format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

Electroweak processes in todays particle physics are very successfully described by the standard model . The precision of the LEP II experiments will require two loop corrections , which in turn will be calculable because the algebraic method of renormalization has been extended to the standard model . This method permits an unabiguous construction of the model via the Slavnov-Taylor (ST) identitiy and a rigid and a local gauge Ward identity (WI) in a way independent from the applied renormalization scheme. At present the only viable alternative to the SM is a supersymmetric extension thereof, e.g. a minimal one (MSSM). Here the status of loop corrections is much less satisfactory because the effect of the renormalized supersymmetry WI has not yet been systematically taken into account. A first step into this direction has been undertaken in  for the susy extension of QED. It applies techniques developped in  and gives clear prescriptions on how to establish and use the susy WI. This is non-trivial because in the chosen Wess-Zumino gauge  the susy transformations are non-linear and – as is shown in  – also non-local. The question then arises in which sense susy is still a symmetry of the system. Clearly, it is realized on the Green functions but is it realized on the local fields, on the state space? Does there exist a susy charge which commutes with the S-matrix? In the present paper we wish to answer these questions for the Wess-Zumino model and then for SQED, basing our analysis on the results of .

## 2 The Wess-Zumino model without auxiliary fields

The model comprises a complex scalar and a (Weyl) spinor field together with their conjugates, forming the classical action

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{WZ}}={\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x\{`$ $`^\mu \varphi _\mu \overline{\varphi }m^2\varphi \overline{\varphi }+\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\psi \sigma ^\mu _\mu \overline{\psi }+\frac{1}{4}m(\psi \psi +\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi })`$
$`\frac{1}{16}g^2\varphi ^2\overline{\varphi }^2+\frac{g}{8}\psi \psi \varphi +\frac{g}{8}\overline{\psi }\overline{\psi }\overline{\varphi }\frac{1}{4}mg\varphi \overline{\varphi }(\varphi +\overline{\varphi })\}`$ (2.1)
It has one common mass for all fields and only one coupling. This is due to supersymmetry and parity which leave invariant this action. Without auxiliary fields the susy transormations are non-linear and their algebra closes only on the mass shell - a problem for renormalization. It has been solved in  by introducing external fields coupled to the non-linear variations and formulating the Ward identity (WI) for susy as a $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$-bilinear equation. Crucial is the fact that in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ appears an expression bilinear in the external fields. Meanwhile this method has been greatly refined  and systematized, hence we shall present the relevant results in this form.

### 2.1 BRS transformations, ST identity

The systematic procedure for treating susy without auxiliary fields consists in promoting the parameters of the transformations to constant ghosts. Those carry a Grassmann number which is always opposite to its statistics: the ghosts of susy ($`ϵ^\alpha `$, $`\overline{ϵ}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$) commute, the translations ($`\omega _\mu `$) anticommute. In order to have nilpotent transformations the ghosts too have to transform. With the assignment

$`\text{s}\varphi `$ $`=\epsilon ^\alpha \psi _\alpha \mathrm{i}\omega ^\mu _\mu \varphi `$ (2.2)
$`\text{s}\psi ^\beta `$ $`=\frac{g}{2}\epsilon ^\beta \overline{\varphi }^2+2\epsilon ^\beta m\overline{\varphi }2\mathrm{i}\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}\sigma ^{\mu \beta \dot{\alpha }}_\mu \varphi \mathrm{i}\omega ^\mu _\mu \psi ^\beta `$ (2.3)
$`\text{s}\overline{\varphi }`$ $`=\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\mu _\mu \overline{\varphi }`$ (2.4)
$`\text{s}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}`$ $`=\frac{g}{2}\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\beta }}\varphi ^22\epsilon ^{\dot{\beta }}m\varphi 2\mathrm{i}\epsilon _\alpha \sigma ^\mu {}_{}{}^{\alpha }{}_{}{}^{\dot{\beta }}_{\mu }^{}\overline{\varphi }\mathrm{i}\omega ^\mu _\mu \overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (2.5)
$`\text{s}\epsilon ^\alpha `$ $`=0=s\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ (2.6)
$`\text{s}\omega ^\mu `$ $`=2\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }`$ (2.7)
one finds

$`\text{s}^2\varphi `$ $`=0=\text{s}^2\overline{\varphi }`$ (2.8)
$`\text{s}^2\psi ^\beta `$ $`=4\epsilon ^\beta \overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{WZ}}}{\delta \overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}}}`$ (2.9)
$`\text{s}^2\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\beta }}`$ $`=4\epsilon ^\beta \overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\beta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{WZ}}}{\delta \psi ^\beta }}`$ (2.10)
In order to obtain off-shell closure one introduces external fields coupled to the non-linear variations and a term bilinear in these external fields

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \left\{Y^\alpha s\psi _\alpha +\overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}s\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}+4\epsilon ^\alpha Y_\alpha \overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{Y}^{\dot{\alpha }}\right\}}`$ (2.11)
$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{WZ}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ (2.12)
The symmetry of the model can now be expressed as a ST identity

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })\left\{s\varphi \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi }+s\overline{\varphi }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\varphi }}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_\alpha }\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\alpha }}}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }_{\dot{\alpha }}}\right\}+s\omega ^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega ^\mu }=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}.$$
(2.13)
It holds for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. One observes furthermore that the linearized operator

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\text{s}\varphi \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }+\text{s}\overline{\varphi }\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_\alpha }\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi ^\alpha }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }\frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\alpha }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\alpha }}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\alpha }}}\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}}\right)}+\text{s}\omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega ^\mu }}`$ (2.14)
satisfies

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2`$ $`=0`$ (2.15)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{s}\varphi `$ $`=0`$ (2.16)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`=0`$ (2.17)
for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$. Crucial for the validity of ($`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=0`$) is the presence of the $`Y\overline{Y}`$-term in (2.11). It clearly contributes those eq. of motion terms which guarantee on the functional level nilpotency as opposed to (2.9), (2.10) where – on the level of elementary fields – it does not hold. Eqn. (2.16) will serve as a consistency condition for constraining potential non-symmetric higher order corrections to the ST identity (2.13).

The renormalization is now straightforward  and yields the ST identity (2.13) if one imposes in addition

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega ^\mu }=\frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}}{\omega ^\mu }$$
(2.18)
which is possible, and recursively

$$(𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{s}\varphi )=0.$$
(2.19)
(2.18) and (2.19) imply

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega ^\mu }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}{\displaystyle \left(Y^\alpha _\mu \psi _\alpha +\overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}_\mu \overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}\right)}`$ (2.20)
$`\epsilon ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{Y^\alpha }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \omega ^\mu _\mu \psi _\alpha +2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }_\mu \varphi `$ (2.21)
In order to prepare for the subsequent discussion we go via Legendre transformation over to the connected Green functions

$`j`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi }},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z_c}{\delta Y^\alpha }}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y^\alpha }},\eta _\alpha ={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }}`$ (2.22)
$`Z_c`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }+{\displaystyle \left(j\varphi +\overline{j}\overline{\varphi }+\eta _\alpha \psi ^\alpha +\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{\psi }^{\dot{\alpha }}\right)}`$ (2.23)
and then to the general Green functions

$$Z=\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}Z_c}$$
(2.24)
The validity of the ST identity (2.13) entails the existence of a conserved current for a local generalized BRS transformation

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}(y)Z=[^\mu J_\mu (y)]Z$$
(2.25)
where

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ $`\mathrm{i}j\epsilon ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta ^\alpha }}\omega ^\mu _\mu j{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta j}}\mathrm{i}\overline{j}\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}}}\omega ^\mu _\mu \overline{j}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{j}}}\mathrm{i}\eta ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y^\alpha }}\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}}}`$
$`2\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }\left(Y^\alpha _\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta ^\alpha }}+\overline{Y}_{\dot{\alpha }}_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\eta }_{\dot{\alpha }}}}\right).`$ (2.26)
### 2.2 Supersymmetry transformations of functionals

The presence of constant ghosts in the theory permits the subdivision of functionals and sometimes also of their transformations into sectors of fixed ghost number – this is commonly called a “filtration” . We expand

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+\mathrm{}$$
(2.27)
according to the number of constant ghosts. Inserting this expansion into the ST identity the latter can first be rewritten as

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})+𝒮_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+O(ϵ^2)$$
(2.28)
where

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})=\left(\text{s}\varphi \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \varphi }+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta Y}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi }\right)+c.c.$$
(2.29)
(2.28) is verified by observing that $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta Y}=0`$. Using

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}}{\delta Y}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi }+c.c.)+\text{s}\omega ^\mu \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega ^\mu }+O(ϵ^2)$$
(2.30)
one can write

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })=(𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma })^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}+O(ϵ^2),$$
(2.31)
hence, since the ST identity holds order by order in the ghosts

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=0.$$
(2.32)
We decompose

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ $`=ϵ^\alpha W_\alpha +\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}+\omega ^\mu W_\mu 2ϵ\sigma ^\mu \overline{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega ^\mu }}`$ (2.33)
such that functional differential operators are defined by differentiation w.r.t. the ghosts

$`W_\alpha `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{ϵ^\alpha }}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}|_{ϵ=\omega =0}`$ (2.34)
$`\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}}}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}|_{ϵ=\omega =0}`$ (2.35)
$`W_\mu `$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{}{\omega ^\mu }}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}|_{ϵ=\omega =0}`$ (2.36)
The filtration of $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ contains besides $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}{\delta \psi ^\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\alpha }}+c.c.`$ (2.37)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}}{\delta Y_\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _\alpha }}+c.c.`$ (2.38)
Next we exploit the fact that $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is nilpotent on functionals $``$ for which

$$\epsilon ^\alpha \frac{}{Y^\alpha }=\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \omega ^\mu _\mu \psi _\alpha +2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }_\mu \varphi $$
(2.39)
holds. This yields

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`=0`$ (2.40)
$`\{𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)},𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}\}`$ $`=0`$ (2.41)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+\{𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)},𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}\}`$ $`=0`$ (2.42)
Projecting out of $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ the $`ϵ\overline{ϵ}`$-part one finds

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}|_{ϵ\overline{ϵ}}`$ $`=ϵ^\alpha \overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}\left(\{W_\alpha ,\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu W_\mu \right).`$ (2.43)
(2.42) with (2.43) shows that even on $`Y`$-independent functionals $``$, the SUSY algebra closes only up to equation of motions terms $`\frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }`$.

### 2.3 Symmetry transformations on quantum fields

Vertex functions can essentially be understood as matrix elements of operators but are certainly not the ideal tool for revealing the underlying properties of the respective operators, hence we study general Green functions.

As the simplest example we identify the energy-momentum operator and its action on field operators. We therefore insert (2.21) into (2.13) and permit $`\omega _\mu `$, $`\epsilon ^\alpha `$ and $`\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ to be local, $`\omega _\mu =\omega _\mu (x)`$ etc.,

$$𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}Z=[^\mu J_\mu +^\mu \epsilon ^\alpha K_{\mu \alpha }+^\mu \overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{K}_{\mu \dot{\alpha }}+^\mu \omega ^\nu K_{\mu \nu }]Z.$$
(2.44)
Differentiating w.r.t. $`\omega _\mu (z)`$ and integrating over $`z`$ yields the local WI

$`w_\mu \mathrm{\Gamma }|_{ϵ=\overline{ϵ}=0,Y=\overline{Y}=0}`$ $`\mathrm{i}\left(_\mu \varphi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi }}+_\mu \overline{\varphi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\varphi }}}+_\mu \psi {\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi }}+_\mu \overline{\psi }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }}}\right)\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{ϵ=\overline{ϵ}=0}{Y=\overline{Y}=0}}`$ (2.45)
$`=\left[^\nu T_{\nu \mu }\right]\mathrm{\Gamma }|_{\genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{ϵ=\overline{ϵ}=0}{Y=\overline{Y}=0}},`$ (2.46)
with $`T_{\nu \mu }=_{\omega ^\nu }J_\mu `$. ( (2.20) taken at $`Y=0=\overline{Y}`$ guarantees that no other contributions depending on $`\omega _\mu `$ show up.) Translated onto $`Z`$ we obtain

$$(_\mu j_\varphi \frac{\delta }{\delta j_\varphi }+_\mu \eta \frac{\delta }{\delta \eta }+c.c.)Z|_{Y=0}=\mathrm{i}[^\nu T_{\nu \mu }]Z$$
(2.47)
a local WI for the translations, with $`T_{\nu \mu }`$ being the energy-momentum tensor. By differentiating with respect to a suitable combination of sources we generate on the right hand side the Green function $`^\nu \mathrm{T}(T_{\nu \mu }X)`$, where $`X`$ stands for an arbitrary number of elementary fields; on the left hand side there will always occur Green functions with one field argument less and a $`\delta `$-function instead. Multiplying with inverse propagators and going on mass shell we obtain zero on the l.h.s. (as a consequence of the $`\delta `$-functions) and on the r.h.s. the respective matrix elements of the operator $`^\nu T_{\nu \mu }^{\mathrm{Op}}`$. Hence

$$^\nu T_{\nu \mu }^{\mathrm{Op}}=0,$$
(2.48)
the energy-momentum tensor is conserved.

Defining the energy-momentum operator by

$$P_\nu ^{\mathrm{Op}}=\mathrm{d}^3xT_{0\nu }^{\mathrm{Op}},$$
(2.49)
(2.48) means that $`P_\nu ^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ is time independent. This detailed presentation served as an illustration of the LSZ reduction technique which permits one to generate operator relations out of Green functions .

In order to obtain the transformation law of field operators we deduce from (2.47)

$$_\nu ^y\delta (yx)\phi (y)X=\mathrm{i}^{y\mu }\mathrm{T}(T_{\mu \nu }(y)\phi (x)X).$$
(2.50)
Reduction yields

$$_\nu ^y\delta (yx)\phi ^{\mathrm{Op}}(y)=\mathrm{i}^{y\mu }\mathrm{T}(T_{\mu \nu }(y)\phi (x))^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(2.51)
Integration over $`\mathrm{d}^3y`$ and $`_{x^0\epsilon }^{x^0+\epsilon }dy^0`$ leads to

$$_\mu \phi ^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)=\mathrm{i}[P_\mu ,\phi (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}},\text{for }\phi =\varphi ,\overline{\varphi },\psi ,\overline{\psi }$$
(2.52)
the well-known transformation law of a field operator under translations.

We learn from this result that the local version of the ST identity on $`Z`$ (2.44) should also be most useful for deriving the susy current, charge and field transformation.

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{i}\delta (yz)j(z)\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \eta _\alpha (z)}+\mathrm{i}\eta ^\beta \left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha }\right]\left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y^\beta }\right]Z+\eta ^\beta \left[\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)\delta Y^\beta (y)}\right]Z\hfill \\ \hfill +\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }^{\dot{\beta }}\left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha }\right]\left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\beta }}}\right]Z+\eta ^\beta \left[\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\beta }}(y)}\right]Z\\ \hfill =\left[_y^\mu \frac{\delta J_\mu (y)}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}\right]Z+\mathrm{i}[^\mu J_\mu (y)]\left[\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}\right]Z+_y^\mu \delta (yz)\left[K_{\mu \alpha }(y)\right]Z\end{array}$$
(2.53)
Since $`\epsilon `$ has ghost number one, it may occur only in combination with $`Y`$, hence no $`ϵ`$-dependent term survives at $`Y=0`$, and the double insertions in (2.53) are absent. One can safely integrate over $`z`$ which yields

$`\mathrm{i}j(y){\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \eta _\alpha (y)}}\eta ^\beta (y){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ϵ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y^\beta (y)}}+\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }^{\dot{\beta }}(y){\displaystyle \frac{\delta _{ϵ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \overline{Y}^{\dot{\beta }}(y)}}`$ $`=[^\mu J_{\mu \alpha }(y)]Z,`$ (2.54)
where $`J_{\mu \alpha }_{\epsilon ^\alpha }J_\mu `$ represents the susy current. From here on one may just perform all steps as before for the translations and obtain

$$^\mu J_{\mu \alpha }^{\mathrm{Op}}=0,$$
(2.55)
the current conservation. With the charge

$$Q_\alpha \mathrm{d}^3xJ_{0\alpha }(x)$$
(2.56)
the field transformations follow,

$`\mathrm{i}[Q_\alpha ,\varphi ]^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ $`=\psi _\alpha ^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ (2.57)
$`\mathrm{i}\{Q_\alpha ,\psi _\beta \}^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ $`=\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y^\beta }}_{ϵ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}\delta _\alpha \psi _\beta ^{\mathrm{Op}}.`$ (2.58)
Analogously for the conjugate quantities.

As a consequence of (2.57), (2.58) and the translations one derives the validity of the algebra

$`[\{\mathrm{i}Q_\alpha ,\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\},\varphi ]`$ $`=\{\mathrm{i}Q_\alpha ,[\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\varphi ]\}+\{\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},[\mathrm{i}Q_\alpha ,\varphi ]\}`$
$`=\{\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},\psi _\alpha \}={\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y^\alpha }}_{\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}=2\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \varphi `$
$`=2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu [P_\mu ,\varphi ]`$ (2.59)
Similarly,

$`[\{\mathrm{i}Q_\alpha ,\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\},\psi _\beta ]`$ $`=[\mathrm{i}Q_\alpha ,{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y^\beta }}_{\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}}\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}]+[\mathrm{i}\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }},{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y^\beta }}_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}]`$
$`=2\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \psi _\beta ,`$ (2.60)
where the second equality is established by differentiating (2.44) w.r.t. $`\epsilon ^\alpha `$, $`\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$, $`Y^\beta `$ and performing the LSZ reduction. Thus we have

$$\{Q_\alpha ,\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}=2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu P_\mu .$$
(2.61)
The current conservation implies that $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ act as symmetry operators on the Hilbert space of the theory, with the transformation of field variables given by (2.57), (2.58). This field transformation law is non-linear (for $`\psi `$), but it is local! And in this sense one can say that the transformations as given on the functionals (2.43) resemble the operator law here and hint indeed correctly to a local symmetry. We obtain a closed algebra here because the field operators obey the equations of motion.

This concludes our discussion of the Wess-Zumino model.

## 3 SQED in the Wess-Zumino gauge

The susy and gauge invariant action of SQED in the Wess-Zumino gauge reads as follows

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SQED}}`$ $`=\frac{1}{4}{\displaystyle F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }}+\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \overline{\gamma }(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu )_\mu \gamma }`$
$`+{\displaystyle |D_\mu \varphi _L|^2}+{\displaystyle |D_\mu \varphi _R^{}|^2}+\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}(\mathrm{i}\gamma ^\mu )D_\mu \mathrm{\Psi }`$
$`\sqrt{2}eQ_L{\displaystyle \left(\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_R\gamma \varphi _L\overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}P_L\gamma \varphi _R^{}+\varphi _L^{}\overline{\gamma }P_L\mathrm{\Psi }\varphi _R\overline{\gamma }P_R\mathrm{\Psi }\right)}`$
$`\frac{1}{2}{\displaystyle \left(eQ_L|\varphi _L|^2+eQ_R|\varphi _R|^2\right)^2}`$
$`m{\displaystyle \overline{\mathrm{\Psi }}\mathrm{\Psi }}m^2{\displaystyle \left(|\varphi _L|^2+|\varphi _R|^2\right)}`$ (3.1)
where
$`D_\mu `$ $`_\mu +\mathrm{i}eQA_\mu `$ (3.2)
$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$ (3.3)
and $`(A^\mu ,\lambda ^\alpha ,\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }})`$ denote the photon and Weyl-photino resp., whereas $`(\psi _L^\alpha ,\varphi _L)`$ and $`(\psi _R^\alpha ,\varphi _R)`$ refer to two chiral multiplets with charges $`Q_L=1`$, $`Q_R=+1`$. The electron Dirac spinor and the photino Majorana spinor are given by

$$\mathrm{\Psi }=(\psi _L^\alpha ,\overline{\psi }_R^{\dot{\alpha }}),\gamma =(\mathrm{i}\lambda _\alpha ,\mathrm{i}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}).$$
(3.4)
In this gauge model susy transformations are non-linear not only because the auxiliary fields have been eliminated but also because longitudinal components of the vector superfield are being transformed away. This causes an additional problem: every susy transformation has to be followed by a field dependent gauge transformation such that one stays in the Wess-Zumino gauge. Hence only gauge invariant terms can at the same time be supersymmetric; a gauge fixing term can never be susy invariant. The task is therefore to construct the model and then physical (i.e. gauge invariant) quantities “modulo gauge fixing”.

### 3.1 BRS transformations, ST identity

The problems that susy transformations are non-linear, close only on-shell and that gauge fixing is not supersymmetric have all been overcome by going to a BRS formulation of all transformations and introducing suitable external fields, in particular also terms in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ which are bilinear in the latter . These generalized BRS transformations have the form

$`\text{s}A_\mu `$ $`=_\mu c+\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma _\mu \overline{\lambda }\mathrm{i}\lambda \sigma _\mu \overline{\epsilon }\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu A_\mu ,`$ (3.5a)
$`\text{s}\lambda ^\alpha `$ $`=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}(\epsilon \sigma ^{\rho \sigma })^\alpha F_{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha eQ_L(|\varphi _L|^2|\varphi _R|^2)\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \lambda ^\alpha ,`$ (3.5b)
$`\text{s}\overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}(\overline{\epsilon }\overline{\sigma }^{\rho \sigma })_{\dot{\alpha }}F_{\rho \sigma }\mathrm{i}\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}eQ_L(|\varphi _L|^2|\varphi _R|^2)\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }},`$ (3.5c)
$`\text{s}\varphi _L`$ $`=\mathrm{i}eQ_Lc\varphi _L+\sqrt{2}\epsilon \psi _L\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \varphi _L,`$ (3.5d)
$`\text{s}\varphi _L^{}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}eQ_Lc\varphi _L^{}+\sqrt{2}\overline{\psi }_L\overline{\epsilon }\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \varphi _L^{},`$ (3.5e)
$`\text{s}\psi _L^\alpha `$ $`=\mathrm{i}eQ_Lc\psi _L^\alpha \sqrt{2}\epsilon ^\alpha m\varphi _R^{}\sqrt{2}\mathrm{i}(\overline{\epsilon }\overline{\sigma }^\mu )^\alpha D_\mu \varphi _L\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \psi _L^\alpha ,`$ (3.5f)
$`\text{s}\overline{\psi }_{L\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}eQ_Lc\overline{\psi }_{L\dot{\alpha }}+\sqrt{2}\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}m\varphi _R+\sqrt{2}\mathrm{i}(\epsilon \sigma ^\mu )_{\dot{\alpha }}(D_\mu \varphi _L)^{}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \overline{\psi }_{L\dot{\alpha }},`$ (3.5g)
$`\text{s}c`$ $`=2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }A_\nu \mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu c,`$ (3.5h)
$`\text{s}\epsilon ^\alpha `$ $`=0,`$ (3.5i)
$`\text{s}\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ $`=0,`$ (3.5j)
$`\text{s}\omega ^\nu `$ $`=2\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon },`$ (3.5k)
$`\text{s}\overline{c}`$ $`=B\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \overline{c},`$ (3.5l)
$`\text{s}B`$ $`=2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }_\nu \overline{c}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu B`$ (3.5m)
A suitable form of gauge fixing turns out to be

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}`$ $`={\displaystyle \text{s}\left(\overline{c}A+\frac{\xi }{2}\overline{c}B\right)}`$ (3.6)
$`={\displaystyle \left(BA+\frac{\xi }{2}B^2\overline{c}\mathrm{}c\overline{c}^\mu \left(\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma _\mu \overline{\lambda }\mathrm{i}\lambda \sigma _\mu \overline{\epsilon }\right)+\xi \mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }_\nu \overline{c}\overline{c}\right)}`$ (3.7)
The non-linear transformations will be defined via their coupling to external fields

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \left(Y_\lambda ^\alpha \text{s}\lambda _\alpha +Y_{\overline{\lambda }\dot{\alpha }}\text{s}\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}+Y_{\varphi _L}\text{s}\varphi _L+Y_{\varphi _L^{}}\text{s}\varphi _L^{}+Y_{\psi _L}^\alpha \text{s}\psi _{L\alpha }+Y_{\overline{\psi }_L\dot{\alpha }}\text{s}\overline{\psi }_L^{\dot{\alpha }}+(LR)\right)}`$ (3.8)
complemented by well specified correction terms in higher orders.

The contributions which are bilinear in the external fields have the form

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bil}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \left((Y_\lambda \epsilon )(\overline{\epsilon }Y_{\overline{\lambda }})+2(Y_{\psi _L}\epsilon )(\overline{\epsilon }Y_{\overline{\psi }_L})+2(Y_{\psi _R}\epsilon )(\overline{\epsilon }Y_{\overline{\psi }_R})\right)}.`$ (3.9)
The classical action

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{cl}}`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{SQED}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{g}.\mathrm{f}.}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{ext}}+\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{bil}}`$ (3.10)
satisfies then a Slavnov-Taylor identity which can be extended  to all orders in the loop expansion for the vertex functional $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$,

$`𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ $`{\displaystyle }\mathrm{d}^4x(\text{s}A^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A^\mu }}+\text{s}c{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta c}}+\text{s}\overline{c}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{c}}}+\text{s}B{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta B}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\lambda \alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \lambda ^\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\overline{\lambda }}^{\dot{\alpha }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\lambda }_{\dot{\alpha }}}}`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\varphi _L}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _L}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\varphi _L^{}}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _L^{}}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\psi _L\alpha }}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \psi _L^\alpha }}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_{\overline{\psi }_L}^{\dot{\alpha }}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \overline{\psi }_{L\dot{\alpha }}}}+(LR))`$
$`+\text{s}\epsilon ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\epsilon ^\alpha }}+\text{s}\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}}}+\text{s}\omega ^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\omega ^\mu }}`$ (3.11)
$`{\displaystyle \left(\text{s}\varphi _i^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i^{}}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_i}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i}\right)}`$ (3.12)
$`=0`$ (3.13)
($`\varphi ^{}`$: all linearly transforming field and the ghosts; $`\varphi `$: all non-linearly transforming fields). Part of the hypotheses is the gauge fixing as above (this can be established to all orders) and the ghost dependence (s.  for details).

An important calculational tool is given by the linearized ST operator

$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`{\displaystyle \left(\text{s}\varphi _i^{}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _l^{}}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_i}\frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _i}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i}\frac{\delta }{\delta Y_i}\right)}`$ (3.14)
which satisfies

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })=0$$
(3.15)
provided

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^2A_\mu =0.$$
(3.16)
(The latter relation is true for the final vertex functional.)

As a consequence of gauge fixing, ghost equations and (3.13) it has been shown in  that the following WI’s hold

$`^\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta A^\mu }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}ew_{\mathrm{em}}\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{}B+O(\omega ),`$ (3.17)
$`w_{\mathrm{em}}`$ $`=Q_L(\varphi _L{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _L}}Y_{\varphi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_{\varphi _L}}}+\psi _L{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \psi _L}}Y_{\psi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_{\psi _L}}}`$
$`\varphi _L^{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \varphi _L^{}}}+Y_{\varphi _L^{}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_{\varphi _L^{}}}}\overline{\psi }_L{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{\psi }_L}}Y_{\overline{\psi }_L}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_{\overline{\psi }_L}}})`$
$`+(LR)`$ (3.18)
and

$$\left(_\mu \varphi _i^{}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i^{}}+_\mu \varphi _i\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta \varphi _i}+_\mu Y_i\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }}{\delta Y_i}\right)=0.$$
(3.19)
(3.17) expresses the local gauge invariance of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, whereas (3.19) says that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is translation invariant.

### 3.2 Susy on the vertex like functionals

Like in the Wess-Zumino model (section 2.2) we follow  and introduce with the help of the operator

$$𝒩\epsilon \frac{}{\epsilon }+\overline{\epsilon }\frac{}{\overline{\epsilon }}+\omega ^\mu \frac{}{\omega ^\mu }$$
(3.20)
a “filtration”. $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ will be expanded according to the number of constant ghosts:

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }=\underset{n0}{}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}$$
(3.21)
where

$$[𝒩,𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}]=n𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(n)}.$$
(3.22)
We have

$$𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma })=𝒮(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})+𝒮_{\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+O(ϵ^2).$$
(3.23)
Like above the nilpotency (3.15) of $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ leads to the consequence

$`(𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)})^2`$ $`=0`$ (3.24a)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`=0`$ (3.24b)
$`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}+𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}+𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(2)}𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ $`=0`$ (3.24c)
But it is to be noted that the sector with ghost number 0 is now the one of ordinary BRS invariance. Hence $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$ is the ordinary BRS variation of functionals and (3.24a) expresses its nilpotency.

Decomposing $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ again according to

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}=\epsilon ^\alpha W_\alpha +\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{W}^{\dot{\alpha }}+\omega ^\mu W_\mu +\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }\frac{\delta }{\delta \omega ^\nu }$$
(3.25)
and inserting into (3.24c) one finds

$`\{W_\alpha ,\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}\}`$ $`2\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu W_\mu `$ (3.26)
$`\{W_\alpha ,W_\beta \}`$ $`0\{\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }},\overline{W}_{\dot{\beta }}\}`$ (3.27)
i.e. the supersymmetry algebra on functionals $`(\varphi )`$ which obey

$$𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}=0$$
(3.28)
and where $``$ means up to $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(0)}`$-variations. On functionals which are not invariant under ordinary BRS transformations the well-known susy algebra is realized only modulo BRS variations. Hence one can interprete $`W_\alpha `$ and $`\overline{W}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ as giving the supersymmetry variation of an arbitrary functional.

The simplest ones are the fields themselves and in  several examples have been calculated in the one-loop approximation with the outcome that e.g. $`\psi (x)`$ transforms non-locally under $`W_\alpha `$. The closer analysis of this result is the subject of the subsequent analysis in terms of general Green functions and then of operators.

### 3.3 Symmetries on quantum fields

For the case of space-time translations there is no difference to the Wess-Zumino model. The WI (3.19) can be turned into a local one, formulated on the general Green functions Z and and translated into operator relations analogous to (2.52).

Similarly we rewrite the gauge WI (3.17) as an eqn. on Z

$`\mathrm{i}^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{em}}Z`$ $`=ew_{\mathrm{em}}(j)Z+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}}+o(\omega )`$ (3.29)
$`0`$ $`={\displaystyle \left(_\mu j_{\varphi _i^{}}\frac{\delta }{\delta j_{\varphi _i^{}}}+_\mu j_{\varphi _i}\frac{\delta }{\delta j_{\varphi _i}}+_\mu Y_i\frac{\delta }{\delta Y_i}\right)Z}.`$ (3.30)
and define a conserved electromagnetic current insertion:

$$ew_{\mathrm{em}}(j)Z|_{Y=0,\omega =0}=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}+^\mu J_\mu Z=\mathrm{i}^\mu j_\mu ^{\mathrm{em}}Z$$
(3.31)
We find first of all that the corresponding operator is conserved

$$0=(^\mu j_\mu ^{\mathrm{em}})^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.32)
Differentiating once w.r.t. the source $`j_{\varphi _L}`$ and performing LSZ reduction we obtain

$$\mathrm{i}eQ_L\delta (yx)\varphi _L^{\mathrm{Op}}(y)=\mathrm{i}^\mu \mathrm{T}\left(j_\mu ^{\mathrm{em}}(y)\varphi _L(x)\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.33)
Integration yields the transformation for the field operator

$$\mathrm{i}eQ_L\varphi ^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)=\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{em}},\varphi _L(x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}$$
(3.34)
where

$$Q^{\mathrm{em}}\mathrm{d}^3yj_0^{\mathrm{em}}(y),$$
(3.35)
similarly for all other field operators. In particular

$$\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{em}},A_\mu (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}=0,$$
(3.36)
the field $`A_\mu `$ is not charged .

Aiming now at the BRS charge we derive the first consequence from the ST identity directly. (3.13) is rewritten on $`Z`$

$$\begin{array}{c}𝒮(Z)\mathrm{d}^4x[\mathrm{i}j_{A\mu }(_\mu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_c}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{\eta }_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{A\mu }})\mathrm{i}j_c(2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }\frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_A^\nu }\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_c})\hfill \\ \hfill \mathrm{i}j_{\overline{c}}\left(\frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{\overline{c}}}\right)+\mathrm{i}j_B\left(2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }_\nu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{\overline{c}}}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}\right)\mathrm{i}\eta _\lambda ^\alpha \frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_\lambda ^\alpha }\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}}\\ \hfill +\mathrm{i}j_{\varphi _L}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_{\varphi _L}}+\mathrm{i}\overline{j}_{\varphi _L}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\varphi _L}}\mathrm{i}\eta _{\psi _L}^\alpha \frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_{\psi _L}^\alpha }\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }_{\psi _L\dot{\alpha }}\frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\overline{\psi }_L\dot{\alpha }}}+(LR)]\\ \hfill 2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }\frac{Z}{\omega ^\mu }=0\end{array}$$
(3.37)
If a local ST identity is desired we have to permit the ghosts $`\epsilon `$, $`\overline{\epsilon }`$, $`\omega ^\mu `$ to become local. The local ST identity will then look as follows

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}Z`$ $`\mathrm{i}j_{A\mu }\left(_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_c}}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \sigma _{\mu \alpha \dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{\eta }_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}}}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{A\mu }}}\right)\mathrm{i}j_c\left(2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_A^\nu }}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_c}}\right)`$
$`\mathrm{i}j_{\overline{c}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{\overline{c}}}}\right)+\mathrm{i}j_B\left(2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\nu \overline{\epsilon }_\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_{\overline{c}}}}\mathrm{i}\omega ^\nu _\nu {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta j_B}}\right)\mathrm{i}\eta _\lambda ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_\lambda ^\alpha }}\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\lambda \dot{\alpha }}}}`$
$`+\mathrm{i}j_{\varphi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_{\varphi _L}}}+\mathrm{i}\overline{j}_{\varphi _L}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\varphi _L}}}\mathrm{i}\eta _{\psi _L}^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta Y_{\psi _L}^\alpha }}\mathrm{i}\overline{\eta }_{\psi _L\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \overline{Y}_{\overline{\psi }_L\dot{\alpha }}}}+(LR)`$
$`2\mathrm{i}\epsilon \sigma ^\mu \overline{\epsilon }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta Z}{\delta \omega ^\mu }}`$
$`=[^\mu J_\mu +^\mu \epsilon ^\alpha K_{\mu \alpha }+^\mu \overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}\overline{K}_{\mu \dot{\alpha }}+^\mu \omega ^\nu K_{\mu \nu }]Z`$ (3.38)
Here $`J_\mu `$ depends on the ghosts $`\epsilon `$, $`\overline{\epsilon }`$, $`\omega ^\mu `$ and for constant ghosts integration will indeed yield zero on the r.h.s. At $`\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0`$ we are obviously dealing with a local version of the ordinary ST identity, i.e. $`^\mu J_\mu |_{\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0}`$ will correspond to the divergence of the BRS current. Reduction leads to the operator equation

$$0=(^\mu J_\mu )^{\mathrm{Op}}|_{\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0}(^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}})^{\mathrm{Op}}$$
(3.39)
The conserved BRS current leads as usual to a time independent charge via the definition

$$Q^{\mathrm{BRS}}=\mathrm{d}^3xJ_0^{\mathrm{BRS}}.$$
(3.40)
Since (3.39) holds on the complete Fock space $`Q^{\mathrm{BRS}}`$ commutes with the S-operator on Fock space .

The transformation law for a field operator of type $`\varphi `$ follows from the operator eqn.

$`\delta (yx){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Op}}}{\delta Y(y)}}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{T}(^\mu J_\mu (y)\varphi (x))^{\mathrm{Op}}|_{ϵ=\overline{ϵ}=0}`$ (3.41)
by integrating over space, $`\mathrm{d}^3y`$, and time in the interval $`(x_0\mu ,x_0+\mu )`$ with $`\mu 0`$ and leads to

$$\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_\varphi (x)}\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}|_{\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0}=\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{BRS}},\varphi (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.42)
$`\left(\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_\varphi (x)}\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ starts with the non-linear terms given by the tree approximation and listed in (3.5); higher order corrections appear as they contribute to $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$.

For a linearly transforming field, type $`\varphi ^{}`$, the operator law is the one of the classical approximation

$$\text{s}\varphi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)=\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{BRS}},\varphi ^{}(x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.43)
The charge $`Q^{\mathrm{BRS}}`$ is nilpotent.

As is clear from the discussion in section 2.3 information on supersymmetry follows from (3.38) by differentiating once with respect to a local susy ghost ($`\epsilon ^\alpha (z)`$ or analogously $`\overline{\epsilon }_{\dot{\alpha }}(z)`$). Doing so and performing LSZ reduction we obtain the operator equation

$$0=\frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}_x^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{T}\left(^\mu J_\mu (x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}+_x^\mu \delta (xz)K_{\mu \alpha }^{\mathrm{Op}}(x).$$
(3.44)
Integration over $`z`$ yields

$$0=_x^\mu _{\epsilon ^\alpha }J_\mu ^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)+\mathrm{i}\mathrm{d}^4z\mathrm{T}\left(^\mu J_\mu (x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}\right)^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.45)
Hence there is a candidate for a susy current, $`_{\epsilon ^\alpha }J_\mu ^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)`$, but it is not conserved. Defining a charge by

$$Q_\alpha (t)\mathrm{d}^3x_{\epsilon ^\alpha }J_0^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)$$
(3.46)
it will depend on $`t`$. Integrating (3.45) over all of $`x`$-space leads to

$$0=dt_tQ_\alpha (t)\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{BRS}},_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}]^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.47)
Taking the time integral for asymptotic times $`t=\pm \mathrm{}`$ and identifying there the charges we can write

$$Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{out}}Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}=\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{BRS}},_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}]^{\mathrm{Op}}.$$
(3.48)
Since $`Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{out}}`$ develops out of $`Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ via the time evolution operator $`S`$, the scattering operator,

$$Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{out}}=SQ_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}S^{},$$
(3.49)
(3.48) implies

$$[Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}},S]=\mathrm{i}[Q^{\mathrm{BRS}},_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}S].$$
(3.50)
Here we have used that $`Q^{\mathrm{BRS}}`$ and $`S`$ commute. The interpretation of this result is clear: the charge $`Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ which may be taken to be the generator of susy transformations on the free in-states does not commute with the $`S`$-operator, the reason being the $`\epsilon `$-dependence of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}`$. Looking at (3.7) this arises from the gauge fixing term whose $`ϵ`$-dependent part is as a consequence of the ghost eqn. not renormalized. Matrix elements between physical states however yield a vanishing r.h.s. in (3.50), hence there $`Q_\alpha ^{\mathrm{in}}`$ is a conserved charge.

In the derivation of analogous results for field transformations we concentrate on non-linearly transforming ones. Differentiating (3.38) w.r.t. $`\epsilon `$ and a source for $`\varphi `$ we obtain after LSZ reduction the operator relation<sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4The explicit indication $`\mathrm{Op}`$ has been suppressed

$`\delta (yx){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y(y)\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}}`$ $`\mathrm{i}\delta (yx)\mathrm{T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y(y)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}}\right)`$
$`=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}}^\mu J_\mu (y)\varphi (x)\right)\mathrm{T}\left(^\mu J_\mu (y){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha (z)}}\varphi (x)\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{i}_y^\mu \delta (yz)\mathrm{T}\left(K_{\mu \alpha }(y)\varphi (x)\right).`$ (3.51)
Unfortunately one cannot straightforwardly integrate (3.51) and conclude how a field $`\varphi `$ transforms under susy because in the T-product $`\mathrm{T}(J_ϵ\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}\varphi )`$ distributional singularities at coninciding points may arise. It is clear that every renormalization scheme leads to a well-defined T-product which is integrable in the sense of distributions but of which type this distribution is has to be found out. We present this analysis in the appendix and quote here only its result. One finds that contributions with $`\delta (yx)`$ arise which cancel with the operator product $`\mathrm{T}(\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta Y(y)\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta ϵ^\alpha (z))`$ on the l.h.s., and in addition a term with a double delta function $`\delta (xy)\delta (yz)`$ which contributes to the susy variation of the photino field $`\lambda `$ only. Altogether we arrive at

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\varphi (x)}}_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[Q_\alpha (x^0),\varphi (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}},\text{if }\varphi \lambda `$ (3.52)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\lambda ^\beta (x)}}_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Op}}+\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }B^{\mathrm{Op}}(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[Q_\alpha (x^0),\lambda _\beta (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}.`$ (3.53)
Hence the time-dependent susy charge defined in (3.46) $`(tx_0)`$ generates a local, non-linear transformation on all fields. The fact that this transformation does not correspond to a symmetry on the Fock space, but only on the Hilbert space of the theory is completely encoded in the time dependence of the charge $`Q_\alpha (t)`$ and in the additional $`\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }B`$ term in the susy transformation of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ which vanishes between physical states.

Comparing this result with the explicit one-loop calculation in  of $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }\psi (x)`$ which yielded a non-local expression we can trace the origin of this non-locality: it comes from the operator product $`\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta Y(y)\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}/\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)`$ in the l.h.s. of (3.51) which could be separated in the above analysis and seen to cancel against the $`\delta (yx)`$ terms on the r.h.s. By going to the operator level one could isolate the local transformation. The transformation on vertex type functionals given by $`𝒮_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{(1)}`$ does not distinguish between these different contributions since it fixes in a sense susy transformations only “up to” BRS variations.

The somewhat surprising modification (3.53) of the transformation of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ may be understood as follows. We have defined a time-dependent susy charge $`Q_\alpha (x^0)`$ which generates susy transformations $`[Q_\alpha (x^0),\lambda _\beta (x^0,\stackrel{}{x})]`$ at time $`x^0`$. The time dependence of all these operators is determined by the same unitary time evolution operator in Fock space, i.e. our susy transformation is compatible with this time dependence. However, the equation of motion for $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ contains contributions from the gauge fixing term which are not supersymmetric and therefore the time dependence of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ cannot be compatible with ordinary susy. This shows that $`Q_\alpha (x^0)`$ cannot generate the standard susy transformation of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$. More explicitly, the equation of motion for $`\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$ has the form

$$\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \lambda ^\alpha =\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \overline{c},$$
(3.54)
where $`\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ contains all interaction terms of the classical action (3.3). This equation is invariant under the combined gauge+susy BRS transformations (3.5), which means to first order in $`\epsilon `$:

$$\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \left(\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\lambda ^\alpha \right)=\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{i}\epsilon ^\alpha \sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \left(\text{s}^{\mathrm{gauge}}\overline{c}\right),$$
(3.55)
where

$`\text{s}^{\mathrm{gauge}}`$ $`=\left(\epsilon ^\alpha {\displaystyle \frac{}{\epsilon ^\alpha }}+\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}{\displaystyle \frac{}{\overline{\epsilon }^{\dot{\alpha }}}}\right)\text{s}|_{\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0}`$ (3.56)
$`\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}`$ $`=\text{s}|_{\epsilon =\overline{\epsilon }=\omega =0}.`$ (3.57)
Like in the filtration (3.23), supersymmetry holds only up to gauge-BRS transformations, in particular we have

$$\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \left(\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\lambda ^\alpha \right)\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}.$$
(3.58)
Since $`s^{\mathrm{gauge}}\overline{c}=B`$, (3.55) may be rewritten as

$$\mathrm{i}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \left(\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\lambda ^\alpha \epsilon ^\alpha B\right)=\text{s}^{\mathrm{susy}}\overline{F}_{\dot{\alpha }}.$$
(3.59)
This shows that the modification of the susy transformation law of $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ ensures compatibility with time evolution.

## 4 Discussion and Conclusions

Comparing the results of our analysis for the Wess-Zumino model and SQED in the Wess-Zumino gauge we find

* Closely analogous ones: translations and gauge transformations obey simple WIs and can easily be interpreted in terms of operators; susy requires the use of the generalized ST identity expressing the generalized BRS invariance; its non-linear character does not really cause harm;
* clearly different ones: in the Wess-Zumino model susy is not broken although non-linearly realized; its charge exists and is time independent, the transformation is local; in SQED susy is broken by the gauge fixing term and the BRS type formulation only enables one to carry that breaking along in a fashion which permits renormalization and consistent treatment to all orders (the gauge fixing term is a BRS variation); the susy charge is time dependent, but in such a way that the dependence disappears between physical states; remarkably enough there exists still a local operator expression for the field transformations. The susy transformation of the field $`\lambda ^\alpha `$ is modified by the term $`\epsilon _\alpha B`$ which vanishes between physical states.

The comparison with the linear realization of supersymmetry which is possible in these two examples yields qualitative agreement. In the Wess-Zumino model the respective charges ($`P_\mu `$, $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$) exist and operate on a Hilbert space which is essentially the same as the one generated without auxiliary fields. The latter can be understood as interpolating fields which are useful but not necessary.

In the massive SQED the charges $`P_\mu `$, $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ also exist, likewise the “electric” charges because there exist conserved currents which are gauge invariant. All transformations are linear, given by WIs hence the implementation on the Fock space is straightforward. The transformation laws for operators are local. Here, of course, the Fock spaces differ tremendously, but one expects (although a detailed proof seems to be missing) that the Hilbert spaces are equivalent and on them the theories should coincide, in particular the charges $`P_\mu `$, $`Q_\alpha `$, $`\overline{Q}_{\dot{\alpha }}`$ and the (true) electric charge $`Q`$.

A first comment is in order as far as our rather careless treatment of operators in SQED with massless photon and photino is concerned. With some additional equipment we could have introduced also in the Wess-Zumino gauge a mass term for photon and photino (namely by admitting some susy partners for $`c`$, $`\overline{c}`$ etc.). With an eye on the linear realization we did not do so: our main interest was to clarify the role of the gauge fixing term and the understanding of the breaking of susy which its presence causes in the Wess-Zumino gauge formulation of supersymmetry. The infraredwise existence of operators was not our concern – in this respect our work is formal.

A second comment is appropriate as far as the breaking of susy is concerned. Since it takes place only in Fock space but not in Hilbert space we have the impression that the “collapse of supersymmetry” as described in the paper by Buchholz, Ojima et al. (s. ) is still avoided for the physical part of the theory.

A third comment finally refers to the type of operator equations which we have derived. Obviously we worked in perturbation theory and therefore in a very specific representation of the (anti-) commutation relations. Hence these equations cannot be considered as abstract ones, valid for any arbitrary representation<sup>5</sup><sup>5</sup>5We are very much indebted to H. Grosse for clarifying discussions of this point.. In fact, it seems to be an open problem in which sense they could be “lifted” to have representation independent meaning. Or stated differently: it is not known which equations valid in perturbation theory hold also beyond perturbation theory. On the other hand it is also obvious that the abstract non-perturbative approach to quantum field theory is not yet able to handle the type of charges dealt with in this paper.

## Appendix A Singularity structure of some T-products

The starting point for the present analysis is the local ST identity

$`𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}Z`$ $`=\left(^\mu J_\mu +^\mu ϵ^\alpha K_{\mu \alpha }+^\mu \overline{ϵ}^{\dot{\alpha }}K_{\mu \dot{\alpha }}+^\mu \omega ^\nu K_{\mu \nu }\right)Z`$ (A.1)
with with $`𝒮_{\mathrm{loc}}`$ given by (3.38). Since we are mainly interested in the properties of a non-linearly transforming field, say $`\varphi (x)`$, under superymmetry we differentiate w.r.t. the source for $`\varphi `$ and $`ϵ^\alpha (z)`$. This gives for a general Green function

$$\begin{array}{c}\delta (yx)\left(\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)\delta Y_\varphi (x)}X+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_\varphi (x)}X\right)\hfill \\ \hfill +\underset{k}{}\delta (yx_k)\left(\frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)\delta Y_{\varphi _k}(x_k)}\varphi (x)X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}}+\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_{\varphi _k}(x_k)}X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}}\right)\\ \hfill +\underset{k^{}}{}\delta (yx_k^{})\left(\left(\frac{\delta (\text{s}\varphi _k^{}(y))}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\right)\varphi (x)X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}^{}}+\text{s}\varphi _k^{}(y)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\varphi (x)X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}^{}}\right)\\ \hfill =\left(\frac{\delta ^\mu J_\mu (y)}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}|_{ϵ=0}+\delta (yz)^\mu J_{\mu \alpha }(y)\right)\varphi (x)X\\ \hfill +^\mu J_\mu (y)|_{ϵ=0}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\varphi (x)X\end{array}$$
(A.2)
Here denotes $`X`$ a general string of fields, $`X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}}`$ indicates that the field with index $`k`$ is missing, the same for $`X_{\stackrel{ˇ}{k}^{}}`$. Fields $`\varphi ^{}`$ transform linearly. $`^\mu J_\mu |_{ϵ=0}=^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}`$ is the conserved BRS current.

The problem is now to identify within

$`\delta (yx)\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ(z)\delta Y_\varphi (y)}}+\mathrm{T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ(z)}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_\varphi (y)}}\right)\right)`$ $`=\mathrm{T}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^\mu J_\mu (y)}{\delta ϵ(z)}}\varphi (x)\right)`$
$`+_y^\mu \delta (yz)\mathrm{T}\left(K_{\mu \alpha }(y)\varphi (x)\right)`$
$`+\mathrm{T}\left(^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}(y){\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ(z)}}\varphi (x)\right)`$ (A.3)
the singularities which form $`\delta (yz)`$ or $`\delta (zx)`$ or both. These singularities determine the possible contributions from the T-product when it is integrated over $`y`$ and $`z`$. In particular, we would like to integrate in the order

$$\underset{x_0\mu }{\overset{x_0+\mu }{}}dy_0\mathrm{d}^4z\mathrm{d}^3y$$
(A.4)
and take the limit $`\mu 0`$. Clearly, we can get a contribution only from terms containing a factor $`\delta (xy)`$. In the triple insertion

$$^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}(y)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ^\alpha (z)}\varphi (x)X,$$
(A.5)
$`\delta `$-functions may arise when a suitable number of partial derivatives form a wave equation operator and act on the corresponding propagator, e.g.

$`\mathrm{}c\overline{c}(yz)`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\delta (yz),`$ (A.6)
$`\mathrm{}BA_\mu (yu)`$ $`=\mathrm{i}_\mu \delta (yu),`$ (A.7)
$`\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \lambda _\beta \overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}(yz)`$ $`=\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }\delta (yz).`$ (A.8)
In terms of diagrams, the propagator shrinks then to a point and is replaced by a $`\delta `$-function.

We first consider the case that $`^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}(y)`$ and $`\varphi (x)`$ are directly connected by a line, leading to a contribution with $`\delta (xy)`$. Comparing with the WI for ordinary BRS transformations into which one inserts a vertex $`\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ}`$ “by hand” it is clear that such contributions cancel against the double insertion

$$\delta (yx)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta ϵ}\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta Y_\varphi }X$$
(A.9)
on the l.h.s. of (A.2), including all possible double delta functions $`\delta (yx)\delta (yz)`$.

However, there is a second possibility how $`\delta (xy)`$ may be generated: If the vertices are connected in the order

$$\varphi (x)\frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon (z)}^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}(y)$$

we may obtain a double $`\delta `$ function $`\delta (xz)\delta (zy)`$ which is equivalent to $`\delta (xy)\delta (zy)`$ but is not present in the double insertion (A.9). This can only happen for $`\varphi =\lambda ^\alpha `$ (or $`\overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}`$), the relevant contributions being

$`^\mu J_\mu ^{\mathrm{BRS}}`$ $`=B\mathrm{}c+\mathrm{}`$ (A.10)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon ^\alpha }}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}\overline{c}\sigma _{\alpha \dot{\alpha }}^\mu _\mu \overline{\lambda }^{\dot{\alpha }}+\mathrm{}.`$ (A.11)
$$\text{}\delta (yz)\delta (xz)\text{}$$
(A.12)
Here, the lines and represent propagators $`c\overline{c}`$ resp. $`A^\nu B`$.

According to (A.6), (A.8), the diagram on the l.h.s. of (A.12) corresponds to a contribution

$$\delta (xy)\delta (yz)\epsilon _\alpha B(x)X.$$
(A.13)
We will now further investigate this contribution in order to clarify for which field configurations $`X`$ it is really non-vanishing. From the Ward identity (3.17), it follows immediately that the operator $`B^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ is a free field,

$$\mathrm{}B^{\mathrm{Op}}=0.$$
(A.14)
Therefore there is only one contribution to the diagram on the right hand side of (A.12), namely

$$\text{}=\text{}+\text{contact terms}$$
(A.15)
Reduction w.r.t. $`A^\nu `$ yields zero, but reduction w.r.t. $`B`$ is non-zero. Thus we see that the insertion of $`\epsilon _\alpha B`$ (A.13) is indeed nonvanishing, but it is made up entirely of trivial contributions.

Taking into account the above discussions, (A.3) reads

$`\delta (yx){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon \delta Y_\varphi }}`$ $`=\mathrm{T}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^\mu J_\mu }{\delta \epsilon }}+^\mu \delta (yz)K_{\mu \alpha }\right)\varphi (x)\right)+\text{less singular},\text{if }\varphi \lambda ^\alpha `$ (A.16)
$`\delta (yx){\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^2\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}}{\delta \epsilon \delta Y_\lambda ^\alpha }}`$ $`=\mathrm{T}\left(\left({\displaystyle \frac{\delta ^\mu J_\mu }{\delta \epsilon }}+^\mu \delta (yz)K_{\mu \alpha }\right)\lambda ^\alpha (x)\right)+\delta (yx)\delta (yz)ϵ^\alpha B(x)`$
$`+\text{less singular}.`$ (A.17)
Here, “less singular” stands for terms containing no singularity of the type $`\delta (xy)`$. Integration in the order (A.4) yields a local susy variation for all fields,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\varphi (x)}}_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Op}}`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[Q_\alpha (x^0),\varphi (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}},\text{if }\varphi \lambda `$ (A.18)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta }{\delta Y_\lambda ^\beta (x)}}_{\epsilon ^\alpha }\mathrm{\Gamma }_{\mathrm{eff}}^{\mathrm{Op}}+\epsilon _{\alpha \beta }B(x)`$ $`=\mathrm{i}[Q_\alpha (x^0),\lambda _\beta (x)]^{\mathrm{Op}}.`$ (A.19)
We still note that these expressions are covariant, i.e. renormalization scheme independent, because they are unique: after the double insertion contributions cancelled each other the covariance is guaranteed.

Acknowledgement
We thank Harald Grosse for helpful discussions.


text:
# The Electron Spectral Function in Two-Dimensional Fractionalized Phases

## I introduction

Ideas of spin-charge separation have long been considered in relation to the cuprate high-$`T_c`$ materials following P.W. Anderson’s original suggestions . Phenomenologically, the assumption that the electron “breaks apart” leads to fairly simple explanations for some otherwise puzzling aspects of these materials. Attempts to formulate this rather elegant idea into a well-defined theory of electrons living in two or more spatial dimensions have historically been plagued with problems. A recently introduced $`Z_2`$ gauge theory of strongly correlated electron systems  indeed contains both spin-charge separated and spin-charge confined phases, and we work here within this formulation.

Among the host of puzzling experimental properties of these materials, we wish to concentrate here on angle resolved photoemission spectroscopy (ARPES) experiments which in recent years have reached an unprecedented level of resolution. With this increased clarity of data has come increased confusion in theoretical interpretation. In particular, it seems quite difficult to explain the ARPES lineshape in the pseudogap regime within Fermi liquid theory. In fact, any conventional quasiparticle description would seem to predict a sharp peak in the spectral function, $`A(𝒌,\omega )`$, at $`\omega (𝒌)`$ for some $`𝒌`$ in the Brillouin zone. The data in the underdoped compounds in their non-superconducting state, on the other hand, show only broad and sometimes step-like features. Increased energy and momentum resolution has made the contrast with the superconducting state, where a sharp peak does emerge, more striking and has led to further doubts about the quasiparticle description of the pseudogap state. As argued elsewhere , this contrast between the pseudogap and superconducting lineshapes suggests that the pseudogap region could be dominated by a zero-temperature fractionalized phase. In addition, recent results in the superconducting state suggest a connection between the weight under the superconducting quasiparticle peak and the condensate density . This result seems rather mysterious from a Fermi-liquid point of view, but, as we later show, may have a simple explanation in terms of separated spin and charge degrees of freedom. ARPES experiments on undoped compounds also show broad spectral features rather than well-defined quasiparticle peaks, which has led us to consider the possibility of a fractionalized antiferromagnet, dubbed $`AF^{}`$. However, the spectral function does show signs of “sharpening up” as the system is overdoped, suggesting that there may be a quantum confinement critical point in the cuprate phase diagram, as shown in Figure 1.

We wish here to explore in more detail the consequences of these spin-charge separation ideas for the single-electron spectral function of the cuprate materials at low doping. Working with a fairly simple theory of low-energy spin and charge excitations in a fractionalized phase, we will find qualitative agreement with ARPES data in the pseudogap and superconducting phases, as well as in the undoped insulator. Although the theory used here has been analyzed and motivated from a variety of standpoints elsewhere , we hope to make clear its reasonableness on purely phenomenological grounds. We begin, then, from a zero-temperature theory of d-wave paired spinons and charge $`e`$ bosons. The bosons can have a zero-temperature phase transition between condensed and quantum disordered phases. We explore here quantitatively the single-electron spectral function in the $`x=0`$ spin-charge separated antiferromagnet ($`AF^{}`$), the nodal liquid (to be identified with the pseudogap phase), and the superconductor.

## II the model

We briefly recapitulate the phase diagram of the cuprates in terms of the $`Z_2`$ gauge theory introduced elsewhere . The theory contains spinon and chargon degrees of freedom, coupled to a $`Z_2`$ gauge field in two spatial dimensions. We begin with the square lattice Hamiltonian:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}^z[t_s\widehat{f}_{i\alpha }^{}\widehat{f}_{j\alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\widehat{f}_i\widehat{f}_jt_c\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_j+H.c.]`$ (3)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\widehat{n}_i(1x)]^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}g\stackrel{}{N}\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}_i^\pi }`$
$`h{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}^xK{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{}}{}}\widehat{\sigma }_{ij}^z,`$
where the electron operator is a product of spinon and chargon operators: $`c_{i\alpha }=b_if_{i\alpha }`$. The term with coupling $`K`$ is allowed by symmetry and can arise from integrating out the very high energy chargons, making this an effective theory of the low energy charge degrees of freedom. The spinon pairing $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}`$ is taken to be d-wave:

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}=\{\begin{array}{cc}+\mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \text{along}\widehat{x},\hfill \\ \mathrm{\Delta }\hfill & \text{along}\widehat{y},\hfill \end{array}$$
(4)
and the spin operator is $`\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}^\pi }=_𝒌\widehat{f}_{𝒌+𝝅}^{}\stackrel{}{\sigma }\widehat{f}_𝒌`$. $`\stackrel{}{N}`$ is the mean-field Néel order parameter and is non-zero only within the antiferromagnetic phase. The $`U`$ term is a Hubbard-like interaction for $`(1x)`$ chargons per unit cell. At zero temperature and as a function of $`K/h`$, the gauge field has a transition between confining and deconfining phases . Deep within the deconfining phase, we may set $`\sigma _{ij}^z=1`$ on all links and we are left with decoupled spinons and chargons:

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{<ij>}{}}[t_s\widehat{f}_{i\alpha }^{}\widehat{f}_{j\alpha }+\mathrm{\Delta }_{ij}\widehat{f}_i\widehat{f}_jt_c\widehat{b}_i^{}\widehat{b}_j+H.c.]`$ (6)
$`+U{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}[\widehat{n}_i(1x)]^2+{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}\stackrel{}{N}\widehat{\stackrel{}{S}_i^\pi }.`$
Fluctuations of $`\sigma ^z`$ can be taken into account by considering vortices in the Ising gauge field which have been dubbed “visons”. (A plaquette which contains a vison has $`_{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{ij}^z=1`$.) The deconfining phase of the $`Z_2`$ gauge field is characterized by a gap to these vison excitations and, as we see above, the electron degrees of freedom are fractionalized in this phase. The zero temperature confining phase of the $`Z_2`$ gauge field is a condensate of these vison excitations and “glues together” spinons and chargons to form electrons. A “quantum confinement critical point” separates these two zero-temperature phases, as discussed elsewhere . At finite temperatures above the fractionalized zero-temperature phase, we expect vison excitations to exist in two dimensions, leading to interactions between the chargons and spinons. However, at temperatures much smaller than the vison gap $`T^{vison}`$ (which in the simplest theories of the quantum critical point would be of the same order as the pseudogap temperature, $`T^{}`$ ), we expect the low energy degrees of freedom to be those of the fractionalized phase: spinons and chargons weakly interacting through Doppler shift terms, which we ignore.

We briefly discuss the phases shown pictorially in Figure 1. In the $`x_c<x<x_{QCP}`$ range, starting at temperatures much less than the vison gap and lowering the temperature, the bosonic chargons should go from a phase where they are phase incoherent to one where they are condensed. Below the chargon condensation temperature, the system is superconducting; this is $`T_c`$. Throughout, the spinons maintain a d-wave pairing (presumably due to antiferromagnetic interactions of strength $`J`$) and experience no phase transition, but rather a crossover at their pairing scale, $`T^{}`$. Starting instead at zero-temperature and zero doping, we are in a spin-charge separated phase which is also an antiferromagnetic Mott insulator with long-range Néel order. Upon increasing the doping, staying at zero-temperature, we presumably enter a complicated charge-ordered insulating state of the chargons and destroy the long-range Néel order of the spinons. This is the zero-temperature phase believed to dominate the pseudogap region. We expect impurities and thermal fluctuations to destroy static charge order, but inhomogeneous effects could still be an important high-energy presence, leading to e.g, stripes. As the doping is further increased, the chargons presumably condense at zero-temperature into a superconducting state. After the destruction of Néel order, the spinons are qualitatively the same in this doping range and maintain a d-wave gap of order $`T^{}`$. Throughout this zero-temperature region, the chargons and spinons are decoupled (since we are to the left of $`x_{QCP}`$). At $`x=x_{QCP}`$, the Ising gauge field becomes confining and the chargons and spinons are bound together to form electrons, presumably in a Fermi liquid phase.

We turn our attention now to the spectral function defined in terms of the electron Green function:

$$A(𝒌,\omega )=\frac{1}{\pi }ImG(𝒌,\omega ).$$
(7)
Since at temperatures well below the vison gap, we expect a description of the system in terms of free chargons and spinons to capture the low-energy physics, we use the Hamiltonian in Equation 6, which is a sum of spinon and chargon Hamiltonians: $`H(c^{},c)H_b(b^{},b)+H_f(f^{},f)`$. Within this construction, it is possible to write the electron Green function as a product of chargon and spinon Green functions:

$`G(𝒓,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`T_\tau c(𝒓,\tau )c^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0),`$ (8)
$`=`$ $`T_\tau b(𝒓,\tau )b^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)T_\tau f(𝒓,\tau )f^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0),`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`G_b(𝒓,\tau )G_f(𝒓,\tau ),`$ (10)
with $`\tau =it`$, the imaginary time. The problem of calculating the spectral lineshape in spin-charge separated phases now becomes one of calculating the spinon and chargon Green functions. We consider these two degrees of freedom in turn, discussing values of various parameters in each phase.

### A Spinons

We briefly describe the phases of the spinon model. Consider first the $`\stackrel{}{N}=0`$ phase which describes spinons with a d-wave paring amplitude, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌`$. In this spin-charge separated construction, superconductivity is dependent only on the charge degrees of freedom. When the bosonic chargons are condensed ($`b0`$), we are in a BCS d-wave superconductor and the spinons are simply neutralized BCS quasiparticles. When the chargons lack phase coherence, we are in a phase with no superconductivity, but with a d-wave gap to any excitation with spin $`1/2`$, called elsewhere the nodal liquid . When $`\stackrel{}{N}0`$, spinon-antispinon pairs condense forming a state with long-range antiferromagnetic order, but still containing free spinon excitations above a gap (of order J) *which are separated from the chargons* due to the vison gap. This spin-charge separated antiferromagnet has been dubbed $`AF^{}`$ .

The spinon piece of the Hamiltonian in Equation 6 is quadratic in the spinon operators, and we may diagonalize it using a Bogoliubov-type transformation. Setting $`g\stackrel{}{N}=N_0\widehat{z}`$ and working in units of the lattice constant, we obtain:

$`H_f`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{𝒌}{}}E_𝒌\widehat{a}_{𝒌,\alpha }^{}\widehat{a}_{𝒌,\alpha },`$ (11)
$`E_𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{N_0^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^2+ϵ_𝒌^2},`$ (12)
$`ϵ_𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`t_s(cosk_x+cosk_y),`$ (13)
$`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(cosk_xcosk_y),`$ (14)
with,

$`\widehat{a}_{𝒌,\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`u_𝒌\widehat{d}_{𝒌,\alpha }+\alpha v_𝒌\widehat{d}_{𝒌,\alpha }^{},`$ (15)
$`u_𝒌^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _𝒌`$ ; $`v_𝒌^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\theta _𝒌,`$ (16)
$`\mathrm{cos}\theta _𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{ϵ_𝒌}{\sqrt{ϵ_𝒌^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^2}}},`$ (17)
where

$`\widehat{d}_{𝒌,\alpha }`$ $`=`$ $`A_𝒌\widehat{f}_{𝒌,\alpha }+\alpha B_𝒌\widehat{f}_{𝒌+𝝅,\alpha },`$ (18)
$`A_𝒌^2=\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _𝒌`$ ; $`B_𝒌^2=\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{cos}\varphi _𝒌,`$ (19)
$`\mathrm{cos}\varphi _𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{ϵ_𝒌^2+\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌^2}}{E_𝒌}},`$ (20)
is a Hartree-Fock-type spin density wave operator at momentum $`𝝅`$ appropriate to commensurate antiferromagnetic order with sublattice magnetization $`N_0`$ . Note that when $`N_0=0`$, the Hamiltonian for $`\widehat{a}_𝒌`$ is the same as the effective BCS Hamiltonian for a d-wave superconductor. Indeed, when the chargons condense, these become the Bogoliubov d-wave quasiparticles.

At zero temperature, we have for the spinon correlation function:

$$f_{𝒌\alpha }^{}f_{𝒌\beta }=\frac{\delta _{\alpha ,\beta }}{2}\left(1\frac{ϵ_𝒌}{E_𝒌}\right).$$
(21)
We see that the spinon spectrum now has a gap of $`N_0`$ at $`k_x=k_y=\frac{\pi }{2}`$, as we would expect in the Néel state, as well as a d-wave gap whose maximum is $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$ . We expect this spinon theory to work qualitatively at all temperatures well below $`T^{}<T^{vison}`$, where the spinons are strongly paired and the low energy degrees of freedom are fractionalized. In particular, one should note that in the absence of chargon-spinon interactions, the spinons do not notice $`T_c`$.

The parameters $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can be set by the experimentally determined ratio:

$$\frac{t_s}{\mathrm{\Delta }}=\frac{v_f}{v_\mathrm{\Delta }},$$
(22)
which ranges from $`14`$ in YBCO to $`20`$ in BSCCO near optimal dopings . We expect this ratio to be of this order throughout the pseudogap phase. At zero doping, $`|\stackrel{}{N}|`$ is on the order of $`J`$.

### B Chargons

Once liberated from their fermionic statistics, the charge degrees of freedom behave as bosons of charge $`e`$ hopping on a 2d square lattice, as in Equation 6. At half-filling and zero temperature, we expect that in the limit $`U/t_c>>1`$, the system forms a Mott insulator, while in the limit $`t_c/U>>1`$, the bosons form a superfluid. This can be described by the 2+1-dimensional quantum XY model which has two phases, a superconducting phase and a quantum disordered, Mott insulating phase. Being concerned primarily with “normal state” (i.e. non-superconducting) properties, consider the insulating phase where $`U/t_c>>1`$. Excitations of this phase are doubly-occupied sites which are “massive” (i.e. gapped) and may propagate. These excitations as well as the excitations within the superfluid phase are well-described by the soft-spin continuum Landau-Ginzburg action, replacing the chargon operator with a complex field.

$`\widehat{b}_i`$ $``$ $`b(𝒓),`$ (23)
$`_b`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}|_\tau b|^2+\frac{v^2}{2}|b|^2+\frac{\mu }{2}|b|^2+u(|b|^2)^2.`$ (24)
When $`\mu >0`$, the bosons are quantum disordered and the chargon system is insulating. When $`\mu <0`$ , the chargons condense, forming a superconductor with $`|b|^2=\mu /4u=n_0`$, where $`n_0`$ is the condensate density. Fluctuations around this new minimum are described (to quadratic order) by the action:

$`b(𝒓,t)`$ $`=`$ $`b+\stackrel{~}{b}(𝒓,t),`$ (25)
$`\stackrel{~}{b}`$ $`=`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}_1+i\stackrel{~}{b}_2,`$ (26)
$`_b`$ $`=`$ $`\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \stackrel{~}{b}_1)^2+\frac{v^2}{2}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1)^2+\frac{M^2}{2}(\stackrel{~}{b}_1)^2`$ (28)
$`+\frac{1}{2}(_\tau \stackrel{~}{b}_2)^2+\frac{v^2}{2}(\stackrel{~}{b}_2)^2,`$
$`\text{with},`$ $`M^2=2\mu .`$ (29)
Starting in the superconducting phase and increasing the chemical potential toward $`\mu =0`$, the order parameter (and therefore the condensate density) vanishes at the transition.

Away from half-filling in the presence of long-range Coulomb interactions or disorder, we expect the unoccupied sites to form some crystal. Even in the case of zero disorder, the underlying lattice makes characterization of this phase difficult. One way to gain intuition for this regime is by reformulating the problem in terms of vortices in the chargon phase . On physical grounds, we expect that the strong coupling of the charge degrees of freedom will lead to complicated charge ordered states at zero temperature when the number of bosons is incommensurate with the underlying lattice, and that with increasing doping, the system should eventually pass into a zero-temperature superconducting state. The location of the transition, $`x_c`$, and the nature of the exact ground state for $`x<x_c`$ will depend sensitively on the chargon interactions and lattice commensurability effects. Lacking a more detailed theory of chargon solidification away from half filling in a fractionalized phase, we will use the XY model defined above to describe the low-energy degrees of freedom at low temperatures in the fractionalized phases. Our main motivation is simplicity: the 2+1d XY model contains both a quantum disordered and a superconducting phase of bosons, as the more correct theory of the $`x>0`$ boson system should. Although this description is obviously inadequate to describe the zero-temperature phases away from half-filling as well as the detailed critical properties of the transition, we note that for a perfectly clean system, the physics at length scales shorter than the mean hole spacing should be those of the half-filled system. At dopings of, say, 5 percent, this length is about 5 lattice spacings. In the corresponding energy range, the 2+1 XY model should capture the correct physics. We note that ARPES is an intermediate energy probe, although the energies corresponding to moderate dopings may still be too high. Since we are concerned here with general features of spectral function in each phase, we work with this phenomenological Landau-Ginzburg model, hoping to capture the correct physics.

Therefore, in the charge disordered (nodal liquid) phase at temperatures much smaller than the vison gap, we use Equation 24 and find for the chargon correlation function (setting $`\mu =m^2>0`$ and ignoring $`u`$ to lowest order):

$`b_𝒌^{}b_𝒌`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\omega _𝒌}},`$ (30)
$`\omega _𝒌^2`$ $`=`$ $`m^2+v^2|𝒌|^2.`$ (31)
We briefly discuss the parameters in the model, $`m`$ and $`v`$. In the underdoped regime near the critical point, $`x_c`$, we expect the chargon gap to be quite small, while at half-filling (in the parent insulator) the chargon gap is rather large, the charge gap for these materials being on the order of electron volts. Very little can be said about the velocity $`v`$ without a more detailed microscopic theory. Working in units where $`𝒌`$ is a dimensionless wavenumber, $`v`$ is an energy scale, and we take it to be moderately larger than the spinon kinetic scale, $`t_s`$, (but of the same order) effectively giving the charge excitations a larger bandwidth than the spinons.

In the ordered phase ($`\mu <0`$ ), the bosons are superconducting and at $`T=0`$ the chargon-chargon correlation function has the property:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{lim}\\ 𝒓^{}𝒓\mathrm{}\end{array}b^{}(𝒓,t)b(𝒓^{},t^{})=|b|^2=n_0,$$
(32)
the condensate density. The quantity $`b`$ is precisely the order parameter of the superconductor. At dopings $`x>x_c`$, as temperature increases within the superfluid phase, we expect phase fluctuations to reduce this quantity, eventually causing it to vanish at $`T=T_c(x)`$. At zero temperature within the superfluid phase, as doping is decreased it will vanish at $`x=x_c`$. As discussed above, the details of the $`T=0`$ transition will be governed by the universality class of the true doping-dependent chargon theory.

Within the superconducting phase, we may model the bosons with Equation 29, which results in the following general form for the chargon spectral function:

$$b^{}(𝒓,t)b(𝒓^{},t^{})=n_0(T)+\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(𝒓,t)\stackrel{~}{b}(𝒓^{},t^{}).$$
(33)
The fluctuations of the chargon field will be dominated by the detailed interactions between the chargons. In contrast to the Cooper pairs in a standard BCS superconductor, the bosonic chargons should be strongly interacting, given that their uncondensed phase is controlled by Mott-insulating physics. However, we expect that at energies larger than the condensation temperature, $`T_c`$, the chargon fluctuations should be the same as in the pseudogap state.

## III Spectral Function

Given the spinon and chargon correlation functions, we can compute the electron spectral function, assuming no interactions between chargons and spinons, using the relations in Eqns. 7 and 8. The result at zero temperature is:

$`A(𝒌,\omega )`$ $`=`$ (34)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝒒}[f_𝒒f_𝒒^{}b_{𝒌𝒒}b_{𝒌𝒒}^{}\delta (\omega \omega _{𝒌𝒒}+E_𝒒)`$ (36)
$`+f_𝒒^{}f_𝒒b_{𝒌𝒒}^{}b_{𝒌𝒒}\delta (\omega +\omega _{𝒌𝒒}+E_𝒒)],`$
$`=`$ $`A_+(𝒌,\omega )+A_{}(𝒌,\omega ).`$ (37)
Because it measures electrons ejected from the sample, the ARPES intensity (up to matrix element effects) measures the occupied part of the spectral function, $`A_{}(𝒌,\omega )`$ . At temperatures far below the vison gap, the assumption of no chargon-spinon interactions should be valid. At energies, $`\omega `$, larger than the temperature, the use of zero-temperature results should be valid. Most of the ARPES data of interest are done at temperatures below 100 K, which translates to an energy of 10 meV or less, close to the resolution of the instruments and certainly smaller than any features in the “normal state” spectra. This justifies use of the zero-temperature spectral function in our low-energy model. We therefore compare this $`A_{}(𝒌,\omega )`$ with the ARPES data in each of the following phases: $`AF^{}`$, nodal liquid (pseudogap), and d-wave superconductor. Although Equation 34 is quite simple, it nevertheless is not analytically integrable for arbitrary $`𝒌`$ and $`\omega `$. In the following sections, we present the results of numerical integrations of this function and plot the resultant $`A_{}(𝒌,\omega )`$ at fixed $`𝒌`$ (EDC) and at fixed $`\omega `$ (MDC), along the momentum cuts shown in Figure 2. For the numerical integration, we approximate the delta function in Eqn. 34 by a Lorentzian of small width (0.0125 eV) for the energy distribution curves. This leads to small “tails” in these curves at small binding energies (near turn-on). Since we would like to explore the momentum distribution curves at these small turn-on energies, we need to avoid measuring mostly these Lorentzian tails. To this end, for the MDCs, we use instead a box-like delta function:

$$\delta (x)=\{\begin{array}{cc}1/ϵ\hfill & \text{for}ϵ/2<x<ϵ,\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{else},\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
with $`ϵ=10`$ meV. Values of various parameters (such as $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`v`$ ) will be given in each section. Some “Fermi surface” properties of the spinons should be discussed. While the pairing terms technically destroy any true Fermi surface, the number of spinons at a given momentum still drops off for $`ϵ_𝒌>0`$ and is sensitive to the minimum of the spinon dispersion, $`E_𝒌`$, which we can call $`k_f`$. Along the $`(\pi ,\pi )`$ direction, this minimum occurs at $`𝒌=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$, while along the $`(\pi ,0)`$ direction, the location of the minimum depends on the relative values of $`t_s`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and will be discussed in each phase.

### A (Fractionalized) Antiferromagnet

In this phase, the spinons are particle-hole paired into an antiferromagnet (with single spinons above the gap) and the chargons are gapped into a Mott insulating phase. However, because these two particles propagate as separate excitations, we expect an electron injected into the system to “decay” or fractionalize into these two constituents. We therefore expect the spectral function at temperatures much lower than the vison gap to be broad, without the delta-function peak at some $`𝒌`$ and $`\omega `$ which one finds when the underlying phase has electron-like elementary excitations.

For the spinons, we expect that both $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`N_0`$ are of the order of $`Jt_s/2`$; we take $`t_s0.5eV`$. The chargon gap, $`m`$, is expected to be fairly large, on the order of an electron volt. With this in mind, we plot the electron spectral function in Figure 3 in the $`AF^{}`$ phase with $`N_0=\mathrm{\Delta }=0.25`$ eV, $`t_s=0.5`$ eV, $`v=2.5`$ eV, and $`m=1`$ eV. The shapes of the curves are not sensitively dependent on any of these parameters. For this ratio of $`t_s`$ to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the minimum of the spinon energy, $`E_𝒌`$, along cut #2 occurs at $`k_x2.2`$. We plot the MDC along cut #1, at the energy $`\omega =1.30`$ eV. This is slightly larger than the minimum binding energy of $`N+m=1.25`$ eV.

A few features of these curves should be pointed out. First, all EDCs are quite smeared, with no peaks. This indeed mimics one of the features of ARPES data on the undoped compounds . Detailed comparison with the binding energies in the ARPES data for the undoped compound is complicated by the fact that determining the “Fermi level” of these compounds is not as straightforward as in the doped materials. In the case of our EDC plots, the binding energy should be used to note that the leading edge along cut #1 indeed has a smaller gap than that along cut #2. In fact, the difference between the two is just the factor of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }`$. That this feature of the leading edge will track $`\mathrm{\Delta }_𝒌`$, the d-wave gap, can be seen from Equation 34. This is consistent with the experimentally determined “remnant Fermi surface” with a d-wave character found in the undoped compounds . In contrast to the EDCs, the MDC shows a sharp feature. The detailed shape of the MDC curves may be influenced by the specifics of the model used.

### B Pseudogap (Nodal Liquid)

Because this zero temperature phase is also fractionalized, we expect broad spectral functions in this region. The spinons are paired into d-wave singlets, leading to the spin-gap. To be precise, we calculate the spectral function at zero-temperature using the XY model described earlier. We expect a low-energy theory of quantum disordered chargons to work qualitatively for the entire pseudogap region, provided $`T<<T^{vison}`$. At finite temperatures, the zero-temperature spectral function can only be expected to capture features at energies larger than T. We would therefore like to compare our spectral function in this phase with ARPES data in the underdoped compounds at $`T^{}>>T>T_c`$. The chargons in this region should be dominated by their zero-temperature critical point. Here, we use the critical 2+1d XY theory for the chargons described previously, again noting that this will not describe in detail the true finite-doping critical point but will hopefully give an adequate effective theory for the low-energy excitations.

As an illustrative calculation, we may analytically perform the convolution integral in Equation 34 for $`𝒌=(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$ and $`𝒌=(\pi ,0)`$ at small $`\omega `$, exactly at the XY critical point, $`m=0`$, of Eqns.30-31. Equation 34 reads:

$`A_{}(𝒌,\omega )=`$ (39)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^24\omega _𝒒}\left(1\frac{ϵ_{𝒌\mathbf{}𝒒}}{E_{𝒌\mathbf{}𝒒}}\right)\delta (\omega +E_{𝒌\mathbf{}𝒒}+\omega _𝒒)}.`$ (40)
At the node, the spinon spectrum may be linearized for small momentum and we find (after rotating to momenta parallel and perpendicular to the nodal direction and setting $`t_s=\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{v}`$ for simplicity):

$`A_{}[𝒌=(\pi /2,\pi /2),\omega \text{small}]`$ (41)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{4vq}\left(1\frac{\overline{v}q_x}{\overline{v}q}\right)\delta (\omega +\overline{v}q+vq)}`$ (42)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi v}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q\delta [\omega +(v+\overline{v})q]={\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi v(v+\overline{v})}}\theta (\omega ).`$ (43)
At the antinode, the spinon spectral function is quadratic above the gap, $`E_{𝒌\mathbf{}𝒒}\stackrel{~}{E}_q=2\mathrm{\Delta }\sqrt{1\frac{1}{2}q^2}`$, and we find:

$`A_{}[𝒌=(\pi ,0),\omega \mathrm{\Delta }]`$ (44)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d^2q}{(2\pi )^2}\frac{1}{4vq}\left(1+\frac{v_F[q_x^2q_y^2]}{2\stackrel{~}{E}_q}\right)\delta (\omega +vq+\stackrel{~}{E}_q)}`$ (45)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi v}}{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑q\delta [\omega +vq+2\mathrm{\Delta }+O(q^2)]`$ (46)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\pi v^2}}\theta (\omega 2\mathrm{\Delta }).`$ (47)
We see that at these two particular points in $`𝒌`$-space, the electron spectral function turns on like a step function, not a peak, in qualitative agreement with the ARPES results.

To obtain the electron spectral function at other $`𝒌`$ and $`\omega `$, we resort to numerical integration. In the underdoped region, values of $`t_s/\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vary from compound to compound, but are of order 10. With this in mind, we set $`t_s=0.5`$ eV, $`\mathrm{\Delta }=25`$ meV, $`v=2.5`$ eV. Also, for the purposes of performing the integration with the Lorentzian delta-function approximation (see discussion at the beginning of section III), we regularize the chargon spectrum by adding a small mass, $`m=12.5`$ meV, for the energy distribution curves shown in Figure 4(a) and (b). For the momentum distribution curve shown in Figure 4(c), the chargon mass is equal to zero. Again, we find no sensitive dependence on the exact values of these parameters. For this value of $`t_s/\mathrm{\Delta }`$, the minimum value of the spinon energy, $`E_𝒌`$, along cut #2 occurs at $`k_x3.0`$. For the MDC along cut #1, we use a binding energy large enough that the width of the approximate delta-function does not influence the width of the curve, $`\omega =40`$ meV.

We wish to note the following features of the graphs in Figure 4. Foremost, the EDCs are indeed quite smeared, even near the “Fermi surface” crossings of the spinons, but more so in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ direction than in the nodal direction, where something peak-ish (though still quite broad) emerges near $`(\pi /2,\pi /2)`$. Also, as we have seen analytically, the leading edge in the $`(\pi ,0)`$ direction never gets to zero binding energy but instead shows a *gap* of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }=50meV`$. It should also be pointed out that as one moves along either cut, both sets of EDCs show the leading edge moving toward its minimum binding energy and then losing weight and/or receding above $`k_f`$. Of particular interest is the contrast between the EDCs and MDC along cut #1 (the nodal direction), where the MDC shows a very sharp peak at the node while the EDCs are broad and often step-like. The noise at the top of the MDC is a consequence of using a “box-like” $`\delta `$-function for this integration.

### C D-Wave Superconductor

At low dopings (where $`T^{vison}>>T_c`$) when we cool below $`T_c`$, the bosonic chargons develop phase coherence and $`b`$ is non-zero. The single electron correlation function in this region then has two pieces, in accordance with Eqns. 8 and 33:

$`G(𝒓,\tau )`$ $`=`$ $`|b|^2f(𝒓,\tau )f^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)`$ (48)
$`+`$ $`\stackrel{~}{b}(𝒓,\tau )\stackrel{~}{b}^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0)f(𝒓,\tau )f^{}(\mathrm{𝟎},0),`$ (49)
giving an occupied portion of the spectral function:

$`A_{}(𝒌,\omega )`$ $`=`$ $`n_0(T)f_𝒌^{}f_𝒌\delta (\omega +E_𝒌)`$ (50)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle _𝒒}f_𝒒^{}f_𝒒\stackrel{~}{b}_{𝒌𝒒}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}_{𝒌𝒒}\delta (\omega +\stackrel{~}{\omega }_{𝒌𝒒}+E_𝒒).`$ (51)
Technically, this form is only valid at zero-temperature. However, we can see from the electron Green function in Eqn. 49 (which is valid at all temperatures much less than $`T^{vison}`$) that throughout the superconducting phase at low dopings, we expect a spectral function made up of a peak and a background.

The peak is a product of the condensate density, $`n_0(T)`$, and the spinon spectral function. For a given value of $`𝒌`$, the peak is located at the BCS quasiparticle energy, $`E_𝒌`$. Indeed, for non-interacting bosons at zero temperature, $`\stackrel{~}{b}^{}\stackrel{~}{b}=0`$, and we reproduce the BCS quasiparticle peak. In contrast with the bosons of BCS theory, we expect the chargons to be strongly interacting, leading to a non-zero background even at zero temperature . We note that the width of this peak in our simple theory is entirely determined by the width of the spinon spectral function. Throughout the superconducting state, we expect the spinons to act like a two-dimensional Fermi liquid, leading to a weak  temperature-dependent width. To the extent that the peak and the background are distinguishable objects, the weight under this quasi-particle peak should be proportional to the condensate density,

$$_{peak}A_{}(𝒌,\omega )=n_0(T)_{peak}\delta (\omega +E_𝒌)=n_0(T),$$
(52)
and should vanish into the background as $`TT_c`$ from below, without appreciable broadening.

A comment should be made here regarding the difference between the condensate density, $`n_0`$, and the superfluid stiffness, $`\rho _s`$. While for non-interacting bosons these quantities are the same, for interacting bosons they are different, even at zero temperature. Besides the effect of chargon-chargon interactions on these quantities, there is the important effect of the Doppler shift coupling between the superfluid and the quasiparticles in the superconducting state. For a d-wave superconductor, the coupling between quasiparticles and condensate leads to the well-known T-linear depletion of the superfluid stiffness for small T. The penetration depth, because it measures the superfluid stiffness, manifests this dependence near $`T=0`$. The condensate density, on the other hand, is not directly coupled to the quasiparticles, and therefore need not approach $`T=0`$ in the same manner as the superfluid stiffness.

The background in the spectral function comes from the second term in Equation 51, and will be complicated by the exact nature of chargon interactions. At energies large compared to the condensation temperature ($``$ 10 meV), we expect the spectral function to be that of the “normal state” above $`T_c`$. At low energies, we have seen above that there will be a sharp (resolution limited) peak in the spectral function, with weight equal to the condensate density, located at the spinon gap. It is only at intermediate energies, (1-10meV), that the detailed physics of the chargons at their charge-ordering critical point becomes important. In the superconductor for $`T_c<<T^{vison}`$, we therefore expect a sharp peak whose weight is given by the condensate density, superimposed on a background which does not change qualitatively as one moves from the superconductor to the pseudogap phase above $`T_c`$. An illustration of the spectral function in the superconducting phase is given in Figure 5.

## IV Conclusions

We have shown here that the following aspects of the ARPES data in the cuprate materials can be understood by assuming spin-charge separation: 1) the d-wave “pseudogap” seen above $`T_c`$, 2) the lack of sharp quasiparticle peaks in the pseudogap phase, 3) the emergence of a very sharp quasiparticle peak below $`T_c`$, 4) the qualitative temperature and doping dependence of the weight under this quasiparticle peak, as well as the existence within the superconducting state of a background similar in shape to the pseudogap spectra, and 5) the lack of sharp features in the undoped parent insulators as well as the d-wave character of their “remnant Fermi surface”. We emphasize that these results of ARPES in the undoped and underdoped compounds are rather hard to account for within a conventional picture of quasiparticles with the quantum numbers of electrons.

We are grateful to Leon Balents, J.-C. Campuzano, Steve Kivelson, Doug Scalapino, and Z.-X. Shen for helpful discussions. This research was generously supported by the NSF under Grants DMR-97-04005, DMR95-28578, and PHY94-07194.