text:
# Weak modules and logarithmic intertwining operators for vertex operator algebras

## Introduction

This work is an attempt to explain an algebraic reformulation of “logarithmic conformal field theory” from the vertex operator algebra point of view.

The theory of vertex operator algebras, introduced in works of Borcherds (cf. \[Bo\]), Frenkel, Huang, Lepowsky and Meurman (\[FHL\], \[FLM\]) , is the mathematical counterpart of conformal field theory, introduced in \[BPZ\]. One usually studies rational vertex operator algebras, which satisfy a certain semisimplicity condition for modules. If we want to go beyond rational vertex operator algebras we encounter several difficulties. First, we have to study indecomposable, reducible modules, for which there is no classification theory. Another problem is that the notion of intertwining operator, as defined in \[FHL\], is not the most general.

We can illustrate this with the following example. Let $`L(c,0)`$ (cf. \[FZ\]) be a non–rational vertex operator algebra associated to a lowest weight representation of the Virasoro algebra and

(0.1)
$$𝒴_1,𝒴_2$$

a pair of intertwining operators for certain triples of $`L(c,0)`$–modules. It is well known that one can study matrix coefficients

(0.2)
$$w_3^{},𝒴_1(w_1,x)w_2$$

and

(0.3)
$$v_4^{},𝒴_1(v_1,x_1)𝒴_2(v_2,x_2)v_3,$$

where $`w_i`$, $`v_j`$, $`i=1,2`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, $`v_4^{}`$ and $`w_3^{}`$ are some vectors, by solving appropriate differential equations (see \[BPZ\] or \[H\]). In several examples we find, after we switch to complex variables, that in certain domains some solutions have logarithmic singularities. This fact was exploited in \[Gu1\], where such conformal field theories are called “logarithmic”. The appearance of logarithms contradicts the following property of intertwining operators:

(0.4)
$$𝒴(w_1,x)\mathrm{Hom}(W_2,W_3)\{x\},$$

where $`w_1W_1`$ and $`\mathrm{Hom}(W_2,W_3)\{x\}`$ denotes the space of formal sums of the form $`_nv_nx^n`$, $`v_n\mathrm{Hom}(W_2,W_3)`$. The aim of this paper is to develop an algebraic theory that incorporates logarithmic solutions as well. We extend the property (0.4) (cf. Definition 1.3) so that we allow

(0.5)
$$𝒴(u,x)\mathrm{Hom}(W_2,W_3)\{x\}[\mathrm{log}(x)].$$

Here $`\mathrm{log}(x)`$ is just another formal variable, and not a formal power series. Note that we allow arbitrary nonnegative integral powers of $`\mathrm{log}(x)`$ and arbitrary complex powers of $`x`$. Also, we assume the property $`\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{log}(x)=\frac{1}{x}`$. Such modification dictates, if we assume the usual condition that $`𝒴(L(1)w,x)=\frac{d}{dx}𝒴(w,x)`$, that the space $`W_3`$ is no longer an $`L(c,0)`$–module but rather a weak module that is not $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable. For this purpose we define a “logarithmic module” to be a weak module that admits a decomposition into generalized $`L(0)`$–eigenspaces. The analogy with logarithms is clear when we consider ordinary differential equations (cf. Proposition 1.10). If one carefully analyzes our definition it is clear that logarithmic intertwiners can be defined solely without logarithms, but then the formulas are not very transparent.

The next problem is to construct a non–trivial (not covered by the definition in \[FHL\]) example of a logarithmic intertwining operator. In this paper we study only logarithmic intertwining operators associated to Virasoro vertex operator algebras. By carefully examining Frenkel-Zhu-Li’s formula (cf. \[FZ\], \[L\]) we found sufficient conditions (Theorem 1.15) for the existence of a non–trivial logarithmic intertwining operator each of the types

(0.6)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right)\mathrm{and}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right),$$

where $`W`$ is some where $`W`$ is some logarithmic module. Then we apply Theorem 1.15 for some special theories: $`c=2`$ and $`c=1`$ (Corollary 2.2 and Corollary 2.4). Note that we limit ourselves to the case when $`W_1`$ and $`W_2`$ are ordinary modules. It seems to be harder to construct a logarithmic intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ where $`W_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are non–trivial logarithmic modules.

It is clear that non–trivial logarithmic modules do not come up in the theory of rational vertex operator algebras; therefore they do not come up in the case of the vertex operator algebras $`L(c_{p,q},0)`$, where $`c_{p,q}=1\frac{6(pq)^2}{pq}`$, $`p,q2`$ and $`(p,q)=1`$. In particular, if $`c=c_{2,3}=0`$ then $`L(0,0)`$ is the trivial vertex operator algebra (hence the representation theory is trivial). But if we consider the vertex operator algebra $`M_0=M(0,0)/L(1)v_0`$ (here $`v_0`$ is the lowest weight vector) the situation is substantially different. We can consider modules for $`M_0`$ and study the corresponding intertwining operators. What is interesting is that $`M_0`$ is not a simple vertex operator algebra and this makes the whole subject very interesting. We should mention that the $`c=0`$ case has been studied in the connection with percolation in mathematics and physics (for a good review of the subject see \[LPS\] and the references therein)

Our motivation to study the $`c=0`$ case stems from \[GL\] where Gurarie and Ludwig studied logarithmic OPE (operator product expansions) between certain special $`c=0`$ theories. Their result, slightly modified in our language, predicts logarithmic intertwiners of the type

(0.7)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_b}{L(0,\frac{m^21}{24})L(0,\frac{m^21}{24})}\right),$$

for a certain logarithmic module $`W_b`$. The constant $`b`$, as shown in \[GL\], seems to be the same for various $`m`$. It is unclear in \[GL\] what the vector space $`W_b`$ is and how to construct intertwining operators of the type (0.7).

We speculate what properties the space $`W_b`$ should have, and explain why the constant $`b`$ appears instead of the central charge. Consider the Lie algebra $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{log}}`$ 111A related algebraic structure was considered in \[GL\]. , generated by $`t^{(i)}(n)`$, $`i,n`$, $`i`$ and $`b`$, with commutation relations

$$[t^{(i)}(m),t^{(j)}(n)]=(mn)t^{(i+j)}(m+n)+(ji)t^{(i+j1)}(m+n)+\mathrm{c}(t^{(i)}(m),t^{(j)}(n))b,$$

where $`\mathrm{c}(t^{(i)}(m),t^{(j)}(n))`$ is a certain 2–cocycle introduced in the paper and $`b`$ is the central element. Note that thera are two (distinguished) Virasoro subalgebras inside $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{log}}`$. Horizontal, take $`i=j=0`$ and vertical, take $`m=n=0`$. It will turn out that both the horizontal and vertical Virasoro subalgebras have central charge $`0`$ no matter what is $`b`$. We show that there is an evidence that logarithmic intertwining operators exist but it is much more difficult to construct them and explicitly define what is the space $`W_b`$. In a sequel we will study this problem in more details. Also, we believe that studying the representation theory of $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{log}}`$ is an interesting subject.
n.b. A lot of progress has been done by physicists in understanding LCFT. Instead of listing numerous references we refer an interested reader to the excellent review articles \[G\], \[F1\] and \[RT\] (and references therein).
Acknowledgment: I benefited from discussions with V. Gurarie, Y.-Z. Huang and J. Lepowsky.

## 1. Weak modules and logarithmic modules

### 1.1. Notation

We denote by $``$ the set of positive integers, by $``$ the ring of integers and by $``$ the field of complex numbers. In what follows all variables are formal. For a vector space $`W`$ we denote by $`W\{x\}`$ the vector space of formal sums $`_ra_rx^r`$, where $`a_rW`$, by $`W[[x.x^1]]`$ the vector space of formal Laurent series and by $`W((x))`$ the vector space of truncated Laurent series. In particular, $`((x))`$ is the ring of truncated Laurent series.

### 1.2. Logarithmic modules

Let $`V=_nV_n`$ be a vertex operator algebra (for the definition see \[FHL\] or \[FLM\]). A weak $`V`$–module $`W`$ by definition (cf. \[DLM\]) satisfies all the axioms for a $`V`$–module (see \[FHL\]) except for those involving the grading and the action of $`L(0)`$. In particular we do not assume any grading on $`W`$. Let $`𝕀`$. We say that a weak $`V`$–module $`W`$ is $`𝕀`$–gradable (cf. \[Z\]) if there exists a decomposition

$$W=\underset{i𝕀}{}W(i),$$

such that

$$v_nW(i)W(i+\mathrm{deg}(v)n1),$$

for $`vV(\mathrm{deg}(v))`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}(v)`$ is the degree of $`v`$ (cf. \[FLM\]) and $`n`$. If every $``$–gradable weak $`V`$–module is completely reducible (in the category of weak $`V`$–modules) then we say that $`V`$ is rational 222The reader should be aware that there are several distinct notions of rationality in the literature.. In this paper most of the statements are vacuous if $`V`$ is rational.

Let us consider a special class of gradable weak modules.

###### Definition 1.1.

We say that a weak $`V`$–module $`W`$ is logarithmic if it admits a direct sum decomposition into generalized $`L(0)`$–eigenspaces, i.e. admits a Jordan form with respect to the action of $`L(0)`$.

Let $`W`$ be a logarithmic module. Put

(1.1)
$$W_k:=\{wW:(L(0)k)^nw=0,\mathrm{for}\mathrm{some}n\}.$$

###### Proposition 1.2.

Let $`W`$ be as above and $`W=_{k+h}W_k`$ for some $`h`$. Then $`W`$ is an $``$–gradable module.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`vV(l)`$ and $`wW_k`$. From the Jacobi identity it follows that

$$(L(0)(l+km1))v_mw=v_m(L(0)k)w,$$

for every $`m`$. Therefore

$$(L(0)(l+km1))^nv_mw=0,$$

Thus $`v_mwW_{l+km1}`$. If we let

$$W(k):=W_{k+h},$$

then $`W=_{k0}W(k)`$ is $``$–gradable. ∎

Let $`𝒞_n`$ be the category 333A related category $`𝒪`$ has been considered in \[DLM\]. whose objects are logarithmic $`V`$–modules such that in (1.1) the constant $`n`$ is fixed, i.e., with respect to the action of $`L(0)`$, $`W`$ has a matrix realization with Jordan blocks of size at most $`n`$. Then we have

$$𝒞_1<𝒞_2<𝒞_3<\mathrm{}.$$

In this paper we shall work mostly with the category $`𝒞_2`$. We say that a logarithmic module $`W`$ is nontrivial if it is not an object in $`𝒞_1`$. Note that $`𝒞_1`$ is the category of all weak $`V`$–modules that are $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable and $``$–gradable. Often, we are not interested in studying logarithmic modules because every irreducible logarithmic $`V`$–module is $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable, i.e., it is an object in $`𝒞_1`$.

### 1.3. Intertwining operators for logarithmic modules

Here we extend the definition of intertwining operators for a triple of modules as stated in \[FHL\].

Let $`[[x,x^1]][y]`$ be the space of formal Laurent series with coefficients in $`y`$. Let $`\frac{d}{dx}\mathrm{End}([[x,x^1]]).`$ We extend $`\frac{d}{dx}`$ to $`[[x,x^1]][y]`$ by letting $`\frac{d}{dx}y=\frac{1}{x}`$.

For obvious reasons we will write $`\mathrm{log}(x)`$ instead of $`y`$, where $`\mathrm{log}(x)`$ is purely formal and not a power series. If $`A(x)x[[x]],`$ we set

(1.2)
$$\mathrm{log}(1+A(x))=\underset{n>0}{}(1)^{n1}\frac{A(x)^n}{n}[[x]].$$

###### Definition 1.3.

Let $`W_1`$, $`W_2`$ and $`W_3`$ be three logarithmic $`V`$–modules. A logarithmic intertwining operator is a linear mapping

(1.3) $`𝒴(,x):W_1\mathrm{Hom}(W_2,W_3)\{x\}[\mathrm{log}(x)]`$
(1.4) $`𝒴(w,x)={\displaystyle \underset{i0}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha }{}}w_\alpha ^{(i)}x^{\alpha 1}\mathrm{log}^i(x),`$
such that the following properties hold:

1. The truncation property: For any $`w_iW_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, and $`j0`$

$$(w_1)_\alpha ^{(j)}w_2=0,$$

for large enough $`e(\alpha )`$.
2. The $`L(1)`$-derivative property: For any $`w_1W_1`$,

$$𝒴(L(1)w_1,x)=\frac{}{x}𝒴(w_1,x).$$
3. The Jacobi identity: In $`W_3\{x_0,x_1,x_2\}[\mathrm{log}(x_2)]`$, we have

$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_2}{x_0}}\right)Y(u,x_1)𝒴(w_1,x_2)w_2`$
$`x_0^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_2x_1}{x_0}}\right)𝒴(w_1,x_2)Y(u,x_1)w_2=`$
$`=x_2^1\delta \left({\displaystyle \frac{x_1x_0}{x_2}}\right)𝒴(Y(u,x_0)w_1,x_2)w_2,`$
for $`uV`$, $`w_1W_1`$ and $`w_2W_2`$.

In this paper we denote the space of all logarithmic intertwining operators of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ by $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ 444Notice that every intertwining operator (as defined in \[FHL\]) is also a logarithmic intertwining operator. We say that a logarithmic operator is non–trivial if it is not covered by the definition in \[FHL\]..

###### Remark 1.4.

Let

$$𝒴^{(i)}(w,x)=\underset{n}{}w_n^{(i)}x^{n1}.$$

It follows from (3), by extracting the coefficients of $`\mathrm{log}^i(x)`$, that Jacobi identity holds for each $`𝒴^{(i)}`$ separately. Hence our definition can be stated without logarithms, but then the $`L(1)`$–derivative property does not hold for each $`𝒴^{(i)}`$.

Here are some consequences of Definition 1.3.

###### Proposition 1.5.

Let $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$ and $`wW_1`$. Then

* $$e^{yL(1)}𝒴(w,x)e^{yL(1)}=𝒴(w,x+y),$$

where

$$\mathrm{log}(x+y):=e^{y\frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{log}(x).$$
* $$e^{yL(0)}𝒴(w,x)e^{yL(0)}=𝒴(e^{yL(0)}w,e^yx),$$

where $`\mathrm{log}(e^yx)=y+\mathrm{log}(x)`$.
* Define

$$𝒴^{}(w_2,x)w_1=e^{xL(1)}𝒴(w_1,e^{\pi i}x)w_2.$$

Then $`𝒴^{}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_2W_1}\right)`$ where $`\mathrm{log}(e^{\pi i}x):=\mathrm{log}(x)+\pi i`$.

###### Proof.

(a) follows from the $`L(1)`$–derivative property and

$$[L(1),𝒴(w_1,x)]=\frac{d}{dx}𝒴(w_1,x).$$

For (b) we use the same proof as in \[FHL\] Lemma 5.2.3, i.e. formulas

$$[L(0),𝒴(w_1,x)]=𝒴(L(0)w_1,x)+x𝒴(L(1)w_1,x)$$

and

$$e^{yx\frac{d}{dx}}\mathrm{log}(x)=y+\mathrm{log}(x).$$

The statement (c) can be easily checked by using the same proof as in \[FHL\]. ∎

### 1.4. Some representations of the Virasoro algebra

###### Definition 1.6.

We denote by $`\mathrm{Vir}`$ the Virasoro Lie algebra with the standard triangular decomposition $`\mathrm{Vir}=\mathrm{Vir}_+\mathrm{Vir}_0\mathrm{Vir}_{}.`$ Let $`M`$ be a $`\mathrm{Vir}`$–module. We say that $`M`$ is a restricted $`Vir`$–module if for every $`vM`$, $`L(n)v=0`$ for $`n>>0`$. Denote by $`_c`$ the category of all restricted $`\mathrm{Vir}`$–modules of central charge $`c`$.

Let us denote by $`M(c,h)`$ the Verma module for the Virasoro Lie algebra of central charge $`c`$ and lowest weight $`h`$ and by $`L(c,h)`$ the corresponding irreducible quotient. We write $`𝒪_c`$ for the category generated by all lowest weight modules of the central charge $`c`$. Objects in $`𝒪_c`$ are restricted $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable $`\mathrm{Vir}`$–modules such that for every $`W`$ in $`𝒪_c`$

(1.6)
$$\mathrm{Spec}L(0)|_Wh_i+,$$

for some $`h_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Motivated by the definition of logarithmic modules we enlarge the category $`𝒪_c`$ in the following way. Denote by $`𝒪_c^n`$ the category of all restricted $`Vir`$–modules that admit decompositions into generalized $`L(0)`$–eigenspaces with Jordan blocks of size at most $`n`$. Again all irreducible objects of $`𝒪_c^n`$ are contained in $`𝒪_c`$. For every $`c,h`$ and $`n`$ we define a generalized Verma module

$$M_n(c,h)=\mathrm{Ind}_{U(\mathrm{Vir}_0)}^{U(\mathrm{Vir})}𝒱(n),$$

where $`𝒱(n)`$ is a $`n`$–dimensional $`U(\mathrm{Vir}_+)L(0)`$–module 555More generally, one can take an arbitrary finite–dimensional $`[L(0)]`$–module. with a basis $`v_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ such that

(1.7) $`L(n).v_i=0,n>0,`$
$`L(0).v_1=hv_1,`$
$`L(0).v_i=hv_i+v_{i1},i=2,\mathrm{},n,`$
$`c|_{𝒱(n)}=c\mathrm{Id}.`$
Clearly, $`M_n(c,h)`$ is an object in $`𝒪_c^n`$. In the case $`n=2`$ we shall write $`v:=v_1`$ and $`w:=v_2`$. Obviously for every $`n2`$ we have the following exact sequence:

(1.8)
$$0M_{n1}(c,h)M_n(c,h)M(c,h)0.$$

As before we will use the following notation

(1.9)
$$M_n(c,h)(m)=\{v:(L(0)mh)^nv=0\};$$

$$M_n(c,h)=\underset{m0}{}M_n(c,h)(m).$$

Let $`M`$ be a $`Vir`$–module. We say that $`uM`$ is a primitive vector (cf. \[K\]) if there is a submodule $`UM`$ such that $`U(\mathrm{Vir}_+)uU`$. A primitive vector $`u`$ is a singular vector if $`U=0`$. The most important property of Verma modules for the Virasoro algebra is that every submodule is generated by its singular vectors. For the modules $`M_n(c,h)`$, $`n2`$ this is no longer true. The structure of $`M_n(c,h)`$ is in general more complicated then the structure of the ordinary Verma modules (cf. \[FF1\]).

###### Proposition 1.7.

Every submodule of $`M_2(c,h)`$ is generated by its primitive vectors. In general there are submodules that are not generated by its singular vectors.

###### Proof.

The first statement is clear. Consider a Verma module $`M_2(0,0)`$ and a submodule $`M^{}`$ generated by $`v`$ and $`L(1)w`$, i.e. $`M^{}`$ is characterized by a non–split exact sequence

$$0M(0,0)M^{}M(0,1)0.$$

If $`M^{}`$ is generated by its singular vectors then it has to be generated by $`v`$ and some singular vector belonging to $`M_2(0,0)(1)`$. Hence it is of the form $`\alpha L(1)v+\beta L(1)w`$, $`\alpha ,\beta `$. It is easy to check that any such singular vector is a multiple of $`L(1)v`$ (because of $`L(1)L(1)w=2v`$). This would imply $`L(1)wM^{}`$. Therefore $`M^{}`$ is not generated by its singular vectors. ∎

Motivated by the notion of maximal module for ordinary Verma modules we define $`M_2^{}(c,h)M_2(c,h)`$ as the union of all submodules $`M^{}`$ of $`M_2(c,h)`$ such that $`M^{}M_2(c,h)(0)=0`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2(c,h):=M_2(c,h)/M_2^{}(c,h)`$ does not contain singular vectors of the weight strictly bigger then $`h`$. For computational purposes we will need a slighlty “bigger” representations (and their contragradient versions) then $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2(c,h)`$. The following construction will turn out to be useful. Let $`M_2(c,h)/M^{\prime \prime }`$ be a $`Vir`$–module where $`M^{\prime \prime }`$ is the maximal $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable submodule such that $`M^{\prime \prime }M_2(c,h)(0)=0`$. Clearly $`M_2^0(c,h)M_2^{}(c,h)`$. We let $`W_2(c,h)=(M_2(c,h)/M_2^0(c,h))^{}`$ where $`()^{}`$ stands for the contragradient functor.

###### Definition 1.8.

We say that a module $`W_2\mathrm{Ob}𝒪_c^2`$ is almost irreducible if it is isomorphic to $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2(c,h)`$ for some $`c,h`$.

We have an exact sequence of $`Vir`$–modules:

(1.10)
$$0L(c,h)W_2\stackrel{~}{M}(c,h)0,$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{M}(c,h)`$ is some quotient of $`M(c,h)`$. Especially interesting are the modules $`\stackrel{~}{W}_2(c,h)`$ such that there is a non–split exact sequence:

$$0L(c,h)W_2(c,h)L(c,h)0,$$

i.e., a non–trivial vector in $`\mathrm{Ext}^1(L(c,h),L(c,h))`$. On the other hand

$$0L(c,h)M_2(c,h)/M_2^0(c,h)M(c,h)0$$

and

$$0M(c,h)^{}W_2(c,h)L(c,h)0.$$

Because $`L(c,h)M(c,h)^{}`$, an important feature of $`W_2(c,h)`$ is that irreducible module $`L(c,h)`$ both embedds and is a quotient in $`W_2(c,h)`$. Let us denote by $`S_{M_n(c,h)}(m)`$ the dimension of the singular subspace for
$`M_n(c,h)(m)`$.

###### Lemma 1.9.

For every $`n`$, $`\mathrm{dim}S_{M_2(c,h)}(n)2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`v_{sing}M_2(c,h)`$. From (1.8) it follows that $`v_{sing}=w_1.v+w_2.w`$, $`w_1,w_2U(Vir_{})`$, where $`w_2.v`$ is a singular vector in $`M(c,h)`$. If $`\mathrm{dim}S(n)>2`$ then this would imply that there are three linearly independent singular vectors of the form $`w_1^{}.v+w_2.w`$, $`w_1.v`$ and $`w_1.v+w_2.w`$ inside $`M_2(c,h)(n)`$. Therefore $`(w_1^{}w_1).v`$ should be singular too. On the other hand, the singular space for $`M(c,h)`$ is at most one–dimensional for every $`n`$. Hence $`(w_1^{}w_1).v`$ is proportional to $`w_2.v`$. Therefore $`w_1^{}.v+w_2.w`$ is a linear combination of $`w_2.v`$ and $`w_1.v+w_2.w`$. ∎

More generally, by using the induction, one can show that $`S_{M_n(c,h)}(m)n`$ for every $`m,n`$.

### 1.5. Generalized density modules

Another important class of modules for the Virasoro algebra are the so called density modules $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ (cf. \[FF1\],\[FF2\]). As a vector space $`_{\lambda ,\mu }`$ can be realized as $`x^\mu [x,x^1]dx^\lambda `$ (cf. \[FF2\]) such that the generators $`L_n`$ act as certain vector fields. This can be generalized by considering the space:

$$\underset{0in}{}x^\mu [x,x^1]\mathrm{log}^i(x)dx^\lambda .$$

Let

$$_{\lambda ,\mu ,n,\beta }=\underset{0in,r}{}u_r^{(i)},$$

such that

$$L_m.u_r^{(i)}=(\mu +r+\lambda (m+1))u_{rm}^{(i)}+\beta iu_{rm}^{(i1)}.$$

Then $`_{\lambda ,\mu ,n,\beta }`$ is a $`Vir`$–module. Again this module is reducible for $`n1`$.
n.b These modules (at least when $`n=1`$) are studied in \[CKW\] in connection with the classification of all extensions of the conformal modules for (super)conformal algebras.

### 1.6. Some properties of logarithmic intertwiners

Suppose that $`V`$ is a vertex operator algebra, $`W_i`$, $`i=1,2`$ are objects in $`𝒞_1`$ and $`W_3`$ is an object in $`𝒞_k`$. Let $`𝒴`$ be a logarithmic intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right)`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{Spec}L(0)|_{W_i}h_i+`$. Then for every $`w_1W_1`$, $`w_2W_2`$ and $`w_3^{}W_3^{}`$ such that $`w_iW_i(m_i)`$ for $`i=1,2`$ and $`w_3^{}W_3^{}(n)`$, we have

$`(L(0)h_3n)^kw_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.11) $`(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3+h_1+h_2+m_1+m_2n)^kw_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=0.`$
Therefore

(1.12)
$$𝒴(w_1,x)w_2x^{h_3h_1h_2}W_3((x))\mathrm{}x^{h_3h_1h_2}W_3((x))\mathrm{log}^{k1}(x),$$

for every $`w_1W_1`$ and $`w_2W_2`$.

Even a stronger statement holds.

###### Proposition 1.10.

Let $`W_1𝒞_{k_1}`$, $`W_2𝒞_{k_2}`$ and $`W_3𝒞_{k_3}`$ be logarithmic $`V`$–modules such that $`\mathrm{Spec}(L(0))|_{W_i}h_i+`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ and

$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_3}{W_1W_2}\right).$$

Then for every $`w_1W_1`$, $`w_2W_2`$

$`𝒴(w_1,x)w_2`$
(1.13) $`x^{h_3h_1h_2}W_3((x))\mathrm{}x^{h_3h_1h_2}\mathrm{log}^{k_1+k_2+k_33}(x)W_3((x)).`$
###### Proof.

We may assume that $`w_1`$ and $`w_2`$ are homogeneous, i.e. they are contained in some generalized eignespaces. Clearly $`(L(0)h_1m_1)^{k_1^{}}w_1=0`$ and $`(L(0)h_2m_2)^{k_2^{}}w_2=0`$ for some $`h_1,h_2`$, $`m_1,m_2`$ and $`k_1^{}k_1`$, $`k_2^{}k_2`$. We will prove by induction on $`k_1^{}+k_2^{}`$ that

$`𝒴(w_1,x)w_2`$
(1.14) $`x^{h_3h_1h_2}W_3((x))\mathrm{}x^{h_3h_1h_2}\mathrm{log}^{k_1^{}+k_2^{}+k_33}(x)W_3((x)),`$
which implies the desired result. We already proved that if $`k_1^{}=k_2^{}=1`$ the statement holds for every $`k_3`$. Let $`k_1^{}+k_2^{}>2`$. Suppose that the statement holds for every $`k_1^{}`$, $`k_2^{}`$ such that $`k_1^{}+k_2^{}<k`$. For every homogeneous $`w_3^{}W_3^{}`$ there is $`n`$ such that $`(L(0)h_3n)^{k_3}w_3^{}=0`$. Then

$`(L(0)h_3n)^{k_3}w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.15) $`(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3n+L(0)1+1L(0))^{k_3}w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=0,`$
where

$$1L(0).𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=𝒴(w_1,x)L(0)w_2$$

and

$$L(0)1.𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=𝒴(L(0)w_1,x)w_2.$$

The formula (1.6) can be written as

$`(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3+h_1+h_2n+m_1+m_2(L(0)h_1m_1)1+`$
(1.16) $`1(L(0)h_2m_2))^{k_3}w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=0.`$
After expanding (1.6)—by using the binomial theorem—we obtain

(1.17) $`(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3+h_1+h_2n+m_1+m_2)^{k_3}w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{n1}{\overset{k_3}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{k_3}{n}}\right)(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3+h_1+h_2n+m_1+m_2)^{k_3n}`$
$`((L(0)h_1)1+1(L(0)h_2))^nw_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=0.`$
If we apply the induction hypothesis, (1.17) reduces to the following differential equation

$`(x{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}h_3+h_1+h_2+m_1+m_2n)^{k_3}w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.18) $`=x^{h_3h_1h_2+nm_1m_2}P(\mathrm{log}(x)),`$
where $`\mathrm{deg}(P)k_3+k_1^{}+k_2^{}4`$. Every solution of (1.6) inside $`\{x\}[\mathrm{log}(x)]`$ is of the form

$$x^{h_3h_1h_2+nm_1m_2}Q(\mathrm{log}(x)),$$

where

$$\mathrm{deg}(Q)\mathrm{max}(k_31,k_3+k_1^{}+k_2^{}4)+1=k_3+k_1^{}+k_2^{}3.$$

### 1.7. Vertex operator algebra $`L(c,0)`$, $`cc_{p,q}`$

Suppose that $`cc_{p,q}:=1\frac{6(pq)^2}{pq}`$ for every $`p,q2`$, $`p,q`$ and $`(p,q)=1`$. It is known that the corresponding quotient $`L(c,0)=M(c,0)/L(1)v`$ is irreducible. $`L(c,0)`$ can be equipped with a structure of vertex operator algebra (cf. \[FZ\]) and all restricted $`\mathrm{Vir}`$–modules are weak $`L(c,0)`$–modules. However, every irreducible $`L(c,0)`$–modules is of the form $`L(c,h)`$, for some $`h`$. The category of all weak $`L(c,0)`$–modules is too big for our purposes though. Hence, we consider only the logarithmic modules in the category $`𝒪_2^c`$. One of the main problems in vertex operator algebra theory is to calculate fusion rules for a triple of modules. In the rational vertex operator algebra setting it is enough to consider fusion rules for triples of irreducible modules. Frenkel-Zhu’s formula (\[FZ\], \[L\]) is a valuable tool for such computation even in the non–rational case.

Let us recall how to compute the dimension of the space

(1.19)
$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right).$$

for a triple of irreducible $`L(c,0)`$–modules (cf. \[M\], \[W\]).

¿From \[FZ\] it follows that Zhu’s algebra (\[Z\], \[FZ\]) $`A(L(c,0))`$ is isomorphic to a polynomial algebra $`[y]`$. Then for every $`L(c,0)`$–module $`L(c,h)`$ we can associate an $`A(L(c,0))`$–bimodule $`A(L(c,h))`$ (cf. \[FZ\], for details in our setting see \[M\], \[W\]). It follows that

$$A(M(c,h))[x,y],$$

where

$$y=[L(2)L(1)],x=[L(2)2L(1)+L(0)].$$

We will write

$$A(W_1,W_2):=A(W_1)_{A(V)}W_2(0),$$

when there is no confusion about what is $`V`$. By using results from \[FF1\] (cf. \[M\])

$$A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2))\frac{[x]}{p(x)},$$

for a certain polynomial $`p(x)`$. Then by using a result from \[FZ\] the space (1.19) is $`0`$ if and only if $`p(h)0`$. If $`c=c_{p,q}`$, then $`p(h)=0`$ is also a sufficient condition for (1.19) to be one–dimensional. In general (cf. \[L\]) if $`p(h)=0`$ we obtain a non–trivial intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right).$$

To obtain an intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right),`$ it is enough to check that (cf. \[M\])

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{A(L(c,0))}(A(L(c,h_2),L(c,h_1)),L(c,h)(0)),$$

is non–trivial, i.e., that $`q(h)=0`$, where

$$A(L(c,h_2),L(c,h_1))\frac{[x]}{q(x)}.$$

### 1.8. Main theorem

In what follows we will give a sufficient condition for the existence of a non–trivial logarithmic intertwining operator of the type

(1.20)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_2(c,h)^{}}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right),$$

Since the space $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_2(c,h)^{}}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)`$ is too big for our purposes ($`M_2(c,h)`$ might have many submodules ) it is more convenient to study the space

(1.21)
$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right),$$

where $`W_2(c,h)`$ is defined in the Chapter 1.

We shall try to follow a similar procedure as in the case of irreducible modules (as explained in the previous section) by carefully building logarithmic intertwining operators. First, we obtain an upper bound for the dimension of the space (1.21).

Let $`v,wM_2(c,h)(0)`$ as before ($`L(0).v=hv`$, and $`L(0).w=hw+v`$) and let $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right).`$ Define

$$o_𝒴^{(0)}(w_1)=\mathrm{coeff}_{x^{hh_1h_2}}𝒴(w_1,x)$$

and

$$o_𝒴^{(1)}(w_1)=\mathrm{coeff}_{\mathrm{log}(x)x^{hh_1h_2}}𝒴(w_1,x).$$

Then $`o_𝒴^{(i)}`$ defines a linear map from $`L(c,h_1)`$ to $`\mathrm{Hom}(L(c,h_2)(0),W_2(c,h)(0))`$.

###### Lemma 1.11.

For every $`i`$ the mapping

$$\pi _𝒴^i:A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2))W_2(c,h)(0),$$

$$w_1w_2o_𝒴^{(i)}(w_1)w_2,$$

is an $`A(L(c,0))`$–module homomorphism.

###### Proof.

Notice that both $`𝒴^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒴^{(1)}`$ satisfy the Jacobi identity (but the $`L(1)`$–property does not hold for $`𝒴^{(0)}`$). To prove that $`\pi ^i(𝒴)`$ gives an $`A(L(c,0))`$–homomorphism we can use the same proof as in \[FZ\] (Lemma 1.5.2), since it uses only the Jacobi identity. Then

$$o(a)o_𝒴^{(i)}(v)=o_𝒴^{(i)}(av)$$

for $`i=0,1.`$

Notice that there is no non–trivial intertwining operator such that $`𝒴^{(0)}=0`$. Otherwise

$`𝒴^{(1)}(L(1)w,x)\mathrm{log}(x)=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}\left(𝒴^{(1)}(w,x)\mathrm{log}(x)\right)`$
$`=({\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}𝒴^{(1)}(w,x))\mathrm{log}(x)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}𝒴^{(1)}(w,x).`$
The left hand side does not contain non–logarithmic operators hence
$`𝒴^{(1)}(w,x)=0`$, for every $`w`$. The following lemma and its proof are motivated by Lemma 2.10 in \[L\].

###### Lemma 1.12.

The mapping

$$\pi :I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)\mathrm{Hom}(A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2)),W_2(c,h)(0)),$$

$$𝒴\pi _𝒴^0,$$

is injective.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\pi _𝒴^0=0`$ for some $`𝒴`$. Then

(1.22)
$$w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2=0,$$

for every $`w_3^{}W_2(c,h)^{}(0)=M_2(c,h)(0)`$, $`w_1L(c,h_1)`$ and $`w_2L(c,h_2)(0)`$. From the commutator formula it follows that

$$w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)L(n)w_2=0,$$

and therefore (1.22) holds for every $`w_2L(c,h)`$. Hence $`<w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2>=0`$ for every $`w_1L(c,h_1)`$ and $`w_2L(c,h_2)`$.
Claim: $`𝒴^{(0)}=0`$. If not then $`W^{}:=\{(w_1)_n^{(0)}w_2:w_iL(c,h_i),i=1,2,n\}`$ is a submodule of $`W_2(c,h)`$ such that $`W^{}(0)W_2(c,h)(0)=0`$. But, since $`W_2(c,h)`$ does not have singular vectors out side $`W_2(c,h)(0)`$ the same thing holds for $`W^{}`$. Therefore $`W^{}`$ has to be zero. Therefore $`𝒴^{(0)}=0`$, which implies $`𝒴=0`$, by the above argument. ∎

###### Lemma 1.13.

$$\mathrm{dim}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)2.$$

###### Proof.

From \[M\] it follows that

$$A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2))\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\frac{[x]}{(xa_i)^{l_{a_i}}},$$

for some $`k,l_i`$ and $`a_i`$. On the other hand $`W_2(c,h)(0)\frac{[x]}{(xh)^2}`$ where an isomorphism is given by $`xhv,1w`$. Hence if $`l_{a_i}2`$ the space of $`A(L(c,0))`$–homomorphisms is at most two–dimensional. By using the previous lemma we have the proof. ∎

Now the aim is to construct an intertwining operator starting from

$$\psi \mathrm{Hom}_{A(L(c,0)}(A(L(c,h_1)_{A(L(c,0))}L(c,h_2)(0),W_2(c,h)(0)).$$

This can be exhibited (under some conditions) by using Frenkel–Zhu–Li’s construction (cf. \[FZ\], \[L\]). We stress that for our example, we use only a part of the construction because we can use singular vectors. Here is an outline (for more details see \[L\]):

* To every vertex operator algebra $`V`$ one associates a Lie algebra $`g(V)=g_{}(V)g_0(V)g_+(V)`$. There is a projection $`g(V)A(V)`$. For every $`g_0(V)`$–module $`U`$ we consider a standard induced $`g(V)`$–module $`F(U)`$. In the case when $`V=L(c,0)`$ and $`M=L(c,h)`$, it is enough to work with the Virasoro subalgebra of $`g(L(c,0))`$. Also $`M(c,h)F(L(c,h)(0))`$, as a $`Vir`$–module (which is a $`L(c,0)`$–module). Lift the homomorphism $`\psi `$ to a homomorphism (we keep the same notation $`\psi `$) between $`L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)(0)`$ and $`W_2(c,h)(0)`$.
* Define a $`g`$–module (where $`g=g(L(c,0))`$ ) structure on

$$T:=[t,t^1]L(c,h_1)M(c,h)[t,t^1]L(c,h_1)F(L(c,h_2)(0))$$

and a corresponding bilinear pairing between $`M_2(c,h)(0)`$ and $`T`$ by letting

$$w_3^{},t^nw_1w_2=\delta _{n\mathrm{deg}(w_1)+1,0}w_3^{},\psi (w_1w_2),$$

for $`w_1L(c,h_1)`$ and $`w_2L(c,h_2)(0)`$. Extend this pairing for every $`w_2L(c,h_2)`$. Similarly we can extend this pairing to $`M_2(c,h)`$ and $`T`$ such that for every $`yU(\mathrm{Vir})`$

$$yf,v=f,\theta (y)v,$$

where $`\theta `$ is an anti–involution of $`U(\mathrm{Vir})`$ (in particular $`\theta (L(n))=L(n)`$). Set

$$𝒴_t(w_1,x)=x^{h_1h_2h_3}\underset{n}{}(t^nw_1)x^{n1}.$$
* Prove the commutativity and associativity for $`𝒴_t`$ (this is the hardest part of the construction).
* Show that $`L(1)`$–property holds for $`𝒴_t`$ (this requires that $`W_3`$ is $`L(0)`$–diagonalizable).
* Define

$$𝒴(w_1,x)w_2:=\psi (𝒴_t(w_1,x)w_2),$$

for which $`L(1)`$–property might not holds, of the type

(1.23)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M_2(c,h)^{}}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right),$$

(note that $`M_2(c,h)F(M_2(c,h)(0))`$). By using an argument as in \[M\] it follows that every intertwining operator of the type (1.23) can be pushed down to an intertwining operator of the form

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right).$$
* Show that $`L(1)`$–property holds.
* Check whether the intertwining operator projects to an intertwining operator of the type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right).$$

Suppose that

$$[A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2)):W_2(c,h)(0)]=1,$$

where $`[M_1:M_2]`$ stands for the multiplicity of $`M_2`$ inside $`M_1`$. Therefore

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{A(L(c,0))}(A(L(c,h_1)_{A(L(c,0)}L(c,h_2)(0),W_2(c,h)(0))$$

is two dimensional. Let us pick a surjective homomorphism $`\psi ^{(0)}`$ (such exists!) and the homomorphism $`\psi ^{(1)}=(L(0)h)\psi ^{(0)}`$ (it has one–dimensional image). If we apply procedure (a)-(e) for these homomorphisms we obtain “intertwining operators” 666 However, $`𝒴^{(0)}`$ fails to satisfy $`L(1)`$–property. $`𝒴^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒴^{(1)}`$, respectively. On the other hand $`𝒴^{(1)}`$ is a genuine intertwining operator of the type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right),`$ via $`L(c,h)W_2(c,h)`$.

###### Lemma 1.14.

If $`𝒴^{(0)}`$ and $`𝒴^{(1)}`$ are as the above

$$𝒴^{(0)}(L(1)w_1,x)=\frac{d}{dx}𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)+\frac{1}{x}𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x),$$

for every $`w_1L(c,h_1)`$.

###### Proof.

We prove first that

$`w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(L(1)w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.24) $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2,`$
for every $`w_1L(c,h_1),w_3W_2(c,h)(0)`$ and $`w_2M(c,h_2)`$. Note that

$$w_3^{},(L(0)h_3)𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2=w_3^{},𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2.$$

Then by the Jacobi identity

(1.25) $`w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(L(1)w_1,x)w_2=`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},L(0)𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{wt}(w_1)+\mathrm{wt}(w_2)}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{h_3\mathrm{wt}(w_1)\mathrm{wt}(w_2)}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2.`$
As in \[L\], Lemma 3.9, we check that for every $`m`$ and $`w_3^{}W_3^{}(0)`$

$`w_3^{},L(m)𝒴^{(0)}(L(1)w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.26) $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}w_3^{},L(m)𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},L(m)𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2.`$
¿From this fact it follows that

$`w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(L(1)w_1,x)w_2=`$
(1.27) $`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)w_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{x}}w_3^{},𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)w_2,`$
for every $`w_3^{}W_3`$. So we have the proof. ∎

###### Theorem 1.15.

Suppose that

(1.28)
$$[A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2)):W_2(c,h)(0)]=1.$$

Then $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right)`$ is two dimensional. Moreover, if

(1.29)
$$[A(L(c,h_2),L(c,h_1)):W_2(c,h)(0)]=1$$

as well, then $`\pi `$ in Lemma 1.12 is an isomorphism and $`I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)`$ is two dimensional. In particular, there is a non–trivial logarithmic intertwining operator of type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)`$.

###### Proof.

If (1.28) holds then we have constructed $`𝒴^{(0)},𝒴^{(1)}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right)`$, such that the $`L(1)`$–property does not hold for $`𝒴^{(1)}`$. If we let

$$𝒴(w_1,x)=𝒴^{(0)}(w_1,x)+𝒴^{(1)}(w_1,x)\mathrm{log}(x),$$

then $`𝒴`$ clearly satisfies the Jacobi identity. From Lemma 1.14 it follows that

$$𝒴(L(1)w_1,x)=\frac{d}{dx}𝒴(w_1,x).$$

Hence $`𝒴`$ is a logarithmic intertwining operator of type $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right).`$ Now in order to project $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)M(c,h_2)}\right)`$ to $`\overline{𝒴}I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(c,h)}{L(c,h_1)L(c,h_2)}\right)`$ one has to check that

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=0,$$

for every $`w_2M^{}(c,h_2)`$, where $`M^{}(c,h_2)`$ is the maximal submodule of $`M(c,h_2)`$. Since $`M^{}(c,h_2)`$ is generated by the singular vectors and the Jacobi identity holds, it is enough to check that

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_{sing}=0,$$

for $`w_3^{}W_2(c,h)`$ and $`w_1L(c,h_1)(0)`$. Write $`v_{sing}=Pv_{h_2}`$ for some $`PU(Vir)_{}`$. Then

$$w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)Pv_h=R(_x)w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_h,$$

for some differential operator $`R(_x)`$ (cf. Section 1.5). This Euler’s differential equation reduces to a differential equation with constant coefficients. Because of the condition (1.29) the corresponding characteristic equation has double roots at $`h`$, there is a logarithmic solution. Therefore

$$P(_x)x^{hh_1h_2}=R(_x)\mathrm{log}(x)x^{hh_1h_2}=0,$$

and hence $`w_3^{},𝒴(w_1,x)v_{sing}=0`$, for every $`w_3^{}W_2(c,h)`$. ∎

###### Remark 1.16.

Notice that in general

$$A(L(c,h_1),L(c,h_2))A(L(c,h_2),L(c,h_1)).$$

## 2. Applications

Here we illustrate some consequences of Theorem 1.15. When $`c=1`$ we show that we can obtain certain logarithmic intertwining operators but only in the case when one of the modules is a Verma module, i.e. the second condition in Theorem 1.15 does not hold. In the case when $`c=2`$ the situation is substantially different where, for a specific model, both conditions hold.

### 2.1. $`c=1`$

This model was closely examined in \[M\] where we calculated

$$A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}),L(1,\frac{n^2}{4}))$$

for every pair $`m,n`$. The result is:

###### Lemma 2.1 (M).

$$A(L(1,\frac{m^2}{4}),L(1,\frac{n^2}{4}))\frac{[x]}{_{iJ_{m,n}}(x\frac{i^2}{4})}.$$

where $`J_{m,n}`$ is the multi set $`\{m+n,m+n2,\mathrm{},mn\}`$.

###### Corollary 2.2.

Suppose that $`m>n`$. Then for every $`i`$, satisfying $`0<i<|nm|`$, there is a logarithmic intertwining operator of type

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(1,\frac{i^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})M(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right).$$

Consequently there are no nontrivial logarithmic operators of type

(2.1)
$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(1,\frac{i^2}{4})}{L(1,\frac{m^2}{4})L(1,\frac{n^2}{4})}\right),$$

i.e., the space of logarithmic intertwining operators of type (2.1) is one dimensional.

###### Proof.

Directly follows from Theorem 1.15 and Lemma 2.2. ∎

### 2.2. $`c=2`$

It was shown in \[Gu1\] that certain matrix coefficients built up from primary fields of the conformal weight $`h=\frac{1}{8}`$ with $`c=2`$ yield logarithmic singularities. We consider a vertex operator algebra $`L(2,0)`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

$$A(L(2,\frac{1}{8}),L(2,\frac{1}{8}))\frac{[x]}{x^2}.$$

###### Proof.

It is not hard to see that

$$A(L(2,\frac{1}{8}))\frac{[x,y]}{p(x,y)},$$

where $`p(x,y)`$ is a $`[y]`$–(bi)module generated by

$$p(x,y)=y^22xy\frac{y}{4}+x^2\frac{x}{4}\frac{3}{64}.$$

Hence

$$A(L(2,\frac{1}{8}),L(2,\frac{1}{8}))\frac{[x]}{x^2}.$$

###### Corollary 2.4.

The space

$$I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_2(2,0)}{L(2,\frac{1}{8})L(2,\frac{1}{8})}\right),$$

is two dimensional.

###### Proof.

Follows directly from Lemma 2.3 and Theorem (1.15). ∎

### 2.3.  Why is $`c=0`$ different ?

Note that $`c_{2,3}=0`$, and thus we are dealing with the minimal models. $`L(0,0)`$ is the trivial vertex operator algebra. Therefore the only irreducible module is $`L(0,0)`$ itself. To avoid these trivialities we consider a vertex operator algebra $`M_0=M(0,0)/L(1)v_0`$ (which is not simple !). The embedding structure for $`M(0,0)`$ is given by (1) (cf. \[RW\]).

Set

$$h_m=\frac{m^21}{24}.$$

Then it is known (see \[RW\]) that $`M(0,h_m)`$ is reducible. For computational purposes we will study more closely irreducible $`M_0`$–modules associated to an infinite sequence $`m=3p2`$ and the corresponding $`M_0`$–modules $`L(0,h_m)`$ (all results can be easily derived for every $`L(0,\frac{m^21}{24}`$)).

If $`p=2`$ and $`q=3`$ then one sees (after some calculations) that

(2.2)
$$A(L(0,\frac{5}{8}),L(0,\frac{5}{8}))\frac{[x]}{x(x2)}.$$

More generally, for every even $`p`$ we have

$`A(L(0,{\displaystyle \frac{(3p2)^21}{24}}),L(0,{\displaystyle \frac{(3p2)^21}{24}}))`$
(2.3) $`{\displaystyle \frac{[x]}{_{\frac{1}{2}n\frac{p1}{2}}\left(\frac{(3p16n)(3p36n)}{24}x\right)\left(\frac{(3p1+6n)(3q3+6n)}{24}x\right)}}.`$
If we analyze (2.3) 777Notice that all numbers that appear in the polynomial in (2.3) are pentagonal numbers of the form $`\frac{3k^2+k}{2}`$. more carefully we see that the right hand side is divisible by $`x`$ but not by $`x^2`$ (compare with the case $`c=2`$). Hence our Theorem 1.15 does not yield any non–trivial logarithmic intertwining operators. This is because only the top level is relevant in our approach. In other words if the top level is one dimensional, Theorem 1.15 does not give a sufficient condition for the existence of a logarithmic intertwining operators. Logarithmic operators are invisible. Also notice that $`W_2(0,0)`$ has a degenerate structure and it corresponds to a semi–direct product of a trivial module and $`M(0,0)`$, i.e. we have

$$0W_2(0,0)M(0,0)0.$$

Still in \[GL\] some interesting logarithmic conformal field theories were considered exactly for the models we discussed above.

To understand their result let us consider a small detour into conformal field theory. If $`A(z)`$ is a primary field and of conformal weight $`h`$ and $`c0`$ then physicists often write the following “operator product expansion”(OPE):

(2.4)
$$A(z)A(0)=z^{2h}(1+\frac{2h}{c}T(0)z^2+\mathrm{}),$$

where $`T(z)`$ is the Virasoro field. The formula (2.4) can be easily reformulated:

###### Proposition 2.5.

Suppose that $`𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{L(c,0)}{L(c,h)L(c,h)}\right)`$, $`c0`$ and $`𝒴`$ is normalized such that

$$𝒴(w_1,x)w_1=x^{2h}\mathrm{𝟏}+ax^{2h+2}L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{},$$

where $`w_1`$ is the lowest weight vector of $`L(c,h)`$. Then $`a=\frac{2h}{c}`$.

###### Proof.

Directly follows from the formulas:

$$L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=a\frac{c}{2}$$

and

$$[L(2),𝒴(w_1,x)]=(x^3\frac{d}{dx}+3hx^2)𝒴(w_1,x).$$

It was observed in \[GL\] and \[Gu2\] that one can reformulate (2.4), by adding certain logarithmic operators, such that it makes sense even when $`c=0`$. Then the following OPE was proposed (from now on $`c=0`$):

(2.5)
$$A(z)A(0)=z^{2h}(1+\frac{2h}{b}z^{2h}(t(0)+\mathrm{log}(z)T(0)+\mathrm{}),$$

for some constant $`b`$. Note that the first logarithmic operator appears on the weight $`2`$. Note that the Virasoro vector is contained in $`V(2)`$ as well. As noticed in \[GL\], this makes the whole $`c=0`$ theory peculiar. OPE (2.5) implies that there should exists a logarithmic intertwining operator

(2.6)
$$𝒴I\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_b}{L(c,\frac{m^21}{24})L(c,\frac{m^21}{24})}\right),$$

for some logarithmic module $`W_b`$, that depends on some constant $`b`$, such that

(2.7)
$$𝒴(w_1,x)w_1=x^{2h}\mathrm{𝟏}+\frac{2h}{b}(\mathrm{log}(x)x^{2h+2}L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}+tx^{2h+2}+\mathrm{},$$

where $`tW_b`$ satisfies $`L(2)t=\frac{b}{2}\mathrm{𝟏}`$. It is not clear what kind of logarithmic module is $`W_b`$. Let us try to construct such a module starting from $`M_2(0,0)`$. (2.7) predicts that $`W_b(0)`$ is one–dimensional, $`W_b(1)`$ is trivial and $`W_b(2)`$ is spanned by $`\omega =L(2)v`$ and some vector $`t`$. Hence the structure of $`W_b`$ is given by Figure (2) (arrows indicate where corresponding operators map one–dimensional spaces).

If we analyze possible choices we realize that one cannot construct such subquotient. Also one cannot accomplish that $`W_b(1)=0`$.

### 2.4. Towards $`c=0`$ logarithmic intertwiners

In the previous section we argue that one cannot recover $`W_b`$ as a subquotient of $`M(0,0)`$. This is because our considerations were solely on the level of the Virasoro algebra. We shall show that one can consider a larger Lie algebra and a module which exhibit certain properties similar to—yet to be constructed—$`W_b`$. Let

$$W_{\mathrm{log}}=\underset{i,m}{}t^{(i)}(m).$$

Then it is not hard to see that the relation

(2.8)
$$[t^{(i)}(m),t^{(j)}(n)]=(mn)t^{(i+j)}(m+n)+(ji)t^{(i+j1)}(m+n),$$

where $`i,j`$ and $`m,n`$, defines a Lie algebra structure on $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ (“logarithmic algebra”). The Lie algebra $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ has the following representation in terms of formal logarithmic vector fields:

$$t^{(i)}(n)x^{n+1}\mathrm{log}^i(x)\frac{d}{dx}.$$

As usual we are interested in central extensions.

### 2.5. Central extension of $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$

We will prove the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.6.

$$\mathrm{dim}H^2(W_{\mathrm{log}},)=1.$$

Moreover a non–trivial 2–cocycle $`c(,)`$ is given by

$$c(t^{(1i)}(m),t^{(1j)}(n))=\underset{r0}{\overset{i+j}{}}\frac{m^rn^{i+jr}((ir)^3(ir))}{12(j+ir)!r!}.$$

###### Lemma 2.7.

Suppose that $`((t))\frac{d}{dt}`$ where $`((t))\frac{d}{dt}`$ is equipped with a Lie algebra structure in the natural way. Suppose that the following holds:

* $$t^n\frac{d}{dt}$$

for every $`n`$, i.e., $`W`$ contains a (polynomial) Virasoro subalgebra.
* If $`f(t)\frac{d}{dt}`$, $`f(t)=_ia_it^i((t))`$, and $`\mathrm{Res}_tf(t)=0`$, then

$$f(t)𝑑t:=\underset{i}{}a_i\frac{t^{i+1}}{i+1}.$$

Then

$$\mathrm{dim}H^2(,)=1\mathrm{or}0.$$

###### Proof.

It follows from the proof of the main result in \[LW\]. This proof was used to show that $`((t))\frac{d}{dt}`$ has essentially unique central extension. ∎

The previous lemma implies that it is enough to construct a non–trivial 2–cocycle on $``$ to prove that $`H^2(,)`$ is non–trivial.

###### Lemma 2.8.

A Lie subalgebra $`𝒮((t))\frac{d}{dt}`$ spanned by $`t^{i+1}e^{mt}\frac{d}{dt}`$, where $`i,m`$. Then $`𝒮`$ satisfies conditions in Lemma 2.7. Moreover, $`𝒮W_{\mathrm{log}}`$.

###### Proof.

It is trivial to prove that $`𝒮`$ is a Lie subalgebra. Now, integration by parts implies “integral” condition (b). If we take $`m=0`$ we obtain the Virasoro subalgebra. If we let $`\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i)}(m)=t^{i+1}e^{mt}\frac{d}{dt}`$ then we have

$$[\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i)}(m).\stackrel{~}{t}^{(j)}(n)]=(ij)\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i+j)}(m+n)+(nm)\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i+j1)}(m+n).$$

Then

$$\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i)}(m)t^{(1i)}(m),$$

is a Lie algebra isomorphism. ∎

###### Proof.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{c}(\stackrel{~}{t}^{(i)}(m),\stackrel{~}{t}^{(j)}(n)),`$ be a 2–cocycle considered in \[LW\] (where was denoted by $`\alpha `$–which is essentially the Gelfand–Fuchs cocycle) and $`c(,)`$ an non–trivial 2–cocycle on $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ induced by the isomorphism $`\phi `$. Lemma 2.7 implies that $`\mathrm{dim}H^2(𝒮,)=1.`$ Hence $`\mathrm{dim}H^2(W_{\mathrm{log}},)=1.`$

Here are some properties of $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$.

###### Proposition 2.9.

* $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ is generated by $`t^{(1)}(m)`$, $`t^{(0)}(n)`$ and $`t^{(1)}(p)`$, where $`m,n,p`$.
* The Lie algebra $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ has a triangular–like decomposition

$$W_{\mathrm{log}}=W_{\mathrm{log}}^+W_{\mathrm{log}}^0W_{\mathrm{log}}^{},$$

where

$$W_{\mathrm{log}}^+=\underset{i>0,m}{}t^{(i)}(m),$$

$$W_{\mathrm{log}}^{}=\underset{i<0,m}{}t^{(i)}(m),$$

$$W_{\mathrm{log}}^0=\underset{i}{}t^{(0)}(i)b.$$
* $`W_{\mathrm{log}}`$ has an anti–involution defined by

$$t^{(i)}(m)(1)^it^{(i)}(m).$$

###### Proof.

The proof is straightforward. ∎

Let us denote by $`\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{log}}=W_{\mathrm{log}}b`$ the Lie algebra induced by 2–cocycle $`c(,)`$. We denote the generator of one–dimensional central subspace by $`b`$. If $`i=j=0`$, then (2.8) gives us commutation relation for the Virasoro algebra with the trivial central charge. This is in the spirit of \[GL\]. It is not true that central charge is absent. Instead it is trivial for the Witt subalgebras.

We consider a Verma module

$$V(b,0):=\mathrm{Ind}_{W_{\mathrm{log}}^+W_{\mathrm{log}}^0b}^{\widehat{W}_{\mathrm{log}}}v_b,$$

where $`v_b`$ is an one–dimensional module such that $`b.v_b=bv_b`$ (on the right hand side $`b`$) and the action for remaining generators is trivial. Notice that this module is well defined because

$$[W_{\mathrm{log}}^+W_{\mathrm{log}}^0,W_{\mathrm{log}}^+W_{\mathrm{log}}^0]|_{v_b}=0.$$

Now our discussion is heuristic. Let $`W(b,0)`$ be some subquotient of the Verma module $`V(b,0)`$. $`t:=t^{(1)}(2)v_b`$ and $`\omega =t^{(0)}(2)v_b`$ are nontrivial. Then $`t^{(1)}(2)v_b`$ is a logarithmic operator but not for the horizontal Virasoro generator $`t^{(0)}(0)`$, but rather for the vertical Virasoro generator $`t^{(1)}(0)`$. Now let us go back to our construction. If $`𝒴`$ is such an operator (normalized such that $`𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=\mathrm{𝟏}x^{2h}+\mathrm{}`$) then the (formal) matrix coefficient:

(2.9)
$$t^{(1)}(2)v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2$$

should include some logarithmic terms. As before we can determine (2.9) by solving an appropriate differential equation. This time the equation is

(2.10)
$$P(_x)t^{(1)}(2)v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=Q(_x)x^{2h}.$$

###### Example 2.10.

Let us consider a special case: $`L(0,\frac{5}{8})`$. Clearly,

$$t^{(1)}(2)v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{},t^{(0)}(2)v_b=\frac{2b}{3}$$

and

$$t^{(1)}(2)v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{},t^{(1)}(2)v_b=0.$$

By analyzing singular vectors we obtain the following differential equation

(2.11) $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{d^2x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}x^1{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dx}}{\displaystyle \frac{15}{16}}x^2\right)t^{(1)}(2)v_{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2={\displaystyle \frac{2b}{3}}x^{\frac{5}{4}}.`$
Every (formal) solution of (2.11) is of the form

(2.12)
$$\lambda x^{3/4}+\frac{b}{3}x^{3/4}\mathrm{log}(x),$$

By using the same argument as in Proposition 2.5 we see that

$$𝒴(w_1,x)w_2=x^{5/4}\mathrm{𝟏}+x^{3/4}(\frac{2h}{b}t^{(1)}(2)\mathrm{𝟏}+\mu \mathrm{log}(x)t^{(0)}(2)\mathrm{𝟏})+\mathrm{}$$

By combining this with (2.12) it follows that $`\mu =\frac{1}{2}`$. Hence if we want (2.5) to hold then $`\frac{2h}{b}=\frac{1}{2}`$. Therefore $`b=\frac{5}{2}`$.

For all other modules $`L(0,\frac{(3p2)^21}{24})`$, where $`p`$ is even, and in general for every $`L(0,\frac{m^21}{24})`$ where

$$m0,2,3,4\mathrm{mod}6,$$

the situation is as follows: There is a singular vector $`v_{sing}`$ inside $`M(0,\frac{m^21}{24})`$ that generates its maximal submodule $`M^{}(0,\frac{m^21}{24})`$. Hence, if we write

$$F(x)=t^{(1)}(2)\mathrm{𝟏}^{},𝒴(w_1,x)w_2,$$

the equation (2.10) can be written as

(2.13)
$$P(_x)F(x)=Q(_x)x^{2h},$$

for some differential operators $`P`$ and $`Q`$. By analyzing (2.3) and related formulas, we see that (2.13) has a logarithmic solution if and only if $`Q(_x)x^{2h}0`$. Still the expression for $`Q(_x)x^{2h}`$ is unknown in general. Some computations show (cf. \[GL\]) that the equality (2.5) can be accomplish only for some special $`b`$ (we stress that our value $`b`$ differs from the one in \[GL\]).

## 3. Final remarks and some open problems

* Determine complete embedding structure for $`M_n(c,h)`$ and calculate graded characters for $`\stackrel{~}{W}_n(c,h)`$.
* We know that $`M_0=M(0,0)/L(1)\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a vertex operator algebra. What algebraic structure, besides being a $`M_0`$–module, governs

(3.1)
$$M(0,0)/L(2)\mathrm{𝟏}\frac{3}{2}L(1)^2\mathrm{𝟏}\mathrm{?}$$
* Construct a non–trivial intertwining operators of the form

$$\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{W_b}{L(\frac{m^21}{24},0)L(\frac{m^21}{24},0)}\right).$$

We believe that this construction can be obtained by constructing a refinement of Frenkel-Zhu’s formula which carries an additional information about the module (not only the top level). We shall study this problem in a sequel.

## 4. Appendix: Shapovalov form

In this appendix we present some calculations of singular vectors in the case of $`M_2(c,h)`$. Let us define Shapovalov form $`(,)`$ on $`M_2(c,h)\times M_2(c,h)`$ in the following way: Fix $`v,wM_2(c,h)(0)`$ as before such that $`(v,v)=1`$ and $`(w,w)=1`$ and $`(v,w)=(w,v)=0`$. Then for every $`s_1,s_2U(Vir_{})`$ we define a bilinear (it is not symmetric) form on $`M_2(c,h)`$

(4.1)
$$(s_1.u_1,s_2.u_2):=(u_1,s_1^Ts_2.u_2),$$

where $`u_1`$ and $`u_2M_2(c,h)(0)`$ and $`s^T=L(i_k)\mathrm{}L(i_1)`$ for $`s=L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_k)`$. Note that this form is not invariant in general. Still we have the following result:

###### Proposition 4.1.

The (right) radical

$$\mathrm{Rad}(M_2(c,h)):=\{w_2:(w_1,w_2)=0\mathrm{for}\mathrm{every}w_1M_2(c,h)\},$$

of the Shapovalov form (4.1) is equal to $`M_2^{}(c,h)M_2(c,h)`$.

As in the case of Shapovalov form for Verma modules (cf. \[FF1\], \[FF2\]) we introduce matrices $`[S_2(c,h)_n]`$, $`n`$. and the corresponding determinants $`S_2(c,h)_n:=\mathrm{det}[S_2(c,h)_n]`$. $`[S_2(c,h)_n]`$ is a matrix of size $`2p(n)`$ ($`p(n)`$ is the number of partitions of $`n`$). $`[S_2(c,h)_n]`$ is a $`2\times 2`$ block matrix with four blocks of size $`p(n)\times p(n)`$, where the diagonal blocks are equal to $`S(c,h)_n`$ (this is a matrix in the case of ordinary Verma module $`M(c,h)`$) and one of the blocks is a zero matrix (we have chosen a basis that involves the first $`p(n)`$ vectors from $`U(Vir)_{}^nv`$ and then the $`p(n)`$ vectors in $`U(Vir)_{}^nw`$). Hence

$$S_2(c,h)_n=(S(c,h)_n)^2.$$

We shall need the following important lemma that describes the remaining block in $`[S_2(c,h)_n]`$: Let us assume that the Shapovalov form is $`[h]`$–valued, i.e. $`h`$ is a formal variable. Then we have:

###### Lemma 4.2.

For every $`s_1,s_2U(Vir)_{}`$,

$$(s_1.v,s_2.w)=\frac{d}{dh}(s_1.v,s_2.v).$$

In other words $`[S_2(c,h)_n]`$ can be written as a block matrix

$$\left(\begin{array}{cc}[S(c,h)]& \frac{d}{dh}[S(c,h)]\\ 0& [S(c,h)]\end{array}\right).$$

###### Proof.

denote by $`\pi `$ the projection to a subspace $`U(Vir)_{}.v`$. It is enough to show that

(4.2)
$$\pi L(j)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_k)w=\frac{d}{dh}L(j)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_k)v,$$

for every $`j,k0`$, $`i_1,\mathrm{},i_k`$. If $`j=0`$ the result holds. Suppose that (4.2) holds for $`j=0,\mathrm{},m`$. Then

(4.3) $`\pi L(m+1)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_k)w=`$
$`=\pi ((m+1+i_1)L(m+1i_1)L(i_2)\mathrm{}L(i_k)w`$
$`+(m+1+i_2)L(i_1)L(m+1i_2)\mathrm{}L(i_k)w`$
$`+\mathrm{}+(m+1i_k)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_{k1})L(m+1i_k)w)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}(m+1+i_1)L(m+1i_1)L(i_2)\mathrm{}L(i_k)v`$
$`+\mathrm{}+(m+1i_k){\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_{k1})L(m+1i_k)v`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{d}{dh}}L(m+1)L(i_1)\mathrm{}L(i_k)v.`$
After some calculation we can show that (as we mentioned before) the right radical of the Shapovalov form for $`M_2(c,h)`$ coincide with the radical of Shapovalov form for $`M(c,h)`$ on the graded subspaces of degrees one and two. But on degree three subspace the situation changes.

###### Example 4.3.

Because of Lemma 4.2 we have:

(4.10) $`[S_2(h,c)_3]=(\begin{array}{cccccc}24h(h+1)(1+2h)& 36h(h+1),& 24h& & & \\ 36h(h+1)& (h+2)(8h+c)+18h& 16h+2c& & & \\ 24h& 16h+2c& 6h+2c& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& & & \\ 0& 0& 0& & & \end{array}`$
(4.17) $`\begin{array}{cccccc}144h^2+144h+24& 72h+36& 24& & & \\ 72h+36& 16h+34+c& 16& & & \\ 24& 16& 6& & & \\ 24h(h+1)(1+2h)& 36h(h+1)& 24h& & & \\ 36h(h+1)& (h+2)(8h+c)+18h& 16h+2c& & & \\ 24h& 16h+2c& 6h+2c& & & \end{array}).`$
Then

$$S_2(h,c)_3=48^2h^4(16h^2+2hc10h+c)^2(3h^2+hc7h+2+c)^2.$$

By analyzing the null space of $`[S_2(h,c)_3]`$ we see that for some pairs $`(c,h)`$ there are singular vectors in $`M_2(c,h)(3)`$ that are not contained in $`U(Vir)_{}.v`$.

For instance, If we let $`c=h=1`$ then $`M_2^{}(1,1)(3)`$ is two dimensional. Moreover this space is spanned by singular vectors

$$L(1)^3v4L(1)L(2)v+6L(3)v$$

and

$$2L(1)L(2)v+5L(3)v+L(1)^3w4L(1)L(2)w+6L(3)w.$$

Therefore

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{Vir}(M_2(1,4),M_2(1,1)).$$

###### Remark 4.4.

After we finished the appendix, we realized that in \[F\] and \[MRS\] a similar problem has been studied. In particular, in \[F\] many explicit expressions for singular vectors inside $`M_n(c,h)`$ have been obtained.


format: text

text:
# Slip, concentration fluctuations and flow instability in sheared polymer solutions

## Abstract

Recent experiments suggest that shear-enhanced growth of concentration fluctuations in polymer solutions is strongly influenced by solid boundaries. We analyze the dynamics of a model of a sheared polymer solution, accounting for the effect of stress variations on mass flux and for wall-slip. If (and only if) these effects are present, the flow exhibits a boundary-localized instability consistent with experimental observations. Even in the absence of flow instability, thermally-driven concentration fluctuations are significantly enhanced near the boundary.
PACS numbers: 61.25.Hq, 83.50.Lh

The local composition of polymer solutions and blends can be significantly affected by flow. In particular, shear-enhanced concentration fluctuations in semidilute polystyrene (PS) solutions have been observed via light-scattering and microscopy by a number of groups . A purely hydrodynamic mechanism for this phenomenon, in an unbounded flow domain, was proposed initially by Helfand and Fredrickson (HF)  and later extended by several authors . This mechanism is based on the idea that variations in polymer stress can drive a flux of polymer molecules – indeed, several authors  have developed simple, two-fluid models which demonstrate quite generally that the polymer flux in a solution, $`𝒋`$, has the general form $`𝒋=D\mathbf{}n+(D/k_BT)\mathbf{}𝝉`$, where $`n`$ is the polymer number density, $`𝝉`$ is the polymer extra stress tensor, $`D`$ is the polymer gradient diffusivity, $`k_B`$ is the Boltzmann constant, and $`T`$ is the temperature. Furthermore, a detailed kinetic theory derivation for a dilute solution  leads to a very similar expression for the flux. A scattering peak is predicted to arise when the diffusion and relaxation times are equal, which occurs at a wavelength of $`2\pi /k\sqrt{D\lambda }`$ which is, not coincidentally, the only inherent length scale in the problem.

This length scale is observed in light scattering experiments. Hashimoto and coworkers  have performed a series of experiments with PS dissolved in dioctylphthalate (DOP) and have measured the scattering intensity by illuminating along the shear-gradient direction (the $`y`$-direction of Fig. 1). They observed a “butterfly” scattering pattern indicative of flow structures with wave vectors roughly aligned in the flow direction. The wavenumbers obtained from the patterns were on the order of $`k0.6\mu `$m-1 giving a length scale for the fluctuations of approximately $`10\mu `$m. Estimating the relaxation time as the reciprocal of the shear rate for the onset of shear thinning  and using the diffusivity measured by Wu et al.  for a similar system gives a predicted wavenumber of $`k0.7\mu `$m-1, which is close to the measured value. This length scale was also observed by Wu et al. , who measured the scattering intensity by illuminating along the vorticity direction (the $`z`$-direction in Fig. 1). At low shear rates, the scattering peak was located at $`k10\mu `$m-1, which is in good agreement with their predicted value of $`9.4\mu `$m-1.

Even though both of these experiments show peaks at the requisite length scale, qualitative differences exist in the shear rate dependence of the results. In particular, Hashimoto and coworkers, who measured the intensity essentially averaged over a volume containing both near-surface regions, found that the intensity increased markedly above a critical shear rate, which was roughly the reciprocal of the polymer relaxation time (an approximately 100-fold increase in scattering for a 10-fold increase in shear rate). Conversely, Wu et al., whose measurements sample only the bulk, not the near-surface regions, found a much smaller increase in intensity as the shear rate was increased, approximately an 11-fold increase in scattering intensity for a 25-fold increase in shear rate.

A recent experimental study by Mhetar and Archer  has demonstrated several novel features of shear enhanced concentration fluctuations in entangled polymer solutions. They studied semidilute solutions of PS in diethylphthalate (DEP), to which tracer particles were added to measure the velocity profile, using a planar Couette cell with (high energy) silica walls. In this situation, wall-slip occurs primarily due to the disentanglement of bulk chains from those adsorbed to the walls, rather than to the formation of a depletion layer, as arises in dilute solutions . Two features of the flow of these solutions stand out. First, no turbidity was observed at low shear stresses where slip was weak; enhanced concentration fluctuations were observed, however, at large shear stresses, where slip was significant. The length scale for the fluctuations was observed to be $`10\mu `$m, as was the extrapolation, or slip, length measured for these solutions. Second, the concentration fluctuation enhancement began near the boundaries and modification of the surface to increase slip delayed the onset on fluctuations to much larger shear stresses. These observations strongly suggest that slip plays a role in the formation and development of these fluctuations.

Taken together, experiments suggest that the HF mechanism, while being able to explain bulk behavior, only partially accounts for the physics leading to enhancement of fluctuations near surfaces, a conclusion that can be put into perspective by consideration of the fluid dynamics of polymer flows near boundaries. Gorodtsov and Leonov  analyzed the plane Couette flow of an upper convected Maxwell (UCM) fluid (a model of a melt) and found that, while the flow is always linearly stable, the most slowly decaying modes are localized near the bounding surfaces. As a result, we might expect the formation of boundary localized structures due to random concentration fluctuations in the polymer solution. In addition, slip has been shown to lead to boundary-localized flow instability in polymeric simple shear flows under certain conditions . This suggests that boundary-localized concentration fluctuation dynamics can appear by analogous routes. Our goal here is to analyze the coupling between concentration, stress, and slip in bounded shear flow, to elucidate the effects of boundaries on the dynamics.

We consider flow in the plane Couette geometry shown in Fig. 1. To describe the behavior of the solution, we use the kinetic theory model derived by Beris and Mavrantzas , for a solution of Hookean dumbbells, and written in terms of the conformation tensor, $`𝜶=𝑸𝑸`$, which is the second moment of the orientation vector of the dumbbells, $`𝑸`$. Nondimensionalizing stresses with $`n_0^{}k_BT`$, where $`n_0^{}`$ is the average concentration of the solution, lengths with the characteristic length $`\sqrt{D\lambda }`$, velocities with $`\dot{\gamma }^{}\sqrt{D\lambda }`$, time with $`\lambda `$, and concentration with $`n_0^{}`$ gives the following model equations:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{𝜶}{t}}+𝒗\mathbf{}𝜶𝜶\mathbf{}𝒗(\mathbf{}𝒗)^T𝜶+𝜶n𝜹=^2𝜶,`$ (1)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{n}{t}}+𝒗\mathbf{}n=\mathbf{}\left(\mathbf{}n+\mathbf{}𝝉\right),`$ (2)
$`\mathbf{}p+\mathbf{}𝝉+S\mathbf{}^2𝒗=0,`$ (3)
$`\mathbf{}𝒗=0,`$ (4)
where $`𝒗`$ is the velocity, $`S`$ is the ratio of the solvent to polymer viscosities, $`n`$ is the number density of dumbbells, $`𝝉=𝜶n𝜹`$ is the polymer extra stress and $`p`$ is the pressure. In presenting the model, we have suppressed any dependencies of properties on concentration – in the analysis below we only consider small perturbations from spatially uniform stress and concentration fields, in which case the terms that reflect these dependencies do not appear. Eq. 1 describes the evolution of polymer conformation and is a generalization of the upper convected Maxwell (or Oldroyd-B) model  to include spatial diffusion of conformation (on the RHS). In most cases, this term is negligible , but here, the flow structures we are interested in have a length scale set by the diffusivity. Eq. 2 is the conservation equation for the dumbbells, explicitly showing the dependence of the polymer flux on stress variations. If diffusion of the polymer molecules is neglected, the right-hand sides of Eqs. 1 and 2 vanish, recovering the Maxwell model. Eqs. 3 and 4 describe conservation of momentum and mass. Other phenomenologically motivated models for such systems are virtually identical to this one, but do not generally include the conformational diffusion term , the primary difference being the use of the polymer phase velocity rather than the mass-average velocity in the deformation terms of the equation for polymer conformation – our preliminary results with such a full two-fluid model yield qualitatively identical results to those presented below. Furthermore, all earlier works have restricted themselves to bulk behavior and $`We<1`$.

Because of the high energy surfaces in Mhetar and Archer’s experiments, it is reasonable to assume that the adsorbed chains do not desorb to a significant degree in flow, and that no additional bulk chains adsorb. Therefore, we apply a no-flux boundary condition for the polymer concentration: $`𝒏𝒋=n/y\tau _{yx}/x\tau _{yy}/y\tau _{zy}/z`$ = 0, where $`𝒏`$ is the unit normal on the boundary. Inclusion of the diffusion term in the constitutive equation necessitates the specification of boundary conditions for the conformation tensor. For the same reason as above, we assume that there are no sources or sinks for polymer conformation at the walls, giving a no-flux boundary condition for the conformation, $`𝜶/y=0`$. We have also performed computations using the classical UCM equation as the boundary condition for $`𝜶`$  and found no qualitative difference in the results.

The model is completed by specifying the slip boundary condition at the interface, which crudely reflects the interaction between the bulk chains and those attached to the wall. We use here the simplest nontrivial model, the Navier slip boundary condition $`u_s=ϵ\tau _{yx}(=b=b^{}/\sqrt{D\lambda }\text{ at steady state})`$; $`ϵ`$ is given by $`b/We`$.

We have studied the dynamics of this model primarily by linear stability analysis of the plane Couette base state, given by $`\overline{𝒂}=(\overline{v}_x,\overline{v}_y,\overline{v}_z,\overline{\tau }_{xx},\overline{\tau }_{yx},\overline{\tau }_{zx},\overline{\tau }_{yy},\overline{\tau }_{zy},\overline{\tau }_{zz},\overline{n},\overline{p})=(We(y+b),0,0,2We^2,We,0,0,0,0,1,1)`$, where $`𝜶`$ has been eliminated in favor of $`𝝉`$. Small perturbations are added to this base solution, i. e. $`𝒂=\overline{𝒂}(y)+\stackrel{~}{𝒂}(x,y,z,t)`$, and only the terms linear in the perturbation are retained in the model equations. The perturbations take the normal mode form: $`\stackrel{~}{𝒂}(x,y,z,t)=\widehat{𝒂}(y)e^{i𝒌𝒙}e^{i\sigma t}+\text{c.c.}`$, where $`𝒌=(k_x,0,k_z)`$. This formulation yields a generalized eigenvalue problem for the eigenvalues $`\{\sigma \}`$ with associated eigenfunctions $`\{\widehat{𝒂}(y)\}`$. If $`\text{Im}(\sigma )>0`$ then infinitesimal disturbances grow and the flow is unstable.

Prior work  with the UCM model and preliminary work with the present model have shown that the eigenfunctions of the discrete spectrum are localized near the boundaries. Furthermore, in experiments, $`\sqrt{D\lambda }l^{}`$. Therefore, we solve the eigenvalue problem on a semi-infinite domain (SID). We map $`y[0,\mathrm{})`$ onto the computational domain, $`\xi [1,1]`$, using the mapping $`y=0.1(1+\xi )/(1\xi )`$, and then perform Chebyshev collocation on the mapped system , using $`N+1`$ collocation points. The eigenvalue problem is solved using a public domain routine .

To begin the discussion of the results, we note that if the possibility of concentration fluctuations is suppressed in the model (by setting $`D`$ to zero, thus eliminating the RHS of eqs. 1 and 2), plane shear flow with either the no-slip  or Navier slip  boundary condition is stable for all Weissenberg numbers. In addition, we have found that if concentration variations are permitted but slip is not (by setting $`b=0`$), the flow is also stable. In contrast, if slip and concentration variations are allowed, the flow can become unstable when $`We`$ exceeds a critical value $`We_c`$ – a new class of polymer flow instabilities arises. Fig. 2 shows neutral curves, plotted as $`We_c`$ vs. $`k_x`$ for two dimensional disturbances, i.e. $`k_z=0`$, with $`b`$ fixed. For $`b=O(1)`$, the critical wavenumber is $`O(1)`$, so that the critical length scale for the instability is $`\sqrt{D\lambda }`$. We have also examined stability with respect to three dimensional disturbances ($`k_z0`$), but find that two dimensional disturbances are always the most dangerous. At low wavenumbers (those most easily observed by microscopy), $`We_c`$ first decreases and then increases with increasing $`b`$ – the increasing section of the curve is in agreement with the observations of Mhetar and Archer  that treating the surface to increase slip delayed the onset of fluctuations. Note that there is a transition from one mode of instability to another, leading to multiple minima in the neutral curve, as most clearly seen in the curve for $`b=2`$. For larger values of $`b`$, the neutral curves collapse toward a single curve. Similar results are found for larger values of $`S`$, but the critical Weissenberg numbers are much lower, $`We_c2`$ for $`S1`$. (However, for $`S=O(1)`$, the solution would typically be too dilute for slip to be a realistic boundary condition.)

Fig. 3 shows a density plot of a typical destabilizing concentration perturbation. Near the boundary, the local wavevector has the same orientation as that predicted by the HF mechanism . In agreement with the observations of Mhetar and Archer , perturbations are localized near the surfaces and are observed at large $`We`$. As a result, we would expect scattering to be more pronounced in the boundary regions than in the bulk.

We have also investigated the dynamics of Brownian fluctuations in this model. Ji and Helfand  have demonstrated that the velocity is a fast variable and therefore, since introduction of concentration fluctuations into this system results in adding fluctuations directly to the stress, we only incorporate the random forcing into the polymer mass balance. This is carried out by adding a term $`𝒘`$ to Eq. 2, where $`𝒘`$ is the random contribution to the polymer flux and satisfies $`𝒘(𝒙,t)𝒘(𝒙^{},t^{})=[(2n_0^{}(D\lambda )^{3/2})]𝜹\delta (𝒙𝒙^{})\delta (tt^{})`$ . To conserve mass, we require $`w_y=0`$ on $`y=0,1`$. We follow the common procedure  of assuming the noise is small and contributes only to the linearized equations. Again, Chebyshev collocation is used for the spatial discretization in the $`y`$-direction with a Fourier transform in the $`x`$-direction, but because the collocation points are not uniformly distributed, the random forcing is weighted so that it is uniform in magnitude throughout the domain. The resulting system of equations was time-integrated on a bounded domain using an implicit Euler scheme with the top plate located at $`l^{}=100\sqrt{D\lambda }`$. Results are collected only after the initial transient has decayed and fluctuation effects dominate.

To quantify the response as a function of time, we compute the concentration correlation function for a given $`x`$-wavenumber $`k_x`$: $`\stackrel{~}{n}(𝒙;k_x)\stackrel{~}{n}(𝒙^{};k_x)=2\text{Re}\widehat{n}(y;k_x)\widehat{n}^{}(y^{};k_x)\mathrm{cos}(k_x(xx^{}))2\text{Im}\widehat{n}(y;k_x)\widehat{n}^{}(y^{};k_x)\mathrm{sin}(k_x(xx^{}))`$. Fluctuations are strongly correlated near the surfaces, even at equilibrium ($`We=0`$). At equilibrium, $`\text{Im}\stackrel{~}{n}(y)\stackrel{~}{n}^{}(y^{})`$ is zero, but for nonzero $`We`$, it assumes values consistent with enhanced fluctuations whose wave vectors are rotated from the flow direction into the first quadrant, while the magnitude of the real part remains essentially unchanged. A snapshot of a typical concentration profile is shown in Fig. 4 for $`We=1,k_x=1,b=1`$ and the orientation, which is again consistent with the bulk HF mechanism, is clear. Hence, fluctuations form near the surface by mechanisms analogous to those in the bulk, but are enhanced because of the vicinity to the no-flux boundary. Results for the no-slip case are virtually identical – the response of the flow to Brownian noise is quite insensitive to the presence of slip. Therefore, even in the absence of flow instability, (i.e. when $`WeO(1)`$ and/or slip is absent), the near surface regions may make a nontrivial contribution to the scattering signal, particularly its anisotropy under flow. The insensitivity to slip is consistent with what is known about the eigenspectra of viscoelastic flows: whether or not there is slip, the slowest decaying eigenmodes are localized near solid boundaries.

These results clearly suggest that the bounding surfaces play an important role in the formation of enhanced concentration fluctuations in sheared polymer solutions. In the context of the present model, slip leads to a new class of viscoelastic flow instabilities which result from the interaction of slip with stress and concentration, and even in the absence of slip, Brownian fluctuations are selectively enhanced near the surfaces. These results are consistent with experimental observations and underscore two points regarding the flow behavior of polymeric liquids: (1) the distinctness and importance of the dynamics of flowing polymers near boundaries, even at the continuum level, and (2) the importance of couplings between various phenomena for the dynamics and stability of these flows.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Science Foundation and the Nontenured faculty grant program of the 3M Company for supporting this work.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Non-BPS branes have been extensively studied recently both from the theoretical and phenomenological points of view. In string theories the non-BPS branes appear to be unstable configuration in dimensions at odds with the usual BPS branes, i.e. $`2p`$-branes in type IIB strings and $`(2p+1)`$-branes in type IIA strings. One of the salient features of this construction based upon orbifolding coincident brane-antibrane pairs is the presence of a real tachyonic field with a non-trivial potential. In particular the fate of the non-BPS branes has been linked to the rolling of the tachyon along its decreasing potential and its eventual condensation at the minimum of the potential. The precise description of the potential has been tackled using string field theory methods. Recent advances in describing the decay of the unstable branes have appeared from the point of view of matrix theory and non-commutative geometry. Extensions to unstable M-branes have also been discussed.

Another approach to the issue of non-BPS branes comes from the supergravity side where exact solutions have been obtained and analysed. They describe charged and neutral configurations. The parameter space of Poincaré invariant solutions comprises three directions readily identified with the ADM mass, the charge and an extra integration constant $`c_1`$ which appears to be a function of the tachyonic vev. The decay of the unstable branes can be seen as a path in the parameter space.

An intriguing feature of these solutions is the presence of a naked singularitywith an attractive potential. It is then highly relevant to discuss the possible resolutions of this singularity before the eventual decay of the unstable non-BPS branes. One can test the nature of naked singularities by probing the supergravity solution with scalars and gravitons. In particular the quantum behaviour of gravitons is crucial. In the following we shall apply the wave-regularity criterion stating that naked singularities with a well-defined time evolution operator are quantum mechanically sensible.

In a first part we will recall the structure of the neutral non-BPS solutions and show that the naked singularity is a repulson, a singularity reflecting perfectly any incoming radiation. Moreover the wave-regularity criterion is satisfied. Nevertheless we show that the potential well around the singularity traps wave-packets preventing the unitarity of the scattering S-matrix. In a second part we compute the absorption by this potential well and show that it possesses an infrared singularity obstructing the decoupling of gravity for non-BPS branes.

## 2 Scalar Absorption by Non-BPS Branes

### 2.1 The Scalar Potential

In the following we shall be interested in the scalar absorption by extended objects. Let us consider the Klein-Gordon equation for a massless scalar field in a gravitational background corresponding to $`p`$-branes in ten dimensions

$$ds_{10}^2=e^{2A(\rho )}dx_{//}^2+e^{2B(\rho )}d\rho ^2+e^{2C(\rho )}\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2$$
(1)
with Poincaré invariance on the brane and rotational invariance in the transverse direction. We are considering the scattering of scalars governed by the equations

$$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(2)
Let us now study the partial waves

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=e^{i\omega t}P_l(\mathrm{\Omega })\varphi _l(\rho )$$
(3)
where $`P_l`$ is an eigenfunction of the spherical Laplacian. It is easy to see that the wave equation can be cast in the form of a Schrodinger equation by putting

$$\varphi _l(\rho )=(g^{\rho \rho }\sqrt{g})^{1/2}F_l(\rho )$$
(4)
yielding

$$(\frac{d^2}{d\rho ^2}V(\rho ))F_l=0$$
(5)
where the potential reads

$$V=w^2e^{2B(\rho )2A(\rho )}+\frac{1}{\sqrt{U}}\frac{d^2\sqrt{U}}{d\rho ^2}+\frac{l(l+7p)}{\rho ^2}e^{2B(\rho )2C(\rho )}$$
(6)
and prime stands for $`d/d\rho `$. The potential depends on the form factor

$$U=g^{\rho \rho }\sqrt{g}.$$
(7)
The Klein-Gordon equation is covariant under changes of coordinates leading to the transformations of the potential and the wave function

$`\stackrel{~}{F}_l(\rho ^{})`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho ^{}}{d\rho }})^{1/2}F_l(\rho )`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ $`=`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{d\rho ^{}}{d\rho }})^2V{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\{\rho ,\rho ^{}\}`$
where the Schwarzian derivative is given by

$$\{\rho ,\rho ^{}\}=(\frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }}{\rho ^{}})^{}\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\rho ^{\prime \prime }}{\rho ^{}})^2.$$
(9)
We will mainly use the tortoise coordinates

$$d\rho ^{}=e^{B(\rho )A(\rho )}d\rho $$
(10)
leading to the s-wave potential

$$V_{tort.}=\omega ^2+\frac{1}{\sqrt{U}}\frac{d^2\sqrt{U}}{d\rho ^2}.$$
(11)
The Schrodinger equation can be written in a factorized form

$$(\overline{Q}Q\omega ^2)\stackrel{~}{F}_0=0$$
(12)
where $`Q`$ and $`\overline{Q}`$ are formal adjoints for functions vanishing to second order at the origin

$$Q=\frac{d}{d\rho ^{}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}U}{d\rho ^{}},\overline{Q}=\frac{d}{d\rho ^{}}+\frac{1}{2}\frac{d\mathrm{ln}U}{d\rho ^{}}.$$
(13)
The Hamiltonien $`H=\overline{Q}Q`$ is a symmetric operator $`(g,Hf)=(Hg,f)`$ where

$$(f,g)=𝑑\rho ^{}f^{}(\rho ^{})g(\rho ^{})+𝑑\rho ^{}D_\rho ^{}f^{}(\rho ^{})D_\rho ^{}g(\rho ^{})$$
(14)
for function 333The choice of the norm is crucial for the physical description of the singularities. Following  we choose a Sobolev norm as it is related to the energy of the scalar field $`\varphi `$. In particular fields with finite norm have finite energy.depending only on $`\rho ^{}`$ provided that, at least, the no-flux boundary condition is satisfied

$$f^{}(\rho ^{})\frac{dg(\rho ^{})}{d\rho ^{}}|_{\rho ^{}=0}=g^{}(\rho ^{})\frac{df(\rho ^{})}{d\rho ^{}}|_{\rho ^{}=0}.$$
(15)
This is always satisfied if one restricts the domain $`D(H)`$ of $`H`$ to the infinitely differentiable functions with compact support. With this choice the Hamiltonian is symmetric but is not guaranteed to be a self-adjoint operator.

On the other hand when the flux at the origin is non-zero then unitarity cannot be respected resulting in a non-zero absorption cross-section. Notice too that the Hamiltonian is a positive operator with two zero modes

$$\psi _1(\rho ^{})=\sqrt{U},\psi _2(\rho ^{})=\sqrt{U}^\rho ^{}\frac{du}{U(u)}.$$
(16)
The rest of the spectrum is positive preventing the existence of tachyons.

In general it is impossible to find analytic expressions for the wave functions over the whole space. One has to resort to the matching technique relating the wave functions in two different patches. The tortoise coordinates are particularly suited close to the origin and at infinity.

### 2.2 Absorption by Non-BPS Branes

Let us give the metric in the Einstein frame. It is convenient to use isotropic coordinates. The metric reads

$$ds_{10}^2=(\frac{f_{}}{f_+})^\alpha dx_{//}^2+f_{}^\beta _{}f_+^{\beta _+}(r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2+dr^2)$$
(17)
where $`f_\pm =1\pm r_0^{7p}/r^{7p}`$. The exponents depend on the tachyon vev $`c_1`$ as

$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`(7p)({\displaystyle \frac{|3p|c_1+4k}{32}})`$
$`\beta _\pm `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{7p}}\pm (p+1)({\displaystyle \frac{|3p|c_1+4k}{32}})`$
$`k`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{2(8p)}{7p}}{\displaystyle \frac{(p+1)(7p)}{16}}c_1^2}`$
where $`\alpha 0`$ to guarantee the positivity of the ADM mass. It is convenient to use the near singularity coordinate $`\rho ^{7p}=r^{7p}r_0^{7p}`$ to describe the space-time for $`rr_0`$ away from the naked singularity at $`r=r_0`$. In this system of coordinates the metric reads

$$ds_{10}^2=\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^\alpha dx_{//}^2+\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{2(p8)/(7p)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^{\beta _+}(d\rho ^2+\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{f}_+^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2)$$
(19)
where $`\stackrel{~}{f}_+=1+r_0^{7p}/\rho ^{7p}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}=1+2r_0^{7p}/\rho ^{7p}`$. The tortoise coordinates are given by

$$d\rho ^{}=\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{(p8)/(7p)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^{(\alpha +\beta _+)/2}d\rho .$$
(20)
The metric becomes

$$ds_{10}^2=\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^\alpha (dx_{//}^2+d\rho ^2)+\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{2/(7p)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^{\beta _+}\rho ^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}^2$$
(21)
leading to

$$U=\stackrel{~}{f}_+^{(p8)/(7p)}\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}^{(\alpha +\beta _+)/2+1}\rho ^{8p}.$$
(22)
Close to the singularity it is convenient to study the behaviour of $`U`$ and $`\rho ^{}`$ as a function of $`\rho `$

$`U(\rho )`$ $``$ $`S\rho ^a`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\rho ^{}}{d\rho }}`$ $``$ $`T\rho ^{1a}`$
where the constants are defined by

$$a=p9+(7p)\frac{\alpha +\beta _+}{2}$$
(24)
and $`S=2^{p\alpha /2+(8p)\beta _+/2}r_0^{p8(7p)(p\alpha (8p)\beta _+)/2},T=2^{(\alpha +\beta _+)/2}r_0^{p8+(7p)(\alpha +\beta _+)/2}`$. Notice that $`a<0`$ implying that $`\rho ^{}`$ vanishes for vanishing $`\rho `$. This implies that the naked singularity at the origin is time-like. The resulting Schrodinger equation is of the Bessel type of zeroth order with generalized eigenvalues

$$\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\omega ^1(\rho ^{})=\sqrt{\rho }^{}J_0(|\omega |\rho ^{}),\stackrel{~}{\psi }_\omega ^2=\sqrt{\rho }^{}N_0(|\omega |\rho ^{}).$$
(25)
Close to the singularity the constant term in the potential is negligible implying that all the solutions behave like the two zero modes

$$\psi _1(\rho ^{})=\sqrt{\rho }^{},\psi _2(\rho ^{})=\sqrt{\rho }^{}\mathrm{ln}\rho ^{}.$$
(26)
It is easy to see that no flux reaches the singularity and the s-wave absorption cross section by the singularity vanishes exactly. The same result holds for the higher partial waves.

### 2.3 Naked Singularities

The previous result sheds some light on the nature of the naked singularity at the origin. Classically the naked singularity is attractive as can be seen from the form of the potential

$$V_p(\rho ^{})=\omega ^2\frac{1}{4\rho ^2}$$
(27)
close to the origin. Quantum mechanically the potential is so steep that the scalar probes are totally reflected. The singularity is then a repulson. One can even go deeper in the analysis of the singularity by describing the time evolution of scalar probes in the vicinity of the singularity. To do that let us write the massless Klein-Gordon equation in the form

$$\frac{^2\varphi }{t^2}=M\varphi $$
(28)
where $`M`$ is a second order partial differential operator depending only on the spatial derivatives. After a change of variable, $`M`$ reduces to the Hamiltonian $`H`$. The Klein-Gordon equation defines a unique time evolution provided it can be written in the Schrodinger form

$$\frac{\varphi }{t}=iM^{1/2}\varphi $$
(29)
for a unique self-adjoint operator $`M^{1/2}`$. This is equivalent to finding a unique self-adjoint extension to the symmetric operator $`H`$, i.e. the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is essentially self-adjoint.

There is a useful criterion of essential self-adjointness. Let us consider the eigenvalue problem

$$^\mu _\mu \varphi =\pm i\varphi $$
(30)
in the non-BPS background. It reduces to a Schrodinger problem in a complex potential

$$V=V_p\pm ig_{\rho \rho }.$$
(31)
Denote by $`n_\pm `$ the number of normalizable solutions to (30). As the operator $`H`$ is real one has $`n_+=n_{}`$ implying that there always exists self-adjoint extensions. Now the operator is essentially self-adjoint provided $`n_\pm =0`$, i.e. the solutions are not normalizable. This is achieved provided that one of the solutions for each sign in (30) is non-normalizable.

In our case notice that in the vicinity of the singularity the extra complex term to $`V_p`$ is negligible implying that the solutions are expressed in terms of the two zero modes. The issue of the quantum mechanical behaviour of the singularity is now dependent on the norm of these eigenfunctions. We find that the norm of $`\psi _2(\rho ^{})`$ is divergent. Therefore the Hamiltonian $`H`$ is essentially self-adjoint.

Physically the naked singularity at the origin is a repulson leading a well-defined time evolution of scalar probes. This does not prevent the S-matrix from being non-unitary. Indeed let us consider the time evolution of a wave packet initially at infinity in the $`\rho ^{}`$ direction. Noting that the eigenfunctions at infinity behave like free waves $`e^{\pm i\omega \rho ^{}}`$, we can expand this initial wave packet on the eigenvectors of $`H`$

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_0(\rho ^{},0)=𝑑\omega a(\omega )(\psi _\omega ^1(\rho ^{})+i\psi _\omega ^2(\rho ^{})).$$
(32)
The two eigenvectors behave like $`\psi _\omega ^1(\rho ^{})=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi |\omega |}}\mathrm{cos}(|\omega |\rho ^{}\pi /4)`$ and $`\psi _\omega ^2(\rho ^{})=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi |\omega |}}\mathrm{sin}(|\omega |\rho ^{}\pi /4)`$ at infinity. At any given time the wave packet becomes

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_0(\rho ^{},t)=𝑑\omega e^{i\omega t}a(\omega )(\psi _\omega ^1(\rho ^{})+i\psi _\omega ^2(\rho ^{}))$$
(33)
evolving towards the singularity. Let us specialize to the neighbourhood of the singularity where all the generalized eigenfunctions are $`\omega `$-independent

$$\stackrel{~}{F}_0(\rho ^{},t)=(𝑑\omega a(\omega )e^{iwt})(\psi _1(\rho ^{})+i\psi _2(\rho ^{})).$$
(34)
For a very large time corresponding to the very large initial value of $`\rho ^{}`$ at the centre of the wave packet we find that the wave packet reaches the neighbourhood of the singularity. Moreover the wave packet becomes non-normalizable due to the $`\psi _2(\rho ^{})`$ component. Therefore the infinite time limit of the time evolution operator is not unitary. This is due to the fact that the singularity is surrounded by an absorbing infinite well.

In a sense this provides a quantum mechanical resolution of the naked singularity. Indeed the classically attractive singularity is replaced quantum-mechanically by a finite absorbing region surrounding a repulson.

## 3 Graviton Absorption

### 3.1 Gravitons vs. Scalars

Let us analyse the absorption of gravitons polarized along the brane. This corresponds to perturbations of the metric of the brane by the incoming gravitons. In the Einstein frame the graviton equation reduces to the Laplace equation

$$\mathrm{\Delta }h_{ij}=0.$$
(35)
Consider waves of the form

$$h_{ij}=ϵ_{ij}he^{ik.x}$$
(36)
where $`ϵ`$ is the polarization tensor and $`k`$ is in the time direction. The polarization tensor must be traceless $`\eta ^{ij}ϵ_{ij}=0`$ and transverse to $`k`$ implying that $`ϵ_{0i}=0`$. Denoting by $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}`$ the spatial part of the polarization tensor we find a basis of these tensors given by off-diagonal symmetric matrices with $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ab}=\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ba}=1`$ and zero otherwise along with diagonal matrices such that $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{aa}=1,\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{bb}=1,a<b`$. The latter are diagonal polarizations while the former are transverse polarizations. In the diagonal case put

$$h=g_{\rho \rho }^{1/2}\varphi .$$
(37)
Then the scalar field $`\varphi `$ satisfies the free wave equation

$$_\mu ^\mu \varphi =0.$$
(38)
In the transverse case the function $`h`$ satisfies the free scalar equation too.

We will calculate the absorption of gravitons by the non-BPS branes. It is convenient to define the conserved flux

$$_{grav}=\frac{1}{2i}\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }g^{\alpha \beta }g^{\rho \rho }(h_{\mu \alpha }^{}_\rho h_{\nu \beta }_\rho h_{\mu \alpha }^{}h_{\nu \beta }).$$
(39)
The flux becomes

$$_{grav}=\frac{1}{2i}\sqrt{g}g^{ab}g^{cd}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{ac}\stackrel{~}{ϵ}_{bd}g^{\rho \rho }(h^{}_\rho h_\rho h^{}h).$$
(40)
which is directly related to the scalar flux. In the following we shall compute the scalar absorption.

### 3.2 Non-BPS Graviton Absorption

The scattering potential requires the evaluation of $`g^{\rho \rho }\sqrt{g}=\rho ^{8p}\stackrel{~}{f}_{++}`$. This leads to the form factor

$$U=\rho ^{8p}+2r_0^{7p}\rho .$$
(41)
The potential follows after rescaling $`z=\rho \omega `$

$$V_p=(1+\frac{2\mu }{z^{7p}})^{\alpha +\beta _+}(1+\frac{\mu }{z^{7p}})^{2(p8)/(7p)}+\frac{(8p)(6p)}{4z^2}\mu ^2\frac{(7p)^2}{z^2(z^{7p}+2\mu )^2}$$
(42)
where $`\mu =(\omega r_0)^{7p}`$. For higher partial waves there is an extra repulsive contributions

$$\frac{l(l+7p)}{\rho ^2\stackrel{~}{f}_+^2}.$$
(43)
The potential has only a weak dependence on $`c_1`$.

Notice that the shape of the potential is different for $`p=6`$ and $`p<6`$. Let us first focus on the $`p=6`$ case.

* p=6

We can distinguish three different regions. In the core for $`z<<\mu `$ the potential reads

$$V_6=1\frac{1}{4z^2}.$$
(44)
This is the universal behaviour of the previous section which also appears for the naked singularities of cosmic string solutions. Moreover the extra contribution from the higher partial waves is negligible compared to the $`1/z^2`$ behaviour.

The absorption cross section is obtained by considering incoming waves reaching the outer boundary of the core region $`\rho r_0`$ and comparing this incoming flux to the one at infinity. To do so we need to study the potential outside the core

$$V_6=(1+\frac{4k3c_1}{2}\frac{\mu }{z})\frac{\mu ^2}{z^4}.$$
(45)
In the inner region $`\mu <<z<<\mu ^{1/3}`$ for $`\mu <<1`$ the potential becomes

$$V_6=1\frac{\mu ^2}{z^4}.$$
(46)
Finally in the outer region $`z>>\mu ^{1/3}`$ the potential reads

$$V_6=1\frac{4k3c_1}{2}\frac{\mu }{z}.$$
(47)
In the outer region the solutions are known to be expressible in terms of confluent hypergeometric functions

$$F_0=𝒜_6ze_1^{iz}F_1(1i\frac{4k3c_1}{4}\mu ,2;2iz).$$
(48)
The amplitude $`𝒜_6`$ is obtained by matching with the inner region where the solution can be expressed in terms of Mathieu functions. It will be more transparent to use a duality transformation reducing the solutions to Hankel functions. Define

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{\mu }{z}$$
(49)
and

$$F_0(z)=\stackrel{~}{z}^{1/2}\stackrel{~}{F}_0(\stackrel{~}{z}).$$
(50)
The equation in the dual variables is now

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{F}_0}{d\stackrel{~}{z}^2}+\stackrel{~}{z}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}_0}{d\stackrel{~}{z}}+(1\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{z}^2}+\frac{\mu ^2}{\stackrel{~}{z}^4})\stackrel{~}{F}_0=0$$
(51)
which is a Bessel equation for $`z<<1/2`$. There is an overlapping interval for the solution of the dual equation and the solution in the outer region. More precisely the solution is expressed in terms of the Hankel function $`H_{1/2}^{(1)}`$ and reads

$$F_0=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{z}{\mu }e^{i\mu /z}$$
(52)
for $`\mu <<z<<1/2`$. In this interval the arguments of the Hypergeometric and Hankel functions are small. The inner function behaves like $`i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{z}{\mu }`$ while the hypergeometric function matches this behaviour implying that

$$𝒜_6=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{1}{\mu }.$$
(53)
This specifies entirely the scalar wave function outside the core of the brane.

We can now evaluate the absorption cross section. To do so one needs to evaluate the ingoing fluxes at infinity and at the outer boundary of the core, i.e. $`r=2r_0`$. The scattering cross section is given by

$$\sigma _6=\frac{4\pi ^2}{\mathrm{\Omega }_2w^2}\frac{_{2r_0}^{in}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{in}}$$
(54)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_d=2\pi ^{(d+1)/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }((d+1)/2)`$.

Notice that the incoming wave for small $`\mu `$ behaves like $`𝒜_6e^{iz}`$ at infinity. We obtain the flux per unit volume $`_{\mathrm{}}^{in}=4\pi \omega |𝒜_6|^2`$. Similarly the flux at $`2r_0`$ is given by $`_{2r_0}^{in}=8/r_0`$. Now the corresponding absorption cross section is given by

$$\sigma _6=\frac{\pi r_0}{\omega }.$$
(55)
The cross section diverges for small $`\omega `$.

As already seen in  there is no decoupling limit of the brane modes from the bulk modes. In particular this can be shown by considering a non-BPS brane whose size scales with the string length and computing the absorption cross section in string units in the limit $`l_s0`$. Dimensionally the radius $`r_0`$ is given by $`r_0l_s`$. In the small string length limit the ratio

$$\frac{\sigma _6}{l_s^2}\frac{\pi }{l_s\omega }$$
(56)
measures the absorption in string units. As $`l_s\omega <<1`$ we find that the scalars and therefore the gravitons do not decouple from the brane.

* $`𝐩\mathrm{𝟔}`$

We can distinguish three different regions. In the core for $`z<<\mu ^{1/(7p)}`$ the potential reads

$$V_p=1\frac{1}{4z^2}.$$
(57)
This is the near singularity behaviour that has already been observed in the previous section. Moreover the extra contribution from the higher partial waves is negligible compared to the $`1/z^2`$ behaviour.

Let us now study the behaviour outside the core. In the inner region $`\mu ^{1/(7p)}<<z<<\mu ^{1/(9p)}`$ the potential reads

$$V_p=1+\frac{(8p)(6p)}{4z^2}\mu ^2\frac{(7p)^2}{z^{2(8p)}}.$$
(58)
Finally in the outer region for $`z>>\mu ^{1/(9p)}`$ the potential decreases like

$$V_p=1+\frac{(8p)(6p)}{4z^2}.$$
(59)
On the last expression one can see that the potential decreases at infinity, as it increases around the origin there is a maximum for $`z_{}=O(\mu ^{1/7p})`$ of height $`V_p(z_{})=O(\mu ^{2/(7p)})`$. This is highly similar to the extremal case where there is also a maximum for the potential when $`p<6`$. The presence of a maximum in the potential should not be mistaken with a barrier preventing the penetration of the incoming waves. Indeed if one uses a more appropriate spherical representation of the Schrodinger equation one gets by putting $`F_0=z^{(8p)/2}f_0`$

$$\frac{1}{z^{8p}}\frac{d}{dz}(z^{8p}\frac{df_0}{dz})+\stackrel{~}{V}_pf_0=0$$
(60)
where

$$\stackrel{~}{V}_p=V_p\frac{(8p)(6p)}{4z^2}.$$
(61)
The additional contribution cancels exactly the repulsive part of the potential leading to an attractive potential altogether.

Let us now concentrate on the absorption . To do so it is convenient to solve first the Schrodinger in dual variables

$$\stackrel{~}{z}=\frac{\mu }{z^{7p}}$$
(62)
and

$$F_0(z)=\stackrel{~}{z}^{1/2(7p)}\stackrel{~}{F}_0(\stackrel{~}{z}).$$
(63)
The equation in the dual variables is now

$$\frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{F}_0}{d\stackrel{~}{z}^2}+\stackrel{~}{z}\frac{d\stackrel{~}{F}_0}{d\stackrel{~}{z}}+(1\frac{1}{4\stackrel{~}{z}^2}+\frac{\mu ^{2/(7p)}}{(7p)^2\stackrel{~}{z}^{2+2/(7p)}})\stackrel{~}{F}_0=0$$
(64)
which is a Bessel equation for $`z<<(7p)/2`$. There is an overlapping interval for the validity of the solution of the dual equation and the solution in the outer region. More precisely the solution reads now

$$F_0=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\frac{z^{(8p)/2}}{\mu ^{(8p)/2(7p)}}e^{i\mu /z^{7p}}$$
(65)
for $`\mu ^{1/(7p)}<<z<<(7p)/2`$. In the outer region the solution is a Bessel function of order $`(7p)/2`$

$$F_0=𝒜_pz^{1/2}J_{(7p)/2}(z).$$
(66)
Now for small arguments $`F_0𝒜_p\frac{z^{(8p)/2}}{2^{(7p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }((9p)/2)}`$ implying that

$$𝒜_p=i\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}2^{(7p)/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{9p}{2})\mu ^{(p8)/2(7p)}.$$
(67)
We can now deduce the flux at infinity

$$_{\mathrm{}}^{in}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}\frac{\omega }{2\pi }|𝒜_p|^2.$$
(68)
Similarly the flux close the core is

$$_r_{}^{in}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}\frac{2(7p)\omega }{\pi }\mu ^{1/(7p)}$$
(69)
where $`r_{}=2^{1/(7p)}r_0`$. This leads to the cross section

$$\sigma _p=\frac{(2\pi )^{8p}}{\omega ^{8p}\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}}\frac{_r_{}^{in}}{_{\mathrm{}}^{in}}$$
(70)
which reads

$$\sigma _p=\frac{(7p)\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}r_0^{7p}}{\omega }.$$
(71)
The cross-section is divergent for soft probes.

Let us now consider a non-BPS brane with $`r_0l_s`$ and study the decoupling of gravity in the small string length regime. The absorption cross section behaves like

$$\frac{\sigma _p}{l_s^{8p}}\frac{(7p)\mathrm{\Omega }_{8p}}{l_s\omega }$$
(72)
implying that the gravitons do not decouple from the inner region.

Another interesting point is the $`c_1`$ independence of $`\sigma _p`$. This entails that the probes are insensitive to the inner state of the brane, i.e. whether the tachyon possesses a vev.

Notice that we expect that higher curvature terms in the supergravity Lagrangian will modify the non-BPS solutions. Nevertheless the previous absorption cross section has been obtained from incoming waves penetrating the high curvature region where absorption takes place. Outside this region the non-BPS solutions should remain valid and therefore the absorption cross-section should keep the same features, i.e. the absence of decoupling of gravity.

## 4 Conclusions

We have studied the absorption of scalars and gravitons by non-BPS branes. One of the main features of non-BPS branes is the existence of a naked singularity. From the classical point of view this is an attractive singularity which needs to be resolved. Quantum mechanically when probed by gravitons and scalars the naked singularity appears to be a repulson reflecting incoming waves. Nevertheless the potential well around the repulson is so steep that wave-packets are trapped. This entails that the scattering S-matrix is not unitary. The absorption cross-section possesses an infra-red singularity which signals the non-decoupling of gravity.

In summary we have found that non-BPS branes are of a peculiar nature. Indeed the graviton probes do not reach the naked singularity while they remain strongly coupled to the neighbourhood of this singularity. Perhaps this is the supergravity way of observing that at short distances the predominant features of non-BPS branes spring from open string excitations. This suggests a possible resolution of the naked singularity by a non-supersymmetric enhançon mechanism whereby the $`\rho r_0`$ region is smoothed out while the $`\rho r_0`$ remains unchanged.