text:
# Quantum cobwebs: Universal entangling of quantum states

## I Introduction

In recent years we have learnt about what we can do and what we cannot do with the largely inaccessible information content of an unknown quantum state . On the one hand linearity and unitarity of quantum theory are guiding principles and on the other hand they put several fundamental limitations on quantum information. Some of these limitations are no-cloning , no-deleting against a copy , and no-complementing . Though exact operations are not allowed, these impossible operations can be made possible with a fidelity at least equal to that of the state estimation fidelity . Processing of the vast amount of information contained in an unknown quantum state without destroying the coherence is an important task, in general.

Another key feature of the quantum world is the entangled nature of quantum states. Though a complete understanding of quantum entanglement is still lacking, many important developments have taken place in recent years in qualifying and quantifying multiparticle quantum entanglement . Quantum entanglement is generally regarded as a very useful resource for quantum information processing . In a striking discovery it was shown that without violating no-cloning principle an unknown quantum state can be teleported  with unit fidelity from one place to another using a quantum entangled channel and sending two bits of classical information. This has been also demonstrated experimentally . Quantum entanglement can be used for dense coding , entanglement swapping , remote state preparation of special qubits , study of communication cost  and remote state preparation of arbitrary quantum states , teleportation of a unitary operator (quantum remote control) , telecloning , remote information concentration  and many more important tasks. In addition, it is a hope that entanglement will play a key role in quantum computation in giving its extra power compared to classical computers .

Here, we find yet another startling application of quantum entanglement. Imagine that we need to distribute an unknown qubit to more than one party. If we could distribute to many parties without entangling (i.e. in product states) then that would violate no-cloning principle. This means that the distributed state of a qubit with $`N`$ parties must be in an entangled state. But creating an universal entangled state of an unknown state was shown to be impossible , i.e., starting with a state $`|\psi _1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N`$ we cannot create a symmetric universal entangled state $`|\psi _1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N+|0_1|\psi _2\mathrm{}|0_N+\mathrm{}|0_1|0_2\mathrm{}|\psi _N`$. However, the surprising fact is that if we drop symmetric requirement then it is possible to create two types of multiparticle entangled state of an unknown state. Precisely, we are looking for a protocol where the resulting state will be either $`a_1|\psi _1|0_2\mathrm{}|0_N+a_2|0_1|\psi _2|0_3\mathrm{}|0_N+\mathrm{}a_N|0_1|0_2\mathrm{}|\psi _N`$ or $`a_1|\psi _1|1_2\mathrm{}|1_N+a_2|1_1|\psi _2|1_3\mathrm{}|1_N+\mathrm{}a_N|1_1|1_2\mathrm{}|\psi _N`$, where an unknown state $`|\psi `$ is entangled with reference states $`|0`$ and $`|1`$. The protocol we present here differs from the original aim of the universal entangler as propsed in  because in our scheme one can end up with two different type of universal entangled states. Further, Buzek and Hillery  have studied approximate methods to generate universal enatngled states whereas we propose how to create exact universal entangled states. This is an important step in the sense that our protocol can produce universal entangled states (which people have previously thought to be impossible) and which works with unit probability of success. It is a hope that exact universal entangled states will play important roles for storage of quantum information against environmental decoherence .

In this paper we introduce a class of entangled states called zero sum amplitude (ZSA) entangled states which may have merit on their own. We present a protocol where upon using a special class of ZSA multipartite (say $`N`$, where $`N`$ is the number of parties) shared entangled states, local operations and classical communication (LOCC), one can create two types of shared-entangled state of an unknown quantum state with $`(N1)`$ qubits at remote places. The information about an unknown state is distributed with all the $`N`$ parties concerned in a non-local way. Thus, remote shared-entangling of an unknown state with multiparties is a very secure way to preserve the information about an unknown state (as long as $`N`$ parties can maintain their quantum correlation). The present scheme could have some potential application in multiparty quantum cryptographic protocols which will be reported elsewhere .

The organisation of the present paper is as follows. In section 2, we introduce the zero sum amplitude entangled state and discuss its salient features. In section 3, we give our protocol for creating universal entangled states using a tripartite entangled state and quantify the resource needed to do the task. Further, in section 4 we generalise it to $`N`$-partite entangled states and quantify the amount of bipratite entanglement and classical communication needed to create $`(N1)`$-partite quantum cobweb. We also explain why a classical correlated channel cannot be used to create universal entangled states. Our example of $`N`$-partite zero sum amplitude entangled state (amplitudes being $`N`$th root of unity) shows that the amount of bipartite splitting entanglement goes as $`1/N`$ in the large $`N`$ limit and the conclusion follows in section 5.

## II  Zero sum amplitude entangled states for multiqubits

For the sake of generality, we introduce an arbitrary pure $`N`$-qubit zero sum amplitude (ZSA) entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Phi }_{12\mathrm{}N}^2\mathrm{}^2`$ ($`N`$ times) given by

$$|\mathrm{\Phi }_{12\mathrm{}N}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{2^N}{}}c_i|i_{12\mathrm{}N},$$
(1)
where $`\{|i\}`$ is an orthonormal basis for $`2^N`$-dimensional Hilbert space, $`_{i=1}^{2^N}c_i=0`$ (i.e., all the complex amplitudes sum to zero) and $`_{i=1}^{2^N}|c_i|^2=1`$ (i.e., the state is normalised to unity). The state space of a quantum system is the complex projective Hilbert space $`𝒫=/U(1)`$ which can be defined as a set of rays of the Hilbert space under the projection map $`\mathrm{\Pi }:𝒫`$. The complex projective Hilbert space has one dimension less, i.e., $`\mathrm{dim}𝒫=\mathrm{dim}1`$. For a general ZSA state the dimension of the state space (viewed as a real manifol) is $`D=(2^{N+1}3)`$ (i.e. a $`D`$-dimensional real space) and requires $`D`$ real parameters to sepcify the point on the quantum state space.

In the rest of the paper, we will consider a special class of ZSA states where the number of complex amplitudes is equal to the number of parties (and since each party posseses one qubit it is also equal to the total number of qubits) involved and $`N`$ orthonormal states contain all zeros except at a single entry which contains a one. For example, a $`N`$-partitite ZSA state is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123\mathrm{}N}`$ $`=`$ $`c_1|100\mathrm{}0_{123\mathrm{}N}+c_2|010\mathrm{}0_{123\mathrm{}N}+`$ (3)
$`\mathrm{}+c_N|00\mathrm{}1_{123\mathrm{}N}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}c_k|x_k_{123\mathrm{}N},`$
where $`|x_k`$ ($`k=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$) is a $`N`$-bit string containing all $`0`$’s except that $`k`$th party contains $`1`$ and the amplitudes obey ZSA condition $`_kc_k=0`$ and the normalisation $`_k|c_k|^2=1`$. These class of sates can be completely specified by $`(2N3)`$ real parameters.

To appreciate the remarkable features of these class of states we first discuss the case of two parties. When the number of parties is two, the ZSA state is given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{12}=c_1|10_{12}+c_2|01_{12}.$$
(4)
The ZSA and normalisation conditions guarantee that the above state is nothing but an EPR singlet state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{12}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|10_{12}|01_{12})`$, which is just one member of the Bell-sates. This state is known to be locally equivalent to other Bell-states and can be used for succesfull quantum teleportation of an unknown qubit . However throughout the paper whenever we mention multiparticle state we will consider three or more qubits, i.e., $`N3`$.

Let us introduce a class of tripartite zero sum amplitude normailsed entangled state of qubits $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}^2^2^2`$ given by

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}=c_1|100_{123}+c_2|010_{123}+c_3|001_{123},$$
(5)
where $`c_i`$’s $`(i=1,2,3)`$ are non-zero amplitudes of the basis states where the $`i`$th qubit is in the state $`|1`$. These amplitudes obey $`_{i=1}^3c_i=0`$ and $`_{i=1}^3|c_i|^2=1`$. Interestingly, states of the type (4), but without ZSA condition, have shown up in a variety of places in the literature . In particular, Coffman et al  have shown that these states minimise the residual three-tangle. They also show up in the work of Brun and Cohen  on GHZ distilation and has been named as ‘triple’ states. Remarkably, Dür et al  have shown that any tripartite entangled state can be converted either to the GHZ class or W class of states by LOCC in a probabilistic manner. The only difference between the class of tripartite entangled states introduced here and the ones studied in  is that here the amplitudes obey the ZSA condition. We conjecture that the ZSA states are not locally equivalent to $`|GHZ_{123\mathrm{}N}=1/\sqrt{2}(|000\mathrm{}0_{123\mathrm{}N}+|111\mathrm{}1_{123\mathrm{}N})`$ and $`|W_{123\mathrm{}N}=1/\sqrt{N}_k|x_k_{123\mathrm{}N}`$ states, except for the trivial case $`N=2`$. Following the discovery of Dür et al  we can say that ZSA state may be related to W-states under stochastic LOCC. Also one can give a simple proof that the ZSA state is inequivalent to $`|W_{123\mathrm{}N}`$ and $`|GHZ_{123\mathrm{}N}`$ states under local unitary operations .

Note that this tripartite entangled state is not a maximally entangled state. The ZSA states are not maximally fragile , i.e., measurement of any one of the subsystems does not necessarily destroy the entanglement between remaining qubits. For example, if we project the first qubit onto computational basis $`|0`$, the state of the particles $`2`$ and $`3`$ is $`c_2|10_{23}+c_3|01_{23}`$, which is a non-maximally entangled state. But projection onto a basis $`|1`$ gives a disentangled state. This property holds with respect to all other qubits. The one particle reduced density matrix $`\rho _k^2`$ for any one of the three particles is not completely random but a pseudo-pure state given by

$$\rho _k=|c_k|^2I+(12|c_k|^2)|00|,k=1,2,3.$$
(6)
Further, if we trace out Alice’s qubit, the two-qubit state at Bob and Charlie’s place is a mixed entangled state given by

$`\rho _{23}=|c_1|^2|00||00|+|c_2|^2|11||00|+|c_3|^2|00|`$ (7)
$`|11|+c_2c_3^{}|10||01|+c_2^{}c_3|01||10|.`$ (8)
That (6) is inseparable can be seen by applying Peres-Horodecki criterion  which is a necessary and sufficient one in $`^2^2`$. This says that if a density matrix $`\rho `$ is separable then the partial transpose has only nonnegative eigenvalues. If $`T`$ is a transposition on space of bounded operators $`()`$, then the partial transpose $`PT`$ (with respect to second subsystem) on $`()()`$ is defined as $`\rho _{m\mu ,n\nu }^{\mathrm{PT}}=\rho _{m\nu ,n\mu }`$. Thus, the partial transpose of two-qubit density matrix (6) is given by

$`\rho _{23}^{\mathrm{PT}}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}\hfill |c_1|^2& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill c_2^{}c_3\\ \hfill 0& \hfill |c_3|^2& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill |c_2|^2& \hfill 0\\ \hfill c_2c_3^{}& \hfill 0& \hfill 0& \hfill 0\end{array}\right).`$ (13)
The eigenvalues of $`\rho _{23}^{PT}`$ are $`\lambda _1=|c_2|^2,\lambda _2=|c_3|^2,\lambda _3=\frac{1}{2}(|c_1|^2+\sqrt{|c_1|^4+4|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})`$ and $`\lambda _4=\frac{1}{2}(|c_1|^2\sqrt{|c_1|^4+4|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})`$. Though first three eigenvalues are nonnegative the last one is not (one can check that $`\lambda _3\lambda _4`$ is a negative number). Therefore, the two qubit density matrix $`\rho _{23}`$ is inseparable. The same is true if we trace out any other qubit and look at the density matrix of the two-qubit system. A particular measure of entanglement for mixed state is ‘entanglement of formation’ . The entanglement of formation of $`\rho _{23}`$ can be computed explicitly and it is given by

$`E_{23}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\sqrt{14|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1+\sqrt{14|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})]`$ (14)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\sqrt{14|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})\mathrm{log}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(1\sqrt{14|c_2|^2|c_3|^2})].`$ (15)
We will see in the section 3. that the mixed state density matrix (6) is transformed to a pure state with LOCC. Next we come to the main result of our paper.

## III Universal entangling of unknown qubit with two parties

In what follows we give our protocol for creating two types of universal entangled states of an unknown state at two remote locations. Suppose Alice, Bob and Charlie at remote locations share an entangled state (4) and have access to particles $`1,2`$ and $`3`$, respectively. An unknown qubit is given to Alice in the form

$$|\psi _a=\alpha |0_a+\beta |1_a,$$
(16)
where $`\alpha =\mathrm{cos}\frac{\theta }{2}`$ and $`\beta =\mathrm{sin}\frac{\theta }{2}\mathrm{exp}(i\varphi )`$. We show that Alice can always create an entangled state of any unknown state with a reference state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ shared between Bob and Charlie by sending two bits of information to both of them. The combined state of the input and the tripartite ZSA entangled state $`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}`$ can be expressed in terms of Bell-states  of particle $`a`$ and $`1`$ as

$`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{a1}(c_2\alpha |10_{23}+c_3\alpha |01_{23}+`$ (20)
$`c_1\beta |00_{23})+|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{a1}(c_2\alpha |10_{23}+c_3\alpha |01_{23}c_1\beta |00_{23})`$
$`+|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{a1}(c_1\alpha |00_{23}+c_2\beta |10_{23}+c_3\beta |01_{23})+`$
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{a1}(c_1\alpha |00_{23}+c_2\beta |10_{23}c_3\beta |01_{23})].`$
Using the zero sum amplitude property, i.e., $`_ic_i=0`$, we can rewrite the combined state as

$`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{a1}(c_2i\sigma _y|\psi _2|0_3+c_3|0i\sigma _y|\psi _3)+`$ (21)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{a1}(c_2\sigma _x|\psi _2|0_3+c_3|0\sigma _x|\psi _3)|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{a1}(c_2\sigma _z|\psi _2|0_3`$ (22)
$`+c_3|0\sigma _z|\psi _3)+|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{a1}(c_2|\psi _2|0_3+c_3|0|\psi _3)],`$ (23)
where $`\sigma _x,\sigma _y`$ and $`\sigma _z`$ are Pauli matrices. Now Alice performs a joint measurement on particles $`a`$ and $`1`$. Since a Bell-basis measurement will give four possible outcomes $`\{|\mathrm{\Phi }^\pm ,|\mathrm{\Psi }^\pm \}`$ she can get two classical bits of information. Then, Alice sends two classical bits to Bob and Charlie both, who in turn can apply certain local unitary operations to share an entangled state of an unknown state with reference states such as $`|0`$ or $`|1`$. For example, if the outcome is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$, then after receiving classical information Bob and Charlie will apply $`i\sigma _yi\sigma _y`$ or $`\sigma _x\sigma _x`$, respectively. They will be sharing an entangled state given by

$$|\psi ^{(1)}_{23}=c_2|\psi _2|1_3+c_3|1|\psi _3,$$
(24)
where $`|\psi ^{(1)}_{23}`$ is an universal entangled state of an unknown qubit with a reference state $`|1`$. This is universal because the protocol works perfectly for any input qubit $`|\psi `$. If the result is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ then, after receiving classical communication Bob and Charlie will apply $`\sigma _z\sigma _z`$ or $`II`$, respectively. In this case they will be sharing an entangled state given by

$$|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}=c_2|\psi _2|0_3+c_3|0|\psi _3,$$
(25)
where the states $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}`$ is an universal entangled state of an unknown state with a reference state $`|0`$. For successful creation of universal entangled states $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}`$ or $`|\psi ^{(1)}_{23}`$ two classical bits are needed from Alice. Note that the states in equations (12) and (13) are not normalised. The normalisation constant for (12) is $`N(\beta )=1/\sqrt{|c_2|^2+|c_3|^3+2|\beta |^2\mathrm{Re}(c_2^{}c_3)}`$ and for (13) is $`N(\alpha )`$, where $`N(\alpha )`$ can be obtained from $`N(\beta )`$ by replacing $`\beta `$ with $`\alpha `$.

An interesting observation is that if the state $`|\psi `$ is in a known state such as $`|0`$ or $`|1`$, then one may use this scheme for quantum cryptographic purposes. For example, if $`|\psi =|0`$, then $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}`$ is not an entangled but $`|\psi ^{(1)}_{23}`$ is. Similarly, if $`|\psi =|1`$, then $`|\psi ^{(1)}_{23}`$ is not entangled but $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}`$ is. This may provide a way to generate a coded message (detailed discussions are beyond the scope of the present paper and the results will be reported elsewhere ).

## IV Creating quantum cobwebs

The states that we have created by this protocol are very special. One can check that there is no local unitary operation $`_2_3`$ that can disentangle the unknown state perfectly. Even if both parties come together and perform joint unitary and measurement operations they cannot disentangle the qubit perfectly. Since a general quantum operation is a positive, linear, trace preserving map that has a unitary representation involving ancilla, let us assume that there is a unitary operator that disentangles any arbitary qubit perfectly. The action of the unitary operator on universal entangled state of $`|\psi `$ and $`|\overline{\psi }=\alpha |1\beta ^{}|0`$ (with $`\psi |\overline{\psi }=0`$) will be given by

$`N(\alpha )(c_2|\psi _2|0_3+c_3|0|\psi _3)|A|0|\psi |A^{},`$ (26)
$`N(\beta )(c_2|\overline{\psi }_2|0_3+c_3|0|\overline{\psi }_3)|A|0|\overline{\psi }|A^{\prime \prime },`$ (27)
where $`|A`$ is the initial and $`|A^{},|A^{\prime \prime }`$ are the final states of the ancilla, $`N(\alpha )`$ and $`N(\beta )`$ are normailsation constants for entangled states of $`|\psi ^{(0)}`$ and $`|\overline{\psi }^{(0)}`$, respectively. Taking the inner product we have $`2N(\alpha )N(\beta )\alpha \beta ^{}\mathrm{Re}(c_2c_3^{})=0`$ and this can never be satisfied for any non-zero values of $`c_2,c_3,\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$. Therefore, we cannot disentangle the state even by joint action and irreversible operation. Thus, the unknown state (containing some secret information) can remain simultaneously with two parties in a non-local manner. The element of surprise is in the fact that this is seems to be an irreversible conversion process (somewhat analogous to other irreversible distillation process.) This class of states we call quantum cobwebs because once they are created the unknown state is trapped in side the multiparticle entangled state. Though this feature may look undesirable to some readers it is indeed very useful in quantum cryptographic schemes. Often, new quantum information processing protocols are double-edged swords. If there is a negative aspect of a protocol there is a great positive aspect as well. However, here we would like to leave it as an open question whether these universal entangled states can be disentangled perfectly using entanglement assisted local operation and classical communication.

As mentioned in the introduction, recently it was shown  that there is no unitary operator which can create a perfect symmetric universal entangled state that will take $`|\psi _1|0_2|\psi _1|0_2+|0_1|\psi _2`$. Similarly, the reverse operation, i.e., a perfect disentangler is also not possible . But in our protocol we have circumvented this limitation and achieved two types of arbitrary universal perfect entanglers with unit probability using shared entanglement, local operations and classical communications (LOCC). However, our universal entangled states are not permutationaly invariant. Of course, our scheme may not be the only way to generate universal entangled states. It could be possible to consider a unitary operation on an unknown state along with ancillas and one may be able to create two types of universal entangled states with a postselection of measurement result. But this needs further investigation.

It may be worth mentioning that if Bob and Charlie perform non-local unitary operation and measurement, then one of them can recover the state with unit fidelity in a probabilistic manner. For example, to disentangle $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23}`$ Bob and Charlie can come together and perform a CNOT operation followed by a measurement of particle $`2`$ in the basis $`\{|+=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0+|1),|=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(|0|1)\}`$. When Bob gets $`|+`$, Charlie’s qubit is in the state $`|\psi `$ and when Bob gets $`|`$ Charlies qubit is not in the state $`|\psi `$, (i.e. there is an error in getting $`|\psi `$) so they can discard this. The probability of success is $`P=[|c_2|^2+|c_3|^3+2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}(c_2^{}c_3)]/2[|c_2|^2+|c_3|^3+2\alpha ^2\mathrm{Re}(c_2^{}c_3)]`$ which is greater than half (i.e. better than a random guess).

## V Resource for universal entangled states

Next, we quantify the amount of nonlocal quantum resource needed to create a remote shared-entangled state. In general quantifying amount of entanglement in multiparticle system is still a difficult problem . Moreover, for more than two parties there is no unique measure of quantum entanglement . However, our purpose is not to provide a measure of entanglement for ZSA sates. We simply observe the following points. The tripartite system can be partioned in three different ways, i.e $`A`$ vs $`BC`$, $`B`$ vs $`AC`$ and $`C`$ vs $`AB`$, there are three different ways of calculating the bipartite entanglement. Since we are interested to know the quantum resources between $`A`$ versus $`BC`$ (as we are creating universal entanglers for $`BC`$), we look at the amount of bipartite entanglement with respect to splitting of particles $`A`$ vs $`BC`$. This is given by the von Neumann entropy of the reduced density matrix $`\rho _1`$

$`E(A\mathrm{vs}BC)=E(\rho _1)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _1\mathrm{log}\rho _1)=`$ (28)
$`(1|c_1|^2)\mathrm{log}(1|c_1|^2)|c_1|^2\mathrm{log}|c_1|^2.`$ (29)
Though, the use of von Neumann entropy as a measure of entanglement for bipartite system is justified when asymptotically large number of copies are involved , we use this for its simplicity. Therefore, we can roughly say that using $`E(\rho _1)`$ amount of entanglement and communication of two classical bits to Bob and Charlie one can create two types of quantum universal entanglers for an unknown state. Thus a mixed entangled state (6) is converted to a pure universal entangled state after receiving classical communication from Alice. (Recall a similar situation in quantum teleportation, where a completely random mixture is converted to a pure unknown state). This is very interesting process where a mixed entangled state shared between two parties Bob and Charlie is purified to a pure entangled state using LOCC along with assisted LOCC from a third party Alice.

We can also argue that no classical correlated state (CCS) can create an universal entangled state of an unknown state. If we could create an univesral entangled state using CCS via local operation and classical communication then we could create some amount of entanglement between Bob and Charlie. But we know that via LOCC one cannot create any entanglement , hence CCS cannot create any universal entangled states.

We can actually quantify the amount of entanglement present in a bipartite universal entangled state (quantum cobweb). When the universal entangled state is of the type (13), then the reduced density matrix of qubit $`2`$ at Bob’s place is

$`\rho _2=N(\alpha )^2[|c_2|^2|\psi \psi |+|c_3|^2|00|+c_2c_3^{}\alpha |\psi 0|+c_2^{}c_3\alpha |0\psi |].`$ (30)
In the bipartite case the Schmidt decomposition theorem  guarantees that the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrices of B and C will be identical. They are given by $`\eta _\pm =\frac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{14ϵ})`$, where $`ϵ=4N(\alpha )^4|\beta |^4||c_2|^2||c_3|^2`$. Therefore, the amount of entanglement will be

$`E(|\psi ^{(0)}_{23})=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _2\mathrm{log}\rho _2)=\mathrm{tr}(\rho _3\mathrm{log}\rho _3)=\eta _+\mathrm{log}\eta _+\eta _{}\mathrm{log}\eta _{}.`$ (31)
As an example, if the amplitudes are cube roots of unity, then the zero sum amplitude entangled state is of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(|100_{123}+e^{2\pi i/3}|010_{123}+e^{2\pi i/3}|001_{123}).$$
(32)
The reduced density matrices for each of the subsystem are same and also has equal spectrum. It is given by $`\rho _1=\rho _2=\rho _3=\mathrm{diag}(2/3,1/3)`$. Therefore, the amount of bipartite entanglement between any partioning is $`E(\rho _1)=E(\rho _2)=E(\rho _3)=1(53\mathrm{log}3)/3=.9\mathrm{ebits}`$. Thus, with a use of $`.9`$ ebits of entanglement and two cbits of communication one can create, for example, a universal entangled state of the form

$$|\mathrm{\Psi }^{(0)}_{23}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}(e^{2\pi i/3}|\psi _2|0_3+e^{2\pi i/3}|0_2|\psi _3).$$
(33)
## VI Universal entangled state for multiparties

We can generalise the universal quantum entangler for $`(N1)`$ parties where an unknown qubit can be entangled with a reference state and shared with $`(N1)`$ parties. Let there be $`N`$ parties in a network of $`N`$ nodes each having access to a single qubit. They share $`N`$-partite zero sum amplitude entangled state $`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123\mathrm{}N}_{}^{2}{}_{}{}^{N}`$ given by (2).

Now, we describe how Alice can create an $`(N1)`$-partite entangled state of any unknown state with a reference state $`|0`$ or $`|1`$ shared between Bob, Charlie….and Nancy by sending two bits of information to the concerned parties. The combined state of the unknown qubit and $`N`$-partite entangled state $`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123\mathrm{}N}`$ can be expressed in terms of Bell-states of particle $`a`$ and $`1`$ as (again using the zero sum amplitude property)

$`|\psi _a|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123\mathrm{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}}[|\mathrm{\Phi }^+_{a1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}c_k|(i\sigma _y)\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}+`$ (34)
$`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}_{a1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}c_k|(\sigma _x)\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}|\mathrm{\Psi }^+_{a1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}c_k|(\sigma _z)\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}+`$ (35)
$`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}_{a1}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}c_k|\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}],`$ (36)
where $`|\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}=|0_2|0_3\mathrm{}|\psi _k\mathrm{}|0_N`$ is a $`(N1)`$ qubit strings containing all qubits in the state $`|0`$ except that the $`k`$th party contains the unknown state $`|\psi `$. Alice performs a joint Bell-state measurement on particles $`a`$ and $`1`$. If the outcome is $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ then after sending classical communication to the concerned $`(N1)`$ parties, they will apply $`i\sigma _y\mathrm{}i\sigma _y`$ or $`\sigma _x\mathrm{}\sigma _x`$, respectively. They will end up sharing an entangled state given by

$$|\psi ^{(1)}_{23\mathrm{}N}=\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}c_k|\psi _{(k)}^{(1)}_{23\mathrm{}N},$$
(37)
where $`|\psi _{(k)}^{(1)}_{23\mathrm{}N}=|1_2|1_3\mathrm{}|\psi _k\mathrm{}|1_N`$ is a $`(N1)`$ qubit strings that contains all qubits in the state $`|1`$ except that the $`k`$th party contains the unknown state $`|\psi `$. If the outcome is $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^+`$ or $`|\mathrm{\Psi }^{}`$ then after receiving classical communication, $`(N1)`$ parties will apply $`\sigma _z\mathrm{}\sigma _z`$ or $`I\mathrm{}I`$ (do nothing), respectively. Thus, they will end up sharing an entangled state given by

$$|\psi ^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}=\underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}c_k|\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}.$$
(38)
Thus, with the use of zero sum amplitude entangled state and two classical bits one can create universal entangled states of an unknown state with two types of reference states that have been shared between $`(N1)`$ parties at remote locations. Thus, $`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}`$ and $`|\psi ^{(1)}_{23\mathrm{}N}`$ are $`(N1)`$ node quantum cobwebs from which an unknown state cannot be disentangled perfectly by local or nonlocal unitary operations. The multiparty cobweb states in (21) and (22) are not normalised as expected.

The reduced density matrices for single qubits (after tracing out other $`(N1)`$ qubits from the $`N`$-partite state (2) ) is given by (5) with $`k=1,2,\mathrm{}N`$. With $`N`$ parties there are $`N(N1)/2`$ possible bipartite entanglements but we are interested in entanglement with respect to $`N`$ number of bipartite partioning (where we make partioning of one qubit versus all other qubits). The amount of bipartite entanglement with respect to splitting between qubit $`1`$ vs $`(N1)`$ is again given by (15). Therefore, with the use of $`E(\rho _1)`$ amount of entanglement and two classical bits to $`(N1)`$ parties one can create two types of $`(N1)`$ partite universal entangled states.

As an example, if the amplitudes are $`N`$th roots of unity, then the zero sum amplitude entangled state is given by

$`|\mathrm{\Psi }_{123\mathrm{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i2\pi k/N}|x_k_{123\mathrm{}N}.`$ (39)
The reduced density matrix of any of the qubit is identical and is given by $`\rho _k=\mathrm{diag}[(11/N),1/N]`$. Therefore, the amount of bipartite entanglement is independent of the choice of $`N`$ possible bipartite partioning. The bipartite entanglement $`E`$ with respect to splitting between particle $`1`$ and the rest $`(N1)`$ qubits is

$`E=E(\rho _1)=[(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})\mathrm{log}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\mathrm{log}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}]`$ (40)
With the use of $`E`$ bits of entanglement one can create an universal entangled state of $`(N1)`$ qubits as

$`|\psi ^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{N}}}{\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{N}{}}}e^{i2\pi k/N}|\psi _{(k)}^{(0)}_{23\mathrm{}N}.`$ (41)
If the number of parties $`N`$ becomes very large $`E1/N`$, this approaches zero i.e., the bipartite entanglement for the state (23) cannot be unlimitedly distributed between large number of parties. For large but finite $`N`$ we can say that with the use of $`O(1/N)`$ ebits of bipartite entanglement we can prepare a universal entangled state (25) for an unknown state with $`O(N)`$ parties at remote locations. In a different context, it was shown  that bipartite entanglement distributed between $`N`$ parties goes as $`2/N`$.

## VII Conclusion

In this paper, we have introduced a class of zero sum amplitude multipartite entangled states and studied their properties. Interestingly, when the number of parties is two, the ZSA entangled state is exactly an EPR state. We have presented a protocol where one can create two types of universal entangled states of an unknown state with reference states using shared ZSA entangled states and LOCC, which was thought to be an impossible task. This class of states may be called quantum cobwebs. This surprising feature exploits one property that is the zero sum amplitude nature of the original shared entangled state between $`N`$ parties. Creating a quantum cobweb could have some strategic applications, where some secret information is shared with every body but no one can salvage that information. This is very useful for cryptographic schemes. It may be remarked that though the original quantum teleportation uses maximally bipartite entangled states, one can also use three particle and four particle GHZ states for quantum teleportation . Ours is one example, where these class of multipartite states are pure entangled states but are not useful for quantum teleportation. We hope that the nature of ZSA and universal entangled states will throw some new light on the nature of quantum information and role of entanglement. Some open questions include: Is our scheme the most simple scheme for creating cobwebs? Why the ZSA states are so special and can one create cobwebs with other entangled states? In future, one can also explore if these multipartite ZSA entangled states can be employed for some other quantum information processing tasks.

Acknowledgements: I thank S. Bose for very useful discussions and A. Chefles for useful remarks. I thank S. R. Jain, Z. Ahmed, H. D. Parab for discussions concerning the zero sum nature of complex numbers. I also thank T. Brun for useful remarks and bringing some useful references to my notice.


format: text

text:
# Strongly Coupled CFT in FRW Universe from AdS/CFT Correspondence

## 1 Introduction

There are many matter fields in the Standard Model of particle physics. Supersymmetric theory or string theory predicts much larger number of matter fields. In the early universe, these matter fields are effectively massless and then behave as the conformaly invariant fields. Quantum effects of them can play an important role in the history of the universe. One of the examples is the trace anomaly of the energy-momentum tensor of the matter fields. The trace anomaly acts like a cosmological constant and could lead to the inflationary universe .

In order to know the quantum effects of the matter fields, we should know the effective action which describes the effects of the matter fields. A way of calculating the effective action is to use AdS/CFT correspondence . AdS/CFT correspondence states quantum theory of CFT on $`d`$-dimensional boundary of the Anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime can be described by the classical theory in the $`(d+1)`$–dimensional AdS bulk. This correspondence is on the ground of duality in the string theory. The classical limit of type IIB superstring theory (supergravity) on five dimensional AdS spacetime times a five sphere ($`AdS_5\times S^5`$) is dual to $`𝒩=4`$ supersymmetric $`SU(N)`$ Yangs- Mills (YM) theory for large $`N`$. The CFT parameters are related to the supergravity parameters by $`l^3/G=2N^2/\pi `$, where $`G`$ is the 5-dimensional Newton constant and $`l`$ is the curvature radius of $`AdS_5`$. The curvature scale of the $`AdS_5`$ spacetime $`l`$ is given by $`l^2=\sqrt{g_{YM}^2N}l_s^2`$ where $`g_{YM}`$ is the coupling constant of YM theory and $`l_s`$ is the string length. In order to trust the classical theory in the bulk we need $`(l/l_s)^4=g_{YM}^2N1`$. Thus, the dual CFT should have large N.

Practically, the AdS/CFT correspondence gives an efficient way of calculating a non-local effective action in the boundary spacetime. Let us consider the gravitational theory. In the dual theory on the boundary, gravity is coupled to the matter fields. By performing the path integral over the matter fields, an effective action that is the functional of the background metric is obtained. In general, the effective action contains non-local terms which make the calculations difficult. If one uses the AdS/CFT correspondence, the non-local effective action can be found from the classical action in the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spacetime. Indeed, quantum corrections of the matter fields on the graviton propagator were calculated using an effective action derived from AdS/CFT correspondence and the result was shown to be agreed with the old calculations done in $`d`$-dimensional quantum field theory . So far much of the calculations have been done in the flat spacetime. In order to observe the effects of the quantum matter in the early universe, we should know the effective action in curved spacetime. Several authors extended the calculations to the de Sitter spacetime . We will extend their works to several directions.

The main claim of our paper is that the effective action in curved spacetime can be constructed by choosing appropriate slicing in the AdS bulk. The AdS spacetime has various slicing which give various curved spacetime on its boundary. For example, the de Sitter spacetime and the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe can be embedded into the AdS spacetime. We will explicitly derive the two-point function of the conformal field in the de Sitter spacetime and the FRW spacetime. In curved spacetime, the two-point function of the quantum field depends on the choice of the vacuum. A method to specify the vacuum state of the CFT in AdS/CFT calculations will be presented.

We concentrate our attention on the scalar field theory in the bulk. In the dual theory on the boundary, there is a scalar field $`\varphi `$ coupled with conformal matter fields $`\psi `$, say

$$S[\varphi ,\psi ]=d^dx\sqrt{h}\left(_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi +e^{2\varphi }_{matter}[\psi ]\right),$$
(1)
where $`_{matter}`$ is the Lagrangian for conformal matter fields $`\psi `$ and $`h`$ is the metric of the $`d`$-dimensional spacetime. As in the gravitational theory, the generating functional can be obtained by performing the path integral over the matter fields $`\psi `$ to be a functional of the scalar field

$$W[\varphi ]=𝒟\psi e^{iS[\varphi ,\psi ]}.$$
(2)
AdS/CFT correspondence gives it as the generating functional of the dual scalar operator $`𝒪`$ coupled with the scalar field $`\varphi `$ on the boundary

$`W[\varphi ]=W_{CFT}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi 𝒪}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{exp}\left(i{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{h}\varphi 𝒪}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle d^dxd^dx^{}\sqrt{h}\sqrt{h}\varphi (x)\varphi (x^{})𝒪(x)𝒪(x^{})}+\mathrm{}\right).`$
Varying the generating functional $`n`$ times with respect to $`\varphi `$ gives the $`n`$-point function of operator $`𝒪`$.

The outline of our paper is as follows. In section 2, we review the method to calculate the effective action in flat spacetime using the invariant Green function in AdS spacetime. In section 3, we extend the calculation to the de Sitter spacetime. We will explain how the information of the vacuum state of the boundary theory is encoded in the AdS/CFT calculation. Then the nature of the CFT in de Sitter spacetime is presented. Section 4 is devoted to the formulation for the FRW universe. In the appendix, the derivation of the counter terms via Hamiltonian-Jacobi equation is shown, which are needed to regulate the action on the boundary.

## 2 A review

AdS/CFT correspondence states the generating function of the CFT $`W_{CFT}`$ in $`d`$-dimensional spacetime can be obtained by the classical theory in the $`d+1`$-dimensional AdS spacetime $`AdS_{d+1}`$ . The correspondence is written as

$$W_{CFT}=\mathrm{exp}\left(i_{}\varphi _B𝒪\right)=e^{iI[\varphi _B]},$$
(4)
where $`𝒪`$ is the operator of the CFT coupled with the scalar field $`\varphi _B`$ in the d-dimensional boundary $``$ of the $`AdS_{d+1}`$. $`I[\varphi _B]`$ is obtained from $`d+1`$-dimensional action of the scalar field $`\varphi `$ in $`AdS_{d+1}`$

$$S[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}d^{d+1}X\sqrt{g}\left(_A\varphi ^A\varphi +m^2\varphi ^2\right),$$
(5)
by inserting the solution of the classical field equation which approaches $`\varphi _B`$ on the boundary. For simplicity, we concentrate our attention on the generating function of the two-point function. The extension to $`n`$-point function can be easily carried out . The calculation of $`I[\varphi _B]`$ is done as follows. First we should find the solution of the field equation in $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spacetime which approaches $`\varphi _B`$ on the boundary $``$. The solution can be constructed from the Dirichlet Green function, which satisfies

$`(\mathrm{}_{d+1}m^2)G(X;X^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^{d+1}(XX^{})}{\sqrt{g}}},`$
$`G(X;X^{})|_{}`$ $`=`$ $`0,`$ (6)
where $`\mathrm{}_{d+1}`$ is the Laplacian operator in the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spacetime and $`X`$ is the coordinate of $`AdS_{d+1}`$.

From the general formalism of the Green function, the solution satisfying the field equation and boundary condition $`\varphi |_{}=\varphi _B`$ can be written as

$$\varphi (X)=_{}d^dx^{}\sqrt{\gamma }G_{}(X;x^{})\varphi _B(x^{}),G_{}=\left(n^A\frac{}{X^A}G(X;X^{})\right)_{},$$
(7)
where $`\gamma `$ is the induced metric on the boundary $``$, $`n^A`$ is the unit vector normal to $``$ and $`x`$ is the coordinate of the boundary. $`G_{}(X;x^{})`$ is often called bulk-boundary propagator. Our task is to find the Dirichlet Green function in $`AdS_{d+1}`$. One way is to use the invariant Green function that depends only on the geodesic distance of the AdS spacetime . The invariant Green function is defined as

$$G(X,X^{})=G(\mu (X,X^{})),$$
(8)
where $`\mu (X,X^{})`$ is the geodesic distance between $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$. For $`XX^{}`$, $`G(\mu )`$ should satisfy the field equation $`(\mathrm{}_{d+1}m^2)G(\mu )=0`$ which can be rewritten in terms of $`\mu `$ as

$$\frac{d^2G(\mu )}{d\mu ^2}+(d/l)\mathrm{coth}(\mu /l)\frac{dG(\mu )}{d\mu }m^2G(\mu )=0,$$
(9)
where $`l`$ is the curvature radius of the AdS spacetime. After defining the new variable

$$W=\frac{2}{\mathrm{cosh}(\mu /l)+1},$$
(10)
the equation (9) can be converted into a hypergeometric equation. The equation (9) has two independent solutions. Among them, the solution which satisfies the Dirichlet boundary condition at the boundary $`G(\mu )|_{}=0`$ is given by

$$G(\mu )=G_0l^{1d}W^\mathrm{\Delta }F(\mathrm{\Delta },\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2}+\frac{1}{2},2\mathrm{\Delta }d+1,W),$$
(11)
where $`F`$ is the hypergeometric function,

$`G_0`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Delta }]}{\pi ^{d/2}2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+1}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2}+1]}},`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(d+\sqrt{d^2+4m^2l^2}).`$ (12)
The normalization $`G_0`$ is determined so as to have the same singularity with the Green function in flat spacetime for $`\mu 0`$

$$\underset{\mu 0}{lim}G(\mu )=\frac{i\mathrm{\Gamma }\left[\frac{d+1}{2}\right]}{2(d1)\pi ^{(d+1)/2}}\mu ^{1d}.$$
(13)
At the boundary of the AdS spacetime, $`\mu \mathrm{}`$ and $`W0`$. The invariant Green function near the boundary is given by

$$G(\mu )G_0W^\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(14)
which vanishes at the boundary as expected. Integrating by parts and using the equation of motion, the action $`S[\varphi ]`$ is rewritten as

$$S[\varphi ]=\frac{1}{2}_{}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }n^A\varphi _A\varphi ,$$
(15)
where we have used the fact the Green function (11) vanishes at the horizon and then surface term at the horizon does not contribute to the action. Inserting the solution (7) into the action (15), we find

$`I[\varphi _B]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^dxd^dx^{}\varphi _B(x)\varphi _B(x^{})`$ (16)
$`\times `$ $`\left(\sqrt{\gamma (x)}\sqrt{\gamma (x^{})}n^A(X)n^B(x^{}){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{X^AX^B}}G(X;X^{})\right)_{}.`$
So far, we do not specify the geometry of the boundary. In AdS spacetime various spacetime can be embedded. The most simple one is the Minkowski spacetime. We use the Poincare coordinate to represent the $`AdS_{d+1}`$

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{l}{z}\right)^2(dz^2d\tau ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j).$$
(17)
Each slicing of $`z=const.`$ and the boundary $``$ are Minkowski spacetime. Because the boundary is located at $`z=0`$, we first consider the slicing $`z=ϵ`$ and then take the limit $`ϵ0`$. The invariant $`W`$ can be expressed in terms of the Poincare coordinate as

$$W=4\frac{zz^{}}{(z+z^{})^2+|xx^{}|^2},$$
(18)
where $`|xx^{}|^2=(\tau \tau ^{})^2+|x^ix^{}_{}{}^{}i|^2`$. Then from (14), we can show

$$\underset{z=z^{}=ϵ0}{lim}\frac{^2}{zz^{}}G(z,x;z^{}x^{})=G_0l^{1d}2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2ϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }1)}\frac{1}{|xx^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}.$$
(19)
Because $`\sqrt{\gamma }=(ϵ/l)^d`$ and $`n^A(/X^A)=(ϵ/l)/z`$, we find

$$I[\varphi _B]=\frac{1}{2}_{}d^dxd^dx^{}\varphi _B(x)\varphi _B(x^{})ϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }d)}l^{d1}\left(G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\frac{1}{|xx^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}\right).$$
(20)
Then renormalizing $`\varphi _B`$ as

$$\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_B=\frac{\mathrm{\Delta }}{2\mathrm{\Delta }d}ϵ^{\mathrm{\Delta }d}l^{(d1)/2}\varphi _B,$$
(21)
the two point function of the CFT is obtained from (LABEL:1-1) and (4) as

$`𝒪(x)𝒪(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(i)\delta ^2I}{\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_B(x)\delta \stackrel{~}{\varphi }_B(x^{})}}=C_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{|xx^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}},`$
$`C_2`$ $`=`$ $`2\left(\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Delta }]}{\pi ^{d/2}\mathrm{\Gamma }[\mathrm{\Delta }\frac{d}{2}]}}.`$ (22)
The need of the factor $`\mathrm{\Delta }/(2\mathrm{\Delta }d)`$ comes from the limiting procedure. We first take the limit $`ϵ0`$ in constructing the bulk-boundary propagator (7). That is, we used the Dirichlet Green function which vanishes at $`z=0`$ and not at $`z=ϵ`$. More detailed discussions are seen in

## 3 CFT in de Sitter spacetime

### 3.1 CFT in de Sitter spacetime

The AdS spacetime has various slicing which realize various curved spacetime on it. These slicing can be obtained by the coordinate transformation from the Poincare coordinate. Let us consider the coordinate transformation

$$z=\eta \mathrm{sinh}y,\tau =\eta \mathrm{cosh}y.$$
(23)
The metric (17) becomes

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{l^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}\right)\left(dy^2+\frac{1}{\eta ^2}(d\eta ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)\right).$$
(24)
On the slicing $`y=y_0`$, the embedded spacetime is the de-Sitter spacetime with the Hubble parameter $`H=l^1\mathrm{sinh}y_0`$.

If we use the invariant Green function in calculating the bulk-boundary propagator, the calculation of the generating function is essentially the same with the Minkowski spacetime. We should merely write the invariant length in terms of the associated coordinate. One subtle point is the procedure of taking the limit to the boundary because the de Sitter spacetime with specific $`H`$ is realized on only one slicing $`y=y_0`$ in the AdS spacetime. We need to introduce the parameter $`ϵ`$ which controls the limit to the boundary, $`zϵ`$. We can define

$$ϵ=\mathrm{sinh}y_0.$$
(25)
Note that because $`\mathrm{sinh}y_0=Hl`$, we should take $`l0`$ to fix $`H`$ in taking the limit $`ϵ0`$. Once the limiting procedure is established, the effective action can be obtained using (16). $`W`$ can be expressed in terms of the coordinate (24) as

$$W=4\frac{\eta \eta ^{}\mathrm{sinh}y\mathrm{sinh}y^{}}{(\eta ^2+\eta ^22\eta \eta ^{}\mathrm{cosh}(y+y^{}))+|x^ix^{}_{}{}^{}i|^2}.$$
(26)
Then we find

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{yy^{}}}G(y,x;y^{}x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2ϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }1)}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\eta \eta ^{}}{(\eta \eta ^{})^2+|x^ix^{}_{}{}^{}i|^2}}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2ϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }1)}\sigma ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }},`$
where $`\sigma `$ is the invariant length of the de Sitter spacetime. Denoting the metric of the de Sitter spacetime as

$$h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu =\frac{1}{\eta ^2}(d\eta ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j),$$
(28)
we have $`\sqrt{\gamma }=(ϵ/l)^d\sqrt{h}`$. Then (16) becomes

$$I[\varphi _B]=\frac{1}{2}_{}d^dxd^dx^{}\sqrt{h(x)}\sqrt{h(x^{})}\varphi _B(x)\varphi _B(x^{})ϵ^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }d)}l^{d1}G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2\sigma ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(29)
Renormalizong $`\varphi _B`$ as in (21), the two point function of the CFT in de Sitter spacetime is obtained as

$`𝒪(x)𝒪(x^{})_{dS}=C_2\sigma ^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (30)
### 3.2 Vacuum state of CFT

In the previous subsection, we obtained the generating functional of the CFT from invariant Green function of $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spacetime. In curved spacetime, the correlation function of the CFT depends on the choice of the vacuum. In the AdS/CFT correspondence, the vacuum state on the boundary theory corresponds to the boundary condition of the bulk-boundary propagator . Using the invariant Green function in constructing the bulk-boundary propagator will specify the vacuum state of the CFT.

To see this fact, it is convenient to do the calculations in momentum spacetime. The bulk-boundary propagator in the momentum space can be constructed from the solution of the field equation in $`AdS_{d+1}`$.

$$(\mathrm{}_{d+1}m^2)\varphi (y,x)=0.$$
(31)
In the coordinate (24), the solution can be separated with respect to the coordinate of the bulk $`y`$ and the d-dimensional boundary $`x`$,

$$\varphi (y,x)=𝑑p^{}f_p^{}(y)Y_p^{}(x).$$
(32)
Here we introduced the scalar harmonics $`Y_p^{}`$ in the d-dimensional de Sitter spacetime. We notice that there are two ambiguities of the boundary conditions in the solution. One is the boundary condition at the horizon of the $`AdS_{d+1}`$ spacetime which specifies $`f_p^{}(y)`$. Another is the choice of the time slicing in the d-dimensional spacetime which is determined by the choice of the harmonics $`Y_p^{}(x)`$. The freedom of the choice in $`f_p^{}(y)`$ may correspond to the freedom to choose different Lorentzian propagators in the CFT (Feynman propagator, retarded propagator etc.) . The choice of the time slicing will lead to the choice of the vacuum state in the CFT in curved spacetime. So, choosing an appropriate harmonics, we can find the CFT in a desired vacuum.

Now the question is which boundary condition leads to the result (30). We will show taking the Euclidean boundary condition gives the result. For computational simplicity, we assume a closed de Sitter spacetime and take $`d=4`$. Then, we can perform the calculations in the Euclidean spacetime in which the spacetime is four sphere $`S^4`$ . We first solve the field equation in the bulk. The field equation is given by

$`\left(_y^23\mathrm{coth}y_y+\left(p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{m^2l^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}}\right)f_p^{}(y)=0,`$
$`\mathrm{}_4Y_p^{}(x)=\left(p^2+{\displaystyle \frac{9}{4}}\right)Y_p^{}(x).`$ (33)
Making the analytic continuation to Euclidean spacetime and putting

$$p^{}=i\left(p+\frac{3}{2}\right),$$
(34)
we obtain the solutions of the field equation (33)

$`f_p(y)=(\mathrm{sinh}y)^2Q_{p+1}^{\mathrm{\Delta }2}(\mathrm{cosh}y),`$
$`\mathrm{}_4Y_p(x)=p(p+3)Y_p(x),`$ (35)
where $`Q`$ is the associated Legendre function of the second kind, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2+\sqrt{4+m^2l^2}`$, $`Y_p(x)`$ is the scalar harmonics on $`S^4`$. From Euclidean boundary condition, we have chosen the solution $`f_p(y)`$ which is regular at $`y\mathrm{}`$. Using these mode functions, we can write the solution of the field equation with boundary condition $`\varphi (y=y_0)=\varphi _B`$ as

$$\varphi (y,x)=\underset{p}{}\frac{f_p(y)}{f_p(y_0)}Y_p(x)\varphi _B(p).$$
(36)
Then the generating function can be obtained by inserting the solution (36) into (15) and using the orthonormal relation of the harmonics,

$$d^4x\sqrt{h}Y_p(x)Y_p^{}^{}(x)=\delta _{pp^{}}.$$
(37)
We obtain

$`I[\varphi _B]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}\underset{ϵ0}{lim}[ϵ^3K_p(ϵ)]\varphi _B(p)\varphi _B(p),`$
$`K_p[ϵ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(y_0)}{f(y_0)}},`$ (38)
where the field is rescaled as $`\varphi _Bl^{3/2}\varphi _B`$. There is a problem in taking the limit $`ϵ0`$ because $`K_p(ϵ)`$ diverges as $`ϵ0`$. We should introduce the counter terms to regulate the result. Since the structure of the divergence is different for massless and massive field, we will treat them separately.

First we consider the massless case. $`K_p(ϵ)`$ can be expanded in terms of $`ϵ`$ as

$`ϵ^3K_p(ϵ)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}p(p+3)ϵ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}p(p+1)(p+2)(p+3)\mathrm{log}ϵ`$ (39)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\left(p(p+3)+p(p+1)(p+2)(p+3)(\psi (p+2)+\gamma \mathrm{log}2)\right)+\mathrm{},`$
where $`\psi `$ is the poli-gamma function and $`\gamma `$ is the Euler number. The first two terms diverge as $`ϵ0`$ and these terms should be canceled by the counter terms. The covariant forms of the counter terms are calculated in the Appendix using the Hamilton-Jacobi equation. The counter terms are given by

$$e^{S_{CT}}=e^{S^{(2)}+S^{(4)}},$$
(40)
$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^2{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi },`$
$`S^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{2}{3}R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi 2R_{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +(\mathrm{}_4\varphi )^2\right)},`$ (41)
where we have made analytic continuation of the result obtained in the appendix (117) to Euclidean spacetime. At finite order of $`ϵ`$, terms which are analytic in $`p`$ can be canceled by a local counter term. We will consider the term which cannot be canceled by a local counter term. The correpondance in Euclidean spcaetime is given by

$$e^{I[\varphi _B]}=\mathrm{exp}\left(d^4x\sqrt{h}𝒪\varphi _B\right).$$
(42)
Then, the two point function of CFT can be obtained by varying $`I`$ twice with respect to $`\varphi _B`$ as

$$𝒪(p)𝒪(p)=\frac{1}{4}p(p+1)(p+2)(p+3)\psi (p+2).$$
(43)
Next consider the massive field. $`K_p`$ can be expanded as

$`ϵ^3K_p={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^4(\mathrm{\Delta }4)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{p(p+3)}{\mathrm{\Delta }3}}{\displaystyle \frac{2(\mathrm{\Delta }4)}{\mathrm{\Delta }3}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^{2(4\mathrm{\Delta })}2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+5}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\mathrm{\Delta }+4)}}\mathrm{}.`$ (44)
Again, the first two terms diverge as $`ϵ0`$. These divergences can be canceled by the counter terms

$`S^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^4{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}(4\mathrm{\Delta })\varphi ^2},`$
$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }3)}}ϵ^2{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{6}R\varphi ^2+h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)},`$ (45)
where we have made analytic continuation of the result in the appendix (LABEL:AA-2) to Euclidean spacetime. There is a finite term of the order $`ϵ^0`$. Because it is analytic in $`p`$ ($`(p+4\mathrm{\Delta })(p1+\mathrm{\Delta })(p+1)(p+2)`$), it can be canceled by a local counter term. The leading term which is non-analytic in $`p`$ is the last term in (44). Rescaling the source function $`\varphi _Bϵ^{4\mathrm{\Delta }}\varphi _B`$, the two point function of the CFT becomes

$$𝒪(p)𝒪(p)=2^{2\mathrm{\Delta }+5}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(3\mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\mathrm{\Delta }+4)}.$$
(46)
The correlation function in the real spacetime is obtained by mode summation of harmonics of $`S^4`$

$$\underset{lmn}{}Y_{plmn}(x)Y_{plmn}^{}(x^{})=\frac{1}{4\pi ^{5/2}}(2p+3)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)C_p^{3/2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma _4),$$
(47)
and the formula

$$\underset{p}{}\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p+\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(p\mathrm{\Delta }+4)}\left(p+\frac{3}{2}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }\left(\frac{3}{2}\right)C_p^{3/2}(\mathrm{cos}\gamma _4)=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2\mathrm{\Delta })}2^{\mathrm{\Delta }3}\sqrt{\pi }(1\mathrm{cos}\gamma _4)^\mathrm{\Delta },$$
(48)
where $`C`$ is the Gegenbauer polynomials and $`\gamma _4`$ is the angle between $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Then the correlation function of the CFT in the real space can be written as

$`𝒪(x)𝒪(x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p}{}}𝒪(p)𝒪(p)Y_p(x)Y_p^{}(x^{})`$ (49)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{\pi ^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{(\mathrm{\Delta }2)\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta })}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sigma _E^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}},`$
where $`\sigma _E^2=2(1\mathrm{cos}\gamma _4)`$ is the invariant length of $`S^4`$. By making analytic continuation to Lorentzian spacetime, we find the result agrees with (30).

Now we examine the nature of the CFT in de Sitter spacetime. Making analytic continuation to the Lorentzian spacetime, the closed de Sitter spacetime

$$ds_4^2=\frac{1}{H^2}(dt^2+\mathrm{cosh}^2Htd\mathrm{\Omega }_3^2),$$
(50)
is obtained and the invariant length becomes

$$\sigma _E^2\frac{2}{H^2}\left(1+\mathrm{sinh}Ht\mathrm{sinh}Ht^{}\mathrm{cosh}Ht\mathrm{cosh}Ht^{}\mathrm{cos}\gamma _3\right),$$
(51)
where $`\gamma _3`$ is the angle between $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_3,\mathrm{\Omega }_3^{})`$. For equal spatial point at which $`\mathrm{cos}\gamma _3=1`$, the two-point function is given by

$$𝒪(t)𝒪(0)\left(\frac{H}{\mathrm{sinh}\left(\frac{Ht}{2}\right)}\right)^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}.$$
(52)
We find this two-point function has periodicity in imaginary time $`itit+2\pi /H`$. Thus we can interpret it as the thermal Green function with temperature $`T=H/2\pi `$.

## 4 CFT in FRW universe

We extend the calculation to FRW universe. Let us consider a coordinate transformation

$$z=f(u)g(v),\tau =f(u)+g(v),$$
(53)
with arbitrary functions $`f(u)`$ and $`g(v)`$ where $`u=ty`$ and $`v=t+y`$ . Then the metric (17) becomes

$$l^2ds^2=e^{2\beta (y,t)}(dy^2dt^2)+e^{2\alpha (y,t)}(\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j).$$
(54)
Here $`\alpha (y,t)`$ and $`\beta (y,t)`$ are given by

$`e^{2\beta (y,t)}=4{\displaystyle \frac{f^{}(u)g^{}(v)}{(f(u)g(v))^2}},e^{2\alpha (y,t)}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(f(u)g(v))^2}}.`$ (55)
The $`y=0`$ slicing can be the FRW spacetime

$$l^2ds_d^2=e^{2\beta _0(t)}dt^2+e^{2\alpha _0(t)}\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(56)
with scale factor $`e^{\alpha _0}`$ where $`\alpha _0(t)=\alpha (0,t)`$ and $`\beta _0(t)=\beta (0,t)`$.

As in the de Sitter spacetime, some efforts to take the limit to the boundary are needed, because the FRW spacetime can be realized on only one slicing of the AdS spacetime, that is $`y=0`$. We take the following procedure. First we take the limit $`y0`$. Since $`z(0,t)=e^{\alpha _0(t)}`$, further liming procedure is needed to go to the boundary $`z0`$. The scale factor $`e^{\alpha _0}`$ has one integration of the constant. Then in general, the scale factor can be written as $`e^{\alpha _0}=a(t)/a_{}`$. If we take $`a_{}0`$, $`y=0`$ slicing effectively goes to the boundary $`z(0,t)=a_{}/a(t)0`$. Thus we can take $`ϵ=a_{}`$. Introducing the conformal time $`\eta `$, the d-dimensional line element is given by

$$ds_4^2=(l/a_{})^2a(\eta )^2(d\eta ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j).$$
(57)
Thus in order to fix the scale factor of the d-dimensional spacetime, we should take $`ł0`$ as $`a_{}0`$.

We use the invariant Green function in constructing the bulk-boundary propagator. The explicit form of the coordinate transformation is needed. The coordinate transformation $`f(u)`$ and $`g(v)`$ can be determined by specifying the scale factor $`e^{\alpha _0(t)}`$ and fixing the gauge $`e^{\beta _0(t)}`$. For example, we take $`d=4`$ and

$$e^{\alpha _0(t)}=f(t)g(t)=a_{}t^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}},e^{2\beta _0(t)}=4\frac{f^{}(t)g^{}(t)}{(f(t)g(t))^2}=1,$$
(58)
where $`w`$ is a constant parameter and can be regarded as the barotropic parameter of the matter which dominates the universe. Note that the conformal time is defined by

$$\eta =a_{}t^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}+1}\frac{3(1+w)}{1+3w}.$$
(59)
Thus, in order to fix the conformal time in the limiting procedure $`a_{}0`$, we should take $`t1`$. The equations (58) give the simultaneous first order differential equations for $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$;

$`f^{}(t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{3(1+w)}}t^{\frac{5+3w}{3(1+w)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}(1+w)t\right),`$
$`f(t)`$ $`=`$ $`g(t)+a_{}t^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}},`$ (60)
where we have used $`t1`$. Once the functions $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ are obtained, the coordinate transformation is determined by replacing $`f(t)f(u)`$ and $`g(t)g(v)`$ as

$`f(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{2}}u^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w)}{1+3w}}u\right),`$
$`g(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{2}}v^{\frac{2}{3(1+w)}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w)}{1+3w}}v\right).`$ (61)
Then $`z`$ and $`\tau `$ can be written in terms of $`y`$ and $`t`$ and we can show the following relations;

$`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}\tau `$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}(f(u)+g(v))=a_{}t^{2/3(1+w)+1}{\displaystyle \frac{3(1+w)}{1+3w}}=\eta ,`$
$`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{z(y,t)}{y}}`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}(f^{}(u)+g^{}(v))=a_{}t^{2/3(1+w)}={\displaystyle \frac{a_{}}{a(\eta )}}.`$ (62)
Using these relations, we obtain

$`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{^2}{yy^{}}}G(y,x;y^{}x^{})`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{a_{}0,y0}{lim}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z}{y}}{\displaystyle \frac{z^{}}{y^{}}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{^2}{zz^{}}}G(y,x,;y^{},x^{})`$ (63)
$`=`$ $`G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2a_{}^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\left({\displaystyle \frac{a(\eta )^1a(\eta ^{})^1}{(\eta \eta ^{})^2+|x^ix^i|^2}}\right)^\mathrm{\Delta },`$
where we have used the fact $`^2G/\tau \tau ^{}`$ is the higher order of $`a_{}`$. Then using $`\sqrt{\gamma }=(a_{}/l)^d\sqrt{h}`$ and $`n^A(/X^A)=/y`$, (16) becomes

$`I[\varphi _B]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle _{}}d^dxd^dx^{}\sqrt{h(x)}\sqrt{h(x^{})}\varphi _B(x)\varphi _B(x^{})a_{}^{2(\mathrm{\Delta }d)}l^{d1}`$ (64)
$`\times `$ $`\left(G_02^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}\mathrm{\Delta }^2{\displaystyle \frac{a(\eta )^\mathrm{\Delta }a(\eta ^{})^\mathrm{\Delta }}{|xx^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}\right),`$
where we denote $`(a_{}/l)^2ds_4^2=h_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu `$ and $`|xx^{}|^2=(\eta \eta ^{})^2+|x^ix^i|^2`$. Putting $`a_{}=ϵ`$ and renormalizing $`\varphi _B`$ as in the Minkowski case (21), we get

$`𝒪(x)𝒪(x^{})_{FRW}=C_2{\displaystyle \frac{a(\eta )^\mathrm{\Delta }a(\eta ^{})^\mathrm{\Delta }}{|xx^{}|^{2\mathrm{\Delta }}}}.`$ (65)
This two-point function is similar to the two-point function of quantum field in conformal vacuum. The two-point function $`D(x,x)`$ of conformally invariant field with conformal dimension $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in conformally flat spacetime can be written as

$$D(x,x^{})=\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Delta }(x)D_F(x,x^{})\mathrm{\Omega }^\mathrm{\Delta }(x^{})$$
(66)
where $`D_F(x,x^{})`$ is the two-point function in flat spacetime and we denote the conformally flat spacetime as $`h_{\mu \nu }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\eta _{\mu \nu }`$. The FRW universe is given by $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x)=a(\eta )^1`$. Comparing (22) and (65), we see the relation (66) actually holds with $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as the conformal dimension.

As in the de Sitter spacetime, the CFT in various states can be obtained from bulk-boundary propagators with appropriate boundary conditions. The solution of the field equation in the bulk is written as

$$\varphi (y,t,x^i)=𝑑pG_{}(y,t,x^i;p)\varphi _B(p).$$
(67)
The bulk-boundary propagator $`G_{}`$ satisfies the field equation and

$$\underset{y0,a_{}=ϵ}{lim}G_{}(y,t,x^i;p)=Y_p(t,x^i),$$
(68)
where $`Y_p`$ is the harmonics in FRW universe. Appropriate choice of the harmonics will lead to the CFT in desired vacuum state.

## 5 Discussions

We have developed a formalism to calculate the effective action of the strongly coupled CFT in curved spacetime from AdS/CFT correspondence. Using the fact that the de Sitter spacetime and FRW universe can be embedded into the AdS spacetime, the effective action of scalar fields was derived in those spacetime. Recently Hawking et. al. used the effective action derived via AdS/CFT correspondence and calculated the correction of tensor propagators by conformal matter during trace anomaly driven inflation . Their calculations are limited to exactly de Sitter spacetime. Our formalism may be useful to extend their analysis to more realistic situations.

Further extensions of the formalism can be considered. First, AdS spacetime itself can be embedded in the higher dimensional AdS spacetime . The coordinate transformation from Poincare coordinate

$$z=\eta \mathrm{cos}y,x_1=\eta \mathrm{sin}y,$$
(69)
gives

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{l^2}{\mathrm{cos}^2y}\right)\left(dy^2+\frac{1}{\eta ^2}(d\eta ^2d\tau ^2+\delta _{ij}dx^idx^j)\right).$$
(70)
At $`\mathrm{cos}y_0=L^1l`$, the $`AdS_d`$ with the curvature radius $`L`$ is embedded. Thus, the CFT in AdS spacetime can be learned from the classical theory in the AdS bulk. So far, we investigate the pure AdS spacetime as the geometry of the bulk. However, more general spacetime with negative cosmological constant can be considered. It is known that

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{l^2}{y^2}\right)(dy^2+g_{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ),$$
(71)
with any Ricci flat metric $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and

$$ds^2=\left(\frac{l^2}{\mathrm{sinh}^2y}\right)(dy^2+\sigma _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ),$$
(72)
with any metric $`\sigma _{\mu \nu }`$ with positive cosmological constant are solutions of $`d+1`$ dimensional spacetime with negative cosmological constant. Thus, it seems to be possible to extend the conjecture that classical theory in these bulk spacetime is dual to quantum field theory on its boundary. The interesting point is that the calculation done in section 3.2 can be straightforwardly extended because $`y`$ dependence of the mode function is the same with the one in pure AdS spacetime. Because these spacetime are in general asymptotically non AdS spacetime, it would be challenging to identify the dual field theory.

###### Acknowledgments.

We would like to thank S. Kobayashi for helpful discussions. We would like to thank Feng -Li Lin for useful comments and for sending us their unpublished notes on the related issue. The work of K.K. was supported by JSPS Research Fellowships for Young Scientist No.4687.

## Appendix A Derivation of the counter term

In this appendix, we present the derivation of the covariant form of the counter terms via Hamilton-Jacobi equation. Other derivations of the counter terms can be seen in  for pure gravity and in  for scalar field theory.

### A.1 Hamilton-Jacobi equation

To derive the counter terms, we should know the behaviour of the classical action $`I`$ at the boundary. One of the easiest way to obtain $`I`$ is using the Hamilton-Jacobi (H-J) equation . Let us consider the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional action

$$S=d^{d+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }\left(^{(d+1)}R2\mathrm{\Lambda }\right)\frac{1}{2}_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi \frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2\right),$$
(73)
where $`^{(d+1)}R`$ is the Ricci tensor in $`d+1`$-dimensional spacetime. The line element is denoted as

$$ds^2=(N^2+\gamma _{\mu \nu }N^\mu N^\nu )du^2+2N_\mu dudx^\mu +\gamma _{\mu \nu }dx^\mu dx^\nu ,$$
(74)
where $`N`$ is the lapse function, $`N^\mu `$ is the shift function and $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ is the d-dimensional metric. By defining the conjugate momentum

$$\pi ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\delta S}{\delta \dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }},\pi _\varphi =\frac{\delta S}{\delta \dot{\varphi }},$$
(75)
the Hamiltonian form of the action

$$S=d^{d+1}x\left(\pi ^{\mu \nu }\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }+\pi _\varphi \dot{\varphi }NN^\mu _\mu \right),$$
(76)
is obtained where

$``$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}\pi ^{\mu \nu }\pi ^{\lambda \rho }\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{2\kappa }}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}\pi _\varphi ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}m^2\varphi ^2,`$
$`_\mu `$ $`=`$ $`2\pi _{\mu ;\nu }^\nu +\pi _\varphi \varphi _{,\mu },`$ (77)
$`R`$ is the Ricci tensor of $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ and ; denotes the covariant derivative with respect to $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$. Variation of the action with respect to the momentum gives the equation of the motion for $`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$;

$`\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }N_{\mu ;\nu }N_{\nu ;\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`N{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}\pi ^{\lambda \rho }\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }\right),`$
$`\dot{\varphi }N^\mu \varphi _{,\mu }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{N}{\sqrt{\gamma }}}\pi _\varphi ,`$ (78)
where $``$ denotes the derivative with respect to $`u`$. The H-J equation is obtained by putting

$$\pi ^{\mu \nu }=\frac{\delta I}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }},\pi _\varphi =\frac{\delta I}{\delta \varphi },$$
(79)
where $`I`$ is the classical action of the system which is obtained by inserting the solutions of field equations into $`S`$. The H-J equation is given by

$`({\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \varphi }},\gamma _{\mu \nu },\varphi )`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \gamma _{\lambda \rho }}}\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }\right){\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{2\kappa }}(R2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ (80)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta I}{\delta \varphi }}\right)^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +\sqrt{\gamma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m^2\varphi ^2=0.`$
In the following calculations, we use the gauge $`N=1`$ and $`N^\mu =0`$. However, because the H-J equation does not contain neither Lapse function $`N`$ nor shift function $`N_\mu `$, the solution of the H-J equation does not depend on the choice of the slicing in ($`d+1`$) spacetime.

From (41) and (45), we notice that the expansion with respect to $`ϵ`$ is also expansion with respect to the number of the derivatives of d-dimensional spacetime. Thus we will obtain $`I`$ order by order with respect to the number of the derivatives of d-dimensional spacetime,

$$I=I^{(0)}+I^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(81)
We will use fixed background approximation, that is, we assume the motion of the scalar field does not affects the geometry of the spacetime. We will treat separately a massless ($`m=0`$) field and a massive $`m>0`$ field.

### A.2 Solution of H-J equation -massless case

The Hamiltonian constraint can be also expanded in terms of the number of the derivatives as

$$=^{(0)}+^{(2)}+\mathrm{}.$$
(82)
(1) 0-th order
At the 0-th order, the H-J equation is given by

$$^{(0)}=\frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}\frac{\delta I^{(0)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}\frac{\delta I^{(0)}}{\delta \gamma _{\lambda \rho }}\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }\frac{1}{d1}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\lambda \rho }\right)+\frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{\kappa }\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$
(83)
where we take $`\delta I^{(0)}/\delta \varphi =0`$ from fixed background approximation. Then putting the solution of the form

$$I^{(0)}=2Ad^dx\sqrt{\gamma },$$
(84)
we have

$$A=A_\pm =\pm \frac{d1}{2\kappa l},$$
(85)
where we have used $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=d(d1)/2l^2`$. We will take the solution $`A=A_+`$. Inserting the solution into (79), we can obtain the solutions of the momentum. Then the equation of the motion (78) becomes

$$\dot{\gamma }_{\mu \nu }=\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }.$$
(86)
Thus the solution is obtained as

$`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(u)f_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Omega }(u)=e^{u/l}.`$ (87)
where $`f_{\mu \nu }`$ is independent of $`u`$.
(2) 2-nd order
The H-J equation is given by

$$^{(2)}=\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}\frac{\sqrt{\gamma }}{2\kappa }R+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\nu \varphi _\mu \varphi =0.$$
(88)
Using the solution (87), we can write

$$\frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta u}=\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}.$$
(89)
By the standard result of the conformal transformation

$$R(\gamma _{\mu \nu })=\mathrm{\Omega }^2R(f_{\mu \nu }),\sqrt{\gamma }=\mathrm{\Omega }^d\sqrt{f},$$
(90)
the H-J equation becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta u}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\sqrt{\gamma }\left(R(\gamma _{\mu \nu })\kappa \gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)`$ (91)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa }}\sqrt{f}\left(R(f_{\mu \nu })\kappa f^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d2}.`$
Apart from $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d2}`$, the right hand side of the equation is independent of $`u`$. Thus we can immediately integrate the equation. The solution is given by

$$I^{(2)}=\frac{l}{d2}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }R\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right).$$
(92)
(2) 4-th order
The H-J equation is given by

$`^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(4)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\lambda \rho }}}\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\rho \lambda }\right)`$ (93)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2)}}{\delta \varphi }}\right)^2=0.`$
Inserting the solution (87) and $`I^{(2)}`$ (92), the H-J equation becomes

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(4)}}{\delta u}}`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d4}F_4[f,\varphi ],`$
$`F_4[f,\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{2\kappa (d2)^2}}\sqrt{f}(R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4(d1)}}R^2`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2(d1)}}\kappa R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi 2\kappa R^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +\kappa (\mathrm{}\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3d4}{4(d1)}}\kappa ^2(_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi )^2).`$
Again, we observe that right-hand side of the equation is independent of $`u`$ apart from $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d4}`$. Then we can easily integrate the equation to obtain

$$I^{(4)}=\frac{l^3}{2\kappa (d2)^2(d4)}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }F_4[\gamma ,\varphi ].$$
(95)
(3)higher order
The higher order solution $`^{(2n)}`$ ($`n2`$) can be obtained recursively. The H-J equation can be written as

$$^{(2n)}=\frac{\delta I^{(2n)}}{\delta u}F_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]=0,$$
(96)
$`F_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2p)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2n2p)}}{\delta \gamma _{\lambda \rho }}}\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\rho \lambda }\right)`$ (97)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2p)}}{\delta \varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I^{(2n2p)}}{\delta \varphi }}.`$
Using the solution (87), we find $`F_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]=\mathrm{\Omega }^{d2n}(u)F_{2n}[f,\varphi ]`$. Then integration of the equation yields

$$I^{(2n)}=\frac{l}{d2n}F_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ].$$
(98)
### A.3 Solution of H-J equation -massive case

(1) 0-th order
We take the following ansatz for 0-th order solution

$$I^{(0)}=2d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }H(\varphi ).$$
(99)
The H-J equation is gives by

$$2\kappa \frac{d}{d1}H^2(\varphi )2\left(\frac{H(\varphi )}{\varphi }\right)^2+\frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\kappa }+\frac{1}{2}m^2\varphi ^2=0.$$
(100)
From the background approximation, we assume

$$H(\varphi )=A+\frac{1}{2}B\varphi ^2,$$
(101)
where $`AB\varphi ^2`$ and $`A`$ is given by (85). Then we obtain

$$B=\frac{d\pm \sqrt{d^2+4m^2l^2}}{4l}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }_{}}{2l},$$
(102)
We will pick the solution $`\mathrm{\Delta }_+=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The equation of motion (78) becomes

$`\dot{\gamma }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{l}}\gamma _{\mu \nu },`$
$`\dot{\varphi }`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{l}}\varphi .`$ (103)
The solution can be obtained as

$`\gamma _{\mu \nu }`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2(u)f_{\mu \nu },\mathrm{\Omega }(u)=e^{u/l},`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Pi }(u)C,\mathrm{\Pi }(u)=e^{(d\mathrm{\Delta })u/l}.`$ (104)
where $`C`$ is independent of $`u`$.
In the following, we divide the classical action as

$$I=I_0(\gamma _{\mu \nu })+I_1(\gamma _{\mu \nu },\varphi ),$$
(105)
and assume $`I_0I_1`$.
(2)2-nd order
Inserting the solution of the first order, the H-J equation becomes

$$\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta I_0^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}\sqrt{\gamma }\frac{R}{2\kappa }=0,$$
(106)
$$\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{l}\varphi \frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta \varphi }=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\gamma }\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{4(d1)}\sqrt{\gamma }R\varphi ^2.$$
(107)
The equation for $`I_0^{(2)}`$ is the same with (88) without $`\varphi `$ dependent term. Then $`I_0^{(2)}`$ is given by

$$I_0^{(2)}=\frac{l}{2\kappa (d2)}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }R.$$
(108)
We can use the solution (104) to write

$$\frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta u}=\frac{2}{l}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{l}\varphi \frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta \varphi }.$$
(109)
Then the H-J equation gives

$$\frac{\delta I_1^{(2)}}{\delta u}=\left[\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{4(d1)}\sqrt{f}R(f)C^2+\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{f}f^{\mu \nu }_\mu C_\nu C\right]\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d2}\mathrm{\Pi }(u)^2.$$
(110)
Again apart from the term $`\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d2}\mathrm{\Pi }(u)^2`$, the right-hand side is independent of $`u`$. Then integration can be done to give

$$I_1^{(2)}=\frac{l}{2\mathrm{\Delta }d2}d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{4(d1)}R\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right).$$
(111)
(3) higher order
The H-J equation for $`I_0^{(2n)}`$ is the same with (98) without $`\varphi `$ dependent terms

$$I_0^{(2n)}=\frac{l}{d2n}F_{2n}[\gamma ].$$
(112)
Then the solution can be found easily. By using the solution (104), the H-J equation for $`I_1^{(2n)}`$ is written as

$$_1^{(2n)}=\frac{\delta I_1^{(2n)}}{\delta u}G_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]=0,$$
(113)
$`G_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\kappa }{\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_0^{(2p)}}{\delta \gamma _{\mu \nu }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_1^{(2n2p)}}{\delta \gamma _{\lambda \rho }}}\left(\gamma _{\mu \rho }\gamma _{\nu \lambda }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{d1}}\gamma _{\mu \nu }\gamma _{\rho \lambda }\right)`$ (114)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\sqrt{\gamma }}}{\displaystyle \underset{p=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_1^{(2p)}}{\delta \varphi }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta I_1^{(2n2p)}}{\delta \varphi }}.`$
Using the solution (104), we find $`G_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ]=\mathrm{\Omega }(u)^{d2n}\mathrm{\Pi }(u)^2G_{2n}[f,C]`$. Then integration of the equation gives

$$I^{(2n)}=\frac{l}{2\mathrm{\Delta }d2n}G_{2n}[\gamma ,\varphi ].$$
(115)
### A.4 counter term

The counter terms are defined by

$$S^{(0)}+S^{(2)}+\mathrm{}=(I^{(0)}+I^{(2)}+\mathrm{}).$$
(116)
We summarise the result up to terms which are necessary for the calculation with $`d=4`$;
(1)massless case

$`S^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{\kappa l}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }},`$
$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{d2}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{1}{2\kappa }R\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)},`$
$`S^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l^3}{2(d2)^2(d4)}}{\displaystyle }d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\kappa }}(R_{\mu \nu }R^{\mu \nu }{\displaystyle \frac{d}{4(d1)}}R^2)`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d}{2(d1)}}R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi 2R^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +(\mathrm{}\varphi )^2+{\displaystyle \frac{3d4}{4(d1)}}\kappa (_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi )^2).`$
(117)
(1)massive case

$`S^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d1}{\kappa l}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{2l}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\varphi ^2},`$
$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{d2}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\frac{1}{2\kappa }R}`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{l}{2\mathrm{\Delta }d2}}{\displaystyle d^dx\sqrt{\gamma }\left(\frac{d\mathrm{\Delta }}{4(d1)}R\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\gamma ^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)}.`$
Let us take $`d=4`$. For massless case, $`S^{(4)}`$ diverges at $`d=4`$. We replace $`1/(d4)`$ by $`\mathrm{log}ϵ`$. The counter terms can be rewritten using the metric of $`d`$-dimensional spacetime $`h_{\mu \nu }`$ which is defined as (see (28)),

$$\gamma _{\mu \nu }=\left(\frac{l}{ϵ}\right)^2h_{\mu \nu }.$$
(119)
Rescaling the field as $`\varphi l^{3/2}\varphi `$, we obtain
(1)massless case

$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}ϵ^2{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi },`$
$`S^{(4)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}\mathrm{log}ϵ{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{2}{3}R_\mu \varphi ^\mu \varphi 2R^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi +(\mathrm{}\varphi )^2\right)},`$ (120)
(2)massive case

$`S^{(0)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}ϵ^4{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}(4\mathrm{\Delta })\varphi ^2},`$
$`S^{(2)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4(\mathrm{\Delta }3)}}ϵ^2{\displaystyle d^4x\sqrt{h}\left(\frac{4\mathrm{\Delta }}{6}R\varphi ^2+h^{\mu \nu }_\mu \varphi _\nu \varphi \right)},`$ (121)
where $`R`$, $`R_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$ are defined in terms of $`h_{\mu \nu }`$.


text:
# 1. Introduction

## 1. Introduction

With the advent of superstring dualities, all the five known superstring theories (Type I, Type II and Heterotic) have been recognized as differentperturbative asymptotics of the underlying (but still unknown) eleven dimensional M-Theory, whose low energy limit is the eleven dimensional supergravity. Despite this unification, the resulting web of lower dimensional models is quite complicated, and a systematic classification of all possible vacua is still lacking. Moreover, several ways are today conceivable to embed the Standard Model within this scheme: besides the heterotic susy-GUT scenario, where the string scale is forced to be close to the Planck scale, there is a suggestive “brane-world” scenario, in which the string scale could be lowered everywhere between the Planck scale and a few TeV. These models, based on Type I vacua (possibly supplemented with additional brane-antibrane pairs) contain gauge fields living only on a four-dimensional defect, while gravitational interactions propagate in the ten dimensional bulk. As a result, due to the smallness of the Newton constant, some of the extra-dimensions are allowed to be large, even of millimeter size. Thus, fundamental issues like the gauge hierarchy problem and the breaking of supersymmetry should be reconsidered. In this paper, I will review some examples of Type I vacua built as open descendants of closed Type II orbifold models. In particular, I will describe the Type I descendant of the $`Z_3`$ geometric orbifold, the first four-dimensional model exhibiting three generations of chiral matter with gauge group $`SO(8)\times U(12)`$, the simplest non-geometric Type I descendant of the $`Z_3`$-orbifold, namely the diagonal model, and some non-geometric asymmetric orbifold examples, that exhibit interesting features like discrete torsion and “brane supersymmetry breaking”.

## 2. The Type I geometric $`Z_3`$-orbifold vacua in $`D=4`$

Orbifold compactifications were discovered long ago as the simplest examples of string compactifications that reduce the number of supersymmetries and allow fermion chirality. The Type IIB $`Z`$ orbifold is a four dimensional model obtained modding out a product of three two-tori by the geometric action of the $`Z_3`$ group $`X\omega ^kX`$, where $`\omega =e^{2i\pi /3}`$. The resulting (closed) partition function corresponds to (an irrational deformation of) the so called charge-conjugation modular invariant 111the notation follows ref. ()

$`𝒯_c`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}[\rho _{00}\overline{\rho }_{00}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}}\mathrm{\Lambda }_i+\rho _{01}\overline{\rho }_{02}+\rho _{02}\overline{\rho }_{01}+27(\rho _{10}\overline{\rho }_{20}+\rho _{11}\overline{\rho }_{22}+\rho _{12}\overline{\rho }_{21})`$ (1)
$`+`$ $`27(\rho _{20}\overline{\rho }_{10}+\rho _{21}\overline{\rho }_{12}+\rho _{22}\overline{\rho }_{11})],`$
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_i`$ are the Narain lattice sums on the three hexagonal lattices defining the tori, with vanishing values of the NS-NS antisymmetric tensor $`B`$. The coefficients in front of the twisted sector amplitudes are due to the fixed points. The projection preserves $`N=2`$ supersymmetry and produces a spectrum whose untwisted part contains the $`N=2`$ supergravity multiplet, the universal dilaton hypermultiplet and $`9`$ additional hypermultiplets. There are also $`27`$ hypermultiplets coming from twisted sectors, that account for a compactification on a Calabi Yau (CY) threefold with Hodge numbers $`h_{1,1}=36`$ and $`h_{1,2}=0`$. Notice that the geometric action corresponds to a “non diagonal” form of the partition function, reflected in the sesquilinear combination of chiral supersymmetric conformal blocks, each paired with the complex conjugate in (1). To build the Type I descendants, one starts by modding out the closed sector with the (closed) world-sheet parity operator $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ or, equivalently, by halving the torus contribution and adding the Klein-bottle amplitude. The resulting (unoriented) spectrum comprises the $`N=1`$ supergravity multiplet together with $`9`$ linear multiplets from the untwisted sector and $`27`$ linear multiplets from the twisted ones. The projection produces uncancelled tadpoles or, equivalently, introduces $`O9`$-planes carrying negative RR charge requiring the inclusion of open and unoriented amplitudes or of $`32`$ D9-branes. Indeed, $`Z_3`$ does not contain order two elements and only open strings with Neumann boundary conditions on the two ends are allowed. Consistency conditions (i.e. tadpole cancellations) from twisted and untwisted transverse sectors fix the gauge Chan Paton (CP) group to be $`SO(8)\times SU(12)\times U(1)`$, with three generations of chiral multiplets in $`(\mathrm{𝟖},\overline{\mathrm{𝟏𝟐}})_\mathrm{𝟏}`$ and $`(\mathrm{𝟏},\mathrm{𝟔𝟔})_\mathrm{𝟐}`$. The $`U(1)`$ factor is anomalous and requires a modified version of the GSS mechanism, in which the dilaton plays no role and the anomaly cancellation is due to a coupling of the gauge fields with a combination of twisted closed moduli. A non-vanishing quantized $`B`$ can also be introduced with a consequent rank reduction of the CP group. The resulting models can be found in ref. ().

## 3. The Type I diagonal $`Z_3`$-orbifold vacua in $`D=4`$

The diagonal partition function corresponds to an orbifold by a combination of the geometric action and an involution of order two that conjugates the eigenvalues of only the right-moving coordinates. Equivalently, it can be obtained by combining the geometric action with a T-duality along three of the six real coordinates. Since T-duality exchanges Type IIB with Type IIA, the resulting Type I vacua can also be regarded as geometric orientifolds of the Type IIA superstring, also known in the literature as Type I’ models. One can perform the orientifold projection in two equivalent ways: as the combination of $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and an involution $``$ of order two on the geometric modular invariant or as the $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ projection on the diagonal modular invariant. The last procedure has been successfully used at rational points in several examples, like Gepner models and free-fermionic constructions. In irrational models, however, there is a subtlety connected to the projection of the Narain lattice sums. Indeed, due to the T-dualities, the projected lattice is a skew slice containing both momenta and windings, while the left-right symmetry quantizes the off diagonal components of the background metric rather than of $`B`$, that is now a continuous modulus. As a result, even if one chooses a vanishing $`B`$, the rank of the CP group is reduced by a factor of two for each complex compact coordinate. The quantized geometric moduli are key ingredients of the construction: they account for the correct reflection coefficients in front of the crosscaps and enforce the complete projector in the transverse channel in such a way that only the identity character can flow along the tube at massless level, a feature very familiar from the rational diagonal models. There is another subtlety connected to the diagonal action on the lattice. From a geometrical point of view T-duality can be regarded as a reflection with respect to some symmetry axis that leaves invariant only a subset of the $`27`$ fixed points. For $`Z_3`$, it is easy to see that two reflections $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are compatible with the geometric action , the former preserving only the origin of the lattice and the latter preserving all the three fixed points in each of the compact directions. The two reflections correspond to different resolutions of the “fixed-point ambiguities” related to identical closed twist fields sitting at the orbifold singularities. Combinations of the two actions thus yield four classes of models containing $`1`$, $`3`$, $`9`$ or $`27`$ chiral twist fields surviving the unoriented projection. The massless spectra of the resulting models are reported in Table 1.

Notice that the closed sector corresponds to a compactification on a CY threefold with Hodge number $`h_{1,1}=0`$ and $`h_{1,2}=36`$. Not surprisingly, in this context T-duality is thus equivalent to mirror symmetry. Twisted open strings are allowed in the annulus and Möbius amplitudes. Thus, a single type of CP charge is present, associated to D6 branes at angle , the natural objects after three T-dualities. The size of the CP group is fixed by a single tadpole condition and receives contributions solely from the extended coordinates. This reflect itself in the mentioned rank reduction from 16 to 2. A discrete Wilson line is also allowed, that gives rise to orthogonal or symplectic gauge groups. Amazingly, the construction seems to be consistent for all odd-integer values of $`n`$ between $`1`$ and $`27`$, provided an involution on the lattice preserving exactly $`n`$ out of the $`27`$ fixed-points exists.

## 4. Type I vacua from asymmetric orbifolds

Interesting classes of non-geometric Type I vacua can also be constructed starting from asymmetric orbifold compactifications, obtained quotienting a torus compactification by a group acting differently on the left and right modes. For this action to be allowed, the lattice must admit a chiral isometry, an option available only at rational points. Moreover, there is generically the possibility of turning on some discrete torsion connecting, in this context, models with different amount of supersymmetry. In ref. () two examples are reported, a $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ asymmetric orbifold in six dimensions and a $`Z_3\times Z_3`$ asymmetric orbifolds both in six and in four dimensions. The resulting massless spectra are summarized in table 2, where $`ϵ`$ is the discrete torsion and $`_{i=1}^4n_i=16`$ in the first row.

Notice that in $`D=6`$ the models with $`ϵ=1`$ correspond to compactifications on $`T^4`$, while the models with $`ϵ1`$ correspond to compactifications on $`K_3`$. In D=4, the models with $`ϵ=1`$ correspond to compactifications on $`K_3\times T^2`$ while the models with $`ϵ1`$ correspond to compactifications on two mirror CY spaces with Hodge numbers $`h_{1,1}=18=h_{1,2}^{}`$, $`h_{1,2}=6=h_{1,1}^{}`$. The rank reduction is due to the presence of a quantized $`B`$ or, equivalently, to compactifications without vector structure. All these models are not chiral. Interestingly, brane supersymmetry breaking can be introduced also in this non-geometric setting. For instance, a consistent variant of the $`Z_2\times Z_2`$ asymmetric model in six dimensions with $`ϵ=1`$ can be build replacing a pair of D-branes with the corresponding anti-D-branes, while introducing a different $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ projection on the fixed-point space. The new $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ gives rise to models with closed unoriented massless (supersymmetric) spectra containing the $`N=(1,0)`$ supergravity multiplet coupled to 10 hypermultiplets and 11 tensor multiplets. In the open sector, the gauge group is $`U(4)^2`$ and supersymmetry is broken by open strings charged under the anti-D-brane gauge group, allowing spinors in the bifundamental representation and conjugate spinors in the symmetric representation. The vanishing of R-R tadpoles ensures, as usual, the absence of both gauge and gravitational anomalies. It would be interesting to extend further the analysis of non-geometric compactifications and to clarify the relation with non BPS states. A step forward in this direction has been made in ref. ().

This work was supported in part by the EEC contract HPRN-CT-200-00122 and by the INTAS contract 9915590.