format: text

text:
# Leading Temperature Corrections to Fermi Liquid Theory in Two Dimensions

\[

## Abstract

We calculate the basic parameters of the Fermi Liquid: the scattering vertex, the Landau interaction function, the effective mass, and physical susceptibilities for a model of two-dimensional (2D) fermions with a short ranged interaction at non-zero temperature. The leading temperature dependences of the spin components of the scattering vertex, the Landau function, and the spin susceptibility are found to be linear. $`T`$-linear terms in the effective mass and in the “charge-sector”- quantities are found to cancel to second order in the interaction, but the cancellation is argued not to be generic. The connection with previous studies of the 2D Fermi-Liquid parameters is discussed.

\]

The question of the low-energy behavior of two-dimensional (2D) Fermi Liquid (FL) is of long-standing and of fundamental importance. One important motivation has been the non-Fermi-Liquid behavior observed in high-$`T_c`$ superconductors above $`T_c`$. Interest has grown in recent years also because these leading corrections provide the “bare” temperature dependence of the parameters in theories describing quantum critical phenomena in metals. Indeed a number of surprising experimental results have been argued to imply an unusal underlying temperature, momentum or frequency dependence of electronic susceptibilities.

Rather surprisingly, the issue of the leading temperature corrections to Fermi Liquid Theory (FLT) remains controversial at certain points. For example, the textbook Sommerfeld expansion suggests that physical quantities may in general be expanded in powers of $`T^2`$. However, this is known not to be true. In particular, it was found that the leading temperature correction to the specific heat coefficient $`\gamma =C/T`$ was $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ in d=3 spatial dimensions and $`T`$ in d=2.. Whether the spin and charge susceptibilities display similarly anomalous (i.e., non-$`T^2`$) temperature dependence is a subject of a contradictory literature: see, e.g., Ref. \[\], discussion and references there in. For a most recent reassesment of such results see Ref. \[\]. The prevailing conclusion was that of Carneiro and Pethick who found no leading $`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ correction to the spin susceptibility of the 3D FL. Their arguments imply that terms $`T`$ are absent in 2D.

The heuristic argument for the absence of anomalous terms in $`T`$ or in $`q`$ in response functions is that although these terms are known to occur in individual diagrams, they cancel in physical quantities due to Ward identities. We note that in the existing literature on this point it is assumed that the crucial coupling is between quasiparticles and long-wavelength collective modes. However the possibility of “$`2k_F`$ singularities”, i.e., anomalous temperature terms coming from processes involving large ($`2k_F`$) momentum transfers, have been discussed in the context of semiconductor physics. Stern was the first to note that in a 2D electron gas the electron scattering rate was proportional to $`T`$ due to $`2k_F`$ effects. The consequences of the $`2k_F`$ effects for the leading $`T`$-dependence of 2D FL quantities seem not to have been considered in the literature. In this paper we present an analysis taking into account both $`2k_F`$ effects and Ward identities.

The issue of the leading correction to FLT have recently been revived by two different papers. Belitz, Kirkpatrick and Vojta presented perturbative calculations, mode-coupling arguments and power counting estimates which showed that the leading $`q`$ dependence of the spin susceptibility (but not the charge susceptibility) was $`|q|`$ in 2D and $`q^2\mathrm{ln}q`$ in 3D. They did not find the analogous $`T`$-correction explicitly, but concluded however that one should generally expect a linear $`T`$-term in the 2D FL susceptibility ($`T^2\mathrm{ln}T`$ in 3D). This dependence has important implications for the theory of the quantum critical metallic ferromagnet. They also focused on long-wavelength contributions.

In the other study, Sénéchal and one of us predicted the occurence of the linear $`T`$-corrections to the FL vertices from one-loop Renormalization Group (RG) calculations based on a 2D effective action. However, the behavior of other FL quantities was not determined.

To elucidate the question in the most transparent way, we apply perturbation theory for 2D contact-interacting spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ fermions, starting from a microscopic action. Although Landau FLT is not a perturbative theory, for sufficiently weak repulsive interactions one should be able to find the parameters of a stable FL in terms of coupling series. Since both papers predict the linear $`T`$-terms appearing in the second order of the effective interaction, this effect should be seen perturbatively at second order in the miscroscopic interaction coupling. We present what is apparently the first exact calculation of the leading $`T`$-dependence of the effective mass, Landau parameters and response functions of a 2D electron gas, to second order in the interaction strength, including all channels and all momentum processes.

$``$ The model: We treat interacting fermions at finite temperature in the standard path integral Grassmannian formalism. The partition function is given by the path integral $`𝒵=𝒟\overline{\psi }𝒟\psi \mathrm{exp}(S_0+S_{\mathrm{int}})`$, where

$$S_0=_{(\mathrm{𝟏})}\overline{\psi }_\alpha (\mathrm{𝟏})\left[i\omega _1+\mu ϵ(𝐤_1)\right]\psi _\alpha (\mathrm{𝟏})$$
(1)
We have adopted the condensed notations: $`(𝐢)(𝐤_i,\omega _i)`$ and $`_{(𝐢)}\frac{1}{\beta }\frac{d𝐤_i}{(2\pi )^2}_{\omega _i}`$, $`\beta `$ is the inverse temperature, $`\mu `$ the chemical potential, $`\omega _i`$ the fermion Matsubara frequencies and $`\psi _\alpha (𝐢)`$ a two-component Grassmann field with a spin index $`\alpha `$. Summation over repeated indices is implicit throughout this paper. We set $`k_B=1`$ and $`\mathrm{}=1`$. We consider mainly electrons with the bare spectrum of a free gas $`ϵ(𝐤)=k^2/2m`$ and the circular Fermi surface, but discuss the consequences of generic spectra and a non-circular Fermi surface below. We take

$`S_{\mathrm{int}}={\displaystyle \frac{u}{4\nu _0}}{\displaystyle _{(\mathrm{𝟏},..,\mathrm{𝟒})}}`$ $`\overline{\psi }_\alpha (\mathrm{𝟏})\overline{\psi }_\beta (\mathrm{𝟐})\psi _\gamma (\mathrm{𝟑})\psi _\epsilon (\mathrm{𝟒})T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }`$ (2)
$`\times `$ $`\delta ^{(2+1)}(\mathrm{𝟏}+\mathrm{𝟐}\mathrm{𝟑}\mathrm{𝟒})`$ (3)
Here $`u>0`$ corresponds to repulsion, $`\nu _0=m/2\pi `$ is the free 2D density of states per spin, the spin antisymmetric operator $`T_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta }\delta _{\alpha \epsilon }\delta _{\beta \gamma }\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \epsilon }`$. For this model we calculate the vertices, effective mass, and the uniform response functions.

$``$ Four-point 1PI vertex and the FL vertices: The 1PI vertex $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};𝒬)`$ is defined in the standard way (see, e.g., Ref.\[\]), where the transfer vector $`𝒬=(𝐪,\mathrm{\Omega })`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is a bosonic Matsubara frequency. To shorten notations we denote operators in spin space with a circumflex. To find the FL vertices we need to calculate $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};𝒬)`$ in the limit of zero transfer $`𝒬`$ with incoming momenta lying on the Fermi surface. Since the Fermi surface is circular, the vertex can be parametrized by the relative angle between incoming momenta. It is known that the limit $`𝒬0`$ is not unique. We define two vertices $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^q(\theta _{12})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta _{12};𝐪0,\mathrm{\Omega }=0)`$ and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}^\mathrm{\Omega }(\theta _{12})\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\theta _{12};𝐪=0,\mathrm{\Omega }0)`$, which can be related to the components of the physical scattering vertex ($`A,B`$) and the Landau interaction function ($`F,G`$), respectively. Namely:

$$2\nu _RZ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\gamma \epsilon }^{\alpha \beta (q)}=A\delta _{\alpha \gamma }\delta _{\beta \epsilon }+B\sigma _{\alpha \gamma }^a\sigma _{\beta \epsilon }^a$$
(4)
where $`\nu _R=m^{}/2\pi `$, $`Z`$ is the field renormalization constant, $`\widehat{\sigma }^a`$ are Pauli’s matrices. Two components ($`F,G)`$ of the Landau function are defined by analogous equation, with the substitution $`q\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`AF`$, $`BG`$.

$``$ Scattering vertex and Landau function: The one-loop approximation for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Gamma }}(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};𝒬)`$ in diagrammatic form is given in Fig. 1. In this approximation we calculate the FL vertices (scattering vertex, Landau function) using definition (4). At the one-loop level we can put $`\nu _R=\nu _0`$ ($`m^{}=m`$) and $`Z=1`$. By doing the direct analytic evaluation of the each diagram’s contribution to the vertex we find the Fourier components of the angular-dependent FL vertices in terms of the temperature series. This series comes from the contributions of the ZS’ and BCS loops. The details will be given in a companion paper. We find the leading temperature corrections to first two Fourier components of the vertices:

$`\delta A_0=\delta F_0=\delta A_1=\delta F_1=u^2{\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^2}{24}}{\displaystyle \frac{T^2}{E_F^2}}`$ (5)
$`\delta B_0=\delta G_0=\delta B_1=\delta G_1=u^2{\displaystyle \frac{T}{E_F}}\mathrm{ln}2`$ (6)
We should mention that taken separately, each contribution of the ZS’- or BCS bubble gives a leading $`T`$-term to the Fourier components of the vertices. However, a cancellation of such terms coming from two graphs occurs in the “charge sector” (i.e., in $`A`$, $`F`$ components), while the linear $`T`$-terms survive in the “spin sector” ($`B`$, $`G`$ components). The temperature dependence of the ZS’ contribution to the Fourier components of the vertices comes from integration around the “effective transfer” through the loop $`|𝐤_1𝐤_2|2k_F`$, i.e., when incoming momenta $`𝐤_1𝐤_2`$. In the same vein, the temperature dependence of the BCS contribution into the Fourier components of the vertices comes from regions of small $`𝐤_1+𝐤_2`$, i.e., again when $`𝐤_1𝐤_2`$. In other words, the temperature dependence comes from what we called previously “$`2k_F`$-effects”.

We expect that the cancellation of the $`T`$-linear terms in the charge sector of the vertices (5) is an artefact of our simple model calculation in which all three one-loop terms have the same factor $`u^2`$ in front of the bubble contributions. Had we had a bare coupling function of, say, two incoming momenta and transfer, then the coupling factors would have been different in each of the three graphs, and, the anomalous $`T`$-corrections would not have cancelled.

The linearity of the leading $`T`$-corrections to the vertices seems to be generic. The same $`T`$-dependence (apart from presumably model-sensitive prefactors) was obtained in the previous RG analysis of the effective action for 2D spinless fermions with a linearized one-particle spectrum and a momentum-dependent coupling function. According to Ref. \[\] such temperature behavior can be understood from dimensional arguments.

$``$ Effective mass: It is defined by the following equation

$$\frac{m^{}}{m}=\frac{1\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏})}{i\mathrm{\Omega }}}{1+\frac{m}{k_F}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏})}{𝐤}\frac{𝐤_1}{k_F}}|_{𝐤_1S_F}^{\omega _1=0}$$
(7)
To second order we have

$$\frac{m^{}}{m}=1\left[\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏})}{\omega }+\frac{m}{k_F}\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }(\mathrm{𝟏})}{𝐤}\frac{𝐤_1}{k_F}\right]|_{𝐤_1S_F}^{\omega _1=0}+𝒪(u^3)$$
(8)
Using then two Ward identities following from the charge conservation and Galilean invariance, the above equation can be written as:

$$\frac{m^{}}{m}=1\frac{1}{2}_{(\mathrm{𝟐})}\frac{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{k_F^2}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};\mathrm{\Omega }0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})|_{𝐤_1S_F}^{\omega _1=0}$$
(9)
where

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(𝐧)=\frac{\beta }{4}\frac{\delta (\omega _n\xi _{𝐤_n})}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\frac{1}{2}\beta \xi _{𝐤_n})}$$
(10)
Within our accuracy we can use the one-loop approximation for the vertex in Eq. (9). One can easily verify that in the the zero-temperature limit Eq. (9) recovers the standard result of the FLT, i.e., $`m^{}(T=0)/m=1+F_1(T=0)`$. A straightforward extension of this relationship to finite temperatures like $`m^{}(T)/m=1+F_1(T)`$ is not valid since according to Eq. (9) $`m^{}(T)`$ contains an extra contribution from the “off-shell” integration over $`k_2(\xi _{𝐤_2})`$ normal to the Fermi surface, albeit the factor $`\beta /\mathrm{cosh}^2(\beta \xi _{𝐤_2}/2)`$ makes this contribution well-localized near the Fermi surface. In other words the vertex entering the r.h.s. of Eq. (9) is not exactly the FL vertex $`F(T)`$ (up to the normalization factor) as it is defined in the FLT, since one of its momenta (namely, $`𝐤_2`$) is not confined to the Fermi surface. After calculations we find that the linear-temperature terms, coming essentially from two one-loop contributions (ZS’, BCS) to the vertex, cancel, resulting in

$$\frac{m^{}}{m}=1+\frac{1}{2}u^2+𝒪(u^2T^2)$$
(11)
In a close analogy with the cancellation of the linear-temperature terms in the Fourier components of the FL vertices $`A`$ ($`F`$), here the cancellation occurs between additive linear-$`T`$ corrections coming from both “on-shell” (i.e., linear $`T`$-term coming from the $`2k_F`$-contribution to the vertex) and “off-shell” (i.e., the small-momentum contribution) integrations in two diagrams. Moreover, the “on-shell” (“off-shell”) $`T`$-term of the ZS’ graph cancells the “on-shell” (“off-shell”) $`T`$-term of the BCS graph, correspondingly. We expect the cancellation does not occur at higher orders in the interaction. We have also evaluated (8) for a generic 2D Fermi surface without explicitly using Ward identities, finding a $`T`$-linear term. The result may be expressed as the sum of two terms, one arising from $`2k_F`$ processes and one from long-wavelength processes. The two contributions cancel for a circular Firmi surface, but not generically.

Calculations of the order $`u^2`$ term in the free energy show that analogous cancellations occur and there is no $`T`$-linear term in the specific heat coefficient $`\gamma `$, contrary to the results of Ref.\[\].

$``$ Response functions: Using the same Ward identities as in the effective mass calculation, we found for the dynamic zero-transfer limit ($`\mathrm{\Omega }=0`$, $`𝐪0`$) of the density response function:

$`\varkappa `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m}{\pi }}\left\{1+u^2+f_1f_0\right\}`$ (12)
$`f_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m}}{\displaystyle _{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})}}{\displaystyle \frac{𝐤_1𝐤_2}{k_1^2}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};\mathrm{\Omega }0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (13)
$`f_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{m}}{\displaystyle _{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟏})\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\alpha \beta }^{\alpha \beta }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};\mathrm{\Omega }0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (14)
At $`T=0`$ we can read off from Eq. (12) $`\varkappa (T=0)=\frac{m}{\pi }(1+F_0^2+F_1F_0)`$ which is nothing but the FLT result $`\varkappa ^{FLT}=\frac{m}{\pi }\frac{1+F_1}{1+F_0}`$, expanded up to the third order over the interaction. Adding into consideration the Ward identity following from the total spin conservation, we derived for the uniform spin susceptibility (for details see Ref. \[\]):

$`𝒳`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{mg^2}{4\pi }}\left\{1+u^2+f_1g_0\right\}`$ (15)
$`g_0`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\pi }{3m}}{\displaystyle _{(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐})}}\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟏})\sigma _{\gamma \epsilon }^a\sigma _{\beta \alpha }^a\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\beta \gamma }^{\alpha \epsilon }(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟐};\mathrm{\Omega }0)\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{𝟐})`$ (16)
where $`g`$ stands for the gyromagnetic ratio. Once again, one can see that in the zero-temperature limit the above equation gives $`𝒳(T=0)=\frac{mg^2}{4\pi }(1+G_0^2+F_1G_0)`$ reproducing thus the second-order expansion of the the FLT result $`𝒳^{FLT}=\frac{mg^2}{4\pi }\frac{1+F_1}{1+G_0}`$.

We were able to analytically calculate the integrals on the r.h.s. of Eqs. (12,15) in the leading order of their temperature dependence. We found that the leading linear $`T`$-corrections, which can be traced back to the ZS’- and BCS-loop contributions to the vertex, cancel in each of the integral terms $`f_0`$ and $`f_1`$ in Eq. (12) separately. The result for the density response is:

$$\varkappa =\frac{m}{\pi }(1u\frac{1}{2}u^2+u^2\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k_F})+𝒪(u^2T^2)$$
(17)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }k_F`$ is the ultraviolet cutoff we introduced to regularize the BCS loop. Let us finally remind that the compressibility $`K=\varkappa /n^2`$, where $`n`$ is electron density.

We may calculate the spin susceptibility in the same way. In this case the second integral term $`g_0`$ in Eq. (15) does not contain the contribution of the ZS’ loop, so the linear $`T`$-term coming from the BCS loop survives. Thus the spin susceptibility has a linear leading temperature correction:

$$\frac{𝒳(T)}{𝒳(0)}1+u^2\frac{T}{E_F}$$
(18)
where $`𝒳(0)=\frac{mg^2}{4\pi }[1+uu^2(\mathrm{ln}\frac{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}{k_F}\frac{3}{2})]`$, and the first omitted term is $`𝒪(u^2T^2)`$.

It is useful to keep in mind that albeit the response functions in Eqs. (12,15) are explicitly expressed in terms of the vertex only, those contributions indeed entangle both “purely vertex” corrections and self-energy corrections. The latter are just expressed in terms of the vertex via the Ward identities.

Let us come back to the argument for the cancellation of temperature terms in the response functions, appealing to the Ward identities. These identities should work at each level in terms of the coupling expansion. We have calculated the vertices at the one-loop level $`𝒪(u^2)`$. Through the Ward identities the self-energy correction were taken into account with the same accuracy. There are no more terms of the order $`𝒪(u^2)`$ to cancel the temperature dependence (18). Thus, the linear temperature dependence of susceptibility (or weaker temperature dependence of the compressibility) does not contradict the exact Ward identities known to us, moreover in our results for the response functions both vertex and self-energy corrections are included on the same footing by using the Ward identities.

$``$ Conclusions: In this paper we have systematically examined the leading temperature corrections to FLT in two spatial dimensions. Our results reveal the crucial importance of $`2k_F`$ processes mainly neglected by other workers. We find for a 2D Galilean-invariant FL that to order $`u^2`$ the leading $`T`$-dependence of the parameters in the spin sector is $`T`$, for the others it is $`T^2`$.

We find that the standard relationship between the effective mass and the Landau parameter in a Galilean-invariant FL is violated by finite-temperature terms. The structure of the formulas shows that those terms arise from states very near to the Fermi level (“off-shell” quantities) beyond the scope of the classical FLT derivations.

The particularly interesting new result we found is the leading linear temperature dependence of the spin susceptibility (18). According to the perturbative calculations of Belitz et al, the 2D FL susceptibility has a leading linear correction in $`|𝐪|`$ at $`T=0`$ with a positive coefficient which is of the second order in interaction, i.e., their result has a structure of Eq. (18). Comparison between our Eq. (18) and the prediction of Ref.\[\] for $`𝒳(𝐪,T=0)`$ meets heuristic expectations of a reciprocity between small $`T`$\- and $`𝐪`$-dependencies.

For more realistic models of electrons in (quasi)-2D crystals, i.e., for various tight-binding spectra and fillings, the free-gas-like square-root $`2k_F`$ singularities (with $`k_F`$ depending on a chosen direction in $`𝐪`$-space) are known to exist in the Lindhard functions. We think this is enough to result in linear $`T`$-terms in physical quantities analogous to what we found in this study. We argue that the rather accidential cancellation of the $`T`$-terms in some FL parameters is special to second order perturbation theory and a circular Fermi surface, while the leading linear temperature corrections are a generic feature of the 2D FL.

We hope our results may be experimentally tested in real 2D FL systems. For example, a very naive fit of the temperature dependence of the spin susceptibility in $`\mathrm{Sr}_2\mathrm{RuO}_4`$ system when it is in the 2D metallic regime (above 3D crossover temperature) shows that the data are compatible with the form (18). We hope our results stimulate a more detailed examination of the leading temperature dependences of response functions in 2D systems.

$``$ Acknowledgements: Stimulating conversations with S. Lukyanov are gratefully acknowledged. We thank V. Oudovenko for his help with the numerical tests of our results. This work is supported by NSF DMR0081075.


text:
# Study of relativistic bound states in a scalar model using diagonalization/Monte Carlo methods

## 1 Introduction

The structure and phenomenology of relativistic bound states are of primary interest to particle and nuclear physics. Unfortunately even in the simplest field theory models our understanding of relativistic bound states is limited by a number of complications. Monte Carlo simulation on the lattice is the standard tool for determining particle masses. One can find the low energy spectrum from the decay constants of Euclidean correlation functions. Though the procedure is generally successful it becomes more difficult and less reliable if the state of interest has the same quantum numbers as another lower energy state. Complications also arise for non-confining interactions, where states just above the continuum threshold can obscure the signal of the bound state. Both of these problems arise even in seemingly simple systems such as we consider here, namely, two-body and three-body bound states in $`(\varphi ^6\varphi ^4)_{1+1}`$.

One remaining complication is of a more operational nature, and it concerns the interface between computational methods and phenomenology. Much of the interesting and important physics associated with bound states is contained in subtle details. A measurement of gross properties such as the binding energy is a necessary first step, but one also hopes to gain more descriptive information like the structure of the wavefunction, its response to various interactions, or point-by-point comparisons with intuitive non-relativistic models.

These issues were part of the motivation for a recently proposed approach to computational quantum problems which combines diagonalization and Monte Carlo techniques . Diagonalization makes it possible to consider systems with sign oscillations and extract detailed information about wavefunctions and excited states, while Monte Carlo allows one to handle the exponential increase in the number of basis states for large volume systems. The first half of the method involves finding and diagonalizing the Hamiltonian restricted to an optimal subspace. This subspace is designed to include the most important basis vectors of the lowest energy eigenstates. Once the most important basis vectors are found and their interactions treated exactly, Monte Carlo is used to sample the contribution of the remaining basis vectors. In this paper we demonstrate how the new diagonalization/Monte Carlo scheme is applied to the study of relativistic bound states.

The essential problem of the lattice Monte Carlo approach to bound states near the continuum threshold involves finding the inverse Laplace transform of two-point correlation functions at energies close to thresholds where the spectral density is large. This is usually done by a non-linear multi-parameter fit of two-point correlators for several different operators. While in principle one might reach arbitrary accuracy by adding more parameters to the fit, in practice the presence of even very small stochastic error will destabilize the fit and imposes an upper limit on the accuracy. The main advantage of our method, therefore, is not in computing speed but in numerical stability. Our method also provides additional information about the wavefunction of the bound state. These two statements are not unrelated. Our method has greater numerical stability because we are implicitly using the information contained in the wavefunctions to separate states. It is also worthwhile noting that in two dimensions the diagonalization/Monte Carlo approach can be applied within the framework of discretized light cone and might prove useful since, aside from zero-mode problems, the exponential growth of the number of basis states for large volume systems has so far provided a limit to discretized light cone.

The organization of the paper is as follows. We begin with a discussion of the $`\varphi ^6\varphi ^4`$ Hamiltonian in $`1+1`$ dimensions and its decomposition into momentum modes. We then review the basic features of quasi-sparse eigenvector diagonalization and stochastic error correction. In the following two sections we briefly set aside the numerical discussion and derive solutions to the non-relativistic versions of the two-body and three-body bound state problems. We then compare our numerical results for the relativistic bound states energies and wavefunctions with an assortment of different approximations and results from the literature.

## 2 Fock states and the Hamiltonian

Our starting point is the Hamiltonian density for $`\varphi ^6\varphi ^4`$ theory in $`1+1`$ dimensions,

$$=\text{:}\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{t}\right)^2+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{\varphi }{x}\right)^2+\frac{\mu ^2}{2}\varphi ^2+\lambda \left(\varphi ^6\varphi ^4\right)\text{:,}$$
(1)
where normal ordering is with respect to the mass $`\mu `$. This theory was introduced in  as a simple model with a stable bound state. In $`1+1`$ dimensions, normal ordering is sufficient to renormalize the theory.

We will consider the theory in a periodic box of length $`2L`$. This allows us to expand in free particle momentum modes and rewrite the Hamiltonian in terms of mode creation and annihilation operators ,

$`H`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{n}{}}\omega _n(\mu )a_n^{}a_n\frac{\lambda }{8L}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_4=0}{}}:\frac{\left(a_{n_1}+a_{n_1}^{}\right)}{\sqrt{\omega _{n_1}(\mu )}}\mathrm{}\frac{\left(a_{n_4}+a_{n_4}^{}\right)}{\sqrt{\omega _{n_4}(\mu )}}:`$ (2)
$`+\frac{\lambda }{32L^2}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+\mathrm{}+n_6=0}{}}:\frac{\left(a_{n_1}+a_{n_1}^{}\right)}{\sqrt{\omega _{n_1}(\mu )}}\mathrm{}\frac{\left(a_{n_6}+a_{n_6}^{}\right)}{\sqrt{\omega _{n_6}(\mu )}}:.`$
In (2) we have used

$$\omega _n(\mu )=\sqrt{\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{L^2}+\mu ^2}.$$
(3)
We can represent any momentum-space Fock state as a string of occupation numbers, $`|o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}},\mathrm{},o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}}`$, where

$$a_n^{}a_n|o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}},\mathrm{},o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}}=o_n|o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}},\mathrm{},o_{N_{\mathrm{max}}}.$$
(4)
For the calculations presented here, we set the length of the box to size $`L=2.5\pi \mu ^1`$ and restrict our attention to momentum modes such that $`\left|n\right|N_{\mathrm{max}}`$, where $`N_{\mathrm{max}}=10`$. This corresponds with a momentum cutoff scale of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=4\mu .`$ A change in the cutoff $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ will lead to adjustments in $`\mu `$ and $`\lambda `$ in order to keep the physics independent of $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$. However, these corrections begin at $`𝒪(1/N_{\mathrm{max}}^2)`$ as can be checked by power counting. The dependence on $`N_{\mathrm{max}}`$ has been measured explicitly for the bound state data presented in this paper. It is considerably smaller than the dominant error, which is due to higher order corrections in the series stochastic error method, see below.

## 3 QSE diagonalization

In order to find approximate eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian in (2), we use a method called quasi-sparse eigenvector (QSE) diagonalization. QSE diagonalization is an iterative algorithm that finds the most important basis vectors of the low energy eigenstates for a quantum Hamiltonian. We follow closely the discussion presented in . We start with a complete basis for which the Hamiltonian matrix $`H_{ij}`$ is sparse. In our case we use the momentum-space Fock basis. The QSE method involves the following iterated steps:

1. Select a subset of basis vectors $`\{e_{i_1},\mathrm{},e_{i_n}\}`$ and call the corresponding subspace $`S`$.
2. Diagonalize $`H`$ restricted to $`S`$ and find one eigenvector $`v`$.
3. Sort the basis components of $`v`$ according to their magnitude and remove the least important basis vectors.
4. Replace the discarded basis vectors by new basis vectors. These are selected at random from a pool of candidate basis vectors which are connected to the old basis vectors through non-vanishing matrix elements of $`H`$.
5. Redefine $`S`$ as the subspace spanned by the updated set of basis vectors and repeat steps 2 through 5.

If the subset of basis vectors is sufficiently large, the exact low energy eigenvectors will be stable fixed points of the update process. This is the single eigenvector version of the algorithm. The multiple eigenvector version simply involves selecting more than one eigenvector each iteration and retaining the most important basis vectors for each of the eigenvectors. One of the most attractive features of our method is that we are working directly with the infinite dimensional Hilbert space. There is no restriction on the maximum occupation for any mode. This is a clear advantage over standard diagonalization methods such as Lanczos.

In this analysis we work in the rest frame of the bound state and consider Fock states with total momentum zero. Due to $`\varphi \varphi `$ reflection symmetry we can diagonalize the even and odd $`\varphi `$ sectors separately. We use the multiple eigenvector algorithm to obtain the four lowest eigenstates in the even sector and in the odd sector.111We have found only one two-body bound state and one three-body bound state. Thus in a follow-up study one could suffice with fewer states in each sector. For each QSE iteration, we select $`50`$ new basis vectors and keep $`400`$ basis vectors. The final QSE results are used as the starting point for the stochastic error correction method.

## 4 Stochastic error correction

The QSE method approximates the low energy eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the Hamiltonian by finding and diagonalizing optimized subspaces $`S`$. This process however has an intrinsic error due to the omission of basis states not in $`S`$. The goal of stochastic error correction is to sample the contribution of these remaining basis vectors. In the present investigation we use the so-called series expansion method up to first order. This has been explained in detail in  and therefore we restrict ourselves to the review of basic formulae.

Let $`\lambda _i`$ be an eigenvalue and $`|v_i`$ be the corresponding eigenvector of $`H`$ restricted to the subspace $`S`$ (the span of the subset of basis vectors after step 3 of the QSE algorithm). The remaining basis vectors in the full space not contained in $`S`$ will be denoted by $`|A_i`$, and we are interested in sampling the contribution of these vectors. We assume that $`\lambda _1`$ and $`|v_1`$ are close to the corresponding quantities for the full Hamiltonian $`H`$. If we now expand in powers of

$$\left(A_i|H|A_i\lambda _1\right)^1$$
(5)
we find that the first order correction to $`\lambda _1`$ is

$$\delta \lambda _1=\underset{i}{}\frac{v_1|H|A_iA_i|H|v_1}{A_i|H|A_i\lambda _1}$$
(6)
and the first order correction to $`|v_1`$ is

$$|\delta v_1=\underset{i}{}\frac{|A_iA_i|H|v_1}{A_i|H|A_i\lambda _1}+\underset{j1}{}\underset{i}{}\frac{|v_jv_j|H|A_iA_i|H|v_1}{(\lambda _j\lambda _1)(A_i|H|A_i\lambda _1)}.$$
(7)
The sum over all vectors $`|A_i`$ is too unwieldy to perform exactly. Instead we sample the sum stochastically in the following manner. Let $`P(A_{\text{trial}(i)})`$ be the probability of selecting $`|A_{\text{trial}(i)}`$ on the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ trial. Then

$$\delta \lambda _1=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1,\mathrm{},N}{}\frac{v_1|H|A_{\text{trial}(i)}A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|v_1}{(A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|A_{\text{trial}(i)}\lambda _1)P(A_{\text{trial}(i)})}$$
(8)
and

$`w|\delta v_1`$ $`=\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\frac{w|A_{\text{trial}(i)}A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|v_1}{(A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|A_{\text{trial}(i)}\lambda _1)P(A_{\text{trial}(i)})}`$ (9)
$`+\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}{\displaystyle \underset{j1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\frac{w|v_jv_j|H|A_{\text{trial}(i)}A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|v_1}{(\lambda _j\lambda _1)(A_{\text{trial}(i)}|H|A_{\text{trial}(i)}\lambda _1)P(A_{\text{trial}(i)})}`$
for any fixed vector $`|w`$.

## 5 Two-body bound state

Before presenting the results of our calculations, we first summarize what we expect in the weak-coupling non-relativistic limit. For the two-body bound state we consider all two-particle Fock states with zero momentum,

$$|n,n=a_n^{}a_n^{}|0.$$
(10)
These states satisfy the orthogonality and normalization conditions

$$n^{},n^{}|n,n=\delta _{n,n^{}}+\delta _{n,n^{}}.$$
(11)
At lowest order in $`\lambda `$ the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ interaction is not relevant to the two-body bound state problem. The effective interaction Hamiltonian is therefore

$`H_I`$ $`=\lambda :\varphi ^4:`$ (12)
$`=\frac{3\lambda }{4L}{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0}{}}\frac{a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_3}a_{n_4}}{\left(\mu ^2+\frac{n_1^2\pi ^2}{L^2}\right)^{1/4}\left(\mu ^2+\frac{n_2^2\pi ^2}{L^2}\right)^{1/4}\left(\mu ^2+\frac{n_3^2\pi ^2}{L^2}\right)^{1/4}\left(\mu ^2+\frac{n_4^2\pi ^2}{L^2}\right)^{1/4}}.`$
In the non-relativistic limit we can approximate $`H_I`$ as

$$H_I=\frac{3\lambda }{4\mu ^2L}\underset{n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_3}a_{n_4}.$$
(13)
It is convenient to define the position-space basis vectors

$$|x=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2L}}\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}e^{i\frac{n\pi x}{L}}|n,n.$$
(14)
Since we are considering a periodic box,

$$|x=|x+2L$$
(15)
and the position-space vectors satisfy

$$x^{}|x=\underset{j=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\left[\delta (x^{}x+2jL)+\delta (x^{}+x+2jL)\right].$$
(16)
For any function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x)`$, we can define

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=_L^L𝑑x\mathrm{\Psi }(x)|x.$$
(17)
If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is to have unit norm, then we require

$$_L^L𝑑x\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x)\right|^2=\frac{1}{2}.$$
(18)
In our position-space representation of the two-particle subspace, we note that

$$\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}a_n^{}a_n|x=2|x$$
(19)
and

$$\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{L^2}a_n^{}a_n|\mathrm{\Psi }=2|\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x^2}.$$
(20)
Upon restricting our Hilbert space to the zero-momentum two-particle subspace, we can simplify the interaction Hamiltonian by the substitution

$$\underset{n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_3}a_{n_4}\underset{n_1,n_2}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}a_{n_2}.$$
(21)
We observe that

$$\underset{n_1,n_2}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}a_{n_2}|x=4L\delta (x)|x.$$
(22)
The full non-relativistic Hamiltonian,

$$H=\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\left(\mu +\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{2\mu L^2}\right)a_n^{}a_n\frac{3\lambda }{4\mu ^2L}\underset{n_1,n_2}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}a_{n_2},$$
(23)
can now be represented as a Schrödinger operator:

$$(H2\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=\left[\frac{1}{\mu }\frac{^2}{x^2}\frac{3\lambda }{\mu ^2}\delta (x)\right]\mathrm{\Psi }(x).$$
(24)
We now consider the eigenvalue equation

$$(H2\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }(x)=E\mathrm{\Psi }(x).$$
(25)
Using the ansatz

$`\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)`$ $`e^{b\left|x\right|}+ce^{+b\left|x\right|},`$ (26)
$`b`$ $`>0,`$ (27)
we find

$`c`$ $`=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{1+c}{1c}}},`$ (28)
$`b`$ $`=\frac{3\lambda }{2\mu }\frac{1+c}{1c},`$ (29)
$`E`$ $`=\frac{b^2}{\mu }.`$ (30)
When

$$e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}}<<1,$$
(31)
we have

$`c`$ $`=e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}}(1+O(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}})),`$ (32)
$`b`$ $`=\frac{3\lambda }{2\mu }(1+O(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}})),`$ (33)
$`E`$ $`=\frac{9\lambda ^2}{4\mu ^3}(1+O(e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda L}{\mu }}})).`$ (34)
This expression for the binding energy is consistent with the derivation in . In the infinite $`L`$ limit we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)=\sqrt{\frac{3\lambda }{4\mu }}e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda \left|x\right|}{2\mu }}}.$$
(35)
## 6 Three-body bound state

The analysis for the three-body bound state is slightly more involved. In the non-relativistic weak-coupling limit we restrict our attention to three-particle states with zero-momentum,

$$|n_1,n_2,n_1n_2=a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_1n_2}^{}|0.$$
(36)
We again construct position-space basis states

$$|x_1,x_2=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2L}\underset{n_1,n_2=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}e^{i\frac{n_1\pi x_1}{L}}e^{i\frac{n_2\pi x_2}{L}}e^{i\frac{(n_1n_2)\pi (x_1x_2)}{L}}|n_1,n_2,n_1n_2,$$
(37)
which satisfy the orthogonality and normalization conditions

$$x_1^{},x_2^{}|x_1,x_2=\underset{j,k=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta (x_1^{}x_1+(\frac{2j}{3}+2k)L)\delta (x_2^{}x_2+\frac{2j}{3}L)\\ +\{x_1x_2x_1x_2\}\end{array}\right].$$
(38)
The periodicity of our system implies

$`|x_1,x_2`$ $`=|x_1+\frac{2}{3}L,x_2+\frac{2}{3}L`$ (39)
$`=|x_1+2L,x_2=|x_1,x_2+2L.`$
For any function $`\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2)`$, we define

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }=_R𝑑x_1𝑑x_2𝑑\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2)|x_1,x_2,$$
(40)
where $`R`$ is the region

$$R=\{\begin{array}{c}L<x_1L\\ \frac{1}{3}L<x_2\frac{1}{3}L.\end{array}$$
(41)
If $`|\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is to have unit norm then we must have

$$_R𝑑x_1𝑑x_2\left|\mathrm{\Psi }(x_1,x_2)\right|^2=\frac{1}{6}.$$
(42)
We note that

$$\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{L^2}a_n^{}a_n|\mathrm{\Psi }=\frac{2}{3}|\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1^2}+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_2^2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1x_2}.$$
(43)
With a little work we also find

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0}{}}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_3}a_{n_4}|x_1,x_2`$ (44)
$`=4L{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\delta (x_1+2x_2+2jL)+\delta (2x_1+x_2+2jL)+\delta (x_1x_2+2jL)\right]|x_1,x_2.`$
For the moment we will neglect the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ term. Later we will show that this term produces only a higher order correction in $`\lambda `$. The effective non-relativistic Hamiltonian,

$$H=\underset{n=0,\pm 1,\mathrm{}}{}\left(\mu +\frac{n^2\pi ^2}{2\mu L^2}\right)a_n^{}a_n\frac{3\lambda }{4\mu ^2L}\underset{n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4=0}{}a_{n_1}^{}a_{n_2}^{}a_{n_3}a_{n_4},$$
(45)
can now be represented as a Schrödinger operator:

$`(H3\mu )\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`=\frac{1}{3\mu }\left(\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1^2}+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_2^2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1x_2}\right)`$ (46)
$`\frac{3\lambda }{\mu ^2}{\displaystyle \underset{j}{}}\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta (x_1+2x_2+2jL)+\delta (2x_1+x_2+2jL)\\ +\delta (x_1x_2+2jL)\end{array}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }.`$ (49)
In the infinite $`L`$ limit we can write the energy eigenvalue equation as

$$\frac{1}{3\mu }\left(\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1^2}+\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_2^2}\frac{^2\mathrm{\Psi }}{x_1x_2}\right)\frac{3\lambda }{\mu ^2}\left[\begin{array}{c}\delta (x_1+2x_2)+\delta (2x_1+x_2)\\ +\delta (x_1x_2)\end{array}\right]\mathrm{\Psi }=E\mathrm{\Psi }.$$
(50)
Using the ansatz

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3e^{b(\left|x_1+2x_2\right|+\left|2x_1+x_2\right|+\left|x_1x_2\right|)},$$
(51)
we find

$`b`$ $`=\frac{3\lambda }{2\mu },`$ (52)
$`E`$ $`=\frac{9\lambda ^2}{\mu ^3}.`$ (53)
¿From the normalization condition,

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3=\frac{\sqrt{3}\lambda }{\mu }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle \frac{3\lambda }{2\mu }}(\left|x_1+2x_2\right|+\left|2x_1+x_2\right|+\left|x_1x_2\right|)}.$$
(54)
We now return to the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ term. This term produces an interaction proportional to

$$\frac{\lambda }{\mu ^3L^2}\delta (x_1)\delta (x_2).$$
(55)
¿From (54) we see that

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3\left|\delta (x_1)\delta (x_2)\right|\mathrm{\Psi }_3=O(\lambda ^2),$$
(56)
and therefore the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ interaction produces an effect of order $`O(\lambda ^3)`$. We expect however that the repulsive delta function will suppress $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ near $`x_1=x_2=0`$.

## 7 Results

In Table 1 we show for several values of $`\lambda `$ the mass of the one-particle state, $`m_1`$, and the two-body bound state, $`m_2`$, which is the relativistic state that is continously connected to the non-relativistic two-body bound state. For comparison we show the data for $`m_1`$ and $`m_2`$ from the lattice diagonalization study of  (BD), non-relativistic Schrödinger results derived above for infinite $`L`$ (S) and $`L=2.5\pi \mu ^1`$ (L), and Gaussian effective potential results from  (GEP). The remaining column of data comes from an exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian restricted to two-particle Fock states (F). In order to obtain the ratio $`m_2/m_1`$ in this approximation we take $`m_1=\mu .`$222This is at least consistent since in the two-particle Fock approximation with normal-ordered interactions, the constituents of the bound state have no self-energy contributions.

/λμ2
/m1μ
BD
/m2m1
S
L
F
BD
GEP0.10.995(1)0.9941.970(2)1.9781.9671.9751.9161.9820.20.975(5)0.9721.92(1)1.9101.9071.9341.8211.9380.30.94(1)0.9281.85(1)1.7981.7971.8771.7181.8780.40.88(2)0.8501.76(4)1.6401.6401.8081.6131.8070.50.77(4)0.7201.66(8)1.4381.4381.7301.5201.7280.60.61(4)1.71(10)1.1901.1901.6461.642Table 1Table 1fragments
/λμ2
/m1μ
BD
/m2m1
S
L
F
BD
GEP0.1fragments0.995(1)0.994fragments1.970(2)1.9781.9671.9751.9161.9820.2fragments0.975(5)0.972fragments1.92(1)1.9101.9071.9341.8211.9380.3fragments0.94(1)0.928fragments1.85(1)1.7981.7971.8771.7181.8780.4fragments0.88(2)0.850fragments1.76(4)1.6401.6401.8081.6131.8070.5fragments0.77(4)0.720fragments1.66(8)1.4381.4381.7301.5201.7280.6fragments0.61(4)missing-subexpressionfragments1.71(10)1.1901.1901.646missing-subexpression1.642\overset{\text{Table 1}}{\begin{tabular}[c]{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline\cr$\lambda/\mu^{2}$&$m_{1}/\mu$&BD&$m_{2}/m_{1}$&S&L&F&BD&GEP\\
\hline\cr$0.1$&$0.995(1)$&$0.994$&$1.970(2)$&$1.978$&$1.967$&$1.975$&$1.916$&$1.982$\\
\hline\cr$0.2$&$0.975(5)$&$0.972$&$1.92(1)$&$1.910$&$1.907$&$1.934$&$1.821$&$1.938$\\
\hline\cr$0.3$&$0.94(1)$&$0.928$&$1.85(1)$&$1.798$&$1.797$&$1.877$&$1.718$&$1.878$\\
\hline\cr$0.4$&$0.88(2)$&$0.850$&$1.76(4)$&$1.640$&$1.640$&$1.808$&$1.613$&$1.807$\\
\hline\cr$0.5$&$0.77(4)$&$0.720$&$1.66(8)$&$1.438$&$1.438$&$1.730$&$1.520$&$1.728$\\
\hline\cr$0.6$&$0.61(4)$&&$1.71(10)$&$1.190$&$1.190$&$1.646$&&$1.642$\\
\hline\cr\end{tabular}}
The error bars in Table 1 and throughout our discussion include estimated errors from Monte Carlo errors, higher order contributions in the stochastic error correction series expansion, and residual dependence on the ultraviolet cutoff $`\mathrm{\Lambda }.`$ Of these errors we find the higher order contributions in the expansion to be the largest source of error. Any follow-up study of this system should push the calculation to higher order or make use of the stochastic Lanczos method introduced in .

The results from  (BD) were carried out on a much smaller system. While their results for $`m_1`$ appear in agreement with ours, they have noted that their calculation for $`m_2`$ is considerably affected by the small system size. At small coupling at least our own finite size effects appear to be small, as is suggested by the agreement of the Schrödinger results S and L. For this range of couplings the GEP predictions are equivalent to the two-particle Fock state approximation (F) in the limit of infinite $`L`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This is because at these couplings $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}=m_1=\mu ,`$ where $`\overline{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$ is the optimal GEP variational mass parameter as defined in .

As expected, our results agree with the Schrödinger results at small coupling. They also appear reasonably close to the two-particle Fock approximation, F, for all values of coupling. In our next calculation we measure how much of the bound state does in fact reside in the two-particle sector. Let $`|m_2`$ be the normalized bound state and $`P_2`$ be the projection operator onto the two-particle subspace. We define $`N_2`$ to be the norm of the two-particle projection

$$N_2=P_2|m_2.$$
(57)
In Table 2 we show $`N_2`$ for the different couplings.

$$\stackrel{\text{Table 2}}{\begin{array}{ccccccc}\lambda /\mu ^2\hfill & 0.1\hfill & 0.2\hfill & 0.3\hfill & 0.4\hfill & 0.5\hfill & 0.6\hfill \\ N_2\hfill & 0.9977(1)\hfill & 0.989(1)\hfill & 0.971(2)\hfill & 0.936(8)\hfill & 0.87(2)\hfill & 0.79(2)\hfill \end{array}}$$

We can pursue the question of the bound state wavefunction further. Let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_2(x)=\frac{1}{N_2}x|m_2,$$
(58)
where $`|x`$ is the two-particle position state defined in (14). In Figures 1-3 we compare the wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2`$ with the corresponding approximate wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^\text{S}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^\text{L}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_2^\text{F}`$ for coupling values $`\lambda =0.1\mu ^2,0.2\mu ^2,0.4\mu ^2`$.

In our analysis we did not consider bound states beyond $`\lambda =0.6\mu ^2`$. This is because our diagonalization/Monte Carlo results indicate a first order phase transition near $`\lambda =0.73\mu ^2`$, where $`\varphi `$ develops a vacuum expectation value

$$\varphi =1.02(2).$$
(59)
As a matter of fact, there appears to be no bound state in the broken symmetry phase, and the two-body and three-body bound states in the symmetric phase are stable all the way up to the transition point. The phase transition can be seen quite clearly in the behavior of the energy levels. In Table 3 we show the lowest two energy levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_2`$ in the even $`\varphi `$ sector. We see what appears to be a metastable vacuum at energy $`E_2`$ for $`\lambda <0.73\mu ^2`$ becoming the true vacuum at energy $`E_0`$ for $`\lambda >0.73\mu ^2`$.333Since we are at finite volume the levels $`E_0`$ and $`E_2`$ come close but never actually become degenerate.

/λμ2
E0
E20.700.37(5)0.09(10)0.710.41(5)0.15(15)0.720.40(5)0.29(20)0.730.49(20)0.42(5)0.740.70(20)0.42(5)Table 3Table 3fragments
/λμ2
E0
E20.70fragments0.37(5)fragments0.09(10)0.71fragments0.41(5)fragments0.15(15)0.72fragments0.40(5)fragments0.29(20)0.73fragments0.49(20)fragments0.42(5)0.74fragments0.70(20)fragments0.42(5)\overset{\text{Table 3}}{\begin{tabular}[c]{|l|l|l|}\hline\cr$\lambda/\mu^{2}$&$E_{0}$&$E_{2}$\\
\hline\cr$0.70$&$-0.37(5)$&$0.09(10)$\\
\hline\cr$0.71$&$-0.41(5)$&$-0.15(15)$\\
\hline\cr$0.72$&$-0.40(5)$&$-0.29(20)$\\
\hline\cr$0.73$&$-0.49(20)$&$-0.42(5)$\\
\hline\cr$0.74$&$-0.70(20)$&$-0.42(5)$\\
\hline\cr\end{tabular}}
In Table 4 we show for several values of $`\lambda `$ the mass of the three-body bound state, $`m_3`$, which is the relativistic state that is continously connected to the non-relativistic three-body bound state. We were not able to find any previous studies of this state in the literature. For comparison we show data from the Schrödinger equation at infinite $`L`$ (S) and two different Fock space approximations, F1 and F2. F1 corresponds with an exact diagonalization of the Hamiltonian restricted to three-particle Fock states, and F2 corresponds to the same thing, except with the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ interaction turned off.444This is an artificial approximation. Without the restriction to three-particle Fock states, turning off the $`:\varphi ^6:`$ interaction would make the theory unbounded below. To obtain the ratio $`m_3/m_1`$ in the two Fock approximations we again take $`m_1=\mu .`$

/λμ2
/m3m1
S
F1

F2
0.12.931(2)2.9102.9402.9190.22.83(1)2.6402.8622.7700.32.72(2)2.1902.7692.5680.42.59(6)1.5602.6672.3360.52.54(8)0.752.5582.0840.62.62(15)<02.4441.818Table 4Table 4fragments
/λμ2
/m3m1
S
F1

F2
0.1fragments2.931(2)2.9102.9402.9190.2fragments2.83(1)2.6402.8622.7700.3fragments2.72(2)2.1902.7692.5680.4fragments2.59(6)1.5602.6672.3360.5fragments2.54(8)0.752.5582.084fragments0.6fragments2.62(15)fragments02.4441.818\overset{\text{Table 4}}{\begin{tabular}[c]{|l|l|l|l|l|}\hline\cr$\lambda/\mu^{2}$&$m_{3}/m_{1}$&S&F${}_{1}$&F${}_{2}$\\
\hline\cr$0.1$&$2.931(2)$&$2.910$&$2.940$&$2.919$\\
\hline\cr$0.2$&$2.83(1)$&$2.640$&$2.862$&$2.770$\\
\hline\cr$0.3$&$2.72(2)$&$2.190$&$2.769$&$2.568$\\
\hline\cr$0.4$&$2.59(6)$&$1.560$&$2.667$&$2.336$\\
\hline\cr$0.5$&$2.54(8)$&$0.75$&$2.558$&$2.084$\\
\hline\cr$0.6$&$2.62(15)$&$<0$&$2.444$&$1.818$\\
\hline\cr\end{tabular}}
We notice that the Schrödinger approximation (S) is not quite as accurate for given $`\lambda `$ as it was for the two-body bound state. Nevertheless the Fock approximation F1 still appears to follow the actual data relatively well. We observe that $`m_3`$ is not only below the $`3m_1`$ continuum threshold but also below the $`m_2+m_1`$ threshold. The corresponding state therefore has a sensible interpretation as a stable particle.

In analogy with before, we let $`|m_3`$ be the normalized three-body bound state and $`P_3`$ be the projection operator onto the three-particle subspace. We define $`N_3`$ to be the norm of the three-particle projection.

$$N_3=P_3|m_3.$$
(60)
In Table 5 we show $`N_3`$ for different couplings.

$$\stackrel{\text{Table 5}}{\begin{array}{ccccccc}\lambda /\mu ^2\hfill & 0.1\hfill & 0.2\hfill & 0.3\hfill & 0.4\hfill & 0.5\hfill & 0.6\hfill \\ N_3\hfill & 0.9966(2)\hfill & 0.981(2)\hfill & 0.950(5)\hfill & 0.89(1)\hfill & 0.80(2)\hfill & 0.66(4)\hfill \end{array}}$$

Let

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_3(x_1,x_2)=\frac{1}{N_3}x_1,x_2|m_3.$$
(61)
In Figures 4-11 we compare the wavefunction $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ with the corresponding approximate wavefunctions $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^\text{S}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^{\text{F}_1}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^{\text{F}_2}`$ for $`\lambda =0.1\mu ^2`$ and $`0.4\mu ^2`$. For visual clarity we plot the wavefunctions over three copies of the fundamental region $`R`$. We use the variables

$`y_1`$ $`=\frac{3}{2L}x_1,`$ (62)
$`y_2`$ $`=\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2L}\left(x_1+2x_2\right),`$ (63)
to make clear the hexagon symmetry. To guide the eye we have drawn dotted lines along the points

$`x_1`$ $`=x_2,`$ (64)
$`x_1`$ $`=x_1x_2,`$ (65)
$`x_2`$ $`=x_1x_2.`$ (66)
These corresponds with configurations where two of the three constituents lie at the same point.

We notice that for both $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3`$ and $`\mathrm{\Psi }_3^{\text{F}_1},`$ the inclusion of the repulsive $`:\varphi ^6:`$ interaction produces a marked suppression of the wavefunction near the origin. By independently changing the coefficients of $`:\varphi ^6:`$ and $`:\varphi ^4:`$, we have a simple laboratory to study the competition between two-body and three-body forces in three-body bound states, a topic of some relevance and recent interest in the triton system.

## 8 Summary

We have considered the relativistic bound states of $`\varphi ^6\varphi ^4`$ theory in $`1+1`$ dimensions. Using a recently proposed diagonalization/Monte Carlo computational scheme, we calculated the two-body and three-body bound state energies and wavefunctions. The initial diagonalization was performed using the quasi-sparse eigenvector method, and the subsequent stochastic error correction was calculated to first-order using the series method. We made detailed comparisons of our numerical results with the available literature and several approximations, including non-relativistic weak-coupling solutions and various truncated Fock space approximations.

Applications to more complicated higher dimensional theories can be done in the same manner but require larger QSE subspaces and going beyond the first-order term in the series method or use of the stochastic Lanczos method. But even from the simple examples presented here, the potential for studying relativistic bound states with diagonalization/Monte Carlo methods is apparent.

### Acknowledgments

Financial support provided by the DFG and NSF.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The search for consistent compactifications of higher dimensional supergravity is currently an active field of research , mostly due to its connection with the effort to embed brane-world scenarios in a superstring/M-theory contest .

It is quite common to consider several maximally supersymmetric gauged supergravities as coming from Kaluza Klein sphere compactifications of higher dimensional supergravities admitting an $`AdS\times `$Sphere vacuum solution. The examples include the $`S^4`$ and $`S^7`$ compactifications of 11D supergravity and the $`S^5`$ compactification of type IIB supergravity. Generally the lower dimensional theory is obtained by *truncating* the spectrum of the higher dimensional supergravity to the massless sector, namely by setting to zero all the infinite towers of massive Kaluza Klein modes. By doing so, we are left with an interacting theory for a finite number of lower dimensional fields, which can be usually recognized as a gauged supergravity.

It is not a trivial task to show that such a truncation is consistent, which means that all the solutions of the dimensionally reduced theory are solutions of the higher dimensional one too (for instance, it took several years to show the consistency of the $`S^7`$ reduction of 11D supergravity down to $`𝒩=8`$ $`SO(8)`$-gauged supergravity in four dimensions ). Indeed the full non-linear equations of motion of the higher dimensional supergravity can be regarded as the equations of motion for the lower dimensional fields only at the price of admitting a rather complex non-linear coupling of these fields with each other. This implies that in principle infinite different products of massless modes could act as sources for the massive ones. The consistency of the truncation requires that this does not happen, namely it requires that the composite currents coupled to the massive modes always contain at least one of the massive truncated modes.

As we will show, a very simple argument about the second order nature of the Kaluza Klein differential field equations leads to the conclusion that particular truncations of 11D supergravity (but the argument is sufficiently general to admit generalizations to other supergravity theories) are consistent. This requires the concept of *shadow relation* between Kaluza Klein fields that we are going to explain.

## 2 Shadow multiplets in Kaluza Klein theory

Following the conventions of  the bosonic action of 11D supergravity reads:

$$S=\frac{1}{\kappa _{11}^2}detV\frac{1}{16\kappa _{11}^2}F{}_{}{}^{}F\frac{1}{96\kappa _{11}^2}FFA,$$
(1)
where $``$ is the scalar curvature, $`V^M`$ ($`M=0,\mathrm{}10`$) are the vielbein, $`A`$ is a three-form and $`F`$ its four-form field-strength. Freund-Rubin (FR) compactifications  are solutions of the field equations of 11D supergravity in which the space-time $`_{11}`$ has the factorized form

$$_{11}=AdS_4\times ^7.$$
(2)
The only non-vanishing components of $`F`$ are the $`4`$-dimensional ones: $`F_{abcd}=e\epsilon _{abcd}`$, where the parameter $`e`$ sets the scale for both the 4-dimensional and the $`7`$-dimensional cosmological constant (also $`^7`$ must be an Einstein space):

$$_{ab}=24e^2\eta _{ab},_{\alpha \beta }=12e^2\eta _{\alpha \beta }.$$
(3)
Greek letters $`\alpha ,\beta ,\mathrm{}`$ are reserved to flat seven dimensional indices, while Latin letters $`a,b\mathrm{}`$ stand for four dimensional flat indices. We denote by $`x`$ the coordinates of four dimensional space, while $`y`$ are the coordinates on the compact manifold $`^7`$.

The fluctuations of the eleven-dimensional fields around such a background can be expanded into harmonics on the compact $`7`$-manifold, namely eigenmodes of proper $`7`$-dimensional covariant operators, and the linearized $`4`$-dimensional field equations can be suitably diagonalized. The resulting general formulae were derived in  and organized into a systematic way in . Let us recall the notations and the main results of that paper. For the fluctuations $`h_{MN}`$ of the metric one sets

$`h_{ab}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(h_{ab}^I\left(x\right){\displaystyle \frac{3}{M_{(0)^3}+32}}D_{(a}D_{b)}[(2+\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})S^I\left(x\right)`$ (4)
$`+`$ $`(2\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})\mathrm{\Sigma }^I\left(x\right)]+\frac{5}{4}\delta _{ab}[(6\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})S^I\left(x\right)`$
$`+`$ $`(6+\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})\mathrm{\Sigma }^I\left(x\right)]\left)Y^I\right(y),`$
$`h_{a\beta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`[(\sqrt{M_{(1)(0)^2}+16}4)A_a^I\left(x\right)`$ (5)
$`+`$ $`(\sqrt{M_{(1)(0)^2}+16}+4)W_a^I\left(x\right)\left]Y^I_\beta \right(y),`$
$`h_{\alpha \beta }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi ^I\left(x\right)Y_{(\alpha \beta )}^I\left(y\right)\delta _{\alpha \beta }[(6\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})S^I\left(x\right)`$ (6)
$`+`$ $`(6+\sqrt{M_{(0)^3}+36})\mathrm{\Sigma }^I\left(x\right)\left]Y^I\right(y).`$
For the fluctuations $`a_{MNR}`$ of the three form field, one has

$`a_{abc}(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`2\epsilon _{abcd}D_d(S^I\left(x\right)+\mathrm{\Sigma }^I\left(x\right))Y^I\left(y\right),`$
$`a_{ab\gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{2}{3}\epsilon _{abcd}(D_cA_d^I\left(x\right)+D_cW_d^I\left(x\right))Y_\gamma ^I\left(y\right),`$
$`a_{a\beta \gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`Z_a^I\left(x\right)Y_{[\beta \gamma ]}^I\left(y\right),`$ (7)
$`a_{\alpha \beta \gamma }(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\pi ^I\left(x\right)Y_{[\alpha \beta \gamma ]}^I\left(y\right).`$ (8)
Finally, for the fluctuations of the gravitino field,

$`\psi _a(x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`(\chi _a^I\left(x\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\frac{4}{7}M_{(1/2)^3}+8}{M_{(1/2)^3}+8}}\left[D_a\lambda _L^I\left(x\right)\right]_{3/2}`$ (9)
$``$ $`(6+\frac{3}{7}M_{(1/2)^3})\gamma _5\gamma _a\lambda _L^I\left(x\right)\left)\mathrm{\Xi }^I\right(y),`$
$`\psi _\alpha (x,y)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda _T^I\left(x\right)\mathrm{\Xi }_\alpha ^I\left(y\right)+\lambda _L^I\left(x\right)\left[_\alpha \mathrm{\Xi }^I\left(y\right)\right]_{3/2}.`$ (10)
The harmonics on $`^7`$ are grouped into seven infinite towers corresponding to as many irreducible representations of the tangent group $`SO(7)`$ that appear in the decomposition $`47`$ of eleven dimensional tensors and spinors. Since $`SO(7)`$ has rank 3, its irreps are labeled by three numbers $`[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]`$ that we take to be the Young labels111 That is, for bosonic tensors with symmetry represented by a Young tableaux, $`\lambda _i`$ is the number of boxes in the $`i`$-th row of the tableaux. For gamma-traceless irreducible spinor tensors $`\lambda ^i`$ is $`1/2`$ plus the number of boxes..

Measuring everything in units of the Freund-Rubin scale, *i.e.* setting $`e=1`$, the masses of the $`4`$-fields appearing in the Kaluza Klein expansion (eq.s 4-10) are expressed in terms of the eigenvalues $`M_{[\lambda _1,\lambda _2,\lambda _3]}`$ of the appropriate $`7`$-operators as follows:

$`m_h^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(0\right)^3},`$ (11)
$`m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(0\right)^3}+176+24\sqrt{M_{\left(0\right)^3}+36},`$ (12)
$`m_S^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(0\right)^3}+17624\sqrt{M_{\left(0\right)^3}+36},`$ (13)
$`m_\varphi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(2\right)\left(0\right)^2},`$ (14)
$`m_\pi ^2`$ $`=`$ $`16\left(M_{\left(1\right)^3}2\right)\left(M_{\left(1\right)^3}1\right),`$ (15)
$`m_W^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(1\right)\left(0\right)^2}+48+12\sqrt{M_{\left(1\right)\left(0\right)^2}+16},`$ (16)
$`m_A^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(1\right)\left(0\right)^2}+4812\sqrt{M_{\left(1\right)\left(0\right)^2}+16},`$ (17)
$`m_Z^2`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(1\right)^2\left(0\right)},`$ (18)
$`m_{\lambda _L}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(M_{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^3}+16\right),`$ (19)
$`m_{\lambda _T}`$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^2}+8,`$ (20)
$`m_\chi `$ $`=`$ $`M_{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)^3}.`$ (21)
The AdS relation between the mass $`m_{(s)}`$ and the rest energy $`E_{(s)}`$ of a spin $`s`$ particle which, in the alternative three-dimensional conformal interpretation of the $`SO(2,3)`$ group, translates into a relation with the scale dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }=E`$ of the corresponding primary conformal field (see  for further details), is given by222The reader should be careful in comparisons with other papers and take into account that the definition of mass utilized in this paper is that of supergravity . Specifically the mass squared of scalars is defined as the deviation from a conformal invariant equation, the mass of the gravitino is defined as the deviation from a Rarita Schwinger equation with supersymmetry, the mass squared of a spin one field is defined as the deviation from a gauge invariant equation.:

$`m_{\left(0\right)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`16\left(E_{\left(0\right)}2\right)\left(E_{\left(0\right)}1\right),`$
$`|m_{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}|`$ $`=`$ $`4E_{\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)}6,`$
$`m_{\left(1\right)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`16\left(E_{\left(1\right)}2\right)\left(E_{\left(1\right)}1\right),`$
$`|m_{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}+4|`$ $`=`$ $`4E_{\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)}6.`$ (22)
### The shadowing phenomenon

Having established the conventions on the Kaluza Klein expansion of the eleven dimensional fields, we are now able to discuss the shadowing phenomenon in details. As it can be seen from equations (4-10), there are infinitely many couples of fields which share the same harmonics. The masses of the fields in each couple are related through equations (11 -21) to the same eigenvalue of the corresponding harmonic. This means that fields of different type, spin and mass are nevertheless linked by a relation which determines the mass of the one as a function of the other, as shown in table 1. Furthermore, each field belongs to the same irrep of the isometry group of $`^7`$ as the shadow partner, which is just the conjugate representation of the associated harmonic.

### Examples

We can illustrate the basic structure of this mechanism with some simple examples that will be quite relevant in our subsequent discussion.

Let us observe that the same scalar harmonic $`Y^I(y)`$ is associated both to the graviton field $`h_{ab}^I(x)`$ of eq. (4) and to the scalar field $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^I(x)`$ of eq. (5). Using the mass relations (11 -21), we see that the shadow scalar of a “parent” graviton has mass

$$m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=m_h^2+176+24\sqrt{m_h^2+36}$$
(23)
In the case of the massless graviton, $`m_h^2=0`$, corresponding to the constant harmonic $`Y=1`$, its shadow scalar $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has (squared) mass

$$m_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2=320.$$
(24)
Using eq.s (22) this implies

$$E_\mathrm{\Sigma }=6.$$
(25)
We conclude that in every $`AdS_4\times ^7`$ compactification there is always a *universal* scalar mode of conformal dimension $`E=6`$ that is the shadow of the graviton. Its geometric origin is apparent from the second of equations (4): it is just the *breathing mode* corresponding to an overall dilatation of the internal manifold $`^7`$.

As it follows by inspection of eq.s (5), to the same vector harmonic $`Y_\alpha ^I`$ we associate two vector fields: one, $`A_a`$, with mass given by eq. (17), the other, $`W_a`$, with mass given by eq. (16). This is due to the fact that the linearized field equation for a $`4`$-vector associated to an harmonic of given $`M_{(1)(0)^2}`$ is a second order differential equation. Hence we have two independent solutions rather than one. The very initial idea of Kaluza Klein theory is that the isometries of the internal manifold give rise to massless gauge fields in the compactified $`4`$-dimensional theory. When we start from 11D M-theory there is a further aspect. Indeed to each Killing vector of the internal compact manifold we associate two rather than one vector fields. In addition to the KK massless gauge boson, we have its shadow massive vector. It also belongs to the adjoint representation of the isometry group, and it has fixed mass and dimension:

$$m_W^2=192E_W=5.$$
(26)
Finally, let us consider one more example involving fermionic fields. Comparing eq.s (9) and (10), we see that the same spinor harmonic $`\mathrm{\Xi }^I`$ appearing in the expansion of the gravitino $`\psi _a(x,y)`$ has as coefficients of the expansion both a spin-3/2 $`\psi _a^I(x)`$ and a longitudinal spin-1/2 field $`\lambda _L(x)^I`$. Using eq.s (19,21) the relation between the masses of the spin-$`3/2`$ and spin-$`1/2`$ modes pertaining to the same harmonic is:

$$m_\psi =m_{\lambda _L}16.$$
(27)
Applying eq. (27) to the case $`m_{\lambda _L}=0`$, we see that each massless spin $`\frac{1}{2}`$ particle of this type generates a shadow massive gravitino with mass:

$$m_\psi =16E_\psi =\frac{9}{2}.$$
(28)
Conversely, every massless gravitino produces a shadow massive spin-1/2 field with mass:

$$m_{\lambda _L}=16E_{\lambda _L}=\frac{11}{2}.$$
(29)
### Supersymmetry and shadow multiplets

Let us consider unitary irreducible representations of the superalgebra $`Osp(𝒩|4)`$, i.e. the supersymmetric extension of $`SO(2,3)`$ with $`𝒩`$ supercharges. Each of them is a supermultiplet, represented by a suitable constrained superfield, that contains fields whose spins $`s`$ and dimensions $`E`$ are related to each other.

These relations hint to a sort of mirror image of the supersymmetry algebra that is realized on the internal compact manifold $`^7`$. This idea was thoroughly analyzed in  and traced back to the existence of (commuting) Killing spinors $`\eta ^A`$ ($`A=1,\mathrm{}𝒩`$), where $`𝒩`$ is the number of preserved supersymmetries of the $`AdS_4\times ^7`$ compactification one considers. By means of the Killing spinors $`\eta ^A`$, to each harmonic $`Y`$ that is an eigenmode of a bosonic $`7`$-operator one can associate another fermionic harmonic $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ that is an eigenmode of a fermionic $`7`$-operator with suitably related eigenvalues. These pairs of related harmonics were explicitly constructed in  and follow the schematic pattern given in fig. 1.

As already stressed fifteen years ago in , these relations are differential geometric identities on the compact $`7`$-manifold $`^7`$ that are required by consistency with the structure of UIR.s of the superconformal group $`Osp(𝒩|4)`$. Because of this, it may at first sight appear that the universal mass relations analyzed in  do not contain further physical information besides the implications of supersymmetry. However, this is not the case, because of another aspect of eq.s (11-22), whose consequence is precisely the existence of shadow multiplets.

The point is that the relations (11-21) between masses (or conformal weights) and eigenvalues of the internal Laplacian is quadratic rather than linear. Indeed the same harmonic always plays a double role since it appears in the expansion of two quite different Kaluza Klein fields. Combined with the supersymmetry relations produced by Killing spinors, this has the curious consequence that each supersymmetry multiplet of the Kaluza Klein spectrum is associated with another one made, so to say, by the second roots of the quadratic relations.

## 3 Consistency of the shadow truncation

Let us consider the $`7`$-dimensional equation satisfied by the scalar harmonics associated to the spin two Kaluza Klein fields $`h_{ab}^I`$:

$$\mathrm{}_7Y=D^\mu D_\mu Y=M_{(0)^3}Y.$$
(30)
The compactness of $`^7`$ implies the positivity of $`\mathrm{}_7`$ and, in particular, the fact that the lightest spin two field, i.e. the massless graviton $`h_{ab}^0`$ is associated to the constant harmonic $`Y=1`$. Together with the killing spinor relations of table 1, this implies that all the harmonics associated to the fields of the massless graviton supermultiplet are given by some product of killing spinors and constant covariant tensors. The same is true, by definition, for the harmonics associated to the fields of the shadow multiplet (i.e. the shadow partner of the graviton multiplet). This implies that more general harmonics, associated to the other massive fields, cannot be obtained as products of the only Killing spinor harmonics. Hence in the complete (non-linear) $`4`$-dimensional equations of motion, there are no non-vanishing currents (i.e. composites of the only massless and shadow fields) that could act as sources for the massive truncated fields. The conclusion is that the truncation of the Kaluza Klein modes to the massless graviton multiplet plus the shadow sector has to be consistent, independently from the specific compact manifold $`^7`$.

Actually it is worth to stress that this is not a rigorous proof of consistency because, in principle, we do not have a definitive argument to exclude the existence of at least one field, among the higher massive modes, whose harmonic is made by a product of constant tensors and Killing spinors. If this were the case, the consistent truncation could require not to switch off this field. But this possibility seems very unrealistic. First of all because, as we have seen, the harmonics of the fields in the same supermultiplet would be related to this one by products with Killing spinors. So they all would be of the same kind and we should deal with a whole new massive multiplet to retain in the consistent truncation. Second, because the shadow multiplet fields have a really universal geometrical meaning, while the other massive ones are related to the specific features of the compactification manifold. It seems therefore really plausible that there is a deep link between the most general kind of multiplet of a supergravity theory (the massless graviton) and another universal multiplet (its shadow).

## 4 The superHiggs phenomenon

The conclusion about the consistency of the truncation of any supersymmetric compactification of 11D supergravity to the massless plus the shadow sectors implies that the dimensionally reduced theory is a consistent coupling of some gauged supergravity to a proper multiplet of massive fields. In particular, in the case of $`𝒩=3`$ supersymmetric compactifications, independently on the internal manifold $`^7`$, there has to be a consistent coupling of a whole massive gravitino multiplet to the $`𝒩=3`$ $`SO(3)`$-gauged supergravity in four dimensions. Indeed the shadow partner of the $`𝒩=3`$ graviton multiplet, displayed in table 2, is a massive gravitino multiplet.

The only way to introduce such a multiplet in a consistent way is through the super-Higgs phenomenon333analogously, in the $`𝒩=2`$ case, where the shadow partner of the massless graviton is a massive vector multiplet, we deal with a simple Higgs phenomenon. Hence we are led to the conclusion that any $`𝒩=3`$ dimensional reduction of 11D supergravity on a background of the form $`AdS_4\times ^7`$ actually is a broken phase of some gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity.

The $`𝒩=43`$ partial supersymmetry breaking in four-dimensional supergravity is well-known in the literature . It can be realized by coupling three vector multiplets to the $`SO(4)`$-gauged $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity and giving a proper vev to four scalars which preserve the $`SO(3)`$ $`R`$-symmetry of the $`𝒩=3`$ vacuum. As explicitly shown in , there is an upper bound on the mass acquired by the broken gravitino, which is a function of these vevs (the moduli of the partial breaking). The rest energy of this gravitino is given by:

$$E_\psi =\frac{3}{2}+\sqrt{\frac{8+\rho ^4\rho ^2(8+\rho ^2)\mathrm{cos}4\theta }{8+\rho ^48\rho ^2\rho ^4\mathrm{cos}4\theta }},$$
(31)
where the complex variable $`\rho e^{i\theta }`$, $`\rho <1`$, partially parametrizes the partial breaking moduli space. Hence standard $`𝒩=4`$ supergravity poses the upper bound $`E_\psi <9/2`$.

Now, in the case where the supergravity we are considering is realized through a dimensional reduction from 11D, the broken gravitino is nothing but the higher spin component of the shadow supermultiplet of the compactification. As we have shown in the third example of section 2 and as it is discussed in  for a particular compactification, the energy of such field is just $`E_\psi =9/2`$, independently from the specific $`^7`$. This means that there must exist some new way to realize the $`𝒩=43`$ supersymmetry breaking, admitting a broken gravitino energy $`E_\psi 9/2`$, so far not considered in the literature.