format: text

text:
# Concerted motion of protons in hydrogen bonds of DNA-type molecules.

## Abstract

We study the dynamical behaviour of the proton transfer in the hydrogen bonds in the base-pairs of the double helices of the DNA type. Under the assumption that the elastic and the tunnelling degrees of freedom may be coupled, we derive a non-linear and non-local Schrodinger equation (SNLNL) that describes the concerted motion of the proton tunnelling. Rough estimates of the solutions to the SNLNL show an intimate interplay between the concerted tunnelling of protons and the symmetry of double helix.

I.

The recent direct observation of coherent proton tunnelling in macromolecules  has focused the attention on systems allowing for the nontrivial dynamics of protons contained in hydrogen bonds. Perhaps, the most significant system of the kind is the DNA molecule. The problem of the proton transfer inside the hydrogen bonds of the double helix representing a molecule of DNA, has a long and rich history. The importance of the phenomenon was noticed soon after the DNA double helix had been discovered (see ). In fact from the chemical point of view the proton transfer is a so-called tautomerization reaction, that is a kind of transition that preserves the constituent atoms of a compound but at the same time changes their mutual positions. It has been believed that the tautomerism transition could provide a mechanism for genetic mutations .

Later Crick  suggested that the mutations could be due to conformational changes within the double helix, the so-called ”wobbling” . By now there has been no definite conclusion as to whether the wobbling or the tautomerism are responsible for the occurrence of mutations. The recent work on the i-motif of DNA, in which the tautomerism, rare in the usual DNA, is the rule, and not an exception  has given a new impetus to the problem of proton transfer.

The phenomenon of tautomerism in the base pairs of DNA has been studied extensively, both experimentally and theoretically ,  , , but for individual single molecules of purines and pyrimidines. Here it should be noted that even though one has got a considerable body of information about the chemical reaction corresponding to the tautomer transition, such as its constant of reaction, and even managed to find an estimate for the concentration of tautomeric forms, $`10^410^5`$ mol/l, for the B-type of DNA, there is a little knowledge as far as the dynamics of the proton transfer accompanying it in DNA is concerned. In fact, the estimates for the transition frequency widely diverge, and generally it is believed to be within $`10^610^{11}s^1`$, .

In our opinion the unsatisfactory state of the art as regards to the proton transfer, and the tautomeric dynamics, in the DNA, is to a certain extent due to the absence of theoretical models of the phenomenon. In the present paper we would like to draw attention to the fact that if the tautomeric transitions are coupled with a change in elastic properties of the DNA molecule, one could expect a concerted tunnelling of the protons in the hydrogen bonds. Taking into account the extremely sophisticated nature of the system, i.e. the DNA molecule, we aim at studying it in a qualitative framework, which takes into account, the main features of the molecule, i.e. the presence of the two strands, the helical structure, or the winding symmetry, and the dynamics of protons considered within the approximation of two-level systems.

II.

Aiming at a simple model, we shall describe the states of the hydrogen bonds as those of a one-dimensional Bose oscillator, the two-level requirement being accommodated by considering only its ground state and the lowest excited one. In this sense the tautomeric reaction of the proton transfer is described by the excited state of an oscillator. Thus, we shall consider the protons inside the hydrogen bonds of a molecule of DNA as a quantum system described by the Bose operators $`b_n^+,b_n`$ subject to the usual commutation relation

$$[b_n^+,b_m]=\delta _{nm}$$

in which $`n,m`$ are the indices of the corresponding sites of hydrogen bonds. We shall suppose that the system of the protons is in a weakly excited state that can be cast in the form of wave function

$`|D(t)>={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}A_n(t)b_n^+|0>`$ (1)
in which $`A_n(t)`$ are complex amplitudes subject to the relation

$$\underset{n}{}|A_n|^2=1$$

The Hamiltonian of the total system, that is the protons and the elastic part corresponding to the sugar-phosphates, reads

$`H=H_H+H_Y+H_I`$ (2)
where $`H_H`$ is the proton Hamiltonian

$`H_H={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}E_0b_n^+b_n\kappa {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(b_{n+1}^+b_n+b_n^+b_{n+1}),`$ (3)
where $`E_0`$ is the level splitting between two states of the proton in a hydrogen bond, and $`\kappa `$ is the tunnelling probability. $`H_Y`$ is that of the elastic part, and $`H_I`$ is the interaction between them. We shall consider the elastic part of the system as the classical one, and even neglect its kinetic energy. The reason is that the characteristic times for the elastic vibrations of the DNA molecule are usually estimated as being in the region of $`10^{11}10^{13}`$s, whereas the proton tunnelling is alleged to be within $`10^610^{11}`$ s (more exact figures are unavailable; according to  the value is $`10^6`$ s). Thus, one may suggest that the elastic motion is following the proton tunnelling without inertia so that we may take into account the lattice deformation only through the potential energy $`H_Y`$, neglecting the kinetic one. In writing $`H_Y`$ we shall follow the method worked out in papers , , aiming at a simplified description of the dynamics of the double helix which is considered as a one-dimensional lattice of vectors $`𝐲_n`$ that describe the mutual positions of the two strands at sites corresponding to the base pair of index $`n`$. The helix structure is described with the help of the covariant derivative for the description of deformations resulting from the change in the positions of the strands, so that the potential $`H_Y`$ reads

$`H_Y={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{K}{2}}(𝐲_n)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ}{2}}𝐲_{𝐧}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\right].`$ (4)
Here the harmonic term $`(1/2)ϵy_n^2`$ describes the binding of the two strands, and $`𝐲_n`$ is the covariant derivative in discrete form, linearized with respect to rotations that relates the two adjacent sites, $`n`$ and $`n+1`$.

$`𝐲_n{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a}}(𝐲_{n+1}𝐲_n+\widehat{\mathrm{\Omega }}𝐲_n),`$ (5)
and

$`\mathrm{\Omega }_{ij}=ϵ_{ijk}\mathrm{\Omega }_k`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_k(0,0,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, $`K,ϵ`$ are elastic constants, and $`a`$ is the spacing of the lattice of the base pairs. We are assuming that the molecule is parallel to the $`z`$ axis. Having chosen the dynamical variables $`b_n^+,b_n,𝐲_n`$ for the protons and the elastic excitations, we have a limited number of option for the interaction energy. The simplest one should couple the proton excited states given by $`b_n^+b_n`$, and the elastic deformations, which are a function of $`𝐲_n`$, in the simplest situation we adopt, the linear one. We assume that $`𝐲_n`$ enters in the form of its covariant derivative, for this way one might accommodate the interaction of the proton tunnelling with the stack of the $`\pi `$electrons of the bases.

The choice of the interaction Hamiltonian is delicate but the knowledge of the structure and binding in DNA gives some indications. The stacking interaction between adjacent base pairs is strongly affected by the overlap of the $`\pi `$ electrons of the bases. But the proton transfer is accompanied by a redistribution of the electrons on the bases so that the stacking interaction is changed and therefore we expect that the proton tunneling will affect the coupling between adjacent bases. It means that the derivative $`𝐲_n`$ rather than $`𝐲_n`$ itself should enter in the interaction Hamiltonian. We have chosen the simplest form coupling the commponent of the gradient which is along the direction $`𝐡_n`$ of the hydrogen bonds connecting the bases within pair $`n`$ and the state of the protons in this pair given by $`b_n^+b_n`$, i.e.

$`H_I=\lambda {\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}(𝐲_n𝐡_n)b_n^+b_n,`$ (7)
in which the vectors $`𝐡_n`$ are subject to the helical symmetry of the molecule. They can be written in the form

$`𝐡_n=(\mathrm{cos}n\alpha ;\mathrm{sin}n\alpha ;0),`$ (8)
where the angle $`\alpha `$ is related to the helical pitch. Having chosen a primitive model of the DNA, and neglecting the subtle features like 2 or 3 hydrogen bonds for the A -T or G - C base pairs, and confining ourselves to one-site one H-bond picture, we may set $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }`$ equalizing the pitch of the $`𝐡_n`$ and the twist of the double helix.

It is important to notice that the sign of $`\lambda `$ will be crucial for the SNLNL equation that we shall derive. Our choice means that the stacking energy is reduced when protons are in the excited state.

We employ the method worked out by Davydov  to study the model described above. According to ,

* we have to calculate the effective potential

$`U_{eff}=<D(t)|H_Y+H_I|D(t)>`$ (9)
which is a function of $`𝐲_n`$,
* find its minimum, $`𝐲_n^0`$,
* substitute $`𝐲_n^0`$ into $`H`$ given by Eq. (2), thus obtaining the effective Davydov Hamiltonian $`H_D`$.

Finally, we have to write down the Schrodinger equation for the function $`|D(t)>`$, given by Eq. (1), and the Hamiltonian $`H_D`$

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}|D(t)=H_D|D(t)>`$ (10)
Both sides of the equation indicated above are linear forms in the operators $`b_n^+`$, and by equating the coefficients at corresponding $`b_n^+`$, we obtain the following equation for $`A_n`$

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{A_n}{t}}=E_0A_n\kappa (A_{n+1}+A_{n1}){\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{K}}|A_n|^2A_n{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{K}}[{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}|A_m|^4]A_n+`$ (11)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2K}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{m^{},m^{\prime \prime }}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{|m^{}m^{\prime \prime }|}\varphi \mathrm{cos}[(m^{}m^{\prime \prime })(\varphi \mathrm{\Omega })]|A_m^{}|^2|A_{m^{\prime \prime }}|^2\}A_n+`$ (12)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda ^2}{2K}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{cos}^{|mn|}\varphi \mathrm{cos}[(mn)(\varphi \mathrm{\Omega })]|A_m|^2\}A_n,`$ (13)
in which the angle $`\varphi `$ is determined by the equation $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`\lambda /K`$ and $`ϵa^2/(K\mathrm{\Omega }^2)1`$ are small parameters.

In assessing the importance of $`\mathrm{cos}`$\- terms in the equation given above, it is worthwhile to note that since we have assumed $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and there is the relation $`\mathrm{tan}\varphi =\mathrm{\Omega }`$, the typical term in the equation (11) contains a factor that reads asymptotically

$$\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{\Omega }^2|mn|)cos(|mn|\mathrm{\Omega }^3)$$

We have assumed $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ being a small parameter, and therefore the oscillations due to $`\mathrm{\Omega }^3`$ are negligible. Let us consider a possible simplification of the equation (11) obtained above. There is a chance that it may have a bearing on the dynamics of the proton transfer in DNA. To that end note that the angles $`\varphi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are close to each other; indeed, for the B DNA the angle $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ corresponds to the pitch, i.e. 10 steps for $`2\pi `$. For this reason, we set all the functions $`\mathrm{cos}[(mn)(\varphi \mathrm{\Omega })]`$ equal to 1 in (11), and introduce

$`A(z,t)=\mathrm{exp}(i{\displaystyle \frac{E_0t}{\mathrm{}}})B(z,t)`$ (14)
Then, in the continues notations, (i.e. for scales larger than $`a`$) we obtain the following non-linear and non-local Schrodinger equation ($`zx/a`$).

$`i{\displaystyle \frac{B}{t}}=\omega _H{\displaystyle \frac{^2B}{z^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T|B^2|B{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _TB{\displaystyle |B(z^{})|^4𝑑z^{}}+`$ (15)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}({\displaystyle }dz^{}{\displaystyle }dz^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{exp}(\mu |z^{}z^{\prime \prime }|)|B(z^{})|^2|B(z^{\prime \prime }|^2)B(z)+`$ (16)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}({\displaystyle }dz^{}\mathrm{exp}(\mu |zz^{}|)|B(z^{}|^2)B(z),`$ (17)
in which

$`\mu =\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{cos}\varphi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\mathrm{\Omega }^2){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{2}},`$ (18)
and $`\omega _H\kappa /\mathrm{}`$, $`\omega _T\lambda /\mathrm{}`$. We may perform a very crude estimate so as to see the part played by the non-local terms as regards the structure of solitons that might turn around.

The standard procedure to treat the non-linear Schrodinger equation is as follows , . We are looking for the solution in the propagating wave (soliton) form

$`B=\mathrm{exp}[i(kz\omega t)]\psi (zvt)`$ (19)
Introducing (19) into (15) we get two equations for the imaginary and reel parts of the solution (19). From the former one we find the velocity of the soliton $`v`$

$`v=2\omega _Hk,`$ (20)
and the real part of (15) leads to the equation

$`\omega \psi =\omega _H[k^2+\dot{\dot{\psi }}]{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T\psi ^3{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T\psi {\displaystyle |\psi |^4𝑑z^{}}+`$ (21)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\psi {\displaystyle 𝑑z^{}𝑑z^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{exp}(\mu |z^{}z^{\prime \prime })|\psi (z^{})|^2|\psi (z^{\prime \prime })|^2}+`$ (22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\omega _T\psi {\displaystyle 𝑑z^{}\mathrm{exp}(\mu |zz^{}|)|\psi (z^{})|^2}`$ (23)
Neglecting $`\mu `$ we get the standard non-linear Schrodinger equation however with renormalized coefficients. It is easy to find the first integral of the equation, i.e. the energy $`W`$

$`(\dot{\psi })^2+[k^2+\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{K}}\xi ({\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}C+\mathrm{\Gamma })]\psi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{2K}}\xi \psi ^4=W`$ (24)
Where we used the following notations:

$$\xi =\frac{\omega _T}{\omega _H},\nu =\frac{\omega }{\omega _H},\mathrm{\Gamma }=𝑑z^{}|\psi (z^{})|^4$$

and $`C`$ is a factor of the order of 1. It is worth noting that even though we have made rough simplifications, as regards the non-locality, its bearing on the proton dynamics still has remained, as is seen in the $`ϵa^2/K\mathrm{\Omega }^2`$ term, preserved in the equation given above. One may infer from the fact that under approximations used, there is a profound interplay of the dynamics of proton transfer and the conformational structure of the double helix.

From the equation (21) we obtain the asymptotic width $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of the soliton which reads

$`\mathrm{\Delta }=\left[{\displaystyle \frac{\omega _T^2}{\omega _{ac}\omega _H}}{\displaystyle \frac{ϵa^2}{K\mathrm{\Omega }^2}}\right]^{1/2}.`$ (25)
The frequency $`\omega _{ac}K/\mathrm{}`$ is generally accepted to be within $`10^{11}10^{13}`$Hz, but the available estimates for $`\omega _T,\omega _H,ϵ`$ widely diverge, $`\omega _H=10^610^{11}`$ Hz, $`\omega _T/\omega _H=0.10.01`$, and $`ϵa^2/K\mathrm{\Omega }^20.1`$. Consequently, the width of the solution varies within $`101000\AA `$, so that one may expect a concerted tunnelling of protons for the lower estimation of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

III.

Concluding, we should like to draw attention to the fact that the existence of an appreciable interaction between the proton transfer inside the hydrogen bonds of the double helix, and elastic modes of the latter, could result in a concerted dynamics of the protons which is generally of non-linear character and governed by the non-linear and non-local Schrodinger equation. To our knowledge, it is for the first time one is running across the non-linear Schrodinger equation with non-local terms. The transfer of protons may be due to various reasons, and among these are the action of external agents, especially, according to recent experimental work  ,  enzymes; it is also worth keeping in mind the possible links with the mutation mechanism, . In this paper we have tried to put these ideas in more quantitative form within the framework of a model that accommodates the basic symmetry structure of the double helix, and as was shown above, allows for certain rough estimates of dynamical features that may surface; presumably of the soliton nature. In this respect, it is worthwhile to note that even the crude estimate we made, conserves the bearing of the double helix, as in seen through the occurrence of the characteristic parameter $`ϵ/(K\mathrm{\Omega }^2)`$ in the final formulas. Of course the equation (11) we obtained has a larger scope. It may not imply the existence of solitons in DNA, but could open another possibility, the possible existence of nonlinear localization leading to a collapse of an initially broad excitation into a higly localized deformation . Collapse does not occur in the standard NLS equation, but the existence of nonlinearities with higher power in our NLNLS suggest that it could occur in this equation, although, as these terms are non local, no definite conclusion can be given without further studies of the equation. If this hypothesis would be confirmed, a weak and broad perturbation of the hydrogen bonds of a DNA molecule by the vicinity of an enzyme carrying local charges could trigger this nonlinear localization phenomenon and finally lead to the formation of a tutomerized form by the tunneling of one proton. As the present stage of the study, this is however only a speculation raised by the form of the NLNLS equation that we derived.

###### Acknowledgements.

The research described in this publication was made possible in part by RFFR Grant 00-02-17785. One of the authors (V.L.G.) is thankful to the Lab. Phys. ENS Lyon, for the hospitality, and the programme of exchange between ENS and Landau Institute for Theoretical Physics for the opportunity to participate in the programme. Fruitful discussions with E.Kuznetsov and Yu.M. Yevdokimov, and the useful correspondence with J.L.Leroy and F.Fillaux are gratefully acknowledged.


text:
# Supplementation of reducible constraints and the Green-Schwarz superstring.

## 1 Introduction

Manifestly super Poincare invariant formulation of branes implies appearance of mixed first and second class fermionic constraints in the Hamiltonian formalism \[1-10\]. Typically, first and second class constraints (2CC) are treated in a rather different way in quantum theory111Quantization scheme for mixed constraints was developed in . Application of this scheme to concrete models may conflict with manifest Poincare covariance .. In particular, to construct formal expression for the covariant path integral one needs to have splitted and irreducible constraints . So, it is necessary at first to split them, which can be achieved by using of covariant projectors of one or other kind \[15-17, 12\]. Details depend on the model under consideration. For example, for CBS superparticle  one introduces two auxilliary vector variables in addition to the initial superspace coordinates . For the Green-Schwarz (GS) superstring the projectors can be constructed in terms of the initial variables only . After that the problem reduces to quantization of the covariantly separated but infinitely reducible constraints. Despite a lot of efforts (see \[15-23\] and references therein) this problem has no fully satisfactory solution up to date222Infinitely reducible 1CC imply infinite tower of “ghosts for ghosts” variables . For reducible 2CC the problem is that the covariant Dirac bracket obeys the Jacobi identity on the second class constraints surface only .. A revival of interest to the problem is due to recent work  where it was shown that scattering amplitudes for superstring can be constructed in a manifestly covariant form, as well as due to progress in the light-cone quantization of superstring on $`AdS_5\times S^5`$ background .

One possibility to avoid the problem of quantization of infinitely reducible constraints is the supplementation trick which was formulated in the Hamiltonian framework in . The basic idea is to introduce finite number of an additional fermionic variables subject to their own reducible constraints (the constraints are chosen in such a way that the additional sector do not contains physical degrees of freedom). Then the original constraints can be combined with one from the additional sector into irreducible set. For the resulting 1CC one imposes a covariant and irreducible gauge. It implies, in particular, a possibility to construct correct Dirac bracket for the theory.

To apply the recipe for concrete model one needs to find a modified Lagrangian which reproduces the desired irreducible constraints. Some examples were considered , in particular, the modified $`N=1`$ GS superstring action was proposed in . But it was pointed in  that the action is not equivalent to the initial one.

In this work we present modified action which is equivalent to $`N=1`$ GS superstring and which allows one to realize the supplementation trick. Then we analyse type II GS superstring.

The work is organized as follows. To fix our notations, we review main steps of the supplementation scheme in Sec. 2. In Sec. 3 modified formulation of $`N=1`$ GS superstring is presented and proved to be equivalent to the initial one. First and second class constraints are covariantly separated, 1CC form irreducible set. We discuss also equations of motion and their solution in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry. It is shown how the usual Fock space picture can be obtained in this gauge. Type IIB theory is considered in Sec. 4. Here one has two copies of the fermionic constraints (which correspond to two $`\theta ^A,A=1,2`$) with the same chirality. It allows one to consider their Poincare covariant combinations. In this case both first and second class constraints can be arranged into covariant sets in the initial formulation. For type IIA theory (Sec. 5) the two copies of constraints have an opposite chirality and can not be combined in the initial formulation. Repeating the same steps as in $`N=1`$ case, one finds that all the second class constraints as well as one chiral sector of the first class constraints can be combined into irreducible sets. Other sector with first class constraints remains reducible. Some technical details are omitted and can be find in .

## 2 Supplementation of the reducible constraints.

It will be convenient to work in 16-component formalism of the Lorentz group $`SO(1,9)`$, then $`\theta ^\alpha `$, $`\psi _\alpha `$, $`\alpha =1,\mathrm{},16`$, are Majorana–Weyl spinors of opposite chirality. Real, symmetric $`16\times 16`$ $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrices $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }`$ obey the algebra $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\nu +\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu =2\eta ^{\mu \nu },\eta ^{\mu \nu }=(+,,\mathrm{},)`$. Momenta conjugate to configuration space variables $`q^i`$ are denoted as $`p_{qi}`$.

Let us consider a dynamical system with fermionic pairs $`(\theta ^\alpha ,p_{\theta \alpha })`$ being presented among the phase space variables $`z^A`$. Typical situation for the models under consideration is that the following constraints

$`L_\alpha p_{\theta \alpha }iB_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\theta ^\beta 0,`$ (1)
$`D^\mu D_\mu 0,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu 0,`$ (2)
are presented among others. Here, the $`B^\mu \left(z\right),D^\mu \left(z\right),\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(z\right)`$ are some functions of phase variables $`z`$, so that $`D^20`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^20`$ are first class constraints333In some cases (for example, for the superparticle) the quantity $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$ is absent in the initial formulation. Then one needs to introduce an additional vector variable .. It is supposed also $`\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)0`$ which is true for the models considered below. Poisson bracket of the fermionic constraints is

$`\{L_\alpha ,L_\beta \}=2iD_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}.`$ (3)
The system $`L_\alpha 0`$ is mixture of first and second class constraints, as it will be proved momentarily.

Below the following two simple facts will be used systematically (see  for the proof).
1). Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$ are 16 equations. Then: a) The system

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (4)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,`$ (5)
is equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$.
b) Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0`$ represent 16 independent equations. Then Eq.(4) contains 8 independent equations. In $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations they mean that $`8_s`$ part $`\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}_{\dot{a}}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha `$ can be presented through $`8_c`$ part $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a`$ (or vice-versa). The same is true for Eq.(5).
2). Let $`\mathrm{\Psi }^\alpha =0,\mathrm{\Phi }^\alpha =0`$ are $`16+16`$ independent equations. Consider the system

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }=0,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0.`$ (6)
Then: a) Eq.(6) contains 16 independent equations according to 1).
b) The equations

$`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Psi }+\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=0,`$ (7)
are equivalent to the system (6). Thus the system (7) consist of 16 independent equations (i.e. it is irreducible).

Supplementation scheme for the mixed constraints consist of the following steps.

A). Manifestly covariant separation of the constraints.
By virtue of the statement 1), the system (1) can be rewritten in the equivalent form444To split the constraints one can also use true projectors instead of the matrices $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu `$. It allows one to avoid possible “second class patalogy”  in the 1CC algebra .

$`L^{\left(1\right)\alpha }D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta 0,`$ (8)
$`L^{\left(2\right)\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta 0.`$ (9)
Eq.(8) contains 8 independent constraints which turn out to be 1CC as a consequence of Eqs.(2), (3). Similarly, Eq.(9) contains 8 independent constraints. One can rewrite them in $`SO\left(8\right)`$ notations and verify that they form 2CC system.

B). Auxiliary sector subject to reducible constraints.
Let us introduce a pair of spinors $`(\eta ^\alpha ,p_{\eta \alpha })`$ subject to the constraints

$`p_{\eta \alpha }0,T_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\eta ^\beta 0.`$ (10)
These equations contain 8 independent 1CC among $`p_\eta ^{\left(1\right)}\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta 0`$ and 8+8 independent 2CC among $`p_\eta ^{\left(2\right)}D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta 0`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta 0`$. Note that the covariant gauge $`D_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta =0`$ may be imposed. After that the complete system (constraints + gauges) is equivalent to $`p_\eta 0`$, $`\eta 0`$.

C). Supplementation up to irreducible constraints.
Now part of the constraints can be combined into covariantly separated and irreducible sets. According to the statement 2), the system (8)-(10) is equivalent to

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha )}L^{\left(1\right)\alpha }+p_\eta ^{\left(1\right)\alpha }=D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta +\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }p_{\eta \beta }0,`$ (11)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }L^{\left(2\right)\alpha }+p_\eta ^{\left(2\right)\alpha }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }L_\beta +D_\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }p_{\eta \beta }0,`$ (12)
$`T_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\eta ^\beta 0,`$ (13)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }0`$ ($`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }0`$) are 16 irreducible 1CC (2CC) and $`T_\alpha 0`$ contains 8 linearly independent 2CC. In the result first class constraints of the extended formulation form irreducible set (11). As it was mentioned above, the type IIB superstring presents an example of more attractive situation as compare to the general case (11)-(13). Due to special structure of the theory the 2CC can also be combined into irreducible set.

## 3 $`N=1`$ Green-Schwarz superstring with irreducible first class constraints.

Consider GS superstring action with $`N=1`$ space-time supersymmetry

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}g^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_b^\mu +2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \right]},`$ (14)
where $`\sqrt{g}=\sqrt{detg^{ab}},\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu _ax^\mu i\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _a\theta ,\epsilon ^{01}=1`$. Let us denote

$`B^\mu p^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu ,\widehat{p}^\mu p^\mu iT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ,`$ (15)
$`D^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu .`$ (16)
Then constraints under the interest for Eq.(14) are those of Eqs.(1), (2). From Eqs.(15), (2) and from the standard requirement that the induced metric is non degenerated it follows $`D\mathrm{\Lambda }=\widehat{p}^2T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^20`$. Using the quantities $`D^\mu ,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu `$, the fermionic constraints $`L_\alpha `$ can be decomposed now on first and second class subsets as in Eq.(8), (9). To proceed further, one needs to find a modification which will lead to Eq.(10).

The modified action which we propose below acquires more elegant form in ADM representation for the world-sheet metric: $`g^{00}=\gamma ^1N^2,g^{01}=\gamma ^1N^2N_1,g^{11}=\gamma ^1N^2\left(N_1^2N^2\right)`$. The GS action (14) acquires then the following form:

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_{}^\mu +2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \right]},`$ (17)
where it was denoted $`\mathrm{\Pi }_\pm ^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_0^\mu +N_\pm \mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu ,N_\pm N_1\pm N`$. The world-sheet reparametrisations in this representation look as $`\delta \sigma ^a=\xi ^a,\delta N_\pm =_0\xi ^1+\left(_1\xi ^1_0\xi ^0\right)N_\pm _1\xi ^0N_\pm ^2`$. Modified action to be examined is

$`S={\displaystyle \frac{T}{2}}{\displaystyle d^2\sigma \left[\frac{1}{N}\mathrm{\Pi }_+^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Pi }_{}^\mu +i\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)+2i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu \theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta \frac{1}{4N}\left(\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)^2\right]},`$ (18)
where two additional Majorana-Weyl fermions $`\eta ^\alpha (\tau ,\sigma ),\chi ^\alpha (\tau ,\sigma )`$ were introduced. Our aim now will be to show canonical equivalence of this action and the initial one. Then the additional sector will be used to arrange 1CC of the theory into irreducible set. Direct application of the Dirac algorithm gives us the Hamiltonian

$`H={\displaystyle }d\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{N}{2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{T}}\widehat{p}^2+T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^2)N_1\left(\widehat{p}\mathrm{\Pi }_1\right)`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}(\widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu )\eta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi +\lambda _Np_N+\lambda _{N1}p_{N1}+\lambda _\eta p_\eta +\lambda _\chi p_\chi +L\lambda _\theta ],`$ (20)
where $`\lambda _q`$ are the Lagrangian multipliers for the corresponding primary constraints. After determining of secondary constraints, complete constraint system can be presented as (in the notations (15))

$`p_N=0,p_{N1}=0,`$ (21)
$`D^24TL_1\theta =0,\mathrm{\Lambda }^24T_1\eta p_\eta 4T_1\chi p_\chi =0,`$ (22)
$`L_\alpha p_{\theta \alpha }iB_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\theta ^\beta =0,`$ (23)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,p_{\eta \alpha }=0,`$ (24)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi \right)_\alpha =0,p_{\chi \alpha }=0.`$ (25)
Note that the desired constraints (10) appear in duplicate form (24), (25). Combinations of constraints in Eq.(22) are chosen in such a way that all mixed brackets (i.e. those among Eq.(22) and Eqs.(23)-(25)) vanish. The fermionic constraints $`L_\alpha `$ obey the Poisson bracket algebra (2). The constraints (21), (22) are first class.

To proceed further, let us make partial fixation of gauge. One imposes $`N=1,N_1=0`$ for Eq.(21) and $`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi =0`$ for 1CC $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu p_\chi =0`$ contained in Eq.(25). After that, the pairs $`(N,p_N),(N_1,p_{N1}),(\chi ,p_\chi )`$ can be omitted from consideration. The Dirac bracket for the remaining variables coincides with the Poisson one. In the same fashion, the pair $`\eta ,p_\eta `$ can be omitted also. Then the remaining constraints (as well as equations of motion) coincide with those of the GS superstring, which proves equivalence of the actions (14) and (18).

On other hand, retaining the variables $`\eta ,p_\eta `$ and the corresponding constraints (24), the system (23), (24) can be rewritten equivalently as in (11)-(13), with the irreducible 1CC (11), which are separated from the 2CC (12), (13).

Covariant and irreducible gauge for Eq. (11) can be chosen as

$`R_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta \right)_\alpha +D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,`$ (26)
or, equivalently

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta \right)_\alpha =0,D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0.`$ (27)
Matrix of the Poisson brackets

$`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha },R_\beta \}=\left[2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\delta _\beta ^\alpha +4iTD^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu _1\theta \right)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \eta \right)_\beta \right]\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (28)
has a body on its diagonal and is invertible. It means that Eqs.(11), (26) allows one to construct the Dirac bracket without fermionic inconsistencies.

To conclude this section, let us discuss dynamics of the physical sector variables in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry. Crucial property of the standard noncovariant gauge $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^+\theta =0`$ is that equations of motion in this case acquire linear form. Then it is possible to find their general solution. While not necessary for construction of the formal path integral, namely this fact allows one to fulfill really the canonical quantization procedure. Similarly to this, the covariant gauge will be reasonable only if it has the same property. To study equations of motion for physical variables, let us consider the gauge $`D^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \chi =0`$ and Eq.(27). Then the variables $`(\chi ,p_\chi ),(\eta ,p_\eta )`$ can be omitted. The remaining constraints are (21)-(23), which are accompanied by the covariant gauge condition

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta =0.`$ (29)
Equations of motion for the theory look now as follows

$`_0x^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{N}{T}}p^\mu N_1_1x^\mu +2iN\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{P}_{}_1\theta ,`$ (30)
$`_0p^\mu =_1\left[TN_1x^\mu N_1p^\mu +2iNT\theta \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \stackrel{~}{P}_{}_1\theta \right],`$ (31)
$`_0\theta ^\alpha =N_1_1\theta ^\alpha \stackrel{~}{K}^\alpha {}_{\beta }{}^{}_{1}^{}\theta ^\beta ,`$ (32)
where $`\stackrel{~}{P}_{\pm \beta }^\alpha `$ are covariant projectors on eight-dimensional subspaces . In the standard gauge

$`N=1,N_1=0,`$ (33)
for the constraints (21) the equations of motion remain non linear. Nevertheless, usual picture of the Fock space can be obtained in the covariant gauge. To resolve the problem one can use a trick which we refer here as “off-diagonal gauge” for $`d=2`$ fields. Namely, let us consider

$`N=0,N_1=1,`$ (34)
instead of (33). Then Eq.(30) acquires the linear form555While the action (18) is not well defined for the value $`N=0`$, the Hamiltonian formulation (19)-(25), (30) admits formally Eq.(34) as the gauge fixing conditions for the constraints (21).

$`_{}x^\mu =0,_{}p^\mu =0,_{}\theta _a=0,`$ (35)
where $`\theta _a,a=1,\mathrm{},8`$ is $`8_c`$ part of $`\theta ^\alpha `$, while $`8_s`$ part $`\theta _{\dot{a}}`$ is determined by the covariant gauge condition $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta =0`$.

Fermionic dynamics is the same as in the light-cone gauge. Let us demonstrate that bosonic sector of (35) leads also to the same description of state space as those of string in the usual gauge (33). Actually, solution of Eq.(35) is ($`0\sigma \pi `$, closed string)

$`x^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=X^\mu +{\displaystyle \frac{i}{\sqrt{\pi T}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\beta _n^\mu e^{2in\left(\tau +\sigma \right)},`$ (36)
$`p^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\pi }}P^\mu 2\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{T}{\pi }}}{\displaystyle \underset{n0}{}}\gamma _n^\mu e^{2in\left(\tau +\sigma \right)}.`$ (37)
From these expressions one extracts the Poisson brackets for coefficients. For the variables

$`\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu \beta _n^\mu +\gamma _n^\mu ,\alpha _n^\mu \beta _n^\mu \gamma _n^\mu ,\alpha _0^\mu =\overline{\alpha }_0^\mu ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\pi T}}}P^\mu ,`$ (38)
one obtains the properties

$`\{\alpha _n^\mu ,\alpha _k^\nu \}=\{\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu ,\overline{\alpha }_k^\nu \}=in\eta ^{\mu \nu }\delta _{n+k,0},\{X^\mu ,P^\nu \}=\eta ^{\mu \nu },`$ (39)
$`\left(\alpha _n^\mu \right)^{}=\alpha _n^\mu ,\left(\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu \right)^{}=\overline{\alpha }_n^\mu .`$ (40)
In terms of these variables bosonic part of the Virasoro constraints $`D^2=\mathrm{\Lambda }^2=0`$ acquire the standard form

$`L_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\alpha _{nk}\alpha _k=0,\overline{L}_n={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{k}{}}\overline{\alpha }_{nk}\overline{\alpha }_k=0.`$ (41)
Eqs.(39), (41) have the same form as those of string in the gauge (33) and contain all the necessary information for canonical quantization \[31-33\]. Thus, instead of the standard gauge one can equivalently use the conditions (34) and the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry (29), which gives the same structure of state space.

From Eq.(36) it follows that $`x^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )`$ is not true string coordinate. If it is necessary, the latter can be restored by using of the following statement (see ):
Let $`\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu ,\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu `$ represent general solution of the system $`_{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu =0`$, $`_{}\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu =0`$. Then the quantities

$`x^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )=\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right){\displaystyle _0^{\sigma ^+}}𝑑l\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \left(l\right),`$ (42)
$`p^\mu (\tau ,\sigma )={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left[\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu _{}\stackrel{~}{x}^\mu \left(\sigma ^+\sigma ^{}\right)\right],`$ (43)
give general solution of the string equations of motion in the standard gauge (33) $`_0x^\mu =p^\mu `$, $`_0p^\mu =_1_1x^\mu `$.

## 4 Type IIB Green-Schwarz superstring with irreducible first and second class constraints.

Here we show that type IIB theory is essentially different from other models with $`\kappa `$-symmetry. Namely, in this case both first and second class constraints can be arranged into irreducible sets in the initial formulation, without introducing of an additional variables.

Denoting two Majorana-Weyl spinors of the same chirality as $`\theta ^{1\alpha },\theta ^{2\alpha },\alpha =1,\mathrm{},16`$, the type IIB GS superstring action is

$`S=T{\displaystyle }d^2\sigma [{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{g}}}g^{ab}\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu \mathrm{\Pi }_b^\mu i\epsilon ^{ab}_ax^\mu (\theta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta ^1\theta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta ^2)+`$ (44)
$`\epsilon ^{ab}\left(\theta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _a\theta ^1\right)\left(\theta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _b\theta ^2\right)],`$ (45)
where $`\mathrm{\Pi }_a^\mu _ax^\mu i\theta ^A\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _a\theta ^A`$. Let us denote

$`B_1^\mu p^\mu +T_1x^\mu iT\theta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^1,`$ (46)
$`B_2^\mu p^\mu T_1x^\mu +iT\theta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^2,`$ (47)
$`\widehat{p}^\mu p^\mu iT\theta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^1+iT\theta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^2,`$ (48)
$`D^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu +T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu =p^\mu +T_1x^\mu 2iT\theta ^1\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^1,`$ (49)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \widehat{p}^\mu T\mathrm{\Pi }_1^\mu =p^\mu T_1x^\mu +2iT\theta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu _1\theta ^2,`$ (50)
Then constraints under the interest for Eq.(44) can be written as

$`H_+D^24TL_\beta ^1_1\theta ^{1\beta }=0,H_{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^2+4TL_\beta ^2_1\theta ^{2\beta }=0,`$ (51)
$`L_\alpha ^1p_{\theta 1\alpha }iB_1^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^1\right)_\alpha =0,`$ (52)
$`L_\alpha ^2p_{\theta 2\alpha }iB_2^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^2\right)_\alpha =0,`$ (53)
Poisson brackets for the fermionic constraints are

$`\{L_\alpha ^1,L_\beta ^1\}=2iD_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (54)
$`\{L_\alpha ^2,L_\beta ^2\}=2i\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }_{}^{\mu }{}_{\alpha \beta }{}^{}\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right).`$ (55)
As for $`N=1`$ case, the constraints $`H_\pm `$ were chosen such that they commutes with (52). In contrast to $`N=1`$ case, one has now the fermionic constraints in duplicate form. On this reason the second step of supplementation scheme is not necessary here. Eq.(52) can be rewritten equivalently as

$`D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha =0,\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^2\right)^\alpha =0;`$ (56)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha =0,D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^2\right)^\alpha =0,`$ (57)
where Eq.(56) (Eq.(57)) contains 1CC (2CC) correspondingly. According to the statement 2), the equivalent system is

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^2\right)^\alpha =0`$ (58)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha +D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^2\right)^\alpha =0.`$ (59)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }`$ consist of 16 irreducible 1CC and $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }`$ represents 16 irreducible 2CC. Non zero Poisson bracket is

$`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha },\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\beta }\}=4i\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\left(D^\mu +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \right)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }\delta \left(\sigma \sigma ^{}\right),`$ (60)
and is manifestly non degenerated.

Covariant and irreducible gauge for 1CC $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }=0`$ can be chosen as

$`R_\alpha \mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^1\right)_\alpha +D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^2\right)_\alpha =0.`$ (61)
The corresponding bracket

$`\{\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha },R_\beta \}=[2\left(D\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\delta _\beta ^\alpha +4iT(D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu _1\theta ^1\right)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \theta ^2\right)_\beta `$ (62)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu _1\theta ^2\right)^\alpha \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\nu \theta ^1\right)_\beta )\left]\delta \right(\sigma \sigma ^{}),`$ (63)
is manifestly non degenerated also.

## 5 Type IIA Green-Schwarz superstring with irreducible second class constraints.

The type IIA formulation can be obtained from Eqs.(44)- (51) by substitution $`\theta ^{2\alpha }\theta _\alpha ^2`$ as well as $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^\mu \stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^{\mu \alpha \beta }`$ in each place where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-matrix is associated with the spinor $`\theta ^2`$. The fermionic constraints are

$`L_\alpha ^1p_{\theta 1\alpha }iB_1^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \theta ^1\right)_\alpha =0,`$ (64)
$`L^{2\alpha }p_{\theta 2}^\alpha iB_2^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu \theta ^2\right)^\alpha =0.`$ (65)
They belong to two inequivalent representations of $`SO(1,9)`$ group and thus can not be recombined in the Poincare covariant way. Moreover, there is no of natural object in the problem which can be used for raising (lowering) of spinor index. Nevertheless, after separation of the constraints, part of them can be arranged into irreducible subsets. Repeating the same procedure as in $`N=1`$ case, one obtains the additional sector

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,p_{\eta \alpha }=0.`$ (66)
Then Eqs.(64), (66) can be rewritten in the equivalent form

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta \right)^\alpha =0,`$ (67)
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu L^2\right)_\alpha =0,`$ (68)
$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu L^1\right)^\alpha +D^\mu \left(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mu p_\eta \right)^\alpha =0,`$ (69)
$`G^{\left(2\right)\alpha }D^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu L^2\right)_\alpha +\mathrm{\Lambda }^\mu \left(\mathrm{\Gamma }^\mu \eta \right)_\alpha =0,`$ (70)
Here $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(1\right)\alpha }`$ are irreducible 1CC while $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{\left(2\right)\alpha }G^{\left(2\right)\alpha }`$ form irreducible set of 2CC. Thus, only 1CC in Eq.(68) remain reducible.

## 6 Conclusion

In this work we have analysed a possibility to apply the supplementation scheme  to the Green-Schwarz superstring. It was shown that type IIB theory represents an exceptional case, namely, both first and second class constraints can be arranged into irreducible sets (58) in the initial formulation. It implies that the standard path integral quantization methods can be applied to the resulting system (58) in a manifestly covariant form.

For the type IIA theory only 2CC can be arranged into irreducible set (69).

For both cases consistent Dirac bracket can be constructed and then the corresponding 2CC can be eliminated in a covariant way. It leads to the intriguing suggestion that it may exist manifestly $`D10`$ supersymmetric action which is equivalent to Type II GS superstring and which contains 1CC only.

For $`N=1`$ case we have proposed the modified action (18). In addition to usual superspace coordinates it involves a pair of the Majorana-Weyl spinors. The additional variables are subject to reducible constraints (24), (25), which supply their nonphysical character (see discussion after Eq.(10)). Equivalence of the modified action and the initial one was proved in the canonical quantization framework (see discussion after Eq.(25)). We have demonstrated also how the state spectrum can be studied in the covariant gauge for $`\kappa `$-symmetry. In the modified formulation first class constraints form irreducible set (11) and are separated from the second class one (12), (13). The corresponding covariant gauge (26) is irreducible also, which garantees applicability of the usual path integral methods for the 1CC sector of the theory.

## Acknowledgments.

The work has been supported partially by Project GRACENAS No 97-6.2-34.


text:
# Regularization for effective field theory with two heavy particles

## 1 Introduction

One of the necessary ingredients in an effective field theory (EFT) is the ultraviolet regularization. A natural regularization for the EFT is one that removes from loop integrals all contributions with momenta above the EFT energy scale, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{EFT}}`$, and that also implements a low-energy counting by making the small energy scales in the EFT, namely small momenta and light particle masses, the scales that set the magnitude of power ultraviolet divergences. One example of such a natural regularization is dimensional regularization in EFT with only light particles, such as Chiral Perturbation Theory (ChPT)  for quasi-Goldstone pions. In dimensional regularization the scale of ChPT is given in terms of the pion decay constant $`F_\pi `$, and power divergences of loop integrals are proportional to the small scales ($`M_\pi ^2`$ and/or invariants formed with the small external momenta) divided by the appropriate powers of $`F_\pi `$. Although a momentum cutoff can be used, it does not deal well with power divergences, as these contain pieces proportional to powers of the cutoff. In this case, an EFT can also be formulated, but it is more complicated to deal with because the low-energy power counting must be recovered in the process of renormalization.

In an EFT with a heavy stable particle, such as ChPT with nucleons, the heavy particle mass $`M`$ is a new scale in the theory (some heavy masses could be much larger than $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{EFT}}`$, e.g., baryon masses in large-$`N_\text{c}`$ QCD). With the inclusion of $`M`$, dimensional regularization ceases to be a natural regularization. Indeed, the power divergences lead now to contributions proportional to fractional powers of $`M`$, i.e. contributions that give rise to terms that are powers of $`M^2`$ times $`\mathrm{log}M^2`$ in $`d4`$ dimensions. One such example is the nucleon self-energy in ChPT calculated in dimensional regularization . Although the EFT can be consistently regularized with dimensional regularization, a natural regularization is more convenient.

In the case, where a single heavy particle propagates through a Feynman diagram, one way to remove fractional powers of $`M`$  is to perform an expansion in $`1/M`$ at the level of the Lagrangian , eliminating in this way $`M`$ from the propagators. This approach implies that all the Green functions must be analytic functions of $`1/M`$ in the low-energy region. This, however, is not correct because there are low-energy singularities in $`1/M`$, such as the anomalous thresholds (e.g., in the scalar form factor of the nucleon ), which the EFT must retain. Recently, a regularization based on dimensional regularization that avoids these problems of the $`1/M`$ expansion was developed. Building on work by Ellis and Tang , Becher and Leutwyler  developed a regularization scheme that is natural, preserves the low-energy structure and internal symmetries, and is Lorentz covariant. This regularization has been called infrared regularization.

In the case of two heavy particles, the $`1/M`$ expansion cannot be applied due to the two-heavy particle threshold in the s-channel. It is, therefore, very important to develop a natural regularization for this case as well. In this letter such a regularization is developed along lines similar to those of the infrared regularization . Starting from standard dimensional regularization, a modification of the Feynman parameter integration domain is introduced leading to a natural regularization. Its implementation is presented in a Lorentz covariant framework for basic one-loop diagrams.

## 2 Regularization of one-loop diagrams

In this section, the basic one-loop diagrams in the two-heavy-particle sector are discussed: these are the bubble diagram Fig. 1, the triangle diagram Fig. 2 and the box diagram Fig. 4. In each case, the dimensionally regularized Feynman integral $`I`$ can be decomposed into

$$I=\overline{I}+R,$$
(1)
where the fractional powers of $`M`$ are entirely contained in $`R`$. In addition, $`R`$ is an analytic function in the low-energy domain (i.e. local) and is referred to as the regular part. The low-energy part $`\overline{I}`$ contains all the low-energy analytic structure of the integral. Because $`\overline{I}`$ does not contain any fractional powers of $`M`$, it satisfies a low-energy power counting as discussed in Sect. 3. The loop integral in the EFT Dimensional Regularization (EFTDR) is then identified with $`\overline{I}`$.

The low-energy domain is expressed in terms of the heavy mass $`M`$, the light mass $`m`$, and the invariants $`P_iP_j`$ formed with the external heavy particle momenta, and is defined by the conditions $`P_iP_jM^2\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{EFT}}^2`$ and $`m\mathrm{\Lambda }_{\text{EFT}}`$. As in ChPT, low energy quantities such as $`m`$, external momenta of light particles, differences of external momenta of heavy particles, etc., will be said to be of order $`p`$.

Although integrals that carry factors of the loop momentum in the numerator are not explicitly presented here, such integrals can be reduced to combinations of scalar integrals of the form discussed here, to integrals that involve only one heavy propagator that can be regularized using the infrared regularization, and to integrals that involve only light propagators.

### 2.1 The bubble diagram

The simplest diagram in the two-heavy-particle sector is the bubble diagram of Fig. 1 with the two heavy particles propagating in the s-channel. The scalar integral for this diagram is

$`I_2(s,M^2)`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{4d}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P}{2}k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}\frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P}{2}+k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}},`$ (2)
where $`sP^2`$ and $`P`$ is the total incoming momentum. Combining the propagators using a Feynman parameter integral, the integration over momentum yields

$`I_2=\kappa _2{\displaystyle _1^1}\text{d}w\left[{\displaystyle \frac{s}{4}}(w^21)+M^2\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^{d/22},`$ (3)
with

$`\kappa _2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(4\pi )^2}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}})(4\pi \mu ^2)^{2d/2}.`$ (4)
This integral has a pinch singularity at $`w=0`$ when $`s=s_+4M^2`$, which is the branch point of the two-heavy-particle cut. The integration boundaries give rise to fractional powers of $`M`$ which spoil low-energy power counting. This can be shown below threshold by scaling the small quantity $`(M^2s/4)`$ out of Eq. (3):

$`I_2=\kappa _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{4}}\right)^{d/22}\alpha ^{d3}{\displaystyle _{\frac{1}{\alpha }}^{\frac{1}{\alpha }}}\text{d}w(w^2+1)^{d/22},`$ (5)
where

$`\alpha \sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{s_+s\mathrm{i}ϵ}{s}}}`$ (6)
is a small quantity in the low-energy domain which characterizes the infrared behavior of the bubble diagram. From Eq. (5) it is clear that only the integral limits can change the power of $`\alpha `$.

The integral can then be separated into its regular and low-energy part:

$`I_2=\overline{I}_2+R_2,`$ (7)
with

$`\overline{I}_2\kappa _2\left({\displaystyle \frac{s}{4}}\right)^{d/22}\alpha ^{d3}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\text{d}w(w^2+1)^{d/22}.`$ (8)
$`\overline{I}_2`$ and $`I_2`$ have the same low-energy analytic structure as can be verified for $`d4`$, where

$`I_2`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{16\pi ^2}}\left[\mathrm{\Gamma }(2{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}})+\mathrm{log}\left({\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)2+2\alpha \mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\right)\right],`$ (9)
and where, after performing one integration by parts,

$`\overline{I}_2={\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{16\pi }}\alpha .`$ (10)
$`\overline{I}_2`$ is, therefore, given by the term of order $`\alpha `$ in the Taylor expansion of Eq. (9) in powers of $`\alpha `$, as can be immediately seen from

$`\alpha \mathrm{arctan}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\alpha }}\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{2}}\alpha \alpha \mathrm{arctan}\alpha ,`$ (11)
The term $`\alpha \mathrm{arctan}\alpha `$ is analytic in $`s_+s`$ in the low-energy region. It is then clear that $`\overline{I}_2`$ and $`I_2`$ have the same low energy analytic structure.

In arbitrary d-dimensions, $`\overline{I}_2`$ is proportional to $`(s_+s)^{(d3)/2}/\sqrt{s}`$, which implies that it does not contain fractional powers of $`M`$. On the other hand, for $`d4`$, $`R_2`$ is given by

$`R_2=2{\displaystyle \frac{M^{d4}}{d3}}\kappa _2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{8\pi ^2}}\alpha \mathrm{arctan}\alpha ,`$ (12)
while in the low-energy domain and for arbitrary $`d`$

$`R_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\kappa _2M^{d4}{\displaystyle \underset{m,n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}c_{m,n}{\displaystyle \frac{(s_+s)^{m+n}}{s_+^ms^n}},`$ (13)
where

$`c_{m,n}{\displaystyle \frac{(1)^m\mathrm{\Gamma }^2(\frac{d}{2}1)}{(d32n)m!n!\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2}1m)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{d}{2}1n)}},`$ (14)
which shows that $`R_2`$ is given by terms analytic in $`ss_+`$ multiplied by a fractional power of $`M`$. In particular, this shows that the analytic terms not included in $`\overline{I}_2`$ are all of fractional-power type.

The separation into a low-energy part and a regular part with the desired properties has been achieved. Indeed, from Eqs. (6) and (10) it is seen that $`\overline{I}_2`$ has two cuts: a cut due to the factor $`\sqrt{s_+s}`$ starting at $`s=s_+`$ and a cut along the negative axis ending at $`s=0`$ due to the factor of $`1/\sqrt{s}`$. The discontinuity of $`I_2`$ and $`\overline{I}_2`$ across the cut on the positive $`s`$-axis are equal, and therefore $`\overline{I}_2`$ reproduces the low energy analytic structure of $`I_2`$. The cut along the negative $`s`$-axis is located far outside the low-energy region. Moreover, $`\overline{I}_2`$ does not carry any fractional power of $`M`$. On the other hand, $`R_2`$ is purely of fractional power type, and has only the cut along the negative $`s`$-axis.

### 2.2 The triangle diagram

The next diagram to be considered is the triangle diagram shown in Fig. 2 with two heavy particles propagating in the $`s`$-channel and interacting via a contact interaction and the exchange of a light particle of mass $`m`$.

The scalar integral for this diagram is

$$\begin{array}{c}I_3(s,P_1^2,P_2^2,m^2,M^2)\hfill \\ \hfill =\mu ^{4d}\frac{\mathrm{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(P_1+k)^2M^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{(P_2k)^2M^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}\frac{\mathrm{i}}{k^2m^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}.\end{array}$$
(15)
Combining the heavy propagators with a symmetric Feynman parameter integral,

$$\frac{1}{A_1A_2}=\frac{1}{2}_1^1\frac{\mathrm{d}w}{\left(\frac{1+w}{2}A_1+\frac{1w}{2}A_2\right)^2},$$
(16)
and subsequently combining this result with the light propagator using

$$\frac{1}{aA^2}=2_0^1\frac{z\mathrm{d}z}{\left((1z)a+zA\right)^3},$$
(17)
the momentum integration yields

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill I_3& =\kappa _3_0^1dz_1^1dwz\left[C(w,z)\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^{d/23},\hfill \\ \hfill \kappa _3& =\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\frac{d}{2})(4\pi \mu ^2)^{2d/2},\hfill \\ \hfill C(w,z)& =(1z)m^2+zM^2z^2(1w^2)\frac{s}{4}\hfill \\ & z(1z)\frac{1}{2}(P_1^2+P_2^2)wz(1z)\frac{1}{2}(P_1^2P_2^2).\hfill \end{array}$$
(18)
In order to decompose $`I_3`$ into its low-energy and regular parts,

$$I_3=\overline{I}_3+R_3,$$
(19)
the integration range in $`w`$ is first extended to the entire real axis in analogy to the bubble diagram,

$$\overline{I}_{3\text{A}}=\kappa _3_0^1dz_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}dwz\left[C(w,z)\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^{d/23}.$$
(20)
$`\overline{I}_{3\text{A}}`$ contains the proper singularity structure associated with the two-heavy-particle threshold at $`s=s_+`$ but does not contain the two-particle cuts corresponding to the heavy-light thresholds at $`P_i^2=(M+m)^2`$, ($`i=1,2`$). All this becomes clear by solving the corresponding Landau equations111For a review on Landau equations see Refs.  and references therein. that determine the location of the singularities in the $`(w,z)`$-parameter plane shown in Fig. 3. The two-particle thresholds are endpoint singularities, i.e., they lie on the boundary of the original integration domain $`[1,1]\times [0,1]`$. The two-heavy-particle cut (indicated by $`\times `$ in Fig. 3) occurs at $`(0,1)`$ and is unaffected by extending the domain as in Eq. (20). On the other hand, the heavy-light thresholds (indicated by $``$) are located at $`(+1,\frac{m}{M+m})`$ and $`(1,\frac{m}{M+m})`$, and are lost. The heavy-light thresholds, indeed the full low-energy analytic structure, are restored by defining the low-energy part as

$$\overline{I}_3=\overline{I}_{3\text{A}}+\overline{I}_{3\text{B}},$$
(21)
with

$$\overline{I}_{3\text{B}}=\kappa _3_0^{\mathrm{}}dz\left(_{\mathrm{}}^1dw+_1^{\mathrm{}}dw\right)z\left[C(w,z)\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^{d/23}.$$
(22)
It is evident from Fig. 3 that $`\overline{I}_3`$ properly incorporates all two-particle thresholds at low energies and does not pick up any new low-energy endpoint singularities on the physical sheet.222In particular, the pseudo-thresholds $`P_i^2=(Mm)^2`$ located at $`(\pm 1,m/(Mm))`$ and indicated by $``$ in Fig. 3 are *not* promoted to thresholds on the physical sheet. It is also important to note that $`\overline{I}_3`$ receives no additional contribution from the leading (i.e. pinch) singularity (dark shaded area in Fig. 3) other than that already present in $`I_3`$. This ensures that the analytic properties of $`\overline{I}_3`$ and $`I_3`$ coincide in the low-energy domain and implies that $`R_3`$ is analytic there.

By virtue of Eqs. (19) and (21) the regular part is

$`R_3`$ $`=\kappa _3{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}dz\left({\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^1}dw+{\displaystyle _1^{\mathrm{}}}dw\right)z\left[C(w,z)\mathrm{i}ϵ\right]^{d/23}.`$ (23)
The dependence on fractional powers of $`M`$ stems from the corner points located at $`(\pm 1,1)`$ (indicated by $``$ in Fig. 3) and is entirely contained in $`R_3`$. It is instructive to verify this dependence on fractional powers of $`M`$ explicitly. The denominator in Eq. (23) is non-vanishing and of zeroth order in the low energy expansion in the whole integration domain and can, therefore, be expanded in $`m^2`$ and the small variables $`s_+s`$, $`P_i^2M^2`$:

$$C(w,z)=M^2z^2w^2+𝒪(s_+s;P_i^2M^2;m^2).$$
(24)
The leading contribution in an expansion of $`R_3`$ is then

$`R_3`$ $`=2\kappa _3M^{d6}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d5}}\left(1+\mathrm{}\right)`$ (25)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{16\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2M^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{4d}}2\gamma \mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{M^2}{4\pi \mu ^2}}\right)\left(1+\mathrm{}\right),`$ (26)
where the omitted terms are analytic in the small quantities. The reason why $`R_3`$ has an ultraviolet divergence despite $`I_3`$ being ultraviolet finite is that in order to contain the fractional powers of $`M`$ while being regular in the low-energy domain, it must include the appropriate logarithmic dependence on $`\mu `$, and this can only emerge if there is a $`1/(d4)`$ singularity.

The low-energy parts are shown below for $`d4`$. The integral $`\overline{I}_{3A}`$ is given by:

$$\overline{I}_{3\text{A}}=\frac{1}{16\pi \sqrt{s}}_0^1dz\frac{1}{\sqrt{C_0}},$$
(27)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill C_0& =zM^2+(1z)m^2\frac{z^2s}{4}\frac{1}{2}z(1z)(P_1^2+P_2^2)\frac{(1z)^2}{4s}(P_1^2P_2^2)^2\mathrm{i}ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(28)
and the integral $`\overline{I}_{3B}`$ is on the other hand given by:

$$\begin{array}{c}\overline{I}_{3\text{B}}=\frac{1}{16\pi ^2}\{(\frac{2}{4d}\gamma \mathrm{log}\frac{m^2}{4\pi \mu ^2})(\frac{2}{s}+\mathrm{})\hfill \\ \hfill +\frac{1}{2}(_{\mathrm{}}^1\mathrm{d}w+_1^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{d}w)\frac{z_0}{\sqrt{D_0D_1}}(\frac{\pi }{2}+\mathrm{arctan}\left(\sqrt{\frac{D_1}{D_0}}z_0\right))\},\end{array}$$
(29)
with

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill z_0& =\frac{1}{4D_1}\left(2(m^2M^2)+(1+w)P_1^2+(1w)P_2^2\right),\hfill \\ \hfill D_1& =\frac{1}{2}\left((1+w)P_1^2+(1w)P_2^2(1w^2)\frac{s}{2}\right),\hfill \\ \hfill D_0& =m^2\frac{1}{4D_1}\left(M^2m^2\frac{1}{2}(1+w)P_1^2\frac{1}{2}(1w)P_2^2\right)^2\mathrm{i}ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(30)
It is to be noted that the integral $`\overline{I}_{3A}`$ has no ultraviolet divergences. Such divergences can only come from the boundary contributions in the integration by parts over $`w`$, which in this case have to vanish because the domain of integration extends to the entire real axis. The low energy parts do not contain any fractional powers of $`M`$, as their explicit evaluation reveals the absence of $`\mathrm{log}M^2`$ terms. Thus, as in the case of the bubble diagram, the separation into low-energy and regular parts is also possible in the triangle diagram. The general procedure is now clear and can be easily carried over to other diagrams. As an illustration, we show this for the box diagram.

### 2.3 The box diagram

The scalar integral for the box diagram in Fig. 4 is

$`I_4`$ $`=`$ $`\mu ^{4d}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P_1+P_3}{2}+k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}\frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P_2+P_4}{2}k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}}`$ (31)
$`\times {\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P_3P_1}{2}k)^2m^2+\text{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{i}}{(\frac{P_3P_1}{2}+k)^2m^2+\text{i}ϵ}}.`$
The light particle propagators can be combined to yield:

$`I_4=\mu ^{4d}{\displaystyle \frac{}{m^2}}`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}`$ $`\text{d}x{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}^dk}{(2\pi )^d}\frac{1}{[k\overline{q}(x)]^2\overline{m}^2(x)+\text{i}ϵ}}`$ (32)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\text{1}}{(\frac{P_1+P_3}{2}+k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{1}}{(\frac{P_2+P_4}{2}k)^2M^2+\text{i}ϵ}},`$
with

$$\overline{q}(x)\frac{1}{2}(P_3P_1)(12x)\text{and}\overline{m}(x)m^2(P_3P_1)^2x(1x).$$

Both $`\overline{q}(x)`$ and $`\overline{m}(x)`$ are small throughout the range of integration of $`x`$. Thus, the momentum integral is seen to be analogous to the triangle diagram. The procedure for separating $`I_4`$ into its regular and low-energy parts, $`I_4=\overline{I}_4+R_4`$, is therefore identical to the prescription given for the triangle diagram in the previous sub-section.

## 3 Discussion

It has been shown that each basic one-loop integral $`I`$ in the two-heavy-particle sector can be decomposed into a low-energy part $`\overline{I}`$ whose low-energy analytic structure coincides with that of $`I`$, and a regular part which consists of the terms in $`I`$ that have factors of fractional powers of the large mass $`M`$. The EFTDR is now implemented by discarding $`R`$, which amounts to removing specific local terms in the low-energy domain. The EFTDR so defined is a natural regularization.

The local terms in $`\overline{I}`$ can be ordered according to a power counting scheme in the low-energy scales generically denoted by $`p`$. For a given one-loop diagram the leading order term is of order $`p^\nu `$ with $`\nu =d2n_{\mathrm{}}n_\text{h}+n_\text{n}`$, where $`n_{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`n_\text{h}`$ are respectively the numbers of light and heavy propagators, and $`n_\text{n}`$ is the number of factors of small quantities in the numerator. This power counting is the standard one obtained in the $`1/M`$ expansion .

The different non-analytic terms can be classified according to their infrared behavior. In particular, some of them are more singular than the local terms. For example, the low-energy power counting for the bubble diagram would be $`\nu =2`$, but Eq. (10) shows that it is more singular than this. If one takes $`s4M^2`$ to be of order $`p^2`$, the bubble diagram is of order $`p`$. In the case of the triangle, $`\nu =0`$, while $`\overline{I}_{3\text{A}}`$ is more singular by one unit. As it is well known, these more singular behaviors are associated with the existence of the two-heavy-particle threshold.

As first noticed in reference , the fact that the low-energy and regular parts have different behaviors in $`M`$ (the regular part being entirely of fractional power of M and the low-energy part having no such terms), implies that the symmetries respected by dimensional regularization are also respected by each part separately and, therefore, by EFTDR.

Finally, the generalization to diagrams that involve insertions of small external momenta can be carried out quite easily. First, the propagators along each heavy particle line are separately combined using two sets of Feynman parameters, and a parameter $`w`$ is then used to combine the two results. Next, and after combining the light particle propagators, a second parameter $`z`$ is used to combine this result with that of the heavy propagators. The integration over the loop momentum is then performed, and subsequently the integration domain in $`(w,z)`$ is extended as in the case of the triangle diagram, leaving the integration domains of the remaining Feynman parameters unchanged. A more extensive presentation of this and other points in this letter will be given elsewhere .

This work was supported by the Department of Energy through contract DE-AC05-84ER40150 (JLG), by the National Science Foundation through grants # PHY-9733343 (JLG and JS) and \# HRD-9633750 (DL and GP), by the Deutsche Forschungemeinschaft through project Le 1189/1-1 (DL), and by sabbatical leave support from the Southeastern Universities Research Association (JLG).


text:
# A perturbative approach to the Bak-Sneppen Model

\[

## Abstract

We study the Bak-Sneppen model in the probabilistic framework of the Run Time Statistics (RTS). This model has attracted a large interest for its simplicity being a prototype for the whole class of models showing Self-Organized Criticality. The dynamics is characterized by a self-organization of almost all the species fitnesses above a non-trivial threshold value, and by a lack of spatial and temporal characteristic scales. This results in avalanches of activity power law distributed. In this letter we use the RTS approach to compute the value of $`x_c`$, the value of the avalanche exponent $`\tau `$ and the asymptotic distribution of minimal fitnesses.

\]

The concept of Self-Organized Criticality (SOC) has been introduced in order to explain the ubiquitous presence of scale free phenomena in Nature. Ranging from fractures to river basins, the lack of spatial and/or temporal characteristic scales is the main feature of these processes. To detect if an underlying general mechanism exists, two paradigmatic models have been introduced. One mimics the evolution of sandpiles , and the other one, has been originally introduced to mimic punctuated equilibrium in the evolution of the ecology of species. We focus here on the latter one, known as Bak-Sneppen (BS) model. We develop a perturbative approach to BS based on the Run Time Statistics . This allows us to evaluate the main quantities for the model in the stationary state: the fitnesses histogram, the distribution of minimal fitnesses, and the avalanche exponent.

The BS model is defined as follows: an $`1`$-d ring of $`N`$ different sites models the $`N`$ species present in the ecosystem. Links between first nearest neighbor (fnn) sites model interaction between species (i.e. predation). A random number $`x_i[0,1]`$, extracted from the uniform probability density function (pdf) $`f_0(x)=1`$, is assigned to each site/species $`i`$ in the system. The $`x_i`$’s quantify the fitness of species $`i`$ to survive the competition with the other species in the environment. At each time step, the species with the minimal fitness is selected and removed. The species connected to it through predation (i.e. the fnn) are also removed, regardless their fitness. Three new species with randomly extracted fitnesses take their place. We refer to this updating rule of the model as the refreshing rule. After a transient period this system self-organizes in a stationary state characterized by two main features: (1) the normalized fitnesses histogram $`\varphi (x)`$ is given, apart from corrections of order $`1/N`$, by $`\varphi (x)=\theta (xx_c)/(1x_c)`$, where $`\theta (x)`$ is the usual step function, and $`x_c=0.66702(3)`$ ; (2) the stationary dynamics evolves as a sequence of critical avalanches , the duration $`s`$ of which is power law distributed: $`P(s)s^\tau `$ with $`\tau 1.07`$.

The best analytical results for BS come from mean field approaches giving a threshold $`x_c=1/3`$ , very far from the real numerical value. This striking disagreement lead us to investigate if the actual value can be computed by using a theoretical tool, called Run Time Statistics (RTS) . RTS is designed to study growth processes in a medium with quenched disorder. In particular, the main results  obtained through RTS deal with the class of models derived by the Invasion Percolation (IP) in $`d=2`$, to which the BS model can be related.

RTS is based on the intuitive idea that the larger the number of time-steps one species survives, then probably the larger its fitness is. In other words, if at the first time-step with no information, one assigns a uniform pdf for the species fitnesses, at successive time-steps information about the history increases the effective pdf at high fitness values for the surviving species. More formally, this information is stored in effective (conditional) pdf’s $`\{f_{i,t}(x)\}`$ of the quenched disorder variables $`\{x_i\}`$. These effective pdf’s can then be used to develop a step by step algorithm to describe probabilistically the whole tree of the possible dynamics of the system, starting from the last available situation . Let us suppose to know at time $`t`$ the set of effective pdf’s $`\{f_{i,t}(x)\}`$. By using joint probability, it is possible to write for each species the effective probability to be selected at that time-step, and one can update the effective pdf’s, obtaining the new set of functions $`\{f_{i,t+1}(x)\}`$. For example, consider a limit case with a system composed only by two sites $`a,b`$. The minimum is selected and refreshed without affecting the other. At the beginning ($`t=0`$) both pdf’s are uniform and equal to $`1`$, and the probability $`\mu _{a,0},\mu _{b,0}`$ to be selected for sites $`a,b`$ are both equal to $`1/2`$. We assume without loss of generality that $`x_a<x_b`$. By using the postulate of the theory of conditioned probability

$`f_{a,1}(x_a)`$ $`=`$ $`1`$ (1)
$`f_{b,1}(x_b)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{f_{b,0}(x_b)}{\mu _{a,0}}}{\displaystyle _0^{x_b}}𝑑x_af_{a,0}(x_a)=2x_b`$ (2)
and consequently

$`\mu _{a,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_bf_{b,1}(x_b){\displaystyle _0^{x_a}}𝑑x_af_{a,1}(x_a)=2/3`$ (3)
$`\mu _{b,1}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x_af_{a,1}(x_a){\displaystyle _0^{x_a}}𝑑x_bf_{b,1}(x_b)=1/3.`$ (4)
That is the just refreshed site has a larger probability to grow. This argument can be easily generalized for any time $`t`$. For instance, if the site selected is always the same, $`f_{b,t}=(t+1)(x_b)^t`$ and $`\mu _{b,t}=\frac{1}{t+2}\frac{1}{t}`$.

In order to implement this program for the BS, one needs only an initial site configuration with known $`\{f_{i,t}(x)\}`$. There are two possibilities: (i) to follow the dynamics from the first time step $`t=0`$, having obviously $`f_{i,0}(x)f_0(x)=1`$ for each $`i`$; (ii) to start at an arbitrary time $`t`$ for which the set $`\{f_{i,t}(x)\}`$ is known. In the following, we consider mainly the case (ii): the system is considered already at the critical stationary state, just after the first step of a critical avalanche. We call the site selected at this first step the initiator of the avalanche. We recall that the initiator fitness  lies in an interval of order $`1/N`$ around $`x_c`$, and all the other sites have a fitness $`x>x_c`$. Avalanches are defined as geometrically and causally connected sequences of growths. Since it has been proved that each avalanche is independent on the others, the probabilistic study of a generic critical avalanche provides a complete statistical description of the stationary state. Without loss of generality, we consider the initiator placed at $`i=0`$ and its selection at $`t=0`$. At $`t=1`$, the just grown initiator and its two fnn sites have the fitness uniformly distributed because of the refreshing rule (i.e. $`f_{0,1}(x)=f_{1,1}(x)=f_{1,1}(x)=f_0(x)=1`$). Let us call $`A_t`$ (active sites) the set of sites refreshed by the avalanche up to its $`t^{th}`$ step. Consequently, $`A_1`$ is composed by the three sites $`1,0,+1`$. The set $`A_t`$ defines a connected segment on the system because of the geometrical connectivity of an avalanche. One can represent the evolution of the system as a branching process (see Fig. 1). At each time-step, the growth of each active site corresponds to a branching event.

The growth of “non-active” sites are not included in the branching tree, because this implies the end of the avalanche and the beginning of a new one. Any finite connected path on this branching tree represents a single realization of the avalanche. The tree contains all the possible realizations of the avalanche with a given initiator.

The RTS approach to an avalanche in the critical stationary state can be formulated as follows. The avalanche proceeds, after the selection of the initiator, if at least one of the three sites belonging to $`A_1`$ has fitness below $`x_c`$. In general, at the $`t^{th}`$ time-step of the avalanche, if one knows the effective pdf $`f_{i,t}(x)`$ for each site $`iA_t`$, one can write the effective growth probability of site $`i`$ conditioned to the fixed past history:

$$\mu _{i,t}=_0^{x_c}𝑑x_if_{i,t}(x_i)\underset{ji}{}\left[_{x_i}^1𝑑yf_{j,t}(y)\right]$$
(5)
Each of these possible growth events corresponds to a branch of the tree leading from the starting configuration to a new one characterized by a new set $`A_{t+1}`$ of active sites with their new effective pdf’s. The set of sites $`A_{t+1}`$ is related with the “mother” set $`A_t`$. If the just grown site $`i`$ is not an extreme of the segment defined by $`A_t`$, then $`A_{t+1}A_t`$. If, instead, $`i`$ is the left (right) extreme of $`A_t`$, then the left (right) fnn of $`i`$ must be added to $`A_t`$ in order to obtain $`A_{t+1}`$. After the selection of the site $`i`$, the new effective pdf’s of the sites belonging to $`A_{t+1}`$ are obtained from those of $`A_t`$ by applying both the refreshing rule of the dynamics and the law of conditional probability $`P(B|A)=\frac{P(AB)}{P(A)}`$ to store the information about the last growth event:

$`f_{k,t+1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{f_{k,t}(x)}{\mu _{i,t}}_0^x𝑑x_if_{i,t}(x_i)_j[_{x_i}^1𝑑yf_{j,t}(y)]xx_c& \\ \hfill f_{k,t}(x_c)x>x_c& \end{array}`$ (8)
$`f_{i,t+1}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`f_{i1,t+1}(x)=f_{i+1,t+1}(x)=f_0(x)=1`$ (9)
where $`k`$ is any species in the set $`A_t`$ different from $`i`$ and its neighbors, and $`j`$ is an active site different from $`k,i`$. The pdf of an active site is always constant above $`x_c`$ because in the stationary state no site with $`x>x_c`$ grows, then no information is available for $`x>x_c`$. Through this algorithm one can store step by step information on the fitnesses from the actual fixed history of the avalanche. By iterating Eqs.(5,9), one can write for a time-length $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the probability of any connected path $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$ belonging to the tree as

$$W(𝒞(\mathrm{\Delta }t))=\underset{t=0}{\overset{\mathrm{\Delta }t}{}}\mu _{i_t,t},$$
(10)
where $`i_t`$ is a site growing at time $`t^{th}`$ of the path $`𝒞(\mathrm{\Delta }t)`$.

Let us now write an equation for the average fitness histogram $`\varphi _t(x)`$. From the refreshing rule, one has

$$\begin{array}{cc}N\varphi _{t+1}(x)=N\varphi _t(x)m_{i,t+1}(x)\widehat{f}_{i1,t+1}(x)\hfill & \\ \widehat{f}_{i+1,t+1}(x)+3,\hfill & \end{array}$$
(11)
where $`m_{i,t+1}(x)`$, $`\widehat{f}_{i1,t+1}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{f}_{i+1,t}(x)`$ are the effective pdf’s that sites $`i,i1,i+1`$ would have respectively after the selection of site $`i`$, if their fitnesses were not refreshed. Eq.(11) states that three species are removed with their pdf’s, and three new species with uniform pdf enter. Considering the average $`\mathrm{}`$ of Eq.(11) over all the possible paths, and imposing the stationarity condition $`\varphi _{t+1}(x)=\varphi _t(x)=\varphi (x)`$, one has:

$$m_i(x)+\widehat{f}_{i1}(x)+\widehat{f}_{i+1}(x)=3,$$
(12)
We use Eq.(12) to estimate $`x_c`$ and the behavior of $`\varphi (x)`$ under the simple hypothesis that all the sites not touched by the avalanche have a fitness $`x>x_c`$ (which comes from the stationarity condition). The functions $`\widehat{f}_{i1,t+1}(x)`$ and $`\widehat{f}_{i+1,t+1}(x)`$ are given by the second line of Eq.(9) with $`k=i1`$ and $`k=i+1`$ respectively. In order to perform the average $`\mathrm{}`$, one has to consider all the ways in which the selection of site $`i`$ represents the $`t^{th}`$ step of an avalanche (i.e. one has to consider all the finite paths of the tree of Fig. 1). Then one can write:

$`\widehat{f}_{i1}(x)+\widehat{f}_{i+1}(x)`$ (13)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{_t_{𝒞(t)}W(𝒞(t))\left[\widehat{f}_{i1,t+1}(x)+\widehat{f}_{i+1,t+1}(x)\right]_{𝒞(t)}}{_t_{𝒞(t)}W(𝒞(t))}},`$ (14)
where $`W(𝒞(t))`$ is the RTS statistical weight of the generic path $`𝒞(t)`$ of length $`t`$, in the tree of Fig. 1, given by Eq.(10). Moreover $`[..]_{𝒞(t)}`$ indicates that the functions inside brackets are evaluated by applying step by step the RTS algorithm to the path $`𝒞(t)`$. Note, anyway, that if $`i`$ is the left (right) extreme of $`A_t`$, then the knowledge of the path does not give any information about the sites $`i1`$ ($`i+1`$) apart that, before refreshment, $`x_{i1}>x_c`$ ($`x_{i+1}>x_c`$). In this case we can approximate $`[\widehat{f}_{i1,t+1}(x)]_{𝒞(t)}=\varphi (x)`$ ($`[\widehat{f}_{i+1,t+1}(x)]_{𝒞(t)}=\varphi (x)`$). Distinguishing these last terms in $`\varphi (x)`$ in Eq. (13) from the others, one can write:

$$\widehat{f}_{i1}(x)+\widehat{f}_{i+1}(x)=A(x_c)\varphi (x)+B(x,x_c),$$
(15)
where $`A(x_c)`$ and $`B(x,x_c)`$ are positive functions, and $`B(x,x_c)=B(x_c,x_c)`$ for $`x>x_c`$, because of Eq. (9).

In principle, we should evaluate $`m_i(x)`$ applying the rule of conditional probability in analogy with Eq.(9), and then performing the average as in Eq. (13). However, this would reduce Eq.(12) to a trivial identity. For this reason, in order to evaluate $`m_i(x)`$, we adopt another strategy in the optics of the point (i). We impose that $`x_i`$ is the minimal fitness in the whole system at a certain time-step $`TN`$ from the actual beginning of the dynamics. Consequently, we apply the RTS algorithm from the first time-step  of the dynamics up to $`T`$ (in this case we have to consider all the system sites). In the end, we consider the average $`\mathrm{}`$ over all the possible histories up to time $`T`$. Since for $`TN`$ the system must be in the stationary state , then, after the average, this description must be consistent with the previous one where the system was considered directly in the stationary state. In order to simplify the mathematical treatment, we use the formula obtained for the generalized $`\beta `$-BS model , and we take the limit $`\beta \mathrm{}`$ at the end of calculations:

$$m_i(x)=N\varphi (x)\theta (x_cx),$$
(16)
where $`x_c`$ is defined by the relation $`e^{\beta x_c}=_0^1𝑑x\varphi (x)e^{\beta x}`$ with $`\beta 1`$, which gives also a deeper meaning to $`x_c`$ . Note that in this contest the presence of a finite threshold $`x_c`$ arises naturally, without external assumption. In order to obtain Eq. (16), we used the central limit theorem for $`N1`$  and we made the following approximation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}f_{j,T}(x_j){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}f_{j,T}(x_j)={\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\varphi (x_j).`$

Introducing Eqs. (15) and (16) in Eq. (12), we obtain:

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{3B(x,x_c)}{A(x_c)+N\theta (x_cx)}.$$
(17)
Note that, because of the behavior of $`B(x,x_c)`$, $`\varphi (x)`$ is constant for $`x>x_c`$, while for $`x<x_c`$ is of order $`1/N`$. There is only one value of $`x_c`$ for which $`\varphi (x)`$ is normalized (i.e. $`_0^1\varphi (x)𝑑x=1`$). This value gives the value $`x_c`$ of the BS threshold.

In principle, one should consider the contribution to Eq. (13) coming from any length $`t`$ in the avalanche tree (Fig.1). By stopping the sums at a value $`t=n`$, we obtain an $`n`$-order approximation. We have evaluated the probability of the paths, through RTS, up to $`n=7`$ by using a computer program for numerical integration.

The results for $`x_c`$, for $`n=2`$ up to $`n=7`$, are reported in Fig.2: The best evaluation is $`x_c(n=7)0.465`$, much better than the mean-field result $`x_c=1/3`$, but still quite far from the above reported numerical value. However, we verified that this behavior is compatible with an asymptotic value $`x_c(n\mathrm{})0.66`$. To this aim, we made a fit with the simplest possible function $`x_c(n)=0.66ax^b`$ (Fig.2) which is well compatible with the given asymptotic value. The fit vaues are $`a=0.291\pm 0.003`$ and $`b=0.20\pm 0.03`$. This small value of $`b`$ is due to the fact that the avalanche size distribution $`P(s)`$  is characterized by a small exponent ($`\tau 1.07`$), henceforth all the sizes $`s`$ are important for statistics. One can use $`x_c(n\mathrm{})`$ to evaluate both the avalanche exponent $`\tau `$ and the average minimum distribution $`m(x)m_i(x)`$. The exponent $`\tau `$ can be found studying, using $`x_c(n\mathrm{})=0.66`$ in the Eqs. (5) and (9), the behavior of $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)=_{𝒞(t)}W(𝒞(t))`$ for $`t`$ ranging from $`1`$ to the maximal $`n`$ possible. Indeed $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)`$ is proportional to the probability that the avalanche lasts at least $`t`$ time-steps. In the scaling regime, $`\mathrm{\Omega }(t)t^{\tau +1}`$. Making this hypothesis, the result for $`n=7`$ is $`\tau (n=7)1.05`$ (see insert in Fig.2), which is in agreement with the known numerical value. Clearly, the hypothesis of scaling regime for $`n=7`$ is a strong hypothesis, but it is based on the fact that for Invasion Percolation, which has similar dynamical rules, it has been shown  that the microscopical dynamical rules are already the scale invariant ones. Finally, we can obtain an approximation, of the distribution of the minimal fitness $`m(x)`$ in the stationary state considering the Eqs. (16) and (17), where the latter one is evaluated using RTS up to $`n=7`$, but using $`x_c(n\mathrm{})`$ in the RTS calculations.

Imposing normalization, we obtain the function $`m(x)`$ reported in Fig.3. In the same figure this result is compared with the known asymptotic numerical distribution of minimal fitnesses . The agreement is again quite good, considering the strong approximation in truncating the sums of Eq.(13) at $`n=7`$. Finally, it is worth to note that our method include also the mean-field results for BS. We recall that  in the mean-field version of the model, when a site $`i`$ is selected, the other two sites refreshed are not the fnn sites, but two randomly chosen system sites. This means that in Eq.(12) one has to use $`f_{i1}(x)=f_{i+1}(x)=\varphi (x)`$. Henceforth, the asymptotic histogram becomes:

$$\varphi (x)=\frac{3}{2+N\theta (x_cx)},$$
(18)
that is $`\varphi (x)=O(1/N)`$ for $`x<x_c`$ and $`\varphi (x)=3/2`$ for $`x>x_c`$. Normalizing $`\varphi (x)`$, one gets $`x_c=1/3`$, which is the above cited mean-field result.

In conclusion, this paper presents a kind of perturbative approach to the BS model, based on the probabilistic framework called Run Time Statistics. Through this approach, we compute the self-organized threshold $`x_c`$, the avalanche exponent $`\tau `$, and the stationary distribution of minimal fitnesses $`m(x)`$. In principle one could also obtain in this way the exponent $`\mu `$ characterizing the sites covered by an avalanche. However, since we can reach at the best the $`7^th`$ time step of growth, this results in a very poor statistics for the number of points covered by the paths. Authors acknowledge the support of the EU Network ERBFMRXCT980183.