
. $`+f(18R_{ijji;m}+20R_{ijji}L_{aa}+4R_{amam}L_{bb}12R_{ambm}L_{ab}+4R_{abcb}L_{ac}`$
. $`+24L_{aa:bb}+\frac{40}{21}L_{aa}L_{bb}L_{cc}\frac{88}{7}L_{ab}L_{ab}L_{cc}+\frac{320}{21}L_{ab}L_{bc}L_{ac})I180f_{;m}E`$
. $`+f_{;m}(30R_{ijji}\frac{180}{7}L_{aa}L_{bb}+\frac{60}{7}L_{ab}L_{ab})I+24f_{;mm}L_{aa}I30f_{;iim}I\}`$.
9. $`a_4^M(f,D,_S)=(4\pi )^{m/2}\frac{1}{360}_M\mathrm{Tr}\{f(240E_{;m}+120EL_{aa})+f(42R_{ijji;m}`$
. $`+24L_{aa:bb}+20R_{ijji}L_{aa}+4R_{amam}L_{bb}12R_{ambm}L_{ab}+4R_{abcb}L_{ac}`$
. $`+\frac{40}{3}L_{aa}L_{bb}L_{cc}+8L_{ab}L_{ab}L_{cc}+\frac{32}{3}L_{ab}L_{bc}L_{ac})I+f(720SE+120SR_{ijji}`$
. $`+144SL_{aa}L_{bb}+48SL_{ab}L_{ab}+480S^2L_{aa}+480S^3+120S_{:aa})`$
. $`+f_{;m}(180E+72SL_{aa}+240S^2)+f_{;m}(30R_{ijji}+12L_{aa}L_{bb}+12L_{ab}L_{ab})I`$
. $`+120f_{;mm}S+24f_{;mm}L_{aa}I+30f_{;iim}I\}`$.

We extend results of  for smooth metrics to the current setting to relate the invariants $`a_n^M(f,D,_{D/S})`$ to the invariants $`a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D)`$ as follows.

###### Lemma 5.2

Let $`M^\pm `$ be two copies of of a smooth manifold $`M_0`$ joined along the common boundary. Let $`D^\pm :=D_0`$ and let $`U=2S`$. Extend $`f_0C^{\mathrm{}}(M_0)`$ to $`M`$ as an even function $`f`$. Then

$$a_n^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=a_n^{M_0}(f_0,D_0,_D)+a_n^{M_0}(f_0,D_0,_S).$$

Proof: Let $`\{\lambda _{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i}\}`$ and $`\{\lambda _{S,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i}\}`$ be the discrete spectral resolutions of $`D_0`$ for Dirichlet and Robin boundary conditions over $`M_0`$. We wish to use these collections to construct the discrete spectral resolution of $`D`$ with the given transmittal boundary conditions. Extend the sections $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i}`$ to be odd sections and the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i}`$ to be even sections on $`V`$ over $`M`$ by defining:

$$\varphi _{D,i}(x^\pm )=\pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i}(x)\text{ and }\varphi _{S,i}(x^\pm )=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i}(x).$$

We show the sections $`\{\varphi _{D,i},\varphi _{S,j}\}`$ form an orthonormal system by computing:

$`_M(\varphi _{D,i},\varphi _{D,j})=\frac{1}{2}_{M^+}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,j})+(1)^2\frac{1}{2}_M^{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,j})=\delta _{ij},`$
$`_M(\varphi _{D,i},\varphi _{S,j})=\frac{1}{2}_{M^+}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,j})\frac{1}{2}_M^{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,j})=0,\text{ and}`$
$`_M(\varphi _{S,i},\varphi _{S,j})=\frac{1}{2}_{M^+}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,j})+\frac{1}{2}_M^{}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,j})=\delta _{ij}.`$
Let $`\varphi =(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$. We define:

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_e(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^+(x^+)+\varphi ^{}(x^{}))\text{ and }\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_o(x)=\frac{1}{2}(\varphi ^+(x^+)\varphi ^{}(x^{})).$$

We expand $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{e/o}`$ using the sections $`\varphi _{S/D,j}`$. We then extend $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{e/o}`$ to an even/odd pair of sections $`\varphi _{e/o}`$. Since $`\varphi =\varphi _e+\varphi _o`$, this shows that the sections $`\{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i}\}`$ form a complete orthonormal basis for $`L^2(V)`$. Since the $`\varphi _{S,i}`$ are even sections, they are continuous. Since the $`\varphi _{D,i}`$ are odd sections which vanish on the common boundary, they are continuous as well. We verify that the transmittal boundary conditions are satisfied by computing:

$`(\varphi _{D,i;\nu ^+}^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{D,i;\nu })|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\varphi _{D,i;\nu ^{}})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }+0=(\varphi _{D,i;\nu ^+}^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }2S\varphi _{D,i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`(\varphi _{S,i;\nu ^+}^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i;\nu })|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i;\nu })|_\mathrm{\Sigma }2\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i;\nu }+S\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{S,i})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{S,i;\nu })|_\mathrm{\Sigma }2S\psi _{S,i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=(\psi _{S,i;\nu ^{}}^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }2S\psi _{S,i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`=(\psi _{S,i;\nu ^+}^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }2S\psi _{S,i}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }.`$
This shows that $`\{(\lambda _{i,D},\varphi _{i,D}),(\lambda _{j,S},\varphi _{j,S})\}`$ gives the desired discrete spectral resolution. Since $`f`$ is an even function, we use equation (15) to see:

$`\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(fe^{tD})`$ $`=`$ $`_ie^{t\lambda _{i,D}}_Mf(\varphi _{i,D},\varphi _{i,D})+_je^{t\lambda _{j,S}}_Mf(\varphi _{j,S},\varphi _{j,S})`$
$`=`$ $`_ie^{t\lambda _{i,D}}_{M_0}f_0(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,D},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{i,D})+_je^{t\lambda _{j,S}}_{M_0}f_0(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{j,S},\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{j,S})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(f_0e^{tD_{0,_D}})+\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(f_0e^{tD_{0,_S}}).`$
The desired result now follows by equating terms in the asymptotic expansions. We note that were we to extend $`f_0`$ as an odd function, then the terms would cancel instead of combining and we would get 0. $``$

The following result is an immediate consequence of Lemmas 5.1 and 5.2.

###### Lemma 5.3

We have $`d_1=2`$, $`d_2=0`$, $`d_3=6`$, $`d_4=\frac{3}{2}`$, $`d_5=3`$, $`d_6=9`$, $`d_7=48`$, $`d_8=24`$, and $`d_9=24`$.

## 6 A Transmittal problem for the de Rham cplx

To evaluate the coefficient $`e_1`$, we use the local index theorem. We begin by constructing transmittal boundary conditions for the de Rham complex. We begin by recalling some facts concerning exterior $`\mathrm{ext}`$, interior $`\mathrm{int}`$, and Clifford multiplication $`\mathrm{cl}`$. Let $`U`$ be a cotangent vector. We can choose a local orthonormal frame so $`U=ce^1`$. Let $`1i_1<\mathrm{}<i_pm`$. Then

$`\mathrm{ext}(U)e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}=ce^1e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\text{ if }1<i_1,`$
$`\mathrm{ext}(U)e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}=0\text{ if }1=i_1,`$
$`\mathrm{int}(U)e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}=0\text{ if }1<i_1,\text{ and}`$
$`\mathrm{int}(U)e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}=ce^{i_2}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}\text{ if }1=i_1.`$
Thus exterior multiplication adds an index and interior multiplication cancels an index if possible. Let $`\mathrm{cl}(U):=\mathrm{ext}(U)\mathrm{int}(U)`$ denote Clifford multiplication;

$$\mathrm{cl}(U_1)\mathrm{cl}(U_2)+\mathrm{cl}(U_2)\mathrm{cl}(U_1)=2(U_1,U_2)\text{I}.$$

We can write the exterior derivative $`d`$ and the interior derivative $`\delta `$ in the form:

$`d\varphi ^\pm =\mathrm{ext}(e^i)_{e_i}^\pm \varphi ^\pm ,\delta \varphi ^\pm =\mathrm{int}(e^i)_{e_i}^\pm \varphi ^\pm ,\text{ and}`$ (18)
$`(d+\delta )\varphi ^\pm =\mathrm{cl}(e^i)_{e_i}^\pm \varphi ^\pm .`$
Let $`M=M^+_\mathrm{\Sigma }M^{}`$; we give $`M`$ the smooth structure defined in Section 3. Let $`V:=\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the exterior algebra. Let $`\varphi =(\varphi ^+,\varphi ^{})`$ where $`\varphi ^\pm `$ are smooth differential forms over $`M^\pm `$. We let $`\varphi ^\pm |_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be sections to the full exterior bundle; we do not set $`dx^m`$ to zero. Let

$$_0\varphi :=\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

Thus $`_0\varphi =0`$ if and only if $`\varphi `$ is continuous on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. We let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=(d+\delta )^2`$ with

$$\text{Domain}(\mathrm{\Delta }):=𝒟:=\{\varphi :_0\varphi =0\text{ and }_0(d+\delta )\varphi =0\}.$$

The following Lemma will be crucial for our analysis.

###### Lemma 6.1

1. We have $`_0\varphi =0`$ if and only if $`((d+\delta )\varphi ,\psi )_{L^2}=(\varphi ,(d+\delta )\psi )_{L^2}`$ for every $`\psi `$ satisfying $`_0\psi =0`$.
2. The operator $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=(d+\delta )^2`$ with the domain $`𝒟`$ is self-adjoint.
3. Let $`U:=\mathrm{cl}(e^m)\mathrm{cl}(e^a)\omega _a`$. Then $`\varphi 𝒟`$ if and only if $`_U\varphi =0`$.
4. Let $`_{ab}:=(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})`$. Then $`\omega _a=_{ab}(\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^b)+\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^b))`$ and . $`U=_{ab}\{\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^a)\mathrm{ext}(e^b)+\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^a)\mathrm{int}(e^b)\}`$.
5. Since $`U\mathrm{\Lambda }^p\mathrm{\Lambda }^p`$, $`U`$ induces transmittal boundary conditions for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_p`$. We have $`a_n(1,\mathrm{\Delta }_e,U_e)a_m(1,\mathrm{\Delta }_o,U_0)=0`$ for $`nm`$ and
. $`a_m(1,\mathrm{\Delta }_e,U_e)a_m(1,\mathrm{\Delta }_o,U_o)\mathrm{Z}\mathrm{Z}`$.
6. We have $`dim\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Delta }__U^e)dim\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{\Delta }__U^o)=\chi (M)`$.

Proof: We apply equation (18) to study $`((d+\delta )\varphi ,\psi )_{L^2}(\varphi ,(d+\delta )\psi )_{L^2}`$. We can integrate by parts to exchange tangential derivatives; these cancel automatically. We assume $`\psi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\psi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. After taking into account the different signs of the relevant normals, Green’s formula yields, modulo a possible sign convention that plays no role,

$`((d+\delta )\varphi ,\psi )_{L^2}(\varphi ,(d+\delta )\psi )_{L^2}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}\{\mathrm{cl}(\nu )\psi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}.`$ (19)
Since $`(\mathrm{cl}\nu )^2=1`$, the terms in equation (19) vanish for all suitable $`\psi `$ if and only if $`\varphi ^+|_\mathrm{\Sigma }=\varphi ^{}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. If $`\varphi ,\psi 𝒟`$, then we can use assertion (1) to show that $`D`$ with this realization is self-adjoint by observing that:

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi ,\psi )_{L^2}=((d+\delta )\varphi ,(d+\delta )\psi )_{L^2}\text{ since }_0(d+\delta )\varphi =0\text{ and }_0\psi =0`$
$`(\varphi ,\mathrm{\Delta }\psi )_{L^2}=((d+\delta )\varphi ,(d+\delta )\psi )_{L^2}\text{ since }_0\varphi =0\text{ and }_0(d+\delta )\psi =0.`$
Let $`_0\varphi =0`$. We compute:

$`\{(d+\delta ^+)\varphi ^+\}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\{(d+\delta ^{})\varphi ^{}\}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cl}(e^i)\{(_i^+\varphi ^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }(_i^{}\varphi ^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cl}(e^a)\{_a^+_a^{}\}\varphi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }+\mathrm{cl}(e^m)\{(_\nu ^+\varphi ^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }(_\nu ^{}\varphi ^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{cl}(e^m)\{(_\nu ^+\varphi ^+)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }(_\nu ^{}\varphi ^{})|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{cl}(e^m)\mathrm{cl}(e^a)\omega _a\varphi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }\}.`$
Since $`\mathrm{cl}(e^m)`$ is an isomorphism, the terms in (6) vanish if and only if $`\varphi `$ satisfies the transmittal boundary condition defined by $`U`$. We compute:

$`_i(e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{i_p})=_{1jp}(1)^{j1}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ii_j\mathrm{}}e^{i_1}\mathrm{}e^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{}e^{i_p}`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{ik\mathrm{}}\mathrm{ext}(e^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{int}(e^k)`$
$`\omega _a=_{ab}\{\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^b)\mathrm{ext}(e^b)\mathrm{int}(e^m)\}`$
$`=_{ab}\{\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^b)+\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^b)\}`$
If $`ij`$, then

$`\mathrm{ext}(e^i)\mathrm{ext}(e^i)+\mathrm{ext}(e^j)\mathrm{ext}(e^j)=0,`$
$`\mathrm{int}(e^i)\mathrm{ext}(e^j)+\mathrm{ext}(e^j)\mathrm{int}(e^i),\text{ and}`$
$`\mathrm{int}(e^i)\mathrm{int}(e^j)+\mathrm{int}(e^j)\mathrm{int}(e^j)=0.`$
Furthermore $`\mathrm{ext}(e^i)\mathrm{ext}(e^i)=0`$ and $`\mathrm{int}(e^i)\mathrm{int}(e^i)=0`$. Consequently:

$`U`$ $`=`$ $`_{ab}(\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^m))(\mathrm{ext}(e^a)\mathrm{int}(e^a))`$
$`(\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^b)+\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^b)\}`$
$`=`$ $`_{ab}\{\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{int}(e^a)\mathrm{ext}(e^b)`$
$`+\mathrm{int}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^m)\mathrm{ext}(e^a)\mathrm{int}(e^b)\}.`$
We use assertion (4) to see that $`U\mathrm{\Lambda }^p\mathrm{\Lambda }^p`$ since there are two $`\mathrm{ext}`$ and two $`\mathrm{int}`$ terms. It is also clear that $`U`$ is self-adjoint; this gives another proof of assertion (2). We extend the cancellation argument of McKean and Singer  to prove assertion (5). Let $`E(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta },U)`$ be the associated eigenspaces. Suppose $`\mathrm{\Delta }\varphi =\lambda \varphi `$ and that $`_U\varphi =0`$. Since $`(d+\delta )\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Delta }(d+\delta )`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Delta }(d+\delta )\varphi =\lambda (d+\delta )\varphi `$. We show that $`(d+\delta )\varphi 𝒟`$ by computing:

$$_0(d+\delta )\varphi =0\text{ and }_0(d+\delta )(d+\delta )\varphi =\lambda _0\varphi =0.$$

Thus we have $`(d+\delta ):E(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }_{e/o},U_{e/o})E(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }_{o/e},U_{o/e})`$. If $`\lambda 0`$, then $`(d+\delta )^2=\lambda `$ is an isomorphism and thus

$$dim(E(\lambda ,D_e,U_e))dim(E(\lambda ,D_o,U_o))=0\text{ for }\lambda 0.$$
(21)
We use equation (21) to compute:

$`\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(e^{tD_U^e})\mathrm{Tr}_{L^2}(e^{tD_U^o})`$
$`=`$ $`_\lambda e^{t\lambda }\{dim(E(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }_e,U_e))dim(E(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Delta }_o,U_o))\}`$
$`=`$ $`dim(E(0,\mathrm{\Delta }_e,U_e))dim(E(0,\mathrm{\Delta }_o,U_o)).`$ (23)
We compare coefficients of powers of $`t`$ in the asymptotic expansion on the left in (6) with (23) to see that the constant term is an integer and the other terms vanish.

It now follows that the index is given by a local formula and thus is constant under deformations. We fix the metric on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and deform the metrics on $`M^\pm `$ so that the metric is product near the boundary. We then have $`U=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ no longer plays a role. Thus the index is given by $`_M\{a_m^M(\mathrm{\Delta }^e)a_m^M(\mathrm{\Delta }^o)\}`$ and the standard local index theorem shows the index to be the Euler-Poincare characteristic $`\chi (M)`$. $``$

We can now determine the remaining unknown coefficient:

###### Lemma 6.2

We have $`e_1=24`$.

Proof: We apply Lemma 6.1 with $`m=2`$. Invariants which are multiplied by $`\mathrm{Tr}(I)`$ cancel in the alternating sum. We set $`f=1`$ so the derivatives of $`f`$ play no role. Thus the only terms which survive involve $`U`$ and $`\omega _a`$ on $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^1`$. Let $`:=_{11}`$. We use Lemma 6.1 to see that:

$`\omega _1(1)=0,\omega _1(e^1e^2)=0,\omega _1(e^1)=e^2,\omega _1(e^2)=e^1,`$
$`U_0=0,U_2=0,U_1(e^1)=e^1,U_1(e^2)=e^2,`$
$`(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(U)=2^2,\mathrm{Tr}(U^2)=2^2,\text{ and }\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a\omega _a)=2^2`$
We use Lemma 6.1 (5) to see that:

$$_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}(e_1\omega _1\omega _1+48U_1^224(L_{11}^++L_{11}^{})U_1)=0.$$

Consequently $`2e_1+9648=0`$ so $`e_1=24`$. $``$

## 7 Computation of the fourth order invariant

In this section, we study the fourth order invariant. Before writing down a spanning set for the space of invariants, we make the following observations.

Certain invariants have been omitted because they are chiral - i.e. they change sign if we interchange the roles of $`+`$ and $``$. We omit these invariants - typical examples would be

$$\mathrm{Tr}\{fU\omega _{a:a},f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})\omega _{b:b}\}.$$

If $`V^\pm `$ are real vector bundles and if the operators $`D^\pm `$ are real operators, then the invariants are real. Consequently, the coefficients are real. We suppose given fiber metrics on the bundles $`V^\pm `$ and we suppose that the operators $`D^\pm `$ are formally self-adjoint. Let $`U`$ be self-adjoint. The calculations of equation (3) then show $`D`$ is self-adjoint so again the invariants are real. Since $`\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a)`$ are purely imaginary if $`D`$ is self-adjoint, this observation shows that the following invariants play no role in the computation of $`a_4`$:

$`\{f\mathrm{Tr}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu ^+;a}^++\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu ^{};a}^{}),f(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _{a;a}),f(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _{a;b}),`$
$`f(L_{ab:b}^+L_{ab:b}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a),f(L_{bb:a}^+L_{bb:a}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a),f(\rho _{am}^+\rho _{am}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a),`$
$`f(L_{bb:a}^+L_{bb:a}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a),f(L_{ab:b}^+L_{ab:b}^{})\mathrm{Tr}(\omega _a)\}.`$
We can formulate now the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 7.1

1. There exist universal constants $`𝐛=(b_1,\mathrm{},b_{20})`$ such that

$$a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }(f,D,U)=(4\pi )^{m/2}360^1_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\left(𝒜_1+𝒜_2+𝒜_3\right)$$

where

$`𝒜_1=b_1(E^+E^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_2(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+b_3(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_4f(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})`$
$`\times (L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})+b_5f(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})+b_6f(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})`$
$`\times (L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{cc}^+L_{cc}^{})+b_7f(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{bc}^+L_{bc}^{})(L_{ca}^++L_{ca}^{})`$
$`+b_8(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_9(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})`$
$`\times (f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_{10}(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+b_{11}(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_{12}f(E^+E^{})(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})`$
$`+b_{13}f(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})+b_{14}f(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})`$
$`\times (L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})+b_{15}f(R_{a\nu ^+b\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}b\nu ^{}})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})`$
$`+b_{16}f(R_{abcb}^+R_{abcb}^{})(L_{ac}^+L_{ac}^{})+b_{17}(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`+b_{18}\omega _a^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+b_{19}f\omega _a^2(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})+b_{20}f\omega _a\omega _b(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})`$
$`𝒜_2=60f(E_{;\nu ^+}+E_{;\nu ^{}})+12f(\tau _{;\nu ^+}+\tau _{;\nu ^{}})+0(E^++E^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+0(\tau ^++\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+0(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+0\left[(\mathrm{\Delta }f)_{;\nu ^+}+(\mathrm{\Delta }f)_{;\nu ^{}}\right]60f\omega _a\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu ^+}\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu ^{}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{40}{21}}f(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{4}{7}}f(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})`$
$`\times (L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})+{\displaystyle \frac{68}{21}}f(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{bc}^++L_{bc}^{})(L_{ca}^++L_{ca}^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{12}{7}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+{\displaystyle \frac{18}{7}}(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})`$
$`\times (L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+24f(L_{aa:bb}^++L_{aa:bb}^{})`$
$`+0f(L_{ab:ab}^++L_{ab:ab}^{})+60f(E^++E^{})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})`$
$`+10f(\tau ^++\tau ^{})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})+2f(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})`$
$`6f(R_{a\nu ^+b\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}b\nu ^{}})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})+2f(R_{abcb}^++R_{abcb}^{})(L_{ac}^++L_{ac}^{})`$
$`+12(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`𝒜_3=60fU^330fU(\tau ^++\tau ^{})180fU(E^++E^{})60fU_{:aa}`$
$`+0fU(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})+15U(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`9U(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+0fU(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})`$
$`+0fU(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})18fU(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})`$
$`6fU(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})30U(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`+30U^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+60fU^2(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})60fU\omega _a^2`$
2. The universal constants are given by

| $`b_1=30`$ | $`b_2=5`$ | $`b_3=2`$ | $`b_4=0`$ | $`b_5=1`$ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| $`b_6=1`$ | $`b_7=2`$ | $`b_8=0`$ | $`b_9=0`$ | $`b_{10}=5`$ |
| $`b_{11}=1`$ | $`b_{12}=0`$ | $`b_{13}=0`$ | $`b_{14}=0`$ | $`b_{15}=0`$ |
| $`b_{16}=2`$ | $`b_{17}=0`$ | $`b_{18}=18`$ | $`b_{19}=12`$ | $`b_{20}=24`$ |

Proof: We can use the analysis of section 4 and the list of invariants which cannot contribute to $`a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which was given at the beginning of this section to determine the general form of the invariant $`a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Coefficients of the invariants contained in $`𝒜_3`$ have been calculated in . The coefficients listed in $`𝒜_2`$ follow from Lemma 5.2 and the heat trace asymptotics for Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions (see Lemma 5.1).

Next we use the conformal properties of the heat kernel coefficients333Note that we define the conformal transformations in such a way to make $`D`$ conformally covariant. These transformations do not necessarily coincide with the conformal (Weyl) transformations adopted in physics. .

###### Lemma 7.2

Let $`D(ϵ)=e^{2ϵf}D`$. We then have that

$$\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}a_n(1,D(ϵ))=(mn)a_n(f,D(0)).$$

We suppose that the conformal transformation parameter $`f`$ is continuous but not necessarily smooth across $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The metric transforms as $`g(ϵ)=e^{2fϵ}g`$. We have the following relations; a more extensive list is given in , conformal variations of all invariants relevant for calculation of $`a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are listed in Appendix:

$`\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}L_{ab}^\pm =fL_{ab}^\pm f_{;\nu ^\pm }\delta _{ab},`$
$`\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}E^\pm =2fE^\pm +\frac{1}{2}(m2)f_{;\nu ^\pm },`$
$`\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}U=fU\frac{1}{2}(m2)(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}}).`$
We put $`n=4`$ in Lemma 7.2 and collect the terms with $`(E^+E^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`\omega _a^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$, $`(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, $`(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$, and $`(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$ to obtain, respectively,

$`0=2(m1)b_{12}60(m4)2(m4)b_1,`$ (24)
$`0=30(2m)(m1)b_{19}b_{20}(m4)b_{18},`$ (25)
$`0=2(m1)b_4+2b_5+b_6+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)b_{12}`$
$`(m1)b_{13}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{14}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{16}+15(m2)`$
$`10(m1)+2+(m4)b_{10},`$ (26)
$`0=5m+18(m1)b_{13}+b_{16}(m4)b_2,`$ (27)
$`0=2(m6)(m1)b_{14}b_{15}+2b_{16}(m4)b_3,`$ (28)
$`0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m2)b_{12}2(m1)b_{13}+(m1)b_{14}+b_{15}(m4)b_{17},`$ (29)
$`0=(m1)b_4b_6{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)b_{12}+(m1)b_{13}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{14}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{16}(m4)b_8,`$ (30)
$`0=(m1)b_5b_7{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{15}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)b_{16}(m4)b_9,`$ (31)
$`0=(m1)b_62b_7+3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}b_{15}(m3)`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)b_{16}2(m4)b_{11}.`$ (32)
Since the universal constants $`b_i`$ do not depend upon dimensions $`m`$ we obtain from eq. (24):

$$b_{12}=0,b_1=30$$
(33)
Next we consider the de Rham complex and use Lemma 6.1 to calculate

###### Lemma 7.3

$`b_{19}+b_{20}=36`$.

We omit the proof as it goes along exactly the same lines as that used to prove Lemma 6.2.

Together with the equation (25) above Lemma 7.3 gives:

$$b_{18}=18,b_{19}=12,b_{20}=24.$$
(34)
The last ingredient which we use in this section is the following special case calculation:

###### Lemma 7.4

Let $`M^+`$ be a unit hemisphere and $`M^{}`$ be a unit ball. Let $`D^\pm `$ be a scalar Laplacian with $`E^+=\frac{1}{4}(m1)^2`$ and $`E^{}=0`$. Let $`U=(m2)/2`$. Then

$$360\mathrm{\Gamma }(m/2)2^{m1}a_4^\mathrm{\Sigma }(1,D,U)=\frac{250}{7}+\frac{2839}{42}m\frac{191}{7}m^2+\frac{61}{21}m^3.$$

Proof: By applying transmittal boundary conditions to eigenfunctions of the Laplace operator on the hemisphere and on the ball we obtain the following implicit equation for the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$:

$$\lambda J_{l+(m2)/2}^{}(\lambda )P_{\lambda 1/2}^{(l+(m2)/2)}(0)J_{l+(m2)/2}(\lambda )\frac{d}{dx}P_{\lambda 1/2}^{(l+(m2)/2)}(x)|_{x=0}=0,$$
(35)
where $`J`$ and $`P`$ are the Bessel and associated Legendre functions respectively. The heat kernel asymptotics is now calculated by applying the technique of . We do not give here details of this lengthy calculation.$``$

Lemma 7.4 and equations (26) - (32) fix the remaining universal constants. This completes the proof of Theorem 7.1.$``$

Let us mention, that by exploiting all conformal relations the numerical multipliers occuring in $`𝒜_3`$ have been fully confirmed.

## 8 $`a_5`$ and renormalization of the brane-world scenario

A complete calculation of the fifth order term is hardly possible. Therefore, we restrict ourselves to a particular case relevant for a discussion of the divergences in the brane-world model. We suppose that the background field configuration is approximately symmetric under reflection about the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. This class of problems includes the standard brane described by the metric (4) together with some reasonable generalizations.

###### Lemma 8.1

Let all left and right limits of all non-chiral invariants up to dimension four coincide on the surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ while such limits of all chiral invariants up to dimension four change sign. Then

$`a_5(1,D,U)={\displaystyle \frac{1}{5760}}(4\pi )^{(m1)/2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{720E_{;\nu }U+120\tau U^2135\tau _{;\nu }U`$
$`+30\rho _{\nu \nu }U^2+240UU_{:aa}+720EU^2+90U^4+450\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu }\mathrm{\Omega }_{a\nu }`$
$`+540L_{aa}E_{;\nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{195}{2}}L_{aa}\tau _{;\nu }+30L_{ab}R_{a\nu \nu b;\nu }135L_{aa}U_{:bb}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{195}{4}}L_{aa:c}L_{bb:c}{\displaystyle \frac{75}{2}}L_{ab:c}L_{ab:c}+30L_{ab:a}L_{bc:c}720L_{aa}EU`$
$`15L_{aa}U\rho _{\nu \nu }120L_{aa}U\tau +30L_{ab}\rho _{ab}U90L_{ab}UR_{a\nu \nu b}`$
$`+90L_{aa}L_{bb}E+180L_{ab}L_{ab}E+15L_{aa}L_{bb}\tau +30L_{ab}L_{ab}\tau `$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{15}{4}}L_{aa}L_{bb}\rho _{\nu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{15}{2}}L_{ab}L_{ab}\rho _{\nu \nu }15L_{cc}L_{ab}\rho _{ab}`$
$`+15L_{cc}L_{ab}R_{a\nu \nu b}45L_{ac}L_{ab}\rho _{bc}+135L_{ab}L_{ac}R_{b\nu \nu c}`$
$`45L_{ac}L_{db}R_{dacb}{\displaystyle \frac{315}{4}}L_{cc}L_{ab}L_{ab}U75L_{ab}L_{bc}L_{ac}U`$
$`+270L_{aa}L_{bb}U^2+90L_{ab}L_{ab}U^2{\displaystyle \frac{885}{8}}L_{aa}L_{bb}L_{cc}U270L_{aa}U^3`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1053}{64}}L_{aa}L_{bb}L_{cc}L_{dd}+{\displaystyle \frac{279}{16}}L_{cc}L_{dd}L_{ab}L_{ab}{\displaystyle \frac{921}{16}}L_{ab}L_{ab}L_{cd}L_{cd}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{57}{2}}L_{dd}L_{ab}L_{bc}L_{ac}+{\displaystyle \frac{639}{4}}L_{ab}L_{bc}L_{cd}L_{ad}\}`$ (36)
We recall the definition of chirality which was given before Theorem 2.3. Proof of this Lemma follows immediately from Lemma 5.2 and the expressions for the $`a_5`$ for Dirichlet and Robin boundary value problem .

If the operator $`D`$ transforms covariantly under the Weyl rescalings, the coefficient $`a_5`$ is proportional to the Weyl anomaly and can be used to derive the corresponding anomalous action.

The equation (36) represents the one-loop counterterms. A theory is multiplicatively renormalizable only if all independent counterterms are contained in the classical action. Of course, we cannot expect that a theory containing the Einstein gravity will be multiplicatively renormalizable. One can hope, nevertheless, that renormalizability will be maintained at least in the matter sector. This seems however not easy to achieve. Consider for example the classical surface action of the form

$$S_{cl}=_\mathrm{\Sigma }d^4x\sqrt{h}W(\varphi )$$
(37)
Then the coefficient in front of the $`\delta `$-term in (6) is given by the second derivative of $`W`$ with respect to $`\varphi `$, $`UW^{\prime \prime }(\varphi )`$. In the equation (36) we see a term $`U^4`$. Such a term should be contained in the classical action. This yields $`(W^{\prime \prime }(\varphi ))^4W(\varphi )`$. This last condition is satisfied by a rather exotic potential $`W(\varphi )\varphi ^{8/3}`$. Phenomenological consequences of such a potential are quite unclear.

Certain simplifications could be achieved if one goes on shell, i.e. if it is supposed that the background fields satisfy their equations of motion. This will reduce the number of independent invariants. For example, the extrinsic curvature $`L_{ab}`$ will be expressed by the Israel conditions  through the surface stress-energy tensor (which is essentially $`g_{ab}U`$ in the simplified example (37)). Not much however can be gained on this way. First, going on shell has nothing to do with strict renormalization procedure of quantum field theory. Second, the number of divergent terms will be still considerable. As usual, supersymmetry leads to partial cancellation of the ultra violet divergences. For example, all terms of purely geometrical origin (i.e. without $`E`$, $`U`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$) will go away just due to the balance of bosonic and fermionic degrees of freedom. For recent work on supersymmetric brane-world scenario see .

On the other hand, one may adopt a more radical and perhaps more fruitful point of view borrowed from string models. After separation of a few essential couplings, vanishing of the divergent field-dependent coefficients in front of these couplings could be considered as a restriction on the possible form of the (low-energy) background. Such restrictions may play a role of equations of motion for some effective theory. Practical realization of this scenario is far from being clear.

Finally we stress that the heat trace asymptotics is local. If there are more than one brane in the space-time the coefficients $`a_n`$ are just sums of contributions of individual branes.

## 9 Acknowledgements

We are grateful to M. Bordag, S. Dowker and D. Fursaev for fruitful discussions. Research of PBG partially supported by the NSF (USA) and MPI (Leipzig, Germany). Research of KK partially supported by the MPI (Leipzig, Germany) and the EPSRC under grant number GR/M45726. Research of DVV partially supported by the DFG, project Bo 1112/11-1 (Germany) and ESI (Austria).

## Appendix: Conformal variations

Here we list the conformal variations which have been used to obtain the relations (24)-(32). We integrate by parts where necessary to bring the variations into standard form so that $`f`$ is not differentiated tangentially. We will be dealing with the terms $`X`$ which are homogeneous of dimension 3. If $`f`$ is constant, then $`\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}X=3fX`$. To avoid writing the conformal weight repeatedly, we define $`𝒞X:=\frac{d}{dϵ}|_{ϵ=0}X+3fX`$.

$`b_4`$ $`𝒞(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})=`$
$`2(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_5`$ $`𝒞(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})=`$
$`2(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{cc}^++L_{cc}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(m1)(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_6`$ $`𝒞(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{cc}^+L_{cc}^{})=`$
$`(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{cc}^+L_{cc}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{cc}^+L_{cc}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(m1)(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_7`$ $`𝒞(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{bc}^+L_{bc}^{})(L_{ca}^++L_{ca}^{})=`$
$`2(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{12}`$ $`𝒞(E^+E^{})(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})=(m1)(E^+E^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m2)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{13}`$ $`𝒞(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})=(m1)(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`2(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{14}`$ $`𝒞(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})=(m1)(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`(m1)(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{15}`$ $`𝒞(R_{a\nu ^+b\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}b\nu ^{}})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})=(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{16}`$ $`𝒞(R_{abcb}^+R_{abcb}^{})(L_{ac}^+L_{ac}^{})=2(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^+L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(\tau ^+\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{19}`$ $`𝒞\omega _a^2(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})=(m1)\omega _a^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`b_{20}`$ $`𝒞\omega _a\omega _b(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})=\omega _a^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`60`$ $`𝒞(E^++E^{})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})=(m1)(E^++E^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m2)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})+(m2)f(L_{aa:bb}^++L_{aa:bb}^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(m2)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`10`$ $`𝒞(\tau ^++\tau ^{})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})=(m1)(\tau ^++\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`2(m1)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})4(m1)f(L_{aa:bb}^+`$
$`+L_{aa:bb}^{})+(m1)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(m1)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`2`$ $`𝒞(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})=(m1)(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})+2f(L_{aa:bb}^++L_{aa:bb}^{})`$
$`(m1)(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`6`$ $`𝒞(R_{a\nu ^+b\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}b\nu ^{}})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})=(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}\nu ^{}})+2f(L_{ab:ab}^+`$
$`+L_{ab:ab}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`2`$ $`𝒞(R_{abcb}^++R_{abcb}^{})(L_{ac}^++L_{ac}^{})=2f(m3)(L_{ab:ab}^++L_{ab:ab}^{})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m3)(L_{ab}^++L_{ab}^{})(L_{ab}^+L_{ab}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+2f(L_{aa:bb}^++L_{aa:bb}^{}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^++L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(L_{aa}^++L_{aa}^{})(L_{bb}^+L_{bb}^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`+(\tau ^++\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})+2(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`60`$ $`𝒞U\omega _a^2={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(m2)\omega _a^2(f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
One should add the surface terms arising due to conformal variation of the bulk terms $`a^\pm (1,D)`$ (see Theorem 2.2). The total derivative terms $`E_{;jj}`$ and $`\tau _{;jj}`$ in $`a_4(1,D)`$ cancel the surface terms with $`(E_{;\nu ^+}^++E_{;\nu ^{}}^{})`$ and $`(\tau _{;\nu ^+}^++\tau _{;\nu ^{}}^{})`$. Surface contributions of the conformal variation of the interior terms in $`M`$ are:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{360}}(4\pi )^{m/2}_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{Tr}\{(12m48)f(\tau _{;\nu ^+}+\tau _{;\nu ^{}})+(5m+18)((f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`\times (\tau ^++\tau ^{})(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})(\tau ^+\tau ^{}))+60(m4)f(E_{;\nu ^+}+E_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`30(m4)((f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})(E^++E^{})+(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})(E^+E^{}))`$
$`+(2m12)((f_{;\nu ^+}+f_{;\nu ^{}})(R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}+R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}})+(f_{;\nu ^+}f_{;\nu ^{}})`$
$`\times (R_{a\nu ^+a\nu ^+}R_{a\nu ^{}a\nu ^{}}))+(4n24)f(L_{aa:bb}^+L_{ab:ab}^++L_{aa:bb}^{}L_{ab:ab}^{})\}`$