format: text

text:
# A Monte Carlo Code to Investigate Stellar Collisions in Dense Galactic Nuclei.

## 1. Introduction

Compact massive dark objects, with masses $`10^610^9M_{}`$, have been found in the center of nearly every bright galaxy where they have been searched through measurements and modeling of the gas or stellar kinematics (see reviews by Kormendy & Richstone 1995; Richstone et al. 1998; Ho 1999; Moran, Greenhill, & Herrnstein 1999; Kormendy 2000). In the two cases with the highest resolution, i.e. the Milky Way and NGC 4258, the size of the central object is observationally constrained to be so small that models resorting to compact cluster of small dark objects (Neutron stars, stellar black holes, brown dwarfs,…) seem very unlikely as such concentrations would not survive evaporation or run-away merging for many $`10^9`$ years (Maoz 1998). It it thus widely believed that these objects are “super-massive” black holes (SBHs).

Our work is devoted to an exploration of some intriguing consequences a SBH should have on a surrounding stellar cluster and of the long-term evolution of such a system. Of particular interest to us are two kinds of disruptive events which could release stellar gas in the vicinity of the SBH and thus lead to bright accretion phases, even in otherwise non-active nuclei. These processes are tidal disruptions and stellar collisions. Other mechanisms through which a stellar cluster can contribute to the feeding of a SBH include stellar winds (Shull 1983; David, Durisen, & Cohn 1987b; Norman & Scoville 1988; Coker & Melia 1997), envelope-stripping when stars cross a pre-existing accretion disk (mainly relevant to red giants, see Armitage, Zurek, & Davies 1996) and inspiraling induced by strong emission of gravitational waves (mainly relevant to compact remnants, see Hils & Bender 1995; Sigurdsson & Rees 1997; Miralda-Escudé & Gould 2000; Freitag 2000). However, in this conference paper, we naturally focus on collisions between main sequence (MS) stars.

To treat collisions with as much realism as possible, we decided to determine their outcome through a comprehensive set of SPH simulations. This important part of our work, described in Sec. 3. (Freitag & Benz 2000a), resulted in a database incorporated, as a module, in a new Monte Carlo (MC) cluster evolution code, presented in Sec. 2. (Freitag & Benz 2000b). This provides us with a numerical tool which seems ideally suited to investigate collisions in dense stellar clusters. Although our simulations can potentially produce detailed lists of collisionally formed objects (such as blue-stragglers) and not only overall rates, so far we have mainly addressed the question of the global influence of collisions on the SBH $`+`$ cluster system.

Previous works relied on highly simplified prescriptions to account for collisional effects in the stellar dynamics of galactic nuclei111 With the noticeable exception of Rauch (1999) who used fitting formulae obtained through a limited set of collision simulations.. This situation stemmed not only from the limited knowledge of the collision itself, to be acquired from 3D hydrodynamical simulations, but also from intrinsic limitations of the stellar dynamics codes. Direct Fokker-Planck integrations, while very fast, treat the stellar system as a set of continuous distribution functions, one for each stellar mass. Thus, the mass spectrum is discretized into a few mass classes and collision products have to be re-distributed into these bins in a rather unphysical way. This shortcoming is required for mergers (Lee 1987; Quinlan & Shapiro 1990) or for collisions leading to partial mass loss (David, Durisen, & Cohn 1987a; David et al. 1987b; Murphy, Cohn, & Durisen 1991); only if complete disruption is assumed (McMillan, Lightman, & Cohn 1981; Duncan & Shapiro 1983), can it be avoided. But this latter assumption is, by itself, a gross over-simplification. On the other hand, $`N`$-body simulations can in principle incorporate realistic collisions, but as their results can not safely be scaled to larger $`N`$,222This is due to the fact that various processes, e.g., relaxation, evaporation, collisions, …have time scales with different dependencies on $`N`$. they are still presently restricted to systems containing a few $`10^4`$ stars at most (see the work on open clusters by Portegies Zwart et al. 1999). Even though the computer hardware and software dedicated to $`N`$-body integration progress at high pace, this kind of simulation will still be limited to about $`10^6`$ stars in a near future (Makino 2000).

In these proceedings, D. De Young presents an historical review of the researches on stellar collisions in galactic nuclei so we need only mention here a few issues appearing in the literature onto which we can cast new light with our simulations. As further reading about the role of collisions in stellar systems, we refer to Davies (1996), for instance.

* Can stellar collisions amount to a significant gas source to fuel the central SBH?
* Can repeated stellar mergers lead to run-away build-up of a very massive star, a possible precursor for a $`10^210^3M_{}`$ seed BH? Or would this process be caught up by stellar evolution or come to saturation as small, relatively compact stars run across the low density massive star without being stopped (Colgate 1967)?
* Is there any distinctive imprint of the collisions on the cluster’s central density profile? Previous works predict $`\rho R^\alpha `$, with $`\alpha 0.5`$, a noticeably lower value than the $`\alpha 1.75`$ cusp expected in a non-collisional relaxed cluster around a SBH (Bahcall & Wolf 1976, 1977).
* Do stellar collisions produce particular stellar population in the center-most parts of the cluster? Can blue stragglers form through mergers in spite of the high relative velocities? Can collisions be efficient in stripping the envelopes of red giants (see Davies, these proceedings and Davies et al. 1998; Bailey & Davies 1999)?

Our simulations still lack important features (mainly stellar evolution and binaries) to address some of these questions but we hope to demonstrate in Sec. 4. that they already produce interesting results when applied to simple models and, most importantly, that the potential of the MC code in this field is high.

## 2. A Monte Carlo code for cluster dynamics

In the past few years, we wrote a new code in order to study the long-term ($`10^910^{10}`$ years) evolution of galactic nuclei consisting of $`10^610^9`$ stars. We developed a Monte Carlo scheme based on the pioneering work of Hénon (1973). This method, although adopted with deep modifications by Stodołkiewicz (1982, 1986) and now revived by Giersz (1998, 2000) and by Joshi and collaborators (Joshi, Rasio, & Portegies Zwart 2000; Watters, Joshi, & Rasio 2000; Joshi, Nave, & Rasio 1999), is not widely used. In particular, as far as we know, ours is the first MC code designed to treat galactic nuclei rather than globular clusters.333The MC code used by Shapiro and collaborators (see, e.g., Duncan & Shapiro 1983) in a context similar to ours, was of quite different nature, somewhere in between Hénon’s method and direct Fokker-Planck integrations. The MC numerical scheme is nonetheless very attractive as a good compromise between computational efficiency and physical realism (not to mention ease of adaptation to new physical processes).

By “efficiency”, we mean that integrating the evolution of a typical dense central cluster with $`0.52\times 10^6`$ particles over a Hubble time requires a few hours to a few days on a standard 400 MHz CPU. This allows to carry out many simulations while varying initial conditions and simulated physics to investigate the interplay of various processes in such complex systems as galactic nuclei. The CPU needed time increases with the number $`N`$ of particles like $`T_{\mathrm{CPU}}N\mathrm{log}(N)`$, a relation to be contrasted with the $`N^{23}`$ scaling of “exact” $`N`$-body calculations. According to simple extrapolations, a galactic nucleus simulation with $`10^7`$ particles would take only $``$10 CPU-days but we are presently limited to lower $`N`$ by the available computer memory (160 bytes/particle).

By “realism”, we mean that we can incorporate many important physical processes into the simulation. Beyond 2-body relaxation which is the core of the MC code, the “micro-physics” include stellar collisions and tidal disruptions. Recently we added accretion of whole stars induced by emission of gravitational radiation and a preliminary treatment of stellar evolution (not covered here, see Freitag 2000). Furthermore, the MC code copes with the cluster’s self-gravitation, the growth of a central BH, an arbitrary stellar mass spectrum and velocity distribution. As demonstrated by Stodołkiewicz (1986), Giersz (1998) and Rasio (2000), the dynamical effects of binaries can also be included in MC codes. However, in the center of a SBH-hosting cluster, the velocity dispersion is so large that most binaries, being “soft” are likely to be disrupted in gravitational encounters with other stars, instead of acting as a heat source like they would do in globular clusters (see, e.g., Binney & Tremaine 1987; Spitzer 1987).

Unfortunately, the MC scheme also suffers from a few shortcomings. The main limitations stem from the very simplifying assumptions that make MC codes so efficient: namely those of spherical symmetry and constant dynamical equilibrium. Consequently, it seems very difficult if not impossible to include such effects like BH wandering, cluster rotation, triaxiality, interaction between stars and an accretion disk, resonant or violent relaxation…

Our code is described in detail in Freitag & Benz (2000b). Here we just outline its basics. The stellar cluster is represented as a set of “particles”; each of them can be seen as a spherical shell of stars that share the same properties, namely the stellar mass $`M_{}`$, orbital energy $`E`$, modulus of angular momentum $`J`$ and instantaneous distance to the center $`R`$ (the radius of the shell). Together, these particles define a smooth spherical potential $`\mathrm{\Phi }(R)`$ which is stored in a binary tree structure, for the sake of efficiency. Note that the number of stars per particle can be set to any value but has to be the same in each particle to ensure perfect energy conservation in 2-body processes.

In $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, no relaxation occurs (except for a very small spurious numerical relaxation for $`N<1000`$) and the cluster is in dynamical equilibrium. To simulate the slow relaxation-induced evolution of the system, “super-encounters” (SE) are computed between particles of adjacent ranks. A SE is a 2-body gravitational encounter between stars from the two particles. Its deflection angle is imposed to be the RMS value resulting, during time-step $`\delta t`$, from all the small angle scatterings between stars with the properties (masses $`M_1`$, $`M_2`$ and relative velocity $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$) of the interacting particles, i.e.,

$$\theta _{\mathrm{SE}}=\frac{\pi }{2}\sqrt{\frac{\delta t}{T_{\mathrm{rel}}^{(1,2)}}}\text{ with }T_{\mathrm{rel}}^{(1,2)}\frac{V_{\mathrm{rel}}^3}{\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }G^2n_{}\left(M_1+M_2\right)^2}$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the Coulomb logarithm. A Lagrangian radial mesh is used to evaluate the local stellar density $`n_{}`$.

To detect stellar collisions between two neighboring particles, we compare a random number of uniform $`[0,1[`$-variate with the probability for such an event,

$$P_{\mathrm{coll}}^{(1,2)}=\frac{\delta t}{T_{\mathrm{coll}}^{(1,2)}}\text{ with }T_{\mathrm{coll}}^{(1,2)}=\frac{1}{n_{}V_{\mathrm{rel}}S_{\mathrm{coll}}^{(1,2)}}.$$
(2)
The collisional cross section reads

$$S_{\mathrm{coll}}^{(1,2)}=\pi (R_1+R_2)^2\left[1+\left(\frac{V_{}^{(1,2)}}{V_{\mathrm{rel}}}\right)^2\right]\text{ with }V_{}^{(1,2)}=\left(\frac{2G(M_1+M_2)}{R_1+R_2}\right)^{1/2}$$
(3)
where $`R_{1,2}`$ are the stellar radii.

To increase code speed, we use $`R`$-variable time-steps, that are a small fraction $`\eta `$ of the local relaxation and/or collision time, $`\delta t(R)\eta \left(T_{\mathrm{rel}}^1+T_{\mathrm{coll}}^1\right)^1`$.

To check whether a particle is tidally disrupted by the central SBH or plunges directly through the horizon, we simulate the random walk of the tip of particle’s velocity vector due to small angle scatterings during $`\delta t`$. This is necessary because, as the “loss cone” aperture $`\theta _{\mathrm{LC}}`$ is tiny (Lightman & Shapiro 1977), the time scale for entering or leaving it, of order $`\theta _{\mathrm{LC}}^2T_{\mathrm{rel}}`$, is generally much smaller than $`\delta t`$. Without a procedure to “over-sample” the time step, we would miss a lot of loss cone events as the velocity vector would just jump over $`\theta _{\mathrm{LC}}`$.

Finally, if the particle avoided disruption, we randomly select a position $`R`$ on its new orbit with a probability density that matches the fraction of time spent at each radius, $`\mathrm{d}P/\mathrm{d}RV_{\mathrm{rad}}(R)^1`$. This concludes a simulation step. The next one starts with the random selection of another pair of particles according to probability $`\delta t(R)^1`$.

## 3. A comprehensive set of collision simulations between MS-stars

### 3.1. Approach

In the MC scheme, the orbital and stellar properties of any given particle are independent of those of any other particle. This means that these quantities can be modified in any physically reasonable way. In particular, any prescription can be used for the outcome of stellar collisions so that we decided to describe them as realistically as possible through results of an important set of hydrodynamical computations of collisions between MS stars.

The numerical algorithm we use is the so-called “Smoothed Particle Hydrodynamics” method (SPH, for a description see Benz 1990). As a genuinely 3D Lagrangian scheme that allows large density contrasts and imposes no spatial symmetries or limits, it is the method of choice to tackle this problem. This explains why the vast majority of previous investigations in this domain were done with SPH (Benz & Hills 1987, 1992; Lai, Rasio, & Shapiro 1993; Lombardi, Rasio, & Shapiro 1996, amongst others), with the noticeable exception of the early work of Seidl & Cameron (1972) who used a 2D finite difference algorithm.

Our goal was to sample a region in the space of collisions’ initial conditions large enough so that most collisions happening in the course of the simulation of a galactic nuclei would be comprised in that domain. A reasonably good description of a collisions between MS stars imposes a four dimensional parameter space.

The first two quantities to be specified are the stellar masses $`M_1`$ and $`M_2`$, with $`M_1M_2`$. If MS stars with different masses had homologous internal structures (which would require a power-law mass-radius relation, in particular), we could scale out the absolute mass and use $`q=M_1/M_2`$ as the only mass parameter. But we use realistic stellar structure models from Schaller et al. (1992) and Charbonnel et al. (1999) for $`M_{}=0.485M_{}`$ and $`n=1.5`$ polytropes for 0.1–0.3 $`M_{}`$ so that we have to specify both absolute masses independently.

In globular clusters, the velocity dispersion is of order a few 10 km s-1 which is much lower than the escape velocity from the surface of MS stars ($``$ 600–1200 km s-1) so that the relative velocity at infinity plays virtually no role in collisions. This is not true in galactic nuclei, where $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ can be nearly arbitrarily high near a SBH. For instance, velocities of 1000–1500 km s-1 have been measured (Genzel et al. 1997; Ghez, Morris, & Becklin 1999) at the Galactic center. So, $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is the next initial parameter of importance.

Finally, we have to specify the impact parameter $`b`$, i.e. the distance between the trajectories of the two stars if they were straight lines. It is often more convenient to use $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$, the periastron separation for the corresponding 2 point-mass hyperbolic encounter. If we can neglect tidal deformation until contact, $`d_{\mathrm{min}}/(R_1+R_2)[0;1]`$ is necessary for physical collision. We restrict ourselves to this domain as our resolution is probably too low to treat tidal interactions properly.444According to Kim & Lee (1999), the cross-section for formation of a tidal binary without physical contact vanishes at $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}/V_{}0.1`$ for $`n=3`$ polytropic structures and at $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}/V_{}1`$ for $`n=1.5`$. Consequently, such processes could occur at a significant rate in galactic nuclei only between stars that both have $`M_{}<0.7M_{}`$. Furthermore, the main uncertainties in our understanding of a tidal binary don’t reside in the conditions for its formation at first periastron passage (this can be delineated using linear oscillation theory) but in its longer term evolution and fate. The main issues are about the impact of the deposition of tidal energy on the stellar structure and the interplay between the stellar oscillations and the orbit of the binary. The fraction of tidal binaries that will quickly merge is still unknown.

The 4D initial parameter space is thus $`(M_1,M_2,V_{\mathrm{rel}},d_{\mathrm{min}})`$. Other quantities that could affect the collisions’ outcomes, like stellar rotation, metallicity, age on MS and so on are neglected as they are probably of second order importance. A related question of interest in highly collisional systems where run-away merging could occur is how collisions themselves affect the structure of stars and how these modifications could affect further collisions. We leave any study of this somewhat far-fetched issue, considering that it is more useful to first assess the physical conditions required for such collisional run-away to set in. In our cluster simulations, we assume that, after a collision, a star immediately returns to a “standard” MS structure. In fact, it takes a Kelvin-Helmholtz time scale ($`T_{\mathrm{KH}}1.6\times 10^7`$ yrs for the sun) for thermal equilibrium to be recovered, but, in most environments $`T_{\mathrm{coll}}T_{\mathrm{KH}}`$, so the short post-collision swollen phase can be neglected.

Although we chose to consider only collisions between MS stars, they may not dominate the total collision rate in many astrophysical environments. Indeed, as can be seen from Eq. 3, when $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}>V_{}`$, as it would occur close to a SBH, the cross section scales like $`R_{}^2`$ so that red giants (RG) could participate in most collisions in spite of their low relative number (Davies 1996). An extension of the present work, taking into account MS-RG collisions, is thus desirable to complement the simulations by Bailey & Davies (1999). Of course, compact remnants can also collide with MS stars or even with other compact stars. In dense nuclei, such collisions should occur at low but non-vanishing rates, as Fig. 1 testifies. They are particularly interesting as channels to form “exotic” objects.

The initial parameter space to be explored being so huge, we had to limit the number of SPH particles per star to a relatively low value (1000–15000) to save computer time. However, we used initial structures with low mass particles in the stellar envelope and more and more massive ones toward the center in order to get a satisfactory resolution of the outer parts of the stars where the action takes place in most collisions. Thus fractional mass loss rates as low as $`10^4`$ can reliably be predicted. More than $`14000`$ collision simulations have been computed on a local network of workstations. Such a high number could only be attained thanks to an automatic software package we developed to run simulation jobs on idle computers and analyze their outcome with nearly no human intervention needed.

The result of a collision is described through a small set of quantities: the fractional mass loss $`(M_1+M_2M_{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{}M_{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{})/(M_1+M_2)`$, the new mass ratio, the fractional loss of orbital energy and the angle of deviation of $`\stackrel{}{V}_{\mathrm{rel}}`$. Note that these values completely describe the kinematical outcome of a collision only if the center-of-mass reference frame for the resulting star(s) (not including ejected gas) is the same as before the collision. Asymmetrical mass ejection violates this simplifying assumption by giving the stars a global kick but we neglect this, in order to reduce the complexity of the situation.

We have kept the final SPH particle configuration for (nearly) all our simulations. This would allow us to re-analyze these files and extract other quantities of interest, like the induced rotation, a possible tell-tale sign of past collisions (Alexander & Kumar 2000). Another interesting issue is the resulting internal stellar structure. This is key to a prediction of the subsequent evolution and observational detectability of collision products (see Sills, these proceedings and Sills et al. 1997, 2000). Unfortunately, according to Lombardi et al. (1999), low resolution and use of particles of unequal masses can lead to important spurious particle diffusion in SPH simulations so that our models are probably not well suited for a study of the amount of collisional mixing, for instance.

### 3.2. Results

Typical collisions will be described in Freitag & Benz (2000a). Here we want to give an overview of the results that may be extracted from our database.

First, looking at Fig. 2, we note that using realistic stellar structure instead of the traditional polytropic stars has quite an important effect on the outcome of collisions. This is mainly due to the fact that massive stars are more concentrated than $`n=3`$ polytropes. Next, we ask whether computing such a high number of simulations was worth the trouble by confronting our results to those of the literature. In particular, we want to know how they compare to fitting formulae devised by Lai et al. (1993) and Davies (used by Rauch 1999) to describe the results of similar but limited sets of SPH simulations. Considering diagrams like those of Fig. 3, we can draw the following conclusions:

* Surprisingly, the simple semi-analytical prescription from Spitzer & Saslaw (1966) usually gives quite accurate results for the fractional mass loss in the regime with $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}/V_{}1`$ and $`d_{\mathrm{min}}/(R_1+R_2)>0.4`$.
* As could be foreseen, empirical fitting formula must never bee used to extrapolate to initial conditions outside the (restricted) range they originate from.
* In particular, the stellar structure has a central role in determining $`\delta M`$. This appears clearly in (dis-)agreement between our results and those of Benz & Hills (1987, 1992) in Fig. 3.

Another way to state the second point is that only a mathematical description grounded on well understood physical arguments has a chance to have any sound predictive power when applied to a wider set of collisions than those it derives from. For instance, it could be that a parameterization of the “closeness” of the interaction that accounts for the mass distribution inside the stars (contrary to $`d_{\mathrm{min}}/(R_1+R_2)`$) could result in a good agreement between simulations done with various stellar structures. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the physical processes at play during collisions, such a “unifying” description seems very difficult to find and we have failed to figure it out so far. Consequently, we tried to cover as completely as possible the relevant domain of initial conditions and we use an interpolation algorithm to determine the outcome of any given collision that happens in a cluster simulation run.

A zero-order description of the outcome of a stellar collision consists in the number of surviving stars. This is what we show in Fig. 4. Collisions with similar values of $`q=M_1/M_2`$ have been grouped on the same plot, regardless of the absolute values of the masses. Interestingly, in a initial conditions plane parameterized by “half-mass” quantities (see caption of figure), well defined borders appear that separate various outcome regimes. It also appears that, unless $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is very low, collisions that lead to coalescence (at low relative velocities) or complete disruptions (at high $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$) must be nearly head-on. By far the most likely outcome at velocities in excess of 100 km s-1 is the preservation of both stars with only a small amount of mass loss. For small $`M_1/M_2`$ ratio, even head-on collisions do not necessarily result in mergers; the small star can fly through the large one without being stopped or destroyed. Such an effect, due to the high-mass star being of lower density than its small impacter was already proposed by Colgate (1967) to predict an upper mass limit to the process of run-away mergings. Whether this limiting mechanism really operates in dense stellar clusters has to be tested in dynamical simulations. It can be suppressed by mass segregation effects that drive most massive stars toward the center so that most important collisions take place between two high-mass stars.

A more quantitative view on the results of 3 sets of collision simulations is given in panel (a) of Fig. 5 where we show the (interpolated) fractional mass loss in the $`(d_{\mathrm{min}},V_{\mathrm{rel}})`$ plane. Note how the “landscape” changes from one choice of $`(M_1,M_2)`$ to another one. This is another indication of the difficulty of finding a universal set of fitting formulae. The upper left white region of each diagram indicates $`\delta M/M>85`$ %. The small surface of this zone (in particular for unequal masses) means that such highly destructive events are unlikely. This is to be compared to the extent of the black regions for which the fractional mass loss is less than $`10^4`$.

### 3.3. Integration of collisions into the MC code

Being unable to distillate the results of our SPH simulation into any compact mathematical formulation without losing most of the information, we resorted to the following interpolation strategy. In the 4D initial parameter space, the simulations form a irregular grid of points. We compute a Delaunay triangulation of this set using the program `Qhull`555Available at  http://www.geom.umn.edu/software/qhull/ (Barber, Dobkin, & Huhdanpaa 1996) which allows us to interpolate the results onto a regular 4D grid. Three slices in this grid are presented in Fig. 5(b). This table is used in MC simulations to determine – through a second interpolation – the outcome of collisions. Of course, extrapolation prescriptions have to be specified for events whose initial conditions fall outside the convex hull of the SPH simulation points. Most commonly, this happens when a collisionally produced star with mass outside the $`0.1`$$`74M_{}`$ range experience a further collision. In such cases, we try to re-scale both masses while preserving $`M_1/M_2`$ to get a “surrogate collision” lying in the domain covered by the SPH simulations. If $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ is too low or too high, we increase or decrease it to enter the simulation domain666All this fiddling does not violate mass or energy conservation as collision results are coded in a dimensionless fashion in the interpolation grid and are scaled back to the real physical masses and velocities before they are applied to the particles.. In many cases (for instance merging at low $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$ or complete destruction at high $`V_{\mathrm{rel}}`$), this method gives very sensible results. Encountyers with too high $`d_{\mathrm{min}}`$ are treated as purely Keplerian hyperbolic deflections with no mass loss.

## 4. Simulation of galactic nuclei evolution with stellar collisions

To illustrate the capacities of our “MC+SPH” approach and the role of collisions in the dynamics of dense galactic nuclei, we review some results from stellar dynamical simulations of simple nuclei models. The nominal model is a Plummer cluster with a scale radius of $`R_{\mathrm{Plum}}=0.3`$ pc that contains $`5.09\times 10^7`$ MS stars with a Salpeter mass spectrum: $`dN/dM_{}M_{}^{2.35}`$, $`M_{}[0.2,20]M_{}`$. In its center, we put a seed black hole ($`M_{\mathrm{BH}}=10^6M_{\mathrm{clst}}`$) which is allowed to grow through accretion of stellar gas released in stellar collisions and tidal disruptions. Accretion is assumed to be complete and instantaneous. Stellar evolution is not simulated. The simulations were realized with 512 000 particles.

Fig. 6 shows snapshots of the density profile during the evolution of this model. When collisions are treated realistically, using our SPH grid, a steep central cusp with slope $`1.75`$ develops. This result is very similar to what is obtained when collisions are switched off and tidal disruptions are the only channel to consume stars (Bahcall & Wolf 1976, 1977). A milder slope of about $`1`$ is obtained when collisions are assumed to result in complete stellar disruption. Even though we start with a model with very high central density, after a Hubble time, the mass density at 0.1–1 pc from the BH has reached a value similar to what is measured in the center of the Milky Way (Genzel et al. 1997). However, at that time, the BH’s mass in our model is about $`10^7M_{}`$, nearly 4 times larger than Milky Way’s value. In Fig. 7, we compare the rates of mass accretion onto the central BH. When treated realistically, collisions dominate over tidal disruptions only during a short initial phase before massive stars segregate toward the center.

We can not only explore the structure and evolution of the stellar cluster as a whole but also investigate some processes in more detail. For instance, it is possible to study the properties of individual collisions. In Fig. 8, we follow a selection of stars that experienced a large number of collisions. We report the distance to the center and the stellar mass before each collision. In a cluster without a central BH (panel (a)), the typical evolution of one of these frequently colliding stars is to sink toward the center while growing through a few mergers. In this simulation, the merging process is not allowed if the colliding star already has a mass beyond $`60M_{}`$ but there is no doubt that it would otherwise lead to very massive stars. Of course such results may be significantly altered when stellar evolution is introduced. For instance, the star represented by the dotted line would not be able to wait during $`7\times 10^7`$ years between two successive mergers as the lifetime of a $`20M_{}`$ star on the MS is only of order $`10^7`$ years. When a seed BH is present initially (panel (b)), it rapidly grows and leads to such an important increase in the stellar velocities near the center that mergers are totally quenched. Most collisions are then disruptive and the average stellar mass in the central regions actually decreases.

## 5. Conclusions

When assumptions of spherical symmetry and dynamical equilibrium are reasonable, the Monte Carlo code for cluster dynamics appears as the method of choice to get detailed statistical predictions about the role and characteristics of collisions (and other physical processes) during the evolution of a stellar system. The use of SPH-based prescriptions to include collisions enables us to take the best advantage of the flexibility of the MC scheme in terms of realism.

Our models still lack other important and/or interesting physical aspects (stellar evolution, role of red giants and binaries,…). Other ingredients could be treated with more rigor. For instance, in the same spirit of our approach of stellar collisions, we could easily use the results of SPH simulations of tidal interactions between a star and the SBH (e.g. Fulbright 1996) to determine the outcome of these events. For the time being, we assume them to result in complete disruption of the star. More “realistic” prescriptions would not necessarily yield more reliable results, though, as the fraction of stripped stellar mass that is eventually accreted on the SBH is still a matter of debate (Ayal, Livio, & Piran 2000, and references therein). This illustrates the fact that many “improvements” could actually amount to adding more and more sources of uncertainty in the simulations. In such a context, it is all the more useful to dispose of a numerical tool flexible enough to allow changes in the treatment of various physical effects and fast enough to allow large sets of simulations to be conducted to test for the influence of these changes and the interplay between the many physical aspects of the problem.

Concerning the role of stellar collisions in the evolution of galactic nuclei, our present results may be considered disappointing. Indeed, even in cluster with quite extreme initial conditions (high stellar density), collisions do not leave any strong imprint on the overall structure of the stellar cluster. Neither do they feed the central BH more efficiently than tidal disruption or, presumably, stellar evolution. However, it must be stressed that collisions could have played a role of greater importance in the past if the present day nuclei have evolved from denser configurations. Further, more systematic sets of simulations will allow us to delineate the conditions leading to a collisional phase in the evolution of a cluster.

Furthermore, even if not efficient enough to rule the dynamics, collisions are interesting per se. More work is required to determinate the observational consequences of these events (creation of “exotic” stars, accretion of gas onto the central BH) but our code will stand as the central backbone for these future, more complete, studies.

#### Acknowledgments.

One of us (MF) wants to thank the organizers of this conference for partial financial support to attend it. This work has been supported in part by the Swiss National Science Foundation.

## References

Alexander, T. & Kumar, P. 2000, ”Tidal Spin-up of Stars in Dense Stellar Cusps Around Black Holes”, preprint, astro-ph/0004240

Armitage, P. J., Zurek, W. H., & Davies, M. B. 1996, ApJ, 470, 237

Ayal, S., Livio, M., & Piran, T. 2000, ”Tidal Disruption of a Solar Type Star by a Super-Massive Black Hole”, preprint, astro-ph/0002499

Bahcall, J. N. & Wolf, R. A. 1976, ApJ, 209, 214

—. 1977, ApJ, 216, 883

Bailey, V. C. & Davies, M. B. 1999, MNRAS, 308, 257

Barber, C. B., Dobkin, D. P., & Huhdanpaa, H. T. 1996, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 22, 469

Benz, W. 1990, in Numerical Modelling of Nonlinear Stellar Pulsations Problems and Prospects, 269

Benz, W. & Hills, J. G. 1987, ApJ, 323, 614

—. 1992, ApJ, 389, 546

Binney, J. & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press)

Charbonnel, C., Däppen, W., Schaerer, D., Bernasconi, P. A., Maeder, A., Meynet, G., & Mowlavi, N. 1999, A&AS, 135, 405

Coker, R. F. & Melia, F. 1997, ApJ, 488, L149

Colgate, S. A. 1967, ApJ, 150, 163

David, L. P., Durisen, R. H., & Cohn, H. N. 1987a, ApJ, 313, 556

—. 1987b, ApJ, 316, 505

Davies, M. B. 1996, in IAU Symp. 174: Dynamical Evolution of Star Clusters: Confrontation of Theory and Observations, Vol. 174, 243

Davies, M. B., Blackwell, R., Bailey, V. C., & Sigurdsson, S. 1998, MNRAS, 301, 745

Duncan, M. J. & Shapiro, S. L. 1983, ApJ, 268, 565

Freitag, M. 2000, ”Monte Carlo cluster simulations to determine the rate of compact star inspiraling to a central galactic black hole”, in preparation, to be published in the proceedings of the 3rd LISA Symposium

Freitag, M. & Benz, W. 2000a, ”A Comprehensive Set of Collision Simulations Between Main Sequence Stars”, in preparation

—. 2000b, ”A New Monte Carlo Code for Star Cluster Simulations”, in preparation

Fulbright, M. S. 1996, PhD thesis, University of Arizona

Genzel, R., Eckart, A., Ott, T., & Eisenhauer, F. 1997, MNRAS, 291, 219

Ghez, A. M., Morris, M., & Becklin, E. E. 1999, in ASP Conf. Ser. 182: Galaxy Dynamics - A Rutgers Symposium, 24

Giersz, M. 1998, MNRAS, 298, 1239

—. 2000, Monte Carlo simulations of star clusters - II. Tidally limited, multi-mass systems with stellar evolution, preprint, astro-ph/0009341

Hénon, M. 1973, in Lectures of the 3rd Advanced Course of the Swiss Society of Astronomy and Astrophysics (SSAA), 183

Hils, D. & Bender, P. L. 1995, ApJ, 445, L7

Ho, L. C. 1999, in Observational Evidence for the Black Holes in the Universe, 157

Joshi, K. J., Nave, C., & Rasio, F. 1999, ”Monte-Carlo Simulations of Globular Cluster Evolution - II. Mass Spectra, Stellar Evolution and Lifetimes in the Galaxy”, preprint, astro-ph/9912155

Joshi, K. J., Rasio, F. A., & Portegies Zwart, S. 2000, ApJ, 540, 969

Kim, S. S. & Lee, H. M. 1999, A&A, 347, 123

Kormendy, J. 2000, ”Supermassive Black Holes in Disk Galaxies”, preprint, astro-ph/0007401, to be published in “Galaxy Disks and Disk Galaxies”

Kormendy, J. & Richstone, D. 1995, ARA&A, 33, 581

Lai, D., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1993, ApJ, 412, 593

Lee, H. M. 1987, ApJ, 319, 801

Lightman, A. P. & Shapiro, S. L. 1977, ApJ, 211, 244

Lombardi, J. C., J., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1996, ApJ, 468, 797

Lombardi, J. C. J., Sills, A., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1999, Journal of Computational Physics, 152, 687

Makino, J. 2000, ”Direct Simulation of Dense Stellar Systems with GRAPE-6”, preprint, astro-ph/0007084

Maoz, E. 1998, ApJ, 494, 181

McMillan, S. L. W., Lightman, A. P., & Cohn, H. 1981, ApJ, 251, 436

Miralda-Escudé, J. & Gould, A. 2000, ”A Cluster of Black Holes at the Galactic Center”, preprint, astro-ph/0003269

Moran, J. M., Greenhill, L. J., & Herrnstein, J. R. 1999, Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy, 20, 165

Murphy, B. W., Cohn, H. N., & Durisen, R. H. 1991, ApJ, 370, 60

Norman, C. & Scoville, N. 1988, ApJ, 332, 124

Portegies Zwart, S. F., Makino, J., McMillan, S. L. W., & Hut, P. 1999, A&A, 348, 117

Quinlan, G. D. & Shapiro, S. L. 1990, ApJ, 356, 483

Rasio, F. A. 2000, Monte Carlo Simulations of Globular Clusters Dynamics, preprint, astro-ph/0006205

Rauch, K. P. 1999, ApJ, 514, 725

Richstone, D., Ajhar, E. A., Bender, R., Bower, G., Dressler, A., Faber, S. M., Filippenko, A. V., Gebhardt, K., et al., 1998, Nature, 395, A14

Schaller, G., Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., & Maeder, A. 1992, A&AS, 96, 269

Seidl, F. G. P. & Cameron, A. G. W. 1972, Ap&SS, 15, 44

Shull, J. M. 1983, ApJ, 264, 446

Sigurdsson, S. & Rees, M. J. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 318

Sills, A., Faber, J. A., Lombardi, J. C., Rasio, F. A., & R., W. A. 2000, Evolution of Stellar Collision Products in Globular Clusters. II. Off-axis Collisions, preprint, astro-ph/0008254

Sills, A., Lombardi, J. C., Bailyn, C. D., Demarque, P., Rasio, F. A., & Shapiro, S. L. 1997, ApJ, 487, 290

Spitzer, L., J. & Saslaw, W. C. 1966, ApJ, 143, 400

Spitzer, L. 1987, ”Dynamical evolution of globular clusters” (Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press, 1987, 191 p.)

Stodołkiewicz, J. S. 1982, Acta Astron., 32, 63

—. 1986, Acta Astron., 36, 19

Watters, W. A., Joshi, K. J., & Rasio, F. A. 2000, ApJ, 539, 331


text:
# References

GEF-TH-01/2001

A relation between the charge radii of $`\pi ^\mathbf{+}`$, $`K^\mathbf{+}`$, $`K^\mathrm{𝟎}`$
derived by the general QCD parametrization
G.Dillon and G.Morpurgo

Università di Genova and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Genova, Italy.

Abstract. We derive, using the general QCD parametrization, the approximate relation $`r^2(\pi ^+)r^2(K^+)r^2(K^0)`$ where the $`r`$’s are the charge radii. The relation is satisfied but the experimental errors are still sizeable. The derivation is similar to (but even simpler than) that for $`r^2(p)r^2(n)r^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ (Phys. Lett. B 448, 107 (1999)).
(PACS: 12.38.Aw, 13.40.Gp ,14.40.Aq)

1. Introduction

It has been shown in a series of papers  that one can parametrize exactly several hadron properties using only general features of QCD. The method, named the “general parametrization” (GP), allows to write, almost at first sight, the most general expression for the spin-flavor structure of quantities relevant to the lowest baryons (octet+decuplet) and mesons. It turns out that the coefficients of the various terms in the parametrization decrease with increasing complexity of the term; this is called the hierarchy of the parameters \[1g,2a\], and is the reason why the naive non relativistic quark model  (NRQM), that takes into account only the simplest terms, works reasonably well, in spite of the fact that the motion of the light quarks inside hadrons is relativistic. Indeed the GP method was conceived \[1a\] with the aim of explaining the fair success of the NRQM; it emerged that, besides explaining this, the method leads to predictions in many cases, due precisely to the hierarchy. The GP, though non covariant, is relativistically correct, being an exact parametrization of a fully relativistic field theory. It is also independent \[2a\] of the choice of the QCD quark mass renormalization point.

In a previous paper \[2f\], we applied the GP to the electric charge radii of $`p`$, $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ stimulated by a paper of Buchmann, Hernandez and Faessler  who derived the relation $`r^2(p)r^2(n)=r^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$ using a quark model including two body gluon and pion exchange. We showed, indeed, that such relation is obtained quite generally by the GP method, if one neglects three index terms and the cloosed loop contribution (absent in ); the expected order of magnitude of the modification due to the three index terms was found ($`10\%`$ to $`20\%`$)$`r^2(\mathrm{\Delta }^+)`$.

Here we apply the GP method to the charge radii of $`\pi ^+`$, $`K^+`$, $`K^0`$. The calculation is even simpler than that for $`p`$, $`n`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ because we are now dealing with mesons. Also, while the $`p`$, $`n`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ relation cannot be checked experimentally, so far, because the radius of the $`\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is not known, in the present case values for the meson radii, even if affected by large errors, exist . In $`(fm)^2`$ it is:

$$r^2(\pi ^+)=0.44\pm 0.01;r^2(K^+)=0.34\pm 0.05;r^2(K^0)=0.054\pm 0.026$$
(1)
2. The general parametrization of $`r^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}\pi ^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ , $`r^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}K^\mathbf{+}\mathbf{)}`$ , $`r^\mathrm{𝟐}\mathbf{(}K^\mathrm{𝟎}\mathbf{)}`$

The square radius $`r^2(M)`$ of a meson $`M`$ with e.m. form factor $`F(q^2)`$ is:

$$r^2(M)=6\frac{dF(q^2)}{dq^2}|_{q^2=0};F(q^2)=M(𝒒/2)|\rho (0)|M(𝒒/2)$$
(2)
Here $`|M(𝒑)`$ is the exact eigenstate of the QCD Hamitonian for the meson $`M`$ with total momentum $`𝒑`$, $`\rho (0)=i\overline{\psi }(0)Q\gamma _4\psi (0)`$, with $`\psi (x)`$ the quark field, and $`Q=(1/2)(\lambda _3+\frac{1}{3}\lambda _8)`$ is the charge operator. Incidentally recall that the $`q^2`$ dependence of the e.m. form factors was discussed for $`p`$ and $`n`$ in ref.\[2g\].

Using the technique described in  (see \[1a\] or, more brifley, the Appendix of \[2a,1i\]), the exact $`r^2(M)`$ derived from QCD for a meson with an $`L=0`$ auxiliary state (as the lowest pseudoscalar mesons) is written in the GP:

$$r^2(M)=W_M|\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}parametrizedr^2\mathrm{"}|W_M$$
(3)
where $`W_M`$ are the standard spin-flavor functions of the $`\pi ,K`$ mesons constructed in terms of the quark-antiquark spin flavor variables; $`W_M`$ is the product of a singlet quark-antiquark spin factor times an octet flavor factor. The notation for mesons is similar to that in refs.\[1c,1d\], except that the projector $`\mathrm{\Pi }^\lambda `$ in \[1d\] is now called $`P^s`$ ($`P^s`$ is $`1`$ acting on a strange $`q`$ or $`\overline{q}`$ ; $`0`$ otherwise).

In view of the linearity of $`r^2`$ in $`\rho (0)`$ the most general “$`parametrizedr^2`$” for $`\pi ^+`$, $`K^+`$, and $`K^0`$ is a scalar linear in the quark charges $`Q_i`$ ($`Q_i=Q_1,Q_2`$; note: $`1=quark`$, $`2=antiquark`$). As to the the spins, the “$`parametrizedr^2`$” can only contain ($`𝝈_1𝝈_2`$), which, applied to the spin singlet factor in $`W_M`$, is just $`3`$. Thus the most general “$`parametrizedr^2`$” (a scalar under rotations, of course) is:

$$\mathrm{`}\mathrm{`}parametrizedr^2\mathrm{"}=A\underset{i}{}Q_i+B\underset{i}{}Q_iP_i^s+C\underset{ik}{}Q_iP_k^s+DTr[QP^s]$$
(4)
In (4) $`A,B,C,D`$ are four real parameters; the sums are on $`i,k=1,2`$; for instance, $`_{ik}Q_iP_k^s=Q_1P_2^s+Q_2P_1^s`$ ; for $`K^+`$, it is $`W_{K^+}|Q_1P_2^s+Q_2P_1^s|W_{K^+}=+(2/3)`$.

Neglecting the $`Trace`$ term in (4) because, as usual \[2a\], it is associated to closed internal loops, depressed by the Furry theorem at least 50 times with respect to the dominant term $`A`$, the eq.(4) contains three parameters $`A,B,C`$ and must fit three quantities. The hierarchy leads to $`|B/A|`$=the flavor reduction factor $`1/3`$ (more precisely $`0.3`$ to $`0.33`$). For $`|C/B|`$ (the reduction factor due to one more gluon exchange) we also take $`|C/B|1/3`$ (but here the $`1/3`$ is less “universal”; that is, it depends in part on the quantity under consideration and may vary, say, between $`0.2`$ and $`0.37`$). In conclusion we set:

$$C(1/3)B(1/9)A$$
(5)
3. Discussion of the parametrized expression (4) for the radii

The eq.(4) gives (neglecting, as stated, the $`Trace`$ term):

$$\begin{array}{c}r^2(\pi ^+)=A(=0.44\pm 0.01)\hfill \\ r^2(K^+)=A+(1/3)B+(2/3)C(=0.34\pm 0.05)\hfill \\ r^2(K^0)=(1/3)B(1/3)C(=0.054\pm 0.026)\hfill \end{array}$$
(6)
(Incidentally, omitting $`C`$, the eqs.(6) coincide with those of the NRQM in its most naive form. Note that, omitting $`C`$, we obtain from (6) $`r^2(K^0)=0.010\pm 0.05`$.) In general the eqs. (6) lead to the relation mentioned in the abstract:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}r^2(\pi ^+)r^2(K^+)\hfill & =& r^2(K^0)+C\hfill \\ 0.10\pm 0.05\hfill & & 0.0540.026\pm 0.05\hfill \end{array}$$
(7)
In the numbers below the relation (7), the last $`0.05`$ is $`C`$, calculated using the hierarchy (5). One can see that the GP prediction (7), also here, agrees with the facts, although more precise measurements of $`r^2(K^+)`$ and $`r^2(K^0)`$ are needed. Incidentally, it is, from (6):

$$|B/A|=|r^2(K^+)r^2(\pi ^+)+2r^2(K^0)|/r^2(\pi ^+)=|0.10\pm 0.05+0.1080.052|/0.44$$
(8)
As stated, the hierarchy leads us to expect unambigously $`|B/A|1/3`$. We note that, to obtain this value from eq.(8), it is necessary that the two errors in (8) combine to $`0.06`$; the central values alone produce a too large $`|B/A|`$.

In conclusion two new results emerge: a) The predicted relation (7) between the $`r^2`$’s of $`\pi ^+`$, $`K^+`$, $`K^0`$ satisfied as indicated; b) The prediction (eq.(8)) that either $`r^2(K^+)`$ or $`|r^2(K^0)|`$ (or both) must have their center values somewhat larger than the present ones.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Some recent work  established the existence of infinite families of local, conserved, commuting charges in each two-dimensional principal chiral model (PCM) with target space a compact, classical Lie group $`G`$. The currents underlying these charges are defined using totally symmetric $`G`$-invariant tensors $`k_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}`$, where indices $`a`$ refer to a basis for the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ corresponding to $`G`$. The $`k`$-tensors and their currents are given by the formulas

$`𝒦_m`$ $`=`$ $`k_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}j^{a_1}j^{a_2}\mathrm{}j^{a_m}`$ (1.1)
$`=`$ $`det(1\mu j^at_a)^{s/h}|_{\mu ^{s+1}},s=m1,`$ (1.2)
where $`j^at_a`$ is a Noether current (arising from a global $`G`$ symmetry of the model) which takes values in the defining representation of the classical algebra $`𝐠`$ with generators $`t_a`$ (other conventions will be given below). The tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ defined by (1.2) are non-vanishing precisely when the spin of the corresponding charge, $`s=m1`$, is equal to an exponent of $`G`$ modulo its Coxeter number, $`h`$.

One motivation for the work just mentioned was the appearance of certain common features  of exact S-matrices for PCMs  and affine Toda field theories (ATFTs) (see  and references therein). The implications of commuting charges with spins as given above have been thoroughly studied in the Toda case, as reviewed in , and the appearance of analogous charges in PCMs indeed offers a natural explanation for the otherwise mysterious similarities displayed by their $`S`$-matrices . Subsequently, it was shown that similar families of commuting charges can still be constructed if a Wess-Zumino (WZ) term is added to the PCM , or if the target space is some compact symmetric space rather than a Lie group . Analogous results also hold for supersymmetric models . A number of important questions remain unanswered, however.

The most obvious problem is to extend the results of  to all Lie groups, by including the exceptional cases along with the classical families. It is natural to expect that this should be possible, and yet the formula (1.2) utilizes the defining representation for each classical algebra, and so it has no unambiguous interpretation for the exceptional cases. One can also ask, at a more general level: what is the deeper mathematical significance of the $`k`$-tensors, and what is their relationship—if any—to more familiar mathematical structures? It is reasonable to suppose that an answer to this would help in passing from classical to exceptional groups. Finally, while it was successfully shown in  that there are classical commuting charges with identical patterns of spins in both PCMs and ATFTs, one may ask whether it is possible to go further and explicitly relate the charges in the two models.

In this paper we shall give answers to each of the three questions posed above. The next section consists mostly of introductory material on sigma-models and their currents, but it finishes with a useful lemma relevant to the existence of commuting charges. We then examine, in section 3, whether the formula (1.2) gives satisfactory results when applied to exceptional groups: it proves entirely adequate for G2 but not for the more complicated cases. In the remainder of the paper we develop a more systematic approach which involves a direct relationship between sigma-model and Toda charges; this turns out to be the key to understanding all three of the problems mentioned above.

Section 4 summarizes some facts about Toda theories and their associated Drinfeld Sokolov/modified KdV (DS/mKdV) hierarchies of commuting charges . The connection with sigma-models is particularly natural from the physical perspective of gauged WZW models , although our interest here is to relate PCMs and affine Toda theories, rather than WZW models and conformal Toda theories. The links between these various points of view will be mentioned below.

In section 5 we describe an explicit correspondence between commuting charges in PCMs on the one hand, and DS hierarchies or commuting charges in ATFTs on the other. This shows that the $`k`$-tensors of (1.2) are indeed closely-related to well-known mathematical structures, and the correspondence allows us to deduce the existence of $`k`$-tensors and commuting charges in PCMs based on all Lie groups, including the exceptional cases. In section 6 we show that similar results can be derived for sigma-models based on compact symmetric spaces too.

Appendix A collects together useful data concerning Lie groups and symmetric spaces, while appendix B contains some arguments which supplement remarks made in section 3.

## 2 Sigma-models revisited

We first recall some well-known facts about the classical dynamics and canonical structure of a PCM, with or without a WZ term. It is convenient to use a light-cone canonical formalism, where the (real) light-cone coordinates $`x=x^0+x^1`$ and $`\overline{x}=x^0x^1`$ play the role of ‘space’ and ‘time’ respectively; the corresponding derivatives will be written $`=_x`$ and $`\overline{}=_{\overline{x}}`$. A sigma-model with target manifold $`G`$ can be described in terms of a current with components $`(j^a,\overline{ȷ}^a)`$ taking values in the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ and satisfying equations of motion

$$\overline{}j^a=\overline{ȷ}^a=\kappa f_{bc}{}_{}{}^{a}j_{}^{b}\overline{ȷ}^c$$
(2.1)
for some constant $`\kappa `$. The structure constants are those appearing in the commutation relations $`[t_a,t_b]=f_{ab}{}_{}{}^{c}t_{c}^{}`$ for the generators of $`𝐠`$, and all Lie algebra indices are raised and lowered using the invariant inner-product $`\eta _{ab}`$. (If $`G`$ is non-compact or if $`G`$ is compact but our basis is not orthonormal then the positions of the Lie algebra indices are important.)

The equal ‘time’ Poisson brackets can be written

$$\{j^a(x),j^b(y)\}=f^{ab}{}_{c}{}^{}\stackrel{~}{ȷ}_{}^{c}(x)\delta (xy)+\eta ^{ab}\delta ^{}(xy)$$
(2.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^a`$ is a certain linear combination of $`j^a`$ and $`\overline{ȷ}^a`$. If the coefficient of the WZ term is assigned the critical value necessary to define a WZW model then $`\stackrel{~}{ȷ}^a`$ is proportional to $`j^a`$ alone and (2.2) becomes a classical Kac-Moody algebra. More details concerning the general case can be found in e.g. 222 In  we considered explicitly only compact groups, and used a canonical formalism with $`x^0`$ as time. These differences entail only very minor modifications of the discussion, however.

It is a simple consequence of the equations of motion (2.1) that any current defined by (1.1) is conserved provided that $`k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}`$ is an invariant tensor:

$$k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}f_{b)dc}^{}=0\overline{}𝒦_m=0.$$
(2.3)
Now consider the Poisson bracket of two charges constructed from such currents

$`\{{\displaystyle 𝑑x𝒦_m(x)},{\displaystyle 𝑑y𝒦_n(y)}\}`$
$`={\displaystyle 𝑑x𝑑yk_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_n}^{(n)}\{j^{a_1}(x)\mathrm{}j^{a_m}(x),j^{b_1}(y)\mathrm{}j^{b_n}(y)\}}.`$
In calculating this using (2.2), all contributions involving the term $`\delta (xy)`$ and the structure constants ultimately vanish, by invariance of each $`k`$-tensor. The $`\delta ^{}(xy)`$ terms contribute a non-trivial integrand, however, and it is easy to check that this becomes a total derivative, implying that the charges commute, if and only if

$$k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n2})b_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}=k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n2}b_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}.$$
(2.4)
The principal result established in  is that this condition holds when the tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ are defined by the formula (1.2) for each compact classical group.333 Actually, more general families are allowed for the groups Bn and Cn, in which $`h`$ is replaced by an arbitrary real parameter . This possibility will not be of much concern to us here. We emphasize that both the conservation of the currents and the commutation of their charges are completely independent of the presence or absence of a WZ term in the model.

From this point on we will take $`G`$ to be compact unless we explicitly state otherwise (we will discuss briefly in the next section some aspects of hamiltonian reduction, for which $`G`$ is required to be maximally non-compact). Our aim in the remainder of this section is to show that the validity, or otherwise, of the condition (2.4), and hence the question of commuting charges, can be settled essentially by restricting attention to a Cartan subalgebra. Although the restriction lemma which we shall establish is quite simple, it will prove very useful throughout the remainder of the paper. To explain the arguments properly, we first need to recall some standard results  and introduce some notation.

Let $`𝐠`$ be a compact Lie algebra and $`𝐠_0`$ a Cartan subalgebra (CSA). We assume, with no loss of generality, that our basis $`\{t_a\}`$ for $`𝐠`$ can be partitioned into bases $`\{t_i\}`$ for $`𝐠_0`$ and $`\{t_\alpha \}`$ for its orthogonal complement $`𝐠_0^{}`$. Allowing complex linear combinations of generators, the latter may be chosen to consist of the usual Cartan-Weyl step operators corresponding to the non-zero roots of $`𝐠`$. Recall that any $`X=X^at_a𝐠`$ is conjugate to some member of our chosen CSA, i.e. there exists $`gG`$ such that $`gXg^1𝐠_0`$. The remnant of $`G`$ which fixes the Cartan subalgebra (under the adjoint action) is the Weyl group, $`𝐖(G)`$.

For a tensor $`d^{(m)}`$ of degree $`m`$ on $`𝐠`$, and any $`U,V,\mathrm{},Z𝐠`$ we write

$$d^{(m)}(U,V,\mathrm{},Z)=d_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}U^{a_1}V^{a_2}\mathrm{}Z^{a_m}$$

so that the components of the tensor can be expressed

$$d_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}^{(m)}=d^{(m)}(t_{a_1},t_{a_2},\mathrm{},t_{a_m})$$
(2.5)
(we shall not always indicate the degree of the tensor explicitly). Such a tensor is $`G`$-invariant if

$$d([T,U],V,\mathrm{},Z)+d(U,[T,V],\mathrm{},Z)+\mathrm{}+d(U,V,\mathrm{},[T,Z])=0$$
(2.6)
for all $`T𝐠`$ (which coincides with the condition written earlier in (2.3)); or equivalently

$$d(gUg^1,gVg^1,\mathrm{},gZg^1)=d(U,V,\mathrm{},Z)$$
(2.7)
for all $`gG`$. If $`d`$ is totally symmetric, then it is completely determined by specifying $`d(X,\mathrm{},X)`$ for all $`X𝐠`$. From our earlier remarks, it follows that any symmetric invariant tensor is determined by its restriction to the CSA, this restricted tensor having components

$$d_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m}^{(m)}=d^{(m)}(t_{i_1},t_{i_2},\mathrm{},t_{i_m})$$
(2.8)
The restricted tensor is invariant under the Weyl group $`𝐖(G)`$.

A useful observation is that any symmetric invariant tensor satisfies

$$d_{\alpha i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}=0\mathrm{or}d(Y,X,\mathrm{},X)=0\mathrm{for}X𝐠_0,Y𝐠_0^{}.$$
(2.9)
This can be understood in a number of ways— for example, it is a consequence of the usual $`𝐙`$-grading of $`𝐠`$ defined by the choice of CSA and a set of simple roots: a particular component of an invariant tensor must vanish unless the total grade associated with all the indices it carries is zero.444 The grade of any element of $`𝐠`$ is its eigenvalue under commutation with a specific element $`M𝐠_0`$; all members of the CSA therefore have grade zero, while step operators for the positive/negative simple roots are assigned grades $`\pm 1`$, by construction. The result follows from (2.6) with $`T=M`$. Alternatively, consider some specific $`Y=t_\alpha 𝐠_0^{}`$ corresponding to a non-zero root of $`𝐠`$. For each such element, we can choose $`T=t_i𝐠_0`$ (so $`[T,X]=0`$) such that $`[T,Y]=\lambda Y`$ with $`\lambda 0`$. The invariance condition (2.6) with $`U=Y`$ and $`V=\mathrm{}=Z=X`$ implies that (2.9) holds for this particular $`Y`$, and the result follows for general $`Y𝐠_0^{}`$ by linearity.

Following these remarks on general symmetric invariant tensors, we now focus specifically on the property necessary to construct commuting charges, and establish the following. Restriction lemma: totally symmetric, $`G`$-invariant tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ and $`k^{(n)}`$ on $`𝐠`$ satisfy the condition (2.4) if and only if their restrictions to the CSA $`𝐠_0`$ obey the analogous condition:

$$k_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2})j_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=k_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}.$$
(2.10)
where $`\mathrm{}`$ is a CSA index. Proof: (2.4) holds iff

$`k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n2}b_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}X_{}^{a_1}\mathrm{}X^{a_{m1}}X^{b_1}\mathrm{}X^{b_{n2}}Y^{b_{n1}}`$
$`=`$ $`k_{(a_1\mathrm{}a_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{b_1\mathrm{}b_{n2}b_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}X_{}^{a_1}\mathrm{}X^{a_{m1}}X^{b_1}\mathrm{}X^{b_{n2}}Y^{b_{n1}}`$
for any $`X,Y𝐠`$. Because the tensors are invariant, this is equivalent to

$`k_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2}b_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X^{i_{m1}}X^{j_1}\mathrm{}X^{j_{n2}}Y^{b_{n1}}`$
$`=`$ $`k_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{c}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2}b_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{c}{}^{}X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X^{i_{m1}}X^{j_1}\mathrm{}X^{j_{n2}}Y^{b_{n1}}`$
with $`X𝐠_0`$ and $`Y𝐠`$. Now (2.9) implies that one or other of the tensor factors on each side of this equation will vanish unless $`Y𝐠_0`$ and the summation over $`c`$ is also restricted to the CSA. Hence, the original condition holds iff

$`k_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2}j_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X^{i_{m1}}X^{j_1}\mathrm{}X^{j_{n2}}Y^{j_{n1}}`$
$`=`$ $`k_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}k_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2}j_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}X_{}^{i_1}\mathrm{}X^{i_{m1}}X^{j_1}\mathrm{}X^{j_{n2}}Y^{j_{n1}}`$
for all $`X,Y𝐠_0`$. This is equivalent to (2.10), completing the proof.

## 3 Exceptional groups: a direct approach

In this section we investigate whether the formula (1.2) might be of use when applied to exceptional groups. To formulate this question properly, one must first choose a representation for the group to which the generators appearing in (1.2) will belong. To answer it, one must then determine whether the resulting currents $`𝒦_{s+1}`$ share the properties of their counterparts for the classical algebras: (i) that they vanish identically unless $`s`$, the spin of the conserved charge, is equal to an exponent of the algebra modulo its Coxeter number $`h`$; (ii) that these conserved charges commute.

It is not obvious how to carry out calculations for an exceptional group $`G`$ in the same manner as was done for the classical families in . We can, however, make use of these earlier results by combining them with the restriction lemma proved at the end of the last section. This lemma tells us that it is sufficient to calculate the quantities $`𝒦_m`$ and their Poisson brackets when the underlying Lie algebra variables $`j^at_a`$ are restricted to a CSA of $`𝐠`$. More conveniently, we can choose a classical subgroup of maximal rank $`HG`$, with Lie subalgebra $`𝐡𝐠`$, and carry out all calculations assuming $`j^at_a`$ belongs to $`𝐡`$. Because $`𝐡`$ contains a CSA of $`𝐠`$, the restriction lemma ensures that these results will reveal all the information we seek. We must, of course, take into account that our chosen representation of $`G`$ will in general decompose into various irreducible representations of $`H`$.

Of the five exceptional groups, $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ is certainly the simplest and also the one which most nearly possesses something like a defining representation,555The appropriate definition of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ is the automorphism group of the octonions, with the 7-dimensional space of pure-imaginary octonions furnishing the representation . of dimension 7. A classical subgroup of maximal rank is $`\mathrm{SU}(3)\mathrm{G}_2`$, with respect to which this representation decomposes $`\mathrm{𝟕}=\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟑}^{}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Following the strategy explained above, we consider a current $`j^at_a`$ belonging to the $`\mathrm{SU}(3)`$ subalgebra. Let us introduce the notation666 In the notation of : $`2a=𝒥_2=\mathrm{Tr}(j^2)`$ and $`3b=𝒥_3=\mathrm{Tr}(j^3)`$ for $`j=j^at_a`$ an SU(3) current.

$`A(x,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`det(1\mu j^at_a)\mathrm{for}j^at_a\mathrm{in}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{SU}(3),`$ (3.1)
$`=`$ $`1\mu ^2a(x)\mu ^3b(x)`$
which defines $`A(x,\mu )`$, $`a(x)`$ and $`b(x)`$; consequently

$`A(x,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`det(1\mu j^at_a)\mathrm{for}j^at_a\mathrm{in}\mathrm{𝟑}^{}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{SU}(3),`$ (3.2)
$`=`$ $`1\mu ^2a(x)+\mu ^3b(x).`$
Now define

$`B(x,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`det(1\mu j^at_a)\mathrm{for}j^at_a\mathrm{in}\mathrm{𝟕}\mathrm{of}\mathrm{G}_2,`$ (3.3)
$`=`$ $`A(x,\mu )A(x,\mu )`$
$`=`$ $`(1\mu ^2a)^2\mu ^6b^2`$
where the second equality follows from the decomposition of representations given above. The Coxeter number for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ is $`h=6`$, and so the formula (1.2) becomes

$$𝒦_{s+1}=B(x,\mu )^{s/6}|_{\mu ^{s+1}}$$
(3.4)
where the expansion is to be taken in ascending powers of $`\mu `$. Now let us consider whether these currents have the desired properties.

Since $`B(x,\mu )`$ is an even polynomial in $`\mu `$, $`𝒦_{s+1}`$ is non-zero only if $`s`$ is an odd integer. In order to investigate in more detail which of these expressions are non-vanishing, it is convenient to write

$`B(x,\mu )^{s/6}`$ $`=`$ $`(1\mu ^2a)^{s/3}\left[1\mu ^6b^2(1\mu ^2a)^2\right]^{s/6}`$ (3.5)
$`=`$ $`(1\mu ^2a)^{s/3}{\displaystyle \underset{p0}{}}c_p\mu ^{6p}b^{2p}(1\mu ^2a)^{2p}`$
where $`c_p`$ are certain binomial coefficients, and the brackets appearing in each term of the sum are yet to be expanded as power series in $`\mu `$. Now, if $`s=6n+3`$ for some integer $`n`$, then

$$B(x,\mu )^{s/6}=\underset{p0}{}c_p\mu ^{6p}b^{2p}(1\mu ^2a)^{2n+12p},$$
(3.6)
and $`𝒦_{s+1}`$ is, by definition, the coefficient of $`\mu ^{s+1}=\mu ^{6n+4}`$. Because of the factor of $`\mu ^{6p}`$ in this sum, those terms with $`p>n`$ produce powers of $`\mu `$ which are never less than $`6n+6`$, and so never contribute to $`𝒦_{s+1}`$. On the other hand, for terms with $`pn`$ the power of the bracket $`(1\mu ^2a)`$ is a positive integer, and the highest power of $`\mu `$ which arises after its expansion is therefore $`2(2n+12p)+6p=4n+2p+2<6n+4`$, so these terms cannot contribute either. We conclude that $`𝒦_{s+1}`$ vanishes for $`s=6n+3`$, while in general it will be non-vanishing for $`s=6n+1`$ or $`s=6n+5`$. This is precisely what we require, because the exponents of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ are 1 and 5. The formula (1.2) for the 7 representation of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ has therefore passed the first test.

The second test, that the non-trivial conserved charges commute, is even more stringent. We will now calculate the relevant Poisson brackets using similar methods to those of . It was shown in  (equation (4.14)) that the function $`A(x,\mu )`$ introduced above has Poisson brackets

$`\{A(x,\mu ),A(y,\nu )\}=\mu ^2\nu ^2\left[{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{\mu \nu }}+{\displaystyle \frac{_\mu _\nu }{3}}\right]A(x,\mu )_x(A(x,\nu )\delta (xy))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2\nu ^2}{(\mu \nu )^2}}\left[_xA(x,\mu )A(x,\nu )A(x,\mu )_xA(x,\nu )\right]\delta (xy).`$ (3.7)
From this we can calculate

$`\{B(x,\mu ),B(y,\nu )\}={\displaystyle \frac{2\mu ^2\nu ^2}{\mu ^2\nu ^2}}[(\mu _\mu \nu _\nu )B(x,\mu )_x(B(x,\nu )\delta (xy))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2+\nu ^2}{\mu ^2\nu ^2}}(_xB(x,\mu )B(x,\nu )B(x,\mu )_xB(x,\nu ))\delta (xy)]`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2\nu ^2}{3}}C(x,\mu )_x(C(x,\nu )\delta (xy))`$ (3.8)
where

$`C(x,\mu )`$ $`=`$ $`_\mu A(x,\mu )A(x,\mu )A(x,\mu )_\mu A(x,\mu )`$ (3.9)
$`=`$ $`2b\mu ^2(3a\mu ^2).`$
With the exception of the additional $`C`$-terms, the Poisson bracket (3.8) is again familiar from  (equation (4.25) with $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$ replaced by $`\mu ^2`$ and $`\nu ^2`$ respectively).

To find the Poisson brackets of two conserved charges, we must evaluate

$$𝑑x𝑑y\{B(x,\mu )^{s/6},B(y,\nu )^{r/6}\}$$
(3.10)
in sufficient detail to extract the coefficient of $`\mu ^{s+1}\nu ^{r+1}`$. Following precisely the same arguments as in section 4.3 of , it can be shown that the $`B`$-terms on the right-hand-side of (3.8) will not contribute to this result. The additional $`C`$-terms, however, produce an expression proportional to

$$𝑑x\mu ^2\nu ^2B(x,\mu )^{s/61}C(x,\mu )_x(B(x,\nu )^{r/61}C(x,\nu )).$$
(3.11)
Using (3.9), and extracting the relevant powers of $`\mu `$ and $`\nu `$, we find that the integrand contains a factor

$$3B(x,\mu )^{(s6)/6}|_{\mu ^{s3}}a(x)B(x,\mu )^{(s6)/6}|_{\mu ^{s5}}.$$
(3.12)
But this can be shown to vanish by expanding each term in the form (3.5) (with $`s`$ replaced by $`s6`$) and noting that

$$(1a\mu ^2)^{(2n1)/3}|_{\mu ^{2n+2}}=\frac{a}{3}(1a\mu ^2)^{(2n1)/3}|_{\mu ^{2n}}$$
(3.13)
for any integer $`n`$ (if the general term in each expansion is labelled by $`p`$, we have set $`s56p=2n`$). Hence, the charges commute.

We have shown that the formula (1.2), taking the seven-dimensional representation of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, defines currents with all the properties we require. The remaining exceptional groups can be investigated similarly. For example, there are convenient classical subgroups of maximal rank: $`\mathrm{SO}(9)\mathrm{F}_4`$ and $`\mathrm{SO}(16)\mathrm{E}_8`$. In these two instances, the representations of smallest dimension and their decompositions are $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟔}=\mathrm{𝟗}\mathrm{𝟏𝟔}\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`\mathrm{𝟐𝟒𝟖}=\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟎}\mathrm{𝟏𝟐𝟖}`$ respectively. In both these cases, however, the formula (1.2) fails the first test, because it is easy to check that there are non-trivial currents $`𝒦_{s+1}`$ for which $`s`$ is not congruent (mod $`h`$) to an exponent. Furthermore, explicit computations for $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ show that the currents $`𝒦_6`$ and $`𝒦_8`$ obtained from this formula do not yield commuting charges.

In summary, although the formula (1.2) works perfectly for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, the same cannot be said for the other exceptional groups. It would be interesting to investigate other representations of these groups, or possible modifications of the formula, but these are not issues that we shall pursue here. Some insight into the special nature of $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ can be gained by regarding it as the subgroup of SO(8) invariant under outer automorphisms. By exploiting the fact that these automorphisms become inner when SO(8) is embedded in $`\mathrm{F}_4`$, we can even use the $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ tensors defined above to construct commuting quantities in the $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ model. Since these arguments lie somewhat outside the main development of ideas in this paper, we shall present them in appendix B. It is, in any case, convenient to delay such discussion until after we have explained the connection between sigma-models and Toda theories, which will lead ultimately to a more uniform understanding of both the classical and exceptional cases.

## 4 Toda theories and DS/mKdV hierarchies

We shall be concerned with conformal Toda field theories (CTFTs) based on finite dimensional Lie algebras $`𝐠`$, and affine Toda field theories (ATFTs) associated with (untwisted) affine Kac-Moody algebras $`\widehat{𝐠}`$. In either case, the Toda fields $`\varphi ^i`$ take values in the CSA $`𝐠_0𝐠`$. They obey classical equations of motion of the form

$$\overline{}\varphi ^i=m^2\underset{\alpha R}{}\alpha ^i\mathrm{exp}(\alpha \varphi )$$
(4.1)
where $`R`$ is a certain subset of the roots (a dot denotes the inner-product $`\eta _{ij}`$ on the CSA). For a CTFT, $`R`$ is precisely the set of simple roots of $`𝐠`$, while for an ATFT, $`R`$ contains in addition the lowest root of $`𝐠`$ (these are the simple roots of $`\widehat{𝐠}`$ projected onto the CSA of the ‘horizontal’ subalgebra $`𝐠`$). The conformal symmetry present in the former case means that the mass parameter $`m`$ can be removed by shifting the fields, but for an ATFT the effect of the additional term involving the lowest root is to produce a minimum in the potential, resulting in a massive theory. We use the same light-cone canonical formalism as before, with $`\overline{x}`$ as ‘time’ and $`x`$ as ‘space’. The canonical Poisson brackets are identical in both CTFT and ATFT: introducing the variables $`u^i=\varphi ^i`$, the brackets are

$$\{u^i(x),u^j(y)\}=\eta ^{ij}\delta ^{}(xy).$$
(4.2)
Each CTFT contains an infinite number of conserved currents which are differential polynomials in the quantities $`u^i`$. They take the form

$$𝒲_m=d_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m}u^{i_1}u^{i_2}\mathrm{}u^{i_m}+(\mathrm{derivative}\mathrm{terms})\mathrm{with}\overline{}𝒲_m=0$$
(4.3)
where the ‘derivative terms’ are lower-order in the fields $`u`$ but may also involve $`u`$, $`^2u`$, and so on. Under the Poisson bracket, these conformal currents form a classical W-algebra. Much progress in understanding the W-algebra structure of CTFTs has come from regarding them as constrained WZW models , and we now recall in outline how this is done.

The construction starts with a WZW model based on a maximally non-compact group $`G`$. Its Lie algebra is the real span of a set of Cartan-Weyl generators, and it can be decomposed according to the associated integer grading: $`𝐠=𝐠_+𝐠_0𝐠_{}`$, where $`𝐠_\pm `$ are the nilpotent subalgebras consisting of elements of positive/negative grade respectively. The corresponding nilpotent subgroups of $`G`$ will be denoted by $`G_\pm `$. The currents $`j`$ in the WZW model satisfy $`\overline{}j=0`$ and obey a Kac-Moody algebra.

The WZW model is then modified by the addition of gauge fields so as to ensure invariance under an enlargement of the Kac-Moody symmetry, corresponding to gauging the nilpotent subgroups $`G_\pm `$. As in any gauge theory, only quantities invariant under the gauge transformations now have intrinsic meaning. A particularly important class of such objects are the gauge-invariant differential polynomials in the Kac-Moody currents, which take the form

$$d_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}j^{a_1}j^{a_2}\mathrm{}j^{a_m}+(\mathrm{derivative}\mathrm{terms})$$
(4.4)
It is shown in  that the tensor $`d_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}`$ must be $`G`$-invariant (even though we are considering gauge transformations involving just the nilpotent subgroups $`G_\pm `$). The additional derivative terms have a complicated structure which is also dictated by gauge invariance.

The Toda description of such a modified WZW model emerges on making a particular gauge choice which allows the sigma-model target-space to be parameterized by fields $`\varphi ^i`$ living in the CSA. In terms of these Toda fields, the expressions (4.4) reduce to the currents (4.3). An important consequence of this is that the tensor $`d_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m}`$ is invariant under the Weyl group of $`G`$.

The holomorphic currents (4.3) can also be constructed directly in the CTFT. An elegant approach is to introduce a (pseudo)differential Lax operator $`(u,)`$, of order $`n`$ say, which can be expanded in descending powers of derivatives:

$$=\underset{m0}{}𝒲_m^{nm}(𝒲_0=1).$$
(4.5)
The operator is constructed so as to obey

$$[\overline{},]=0\overline{}𝒲_m=0$$
(4.6)
and hence the coefficients in its expansion yield the desired conserved currents. For CTFTs based on certain algebras there is a particularly simple formula for the Lax operator :

$$=\underset{\lambda W}{}(+\lambda u)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{A}_r,\mathrm{B}_r,\mathrm{C}_r\mathrm{and}\mathrm{G}_2,$$
(4.7)
where $`W`$ is the set of weights of the defining representation, or the seven-dimensional representation for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, and the product is taken in the order lowest to highest weights from left to right. For other algebras, such an ordering is ambiguous and this complication manifests itself through the appearance of inverse powers of $``$. Thus, we have

$$=\underset{\lambda W_{}}{}(+\lambda u)\frac{1}{}\underset{\lambda W_+}{}(+\lambda u)\mathrm{for}\mathrm{D}_r,$$
(4.8)
where $`W_\pm `$ are the strictly positive/negative weights of the fundamental representation, and each product is again ordered lowest to highest. Similar Lax operators have apparently not been calculated for the remaining exceptional algebras, although there is no obstacle to doing so in principle .

We have now outlined two approaches to the construction of the infinite set of conserved currents in each TCFT. An important finite subset of these currents consists of the conformal primary fields for the W-algebra . These currents have spins $`s+1`$ where $`s`$ is an exponent of the Lie algebra $`𝐠`$. Another important set of currents, less familiar from the point of view of conformal field theory perhaps, are those which give rise to commuting charges. It is known from the work of Drinfeld and Sokolov  that there are infinitely many such currents; from our point of view these correspond to very special choices of the $`d`$-tensors in (4.3). Let us denote these currents

$$_m=h_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_m}u^{i_1}u^{i_2}\mathrm{}u^{i_m}+(\mathrm{derivative}\mathrm{terms}).$$
(4.9)
Drinfeld and Sokolov establish the existence of a maximal set of commuting charges

$$H_s=𝑑x_{s+1}$$
(4.10)
where the spins $`s`$ take values equal to the exponents of $`𝐠`$ modulo the Coxeter number $`h`$. Note that there is a finite subset of commuting charges whose spins are exactly the exponents, but their currents do not coincide, in general, with the primary field currents of the W-algebra.

Thus far we have discussed conserved quantities in CTFT corresponding to a finite-dimensional algebra $`𝐠`$. The ATFT based on $`\widehat{𝐠}`$ is obviously closely related: it has the same field content, and the classical equations of motion differ only by the addition of one term involving the lowest root. This extra term has the dramatic consequence of making the ATFT a massive theory and so the conformal conservation laws (4.3) of the CTFT will not survive in general. There are still infinitely many conserved quantities in each ATFT, however, and they involve precisely the quantities $`_m`$ introduced in (4.9) above. In ATFT these satisfy the modified conservation equations

$$\overline{}_m+\overline{}_m=0$$
(4.11)
for certain $`\overline{}_m`$ which will be complicated functions of the fields involving, in particular, exponentials of the lowest root. Fortunately, the exact expressions need not concern us, because in the light-cone canonical formalism $`\overline{}_m`$ plays the role of the ‘space’ component of the current, and hence the conserved charge constructed from (4.11) is given by precisely the same formulas (4.10) and (4.9) as before.

To summarize: the set of conserved charges in $`\widehat{𝐠}`$ ATFT commute with one another, and they can be identified in a direct way with the maximal set of commuting charges contained within the W-algebra of $`𝐠`$ CTFT. The charges $`H_s`$ regarded as functions of the fields $`u`$ via (4.10) and (4.9) constitute precisely the Drinfeld-Sokolov generalizations of the mKdV hierarchy (mKdV being the simplest example, associated to the algebra A1). For summaries of this and much related material see e.g. .

Formulas for many of the DS currents $`_m`$ were derived in the original works  and they can be expressed in terms of the Lax operators $``$ for CTFT given in (4.7) and (4.8). For each ATFT based on a classical group or on $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, we introduce a related Lax operator $`\widehat{}(u,)`$ of order $`h`$ (the Coxeter number of the algebra) in terms of which

$$_{s+1}=\mathrm{Res}(\widehat{}^{s/h}).$$
(4.12)
The fractional power must be defined by means of an expansion in descending powers of the operator $``$, and Res is an instruction to extract the residue, meaning the coefficient of $`^1`$. (For background on such techniques for general pseudo-differential operators, see e.g. ). Specifically, we have for each algebra

$$\widehat{}=\mathrm{for}\mathrm{A}_r,\mathrm{C}_r;\widehat{}=^1\mathrm{for}\mathrm{B}_r,\mathrm{D}_r,\mathrm{G}_2.$$
(4.13)
These definitions, in conjunction with (4.12), provide concrete expressions for all the commuting charges which arise in these models, with the exception of those associated with the Pfaffian-type invariants of $`\mathrm{D}_r`$. (Analogous expressions for these currents are apparently not known—see .)

We conclude this section with one simple deduction from the beautiful results of Drinfeld and Sokolov. With the currents written in the form (4.9), let us consider the leading term, involving the largest number of fields $`u`$ and the lowest number of derivatives, which arises when we calculate directly the Poisson bracket $`\{H_{m1},H_{n1}\}`$ using (4.2). Since we know this bracket vanishes, the entire integrand must be a total derivative, and its leading term must be a total derivative by itself (it is the unique term containing the largest possible number of fields $`u`$). It is straightforward to see that this requires

$$h_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}h_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2})j_{n1}}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}=h_{(i_1\mathrm{}i_{m1}}^{(m)}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{}}h_{j_1\mathrm{}j_{n2}j_{n1})}^{(n)}{}_{\mathrm{}}{}^{}.$$
(4.14)
This is just the condition (2.10) encountered earlier. We shall make the connection explicit in the next section.

## 5 DS hierarchies and PCM/WZW models

In each PCM or WZW model, we have conserved commuting charges based on $`G`$-invariant $`k`$-tensors satisfying (2.4). We showed that this condition is valid iff it holds when the tensors are restricted to the Cartan subalgebra. From direct calculation, the condition is known to be satisfied when the $`k`$-tensors are defined by (1.2) for each of the classical algebras (in their defining representations) and for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ (in its seven-dimensional representation). In conformal or affine Toda theory, on the other hand, we have a set of mutually commuting charges given by the Drinfeld-Sokolov construction for any Lie algebra $`𝐠`$. The $`h`$-tensors on the CSA which appear in (4.9) are Weyl-invariant, and must satisfy (4.14) in order that the corresponding charges commute.

There is an obvious way to relate the two pictures: extend the $`h`$-tensors of the DS hierarchies to tensors $`h_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}`$ on each compact Lie algebra $`𝐠`$. Specifically, for any $`X𝐠`$, we choose $`gG`$ such that $`gXg^1𝐠_0`$ and set

$$h(X,\mathrm{},X)=h(gXg^1,\mathrm{},gXg^1)$$
(5.1)
to define a totally symmetric extension of the tensor from $`𝐠_0`$ to $`𝐠`$. This extension is unambiguous because the choice of $`g`$ is unique up to elements which fix the CSA, but the (adjoint) actions of such elements on $`𝐠_0`$ constitute the Weyl group, under which each $`h`$-tensor is invariant. The extended $`h`$-tensor is $`G`$-invariant on $`𝐠`$, by construction. By the restriction lemma, (4.14) is sufficient to ensure that our extended tensors can be used to define commuting charges in the PCM based on $`G`$, with currents $`h_{a_1a_2\mathrm{}a_m}j^{a_1}j^{a_2}\mathrm{}j^{a_m}`$.

In this manner, the DS/mKdV hierarchies ensure the existence of commuting sets of charges in any sigma-model with target space a compact Lie group $`G`$, whether classical or exceptional. It remains to reconcile this new definition with our old definition, in terms of $`k`$-tensors given by (1.2), however. To achieve this we must show that any concrete expressions which are available for both the $`k`$-tensors and $`h`$-tensors agree up to irrelevant overall constants.

In the formulas (4.12) the differential operators $``$ in every factor of the Lax operator generate a large number of terms. But to extract the $`h`$-tensor for each current we are concerned only with the leading, non-derivative terms, as written in (4.9). Discarding the derivative terms is equivalent to neglecting the action of each operator $``$ on all fields $`u`$ standing to its right. This can be achieved simply by replacing $``$ in the definition by a parameter $`1/\mu `$, say, so that

$$h_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}u^{i_1}u^{i_2}\mathrm{}u^{i_n}=\widehat{}(u,1/\mu )^{s/h}|_\mu $$
(5.2)
The choice of parameter is natural if we recall that the expansion inherent in the definition (4.12) must be carried out in descending powers of $``$, which now corresponds to ascending powers of $`\mu `$.

The formulas (4.13) simplify and unify after replacing $``$ by $`1/\mu `$: for each classical algebra and for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, we find that

$$\widehat{}(u,1/\mu )=\mu ^h\underset{\lambda W}{}(1+\mu \lambda u)$$
(5.3)
where $`W`$ is the set of weights of the defining representation. Notice that, because the factors no longer involve operators, their ordering in the product is now irrelevant. Notice also that the overall power of $`\mu `$ corresponds to the fact that the order of $`\widehat{}`$ is always $`h`$. Substituting this expression into the previous formula above, and taking account of the overall power of $`\mu `$ that results, we find

$`h_{i_1i_2\mathrm{}i_n}u^{i_1}u^{i_2}\mathrm{}u^{i_n}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda W}{}}(1+\mu \lambda u)\right)^{s/h}|_{\mu ^{s+1}}`$ (5.4)
$`=`$ $`det(\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}+\mu u^it_i)^{s/h}|_{\mu ^{s+1}}`$
The last equality follows because the weights are, by definition, the eigenvalues of the CSA generators (in the defining representation in this case). This final formula for the $`h`$-tensors clearly coincides, up to some irrelevant overall constants, with the definition (1.2) for the $`k`$-tensors when $`j`$ is restricted to the CSA.

## 6 Symmetric space sigma-models

The last topic we shall discuss is that of sigma-models on compact symmetric spaces $`G/H`$. It was shown in  that commuting families of charges, with characteristic patterns of spins, exist for each such model with $`G`$ and $`H`$ classical groups. The approach we have developed in this paper is sufficient to extend the analysis to all symmetric space sigma-models, and we now indicate briefly how this can be done (some routine details will be omitted in view of the strong similarities with the preceding discussions of Lie groups).

Most of the equations discussed above for PCM/WZW models carry over immediately to symmetric space sigma-models with appropriate re-interpretations of symbols. For a symmetric space $`G/H`$, we have an orthogonal decomposition of the Lie algebra $`𝐠=𝐡+𝐩`$, say. The dynamical variables of the $`G/H`$ sigma-model are currents $`j^at_a`$, where $`\{t_a\}`$ is a basis for $`𝐩`$. The conserved currents in this theory take the familiar form $`k_{a_1\mathrm{}a_m}j^{a_1}\mathrm{}j^{a_m}`$ but the symmetric $`k`$-tensor which appears must now be $`H`$-invariant on $`𝐩`$. (In general, an $`H`$-invariant tensor $`d`$ on $`𝐩`$ satisfies (2.6) for any $`T𝐡`$ and $`U,V,\mathrm{},Z𝐩`$.) The condition for the corresponding conserved charges to commute is then still given by (2.4).

The analysis of  relied on the observation that when $`G`$ and $`H`$ are classical groups, every $`H`$-invariant tensor on $`𝐩`$ arises as the restriction of some $`G`$-invariant tensor on $`𝐠`$. This is not true for symmetric spaces involving exceptional groups, however  (see also , where this point proved relevant). To deal with these exceptional cases, we will follow the route developed in this paper for Lie groups: starting from Weyl-invariant tensors on a Cartan subalgebra and then extending them in an invariant fashion to construct the desired commuting charges.

A CSA for a compact symmetric space $`G/H`$ is a maximal set of commuting generators $`𝐩_0𝐩`$; this space is unique up to conjugation by elements of $`H`$ and the rank of $`G/H`$ is defined to be the dimension of $`𝐩_0`$. Let $`\{t_i\}`$ be a basis for $`𝐩_0`$, and $`\{t_\alpha \}`$ a basis for $`𝐩_0^{}`$, its orthogonal complement in $`𝐩`$. Any $`X𝐩`$ is conjugate by some $`hH`$ to a member of this CSA: $`hXh^1𝐩_0`$ . The residual $`H`$-transformations which fix $`𝐩_0`$ constitute the Weyl group, which we shall denote $`𝐖(G/H)`$.

As in the case of Lie groups, one can introduce the idea of a root system for a symmetric space, and then summarize much of this information by means of a diagram which encodes the properties of a basis of simple roots. It turns out that the diagram for any symmetric space $`G/H`$ coincides with the Dynkin diagram for some simple Lie group $`K`$, say . Moreover, rank($`K`$) = rank($`G/H`$) and $`𝐖(K)=𝐖(G/H)`$. We list the compact symmetric spaces $`G/H`$ and their diagrams, as given by $`K`$, in appendix A.

Now, any $`H`$-invariant symmetric tensor on $`𝐩`$ is clearly determined by its restriction to the CSA, $`𝐩_0`$. Furthermore, any tensor on $`𝐩_0`$ which is invariant under $`𝐖(G/H)`$ can be extended uniquely to an $`H`$-invariant tensor on $`𝐩`$. A family of Weyl-invariant tensors $`h_{i_1\mathrm{}i_m}`$ on $`𝐩_0`$ is provided by the DS construction for the group $`K`$, and we can therefore extend these to $`H`$-invariant tensors on $`𝐩`$ to define conserved currents in the $`G/H`$ sigma-model. It remains to show that the conserved charges constructed in this manner really commute. We know that the $`h`$-tensors satisfy (4.14), but we must promote this to the condition (2.4) on $`𝐩`$ which means that we must generalize the restriction lemma of section 2 from Lie groups to symmetric spaces.

Following the same method as before, the proof of the restriction lemma will generalize to symmetric spaces if each $`H`$-invariant tensor $`d`$ on $`𝐩`$ satisfies

$$d_{i_1\mathrm{}i_{n1}\alpha }=0\mathrm{or}d(X,\mathrm{},X,Y)=0\mathrm{for}X𝐩_0,Y𝐩_0^{}.$$
(6.1)
It is shown in  (Chapter 7, Lemma 2.3) that one can choose pairs of generators $`t_\alpha 𝐩_0^{}`$ (the basis introduced above) and $`s_\alpha 𝐡`$ such that, for each $`X𝐩_0`$, $`[X,t_\alpha ]=\lambda s_\alpha `$ and $`[X,s_\alpha ]=\lambda t_\alpha `$ for some number $`\lambda (X,\alpha )`$. Now fix $`X`$ and consider $`Y=t_\alpha `$. If $`\lambda (X,\alpha )0`$, then (6.1) follows from (2.6) with $`U=V=\mathrm{}=Z=X`$ and $`T=s_\alpha `$. But if $`\lambda (X,\alpha )=0`$, there exists some other $`X^{}𝐩_0`$ with $`\lambda (X^{},\alpha )0`$ (because $`𝐩_0`$ is a CSA) and (6.1) then follows from (2.6) with $`U=X^{}`$, $`V=\mathrm{}=W=X`$ and $`T=s_\alpha `$. This completes the proof.

## 7 Summary and Comments

Using the results of Drinfeld and Sokolov, we have shown that there exist commuting charges in any PCM (or WZW model) based on a compact Lie group $`G`$, and that these charges have spins given by the exponents of the group modulo its Coxeter number. We have also established analogous results for each sigma-model based on a compact symmetric space $`G/H`$, with the spins of the conserved charges given by the exponents of a related Lie group $`K`$ whose Dynkin diagram also encodes the root structure of $`G/H`$ (see appendix A). These results extend the work of  for classical groups and symmetric spaces to include all the exceptional cases.

Our construction involves a direct algebraic correspondence between the conserved, commuting charges in ATFTs, as given by the Drinfeld-Sokolov hierarchies, and those appearing in PCMs. Although this correspondence is formally very similar to the process of Hamiltonian reduction using gauged WZW models (reviewed briefly in section 4) we should be clear about how these procedures differ. Unlike the well-known WZW-CTFT connection, our construction neither involves nor requires any dynamical relationship between PCMs (or WZW models) and ATFTs. It is possible that some such relationship might be established, by carrying out a non-conformal reduction of WZW models for instance. Investigations of this kind have already been considered in the literature, but their precise status remains rather unclear at present .

As part of our account, we have compared the detailed expressions (4.12), given by Drinfeld and Sokolov for ATFT charges, with the formula (1.2), originally introduced in  for sigma-models, and found complete agreement in all cases where both are applicable. This includes all conserved charges for models based on classical groups or on G2, with the exception of those charges associated with the Pfaffian invariant and its generalizations for the groups Dn. In a sigma-model, the Pfaffian-type currents can still be extracted from (1.2) provided this formula is interpreted appropriately (see the account in ) but there are apparently no explicit results for the corresponding Drinfeld-Sokolov or ATFT currents. For the other exceptional groups, beyond G2, there are no known formulas of either type. It would be interesting to rectify this.

One can regard sigma-models and Toda theories as two rather different ways of introducing interactions amongst sets of free fields whilst maintaining integrability. An important message which is already familiar from hamiltonian reduction is that these two broad classes of models are much more closely related than might initially be supposed. Our results reinforce this in a precise sense: they reveal that the local commuting charges in both sigma-models (PCMs, WZW models, or symmetric space models) and Toda theories (conformal or affine) are based on precisely the same sets of Weyl-invariant tensors.

Acknowledgments. I am grateful to Arthur Mountain, Niall Mackay and Ben Short for discussions; and to Fran Burstall and Alastair King for helpful remarks concerning references  and . This work was carried out while on leave at Princeton, and I would like to thank the Physics Department as a whole and Erik Verlinde in particular for extending such a warm welcome during my stay. The research was funded by NSF grant PHY98-02484 and by a PPARC Advanced Fellowship.

## Appendix A: Data for Lie groups and symmetric spaces

Table 1: Lie groups, exponents and Coxeter numbers

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \text{Lie group}G\text{or Lie algebra}\text{g}& & \text{exponents}& \text{Coxeter number}h\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{A}_n=\mathrm{SU}(n+1)& & 1,2,\mathrm{},n& n+1\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{B}_n=\mathrm{SO}(2n+1)& & 1,3,\mathrm{},2n1& 2n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{C}_n=\mathrm{Sp}(2n)& & 1,3,\mathrm{},2n1& 2n\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{D}_n=\mathrm{SO}(2n)& & 1,3,\mathrm{},2n3;n1& 2n2\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_6& & 1,4,5,7,8,11& 12\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_7& & 1,5,7,9,11,13,17& 18\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_8& & 1,7,11,13,17,19,23,29& 30\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{F}_4& & 1,5,7,11& 12\\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{G}_2& & 1,5& 6\\ & & & \\ & & & \end{array}$$

Table 2(a): Symmetric spaces based on classical groups

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \text{Symmetric space}G/H& & \text{Simple root system of type }K& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SU}(n+m)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(n)\times \mathrm{U}(m))(n<m)& & \mathrm{B}_n& \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SU}(2n)/\mathrm{S}(\mathrm{U}(n)\times \mathrm{U}(n))& & \mathrm{C}_n& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SO}(n+m)/\mathrm{SO}(n)\times \mathrm{SO}(m)(n<m)& & \mathrm{B}_n& \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SO}(2n)/\mathrm{SO}(n)\times \mathrm{SO}(n)& & \mathrm{D}_n& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{Sp}(2n+2m)/\mathrm{Sp}(2n)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2m)(n<m)& & \mathrm{B}_n& \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{Sp}(4n)/\mathrm{Sp}(2n)\times \mathrm{Sp}(2n)& & \mathrm{C}_n& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SU}(n)/\mathrm{SO}(n)& & \mathrm{A}_{n1}& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{Sp}(2n)/\mathrm{U}(n)& & \mathrm{C}_n& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SO}(4n)/\mathrm{U}(2n)& & \mathrm{C}_n& \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SO}(4n+2)/\mathrm{U}(2n+1)& & \mathrm{B}_n& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{SU}(2n)/\mathrm{Sp}(2n)& & \mathrm{A}_{n1}& \\ & & & \\ & & & \end{array}$$

Table 2(b): Symmetric spaces based on exceptional groups

$$\begin{array}{cccc}& & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \text{Symmetric space}G/H& & \text{Simple root system of type}K& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_6/\mathrm{Sp}(8)& & \mathrm{E}_6& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_6/\mathrm{SU}(6)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)& & \mathrm{F}_4& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_6/\mathrm{SO}(10)\times \mathrm{U}(1)& & \mathrm{G}_2& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_6/\mathrm{F}_4& & \mathrm{A}_2& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_7/\mathrm{SU}(8)& & \mathrm{E}_7& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_7/\mathrm{SO}(12)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)& & \mathrm{F}_4& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_7/\mathrm{E}_6\times \mathrm{U}(1)& & \mathrm{C}_3& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_8/\mathrm{SO}(16)& & \mathrm{E}_8& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{E}_8/\mathrm{E}_7\times \mathrm{SU}(2)& & \mathrm{F}_4& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{F}_4/\mathrm{Sp}(6)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)& & \mathrm{F}_4& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{F}_4/\mathrm{SO}(9)& & \mathrm{A}_1& \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ & & & \\ \mathrm{G}_2/\mathrm{SU}(2)\times \mathrm{SU}(2)& & \mathrm{G}_2& \\ & & & \\ & & & \end{array}$$

## Appendix B: Folding, $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, $`\mathrm{SO}(8)`$ and $`\mathrm{F}_4`$

Consider a Lie algebra $`𝐠`$ and an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of order $`n`$. There is a homomorphism $`\pi :𝐠𝐠^\sigma `$, the $`\sigma `$-invariant subalgebra, given by $`\pi (X)=X+\sigma (X)+\mathrm{}+\sigma ^{n1}(X)`$. Suppose $`\sigma `$ represents an outer automorphism and so corresponds to a non-trivial symmetry of the Dynkin diagram of $`𝐠`$ with $`n=2`$ or 3. Identifying simple roots of $`𝐠`$ under this symmetry yields the Dynkin diagram for $`𝐠^\sigma `$, a process that is commonly referred to as ‘folding’ . Applying this to simply-laced algebras of types A or D using their outer automorphisms of order 2 yields non-simply-laced algebras of types B or C. Folding D4 = SO(8) using an automorphism of order 3 yields $`\mathrm{G}_2`$, the only exceptional group which can be constructed in this fashion.

There is a one-to-one correspondence between (Ad)-invariant tensors on $`𝐠^\sigma `$ and (Ad)-invariant tensors on $`𝐠`$ which are additionally invariant under $`\sigma `$. In one direction this correspondence is given by restricting the tensor to the subalgebra (pulling back by the inclusion map) while in the other direction it is given by composing the tensor with the map $`\pi `$ in the obvious sense (pulling back using $`\pi `$). Furthermore, if we have a family of such $`\sigma `$-invariant tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ on $`𝐠`$ which satisfy the key condition (2.4), then it is not difficult to show (using arguments similar to those in the proof of the restriction lemma in section 2) that the corresponding tensors on $`𝐠^\sigma `$ satisfy (2.4) on this subalgebra, and vice versa.

Now consider $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ obtained by folding SO(8) using $`\sigma `$ of order 3. Our calculations in section 3 establish the existence of a family of tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ on $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ satisfying (2.4) with $`m=2,6`$ (mod 6). By the remarks above, these can also be regarded as $`\sigma `$-invariant tensors on SO(8). (They do not coincide with the SO(8)-tensors defined by (1.2), however, which are not $`\sigma `$-invariant in general.) But SO(8) is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ of maximal rank; moreover $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ is the minimal group in which the outer automorphisms of SO(8) become inner, and $`𝐖(\mathrm{F}_4)`$ is a semi-direct product of $`𝐖(\mathrm{SO}(8))`$ with the permutation group $`\mathrm{S}_3`$ of outer automorphisms . Since (Ad)-invariant tensors are determined by their values on a CSA, and the remnant of the (Ad)-action on the CSA is the Weyl group, we see that the tensors $`k^{(m)}`$ on SO(8) can further be identified, via the common CSA, with (Ad)-invariant tensors on $`\mathrm{F}_4`$. The restriction lemma of section 2 ensures that these tensors still obey (2.4) and thus define commuting charges in the $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ model. Notice also that the degrees of these tensors can be re-written as $`m=2,6,8,12`$ (mod 12), exactly as expected. This provides us with a convenient method for constructing the tensors on $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ that we seek, although it does not alter the fact that these apparently cannot be derived by applying (1.2) directly to $`\mathrm{F}_4`$ itself.

The folding construction is widely used in Toda theory  and the outer automorphisms, or Dynkin diagram symmetries, correspond directly to discrete symmetries of the Toda lagrangian. The Lax operators of the simple form (4.7) and (4.13) for $`\mathrm{G}_2`$ can be derived directly from those for SO(8) by using this observation.