format: text

text:
# Naturality and definability II

## 1 Constructions up to isomorphism

To make this paper self-contained, we repeat or paraphrase some definitions from .

Let $`M`$ be a transitive model of ZFC (Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory with choice). By a *construction* (in $`M`$) we mean a triple $`𝐂=\varphi _1,\varphi _2,\varphi _3`$ where

1. $`\varphi _1(x)`$, $`\varphi _2(x)`$ and $`\varphi _3(x)`$ are formulas of the language of set theory, possibly with parameters from $`M`$;
2. $`\varphi _1`$ and $`\varphi _2`$ respectively define first-order languages $`L`$ and $`L^{}`$ in $`M`$; every symbol of $`L^{}`$ is a symbol of $`L`$, and the symbols of $`LL^{}`$ include a 1-ary relation symbol $`P`$;
3. the class $`\{a:M\varphi _3(a)\}`$ is in $`M`$ a class of $`L`$-structures, called the *graph* of C;
4. if $`B`$ is in the graph of C then $`P^B`$, the set of elements of $`B`$ satisfying $`Px`$, forms the domain of an $`L^{}`$-structure $`B^{}`$ inside $`B`$; the class of all such $`B^{}`$ as $`A`$ ranges over the graph of C is called the *domain* of C;
5. the domain of C is closed under isomorphism; and if $`A,B`$ are in the graph of C then every isomorphism from $`A^{}`$ onto $`B^{}`$ extends to an isomorphism from $`A`$ onto $`B`$.

A typical example is the construction whose domain is the class of fields, and the structures $`B`$ in the graph are the algebraic closures of $`B^{}`$, with $`B^{}`$ picked out by the relation symbol $`P`$. The algebraic closure of a field is determined only up to isomorphism over the field; in the terminology below, algebraic closures are ‘representable’ but not ‘uniformisable’. (What we called definable in  we now call *uniformalisable*; the new term is longer, but it is less misleading because it agrees better with the common mathematical use of these words.)

We say that the construction C is $`X`$-*representable* (in $`M`$) if $`X`$ is a set in $`M`$ and all the parameters of $`\varphi _1`$, $`\varphi _2`$, $`\varphi _3`$ lie in $`X`$. We say that C is *small* if the domain of C (and hence also its graph) contains only a set of isomorphism types of structures.

An important special case is where the domain of C contains exactly one isomorphism type of structure; in this case we say C is *unitype*.

The map $`B^{}B`$ on the domain of a construction C is in general not single-valued; but by clause (5) it is single-valued up to isomorphism over $`B^{}`$. We shall say that C is *uniformisable* if its graph can be uniformised, i.e. there is a formula $`\varphi _4(x,y)`$ of set theory (the *uniformising formula*) such that

> for each $`A`$ in the domain of C there is a unique $`B`$ such that $`M\varphi _4(A,B)`$, and this $`B`$ is an $`L`$-structure in the graph of C with $`A=B^{}`$.

We say that C is $`X`$-*uniformisable* (in $`M`$) if there is such a $`\varphi _4`$ whose parameters lie in the set $`X`$.

## 2 Splitting, naturality and weak naturality

Let $`\nu :GH`$ be a surjective group homomorphism. A *splitting* of $`\nu `$ is a group homomorphism $`s:HG`$ such that $`\nu s`$ is the identity on $`H`$. We say that $`\nu `$ *splits* if it has a splitting.

For our Theorem 4 we shall need a weakening of these notions. A stronger version of Theorem 4 would make this unnecessary, but we do not know whether the stronger version is true.

Let $`\nu :GH`$ be as above. By a *weak splitting* of $`\nu `$ we mean a map $`s:HG`$ such that

1. $`\nu s`$ is the identity on $`H`$;
2. there is a commutative subgroup $`G_0`$ of $`G`$ such that if $`f_1`$, …, $`f_k`$ are elements of $`H`$ for which $`f_1^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}f_k^{\epsilon _k}=1`$ (where $`\epsilon _i`$ is each either 1 or $`1`$), then $`s(f_1)^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}s(f_k)^{\epsilon _k}G_0`$.

If we strengthened this definition by requiring $`G_0`$ to be $`\{1\}`$, it would say exactly that $`s`$ is a splitting of $`\nu `$. In particular every splitting is a weak splitting. We say that $`\nu `$ *weakly splits* if it has a weak splitting.

Suppose $`s`$ is a weak splitting of $`\nu `$. Then there is a smallest group $`G_0`$ as in (b); it is the group consisting of the words $`s(f_1)^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}s(f_k)^{\epsilon _k}`$ as in (b). This group $`G_0`$ has the property that if $`g`$ is in $`G_0`$ and $`f`$ is in $`H`$ then $`s(f)^1gs(f)`$ is also in $`G_0`$. So the normaliser of $`G_0`$ in $`G`$ contains the image of $`s`$.

Example 1. Let $`G`$ be the multiplicative group of $`3\times 3`$ upper unitriangular matrices over the ring $`/(8)`$. Let $`H`$ be the corresponding group over $`/(2)`$, and let $`\nu :GH`$ be the canonical surjection. We show that $`\nu `$ doesn’t weakly split.

Suppose for contradiction that $`s`$ is a weak splitting of $`\nu `$. Let $`g_1,g_2`$ be the two matrices

$$g_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right),g_2=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}1& 0& 0& \\ 0& 1& 1& \\ 0& 0& 1& \end{array}\right)$$

in $`G`$, and write $`f_1=\nu (g_1)`$, $`f_2=\nu (g_2)`$. Now $`f_1^2=f_2^2=1`$ in $`H`$, so the weak splitting property tells us that $`s(f_1)^2`$ and $`s(f_2)^2`$ commute in $`G`$. But it is easily checked (using the fact that all entries of $`s(f_i)f_i`$ are divisible by $`2`$) that $`s(f_1)^2`$ and $`s(f_2)^2`$ don’t commute.

Example 2. Let $`m`$ and $`n`$ be positive integers with $`n3`$, and let $`p`$ be a prime with $`p^m>3`$. Let $`G`$ (resp. $`H`$) be the multiplicative group of invertible $`n\times n`$ matrices over the ring $`/(p^{3m})`$ (resp. $`/(p^m)`$), and let $`\nu :GH`$ be the canonical surjection. We write $`I`$ for the identity element in $`G`$ and in $`H`$. The kernel of $`\nu `$ is the group of matrices of the form $`I+p^mf`$ where $`f`$ is in $`G`$. For any $`i,j`$ with $`1i<jn`$ let $`\delta _{ij}`$ be the $`n\times n`$ matrix which has $`1`$ in the $`ij`$-th place and $`0`$ elsewhere; then $`I+\delta _{ij}`$ is an element of $`G`$ and $`\nu (I+\delta _{ij})`$ has order $`p^m`$. The liftings of $`\nu (I+\delta _{ij})`$ to $`G`$ are the matrices of the form $`I+\delta _{ij}+p^mf`$ with $`f`$ in $`G`$. Now we repeat a calculation from Evans, Hodges and Hodkinson  Prop. 3.7. The element $`(I+\delta _{ij}+p^mf)^{p^m}`$ is

$$I+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^m}{1}\right)(\delta _{ij}+p^mf)+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^m}{2}\right)(\delta _{ij}+p^mf)^2+\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{p^m}{3}\right)(\delta _{ij}+p^mf)^3+\mathrm{}$$

Since $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{ij}=0`$, $`p^{3m}x=0`$ in $`/(p^{3m})`$ and $`p^m>3`$, this multiplies out to

$$I+p^m\delta _{ij}+p^{2m}f+\frac{p^{2m}(p^m1)}{2}(\delta _{ij}f+f\delta _{ij})+\frac{p^{2m}(p^m1)(p^m2)}{6}\delta _{ij}f\delta _{ij}.$$

To apply these calculations to a concrete example, take

$$g_1=I+\delta _{12},g_2=I+\delta _{23}$$

in $`H`$, and let $`s`$ be a weak splitting of $`\nu `$. Then

$$s(g_1)=I+\delta _{12}+p^mf_1,s(g_2)=I+\delta _{23}+p^mf_2$$

for some $`f_1`$, $`f_2`$ in $`G`$. Since $`s`$ is a weak splitting,

$$s(g_1)^{p^m}s(g_2)^{p^m}=s(g_2)^{p^m}s(g_1)^{p^m}.$$

But our calculations show at once that

$$s(g_1)^{p^m}s(g_2)^{p^m}s(g_2)^{p^m}s(g_1)^{p^m}=p^{2m}\delta _{13}0.$$

This contradiction proves that $`\nu `$ doesn’t weakly split.

Now suppose C is a construction in the model $`M`$, and $`B`$ is a structure in the graph of C. Let $`A`$ be $`B^{}`$. We write $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ and $`\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ for the automorphism groups of $`A`$ and $`B`$ respectively. By (4) in the definition of constructions, each automorphism $`g`$ of $`B`$ restricts to an automorphism $`\nu _B(g)`$ of $`A`$. This map $`\nu _B:\mathrm{Aut}(B)\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is clearly a homomorphism; by (5) in the definition of constructions it is surjective.

We say that $`B`$ is *(weakly) natural over* $`A`$ if the map $`\nu _G`$ (weakly) splits. We say that the construction C is *(weakly) natural* if for every $`B`$ in the graph of C, $`\nu _B`$ (weakly) splits. (Our paper  explained how this terminology connects with the notion of a natural transformation. In a related context Harvey Friedman  used the term ‘naturalness’ in a weaker sense.)

Example 3. Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be as in Example 1. Since $`n\times n`$ upper triangular matrix groups are nilpotent of class $`n1`$, $`G`$ is a finite soluble group. So by Shafarevich  there is a Galois extension $`K`$ of the field $``$ of rationals such that $`G`$ is the Galois group of $`K/`$. Let $`k`$ be the fixed field of the kernel $`G_0`$ of $`\nu :GH`$. Then $`H`$ is the Galois group of the extension $`k/`$. One can write a set-theoretic description of these fields—up to isomorphism—as a construction C where $`K`$ is in the graph and $`k`$ is picked out within $`K`$ by the relation symbol $`P`$. This construction C is small (in fact unitype) and $`\mathrm{}`$-representable in any model of set theory, and it is not weakly natural.

Example 4. Let $`G`$ and $`H`$ be as in Example 2. Let $`B`$ (resp. $`A`$) be the direct sum of $`n`$ copies of the abelian group $`/(p^{3m})`$ (resp. $`/(p^m)`$), and identify $`A`$ with $`p^{2m}B`$. Let the relation symbol $`P`$ pick out $`A`$ within $`B`$. Then $`G`$ (resp. $`H`$) is the automorphism group of $`B`$ (resp. $`A`$), and $`\nu :GH`$ is the map induced by restriction. By the result of Example 2, the construction of $`B`$ over $`A`$, which is again unitype and $`\mathrm{}`$-representable in any model of set theory, is not weakly natural.

In  we conjectured that there are models of set theory in which each representable construction is uniformisable if and only if it is natural. See section 7 below for some of the background to this. Section 3 will show that no reasonable version of this conjecture is true. Sections 46 will show that there are models in which uniformisability implies weak naturality. Section 7 solves some of the problems raised in  and .

## 3 Uniformisability

A structure $`B`$ is said to be *rigid* if it has no nontrivial automorphisms. We shall say that a construction C is *rigid-based* if for every structure $`B`$ in the graph of C, $`B^{}`$ has no nontrivial automorphisms. A rigid-based construction is trivially natural.

Let $`M`$ be a transitive model of set theory. We shall use a device that takes any construction C in $`M`$ to a construction $`\text{C}^r`$, called its *rigidification*. Each structure $`B^{}`$ in the domain is replaced by a two-part structure $`B^r`$, where the first part is $`B^{}`$ and the second part consists of the transitive closure of the set $`P^B`$ with a membership relation $`\epsilon `$ copying that in $`M`$. Now $`B^r`$ is defined to be the amalgam of $`B`$ and $`B^r`$, so that $`B^r`$ is $`(B^r)^{}`$. Then $`\text{C}^r`$ is the closure of the class

$$\{B^r:B\text{ in the graph of }\text{C}\}$$

under isomorphism in $`M`$. It is clear that $`\text{C}^r`$ and the map $`BB^r`$ are definable in $`M`$ using no parameters beyond those in the formulas representing C.

###### Lemma 1

If C is any construction, then $`\text{C}^r`$ is rigid-based, natural and not small.

Proof. If $`B^{}`$ is in the domain of C, then $`B^r`$ is rigid because its set of elements is transitively closed; so $`\text{C}^r`$ is rigid-based. Naturality follows at once. Since the domain of C is closed under isomorphism, the relevant transitive closures are arbitrarily large. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2

There is no transitive model of ZFC in which both the following are true:

1. Every rigid-based construction in $`M`$ is uniformisable.
2. Every unitype uniformisable construction in $`M`$ is weakly natural.

In particular there is no transitive model of ZFC in which the natural constructions are exactly the uniformisable ones.

Proof. Suppose $`M`$ is a counterexample. Let C be a unitype non-weakly-natural construction in $`M`$, such as Example 2 in section 2. Then $`\text{C}^r`$ is rigid-based and hence uniformisable by assumption.

But we can use the uniformising formula of $`\text{C}^r`$ to uniformise C with the same parameters. So by the assumption on $`M`$ again, C is weakly natural; contradiction. $`\mathrm{}`$

The next result gives some finer information about small constructions.

###### Theorem 3

Let $`M`$ be a transitive model of ZFC, $`Y`$ a set in $`M`$ and $`\overline{c}`$ a well-ordering of $`Y`$ in $`M`$. Assume:

> In $`M`$, if $`X`$ is any set, then every unitype $`X`$-representable rigid-based construction is $`XY`$-uniformisable.

Then

> In $`M`$, every small $`\mathrm{}`$-representable construction is $`\{\overline{c}\}`$-uniformisable,

and hence there are unitype $`\{\overline{c}\}`$-uniformisable constructions that are not weakly natural.

Proof. Let $`\gamma `$ be the length of $`\overline{c}`$. Write $`\overline{v}`$ for the sequence of variables $`(v_i:i<\gamma )`$. In $`M`$ we can well-order (definably, with no parameters) the class of pairs $`j,\psi `$ where $`j`$ is an ordinal and $`\psi (x,y,z,\overline{v})`$ is a formula of set theory. We write $`H_j`$ for the set of sets hereditarily of cardinality less than $`\mathrm{}_j`$ in $`M`$.

Let C be a small $`\mathrm{}`$-representable construction in $`M`$. Then $`\text{C}^r`$ is an $`\mathrm{}`$-representable rigid-based construction. It is not small; but if $`B`$ is any structure in the graph of C, let $`\text{C}_B`$ be the construction got from $`\text{C}^r`$ by restricting the graph to structures isomorphic to $`B^r`$. Then $`\text{C}_B`$ is a unitype and $`\{B\}`$-representable rigid-based construction, so by assumption it is $`\{B\}Y`$-uniformisable, say by a formula $`\psi _B(,,B,\overline{c})`$ where $`B,\overline{c}`$ are the parameters.

By the reflection principle in $`M`$ there is an ordinal $`j`$ such that

> $`MC(C\text{C}_BC^{}=B^rC`$ is the unique set such that “$`H_j\psi _B(B^r,C,B,\overline{c})`$”).

Hence in $`M`$ there is a first pair $`j_B,\psi _B`$, definable from $`B`$, such that

> $`MC(C\text{C}_BC^{}=B^rC`$ is the unique set such that “$`H_{j_B}\psi _B(B^r,C,B,\overline{c})`$”).

Since all of this is uniform in $`B`$, it follows that the construction C is $`\{\overline{c}\}`$-uniformisable in $`M`$ by the formula

$$y=C|L\text{ where }H_{j_B}\psi _B(B^r,C,B,\overline{c}).$$

The last clause of the theorem follows by choosing C suitably, for example as in Example 2 of section 2. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 4 The model

###### Theorem 4

There is a transitive model $`N`$ of ZFC in which every uniformisable construction is weakly natural.

The next three sections are devoted to proving this theorem. We use forcing. The central idea is to consider a construction C whose parameters lie in the ground model, and introduce a highly homogeneous generic structure $`B^{}`$ into the graph of C; by homogeneity $`B^{}`$ must be highly symmetrical over $`B^{}`$. Since the parameters of a construction may lie anywhere in the set-theoretic universe, we have to iterate this idea right up through the universe. So we need to build $`N`$ by a proper class iteration.

Our forcing notation is mainly as in Jech . Thus $`p<q`$ means that $`p`$ carries more information than $`q`$. We write $`\dot{x}`$ for a boolean name of the element $`x`$ of $`N`$, and $`\stackrel{ˇ}{x}`$ for the canonical name of an element $`x`$ of the ground model. If $`y`$ is a boolean name and $`G`$ a generic set, we write $`y[G]`$ for the element named by $`y`$ in the generic extension by $`G`$. Our notion of forcing is of the kind described in Menas  as ‘backward Easton forcing’, and we shall borrow some technical results from Menas’ paper.

We start from a countable transitive model $`M`$ of ZFC + GCH. In $`M`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a definable continuous monotone increasing function from ordinals to infinite cardinals, with the property that for any ordinal $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)>\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$. Our notion of forcing $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ will be defined by induction on the ordinals. We start with a trivial ordering $`_0`$. At limit ordinals we take inverse limits.

For each ordinal $`\alpha `$ we shall define an $`_\alpha `$-name $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$; then $`_{\alpha +1}`$ will be $`_\alpha \dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$. To define this name, let $`\lambda `$ be an infinite cardinal. We consider a notion of forcing, $`_\lambda `$. In $`_\lambda `$, conditions are partial maps $`p:\lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+2`$ with domain of cardinality $`\lambda `$. Write $`TP(\lambda )`$ for a set-theoretical term which defines the notion of forcing $`_\lambda `$. For each ordinal $`\alpha `$, we choose $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$ to be an $`_\alpha `$-name such that $`||\dot{𝕊}_\alpha =TP(\mathrm{\Lambda }(\stackrel{ˇ}{\alpha }+1))||__\alpha =1`$.

This defines a proper class notion of forcing, $`_{\mathrm{}}=`$ direct limit of $`_\alpha :\alpha \text{ ordinal}`$.

###### Lemma 5

For each ordinal $`\alpha `$, suppose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )`$ is a cardinal in $`M^_\alpha `$. Then with $`_\alpha `$-boolean value 1, $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$-closed and satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)^+`$-chain condition.

Proof. Straightforward. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 6

1. For every successor ordinal $`\alpha `$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$ are cardinals with $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-boolean value 1.
2. For each successor ordinal $`\alpha `$, $`|_\alpha |=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$; for each limit ordinal $`\delta `$, $`|_\delta |\mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta )^+`$.
3. For each ordinal $`\alpha `$, $`_\alpha `$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$-chain condition.

Proof. We prove all parts simultaneously by induction. Suppose $`R_\alpha `$ has cardinality $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$ and satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$-chain condition. Put $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)>\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+`$. All cardinals $`\lambda `$ are cardinals with $`R_\alpha `$-boolean value 1. Let $`\dot{q}`$ be an element of $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$. Then $`\dot{q}`$ has cardinality $`\lambda `$ with $`R_\alpha `$-boolean value 1, and $`_\alpha `$ satisfies the $`\lambda ^+`$-chain condition, so with boolean value 1 the domain of $`\dot{q}`$ lies within some $`\gamma <\lambda ^+`$. Now $`\dot{p}`$ can be taken to be a map from the set $`\gamma `$ to the regular open algebra $`RO(R_\alpha )`$, which has cardinality $`(|_\alpha |^+)^{|_\alpha |}=|_\alpha |`$. The number of such maps is at most $`(|_\alpha |^+)^\lambda =\lambda ^+`$. Therefore $`|_\alpha \dot{𝕊}_\alpha |=\lambda ^+`$. Also $`R_{\alpha +1}`$ satisfies the $`\lambda ^+`$-chain condition by Lemma 5, using a standard argument on iterated forcing (Menas  Proposition 10(i)).

Now with boolean value 1, $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha `$ is $`\lambda `$-closed and satisfies the $`\lambda ^+`$-chain condition, so cardinals are preserved in passing from $`_\alpha `$ to $`_{\alpha +1}`$.

We turn to limit ordinals $`\delta `$. The cardinality of $`_\delta `$ is at most the product of the cardinalities of $`_\alpha `$ with $`\alpha <\delta `$, hence at most $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta )^+`$. It follows at once that $`_\delta `$ satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta )^+`$-chain condition and preserves all cardinals from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\delta )^+`$ upwards.

It remains to show that for successor ordinals $`\alpha +1`$, the cardinals $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)^+`$ are not collapsed by $`_{\mathrm{}}`$. Using the next lemma (which doesn’t depend on the clause we are now proving), $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ can be written as $`_\alpha \dot{𝕊}_{\alpha +1}\dot{}_{\alpha +1,\mathrm{}}`$. The first factor satisfies the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$-chain condition and hence preserves these two cardinals. The third factor preserves them since it is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)^+`$-closed with boolean value 1. The middle factor is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$-closed with boolean value 1, so that it preserves $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)^+`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 7

For each ordinal $`\alpha `$ there is a proper class notion of forcing $`\dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ such that

1. $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ is isomorphic to $`_\alpha \dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$;
2. In $`M^_\alpha `$, $`\dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ is the direct limit of iterated notions of forcing $`\dot{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$ in such a way that for each $`\beta >\alpha `$, $`_\beta `$ is isomorphic to $`_\alpha \dot{}_{\alpha ,\beta }`$;
3. For each successor ordinal $`\alpha `$, $`\dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$-closed with $`M^_\alpha `$-boolean value 1.

Proof. As Menas  Propositions 11 and 10(i), using the previous lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

The model $`N`$ for the theorem will be an $`R_{\mathrm{}}`$-generic extension of $`M`$.

###### Lemma 8

$`N`$ is a model of ZFC.

Proof. Menas  Proposition 14 derives this from the previous lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 9

If $`\dot{x}`$ is an $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-name of a subset of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$, and $`r_{\mathrm{}}`$, then there are $`s_{\mathrm{}}`$ and an $`_\alpha `$-name $`\dot{y}`$ such that $`sr`$ and $`s\text{ }_{_{\mathrm{}}}`$$`\dot{x}=\dot{y}`$”.

Proof. This follows from the fact that $`\dot{R}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$-closed. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 10

Let $`\alpha `$ be an ordinal. Then if $`\lambda `$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$ or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)^+`$, we have $`2^\lambda =\lambda ^+`$ in $`N`$.

Proof. Suppose $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$. Then $`2^\lambda \mu `$ with $`R_\alpha `$-boolean value 1, where

$$\mu =|RO(_\alpha )|^\lambda (|_\alpha |^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha )^+})^\lambda =\lambda ^+.$$

With $`_\alpha `$-boolean value 1, $`_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ is $`\lambda `$-closed and hence adds no new subsets of $`\lambda `$. Similar calculations apply to the other cases. $`\mathrm{}`$

A notion of forcing $``$ is said to be homogeneous if for any two elements $`p,q`$ of $``$ there is an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of $``$ such that $`\sigma (p)`$ and $`q`$ are compatible.

###### Lemma 11

The notion of forcing $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ is homogeneous.

Proof. Menas  Proposition 13 proves this under the assumption that each step of the iteration is homogeneous with boolean value 1. That assumption holds here. $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`\alpha `$ is an automorphism of the notion of forcing $``$, then $`\alpha `$ induces an automorphism $`\alpha ^{}`$ of the boolean universe $`M^P`$. Also $`\alpha `$ takes any $``$-generic set $`G`$ over $`M`$ to the $``$-generic set $`\alpha G`$.

###### Lemma 12

For every element $`\dot{x}`$ of $`M^{}`$ we have

$$\dot{x}[G]=(\alpha ^{})\dot{x}[\alpha G]$$

Proof. Immediate. $`\mathrm{}`$

To save notation we write $`\alpha ^{}`$ as $`\alpha `$. We note that $`(\alpha \beta )^{}=\alpha ^{}\beta ^{}`$, which removes one possible source of ambiguity.

## 5 The generic copies of $`A`$, $`B`$

As explained earlier, our model $`N`$ in the theorem will be $`M[G]`$ where $`G`$ is an $`_{\mathrm{}}`$-generic class over $`M`$. Henceforth C is a construction which is uniformisable in $`N`$ with uniformising formula $`\varphi `$; we want to show that C is weakly natural. Let $`B`$ be any structure in the graph of C. At the cost of adding $`B`$ as a parameter, we can assume without loss that C is unitype and its graph consists of structures isomorphic to $`B`$. We put $`A=B^{}`$. Choose an ordinal $`\alpha `$ so that $`A,B`$ and the parameters of the formulas representing C all lie in $`M[G_\alpha ]`$, and $`B,\text{Aut}(B)`$ both have cardinality $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$. We can decompose $`N`$ as a two-stage extension $`M[G_\alpha ][G_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}]`$, where $`G_\alpha =G_\alpha `$ and $`G_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$ is $`\dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}[G_\alpha ]`$-generic over $`M[G_\alpha ]`$.

At this point we adjust our notation. We put $`\lambda =\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +1)`$, and we rename $`M[G_\alpha ]`$ as $`M`$. By Lemma 6, $`\lambda `$ and $`\lambda ^+`$ in the old $`M`$ are still cardinals in the new $`M`$. By Lemma 6, $`N`$ is constructed from the new $`M`$ by an iterated forcing notion $`_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}=\dot{}_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}[G_\alpha ]`$ with the same properties as the forcing notion $`_{\mathrm{}}`$, with two differences. First, the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ must now be replaced by the function $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha `$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\alpha (\beta )=\mathrm{\Lambda }(\alpha +\beta )`$. Second, $`M`$ need not satisfy the GCH everywhere; but this never matters. (In fact it would be possible to make the GCH hold in the new $`M`$ and in $`N`$, by adding extra factors in $`_{\mathrm{}}`$ to collapse the cardinalities of power sets.) One can check that all the preliminary lemmas 5 to 11 still hold for this notion of forcing $`_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}`$.

We now write $`,\dot{}`$ for $`\dot{𝕊}_\alpha [G_\alpha ],\dot{}_{\alpha +1,\mathrm{}}[G_\alpha ]`$ respectively. Thus

$$_{\alpha ,\mathrm{}}=\dot{}.$$

We shall not need to refer to $`G_\alpha `$ again, and so we start afresh with our notation for generic sets.

We shall write $`N`$ as $`M[G_1][G_2]`$ where $`G_1`$ is $``$-generic over $`M`$ and $`G_2`$ is $`\dot{}[G_1]`$-generic over $`M[G_1]`$.

We shall write $`G`$ for the $`\dot{}`$-generic set $`G_1\dot{G}_2`$ over $`M`$, so that $`N=M[G]`$. If $`x`$ is an element of $`N`$, we write $`\dot{x}`$ for a boolean name for $`x`$ in the forcing language for $`\dot{}`$. Note that every $``$-name over $`M`$ can be read as a $`\dot{}`$-name too, so that there is no need for a separate symbol for $``$-names.

The set $`G_1`$ is a total map from $`\lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+`$ to 2. For each $`i<\lambda ^+`$ and $`j<\lambda ^+`$, we define $`a_{ij}=\{k<\lambda ^+:G_1(i,j,k)=1\}`$ and $`a_i^{}=\{a_{ij}:j<\lambda ^+\}`$, so that $`a_i^{}`$ is a set of $`\lambda ^+`$ independently generic subsets of $`\lambda ^+`$. If $`a`$ and $`b`$ are (in $`M_1[G_2]`$) sets of subsets of $`\lambda ^+`$, we put $`ab`$ iff the symmetric difference of $`a`$ and $`b`$ has cardinality $`\lambda `$. We write $`a_i`$ for the equivalence class $`(a_i^{})^{}`$. The boolean names $`\dot{a}_{ij},\dot{a}_i`$ can be chosen in $`M^{}`$ independently of the choice of $`G`$.

Consider again the structures $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`M`$. Without loss we can suppose that dom$`(A)`$ is an initial segment of $`\lambda `$. In $`M[G_1]`$ there is a map $`e`$ which takes each element $`i`$ of $`A`$ to the corresponding set $`a_i=\dot{a}_i[G_1]`$; by means of $`e`$ we can define a copy $`A^{}`$ of $`A`$ whose elements are the sets $`a_i`$ ($`i\text{dom}(A)`$). Again the boolean names $`\dot{A}^{},\dot{e}`$ can be chosen to be independent of the choice of $`G`$.

Since $`A,B`$ and the parameters of the uniformising formula $`\varphi `$ lie in $`M`$, and the notion of forcing $`\dot{}`$ is homogeneous by Lemma 11, the statement “$`\varphi `$ defines a construction on the class of structures isomorphic to $`A`$, which takes $`A`$ to $`B`$” is true in $`N`$ independently of the choice of $`G`$. In particular there are $`\dot{}`$-boolean names $`\dot{B}^{},\dot{\epsilon }`$ such that

$`||\dot{B}\text{ is the unique structure such that }\varphi (\dot{A}^{},\dot{B}^{})\text{ holds},`$ (1)
$`\dot{e}:\stackrel{ˇ}{A}\dot{A}^{}\text{ is the isomorphism such that }\dot{e}(\stackrel{ˇ}{ı})=\dot{a}_i\text{ for}`$
$`\text{each }i\text{dom}(\stackrel{ˇ}{A}),\text{ and }\dot{\epsilon }:\stackrel{ˇ}{B}\dot{B}^{}\text{ is an isomorphism}`$
$`\text{which extends }\dot{e}||_\dot{}=1.`$
###### Lemma 13

Let $`G`$ be $`\dot{}`$-generic over $`M_1`$. Then:

(a) Aut$`(A)^M`$ = Aut$`(A)^{M[G_1]}`$ = Aut$`(A)^{M[G]}`$.

(b) Aut$`(B)^M`$ = Aut$`(B)^{M[G_1]}`$ = Aut$`(B)^{M[G]}`$.

(c) The set of maps from Aut$`(A)`$ to Aut$`(B)`$ is the same in $`M`$ as it is in $`M[G_1]`$ and $`M[G]`$.

Proof. Using Lemma 5 and Lemma 6(c), $``$ is $`\lambda `$-closed over $`M`$, and $`\dot{}`$ is $`\lambda `$-closed over $`M[G_1]`$. Hence no new permutations of $`A`$ or $`B`$ are added since $`|A||B|\lambda `$ in $`M`$; this proves (a), (b). Likewise (c) holds since $`|\text{Aut}(A)||\text{Aut}(B)|\lambda `$ in $`M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We regard $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ as a permutation group on $`\lambda ^+`$ by letting it fix all the elements of $`\lambda ^+`$ which are not in dom$`(A)`$.

By a neat map we mean a map $`\alpha :\lambda ^+\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ in $`M`$ which is constant on a final segment of $`\lambda ^+`$; we write $`𝒩`$ for the set of neat maps. We write $`\pi `$ for the map from $`𝒩`$ to $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ which takes each neat map to its eventual value. We write $`𝒩^{}`$ for the set of all neat maps $`\alpha `$ with $`\pi (\alpha )=1`$. For each ordinal $`i<\lambda ^+`$ we write $`𝒩_i`$ for the set of neat maps $`\alpha `$ such that $`\alpha (j)=1`$ for all $`j<i`$. We write $`𝒩_i^{}`$ for $`𝒩^{}𝒩_i`$.

We can regard $`\alpha `$ as a permutation of the set $`\lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+\times \lambda ^+`$ by putting

$$\alpha (i,j,k)=(\alpha (j)(i),j,k).$$

Then $`\alpha `$ induces an automorphism of $``$.

###### Lemma 14

If $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are distinct neat maps then they induce distinct automorphisms of $``$. Identifying each neat map with the automorphism it induces, $`𝒩`$ forms a group with subgroups $`𝒩^{}`$, $`𝒩_i`$ $`(i<\lambda ^+)`$; the map $`\pi :𝒩\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is a group homomorphism.

Proof. From the definitions. $`\mathrm{}`$

The automorphism $`\alpha `$ can be extended to an automorphism of $`\dot{}`$ in many different ways, by induction on $`\dot{}`$ as an iterated notion of forcing. Each factor of $`\dot{}`$ is with boolean value 1 the set of all maps from $`X`$ to 2 of cardinality $`\mu `$, where $`X`$ is $`\mu ^+\times \mu ^+\times \mu ^+`$ for some cardinal $`\mu `$. If $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is (in $`M`$) the group of permutations of $`X`$, then an automorphism of the factor of $`\dot{}`$ is determined by an element of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ and a permutation of the boolean values. For each ordinal $`i`$ let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ be in $`M_1`$ the product of the permutation groups $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ for the first $`i`$ factors of $`\dot{}`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the direct limit of the $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_i`$ in $`M_i`$. Then an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $``$ and an element $`\sigma `$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ together determine an automorphism $`\alpha ,\sigma `$ of $`\dot{}`$, and hence of $`M^\dot{}`$.

###### Lemma 15

The actions of the group $`𝒩`$ of neat maps and the group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`\dot{}`$ commute with each other.

Proof. The class $`\dot{}`$ is $`\times \widehat{}`$ where $`\widehat{}`$ is a class of boolean-valued subsets of a class $`X`$ which is definable in $`M`$; the action of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is through its action on $`X`$. Thus each element of $`\widehat{}`$ is essentially a set of ordered pairs $`x,y`$ where $`xX`$ and $`y`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝒩`$ act respectively on the first and second coordinates, the actions on $`\widehat{}`$ commute. The group $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ keeps $``$ fixed. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 16

Suppose $`\alpha :\lambda ^+\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is neat and $`\alpha ^{}`$ is an automorphism of $`\dot{}`$ extending $`\alpha `$. Then the action of $`\alpha ^{}`$ on $`M^\dot{}`$ setwise fixes the set $`\{\dot{a}_i:i\mathrm{dom}(A)\}`$ of canonical names of the elements of $`\dot{A}^{}[G]`$, and it acts on this set in the way induced by $`\pi (\alpha )`$ and the map $`i\dot{a}_i`$. Thus $`\alpha ^{}(\dot{a}_i)=\dot{a}_{\pi (\alpha )(i)}`$.

Proof. Write out the names! (They lie in $`M^{}`$, so that the extension from $`M^{}`$ to $`M^\dot{}`$ is irrelevant.) $`\mathrm{}`$

If $`G`$ is $`\dot{}`$-generic over $`M`$, then so is $`\alpha ,\sigma G`$ for every neat map $`\alpha `$ and every $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, since $`\alpha ,\sigma M`$.

###### Lemma 17

For each element $`i`$ of $`A`$, each neat map $`\alpha `$ and each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, $`\dot{a}_{\pi (\alpha )(i)}[\alpha ,\sigma G]=\dot{a}_i[G]`$. In particular $`\dot{A}^{}[\alpha ,\sigma G]=\dot{A}^{}[G]`$.

Proof. By Lemma 16, $`\dot{a}_{\pi (\alpha )(i)}[\alpha ,\sigma G]=(\alpha \dot{a}_i)[\alpha ,\sigma G]`$. Then by Lemma 12 and the fact that $`\alpha \dot{a}_i`$ lies in $`M^{}`$,

$$(\alpha \dot{a}_i)[\alpha ,\sigma G]=(\alpha \dot{a}_i)[\alpha G_1]=\dot{a}_i[G_1]=\dot{a}_i[G].$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

We write $`\dot{\epsilon }^1`$ for a boolean name such that $`\dot{\epsilon }^1[G]=(\dot{\epsilon }[G])^1`$ for all generic $`G`$.

###### Lemma 18

Suppose $`\alpha `$ is a neat map, $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`G`$ is $`\dot{}`$-generic over $`M_1`$. Then $`\dot{B}^{}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]`$ $`=\dot{B}^{}[G]`$, and the map $`(\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha ,\sigma \dot{\epsilon })[G]`$ is an automorphism of $`B`$ which extends $`\pi (\alpha )`$.

Proof. Since $`M[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]=M_1[G]`$ and $`\dot{A}^{}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]=\dot{A}^{}[G]`$, (1) (before Lemma 13) tells us that $`\dot{e}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G](i)=\dot{a}_i[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]`$ for each $`i\text{dom}(A)`$, and that $`\dot{B}^{}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]=\dot{B}^{}[G]`$ and $`\dot{\epsilon }[G]^1\dot{\epsilon }[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]`$ extends $`\dot{e}[G]^1\dot{e}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G]`$. Now using Lemma 17,

$$\dot{e}[G]^1\dot{e}[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G](i)=\dot{e}[G]^1(\dot{a}_i[\alpha ,\sigma ^1G])$$

$$=\dot{e}[G]^1(\dot{a}_{\pi (\alpha )(i)}[G])=\pi (\alpha )(i).$$

$`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 19

For every neat map $`\alpha `$, each $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and all $`p,\dot{q}\dot{}`$ there are $`p^{},\dot{q}^{}p,\dot{q}`$ and $`g\mathrm{Aut}B`$ such that

$$p^{},\dot{q}^{}\text{ }_\dot{}\sigma (\dot{\epsilon }^1)\alpha \sigma (\dot{\epsilon })=\stackrel{ˇ}{g}.$$

Proof. Let $`f`$ be $`\pi (\alpha )`$. By Lemma 18 we have

$$\sigma \dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha \sigma \dot{\epsilon }\text{ is an automorphism of }B\text{ extending }\stackrel{ˇ}{f}_\dot{}=1.$$

Unpacking the existential quantifier in “an automorphism of $`B`$” gives the lemma. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider any $`i<\lambda ^+`$. Given $`p,\dot{q}\dot{}`$, define $`t_{p,\dot{q},i}`$ to be the set of all triples $`(f,g,\sigma )`$, with $`f\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$, $`g\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$, such that for some $`\alpha 𝒩_i`$, $`\pi (\alpha )=f`$ and

$$p,\dot{q}\text{ }_\dot{}\sigma (\dot{\epsilon }^1)\alpha \sigma (\dot{\epsilon })=\stackrel{ˇ}{g}.$$

Clearly if $`p^{},\dot{q}^{}p,\dot{q}`$ then $`t_{p^{},\dot{q}^{},i}t_{p,\dot{q},i}`$. Since there are only a set of values for $`\sigma (\dot{\epsilon })`$ and $`\sigma (\dot{\epsilon }^1)`$ with $`\sigma \mathrm{\Sigma }`$. it follows that there is $`p_i,\dot{q}_i`$ such that for all $`p^{},\dot{q}^{}p,\dot{q}`$,

$$t_{p^{},\dot{q}^{},i}=t_{p_i,\dot{q}_i,i}.$$

We fix a choice of $`p_i,\dot{q}_i`$, and we write $`t_i`$ for the resulting value $`t_{p_i,\dot{q}_i,i}`$. If $`(f,g,\sigma )`$ is in $`t_i`$, we write $`\alpha _{f,g,\sigma }^i`$ for some $`\alpha 𝒩_i`$ such that

$$p_i,\dot{q}_i\text{ }_\dot{}\sigma (\dot{\epsilon }^1)\alpha \sigma (\dot{\epsilon })=\stackrel{ˇ}{g}$$

and $`\pi (\alpha )=f`$.

###### Lemma 20

For each $`i<\lambda ^+`$, $`t_i`$ is a subclass of $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)\times \mathrm{Aut}(B)\times \mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that

1. for each $`(f,g,\sigma )`$ in $`t_i`$, $`g|A=f`$;
2. for each $`f`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ and $`\sigma `$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ there is $`g`$ with $`(f,g,\sigma )`$ in $`t_i`$.

(So $`t_i(,,\sigma )`$ is a first attempt at a lifting of the restriction map from $`\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ to $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$.)

Proof. By Lemma 19. $`\mathrm{}`$

We write $`t_{p,\dot{q},i}^{}`$ for the set of pairs $`(g,\sigma )`$ such that $`(1,g,\sigma )`$ is in $`t_{p,\dot{q},i}`$. We write $`\alpha _{g,\sigma }^i`$ for $`\alpha _{1,g,\sigma }^i`$; note that $`\alpha _{g,\sigma }^i`$ is in $`𝒩_i^{}`$ by Lemma 18.

###### Lemma 21

For each $`i<\lambda ^+`$ there are $`\sigma _i`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, a condition $`p_i^{}p_i`$ and a boolean name $`\dot{v_i}`$ such that

1. for each $`i<\lambda ^+`$, $`p_i^{}\text{ }_{}\mathrm{dom}(\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i)\dot{v_i}`$;
2. for all $`i<j<\lambda ^+`$, $`||\dot{v}_i\dot{v}_j=\mathrm{}||_{}=1`$;
3. for all $`i<j<\lambda ^+`$, $`\sigma _i\sigma _j=\sigma _j\sigma _i`$.

Proof. By induction on $`i<\lambda ^+`$. As we choose the $`p_i^{}`$, $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\dot{v_i}`$, we also choose an eventually zero sequence of ordinals $`\gamma _{\mu ,i}<\mu ^+`$ in $`M_1`$ so that

$$||\dot{v_i}\underset{\mu }{}(\gamma _{\mu ,i}\times \mu ^+\times \mu ^+)||_{}=1.$$

Then when we have made our choices for all $`i<j`$, we first extend $`p_i`$ to $`p_i^{}`$ forcing the domain of $`\dot{q_i}`$ to lie within some set

$$X=\underset{\mu <\mu ^{}}{}(\gamma _\mu ^{}\times \gamma _\mu ^{}\times \mu ^+)$$

lying in $`M_1`$, and we choose $`\dot{w_i}`$ to be a canonical boolean name for this set $`X`$. Then we choose $`\sigma _i`$ so that $`\sigma _i^1`$ moves $`X`$ to

$$\underset{\mu <\mu ^{}}{}\left([\underset{j<i}{}\gamma _{\mu ,i},\underset{j<i}{}\gamma _{\mu ,i}+\gamma _\mu ^{})\times \gamma _\mu ^{}\times \mu ^+\right),$$

(the product of products of three intervals), and we put $`\dot{v_i}=\sigma _i^1\dot{w_i}`$ and $`\gamma _{\mu ,j}=_{j<i}\gamma _{\mu ,i}+\gamma _\mu ^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We fix the choice of $`\sigma _i`$ and $`\dot{v_i}`$ $`(i<\lambda ^+)`$ given by this lemma. Without loss we extend the conditions $`p_i`$ to be equal to $`p_i^{}`$.

###### Lemma 22

There is a stationary subset $`S`$ of $`\lambda ^+`$ such that:

1. for each $`iS`$ and $`j<i`$, the domain of $`p_i`$ is a subset of $`i\times \mathrm{dom}A`$;
2. for each $`iS`$ and $`j<i`$, every map $`\alpha _{f,g}^i:\lambda ^+\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is constant on $`[i,\lambda ^+)`$;
3. for all $`i,jS`$,

$$\{(f,g):(f,g,\sigma _i)t_i\}=\{(f,g):(f,g,\sigma _j)t_j\};$$
4. there is a condition $`p^{}`$ such that for all $`iS`$, $`p_i|(i\times \mathrm{dom}A)=p^{}`$.

Proof. First, there is a club $`C\lambda ^+`$ on which (a) and (b) hold. Then by Fődor’s lemma there is a stationary subset $`S`$ of $`C`$ on which (c) and (d) hold. $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 The weak lifting

In this section we use the notation $`S`$, $`\sigma _i`$, $`\dot{v}_i`$, $`p^{}`$ from Lemmas 21 and 22. We write $`s`$ for the constant value of

$$\{(f,g):(f,g,\sigma _i)t_i\}(iS)$$

from clause (c) of Lemma 22, and $`s^{}`$ for the set of all $`g`$ such that $`(1,g)s`$. We write $`\nu :\mathrm{Aut}(B)\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ for the restriction map.

###### Lemma 23

The relation $`s`$ is a subset of $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)\times \mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ that projects onto $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$, and if $`(f,g)`$ is in $`s`$ then $`\nu (g)=f`$.

Proof. Lemma 20. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 24

If $`(f_1,g_1)`$ and $`(f_2,g_2)`$ are both in $`s`$ then $`(f_1f_2,g_1g_2)`$ is in $`s`$.

Proof. In this and later calculations we freely use the fact (Lemma 15) that the actions of $`𝒩`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`\dot{}`$ commute. Take any $`i,jS`$ with $`i<j`$.

Put $`\alpha _1=\alpha _{f_1,g_1,\sigma _j}^j`$, $`\alpha _2=\alpha _{f_2,g_2,\sigma _i}^i`$ and $`\alpha _3=\alpha _1\alpha _2`$. Note that $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ is in $`𝒩_i`$ since $`i<j`$.

We have

$$p_j,\dot{q}_j\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })=\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _1\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })(\sigma _j\alpha _1(\dot{\epsilon }))^1\alpha _3\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })$$

and by assumption

$$p_j,\dot{q}_j\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _1\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}.$$

So

$$p_j,\dot{q}_j\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })=\sigma _j\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}\sigma ^j(\alpha _1(\dot{\epsilon }))^1\alpha _1(\alpha _2\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }).$$

Also by assumption

$$p_i,\dot{q}_i\text{ }\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _2\sigma _i(\dot{\epsilon })=\sigma _i\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}.$$

Acting on this by $`\alpha _1\sigma _j\sigma _i^1`$ gives

$$\alpha _1p_i,\alpha _1\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i\text{ }\alpha _1\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon }^1)\alpha _1\alpha _2\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }=\alpha _1\sigma _j\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}.$$

Now $`g_2`$ is in the ground model and hence $`\alpha _2\sigma _j\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}`$. Also $`\alpha _1p_i=p_i`$ since the support of $`p_i`$ lies entirely below $`j`$, and $`\alpha _1=\alpha _{g_1,\sigma _j}^j`$ is the identity in this region since it lies in $`𝒩_j`$. So we have shown that

$$p_i,\alpha _1\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i\text{ }\alpha _1\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _1\alpha _2\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}.$$

Now we note that $`p_ip_j`$ is a condition in $`P`$, by (a), (d) of Lemma 22. Also $`p_ip_j`$ forces that $`\mathrm{dom}(\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i)`$ is disjoint from $`\mathrm{dom}(\sigma _j^1\dot{q}_j)`$ by Lemma 21, and hence also that $`\mathrm{dom}\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i`$ is disjoint from $`\mathrm{dom}r_j`$. From the action of neat maps on $``$, $`\mathrm{dom}\alpha _1\sigma _j\sigma _1^1=\mathrm{dom}\sigma _j\sigma _i^1`$. This shows that $`p_i,\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i`$ and $`p_j,\dot{q}_j`$ have a common extension $`p^{},\dot{q}^{}`$. Putting everything together, we have that

$$p^{},\dot{q}^{}\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}.$$

Since $`\alpha _3`$ is in $`𝒩_i`$, this shows that

$$(f_1f_2,g_1g_2)t_{p^{},\dot{q}^{},j}.$$

Then by the maximality property of $`p_j,\dot{q}_j`$,

$$(f_1f_2,g_1g_2,\sigma _j)t_{p_j,j}$$

so that $`(f_1f_2,g_1g_2)`$ is in $`s`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 25

If $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ are in $`s^{}`$ then $`g_1g_2=g_2g_1`$.

Proof. Apply the proof of Lemma 24 to $`(1,g_1)`$ and $`(1,g_2)`$. In the notation of that proof, $`\alpha _1`$ commutes with $`\alpha _2`$, $`\alpha _1`$ is the identity below $`j`$ and $`\alpha _2`$ is the identity below $`j`$ (since $`i,jS`$. But also $`g_2`$ lies in $`s^{}`$, and this tells us that $`\alpha _2`$ is the identity on $`[j,\lambda ^+)`$. In particular $`\alpha _1`$ commutes with $`\alpha _2`$.

We follow the proof of Lemma 24 but with $`g_1`$ and $`g_2`$ transposed, starting from the observation that

$$p_i,\dot{q}_i\text{ }\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }=\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _2\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }\alpha _2\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }.$$

As before, we have that

$$p_i,\dot{q}_i\text{ }\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _2\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}$$

and

$$\alpha _2p_j,\alpha _2\sigma _i\sigma _j^1\dot{q}_j\text{ }\alpha _2\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _2\alpha _1\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }=\alpha _3\sigma _i\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1},$$

recalling that $`\alpha _1`$ commutes with $`\alpha _2`$. Now the support of $`p_j`$ lies below $`i`$ or within $`[j,\lambda ^+)\times \mathrm{dom}A`$, and $`\alpha _2`$ is the identity in both these regions, and so $`\alpha _2(p_j)=p_j`$. Also $`p_ip_j`$ forces that $`\dot{q_i}`$ and $`\alpha _2\sigma _i\sigma _j^1\dot{q_j}`$ have disjoint domains. So as before there is $`p^{},\dot{q}^{}p_i,\dot{q}_i`$ and $`p_j,\alpha _2\sigma _i\sigma _j^1q_j`$ such that

$$p^{},\dot{q}^{}\text{ }\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}.$$

As before, it follows that

$$p_i,\dot{q}_i\text{ }\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _i\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1},$$

and so

$$p_i,\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}.$$

Again there is a condition $`p^{\prime \prime },\dot{q}^{\prime \prime }p_i,\sigma _j\sigma _i^1\dot{q}_i`$ and $`p_j,\dot{q}_j`$. Recalling that in the proof of Lemma 24 we showed that

$$p_j,\dot{q}_j\text{ }\sigma _j\dot{\epsilon }^1\alpha _3\sigma _j(\dot{\epsilon })=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1},$$

we deduce that

$$p^{\prime \prime },\dot{q}^{\prime \prime }\text{ }\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}=\stackrel{ˇ}{g_2}\stackrel{ˇ}{g_1}.$$

But the equation $`g_1g_2=g_2g_1`$ is about the ground model, and hence it is true. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 26

If $`(f,g_1)`$ and $`(f,g_2)`$ are in $`s`$ then $`g_1g_2^1`$ is in $`s^{}`$.

Proof. There is some $`g^{}\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ such that $`(f^1,g^{})`$ is in $`s`$. Then by the claim, $`(1,g_1g^{})`$ and $`(1,g_2g^{})`$ are in $`s`$ and so $`g_1g^{}`$, $`g_2g^{}`$ are in $`s^{}`$. Hence the element

$$g_1g_2^1=(g_1g^{})(g_2g^{})^1$$

lies in $`s^{}`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 27

Suppose $`g_1,\mathrm{},g_k`$ are elements of $`\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ such that $`(\nu (g_i),g_i)`$ is in $`s`$ for each $`i`$, and let each of $`\epsilon _1,\mathrm{},\epsilon _k`$ be either $`1`$ or $`1`$. If

$$\nu (g_1)^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}\nu (g_k)^{\epsilon _k}=1$$

then

$$g_1^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}g_k^{\epsilon _k}s^{}.$$

Proof. We write $`f_i`$ for $`\nu (g_i)`$. First we show the corollary directly in the case $`k=3`$. Taking inverses, we can assume that $`\epsilon _2=1`$. When $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _3=1`$, the result is immediate from Lemma 24. We consider next the case where $`\epsilon _1=1`$ and $`\epsilon _3=1`$. Here we find $`g`$ such that $`(f^1,g)`$ is in $`s`$. Then both of

$$g_1^1g_2^1g^1,g_3^1g^1$$

are in $`s^{}`$ by Lemma 24, and so

$$g_1^1g_2^1g_3^1=(g_1^1g_2^1g^1)(g_3^1g_1)^1$$

is in $`s^{}`$. By symmetry this also covers the case where $`\epsilon _1=1`$ and $`\epsilon _3=1`$. Finally when $`\epsilon _1=\epsilon _3=1`$, we repeat the same moves, noting that

$$g_1^1g_2^1g^1$$

is in $`s^{}`$ by the previous case.

This case also covers the case $`k=2`$ by adding at the end a factor $`g_3^1`$ where $`(1,g^3)`$ is in $`s`$. The case $`k=1`$ is trivial.

We prove the remaining cases by induction on $`k`$, assuming $`k>3`$. Choose $`g`$ so that $`(g,f_{k1}^{\epsilon _{k1}}f_k^{\epsilon _k})`$ is in $`s`$. Then by induction hypothesis both the elements

$$g_1^{\epsilon _1}\mathrm{}g_{k2}^{\epsilon _{k2}}g^1$$

and

$$g^1g_{k1}^{\epsilon ^{k1}}g_k^{\epsilon _k}$$

lie in $`s^{}`$. Hence so does their product, completing the proof. $`\mathrm{}`$

Consider the subgroup $`s^{}`$ of $`\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$. By Lemma 25, $`s^{}`$ is commutative. By Lemma 23 and Corollary 27 it follows that $`s`$ would be a weak splitting of $`\nu `$, with $`s^{}`$ as $`G_0`$, if for each $`f`$ in $`\mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ there was a unique $`g`$ with $`f,g`$ in $`s`$. But we can make this true by cutting down $`s`$. So $`\nu `$ has a weak splitting, and this concludes the proof of Theorem 4.

## 7 Answers to questions

The results above answer most of the problems stated in . In that paper we showed:

> Theorem 3 of   If C is a small natural construction in a model of ZFC, then C is uniformisable with parameters.

We asked (Problem A) whether it is possible to remove the restriction that C is small. The answer is No:

###### Theorem 28

There is a transitive model of ZFC in which some $`\mathrm{}`$-representable construction is natural but not uniformisable (even with parameters).

Proof. Let $`N`$ be the model of Theorem 4. Let C be some construction $`\mathrm{}`$-representable in $`N`$ which is not weakly natural (such as Example 2 in section 2). Then by Theorem 4, C is not uniformisable. The rigidifying construction $`\text{C}^r`$ of section 2 is $`\mathrm{}`$-representable, natural and not uniformisable. $`\mathrm{}`$

Problem B asked whether in Theorem 3 of  the formula defining C can be chosen so that it has only the same parameters as the formulas chosen to represent C. The answer is No:

###### Theorem 29

There is a transitive model $`N`$ of ZFC with the following property:

> For every set $`Y`$ there are a set $`X`$ and a unitype rigid-based (hence small natural) $`X`$-representable construction that is not $`XY`$-uniformisable.

Proof. Take $`N`$ to be the model given by Theorem 4. Let $`Y`$ be any set in $`N`$. If $`N`$ and $`Y`$ are not as stated above, then for every set $`X`$ and every unitype rigid-based $`X`$-representable construction in $`N`$, $`X`$ is $`XY`$-uniformisable. So the hypothesis of Theorem 3 holds, and by that theorem there is in $`N`$ a small $`\{\overline{c}\}`$-uniformisable construction that is not weakly natural. But this contradicts the choice of $`N`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Problem C asked whether there are transitive models of ZFC in which every uniformisable construction is natural. Theorem 4 is the best answer we have for this; the problem remains open.

In  one of us asked whether there can be models of ZFC in which the algebraic closure construction on fields is not uniformisable.

###### Theorem 30

There are transitive models of ZFC in which:

1. no formula (with or without parameters) defines for each field a specific algebraic closure for that field, and
2. no formula (with or without parameters) defines for each abelian group a specific injective hull of that group.

Proof. Let the model $`N`$ be as in Theorem 4. In $`N`$ the constructions of Examples 3 and 4 in section 2 are not uniformisable, since they are not weakly natural. So these two examples prove (a) and (b) respectively. $`\mathrm{}`$

One result in  was that there is no primitive recursive set function which takes each field to an algebraic closure of that field. This is an absolute result which applies to every transitive model of ZFC, and so it is not strictly comparable with the consistency results proved above. In this context we note that Garvin Melles showed  that there is no “recursive set-function” (he gives his own definition for this notion) which finds a representative for each isomorphism type of countable torsion-free abelian group.

Wilfrid Hodges
School of Mathematical Sciences
Queen Mary, University of London
Mile End Road, London E1 4NS, England
w.hodges@qmw.ac.uk

Saharon Shelah
Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University
Jerusalem, Israel
shelah@math.huji.ac.il


text:
# Perturbative Analysis of the Seiberg-Witten Map

## 1 Noncommutative Yang-Mills Theory and the Seiberg-Witten Map

The Seiberg-Witten map was first discovered in the context of string theory, where it emerged from a 2D-$`\sigma `$-model regularized in different ways . It was argued by Seiberg and Witten that the ordinary gauge theory should be gauge-equivalent to a noncommutative Yang-Mills (NCYM) field theory, which, in a certain limit, acts as an effective theory of open strings. Furthermore, they showed that the Seiberg-Witten map could be interpreted as an infinitesimal shift in the noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$, and thus as an expansion of the noncommutative gauge field in $`\theta `$.

Whereas in open string theory the (noncommutative) gauge fields are taken to transform in a certain matrix representation of a U(N) gauge group, the aim of a second approach to the subject  was to realize a general, non-Abelian gauge group, preferably SU(N). Using covariant coordinates the NCYM theory emerges as the gauge theory of a certain noncommutative algebra . However, in this scenario, due to the choice of a general, non-Abelian gauge group, one is forced to consider enveloping algebra-valued fields, which leads to infinitely many degrees of freedom . The solution to this problem was shown to be the Seiberg-Witten map, which in this context appears as an expansion of the noncommutative gauge field in both $`\theta `$ and the generators of the gauge group. Application of the Seiberg-Witten map yields a theory with finitely many degrees of freedom. However, since the Seiberg-Witten map is infinitely non-linear, the resulting theory has infinitely many interactions at arbitrary high orders in the gauge field. Furthermore, since the noncommutative parameter $`\theta `$, which has dimension $`2`$, appears as a coupling constant, the model is non-renormalizable in the traditional sense. In the following we will refer to this model as the $`\theta `$-expanded NCYM.

The aim of this paper is to study the quantization of the $`\theta `$-expanded NCYM. We choose to consider the case of an Abelian, *i.e.* U(1), gauge group: noncommutative Maxwell theory.

The question of quantization of apparently non-renormalizable theories has been addressed in the literature, see *e.g.*  and citations therein. As a starting point, one could speculate if a power-counting non-renormalizable theory involving infinitely many interactions at arbitrary order in the field, as it is the case in the $`\theta `$-expanded NCYM theory, could indeed be renormalizable in the sense that all divergent graphs may be absorbed in the classical action. However, we find that this is not the case for the $`\theta `$-expanded NCYM. The self-energy produces terms which cannot be renormalized, thus forcing us to add extra, gauge invariant, terms quadratic in $`\theta `$ to the classical action of NCYM theory, yielding an extended NCYM theory. We regard this extention as the lowest order of an infinite deformation series of the scalar product. Furthermore, a consequence of the extended classical action is that propagation of light is altered. One may speculate whether this could lead to observable effects in *e.g.* cosmology.

One may object that an expansion in $`\theta `$ is not adequate for the following two reasons. First of all, taking all orders of $`\theta `$ into account, it was shown, in the context of string theory, that $`\theta `$ serves as a regulator for non-planar graphs  rendering otherwise UV-divergent graphs finite. The resulting radiative correction, however, is divergent for $`\theta 0`$, thus suggesting that the effective action is not analytical in $`\theta `$ . Secondly, one could argue that renormalizability dictates one to take all orders of $`\theta `$ into account. Whereas *e.g.* the noncommutative $`\varphi ^4`$-theory expanded to $`n`$’th order in $`\theta `$ is obviously (perturbatively in the coupling constant) non-renormalizable, the theory is two-loop renormalizable  when all orders of $`\theta `$ are taken into account. However, if one insists on treating a general gauge group, the expansion in $`\theta `$ is the only known method of obtaining a quantizable action. In fact one may ask the question of how a noncommutative (gauge) theories should be correctly quantized.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we give the classical action expanded to first order in $`\theta `$. The gauge fixing is performed in section 3, where we argue that two fundamentally different ways of introducing ghosts to the theory, via a linear and a non-linear gauge, may be applied. In section 4 we give the relevant Feynman rules and calculate the self-energy to second order in $`\theta `$. The extended NCYM theory is given in section 5, and in section 6 we present our summary and discussion.

## 2 $`\theta `$-expanded NCYM

We consider the coordinates of a (flat) Minkowski space as self-adjoint operators on a Hilbert space with the following algebra

$$[x_\mu ,x_\nu ]=\mathrm{i}\theta _{\mu \nu },$$
(1)
where $`\theta _{\mu \nu }`$ is real and antisymmetric. A field theory in this context is equivalent to a field theory on a usual (commutative) flat manifold with the product substituted by the non-local $``$-product111We use the following Fourier conventions: $`f(x)=\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{\mathrm{i}p_\mu x^\mu }\stackrel{~}{f}(p),\stackrel{~}{f}(p)=d^4xe^{\mathrm{i}p_\mu x^\mu }f(x)`$.

$$(fg)(x)=\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{d^4p}{(2\pi )^4}e^{\mathrm{i}(k_\mu +p_\mu )x^\mu }e^{\frac{\mathrm{i}}{2}\theta ^{\mu \nu }k_\mu p_\nu }\stackrel{~}{f}(k)\stackrel{~}{g}(p),$$
(2)
where $`f`$ and $`g`$ are functions on the manifold. A $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu =\widehat{A}_\mu ^{}`$ (Hermitian) gives rise to the noncommutative Yang-Mills action222There could be a coupling constant added, however, in the absence of $`\theta `$-independent interactions this coupling constant is not renormalized and may be absorbed in a reparametrization.

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{cl}=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }=\frac{1}{4}d^4x\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu },$$
(3)
with

$$\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }=_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu _\nu \widehat{A}_\mu \mathrm{i}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{A}_\nu +\mathrm{i}\widehat{A}_\nu \widehat{A}_\mu .$$
(4)
The action (3) is invariant under the noncommutative gauge transformation

$$\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}\widehat{A}_\mu =_\mu \widehat{\lambda }\mathrm{i}\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{\lambda }+\mathrm{i}\widehat{\lambda }\widehat{A}_\mu \widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\lambda },$$
(5)
with infinitesimal $`\widehat{\lambda }=\widehat{\lambda }^{}`$. It was shown by Seiberg and Witten  that an expansion in $`\theta `$ leads to a map between the noncommutative gauge field $`\widehat{A}_\mu `$ and the commutative gauge field $`A_\mu `$ as well as their respective gauge parameters $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ and $`\lambda `$, known as the Seiberg-Witten map:

$`\widehat{A}_\mu \left(A\right)`$ $`=`$ $`A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho \left(_\sigma A_\mu +F_{\sigma \mu }\right)+O(\theta ^2),`$ (6)
$`\widehat{\lambda }(\lambda ,A)`$ $`=`$ $`\lambda {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\rho \sigma }A_\rho _\sigma \lambda +O(\theta ^2),`$ (7)
where the Abelian field strength is given by

$$F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu .$$
(8)
Insertion of (6) into (3) leads to the action

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cl}=d^4x\left(\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }+\frac{1}{8}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \nu }F^{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}\theta ^{\alpha \beta }F_{\mu \alpha }F_{\nu \beta }F^{\mu \nu }\right)+O(\theta ^2),$$
(9)
which is invariant under the usual Abelian gauge transformations

$$\delta _\lambda A_\mu =_\mu \lambda .$$
(10)
The action (9) has in its full form, involving all orders of $`\theta `$, infinitely many interactions at infinitely high order in the gauge field. Furthermore, since $`\theta `$ has dimension $`2`$, the theory is power-counting non-renormalizable in the traditional sense.

## 3 Gauge Fixing

In order to quantize a gauge theory within the BRST-scheme, the gauge-symmetry is replaced by the nilpotent BRST-symmetry . However, above we have two gauge symmetries: $`\widehat{\delta }_{\widehat{\lambda }}`$ and $`\delta _\lambda `$ corresponding to the actions (3) and (9), respectively. Thus, there appear to be at least two fundamentally different ways of introducing ghosts into the theory, before and after performing the Seiberg-Witten map.

Let us first consider the gauge-transformation (10) as the “fundamental” one and introduce ghosts into the action (9). We write

$$sA_\mu =_\mu c,sc=0,$$
(11)
where $`s`$ is the BRST-operator and $`c`$ the anti-commuting Faddeev-Popov ghost field. Within the quantization procedure a BRST-invariant gauge-fixing may be introduced in the following manner

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gf}^{(i)}=d^4x\left[s\left(\overline{c}_\mu A^\mu \right)+\frac{\alpha }{2}B^2\right],$$
(12)
with

$$s\overline{c}=B,sB=0.$$
(13)
Here $`\overline{c}`$ is the anti-ghost field and $`B`$ the Nakanishi-Lautrup (multiplier) field. The total action is now

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_{tot}^{(i)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cl}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gf}^{(i)}.$$
(14)
In the following we will refer to this choice of gauge-fixing as the linear gauge.

Let us now consider the second option of introducing ghosts in the theory. We treat the gauge transformation (5) as the source of ghosts and thereby adding a gauge-fixing term to the action (3). We write

$$\widehat{s}\widehat{A}_\mu =\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{c},\widehat{s}\widehat{c}=\mathrm{i}\widehat{c}\widehat{c},$$
(15)
where $`\widehat{s}`$ is the BRST-operator emerging from the gauge-symmetry (5) and $`\widehat{c}`$ the corresponding ghost field. The gauge-fixing term reads

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{gf}=d^4x\left[\widehat{s}\left(\widehat{\overline{c}}^\mu \widehat{A}_\mu \right)+\frac{\alpha }{2}\widehat{B}\widehat{B}\right],$$
(16)
with

$$\widehat{s}\widehat{\overline{c}}=\widehat{B},\widehat{s}\widehat{B}=0.$$
(17)
Here $`\widehat{\overline{c}}`$ and $`\widehat{B}`$ are the anti-ghost and multiplier field. The total action is now

$$\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{tot}=\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{cl}+\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{gf}.$$
(18)
In order to apply the Seiberg-Witten map to (18) we need the Seiberg-Witten map of the ghost and multiplier field. These are easily found by substituting $`\lambda `$ with $`c`$ and $`\widehat{\lambda }`$ with $`\widehat{c}`$ in (7). Notice that only the gauge field and the ghost have an expansion in $`\theta `$:

$`\widehat{c}\left(c\right)`$ $`=`$ $`c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\theta ^{\nu \mu }A_\nu _\mu c+O(\theta ^2),`$ (19)
$`\widehat{\overline{c}}`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{c},`$ (20)
$`\widehat{B}`$ $`=`$ $`B,`$ (21)
where $`c`$, $`\overline{c}`$ and $`B`$ are the ordinary ghost, anti-ghost and multiplier field, respectively. Inserting (6) and (19)–(21) into (18) one finds, to first order in $`\theta `$, the action

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(ii)}=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{cl}+\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gf}^{(ii)},$$
(22)
with

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{gf}^{(ii)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle }d^4x[B^\mu A_\mu \overline{c}_\mu ^\mu c`$ (23)
$`\theta ^{\alpha \beta }(^\mu \overline{c}_\alpha c_\beta A_\mu {\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu _\mu \overline{c}A_\alpha _\beta c{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}^\mu BA_\alpha (_\beta A_\mu +F_{\beta \mu }))],`$
which is invariant under the BRST-transformations (11) and (13). Notice that (22) represents a nonlinear gauge. In the following we will refer to this choice of gauge-fixing as the nonlinear gauge.

Both gauge-fixed actions (14) and (22) are invariant under Abelian BRST-transformations and satisfy the Slavnov-Taylor identity

$$𝒮\left(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{(i,ii)}\right)=0,$$
(24)
where the Slavnov-Taylor operator is given, for any functional $``$, by

$$𝒮\left(\right)=d^4x\left(_\mu c\frac{\delta }{\delta A_\mu }+B\frac{\delta }{\delta \overline{c}}\right).$$
(25)
## 4 Photon Self-Energy

In order to check the one-loop UV and IR behaviour of the actions (14) and (22), one needs the corresponding Feynman rules. For the various propagators of the models only the bilinear part of the full actions is relevant. However, this is independent of $`\theta `$ and thus the propagators are identical in both cases

$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{G}_{\mu \nu }^{AA}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }(1\alpha ){\displaystyle \frac{p_\mu p_\nu }{(p^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}\right),`$ (26)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}_\mu ^{AB}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}p_\mu }{(p^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}},`$ (27)
$`\stackrel{~}{G}^{\overline{c}c}(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{(p^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}},`$ (28)
with $`p+q=0`$. The action (9) represents free Maxwell theory in the limit $`\theta 0`$ . To first order in $`\theta `$ the photon vertex reads:

$`\text{}\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAA}^{\mu \nu \rho }(p,q,r)=\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu \rho }(p,q,r),`$ (29)
with

$`\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha \beta \mu \nu \rho }(p,q,r)`$ $`=g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }\left((pr)q^\rho (qr)p^\rho \right)+g^{\alpha \nu }g^{\beta \rho }\left((qp)r^\mu (rp)q^\mu \right)+g^{\alpha \rho }g^{\beta \mu }\left((rq)r^\nu (pq)r^\nu \right)`$
$`+g^{\alpha \mu }\left((g^{\nu \rho }(rq)r^\nu q^\rho )p^\beta (g^{\nu \rho }(pq)p^\nu q^\rho )r^\beta (g^{\nu \rho }(rp)r^\nu p^\rho )q^\beta \right)`$
$`+g^{\alpha \nu }\left((g^{\rho \mu }(pr)p^\nu r^\mu )q^\beta (g^{\rho \mu }(qr)q^\nu r^\mu )p^\beta (g^{\rho \mu }(pq)p^\nu q^\mu )r^\beta \right)`$
$`+g^{\alpha \rho }\left((g^{\mu \nu }(qp)q^\mu p^\nu )r^\beta (g^{\mu \nu }(rp)r^\mu p^\nu )q^\beta (g^{\mu \nu }(qr)q^\mu r^\nu )p^\beta \right)`$
$`g^{\mu \nu }\left(p^\rho q^\alpha r^\beta +q^\rho p^\alpha r^\beta \right)g^{\nu \rho }\left(q^\mu r^\alpha p^\beta +r^\mu q^\alpha p^\beta \right)g^{\rho \mu }\left(r^\nu p^\alpha q^\beta +p^\nu r^\alpha q^\beta \right),`$ (30)
and $`p+q+r=0`$. In the linear gauge the ghost is Abelian and does not couple to the gauge-field. In the nonlinear gauge the action (22) leads to the following interactions:

(31)
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{A\overline{c}c}^\mu (p,q,r)=\mathrm{i}\theta _{\alpha \beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}q^2r^\beta g^{\mu \alpha }+p^\alpha r^\beta q^\mu \right),`$
$`\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAB}^{\mu \nu }(p,q,r)=`$
$`\theta _{\alpha \beta }\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }(pr)+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}g^{\alpha \mu }g^{\beta \nu }(qr)g^{\alpha \mu }q^\beta r^\nu g^{\alpha \nu }p^\beta r^\mu \right),`$
with $`p+q+r=0`$.

As usual, for each independent loop momentum $`k_i`$ we have the integration operator $`\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}\frac{d^4k_i}{(2\pi )^4}`$ and momentum conservation for the external momenta $`p_i`$ leading to a factor $`(2\pi )^4\delta (\mathrm{\Sigma }p_i)`$. Each closed ghost line contributes a factor $`1`$.

Before doing explicit one loop analysis we want to stress that the Ward identity (24) implies that the radiative corrections to the photon propagator must be transversal

$$p_\mu \mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)=0.$$
(32)
Furthermore, (32) implies that the radiative corrections up to first order in $`\theta `$ must vanish (there are no $`\theta `$-independent interactions)

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)=0,\text{(order }\theta \text{).}$$
(33)
The radiative corrections up to second order in $`\theta `$ are restricted in form by

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(g^{\mu \nu }p^2p^\mu p^\nu \right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{(i)}(p)+\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu \mathrm{\Pi }^{(ii)}(p)`$ (34)
$`+\left(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}^\mu p^\nu +\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}^\nu p^\mu +g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{p}^2+p^2\theta _\sigma ^\mu \theta ^{\nu \sigma }\right)\mathrm{\Pi }^{(iii)}(p)(\text{order }\theta ^2).`$
where $`\stackrel{~}{p}_\mu =\theta _{\mu \nu }p^\nu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}_\mu =\theta _{\mu \nu }\theta ^{\nu \rho }p_\rho `$. In (34) we used that $`\stackrel{~}{p}`$ is orthogonal to $`p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}`$ and that $`p`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}`$ are independent. Notice that due to the negative dimension of $`\theta `$, (34) indicates the presence of (divergent) Feynman graphs with 6 powers of $`p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Pi }^{\mu \nu }(p)`$. Since the bilinear part of the action (3) is the ordinary one of Maxwell theory, such a term will be non-renormalizable.

In the following we will explicitly perform the one loop analysis of the photon self-energy. Since all vertices are linear in $`\theta `$ the first contribution is proportional to $`\theta ^2`$. In the linear gauge the only contributing graph is shown in fig. 1.a. In the nonlinear gauge we have interacting ghost and multiplier fields and thus find contributions from all three graphs shown in fig. 1. In fact we should also consider the tadpole graph emerging from the Seiberg-Witten map to second order in $`\theta `$ via a 4-legged photon interaction. However, the tadpole graph is identically zero, because there is no mass in the theory. Using the above Feynman rules one calculates the following expression for the photon self-energy with an internal photon line

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(a),\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{2\mathrm{i}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAA}^{\mu \rho \sigma }(p,k_+,k_{})\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAA}^{\nu \kappa \lambda }(p,k_{},k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\rho \lambda }^{AA}(k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}_{\kappa \sigma }^{AA}(k_{}),$$
(35)
where $`k_+=\frac{p}{2}+k`$, $`k_{}=\frac{p}{2}k`$. The relevant integrals are evaluated in the Appendix. We find

$`\mathrm{\Pi }^{(a),\mu \nu }(p)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}}{(4\pi )^2\epsilon }}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(p^2)^2\theta ^2(g^{\mu \nu }p^2p^\mu p^\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{10}}\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^2(g^{\mu \nu }p^2p^\mu p^\nu )+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{30}}(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu `$ (36)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(p^2)^2(\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}^\mu p^\nu +\stackrel{~}{\stackrel{~}{p}}^\nu p^\mu +g^{\mu \nu }\stackrel{~}{p}^2+p^2\theta _\sigma ^\mu \theta ^{\nu \sigma }))+O(1).`$
Notice that (36) satisfies the transversality condition (34). For the graph (b) the integral reads

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(b),\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{V}_{A\overline{c}c}^\mu (p,k_+,k_{})\stackrel{~}{V}_{A\overline{c}c}^\nu (p,k_{},k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}^{\overline{c}c}(k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}^{\overline{c}c}(k_{}).$$
(37)
We find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(b),\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{60(4\pi )^2\epsilon }\left(\frac{1}{4}(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2g^{\mu \nu }+p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^\mu p^\nu +\frac{1}{2}(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu \right)+O(1).$$
(38)
For the graph (c) we write

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(c),\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{\mathrm{i}}\frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAB}^{\mu \rho }(p,k_+,k_{})\stackrel{~}{V}_{AAB}^{\nu \sigma }(p,k_{},k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}_\rho ^{AB}(k_+)\stackrel{~}{G}_\sigma ^{AB}(k_{}),$$
(39)
and find

$$\mathrm{\Pi }^{(c),\mu \nu }(p)=\frac{\mathrm{}}{60(4\pi )^2\epsilon }\left(\frac{1}{4}(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2g^{\mu \nu }+p^2\stackrel{~}{p}^2p^\mu p^\nu +\frac{1}{2}(p^2)^2\stackrel{~}{p}^\mu \stackrel{~}{p}^\nu \right)+O(1).$$
(40)
One sees that the above divergent contributions from the ghost graph (b) and the multiplier-photon graph (c) cancel identically. This means that the choice of linear or non-linear gauge leaves the renormalization invariant. Furthermore, we would like to stress that the radiative correction (36) is independent of $`\alpha `$, which shows that our result is gauge-independent. The reason for this is that the vertex (29) is transversal, $`p_\mu \stackrel{~}{V}_{AAA}^{\mu \nu \rho }(p,q,r)=0`$.

## 5 Higher Derivative Action

In the previous section we have shown that the radiative corrections to the photon self-energy produce divergent terms involving two orders of $`\theta `$ and six orders of $`p`$. These terms cannot be absorbed into counterterms to the initial action (9), which thus is perturbatively non-renormalizable. We interpret this problem as a hint to extend the classical action.

The extension to (9) must be invariant under Lorentz transformations and the Abelian gauge transformations (10). There are many possibilities to write down the same terms. A generalization to non-Abelian models suggests however to use the field strengths $`F_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }:=\theta _\mu ^\alpha F_{\alpha \nu }`$ as well as their derivatives using the operators $`_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{}_\mu :=\theta _\mu ^\alpha _\alpha `$ as building blocks. Thus we have the following tensors of dimension 2 at disposal:

$`F_{\mu \nu }`$ $`,`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`:=_\mu \stackrel{~}{}^\alpha F_{\alpha \nu },`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }`$ $`:=\stackrel{~}{}^\alpha _\mu F_{\alpha \nu },`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`:=_\mu _\nu \stackrel{~}{F}_{\rho \sigma },`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}`$ $`:=_\mu \stackrel{~}{}_\nu F_{\rho \sigma },`$ $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ $`:=\stackrel{~}{}_\mu _\nu F_{\rho \sigma },`$
$`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`:=\theta _{\kappa \lambda }_\mu _\nu F_{\rho \sigma }.`$ (41)
The abelian case is degenerate; we have $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}=\stackrel{~}{F}_{\nu \mu \rho \sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$.

The most general gauge and Lorentz invariant extension to (3) of dimension 4 with two $`\theta `$’s is333Observe that $`d^4x\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=d^4x\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=d^4x\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }=0`$.<sup>,</sup><sup>4</sup><sup>4</sup>4We may add that all terms involving tensorial combinations linear in $`\theta `$ are either identically zero or zero after integration (topological terms).

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ext}={\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_1^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_2^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g_3^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{sign}(\theta _{\alpha \beta }\theta ^{\alpha \beta })}{4g_4^2}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }).`$ (42)
The signs are chosen such that the highest time derivatives are positive, *i.e.* that the action is bounded from below. This requires for the second term

$$H_2^{ij}=\theta ^{i0}\theta ^{j0}+\underset{k0}{}(\theta ^{k0}\theta ^{k0}\delta ^{ij}\theta ^{ki}\theta ^{kj})0,i,j0.$$

For example, the case where the only non-vanishing commutators are $`[x^0,x^3]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Theta }_1`$ and $`[x^1,x^2]=\mathrm{i}\mathrm{\Theta }_2`$, requires $`|\mathrm{\Theta }_1||\mathrm{\Theta }_2|`$.

We remark that the action (42) is bilinear in the gauge field. Therefore the photon propagator is changed, thus changing the whole scheme of quantization. The treatment of higher derivative actions have been investigated in the literature, see *e.g*  and references therein.

Here we choose to view $`\theta `$ as a constant external field, thus consider the photon propagator as unchanged and the action (42) as new vertices of type $`AA\theta \theta `$. In this sense (36) represents the proper one-loop radiative correction to the coupling constants in (42).

The result of our one-loop calculation was the independence from the gauge parameter. This implies that we can have the special solution of a single coupling constant. From (36) we conclude the reduction to the following extended action:

$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{ext}^{red}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2(\epsilon )}}{\displaystyle }d^4x({\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\stackrel{~}{F}_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }\stackrel{~}{F}^{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }).`$ (43)
with

$$g^2(\epsilon )=g_0^2(1+\frac{g_0^2\mathrm{}}{4(4\pi )^2\epsilon }+O(g_0^4\mathrm{}^2)).$$
(44)
The highest time derivatives in (43) are $`H^{ij}(_0^3A_i)(_0^3A_j)`$ with

$$H^{ij}=\frac{17}{60}\theta ^{i0}\theta ^{j0}+\underset{k0}{}\frac{1}{10}\theta ^{k0}\theta ^{k0}\delta ^{ij}+\frac{1}{4}\left(\underset{l>k0}{}\theta ^{kl}\theta ^{kl}\delta ^{ij}\underset{k0}{}\theta ^{ki}\theta ^{kj}\right)>0,$$
(45)
i.e. for any $`\theta `$ the reduced extended action is bounded from below. The result (44) tells us that the extended action is not asymptotically free.

Applying the Seiberg-Witten map in the opposite sense, the action (43) should arise from some noncommutative action $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ext}`$. Gauge invariance leads immediately to the solution

$`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_{ext}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{4g^2}}{\displaystyle }`$ $`({\displaystyle \frac{2}{15}}(\beta _1\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+(1\beta _1)\beta _2\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{\prime \prime }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu }+(1\beta _1)(1\beta _2)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu }{}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu })`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5}}(\beta _3\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+(1\beta _3)\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{\prime \prime }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma })+\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}^{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$
$`+\gamma _1\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{}{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+\gamma _2\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }+\gamma _3\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }{}^{}\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}{}_{}{}^{\prime \prime }{}_{}{}^{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }),`$ (46)
for $`0\beta _i1`$, where

$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu }`$ $`:=\theta _\mu ^\alpha \widehat{F}_{\alpha \nu },`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{D}}_\mu `$ $`:=\theta _\mu ^\alpha \widehat{D}_\alpha ,`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ $`:=\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\stackrel{~}{D}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{F}_{\alpha \nu }^{},`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu }^{\prime \prime }`$ $`:=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{D}}{}_{}{}^{\alpha }\widehat{D}_{\mu }^{}\widehat{F}_{\alpha \nu },`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`:=\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{D}_\nu \widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\rho \sigma },`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{}`$ $`:=\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{\stackrel{~}{D}}_\nu \widehat{F}_{\rho \sigma },`$ $`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^{\prime \prime }`$ $`:=\widehat{\stackrel{~}{D}}_\mu \widehat{D}_\nu \widehat{F}_{\rho \sigma },`$
$`\widehat{\stackrel{~}{F}}_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }`$ $`:=\theta _{\kappa \lambda }\widehat{D}_\mu \widehat{D}_\nu \widehat{F}_{\rho \sigma }.`$
Note that the action (46) leads, after applying the Seiberg-Witten map, to an action containing infinitely many additional terms with finitely many free coefficients. The fact that the renormalization of the self-energy radiative correction puts restrictions on the relative weights of possible counterterms for the Green’s function with three external legs provides us with a strong test of the model. We will address this question in a forthcoming paper .

## 6 Conclusion

We have analyzed the $`\theta `$-expanded noncommutative U(1) Yang-Mills theory as a *perturbative quantum field theory*. As expected from the power-counting behaviour the Yang-Mills action $`\widehat{F}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{F}^{\mu \nu }`$ is not renormalizable in this setting. We singled out the *unique* extended action for which the one-loop photon propagator is renormalizable.

Lorentz and gauge invariance allow for four different extension terms with arbitrary coefficients (coupling constants). Our one-loop calculations reduce this freedom to a single coupling constant, due to two not anticipated facts: the independence from the gauge parameter and from linear versus non-linear gauge.

We are thus led to ask whether there is a meaning in the relative weights of the extension terms. We recall in this respect the remarkable agreement of all three relative signs, which ensures that the action is bounded from below also for large momenta $`|p_0||\theta |^{\frac{1}{2}}`$. It would be interesting to investigate whether $`\theta `$-expanded noncommutative QED leads to the same weights.

It is obvious that the extension we derived is only valid to lowest order in $`\theta `$. The new vertices lead to non-renormalizable divergences which give rise to more and more extension terms. Hence the action makes sense only as the lowest-order parts of an effective theory.

There are two ways a factor $`\theta `$ can arise in the $`\theta `$-expansion of the noncommutative Yang-Mills action: in the form $`\theta pA`$ via the Seiberg-Witten map and in the form $`\theta p^2`$ via the deformation product and possibly higher-order Seiberg-Witten terms. This leads to a field strengh of structure

$$\underset{\sigma ,\delta }{}\left(x_{\sigma \delta }(pA)(\theta pA)^\sigma (\theta p^2)^\delta +y_{\sigma \delta }(\theta p^2)A^2(\theta pA)^\sigma (\theta p^2)^\delta \right),$$
(47)
with the very important restriction $`x_{\delta 0}=0`$ for all $`\delta `$. A Feynman graph with $`E`$ external $`A`$-lines and $`L`$ loops has then the structure $`p^E\theta ^{E2}(\theta p^2)^{2L+\mathrm{\Delta }}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the total number of deformations $`\delta `$ in the vertices of the graph. It follows that, in principle, divergences in coefficients to factors $`\theta p^2`$ from integrated higher loop graphs can be absorbed by terms with a higher $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the tree action.

But this mechanism does not work for $`E=2`$ and $`L=0`$; in this case the tree action has $`\mathrm{\Delta }0`$. In other words, there is no chance that the photon propagator corrections are renormalizable. This is why we are forced to add to the tree action something with $`\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$ in order to compensate the $`L=1`$ divergences. It is also clear that for compensating higher and higher loop graphs we need additional terms with arbitrarily large $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ in the tree action. In some sense this makes the tree action more symmetric with respect to the power of $`\theta p^2`$.

We would like to suggest the following interpretation of the extra terms to the Yang-Mills tree action. There is a remarkable structural asymmetry between the product of fields in NCYM (which contains arbitrarily many factors $`\theta p^2`$ in the $``$-product) and the trace where the $``$-product is reduced to the ordinary product. The extra terms we found restore the symmetry in *deforming the trace as well*. Differentiations in the scalar product are not unfamiliar, for instance, the Sobolev norm of $`fH_s`$ is given by

$$f_{H_s}^2f,f_{H_s}=𝑑x\left(|f(x)|^2+\underset{\alpha ,1|\alpha |s}{}a_\alpha |_x^\alpha f(x)|^2\right),$$
(48)
where $`\alpha `$ is a multi-index.

In this context, we have derived in this paper the necessity to replace the $`L^2`$ scalar product $`\widehat{F},\widehat{F}_{L^2}`$ for the field strength by the $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product $`\widehat{F},\widehat{F}_H_{\mathrm{}}`$. Since the coordinate $`x`$ has a dimension in physics, the derivatives must be accompanied by a dimensionful parameter $`\theta `$. Of course, this scalar product must be gauge invariant, therefore we must take covariant derivatives in the Sobolev norm instead of partial derivatives. The dependence of the scalar product on the gauge field is very natural in the framework of noncommuatative geometry, where actions are built out of the covariant Dirac operator . Moreover, the boundedness of the action from below gives certain restrictions on the pre-factors $`a_\alpha `$ of the different combinations of $`\theta ^{\rho \sigma }`$ and $`\widehat{D}_\mu `$. We would like to stress that in the commutative limit $`\theta 0`$ the $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product reduces to the standard $`L^2`$ scalar product.

Hence, the big quest is to find the true $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product (the prefactors $`a_\alpha `$ in (48)) which makes the $`\theta `$-expanded Yang-Mills action renormalizable. In this paper we have succeeded to derive the first correction to the $`L^2`$ scalar product – our result (46). We may speculate whether the relative weights we computed can serve as a hint in which direction to search for a closed form of the renormalizable $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product.

We may also speculate whether this renormalizable $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product also solves the UV/IR-mixing problem of the $`\theta `$-unexpanded Yang-Mills action on noncommutative $`^4`$. We recall that the $`\theta `$-expansion is free of infrared divergences but UV non-renormalizable whereas the unexpanded version is IR non-renormalizable 555We refer to  for the power-counting behaviour of field theories on noncommuative $`^D`$.. This can be interpreted as a hint to extend the Yang-Mills action also in the $`\theta `$-unexpanded setting, and one could speculate if the solution is to substitute the ordinary scalar product with the $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product which is renormalizable via $`\theta `$-expansion. Thus our result could be valuable also for the $`\theta `$-undeformed framework. We would like to remark that the $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ scalar product leads to a $`\theta `$-dependend photon propagator and could make contact with a different approach  to the noncommutative $`^4`$.

Finally let us mention that the extended action leads to a modified wave equation for the photon already on tree-level. Since the modification is of the order $`|\theta |^2|p|^4`$, and if we assume $`|\theta |^{1/2}`$ to be of the order of the Planck length, there can be observable consequences only for extremely high-energetic (cosmological) phenomena.

## 7 Acknowledgement

The authors would first of all like to thank Julius Wess for giving us the initial idea as well as for enlightening discussions. Also we thank Martin Ertl for his help. The very involved calculations found in this paper were performed using his fantastic *Mathematica*TM package “Index”. Furthermore, we would like to thank Harald Grosse, Karl Landsteiner, Stefan Schraml and Raymond Stora for fruitful discussions.

## Appendix A Integrals

We use Zimmermann’s $`ϵ`$-trick  and replace $`\frac{1}{k^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}=\frac{1}{k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ}`$ by $`\frac{1}{k_0^2\stackrel{}{k}^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ\stackrel{}{k}^2}`$. Then,

$`P(k,p)`$ $`=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{((\frac{p_0}{2}k_0)^2(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{2}\stackrel{}{k})^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{2}\stackrel{}{k})^2)((\frac{p_0}{2}+k_0)^2(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{2}+\stackrel{}{k})^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ(\frac{\stackrel{}{p}}{2}+\stackrel{}{k})^2)}}`$
$`=\underset{ϵ0}{lim}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle \frac{(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})^2}{\{(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})(k_0^2+(12x)k_0p_0+\frac{1}{4}p_0^2)(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})(1\mathrm{i}ϵ)(\stackrel{}{k}^2+(12x)\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{p}+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{p}^2)\}^2}}.`$ (49)
For $`ϵ^{}<ϵ`$ we have $`\mathrm{Re}(\{\mathrm{}\})>0`$ in the denominator of (49). We use analytic regularization  to write $`\frac{(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})^2}{\{\mathrm{}\}^2}\frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})^{2+\epsilon }}{\{\mathrm{}\}^{2+\epsilon }}`$ and rewrite $`P(k,p)`$ in terms of the Schwinger parameter $`\alpha `$:

$`P(k,p)`$ $`\underset{ϵ0,ϵ^{}<ϵ}{lim}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^{2\epsilon }(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})^{2+\epsilon }}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(2+\epsilon )}}{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑x{\displaystyle _0^{\mathrm{}}}𝑑\alpha \alpha ^{1+\epsilon }`$
$`\times e^{(ϵ^{}\mathrm{i})\alpha (k_0^2+k_0q_0\stackrel{}{k}\stackrel{}{q}+\frac{1}{4}p_0^2)(ϵϵ^{}+\mathrm{i}+\mathrm{i}ϵϵ^{})\alpha (\stackrel{}{k}^2+\frac{1}{4}\stackrel{}{p}^2)}|_{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{q_0=(12x)p_0}{\stackrel{}{q}=(12x)(1\mathrm{i}ϵ)\stackrel{}{p}}}.`$ (50)
Factors $`k_\mu `$ in the numerator can now be obtained by differentiation with respect to $`q`$. For $`\epsilon >0`$ the various integrations can be performed and yield

$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{1}{((\frac{p}{2}k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)((\frac{p}{2}+k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}`$ (51)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{p^2}}\right)\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(1+(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{3}{2}))\right)+O(\epsilon ),`$
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\mu k_\nu }{((\frac{p}{2}k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)((\frac{p}{2}+k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}`$ (52)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{12(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{p^2}}\right)\right)(p_\mu p_\nu g_{\mu \nu }p^2)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{(4\pi )^2}}\left(g_{\mu \nu }p^2(\frac{1}{12}\frac{1}{12}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{5}{2})))+p_\mu p_\nu (\frac{23}{36}\frac{1}{4}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{3}{2})))\right)+O(\epsilon ),`$
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\kappa k_\lambda k_\mu k_\nu }{((\frac{p}{2}k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)((\frac{p}{2}+k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}`$ (53)
$`={\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{240(4\pi )^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{p^2}}\right)\right)\left((p^2)^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^0p^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^2+3T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^4\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{(4\pi )^2}}((p^2)^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^0(p)(\frac{1}{240}+\frac{1}{240}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{7}{2})))+p^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^2(p)(\frac{77}{1200}+\frac{1}{48}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{5}{2})))`$
$`+T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^4(p)(\frac{481}{1200}\frac{3}{16}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{3}{2}))))+O(\epsilon ),`$
$`\underset{ϵ0}{lim}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{d^4k}{(2\pi )^4}\frac{k_\kappa k_\lambda k_\mu k_\nu k_\rho k_\sigma }{((\frac{p}{2}k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)((\frac{p}{2}+k)^2+\mathrm{i}ϵ)}}`$ (54)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{6720(4\pi )^2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\epsilon }}+\mathrm{ln}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mu ^2}{p^2}}\right))((p^2)^3T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^0(p)+(p^2)^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2(p)`$
$`3p^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^4(p)+15T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^6(p))`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{i}}{(4\pi )^2}}((p^2)^3T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^0(p)(\frac{1}{6720}\frac{1}{6720}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{9}{2})))`$
$`+(p^2)^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2(p)(\frac{2501}{705600}\frac{1}{960}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{7}{2})))+p^2T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^4(p)(\frac{3349}{78400}+\frac{1}{64}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{7}{2})))`$
$`+T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^6(p)(\frac{7597}{47040}\frac{5}{64}(\gamma +\mathrm{ln}4+\psi (\frac{7}{2}))))+O(\epsilon ).`$
Here we have introduced the totally symmetric momentum tensors

$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^0(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!2!2!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi S(\kappa \lambda \mu \nu )}{}}g_{\pi (\kappa )\pi (\lambda )}g_{\pi (\mu )\pi (\nu )},`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^2(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!2!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi S(\kappa \lambda \mu \nu )}{}}g_{\pi (\kappa )\pi (\lambda )}p_{\pi (\mu )}p_{\pi (\nu )},`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu }^4(p)`$ $`:=p_\kappa p_\lambda p_\mu p_\nu ,`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^0(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!2!2!3!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi S(\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma )}{}}g_{\pi (\kappa )\pi (\lambda )}g_{\pi (\mu )\pi (\nu )}g_{\pi (\rho )\pi (\sigma )},`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!2!2!2!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi S(\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma )}{}}g_{\pi (\kappa )\pi (\lambda )}g_{\pi (\mu )\pi (\nu )}p_{\pi (\rho )}p_{\pi (\sigma )},`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^4(p)`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2!4!}}{\displaystyle \underset{\pi S(\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma )}{}}g_{\pi (\kappa )\pi (\lambda )}p_{\pi (\mu )}p_{\pi (\nu )}p_{\pi (\rho )}p_{\pi (\sigma )},`$
$`T_{\kappa \lambda \mu \nu \rho \sigma }^6(p)`$ $`:=p_\kappa p_\lambda p_\mu p_\nu p_\rho p_\sigma ,`$
where $`S(\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n)`$ is the set of permutations of the indices $`\mu _1\mathrm{}\mu _n`$. Let us finally mention that the divergent parts of the above integrals (52)-(54) are transversal.