format: text

text:
# Understanding singularities in Cartan’s and NSF geometric structures.

## 1 Introduction

During the first half of the XXth century, while trying to understand the group of transformations of differential equations, Cartan laid down the foundations of modern differential geometry and established a link between analysis and geometry. One particular example that will be discussed in this work shows Cartan’s approach to the classification of solutions of ODEs . Consider the 2-dim space $`E^2`$ with local coordinates $`(x,y)`$ and the following third order ODE

$$y^{\prime \prime \prime }=F(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime }),$$
(1)
with “prime” denoting the derivative with respect to the independent variable. If one performs a coordinate transformation on $`E^2`$ one gets another ODE that is trivially related to the above equation. Cartan thus considered the issue of how to classify solutions of third order ODEs into equivalence classes, with two solutions belonging to the same class if the corresponding ODEs were related by a coordinate transformation on $`E^2`$. It is clear that one can spend many hours before finding the appropriate coordinate transformation that will turn one ODE into the other. Cartan showed that with the general solution of a given third order ODE, like the above, one can explicitly construct a connection one form on a 4-dim space $`E^4`$ with local coordinates $`(x,y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime })`$ (the details are presented in the next section). Furthermore, Cartan showed that two third order ODEs are equivalent if their corresponding solutions yield the same geometric structure on $`E^4`$. Cartan also showed that when $`F`$ satisfies a given PDE on $`E^4`$, symbolically written as $`M[F]=0`$, then the connection is torsion free and a unique conformal structure can be given on the solution space (3-dim parameter space) of the starting ODE.

It is worth mentioning that the same equation $`M[F]=0`$ arises in the three dimensional version of the so called Null Surface Formulation (NSF) of General Relativity (GR) . As we will see below, this is not mere coincidence since we will show that the 3-dim version of NSF is almost contained in one of Cartan’s works . Finding the correspondence between these two constructions was one of the motivations for writing this work.

In the NSF the main variable is a function $`u=Z(\varphi )`$, with $`\varphi `$ $``$ $`S^1`$, subject to a third-order ordinary differential equation of the form

$$u^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ,u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime }),$$
(2)
where the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is restricted to satisfy the “metricity condition” $`M[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$. The general solution of (2) is given by $`u=Z(x^a,\varphi )`$, with the constants of integration $`x^a`$ taken as coordinates of the 3D solution manifold $`E^3`$. From this solution a space-time metric for $`E^3`$ can be constructed such that the level surfaces of $`Z`$ are null foliations of $`E^3`$ for each fixed value of $`\varphi `$. Furthermore, the covector $`l_a_aZ`$ spans, for fixed values of $`x^a`$, the circle of null directions and thus the parameter $`\varphi `$ $`S^1`$. Except for the relabelling of functions and the topology of the starting space $`E^2`$, both formulations share many geometric features, with Cartan emphasizing the role of the connection one-form and the NSF the explicit construction of a metric on the solution space of (2).

But a key point arises by noting that, by assumption, both formulations are local constructions in the 2-dim manifold. It follows from this fact that the solutions to (1) are families of smooth curves and (as we will see below) that the level sets $`Z(x^a,\varphi )=const`$ are smooth null surfaces of the induced metric in the 3-dim solution space. However, we know that characteristic surfaces develop caustics and singularities as a result of the ‘focusing’ properties of null geodesic congruences established in GR singularity theorems . Moreover, the solutions to (1) that yield these null surfaces with caustics cannot be smooth curves on $`E^2`$, so they must develop self-intersections and singular points.

A second motivation for this work is thus to consider the non-diffeomorphic generalization of these geometric constructions in order to account for the folds and non-differentiable edges of curves on $`E^2`$ that yield null congruences with caustics. The first step is to introduce the curves on $`E^2`$ according to Arnold’s theory of lagrangian manifolds as :

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`G(p)p\text{ }G^{}(p),`$ (3)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`G^{}(p);`$ (4)
($`G(p)`$ is called the generating function). Although $`G`$ may be smooth, the curve $`(u(p)`$, $`\varphi (p))`$ might have self-intersections and singular points if $`\varphi (p)`$ is not injective. The question is how to find the proper $`G`$ such that (3-4) define a null surface by setting $`u`$ and $`\varphi `$ constant. As we will show in this work, curves with singular points in $`E^2`$ will induce null surfaces with caustics in $`E^3`$. Conversely, we will also show that if the null surfaces have conjugate points then the corresponding families of curves on $`E^2`$ have singularities.

In this reformulation, eq. (2) for $`Z`$ is changed to an equation for $`G`$, of the same type,

$$\frac{d^3G}{dp^3}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(p,G,G^{},G^{\prime \prime })$$
(5)
and the metricity condition $`M[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$, which becomes singular at a caustic point, yields an entirely well-behaved equation $`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0`$ whose solutions are the “appropriate” r.h.s. of ( 5). As we will see in an example, among the solutions of (5) we obtain generating functions of caustics as listed in . This result encounters an immediate application inside the 2+1 NSF and also in the full theory because, to be in complete agreement with the standard GR formulation, it always remained as an open problem to write the metricity conditions of NSF in a form that explicitly shows the existence of the singular solutions .

The work is organized as follows: in section II we first give an account of Cartan’s geometric construction obtained in  starting from the third-order equation (2). This review is presented in modern language since the original reference was written before modern differential geometry was invented and it is very difficult to follow. ( It is worth mentioning that one “variation” on Cartan’s work has appeared in the literature  but it is different from the original construction.) We then give a brief review of the NSF in 3-dim and show that this formalism is a particular case of Cartan’s construction. In section III we proceed to generalize the local analysis of the previous section and write the regularized metricity condition $`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0`$. We also find a relation between curves with caustics on $`E^2`$ and null surfaces with conjugate points on $`E^3`$. A simple example shows how to generate germs of caustics for the solutions to (5). We conclude this work with some comments on the possibility of attaching a similar geometric structure to the original construction of the NSF in four dimensions.

## 2 Geometric approaches to a third-order ODE.

In this section we present two geometric constructions that arise from a third order ordinary differential equation

$$u^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ,u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime }),$$
(6)
where $`(\varphi ,u)`$ are coordinates on the cylinder $`S^1\times 𝐑`$. As we will see below, it turns that one of these constructions is almost contained as a particular case of the other.

### 2.1 Cartan’s construction.

We first present Cartan’s approach , achieved by interpreting the integral curves $`u(\varphi ,x^a)`$ as points $`x^a(a=1,2,3)`$ of the three dimensional solution space $`E^3`$, attaching to it a Lorenztian metric $`g_{ab}`$ and giving the structure of a one dimensional fiber bundle over $`E^3`$, with $`\varphi [0,2\pi )`$ as the coordinate of the fiber. On the base space we attach a “null frame” satisfying

$$𝐞_1𝐞_1=𝐞_3𝐞_3=𝐞_2𝐞_3=0\text{and}𝐞_2𝐞_2+𝐞_1𝐞_3=0,$$
(7)
where $`𝐞_i𝐞_j=g_{ab}𝐞_i{}_{}{}^{a}𝐞_{j}^{}{}_{}{}^{b}=g_{ij}`$. In terms of the dual basis $`\sigma _a^i`$ of the null frame, the metric can be written as

$$g_{ab}=g_{ij}\sigma _a{}_{}{}^{i}\sigma _{b}^{}{}_{}{}^{i}=\sigma _a{}_{}{}^{2}\sigma _b{}_{}{}^{2}2\sigma _a{}_{}{}^{(1}\sigma _b{}_{}{}^{3)},$$

where we have chosen $`g_{13}=1`$. We call the bundle constructed in this way as the bundle of null directions and we denote it by $`𝒩(E^3,g)`$. Note that for fixed values of $`\varphi `$, the three functions

$$(\theta ^0,\theta ^1,\theta ^2)(u,\omega ,r)(u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime }),$$
(8)
can be taken as coordinates on the base space of the bundle. Thus, each point of the bundle is locally described by $`(\varphi ,u,\omega ,r).`$

Equation (6) yields the pfaffian system  on $`𝒩(E^3,g)`$ which, written in terms of these coordinates reads

$`\sigma ^1`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}u\omega \text{d}\varphi ,`$
$`\sigma ^2`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\omega r\text{d}\varphi ,`$ (9)
$`\sigma ^3`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda (\text{d}r\mathrm{\Lambda }\text{d}\varphi \alpha \sigma ^1\beta \sigma ^2),`$
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ and $`\lambda `$ are functions to be determined. If we choose the $`\sigma _a^i`$ to be the projections of (9) to the base space, then the solution of (6) will give null surfaces $`SE^3`$ by setting $`u(\varphi ,x^a)=const.,\varphi =const`$.

To characterize the geometric structure defined from (6), Cartan introduces a connection and a covariant exterior derivative as

$$D𝐞_i=\omega _i\text{ }^j\text{ }𝐞_j,$$

where $`D`$ is the covariant exterior derivative with respect to this connection (see) and $`\omega _i\text{ }^j\text{ }`$ are the connection one-forms. Furthermore, Cartan demands that the connection will be compatible with the metric in the sense that a null frame remains null under parallel transport, i.e.

$$Dg_{ij}=2\overline{\omega }g_{ij},$$

where $`\overline{\omega }`$ is a one-form on the bundle. Therefore,

$$\omega _{ij}+\omega _{ji}=2g_{ij}\overline{\omega }\text{ where }\omega _{ij}=\omega _i\text{ }^kg_{kj}.$$

It follows from the above that

$`\omega _{11}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{33}=0,\text{ }\omega _{13}+\omega _{31}=2\overline{\omega },`$
$`\omega _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\omega _{21},\text{ }\omega _{23}=\omega _{32},\text{ }\omega _{22}=\overline{\omega }.`$
Thus, the connection is determined by four arbitrary one-forms, namely

$$\omega _{12},\omega _{23},\omega _{31}\text{and}\overline{\omega }.$$

Note that $`\sigma ^i,\omega _{23}`$ are linearly independent forms in $`𝒩(E^3,g)`$. This assertion can be understood from the geometrical meaning that these forms have:

* $`\sigma ^1=\omega _{23}=0`$ is the differential system for null 2-surfaces, since on this surface $`D`$ $`𝐞_3=\omega _{13}`$ $`𝐞_3`$ and $`D`$ $`𝐞_2=\omega _{22}`$ $`𝐞_2+\omega _{12}`$ $`𝐞_3`$.
* $`\sigma ^1=\sigma ^2=\omega _{23}=0`$ is the differential system for null geodesic, since on this curve $`D`$ $`𝐞_3=\omega _{13}`$ $`𝐞_3`$.
* $`\sigma ^1=\sigma ^2=\sigma ^3=0`$ is the differential system for a point of $`E^3`$.

Note also that the vanishing of $`\sigma ^1`$ and $`\omega _{23}`$ is equivalent to impose $`u=`$ const., $`\varphi =`$ const. Thus, $`\omega _{23}`$ can be chosen to be of the form $`\omega _{23}=\mu (`$d$`\varphi +\gamma \sigma ^1)`$ with $`\gamma `$ and $`\mu `$ being a priori arbitrary.

The idea is to write the non trivial connection one-forms in terms of the basis $`\sigma ^i,\omega _{23}`$ and then to impose certain conditions on the torsion and curvature of the connection to uniquely determine the functions $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\lambda `$ and $`\mu `$.

Using Cartan’s structure equations

$`\mathrm{\Theta }^i`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\sigma ^i+\omega ^i{}_{j}{}^{}\sigma ^j,`$ (10)
$`\mathrm{\Omega }^i_j`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\omega ^i{}_{j}{}^{}+\omega ^i{}_{k}{}^{}\omega ^k{}_{j}{}^{},`$ (11)
and imposing

$$\mathrm{\Theta }^1=\mathrm{\Theta }^2=0,\mathrm{\Theta }^3=A\sigma ^1\omega _{23}$$
(12)
on the torsion two-forms, we find that

$`\lambda `$ $`=`$ $`\mu =1,`$
$`\alpha `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}_r\mathrm{\Lambda },`$
$`\beta `$ $`=`$ $`\alpha ^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\alpha }{\text{d}\varphi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda },`$
where

$$\frac{\text{d}F}{\text{d}\varphi }(u,\omega ,r,\varphi )=_\varphi F+\omega _uF+r_\omega F+\mathrm{\Lambda }_rF$$
(13)
for any function $`F(u,\omega ,r,\varphi )`$. Equation (12) has the following geometrical meaning: given a point in $`E^3`$ and two vectors, we construct a geodesic parallelogram from that point (see ); then in order to come back to the same point, we only need a translation in the null direction $`𝐞_3`$. If the parallelogram is on the null surface (when $`\sigma ^1=0`$ and $`\omega _{23}=0`$), no translation is needed.

Furthermore, if we require

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{23}=B\sigma ^1\sigma ^2+C\sigma ^1\sigma ^3,$$
(14)
we find that

$$\gamma =\frac{1}{2}_r\alpha .$$

The geometrical meaning of (14) is that the above curvature two-form should vanish when $`𝐞_3`$ is parallely transported around a parallelogram with one of its sides being the null geodesic generated by $`𝐞_3`$ .

Summarizing, conditions (12) and (14) suffice to uniquely determine the non trivial components of the connection one-form. They are given by

$`\omega _{23}`$ $`=`$ $`\text{d}\varphi +\gamma \text{ }\sigma ^1,`$
$`\overline{\omega }`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \text{ d}\varphi +\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\gamma }{\text{d}\varphi }}_\omega \alpha \right)\sigma ^12\text{ }\gamma \text{ }\sigma ^2,`$ (15)
$`\omega _{31}`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha \text{ d}\varphi +\left({\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\gamma }{\text{d}\varphi }}+\alpha \text{ }\gamma \right)\sigma ^1+\gamma \text{ }\sigma ^2,`$
$`\omega _{12}`$ $`=`$ $`\beta \text{ d}\varphi +\left(_u\alpha _\omega \beta +3\beta \text{ }\gamma \alpha \text{ }_r\beta \right)\sigma ^1+\left(2{\displaystyle \frac{\text{d}\gamma }{\text{d}\varphi }}_\omega \alpha \right)\sigma ^2\gamma \text{ }\sigma ^3.`$
Using the above equations one determines the remaining coefficients for the torsion and curvature in terms of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. In particular, the only non trivial coefficient of the torsion is given by

$$A=\frac{1}{6}\frac{\text{d}^2_r\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\text{d}\varphi ^2}\frac{1}{3}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{\text{d}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\text{d}\varphi }\frac{1}{2}\frac{\text{d}_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }}{\text{d}\varphi }+\frac{2}{27}(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })^3+\frac{1}{3}_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }_r\mathrm{\Lambda }+_u\mathrm{\Lambda }.$$

A connection compatible with a Lorenztian metric constructed in this way was called by Cartan a normal metric connection. The main result of Cartan can be stated as follows:

###### Theorem 2.1

To each third order ordinary differential equation (up to diffeomorphism in $`(\varphi ,u)`$) one can associate a null bundle with a unique normal metric connection and viceversa, i.e. to each bundle of null directions with normal metric connection one can associate a third order ordinary differential equation up to diffeomorphism.

One special class of Cartan’s connection is particularly interesting to us. If we impose $`A=0`$, the connection is torsion free and the Monge’s equation

$$g_{ab}Y^aY^b=0$$

is constant along the fiber, since

$$\frac{\text{d}g_{ab}}{\text{d}\varphi }=\frac{2}{3}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }g_{ab}+2A\sigma _a{}_{}{}^{1}\sigma _b{}_{}{}^{1}.$$
(16)
Thus, the condition $`A=0`$ defines a unique conformal structure on the solution space of (6). Moreover, $`A=0`$ is also the condition that the third order ODE must satisfy so that the contact of two neighboring integral curves can be given by a Monge’s equation of the second order between the parameters of those curves .

Note that even in the case that the connection is torsion free, the metric so obtained depends on $`\varphi `$, i.e. we have a monoparametric family of conformally related metrics.

### 2.2 NSF’s construction.

We now turn our attention to the NSF formulation, in which we have a function $`u=Z(\varphi )`$ satisfying a third-order ODE

$$u^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\varphi ,u,u^{},u^{\prime \prime }),$$
(17)
with $`\varphi `$ $``$ $`S^1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ a smooth generic function. The solutions to this equation are of the form $`u=Z(x^a;\varphi )`$, with $`x^a(a=1,2,3)`$ representing three constants of integration which define the 3-dim manifold of solutions $`E^3`$ (equivalent to $`R^3`$).

Note that the function $`Z(x^a;\varphi )`$ plays a double role, namely:

* For each fixed $`x^a`$ in $`E^3`$, $`u=Z(x^a;\varphi )`$ yields a curve $`C_x`$ on $`E^2`$ with coordinates $`(u,\varphi )`$; these curves will be called cuts.
* Fixing $`(u,\varphi )`$ in $`E^2`$, the relation $`u=Z(x^a;\varphi )`$ defines now a surface $`S_{(u,\varphi )}`$ living in $`E^3`$.

It is important to realize that the analysis is merely done at a local level, so that the curve $`C_x`$ is certainly the graph of a function in $`E^2`$ and $`S_{(u,\varphi )}`$ turns out to be a smooth surface in $`E^3`$.

The key assumption of NSF comes when we require that, for any value of $`u`$ and $`\varphi `$, $`S_{(u,\varphi )}`$ be indeed a null surface of some space-time metric $`g_{ab}(x^a)`$ to be attached to $`E^3`$. This condition implies that for fixed values of $`x^a`$ and arbitrary values of $`\varphi `$ the gradient of $`Z`$ satisfies

$$g^{ab}(x^a)_aZ(x^a;\varphi )_bZ(x^a;\varphi )=0.$$
(18)
Note that as the families of foliations intersect at a single but arbitrary point $`x^a`$, the enveloping surface forms the light cone of the point $`x^a`$. Thus, the parameter $`\varphi `$ spans the circle of null directions.

The idea now is to consider (18) as an algebraic equation from which the five components of the conformal metric can be determined in terms of $`_aZ(x^a,\varphi )`$. Given an arbitrary function $`Z`$, the problem has no solution since we have an infinite number of algebraic equations (one for each value of $`\varphi `$) for five unknowns. Therefore, we must impose conditions on $`Z(x^a,\varphi )`$ so that a solution exists. The solution and conditions are obtained by repeatedly operating $`\frac{d}{d\varphi }`$ on ( 18). They are best expressed when written in the canonical coordinate system $`(u,\omega ,r)`$ given in eq.(8). The final expression for the metric components reads

$$g^{ij}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& \frac{1}{3}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }\\ 1& \frac{1}{3}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }& \frac{1}{3}(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })+\frac{1}{9}(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })^2+_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\end{array}\right),$$
(19)
where the conformal factor must satisfy the differential equation (see  for details)

$$\frac{d}{d\varphi }\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{1}{3}_r\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Omega },$$

so that the metric is independent of $`\varphi `$. Note that the above equation is invariant under $`\mathrm{\Omega }(x,\varphi )\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(x,\varphi )=f(x)\mathrm{\Omega }(x,\varphi )`$ for an arbitrary $`f(x)`$. This freedom is a consequence of the conformal invariance of the formulation.

The metricity condition is given by

$$M[\mathrm{\Lambda }]2\left(\frac{d(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })}{d\varphi }_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{2}{9}(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })^2\right)_r\mathrm{\Lambda }\frac{d^2(_r\mathrm{\Lambda })}{d\varphi ^2}+3\frac{d(_\omega \mathrm{\Lambda })}{d\varphi }6_u\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,$$

and constraints the available $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$s that must enter in the differential equation (17), for only if $`M[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$ holds, one is able to construct from the solutions $`Z(x^a;\varphi )`$ to the ODE a metric according to (19) such that the level surfaces $`S_{(u,\varphi )}`$ of $`Z`$ are its characteristic surfaces. Note that this condition is the one deduced by Cartan imposing the connection in the three dimensional manifold $`E^3`$ to be torsion free ($`A=0`$).

Summarizing, one solves $`M[\mathrm{\Lambda }]=0`$, which is a partial differential equation in the variables $`(u,\omega ,r,\varphi )`$ and, denoting by $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(u,\omega ,r,\varphi )`$ its solution and using the coordinates definitions (8), equation (17) becomes

$$Z^{\prime \prime \prime }=\mathrm{\Lambda }_0(\varphi ,Z,Z^{},Z^{\prime \prime }),$$
(20)
which is the ODE whose solutions $`Z(x^a;\varphi )`$ allow for the construction of a metric $`g_{ab}`$ on $`E^3`$ such that the level surfaces of $`Z`$ are its null hypersurfaces.

###### Remark 2.1

It is clear from the above that the NSF construction is the special case of the Cartan’s geometric structure with vanishing torsion.

## 3  Singularities in terms of smooth manifolds

By assumption, both Cartan’s and the NSF are local constructions in the 2-dim manifold. It follows from this that the cuts $`C_xE^2`$ are families of smooth curves and (as we will see below) that the level sets $`Z=u_0`$ are smooth null surfaces of the induced metric in the 3-dim solution space.

It also follows from the above assumption that these formalisms are not capable to include the caustics that null surfaces necessarily possess  . Moreover, one might foresee that the families of cuts that yield these null surfaces with caustics will also fail to be smooth, developing self-intersections and singular points. Thus, in this section, we are faced with the problem of generalizing the geometric constructions presented in the previous section to include the description of singularities of both, cuts and null hypersurfaces.

Our starting assumption is that the cuts develop caustics in the 2-dim space. Technically this means that cuts are projections onto $`E^2`$ of a (smooth) Legendrian submanifold and the caustics arise where the projection map fails to be one to one. In a similar way as in , we use a generating function to describe a cut in the neighborhood of a caustic. Using this function we will be able to see how $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ diverges at a caustic point. Since the original equation and the metricity condition become useless around that point, we will obtain a regularized metricity condition to select the class of generating functions which yield conformal metrics on the solution space. We will also show that caustics come inseparably paired in the Cartan and NSF constructions, in the sense that the existence of caustics in the cut implies the same singular behavior in the null surfaces of the manifold $`E^3`$ (and viceversa). The section ends with an example of a generating function in a minkowskian space-time.

### 3.1 The generating function

The regular solutions of (17) can be used to define smooth curves on the so called projective cotangent space of $`E^2`$ with local coordinates $`(u,\varphi ,\pi )`$, where $`\pi `$ is the momentum canonically conjugated to $`\varphi `$. The curves are given by

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`Z(x^a;p),`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`p,`$
$`\pi `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{dZ}{dp}},`$
with $`x^a`$ parameters to be interpreted as coordinates in the solution space. These smooth curves are called Legendrian submanifolds and the projection of these submanifolds onto the space $`(u,\varphi )`$ gives the local description of the cuts of $`E^2`$. The above equations describe the Legendrian submanifolds in the diffeomorphic region since the coordinate $`\varphi `$ is used as a parameter to describe these curves.

In order to describe the cuts in regions containing caustic points, we introduce a generating function of the form $`G=G(x^a;p)`$. In this case the Legendrian submanifold is given locally as

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`Gp\text{ }G^{},`$
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`\text{ }G^{},`$ (21)
$`\pi `$ $`=`$ $`p,`$
where $`G^{}`$ denotes the derivative of $`G`$ with respect to $`p`$ holding $`x^a`$ fixed. The above equations locally describe smooth curves on the projective cotangent space of $`E^2`$. Note that the projection of these curves onto the space $`(u,\varphi )`$ is not necessarily a diffeomorphism, since $`\varphi `$ fails to be injective in $`p`$ when $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ vanishes. Therefore, this description includes caustic points in a natural way. It is easy to see that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ diverges at the caustic points. For this we analyze the behavior of the coordinates $`(u,\omega ,r,\varphi )`$ and the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ as we approach a caustic in $`E^2`$. These variables, expressed in terms of $`G`$ and $`p`$, become

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`GpG^{},`$
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{du}{d\varphi }}=p,`$ (22)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d\omega }{d\varphi }}=\left(G^{\prime \prime }\right)^1,`$
and since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }={\displaystyle \frac{d^3u}{d^3\varphi }}`$ we obtain

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }=\frac{G^{\prime \prime \prime }}{\left(G^{\prime \prime }\right)^3}.$$

Since at a caustic point $`G^{\prime \prime }=0`$, we see from equations (22) that both $`u`$ and $`\omega `$ are bounded while $`r`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ diverge at that point. One might argue that $`G`$ could be such that $`G^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ also vanishes at a caustic point in such a way that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ remains finite. However, smoothness requires $`G`$ to be expandable as a polynomial around a caustic point. Thus $`G^{\prime \prime \prime }`$ is always a polynomial of lower degree than $`G^{\prime \prime }`$ and the previous argument does not apply. It follows from these considerations that $`a)`$ the third order ODE (17) will not be defined around caustic points and $`b)`$ the coordinate system, metric construction and metricity condition will not be regular on the 3-dim solution space.

We look then for a regular third order ODE where the right hand side of this equation satisfies a regularized metricity condition. For this we introduce a new set of coordinates $`(G,G^{},G^{\prime \prime },p)`$. In terms of these coordinates we have

$$G^{\prime \prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(G,G^{},G^{\prime \prime },p)=\text{ }(G^{\prime \prime })^3\mathrm{\Lambda }(GpG^{},p,(G^{\prime \prime })^1,G^{})$$

and the metricity condition $`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0`$ becomes

$`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]`$ $`=`$ $`G^{\prime \prime }\left(2(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_p+G^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_G)\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}5{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dp}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}+2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }})^2\right)`$
$`+G^{\prime \prime }\left(3{\displaystyle \frac{d^2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dp^2}}3{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_p+G^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_G)\right)+(G^{\prime \prime })^2\left(2\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{d}{dp}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}6\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_G\right)`$
$`(G^{\prime \prime })^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{4}{9}}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }})^3+{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{dp^2}}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}\right)+3\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left((\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_p+G^{}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_G)+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_{G^{\prime \prime }}{\displaystyle \frac{d\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}}{dp}}\right)=0,`$
where $`\frac{dF}{dp}=F_p+G^{}`$ $`F_G+G^{\prime \prime }`$ $`F_G^{}+\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ $`F_{G^{\prime \prime }}`$ for any function $`F(G,G^{},G^{\prime \prime },p)`$. Note that the above equation is regular in a neighborhood of the caustic ($`G^{\prime \prime }=0`$).

Finally, to obtain null surfaces and study them near a caustic, we proceed in a similar way as we did in the diffeormophic region, i.e. we first solve $`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0`$. Denoting by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0`$ a particular solution to this equation we then generate solutions of the ordinary differential equation

$$G^{\prime \prime \prime }=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}_0(G,G^{},G^{\prime \prime },p),$$
(24)
and construct families of curves with caustics on $`E^2`$.

###### Remark 3.1

Note that in the $`(G,p)`$ space the solutions to (24) will generate smooth curves. To construct the families of curves with caustics one must use $`G`$ as the generating function of the contact transformation (21) and the null surfaces are given by the conditions $`u`$ = const., $`\varphi `$ = const.

###### Remark 3.2

Note that the contact transformation (21) induces a coordinate transformation (22) which preserves the metric tensor defined on $`E^3`$. Thus, Cartan’s theorem 2.1 is immediately generalized to include coordinate and contact transformations on $`E^2`$.

### 3.2 Caustics on null surfaces and cuts

In this subsection, we prove that the existence of caustic points in the cuts yields the existence of caustic points in the null surfaces of $`E^3`$ and viceversa. As it is known (), the divergence of a congruence of null geodesics $`\rho =_al^a`$ ($`l^a=g^{ab}_aZ`$) becomes infinite at a caustic. Therefore, to prove our assertions, we will derive a relation between $`\rho `$ of a congruence contained in the null surface and the scalar $`Z^{\prime \prime }(x^a,\varphi )`$ constructed from the general solution $`u=Z(x^a,\varphi )`$ to (17) .

Let $`l^a`$ be the tangent vector to a geodesic with affine parameter $`\tau `$, then

$$l^a=\frac{dx^a}{d\tau }=g^{ab}\theta ^0{}_{b}{}^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\theta _2{}_{}{}^{a},$$
(25)
where $`\theta ^{\text{ }i}_b`$ and $`\theta _j^a`$ are the form-basis and its corresponding dual vector-basis associated with the canonical coordinate system (8).

To this tangent vector we associate a triad $`\{l^a,m^a,n^a\}`$ parallely propagated along the geodesic satisfying

$$m^am_a=1,n^an_a=0,l^am_a=0,l^an_a=1\text{and}n^am_a=0.$$

In this frame the metric tensor and the divergence become

$$g_{ab}=m_am_b2\text{ }n_{(a}l_{b)}\text{and}\rho =m^am^b_al_b$$

respectively. Since $`\theta _1^a`$ and $`\theta _2^a`$ are coordinate vectors they satisfy

$$\theta _2{}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}\theta _1{}_{}{}^{b}=\theta _1{}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}\theta _2{}_{}{}^{b}.$$
(26)
Expresing the geodesic deviation vector $`\theta _1^a`$ in terms of the triad

$$\theta _1{}_{}{}^{a}=\xi m^a+\alpha l^a,$$
(27)
in (26) gives

$$l^a_a\xi =\xi m^am^b_al_b=\xi \rho $$

or equivalently

$$\rho =\xi ^1\frac{d\xi }{d\tau }.$$
(28)
On the other hand we can easily derive a differential equation for the divergence by considering the geodesic deviation equation as follows:

$$m_cl^a_a(\theta _1{}_{}{}^{b}_{b}^{}l^c)=m_c\theta _1{}_{}{}^{a}_{a}^{}(l^b_bl^c)+\xi R_{abd}{}_{}{}^{c}l_{}^{a}m^bl^dm_c.$$

Since $`l^a`$ is a tangent vector of a null geodesic and the triad is parallely propagated along it, using (27) we obtain

$$m_cl^a_a(\xi m^b_bl^c)=\frac{d\xi }{d\tau }\rho +\xi \frac{d\rho }{d\tau }=\xi \mathrm{\Phi },$$

with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=R_{abd}{}_{}{}^{c}l_{}^{a}m^bl^dm_c`$. Finally, from (28 ), we see that $`\rho `$ must satisfy the differential equation

$$\frac{d\rho }{d\tau }+\rho ^2=\mathrm{\Phi }.$$
(29)
To prove our claims we start with the general solution $`u=Z(x^a,\varphi )`$ to (17), and we assume that the cut $`u=Z(x_0^a,\varphi )`$ has a caustic at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$. As we have seen in the previous subsection, this is equivalent to say that the function $`Z^{\prime \prime }(x_0^a,\varphi )`$ diverges at $`\varphi _0`$. To show that there is a caustic in the null surface defined by $`Z(x^a,\varphi _0)=Z(x_0^a,\varphi _0)=u_0`$, we must prove that $`\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\rho =\mathrm{}`$, with $`r=Z^{\prime \prime }(x^a,\varphi _0)`$.

From (25) it follows that

$$\frac{d}{d\tau }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2\frac{}{r}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2s^2\frac{}{s},$$

with the coordinate $`s=r^1`$. As $`\frac{d}{d\tau }`$ and $`\frac{}{s}`$ are regular operators near $`s=0`$, the factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }^2s^2`$ must be a non zero smooth function of $`s`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Omega }=𝒪(s^1)`$, meaning that the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ diverges when we approach a caustic in the cut.

Finally, noting that $`g_{11}=g_{ab}\theta _1{}_{}{}^{a}\theta _{1}^{}^b`$, we express $`\xi `$ in terms of the conformal factor in the following manner

$$g_{11}=\mathrm{\Omega }^2=g_{ab}(\xi m^a+\alpha l^a)(\xi m^b+\alpha l^b)=\xi ^2,$$

therefore

$$\rho =\frac{d}{d\tau }\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }^2s^2\frac{}{s}\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }$$

which yields

$$\rho =𝒪(s^1).$$

We conclude that when $`s`$ goes to zero (in a singular point of the cut) $`\rho `$ diverges, i.e. we approach a caustic of the null surface.

It remains now to prove that a caustic in the null surface leads to the same singular behaviour in the cut. Suppose that the null surface is defined by $`u_0=Z(x^a,\varphi _0)`$, then near a caustic point $`x_0^a`$ in the surface the solution of the differential equation (29) in the flat case yields

$$\rho =\frac{1}{\tau \tau _0},$$

where the singular point $`x_0^a`$ corresponds to $`\tau =\tau _0`$. By means of (28) we find $`\xi =\mathrm{\Omega }^1=\tau \tau _0`$, thus the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ diverges when we approach a caustic in the null surface and since $`d\tau =\mathrm{\Omega }^2dr`$, $`r`$ diverges (for $`\tau `$ is the affine parameter of the curve and so $`d\tau `$ is bounded) at $`x_0^a`$.

On the other hand we know that $`u=Z(x_0^a,\varphi )`$ is a solution of (17), then at the singular point $`x_0^a`$ the function $`r=Z^{\prime \prime }(x_0^a,\varphi _0)`$ diverges. Thus, the cut $`u=Z(x_0^a,\varphi )`$ also has a caustic point at $`\varphi =\varphi _0`$.

###### Remark 3.3

Note that the spaces $`E^2`$ and $`E^3`$, used to describe the cuts and null surfaces respectively, are not related in any way. The only tool that was used to prove the above results relating the cuts with null surfaces is the starting ODE (17). This is in contrast with similar results obtained in 3 and 4 dimensions where the reciprocity theorem for null congruences and the assumption that $`E^2`$ is a hypersurface of $`E^3`$ is explicitly used in the proof .

### 3.3  An example: caustics in flat space

An arbitrary constant function is clearly a solution of the metricity condition $`\stackrel{~}{M}[\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}]=0`$, which yields a polynomial of third degree in $`p`$ for $`G`$. Therefore we choose $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Lambda }}=1`$ and (24) yields

$$G(p,x^a)=\frac{p^3}{3}+\frac{1}{2}X^1p^2+X^2p+X^3.$$

With this generating function the Legendre submanifold is given parametrically by

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{3}}p^3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^1p^2+X^2,`$ (30)
$`\varphi `$ $`=`$ $`p^2X^1pX^2,`$ (31)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`p.`$ (32)
The projection of this submanifold onto $`E^2`$, $`(u,\varphi ,p)(u,\varphi )`$, is the cut and possesses a cusp-like caustic when $`p=X^1/2`$ (see figure 1).

Since $`\varphi `$ is not an injective function of $`p`$, there are two values of $`p`$ for each $`\varphi `$, namely

$$p(\varphi )=\frac{1}{2}X^1\pm \frac{1}{2}\sqrt{(X^1)^2+4\varphi +4X^2}.$$
(33)
Inserting this expression into equation (30) we obtain the corresponding space-time coordinates

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}\left((X^1)^2+4\varphi +4X^2\right)^{3/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{12}}(X^1)^3+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^1\varphi +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^1X^2+X^3`$
$`\omega `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}X^1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\sqrt{(X^1)^2+4\varphi +4X^2}`$ (34)
$`r`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{(X^1)^2+4\varphi +4X^2}}}.`$
It is clear from (33) that $`\sqrt{(X^1)^2+4\varphi +4X^2}`$ becomes null in the caustic, hence $`r`$ diverges while $`u`$ and $`\omega `$ remain bounded at this point.

Figure 2 shows a null surface and null geodesics on it for $`(u,\varphi )=(0,0)`$, which end tangent to the caustic curve.

The above generating function gives $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=r^3`$, which yields a flat metric for the conformal factor $`\mathrm{\Omega }=r`$.

## 4 Conclusions

We have shown in this work how the 3-dim NSF can be recast in terms of a well known mathematical frame, like Cartan’s geometrical theory of differential equations. In this manner, the metricity condition of NSF becomes a simple geometric imposition within the Cartan’s framework, namely the vanishing of the torsion of the connection in the space $`E^4`$.

Moreover, both constructions have been extended from their local scopes to the non-differentiable regions, in order to account for the singular behavior that null surfaces necessarily possess. As result of this extension,

* a generalized version of the metricity condition was obtained, whose solutions yield null foliations of a 2+1 dimensional manifold with caustics and other singularities that the local construction of NSF by definition is not capable to describe.
* the singularities of cuts and null surfaces were shown to be closely related in the sense that the singular behavior in one of them induces a similar behaviour in the other.

At this point, one can think of applying the same ideas of this work to the original 4-dim version of NSF . This would imply a change from ordinary differential equations over partial ones, since the variable $`Z`$ now depends on two coordinates $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$ on $`S^2`$ and is subject to the following system of PDEs:

$$Z_{\alpha \alpha }=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha ,\beta ,Z,Z_\alpha ,Z_\beta ,Z_{\alpha \beta }),$$

$$Z_{\beta \beta }=\mathrm{{\rm Y}}(\alpha ,\beta ,Z,Z_\alpha ,Z_\beta ,Z_{\alpha \beta }),$$

where $`Z_\alpha ,Z_\beta `$ are the partial derivatives of $`Z`$ with respect to the coordinates. Since the above system of equations is integrable, its solution space can be parametrized by four constants $`x^a`$, which locally define the 4-dim solution space $`M`$. Thus, one would be able in principle to construct an $`S^2`$ bundle over $`M`$ and attach a similar set of geometric structures that have been presented in this paper.

If this program can be done, the NSF could be described within a well established context of differential equations; one would be able to give a geometrical interpretation to the metricity conditions (possibly in terms of requirements analog to the vanishing of the torsion).

### Acknowledgments

This research has been partially supported by AIT, CONICET, CONICOR, and UNC. We thank Paul Tod for enlightening conversation.


text:
# Instanton picture of the spin tunneling in the Lipkin model

## I Introduction

Lipkin, Meshkov and Glick  proposed in 1965 an exactly solvable two-level many-fermion model which has been used to test various kinds of many-body theories. The model Hamiltonian reads

$`H=\stackrel{~}{\omega }\widehat{S}_0{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}f(\widehat{S}_+^2+\widehat{S}_{}^2)`$ (1)
where $`f`$ is the coupling constant, $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }`$ is the energy difference between the two levels,

$`\widehat{S}_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}(c_{+m}^{}c_{+m}c_m^{}c_m),`$ (2)
$`\widehat{S}_+={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{\Omega }}{}}}c_{+m}^{}c_m,\widehat{S}_{}=\widehat{S}_+^{},`$ (3)
and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the degree of degeneracy of each level. The single particle states are labeled by the quantum numbers $`\pm m.`$ The operators $`\widehat{S}_0,\widehat{S}_\pm `$ satisfy the commutation relations of the $`su(2)`$ algebra.

The transformation associated with the unitary operator $`\mathrm{e}^{i\pi \widehat{S}_0}`$ leaves the Hamiltonian invariant. If $`\chi =f\mathrm{\Omega }/\stackrel{~}{\omega }<1,`$ the mean field groundstate of the model is classified according to the trivial representation of the symmetry group. The symmetry is spontaneously broken if $`\chi >1.`$

A splitting of the levels is then observed, which is analogous to the occurrence of rotational bands in deformed nuclei. The model is also of great interest in condensed matter physics, since it is related to the anysotropic Heisenberg model. In the strong coupling limit, $`\chi 1,`$ the level splitting vanishes for odd $`\mathrm{\Omega }.`$ This behaviour is easily understood in the framework of Kramers theorem and is related to the well known phenomenon of tunnelling suppression for odd spin anysotropic Heisenberg ferromagnets.

In this paper we formulate a general physical picture of the calculation of the ground state energy and its splitting by the instanton method. Such method was applied to the anisotropic Heisenberg model for description of the tunneling of the magnetic moment of small magnetic particles with large spin . Although the physical picture of the spin tunneling was formulated in these papers the quantitative results of the papers  are not completely correct.

We show that special care is required when computing the instanton contributions in order to take also correctly into account the small amplitude quantum fluctuations. On more technical language the functional determinants have to be calculated very accurately taking properly into account the operator ordering generating the functional integral for the partition sum. We show that it is essential to keep in mind that the fuctional integral is generated by the spin coherent state method. Taking accurately into account the discrete nature in time of the functional leads to essential corrections to the ground state energy and to its tunneling splitting. After taking into account all these contribution our result completely coinsides with the one of  obtained by the semiclassical method and the contradiction existing in literature is resolved.

The structure of the paper is as follws. In Sec. II we present the functional integral for the Lipkin model. In Sec. III we review the the simple results for the tunneling in the framework of the continuous approximation for the functional integral. In Sec. IV we calculated accurately the contribution of the trivial saddle point to the partition function and determine the ground state energy. In Sec. V we calculeted the determinant and the measure of integration over time in the framework of the canonical fromulation of the functional integral. In Sec. VI we calculate accurately the functional determinant for the instanton saddle point taking into account the corrections due to discretization. In Sec. VII we present comparison between the analytical theory and the numerical calculations for the Lipkin model and find an excellent agreement when additional contributions discovered in this paper are taken into account.

## II Functional integral for the Lipkin model

It is convenient to rewrite the Hamiltonian of the model in the rotated reference frame

$`\widehat{H}=\widehat{H}_2+\widehat{H}_1,\widehat{H}_1=\stackrel{~}{\omega }\widehat{S}_y,`$ (4)
$`\widehat{H}_2=f(\widehat{S}_z^2\widehat{S}_x^2)=f\left({\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\widehat{S}_z^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}s(s+1){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(\widehat{S}_+^2+\widehat{S}_{}^2)\right).`$ (5)
Here we assume that the magnitude of spin $`s1`$. The first term in the Hamiltonian (4) describes interaction between nucleons, the second one represents an energy splitting and can be regarded as an external magnetic field. The choice of the coordinate axis is determined by the convenience condition for further calculations.

The Lipkin model can be reduced to the anisotropic Heisenberg model . For that we add to the Hamiltonian (4) the term $`f(S_x^2+S_y^2+S_z^2s(s+1))=0`$ and the Hamiltonian (4) takes the form

$`\widehat{H}=fs(s+1)+f(2\widehat{S}_z^2+\widehat{S}_y^2)+\stackrel{~}{\omega }S_y.`$ (6)
In the language of the Heisenberg model the magnetic field here is in the direction of the second axis $`y`$. The parameter $`\lambda `$ of the paper  is $`1/2`$ for our case. We concentrate our attention on the accurate treatment of the ground state energy of the model and its tunneling splitting when the second term in (4) is absent or $`\stackrel{~}{\omega }=0`$.

In this special case the Lipkin model is invariant under the time reflection. In the case of half-integer spin $`s`$ this symmetry leads to the two-fold Kramer’s degeneracy of the ground state . In the case of integer spin $`s`$ instead of degeneracy we have the splitting of the ground state. This splitting has to be small because for large $`s`$ the difference between integer and half-integer spin has to be small. In fact this splitting is exponentially small.

To solve this problem we have used the instanton method  applied to the functional integral for the partition function of our spin system in terms of spin coherent states . The coherent states are given by the following formula :

$`|z=(1+|z|^2)^s\mathrm{exp}(z\widehat{S}_+)|0,\widehat{S}_{}|0=0,`$ (7)
$`\widehat{S}_z|0=s|0,`$ (8)
where $`z`$ is a complex number. They possess many remarkable properties and with the help of them the partition function can be represented in the form :

$`Z=Tr[\mathrm{exp}(T\widehat{H})],`$ (9)
$`Z={\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(2s+1)dz_ndz_n^{}}{\pi (1+|z_n|^2)^2}}\mathrm{exp}(A(z)).`$ (10)
Here the interval of the imaginary time $`T`$ is split into $`N`$ parts: $`T=N\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and in every section an integration over $`z_n^{}=\text{Re}z_n`$ and $`z_n^{\prime \prime }=\text{Im}z_n`$ is performed. The action of the system $`A(z)`$ has the form

$`A(z)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}[2s\mathrm{ln}(1+z_{n+1}^{}z_n)`$ (11)
$`2s\mathrm{ln}(1+|z_n|^2)\mathrm{\Delta }H(z_{n+1}^{},z_n)],`$ (12)
where the variables $`z_n`$ satisfy the periodic boundary conditions: $`z_N=z_0`$ or in the continuum limit $`z(T)=z(0)`$, and the Hamiltonian

$`H(z_{n+1}^{},z_n)={\displaystyle \frac{z_{n+1}|\widehat{H}|z_n}{z_{n+1}|z_n}}.`$ (13)
The matrix elements of all essential operators have the form

$`z|\widehat{S}_0|z^{}=s(1z^{}z^{})(1+z^{}z^{})Q_s,`$ (14)
$`z|\widehat{S}_{}|z^{}=2sz^{}(1+z^{}z^{})Q_s,`$ (15)
$`z|\widehat{S}_+|z^{}=2sz^{}(1+z^{}z^{})Q_s,`$ (16)
$`z|\widehat{S}_+^2|z^{}=2s(2s1)z^2Q_s,`$ (17)
$`z|\widehat{S}_{}^2|z^{}=2s(2s1)z^2Q_s,`$ (18)
$`z|\widehat{S}_0^2|z^{}=(s^2(1+z^{}z^{})^22s(2s1)z^{}z^{})Q_s`$ (19)
$`z|z^{}=(1+z^{}z^{})^2Q_s,`$ (20)
$`Q_s=(1+z^{}z^{})^{2s2}/(1+|z|^2)^s(1+|z^{}|^2)^s.`$ (21)
## III Naive classical picture for the ground state energy and its instanton splitting

### A Classical action and its minima

In many cases (but not in all !) one can take the continuum limit when $`z_{n+1}`$ is close to $`z_n`$. In this continuum limit it is convenient to introduce the canonically conjugated variables $`\phi `$ and $`p=\mathrm{cos}\theta `$:

$`z=\rho \mathrm{exp}(i\phi ),\rho ^2={\displaystyle \frac{sp}{s+p}},\begin{array}{c}0\phi 2\pi ,\\ sps\end{array}.`$ (24)
The action of the system $`A(z)`$ in the continuum limit is

$`A(\phi ,p)={\displaystyle _0^T}[i(ps)\dot{\phi }H(p,\phi )]𝑑t,`$ (25)
$`H(p,\phi )=(g/2)(p^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )s^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi ),`$ (26)
where $`H(p,\phi )`$ is the Hamiltonian of the problem, $`g=f(2S1)/S,g>0`$ is the coupling constant. This Hamiltonian is unusual because the mass depends on the coordinate $`\phi `$. The second essential peculiarity is the presence in the action of the term $`is\dot{\phi }`$ which separates integer and half-integer spins . In spite of that the ground state energy and the splitting can be found.

One can easily check that the Hamiltonian has two minima at the points $`\phi =0,\pi `$ and $`p=0`$. These minima are deep for $`s1`$ and the Hamiltonian in the neighborhood of the minima has the simple form of a harmonic oscillator

$`H(p,\phi )=E_{min}+gp^2+gs^2\phi ^2/2,E_{min}=s^2g/2`$ (27)
and the vibration frequency is $`\omega =\sqrt{2}gs`$. One can assume that the energy of the ground state

$`E_{0naive}=E_{min}+\mathrm{}\omega /2.`$ (28)
This expression for $`E_0`$ can be obtained if we calculate the contribution of the trivial saddle piont to the partition function by the method of .

### B The instanton contribution to the splitting of the ground state

Besides the trivial saddle point contribution to the partition function discussed above (11) there exists a set of nontrivial saddle point contributions. These saddle points, in their main features, can be discussed in terms of the continuum action (25). The discussion of the Gaussian fluctuations around the saddle points has to be done more accurately but the result can be expressed in terms of the continuum action only. The instanton saddle points for the action (25) are realized at the imaginary momentum $`p_t=isu_t`$. The Hamiltonian equations of motion which follow from (25) are:

$`\dot{\phi }=gs(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )u,`$ (29)
$`\dot{u}=gs\mathrm{sin}\phi \mathrm{cos}\phi (1+u^2).`$ (30)
We are interested in the time periodic solution of Eqs. (29): $`\phi (0)=\phi (T),p(0)=p(T)`$. These periodic solutions can be constructed from the elementary solutions which are named instantons and anti–instantons. It is obvious from Fig. 1 that there are two types of instantons (A and B) and two types of anti–instantons ($`\overline{A}`$ and $`\overline{B}`$) for our problem.

Each of them is labeled by the time $`t_0`$ at which $`\mathrm{cos}(\phi (t_0))=0`$ and $`u(t_0)=\pm 1`$.

The A–instanton starts at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ from the point of phase space $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$ at the time $`t=t_0`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =0,u=1)`$ and at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$.

The B–instanton starts at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ from the point of phase space $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$ at the time $`t=t_0`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =0,u=1)`$ and at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$.

The A–anti–instanton starts at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ from the point of phase space $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$ at the time $`t=t_0`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =0,u=1)`$ and at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$.

The B–anti–instanton starts at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ from the point of phase space $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$ at the time $`t=t_0`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =0,u=1)`$ and at the time $`t\mathrm{}`$ arrives at the point $`(\phi =\pi ,u=0)`$.

The analytic form of these solutions can be easily constructed if we take into account the energy conservation during the process of motion $`H(u,\phi )=E_{min}`$. In this case we have the following algebraic connection between $`p`$ and $`\phi `$:

$`u^2={\displaystyle \frac{1\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }{1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi }}.`$ (31)
Combining formula (29) and (31) we get the equation of motion for instantons and anti–instantons:

$`\dot{\phi }=\pm gs\sqrt{1\mathrm{cos}^4\phi },`$ (32)
where the sign $`\pm `$ corresponds to the two types of instantons. This equation of motion can be easily solved and we have

$`\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^0=\pm {\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sinh}(\tau _0)}{\sqrt{2+\mathrm{sinh}^2(\tau _0)}}},u_t^0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{cosh}(\tau _0)}},`$ (33)
where $`\tau _0=\omega (tt_0)`$.

The instanton action $`A_0`$ counting from the energy minimum is

$`A_0=gs^2{\displaystyle _0^T}(1\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )𝑑t=`$ (34)
$`s{\displaystyle _0^\pi }\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{(1\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )}{(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )}}}𝑑\phi =2s\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2}).`$ (35)
The calculation of the instantons and anti–instantons contribution to the partition function is based on the idea of an approximate saddle point. The general trajectory for an approximate saddle point is shown in Fig. 2.

This trajectory starts from the point $`\phi =\pi ,u=0`$ and finishes at the same one. It represents a sequence of fast instanton and anti–instanton transitions (A and B types). The centers of theses instantons and anti–instantons (points where $`\phi =\pm \pi /2,u=\pm 1`$) are situated at the arbitrary (but ordered points) $`t_l`$. Notice, that for the exact solution we have a periodical lattice of instantons and anti–instantons. The contribution of an approximate saddle point to the partition function can be presented in the form ():

$`Z_{apr}^n={\displaystyle _0^T}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^T}{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n1}{}}}\theta (t_{l+1}t_l)`$ (36)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[Ke^{A_0is\phi _l}dt_l][\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{sad})]^{1/2}.`$ (37)
The integral over the positions of the instantons $`t_l`$ in Eq. (36) represents a sum of contributions to the partition function over the manifold with almost the same action $`A_0`$. The factor $`K^n`$ gives the measure of the integration over degenerate minima . Its explicit form can be derived if we connect the time $`t_l`$ with the amplitude of the zero mode of the quadratic form $`\widehat{L}_{ins}`$ describing of the fluctuations around of the instanton solution. The factor $`\mathrm{exp}(A_0is\phi _l)`$ gives the exponent contribution to the partition function. The quantity $`s\phi _l`$ is the Berry phase which follows from Eq. (25) for the continuum action. This phase $`s\phi _l`$ is equal to $`s\pi `$ for $`A`$–instanton and $`\overline{B}`$–anti–instanton and $`s\pi `$ for $`B`$–instanton and $`\overline{A}`$–anti–instanton.

The last factor in Eq. (36), $`det^{}(\widehat{L}_{sad})`$, represents the determinant of the quadratic form describing fluctuations around the approximate saddle point solution excluding eigenvalues corresponding to zero mode fluctuations. We understand the determinant as a product of the eigenvalues of the corresponding quadratic form. Our aim is to describe the calculation of this determinant in more detail.

(1). One can represent $`det^{}(\widehat{L}_{sad})`$ as a product

$`\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{sad})=det(\widehat{L}_0)X,X=\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{sad})/det(\widehat{L}_0),`$ (38)
where $`det(\widehat{L}_0)`$ is the determinant of the trivial saddle point which we calculate in Sec. VI (66). It is important to notice that the magnitudes of determinants $`det^{}(\widehat{L}_{sad})`$ and $`det(\widehat{L}_0)`$ depend on the method of regularization of the functional integral for the partition function or (what is just the same) from the large eigenvalues of the quadratic forms $`\widehat{L}_{sad}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_0`$. But it is obvious (see Fig. 3) that for $`T\omega /n1`$ the large eigenvalues of the quadratic forms $`\widehat{L}_{sad}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_0`$ are the same because during almost all time of motion the variables $`\phi (t)`$ and $`u(t)`$ are close to the trivial saddle points where $`\phi =0,\pi `$ and $`u=0`$.

This means that the quadratic forms $`\widehat{L}_{sad}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_0`$ differ from each other only during the time $`n/\omega T`$. This means that the quantity $`X`$ can be presented as the ratio of determinants in the continuum limit

$`X=\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{sadcont})/det(\widehat{L}_{0cont}).`$ (39)
(2). For simplification of the problem it is convenient to integrate the action over the variable $`p`$. For that we spread the limits of integration to $`\pm \mathrm{}`$ in the expression (25) for the partition function. Such spreading of the limits of integration can be justified in the case

$`g\mathrm{\Delta }s^21,\text{or}s1/\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ,\mathrm{\Delta }\omega 1.`$ (40)
Because $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega <0.1`$ this leads to conclusion that such integration is justified for $`s10`$. We want to stress that this condition includes the time quantization step $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Therefore the expression for the partition function takes the form of a functional integral over the variable $`\phi `$, and in the leading approximation over $`1/s`$ we have

$`Z={\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}\mathrm{}{\displaystyle _0^{2\pi }}e^{A_B+A_\phi }{\displaystyle \underset{t=0}{\overset{T}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\phi _t}{\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }g(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t)}}},`$ (41)
$`A_B=is{\displaystyle _0^T}\dot{\phi }_t𝑑t,`$ (42)
$`A_\phi =(1/2){\displaystyle _0^T}\left(\dot{\phi }_t^2/g(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t)gs^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t\right)𝑑t,`$ (43)
where $`A_B`$ is the Berry phase, $`A_\phi `$ is the action of the field $`\phi `$. We want to remind that the measure of integration of the functional integral over configuration space depends on the time step $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

It is natural to introduce a new variable $`\psi _t`$ in the functional integral (41) through relations:

$`d\psi _t=(g(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t))^{1/2}d\phi _t,`$ (44)
$`\psi _t={\displaystyle _0^{\phi _t}}(g(1+\mathrm{cos}^2y))^{1/2}𝑑y.`$ (45)
The explicit form of $`\psi _t`$ as function of $`\phi _t`$ is an elliptic function but this explicit form is unnecessary for further calculations. In terms of $`\psi _t`$ the action $`A_\phi `$ takes the canonical form

$`A_\phi =(1/2){\displaystyle _0^T}[\dot{\psi }_t^2gs^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t]𝑑t,`$ (46)
where $`\phi _t`$ in this formula is a function of $`\psi _t`$. One can check that this action has the instantons minima for $`\mathrm{cos}\phi _t^0`$ according to Eq. (33) and the instanton action $`A_0`$ according to (34). Decomposing the action (46) around the multi-instanton minima and using (44) we get the part of the action quadratic in fluctuations in the form

$`A_\phi ^q=(1/2){\displaystyle [\delta \psi _t\widehat{L}_{sadcont}\delta \psi _t]𝑑t},`$ (47)
$`\widehat{L}_{sadcont}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _t^0),`$ (48)
$`V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _t^0)={\displaystyle \frac{\omega ^2}{2}}(2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t^01)(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t^0).`$ (49)
The function $`V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _t^0)`$ plays the role of the potential energy for the problem of fluctuations around the instantons (see Fig.3). For the trivial saddle point $`\mathrm{cos}^2\phi _t=1`$, $`V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _t^0)=\omega ^2`$ and the operator $`\widehat{L}_{0cont}`$ has the simple form:

$`\widehat{L}_{0cont}={\displaystyle \frac{^2}{t^2}}+\omega ^2.`$ (50)
The typical function $`V^{\prime \prime }(\phi _t^0)`$ is shown in Fig. 3. It is equal to $`\omega ^2`$ in almost all region $`0tT`$, excluding narrow regions of order $`1/\omega `$ around the instanton transitions at points $`t=t_l`$ where it has wells of depth $`\omega ^2/2`$.

(3). At this point we can calculate the ratio of determinants $`X`$ (39). This calculation is based on the small parameter $`n/\omega T1`$ and we can prove that the ratio $`X`$ is equal to the product of the ratio of determinants for each region containing an instanton or an anti–instanton:

$`X={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}}X_l,X_l=\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{l,inscont})/det(\widehat{L}_{l,0cont}),`$ (51)
where the operators $`\widehat{L}_{l,inscont}`$ and $`\widehat{L}_{l,0cont}`$ are defined in the region $`((t_{l+1}+t_l)/2,(t_l+t_{l1})/2)`$ around the position $`l`$–instanton $`t_l`$ on the class of functions which satisfy the zero boundary conditions at the points $`((t_{l+1}+t_l)/2`$ and $`(t_l+t_{l1})/2)`$. This statement can be justified by the following arguments. Every determinant $`det(\widehat{d})`$ is the product of the eigenvalues of the operator $`\widehat{d}`$ on some class of functions. In our case we can consider the class of functions with zero boundary conditions at points $`((t_{l+1}+t_l)/2`$ and $`(t_l+t_{l1})/2)`$. In this case all eigenvalues will be nondegenerated. For example, for the periodic boundary conditions they will be twice degenerated what is inconvenient. All eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{d}`$ in the region $`[0,T]`$ can be divided into two classes: those localized close to the instanton positions $`t_l`$ with the ”bounded” eigenvalues forming almost degenerated groups of $`n`$ eigenvalues and the propagating eigenfunctions with ”continuum” eigenvalues almost the same as in the case of the trivial saddle point. It is obvious that the contribution of the ”bounded” eigenvalues to the total determinant can be presented as the product of $`n`$ contributions. The ”continuum” eigenvalues can be calculated in the quasiclassical approximation and can also be split into $`n`$ parts. This argument proves the validity of Eq. (51).

(4). Because our problem is reduced to the well-known one for the usual instantons we can use results of Coleman . The quantities $`X_l`$ of Eq. (51) can be calculated if we construct the normalized eigenfunction $`\chi (t)=N\dot{\psi }(t)`$, with $`N=1/\sqrt{A_0}`$, of the operator $`\widehat{L}_{sadcont}`$ (47) with zero eigenvalue . The function $`\chi (t)`$ has a form

$`\chi (t)=s\sqrt{2g/(A_0(2+\mathrm{sinh}^2\tau _0))},\tau _0=\omega (tt_0),`$ (52)
with asymptotic behavior at $`\tau _0\mathrm{}`$

$`lim|\chi (t)|A_\tau \mathrm{exp}(|\tau _0|),A_\tau =2(2)^{1/4}\sqrt{s\omega /A_0}.`$ (53)
On the basis of this solution one can prove  that the quantity

$`X_l=1/(2A_\tau ^2)`$ (54)
and does not depends on $`l`$ and $`t_l`$. The final formula for $`det^{}(\widehat{L}_{sad})`$ entering in Eq. (36) for the partition function $`Z_{apr}^n`$ can be easily obtained if we combine Eqs. (38,39,51)

$`\stackrel{}{det}(\widehat{L}_{sad})=det(\widehat{L}_0)/(2A_\tau ^2)^n.`$ (55)
(5). The quantity $`K`$ from Eq. (36) for the partition function $`Z_{apr}^n`$, which gives the measure of integration over time , can be calculated if we take into account the explicit form of the measure $`dG_t`$ in the functional integral (41) for the partition function for $`s1`$

$`dG_t=d\psi _t/\sqrt{2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}Kdt\text{with}K=\sqrt{A_0/2\pi }.`$ (56)
At present all quantities entering in Eq. (36) for $`Z_{apr}^n`$ are defined and we have

$`Z_{apr}^n=(det(\widehat{L}_0))^{1/2}(IT)^n\mathrm{exp}(i\mathrm{\Phi })/n!,`$ (57)
$`I=C\mathrm{exp}(A_0),C=\sqrt{2\mathrm{\Delta }}A_\tau K=\mathrm{2\; 2}^{1/4}\omega \sqrt{s/\pi },`$ (58)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is the total Berry phase during all time of transitions.

For obtaning the final answer for $`Z`$ it is necessary to sum all saddle point contributions to the partition function. These total saddle point contributions can be presented in the form of the following sum:

$`Z=Z_0[1+(A+B)(\overline{A}+\overline{B})T^2/2+\mathrm{}`$ (59)
$`[(A+B)(\overline{A}+\overline{B})T^2]^n/(2n!)+\mathrm{}].`$ (60)
where $`Z_0`$ is the contribution of the trivial saddle point, $`A,B,\overline{A},\overline{B}`$ are instanton and anti–instanton without the determinant of the trivial saddle point. The dependence on the Berry phase can be easily determined:

$`A,\overline{B}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi s)I,B,\overline{A}=\mathrm{exp}(i\pi s)I,`$ (61)
$`(A+B)(\overline{A}+\overline{B})=4I^2\mathrm{cos}^2(\pi s).`$ (62)
After these calculations we can sum all terms of the expression (59) in the form of $`\mathrm{cosh}(T\mathrm{\Delta }E/2)`$ and write the final answer for the energy of the ground state and its splitting by taking into account the explicit form of $`Z_0`$ (80) for the trivial saddle point:

$`E_\pm =E_0\pm \delta E/2,E_0=E_{min}+\omega /2,`$ (63)
$`\delta E=\mathrm{8\; 2}^{1/4}\omega \sqrt{s/\pi }\mathrm{exp}(2s\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2}))\mathrm{cos}(\pi s)],`$ (64)
where $`E_{min}=gs^2/2,\omega =\sqrt{2}sg,g=f(2s1)/s`$.

We can see that this splitting is exponentially small for large $`s`$ and equals zero in the case of half–integer spins in full agreement with Kramers theorem . The cancellation of the splitting for the case of the half-integer spin takes place due to the compensation of the contributions of the instantons of $`A`$ and $`B`$ type to the partition function $`Z`$.

But, unfortunately, expressions (63) for the ground state energy $`E_0`$ and the instanton splitting $`\delta E`$ are valid only qualitatively. The correct answer for $`E_0`$ contains the correction $`3gs/4`$ and for the instanton splitting $`\delta E`$ the additional factor $`1/(1+\sqrt{2})`$. The origin of these corrections is in the subtle nature of the functional integral which demands accurate treatments when we calculate functional determinants.

## IV Energy of the ground state or the trivial saddle point contribution to the partition function

The expression $`E_0`$ for the ground state energy is wrong due to an incorrect definition of the product of operators at the same point in terms of the variables $`\phi `$ and $`p`$. The natural variables for the functional integral (9) are the $`z`$–variables. The trivial saddle points in terms of these variables are $`z=\pm 1`$. In the neighborhood of the saddle points we can represent the $`z`$–variables in the form

$`z=\pm 1+\sqrt{2/s}a,z^{}=\pm 1+\sqrt{2/s}a^{}.`$ (65)
The quadratic part of the action close to the saddle point is

$`A_q(a)={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}[(a_{n+1}^{}a_na_n^{}a_n)\alpha a_{n+1}^{}a_n`$ (66)
$`(\beta /2)(a_{n+1}^2+a_n^2)],`$ (67)
where $`\alpha =3Tsg/N,\beta =Tsg/N`$. The quadratic form $`A_q(a)`$ can be partly diagonalized if we pass to the $`\omega `$-representation for the variables $`a_n,a_n^{}`$:

$`a_n=N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _mn)a_m,`$ (68)
$`a_n^{}=N^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _mn)a_m^{},`$ (69)
where $`\omega _m=2\pi im/N`$. The action in the $`\omega `$-representation has the form:

$`A_q(a)={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}[((1\alpha )\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _m)1)a_m^{}a_m`$ (70)
$`\beta (a_m^{}a_{Nm}^{}+a_ma_{Nm})].`$ (71)
The Gaussian integrals with the quadratic form (68) can be easily performed and the determinant $`D^1`$ can be obtained. The determinant $`D`$ is equal to the product of the eigenvalues $`\lambda _m`$ of the quadratic form (68)

$`\lambda _m=\alpha ^2\beta ^2+2(1\alpha )(1\mathrm{cos}\omega _m),`$ (72)
The partition function $`Z`$ has the following expression in terms of $`\lambda _m`$:

$`Z=\mathrm{exp}(E_{min}T)Y,Y={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\lambda _m^{1/2}.`$ (73)
For the calculation of the quantity $`Y`$ it is convenient to represent the eigenvalues $`\lambda _m`$ in the form

$`\lambda _m=\mu _m\mu _{Nm},\mu _m=b+c\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _m),`$ (74)
$`(b,c)=(1/2)\left(\sqrt{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}\pm \sqrt{(2\alpha )^2\beta ^2}\right)`$ (75)
$`\pm (1\alpha /2\pm \sqrt{\alpha ^2\beta ^2}/2).`$ (76)
In terms of the quantities $`\mu _m`$ we have for $`Y`$

$`Y={\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mu _m^1=\mathrm{exp}[{\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(\mu _m)]=`$ (77)
$`\mathrm{exp}[N\mathrm{ln}(b){\displaystyle \underset{m=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1+(c/b)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _m))].`$ (78)
The sum over $`m`$ in Eq. (77) can be easily performed if we expand the logarithmic function in a series over $`x=(c/b)\mathrm{exp}(i\omega _m)`$ and take into account only the terms $`x^p`$ with $`p=kN`$, where $`k`$ is integer, which give nonzero contributions. The result for $`Y`$ has the form

$`Y=b^N(1(c/b)^N)^1.`$ (79)
Using the property $`\alpha ,\beta ,b,c1+d/N`$ we easily get for the partition function and the ground state energy

$`Z_0=2\mathrm{exp}[E_0T][1\mathrm{exp}(\omega T)]^1,`$ (80)
$`E_0=E_{min}+(\omega \omega _0)/2,`$ (81)
where $`\omega =\sqrt{2}sg,\omega _0=3sg/2`$. The factor $`2`$ in this formula takes into account the presence of two minima in the action or the two types of the low–frequency excitations.

We can see that the result (80) differs from the naive result $`E_{0naive}`$ obtained previously. From the point of view of the functional integral this difference is due to the contribution of the large eigenvalues of the quadratic form (66) which correspond to the large $`\omega `$ in the partition function (73). From the operator point of view the quadratic form (66) expressed in terms of operators (for example with the help of the Holstein – Primakoff representation with the quantization along $`x`$) has to be diagonalized with the help of the Bogoluibov’s $`uv`$ transformation. As a result of such diagonalization the ground state energy is shifted by the amount $`(\omega \omega _0)/2`$.

## V Calculation of the determinant and the measure of integration over time in the continuum approximation

### A Calculation of the determinant

In this section we present the calculation of the ratio of the functional determinants (33) $`X_l`$ without the primary integration over the variable $`p`$ which permits us to avoid the artificial limitation (40) $`g\mathrm{\Delta }s^21`$. Our consideration is based on the arguments of Coleman  applied to the system of two differential equations of the first order in time. This system of equations can be easily obtained if we introduce the quantum corrections to the classical solution $`\phi _t^0,u_t^0`$ (33)

$`\psi _t=\sqrt{s}\delta \phi _t,v_t=\sqrt{s}\delta u_t.`$ (82)
The quantum correction to the action has the form

$`A_2=(1/2){\displaystyle _{T/2}^{T/2}}y_{ti}\widehat{L}_{0cont}^{ij}y_{tj}𝑑t,i,j=1,2,`$ (83)
where $`y_{t1}=\psi _t,y_{t2}=v_t`$ and the $`2\times 2`$ matrix $`\widehat{L}_0`$ can be presented in the form

$`\widehat{L}_0=\widehat{ϵ}{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+\widehat{B},\widehat{ϵ}^2=1,`$ (84)
$`\widehat{ϵ}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right),\widehat{B}=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_t& b_t\\ b_t& c_t\end{array}\right),`$ (89)
where the functions $`a_t,b_t,c_t`$ can be easily calculated if we take the variation of Eq. (29) with respect to $`\phi _t`$ and $`u_t`$:

$`a_t=gs(1+u_t^2)\mathrm{cos}(2\phi _t),b_t=gsu_t\mathrm{sin}(2\phi _t),`$ (90)
$`c_t=gs(1+\mathrm{cos}^2(\phi _t)).`$ (91)
For the trivial saddle point we have

$`a_t=gs,b_t=0,c_t=2gs.`$ (92)
One can see that the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ is Hermitian.

We can fix the class of eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ (84) if we demand that $`\psi (T/2)=\psi (T/2)=0`$. For this class of eigenfunctions all eigenvalues of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ are nondegenerated and the ratio of the determinants $`X_l`$ for the instanton saddle point and for the trivial saddle point is the ratio of the products of all eigenvalues. The same arguments as in  leads us to the conclusion that

$`X_l=\psi _{inst}^0(T/2)/\psi _{triv}^0(T/2)\lambda _0.`$ (93)
Here $`\psi _{inst}^0(t)`$ and $`\psi _{triv}^0(t)`$ are eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ (with zero eigenvalue) with the boundary conditions:

$`\psi ^0(T/2)=0\text{and}\psi ^0(T/2)/t=1,`$ (94)
and $`\lambda _0`$ is the eigenvalue of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ which corresponds to zero mode.

For the case of the trivial saddle point such solution can be constructed directly:

$`𝐲(t)(\psi (t),v(t))=`$ (95)
$`\omega ^1(\mathrm{sinh}(\omega (t+T/2)),\mathrm{cosh}(\omega (t+T/2)/\sqrt{2}),`$ (96)
where $`\omega =\sqrt{2}sg`$ and

$`\psi _{triv}^0(T/2)\mathrm{exp}(\omega T)/2\omega .`$ (97)
For the case of the instanton saddle point the function $`\psi _{inst}^0(t)`$ can be constructed on the basis of the zero mode eigenfuction of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ which is proportional to the time derivative of the instanton solution (33)

$`𝐲_t^a=\sqrt{s}A(\dot{\phi }_t^0,\dot{u}_t^0)=`$ (98)
$`2\sqrt{2}\omega A({\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{cosh}(\tau _0)}{1+\mathrm{cosh}^2(\tau _0)}},{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2}\mathrm{sinh}(\tau _0)}{\mathrm{cosh}^2(\tau _0)}}),`$ (99)
where $`A`$ is the normalization constant due to the normalization condition

$`{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}𝐲_t^2𝑑t=1.`$ (100)
This solution has the simple asymptotic form

$`𝐲_t^a=2\omega A(\sqrt{2},\pm 1)\mathrm{exp}(|\tau _0|)\text{for}|\tau _0|\pm \mathrm{}.`$ (101)
The solution (98) does not satisfy the boundary conditions (94) and we have to construct the second linear independent eigenfunction $`𝐲_t^b`$ of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ with the zero eigenvalue. The asymptotic form of this solution can be easily determined from the solution for the trivial saddle point

$`𝐲_t^b=2\omega A(\sqrt{2},1)\mathrm{exp}(|\tau _0|)\text{for}|\tau _0|\pm \mathrm{}.`$ (102)
It is important to note that these two solutions satisfy at any $`t`$ the condition of conservation of the current or the Wronskian which can be easily deduced from the explicit form of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$

$`I=𝐲_t^a\widehat{ϵ}𝐲_t^b=16\omega A^2.`$ (103)
At this point we can construct the eigenfunction $`\psi _{inst}^0(t)`$

$`𝐲_{inst}^0(t)=(4\sqrt{2}A\omega ^2)^1(e^{\omega T/2}𝐲_t^a+e^{\omega T/2}𝐲_t^b).`$ (104)
One can easily check that $`\psi _{inst}^0(T/2)=1`$.

The last step which is necessary in order to determine the ratio $`X_l`$ consists of finding the eigenvalue $`\lambda _0`$ which corresponds to the zero mode. For that it is convenient to convert the equation on the eigenvalues $`\lambda `$ into the form of an integral equation. This integral equation has the form

$`𝐲^\lambda (t)=`$ $`𝐲_{inst}^0(t)+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\omega ^2A^2}}{\displaystyle _{T/2}^t}[𝐲_t^a((𝐲_t^{}^b𝐲^\lambda (t^{}))`$ (106)
$`𝐲_t^b(𝐲_t^{}^a𝐲^\lambda (t^{}))]dt^{}.`$
Using conservation of the current $`I`$ (103) one can verify that this equation is equivalent to the original one. Moreover, the boundary condition $`\psi ^\lambda (T/2)=0`$ is satisfied. The second boundary condition in the framework of perturbation theory has the form

$`0\psi ^\lambda (T/2)=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda }{16\omega ^2A^2}}{\displaystyle _{T/2}^{T/2}}[\psi _t^a((𝐲_t^{}^b𝐲_{inst}^0(t^{}))`$ (108)
$`\psi _t^b(𝐲_t^{}^a𝐲_{inst}^0(t^{}))]dt^{}.`$
The integral in the right hand side of Eq.(108) can be calculated asymptotically  and we obtain the following relation for determination of $`\lambda _0`$

$`0=1(\lambda _0/16\sqrt{2}\omega ^2A^2\omega )\mathrm{exp}(\omega T).`$ (109)
Combining Eqs. (93,97,109) we get for the ratio $`X_l`$ (93)

$`X_l=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(\mathrm{exp}(\omega T)/2\omega )(\mathrm{\Delta }16\sqrt{2}\omega ^3A^2)\mathrm{exp}(\omega T)}}=`$ (111)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8\sqrt{2}\omega ^2\mathrm{\Delta }A^2}}.`$
We take into account in Eq. (111) that the operator in the quadratic form (83) is in fact proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and all eigenvalues are also proportional to $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

### B Calculation of the measure of integration over time

The measure of integration over time can be determined if we follow basically . The difference between our approach and  is that we use the canonical formulation. The measure of integration over variables $`\psi `$ and $`v`$ in the leading order (with respect to $`1/s`$) is canonical

$`d\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{d\psi _n}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}{\displaystyle \frac{dv_n}{\sqrt{2\pi }}},\mathrm{\Delta }N=T.`$ (112)
We stress in this expression for the measure that integration over each independent variable contains a factor $`1/\sqrt{2\pi }`$. We want to pass to integration over the amplitude of the eigenfunctions of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ (84). Then the measure takes the form

$`d\mu ={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{2N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dc_i}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}.`$ (113)
We want to find the connection between the amplitude of the zero mode $`c_0`$ and the time variable $`t_0`$ which corresponds to the shift of position of the instanton. For that let us calculate the change of the original variables $`𝐲_t=(\psi _t,v_t)`$ due to the change of $`c_0`$ and $`t_0`$:

$`d𝐲_t=\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}𝐲_t^adc_0,`$ (114)
$`d𝐲_t=\sqrt{s}(\dot{\phi }_t^0,\dot{u}_t^0)dt=A^1𝐲_t^adt.`$ (115)
The additional factor $`\sqrt{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ preceding $`dc_0`$ is due to the difference between continuos and discrete normalization. Comparing these two expressions we get

$`d\mu _0=dc_0/\sqrt{2\pi }=Kdt,K=A^1\sqrt{s/2\pi \mathrm{\Delta }}.`$ (116)
Therefore the constant $`C`$(57) which determines the instanton contribution to the partition function is

$`CX_l^{1/2}K=22^{1/4}\sqrt{s/\pi }\omega .`$ (117)
The normalization constant $`A`$ completely disappears from the final expression for the constant $`C`$. This expression completely coincides with that one (57) which was obtained on the basis of paper  for the action integrated out over the variable $`p`$.

## VI Calculation of corrections to the determinant caused by the discrete nature of the functional integral over time

In our calculation we passed carelessly from the original variables $`z_t^{},z_t`$ to the natural variables $`\phi _t,p_t`$. Small corrections of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$ can lead to finite contributions to such quantities as the measure of integration and $`det(\widehat{L}_0)`$. Practically they are the same quantities because by change of variables of integration they can be reduced to each other. At first we explain a mechanism of such corrections on a qualitative level and after that we apply it to our case.

Let us suppose that each variable $`c_i`$ in the measure (113) has a small multiplicative correction of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }\omega `$

$`d\mu {\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{dc_i}{\sqrt{2\pi }}}(1+\alpha _i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )=d\mu _0R,`$ (118)
$`R={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}(1+\alpha _i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega ).`$ (119)
This factor $`R`$ to $`d\mu _0`$ can be presented in an exponential form and it is different from unity

$`R=\mathrm{exp}(\delta A_0),`$ (120)
$`deltaA_0={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}}\mathrm{ln}(1+\alpha _i\mathrm{\Delta }\omega )\omega {\displaystyle _0^T}\alpha _t𝑑t,`$ (121)
where $`\delta A_0`$ is the correction to the classical action. If the function $`\alpha _tconst`$ at $`tT`$ then $`\delta A_0const\omega T`$. If the function $`\alpha `$ is localized over time within a region order $`\omega ^1`$ then $`\delta A_0const`$.

If we calculate the determinant the mechanism of influence of corrections is more subtle. Let us suppose that the matrix $`\widehat{L}`$ can be presented in a form

$`\widehat{L}=\widehat{L}^0+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \widehat{Q},`$ (122)
where the operator $`\widehat{L}^0`$ represents some discrete version of the operator $`\widehat{L}_0`$ of (84) and the operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ represents some discrete version of the second order differential operator

$`\widehat{Q}=a_0+a_1\omega ^1{\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}+a_2\omega ^2\left({\displaystyle \frac{}{t}}\right)^2,`$ (123)
where functions $`a_0,a_1,a_2`$ are some smooth functions of time $`t`$ of the order of unity. Simple arguments shows that the contribution to the determinant due to the $`a_0`$ term is always small contrary to the contributions of the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ terms which are of order of unity. To demonstrate this statement let us represent the operator $`\widehat{L}`$ in the form

$`\widehat{L}=[1+\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \widehat{Q}\widehat{G}^0]\widehat{L}^0,\widehat{G}^0=(\widehat{L}^0)^1,`$ (124)
and the determinant takes a form

$`det[\widehat{L}]det[\widehat{L}^0]\mathrm{exp}(2\delta A_0),`$ (125)
$`\delta A_0=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }\omega \text{Tr}[\widehat{Q}\widehat{G}^0].`$ (126)
One can check that in the discrete representation the matrix elements of the Green’s function $`(\widehat{G}^0)_{nn^{}}`$ are of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and the characteristic width over $`nn^{}`$ is of order $`(\omega \mathrm{\Delta })^1`$. This means that the contribution of the $`a_0`$ terms of the operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ into $`\delta A_0`$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. This can easily be checked if we convert the trace in Eq. (125) into an integral over $`t`$.

The first impression is that the contributions of the $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ terms to $`det[\widehat{L}]`$ are also small because the Green’s function $`(\widehat{G}^0)_{nn^{}}`$ has a width over $`tt^{}`$ of order $`\omega ^1`$ and its derivatives have the order of magnitudes $`\omega `$. But these arguments are completely wrong because the Green’s function is a singular function over $`tt^{}`$. It has a jump at $`t=t^{}`$ and the time derivative of this jump is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }^1`$. If the functions $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ $`const`$ at $`tT`$ then $`\delta A_0const\omega T`$. If the functions $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$ are localized over time in a region of order $`\omega ^1`$ then $`\delta A_0const`$.

At this point we can calculate corrections to the instanton contribution due to renormalization of the measure and the functional determinant in the leading order with respect to $`1/s`$. There are three sources of corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the continuos approximation. The first origin of corrections is the Berry phase. The action with sufficient accuracy is of the form

$`A_B=s{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left[2{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{n+1}^{}z_n^{})z_n}{1+z_n^{}z_n}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{n+1}^{}z_n^{})^2z_n^2}{(1+z_n^{}z_n)^2}}\right].`$ (127)
The second origin of corrections is the Hamiltonian due to its dependence on $`z_{n+1}^{}`$:

$`A_{H1}=gs^2\mathrm{\Delta }{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(z_{n+1}^{}z_n^{})(3z_n+z_n^{}3z_n^{}z_n^2z_n^3)}{(1+z_n^{}z_n)^3}}.`$ (128)
The third origin of corrections is the difference between the average of the square of the Hamiltonian and the square of the of the average of the Hamiltonian:

$`A_{H2}=(1/2)\mathrm{\Delta }^2{\displaystyle \underset{n=0}{\overset{N1}{}}}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{z_n|\widehat{H}^2|z_n}{z_n|z_n}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{z_n|\widehat{H}|z_n}{z_n|z_n}}\right)^2\right]`$ (129)
Because this correction depends (in the leading order) only on $`z_n^{}`$ and $`z_n`$ it can contribute only to the renormalization of the measure of integration.

At this stage we can produce all calculations of the measure and the determinant for the instanton contribution with the necessary accuracy. For that we begin by interpreting the integration over the variables $`z_n^{}`$ and $`z_n^{\prime \prime }`$ ($`z_n=z_n^{}+iz_n^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`z_n^{}=z_n^{}iz_n^{\prime \prime }`$) in expression (9) for the partition function $`Z`$ as an integral over the two-dimensional surface $`\text{Im}(z_n^{})=0`$ and $`\text{Im}(z_n^{\prime \prime })=0`$ of the four dimensional space where variables $`z_n^{}`$ and $`z_n^{\prime \prime }`$ are considered as complex variables. Because the function $`(1+z_n^{}z_n)^2\mathrm{exp}(A(z_n^{},z_n))`$ is an analytic function of the variables $`z_n^{}`$ and $`z_n^{\prime \prime }`$ it can be continued in the four-dimensional complex manifold and in this way we can arrive to the instanton saddle point. In the neighborhood of the saddle point we have to integrate over the two-dimensional manifold which realizes the directions of steep descent. The direction of steep descent is chosen correctly if all eigenvalues of the quadratic form in the exponent of the action are real.

This program can be realized with the help of the following change of variables $`z_n^{}`$ and $`z_n`$ in the neighborhood of the saddle point:

$`z_n=\overline{z}_n+(i/\sqrt{s})\overline{z}_n(\psi _nv_n/(1+u_n^2)),`$ (130)
$`z_n^{}=\overline{z}_n^{}(i/\sqrt{s})\overline{z}_n^{}(\psi _n+v_n/(1+u_n^2)).`$ (131)
Here we understand $`\overline{z}_n`$ and $`\overline{z}_n^{}`$ as classical (nonfluctuating) variables connected with the previously introduced variables $`\phi _n`$ and $`u_n`$ by the relations:

$`\overline{z}_n(\phi _n,u_n)=\sqrt{(1iu_n)/(1+iu_n)}\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _n),`$ (132)
$`\overline{z}_n^{}(\phi _n,u_n)=\sqrt{(1iu_n)/(1+iu_n)}\mathrm{exp}(i\phi _n),`$ (133)
thus the variables $`\overline{z}_n`$ and $`\overline{z}_n^{}`$ are not in our case complex conjugated. We shall understand that the classical variables $`\overline{z}_n`$ and $`\overline{z}_n^{}`$ or $`𝐱_n=(\phi _n,u_n)`$ satisfy the classical equations of motion which determine the saddle point with corrections of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ taken into account. This means that only in the main approximation the variables $`𝐱`$ are equal to $`𝐱_n^0=(\phi _n^0,u_n^0)`$ determined by Eq. (33). The difference between variables $`𝐱`$ and variables $`𝐱^0`$ is of order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and is determined by small corrections of order of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ contained in the action $`A_B`$ (127) and corrections to the action $`A_{H1}`$ (128) and $`A_{H2}`$ (129). It is fortunate that these corrections are nonessential to our problem.

The reason for that is the canonical form of the measure (112) in terms of the variables $`𝐲_n=(\psi _n,v_n)`$. Notice that the change of variables (130) was stimulated by formulas of differentiation over time of the quantities $`\overline{z}_n(\phi _n,u_n)`$ and $`\overline{z}_n^{}(\phi _n,u_n)`$.

At this stage we can calculate the renormalization of the functional determinant due to the $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$-corrections. This can be done on the basis of the following formula for the decomposition of the action in the neighborhood of the saddle point:

$`A(z^{},z)=A_0+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2s}}{\displaystyle \underset{ni,n^{}j}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{^2A(\phi ,u)}{x_{ni}x_{n^{}j}}}y_{ni}y_{n^{}j}+\mathrm{}.`$ (134)
This formula strongly simplifies the calculations and can be proved if we consider the original variables $`z_n`$ and $`z_n^{}`$ as function of variables $`𝐲_n=(\psi _n,v_n)`$ from one hand and the variables $`𝐱_n=(\phi _n,u_n)`$ from another.

The matrix $`\widehat{L}^0`$ can be chosen on the basis (134) in the form

$`\widehat{L}^0=\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_n,& _{}+b_n\\ _++b_n,& c_n\end{array}\right),`$ (137)
where the functions $`a_n,b_n`$ and $`c_n`$ were determined in Eq. (90), and the difference derivatives are determined by the following relations:

$`_{}f_n=(f_nf_{n1})/\mathrm{\Delta },_+f_n=(f_{n+1}f_n)/\mathrm{\Delta },`$ (138)
$`^2f_n=(f_{n+1}+f_{n1}2f_n)/\mathrm{\Delta }^2.`$ (139)
The Green’s function $`\widehat{G}^0`$ satisfies the relation:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n_a}{}}(\widehat{L}^0)_{n,n_a}(\widehat{G}^0)_{n_a,n^{}}=\delta _{n,n^{}},`$ (140)
and can not be found in general form. But this is unnecessary for our purposes. We are interested in the singular part of the Green’s function $`(\widehat{G}^0)_{n^{}n}`$ at $`n^{}n`$. This singular part of the Green’s function at $`n^{}n`$ can be found in a general form:

$`(\widehat{G}^0)_{n^{},n}=\mathrm{\Delta }\left(\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{n^{},n}(n^{}n)c_n,& \theta _{n^{},n}(1\mathrm{\Delta }(n^{}1n)b_n)\\ \theta _{n^{}+1,n}(1+\mathrm{\Delta }(n^{}+1n)b_n),& \mathrm{\Delta }\theta _{n^{}+1,n}(n^{}n)a_n\end{array}\right),`$ (143)
here $`\theta _{n^{}n}`$ is the $`\theta `$-function defined in the following manner

$`\theta _{n^{}n}=\{\begin{array}{cc}1,& n^{}n+1\\ 0,& n^{}n\end{array},\begin{array}{c}_+\theta _{n^{},n}=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta _{n^{},n}\\ _{}\theta _{n^{}+1,n}=\mathrm{\Delta }^1\delta _{n^{},n}\end{array}.`$ (148)
After some tedious calculations the singular (containing essential derivatives) part of the operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ entering in Eq. (124) can be presented in a form:

$`(\widehat{Q}f)_n=(1/2\omega )\left(\begin{array}{cc}(1+u_n^2)^2,& ^2+(2\dot{\phi }_nu_n3gs)_{}\\ ^2(2\dot{\phi }_nu_n3gs)_+,& (1+u_n^2)^1^2\end{array}\right)f_n,`$ (151)
where $`f_n`$ is an arbitrary function. For the diagonal elements of the matrix $`\widehat{Q}`$ it is sufficient to keep the second derivative only. For nondiagonal elements we have to keep the first and the second derivatives. Acting with the operator $`\widehat{Q}`$ on the Green’s function $`\widehat{G}^0)_{n^{},n}`$ and calculating the trace we get for the correction to the action $`\delta A_0`$

$`\delta A_0=(1/2){\displaystyle (f_tf_{\mathrm{}})𝑑t},`$ (153)
$`f_t=(1+u_t^2)^1a_t(1+u_t^2)c_t+4\dot{\phi }_tu_t.`$
Since we are interested in the ratio of determinants we subtract from the function $`f_t`$ its value at the trivial saddle-point $`f_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using Eq. (32) for $`\dot{\phi }`$ we get the final expression for the correction to the instanton action $`\delta A_0`$

$`\delta A_0=gs{\displaystyle _{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}}(1\mathrm{cos}^2(\phi _t))𝑑t=\mathrm{ln}(1+\sqrt{2}).`$ (154)
The obtained result is surprisingly simple. It can be found if we change in the expression for the energy splitting (63) $`ss+1/2`$. Such change has a quasiclassical meaning and can be found by a simpler manner then in this section. Finaly,l result we have instead of the expression (63) for the ground state energy $`E_0`$ and for the instanton splitting

$`E_0=s(s+1\sqrt{2})f,`$ (155)
$`\delta E=\mathrm{16\; 2}^{3/4}\pi ^{1/2}s^{3/2}f(1+\sqrt{2})^{(2s+1)}\mathrm{cos}(\pi s).`$ (156)
This result completely coinsides with the result of  for the case $`A=B=f`$.

## VII Comparison with the numerical results

In this section we will compare the exact ground-state energy and splitting with the results obtained in the above discussion, namely eq(63). The Hamiltonian (4) is easily diagonalized on the basis of the eigenfunctions of $`\widehat{S}^2`$ and $`\widehat{S}_0`$. The ground–state belongs to the symmetric representation and, so, we will just consider this representation for different values of the total spin $`s`$. In table I the numerical results and the theoretical ones for the ground-state energy (80) and its splitting (63) are presented. As expected the relative error between the calculated and the exact ground-state energy decreases with $`s`$.

## VIII Discussion

We want to discuss two points here: the interpretation of the effective change of $`ss+1/2`$ in the effective action and the procedure of calculation of corrections to the instanton approximation.

### A Interpretation of renormalization of the instanton action

Let consider the explicit form of the spin operators acting on the space of functions

$`\psi _m(\phi )=e^{im\phi }/\sqrt{2\pi },0\phi 2\pi ,m=s,\mathrm{},s.`$ (157)
The spin operators have the form

$`\widehat{S}_+=\sqrt{(s+1/2)^2(\widehat{p}1/2)^2}e^{i\phi },\widehat{S}_z=\widehat{p},`$ (158)
$`\widehat{S}_{}=e^{i\phi }\sqrt{(s+1/2)^2(\widehat{p}1/2)^2},\widehat{p}=i/\phi .`$ (159)
Substituting this representation for the spin operators (158) into the Hamiltonian (4) and decomposing it over $`\widehat{p}`$ (this decomposition can be justified) we get in the leading approximation over $`1/s`$:

$`\widehat{H}(\widehat{p},\phi )=(f/2)(\widehat{p}^2(1+\mathrm{cos}^2\phi )(s+1/2)^2\mathrm{cos}^2\phi ).`$ (160)
We can calculate with this Hamiltonian the partition function applying the procedure of the $`p\phi `$ construction of the functional integral. In result we get the ”functional integral” in which in each time section we have an integration over $`\phi `$ in the limits $`[0,2\pi ]`$ and a summation over $`m`$ in the limits $`[s,s]`$. We can change summation over $`m`$ on integration over $`p`$ and prolong it to infinty. After integration over $`p`$ we get the action which coincides with the action (41) with one essential difference that instead of $`s^2`$ in (41) we have $`(s+1/2)^2`$ in (160). This means that we can get the correct answer for the tunneling splitting $`\delta E`$ (155) in the continuous representation . Because we know at present that corrections are small (see discussion below) there is one question: why are corrections absent in the approach discussed in this section? The explanation lies in the difference between the coherent state construction of the functional integral and the $`p\phi `$ construction. One can check that at the calculation of the functional determinant in the $`p\phi `$ functional integral the corrections of the order $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are absent. These corrections are also absent in the usual problem of tunneling in quantum mechnics which is confirmed by the coincidence of the result of the energy splitting with the quasiclassical one ).

### B Corrections to the leading approximation

We can construct perturbation expansion around of the trivial saddle point (65) as well as around of the instanton solution (130). Both these expansions are over very well defined small parameter $`1/s`$. This parameter appears due to the presence of the chracteristic factor $`1/\sqrt{s}`$ in the change of the variables (65) and (130). We want to stress that formulation in terms of the functional for the spin coherent states gives the regular procedure for the calculation of corrections. These corrections are of order $`const`$ for the calculation the ground state enrgy and are of order $`1/s`$ for calculation of the factor before the exponent in the expression for the instanton splitting.

In conclusion we want to stress one peculiarity of this perturbation theory: the presence in it of characteristic terms proportional of the number of the time sections $`N`$. The presence of such terms is the characteristic feature of the perturbation theory when the measure of the integration is not trivial. In such theories the kinetic term is also nontrivial: the effective mass or the coefficient before a term with the time derivative is a function of the field variables. At the calculation in the framework of perturbation theory such terms lead to divergencies at large frequences $`\omega `$. These divergencies have to compleatly canceal $`N`$-terms which follow from the measure.

###### Acknowledgements.

We are grateful to K.A. Kikoin for valuable suggestions and to A. Viera. This work was supported in part by the Portuguese projects N PRAXIS/2/2.1/FIS/451/94, V. B. was supported in part by the Portuguese program PRAXIS XXI /BCC/ 4381 / 94, and in part by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Researches, Grant No 94-02-03235.